• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge refuses to drop charges in Manning case

Rising Sun said:
Paragraph 1.B, C and D. Without knowing exactly what Manning released I cannot tell for sure, but from has been said about it, if true, would qualify under all of those.
Click to expand...

No, I read what the paragraph says. However the entities described in paragraph 2 (the ones which need to be considered in order for paragraph 1 to apply - 1st sentence of paragraph 2) are not applicable to WikiLeaks because it's neither:

(A) a foreign government;
(B) a faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States; or

(C) a representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen of such a government, faction, party, or force.
Click to expand...

So which "entity" does WikiLeaks fall under? It's not a faction, party or force of any country. It's a purely a-national internet based organization that holds no allegiance to any specific government recognized or not.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
So which "entity" does WikiLeaks fall under? It's not a faction, party or force of any country. It's a purely a-national internet based organization that holds no allegiance to any specific government recognized or not.
Click to expand...

If a soldier sells or gives away classified information to his mother and his mother sells the info to a foreign power, is the soldier guilty of treason or espionage under Art. 106?

Yes, he is, especially if he knew what his mother was going to do. Manning knew what would happen when he gave the info to Wikileaks. Are you saying he thought Wikileaks would keep it a secret?
 
Last edited:
Rising Sun said:
If a soldier sells or gives away classified information to his mother and his mother sells the info to a foreign power, is the soldier guilty of treason or espionage under Art. 106?
Click to expand...

That is not what happened though. No information has been sold or handed to any specific foreign government. Keep in touch with reality please.
 
Hatuey said:
That is not what happened though. No information has been sold or handed to any specific foreign government. Keep in touch with reality please.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, by posting it on Wikileaks, any foreign power that wished to do so could download it. If this is true, then Manning will be found guilty. If not, then he will be released.
 
Hatuey said:
Because:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Click to expand...

He most certainly gave the enemy aid when he released those documents.

He did none of these things. He released documents to a neutral source. He didn't adhere to an enemy or give an enemy aid and comfort of any kind.
Click to expand...

And that so called neutral source released it to the whole world including our enemies. Just because he did it through a proxy doesn't change the fact he stilled aided the enemy. This is no different than someone who gives money to charities he knows full well that aids terrorists, he is still aiding terrorists.

That's not what happened here though is it? Good to see you don't lose your hyperbole when making ridiculous comparisons.
Click to expand...

You made the claim that something had to be sold in order for it to be treason. "I wouldn't call him a traitor because he didn't sell these "secrets" to any particular entity". So it is not a ridiculous or hyperbole comparison to bring up an almost exact same situation to prove that treason is treason regardless if that info is sold or given away.
 
Hatuey said:
Under which of those would WikiLeaks fall?
Click to expand...

C would definitely be applicable. Asange is a citizen of a foreign government. Also applicable: "communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any entity described in paragraph (2), either directly or indirectly,"

Since he was giving them to a source that would make them public, the indirect aspect could be argued for. Whether he is convicted on this or not, the legal argument is there and sound.
 
He intended this information to go public and it did. When this type of information gets to a news organization or some organization like Wikileaks, then he made it available to the enemy because they will have access to it when it is posted.

He can't play the "well technically I didn't give it to them card"

In his position he would have been briefed multiple times on the laws and regs as well as the repercussions of his actions.

Unfortunately we have entered an age where "armchair generals" think they have a right to know everything even if it risk the lives of Americans and our allies.

There are appropriate channels to report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in the military and there are people whose full time job is to investigate and prosecute those that commit these types of activities.
If he felt he saw something that was out of line he could have handled it much differently than he did, and that is why I have absolutely no sympathy for him.
 
Not sure whey the discussion of "Treason" is being batted around. He's not being charged with Treason. He's being charged with UCMJ Article 104-Aiding the Enemy.

Pretty cut and dry which doubt he'll be able to get out of.

28. Article 104—Aiding the enemy
a. Text of statute. Any person who—
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall suffer death or such other punish- ment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.
b. Elements. (1) Aiding the enemy.
(a) That the accused aided the enemy; and
(b) That the accused did so with certain arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things.

UCMJ definition of enemy:
(b) Enemy. “Enemy” includes organized forces of the enemy in time of war, any hostile body that our forces may be opposing, such as a rebellious mob or a band of renegades, and includes civilians as well as members of military organizations. “Enemy” is not restricted to the enemy government or its armed forces. All the citizens of one belligerent are enemies of the government and all the citizens of the other.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/mcm.pdf
Click to expand...

The key I think where they'll get him with this is that "knowingly" and "indirectly."

