- Joined
- May 6, 2011
- Messages
- 14,697
- Reaction score
- 5,704
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
In a perfect world Bradley would be dead long ago.
Element 2b. It's in your quote. You quoted it. And whistleblowing is not as clearly defined as you seem to think it is.
Those are all components of the same charge. They must all be met. It's an "and", not an "or".
Also, your link is to a procedural manual, it does not delve into the elements of an offense. This link here: Committing Treason, discusses the four essential elements of treason, taken from three supreme court cases. "(1) the defendant's intention to betray the United States, (2) manifested in an overt act, (3) testified to by two witnesses, (4) which gave aid and comfort to the enemy." There is absolutely no evidence to suggest intent to the betray the United States. Manning acted with intent to benefit the country with discussion and transparency of the government. He was not intending to aid any hostile force.
Manning's actions do not constitute treason.
What is clearly agreed on is that said individual goes to a figure of authority - actually treating it as a serious matter to be dealt with.
Not just randomly releasing info to the net blindly and aimlessly.
Whistleblowing protection isn't meant to protect hackers and snoops.
I don't think you understand or you have been grossly misinformed. PFC Manning is being charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He's being charged with an Article 104-Aiding the Enemy and I believe an Article 92-Disobeying an order. He's not being tried in federal court with treason, he's being tried by a military court-marital.
However, under the UCMJ, each Article contains elements which are separate, more specific violations under the general article. The link I provided is the front to back process for processing crimes under the UCMJ.
So prosecutors wanna prove that Bin-Laden asked for information from Wikileaks? So by the logic wouldnt any source that Bin-Laden goes to for intelligence and information can be seen as "aiding the enemy"? I still can wrap my head around of someone telling the truth and showing how governments work.
But how is it whistleblowing if you don't even know what it is you are releasing?
Then that's not treason he's being charged with. Make up your mind. If I have been grossly misinformed, I have been misinformed by you.
Yes, in the UCMJ, which you did not cite in your quote, there are 5 different charges. All of them specifically list intent as a requirement except the first, which certainly does not have any language to suggest strict liability. Intent is an element of nearly every criminal charge, both in the US court system and in military court. There is no evidence to prove this intent. Manning did not aid any enemies. He went to the press.
Re-read article 104 and the elements. Intention is not a factor so irrelevant.
And he's not a whistleblower. A whistleblower releases specific information related to a gross violation, he didn't do that. Nothing he released revealed crimes. Some embarrassing and unflattering information but nothing criminal.
I beg to differ. The deliberate and indiscriminate killing of noncombatant civilians, and those attempting to administer medical attention, is considered a serious crime in any civilised society. That one's military acts, on occasion, like an armed rabble, is not a justification for barbarous behaviour. When those responsible are identified, and charged with at least culpable manslaughter, we can discuss Mannings 'crimes'. Until then, it appears as scapegoating and an exercise in vindictiveness.
Thats your personal interpretation of the events that took place, the two investigations and review after the video was made public disgaree. And this event didn't occur in "civilised society," it occurred in a battle field where things aren't nearly as cut and dry as you seem to think it is.
All matters of opinion are personal interpretations, and the military investigating itself is less than convincing in any society. There is no need to put the term civilised in quotation marks - it is not a debatable concept. Most of the world knows what a civilised society is.
As to the killings, where they occurred is irrelevant. The facts remain that unarmed and noncombatant civilians were deliberately targeted and killed - that constitutes a crime, no matter which inquiry whitewashes it. The fact also remains that had Bradley Manning not passed that information on to someone who published it - no examination would have taken place.
I disagree. I have seen many investigations take place without having to make the national news to prompt them. In my opinion things like this are best handled internally. What if his supposed "whistleblowing" led to a blow back on troops that had absolutely nothing to do with the incident in question? What happens when it enrages the locals and people who traditionally are not combatants take up arms to retaliate, causing an escalation in IEDS, Ambushes, and sniping? The way the media reports stories these days they could be (and frequently are) completely wrong but the damage is done