Manning's MOS was an Intelligence Analysis. He was well aware that the material if released on the net can be viewed by AQ, Taliban, etc and they very likely monitor Wikileaks. They have him dead to rights on the "knowingly" part and there is no way he can claim ignorance here.

He indirectly provided this info to enemies of the US. Another dead to rights.

He's going away for a long time with this one. Its a capital punishment under the UCMJ and the prosecutors have already said they will not pursue the death penalty and that any lesser sentence was done so by what the Court Martial finds appropriate.
 
Fishstyx said:
Not sure whey the discussion of "Treason" is being batted around. He's not being charged with Treason. He's being charged with UCMJ Article 104-Aiding the Enemy.

Pretty cut and dry which doubt he'll be able to get out of.
Click to expand...

I bet not. The a-hole comprised both our nation and our ally, Afghanistan. If found guilty, he should suffer the punishment rendered.
 
List of charges against Bradley Manning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The charges can be broken down as follows:

  • UCMJ 104 (Aiding the enemy): 1 count. This charge carries a potential death penalty.

  • UCMJ 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation): 9 counts. Mostly related to computers.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP]
    • Army Regulation 25-2, para. 4-6(k): Forbids transferring classified info to non-secure systems
    • Army Regulation 25-2, para. 4-5(a)(3): Modifying or installing unauthorized software to a system, using it for 'unintended' purposes.
    • Army Regulation 25-2, para. 4-5(a)(4): Circumventing security mechanisms
    • Army Regulation 380-5: Improper storage of Classified Information

Total number of counts: 34
Click to expand...
 
If you want an informed reference on what Manning did wrong according to the UCMJ - here it is. There are a number of UCMJ articles that are brought against him, and may be more or less come trial time (the article explains this).

But you have to know, the military doesn't just hand you a classification and send you off to work with classified material. There is training involved and testing to ensure you know just what your responsibilities are, and the possible consequences if you screw the pooch.

Doesn't matter if Manning sold or gave the info away. Doesn't really matter, for most of the charges, what the actual contents of that classified info are. What matters is that he shared protected classified material with non-classified folks. That right there is a serious charge.
 
Last edited:
clownboy said:
If you want an informed reference on what Manning did wrong according to the UCMJ - here it is. There are a number of UCMJ articles that are brought against him, and may be more or less come trial time (the article explains this).

But you have to know, the military doesn't just hand you a classification and send you off to work with classified material. There is training involved and testing to ensure you know just what your responsibilities are, and the possible consequences if you screw the pooch.

Doesn't matter if Manning sold or gave the info away. Doesn't really matter, for most of the charges, what the actual contents of that classified info are. What matters is that he shared protected classified material with non-classified folks. That right there is a serious charge.
Click to expand...

Oh lord, the training and testing. Oh so much. Oh so boring.
 
Hatuey said:
I wouldn't call him a traitor because he didn't sell these "secrets" to any particular entity.
Click to expand...
I looked up many definitions of the word traitor. All of them included betrayal, none said anything about "selling" anything. Sorry!
 
washunut said:
Were his leaks worse than what the administration or whomever did talking to the NY Times.
Click to expand...

Well, if it was "the administration" they may have had authority to "leak" that information. PsyOps does it all the time. But again, the content, and whether it was "damaging" or not is superfluous. If you reveal classified information that you are party to because of your classification level to non-classified folks without command authorization - that's a crime that carries severe penalties.
 
Excon said:
lol
Meaningless tripe.
Click to expand...
Of course its "meaningless tripe" to you because it clearly lays out war crimes committed. :roll:

Really?
You can't figure out that we were speaking about our Government? Which is the subject from which I quoted you.
Click to expand...
They is a loose term. All im saying..


I can't believe that you are asking such.
Were you not taught the difference in School.
Were you not able to distinguish the difference in how they both were used?
Click to expand...
I have been told from school we are a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC from day one.

We are a Republic.
A Republic entails certain aspects of democracy, but it is not a Democracy.
Click to expand...
Like representative democracy!

Which is an aspect of our Republic. Doesn't change the fact that we are a Republic.
Click to expand...
Im not claiming that we are not a republic im claiming we are a democratic republic


And?
Did anybody say it wasn't?
But way to miss the main gist of the information provided.

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,"
United States Constitution​



:doh
It was used as an example that even back then, after our founding, it was understood that we were a Republic.


Exactly. A Republic.
Which entails certain aspects of democracy, but not a democracy in itself.

I am happy that it is settled.
Click to expand...

Im not claiming that we are not a republic....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom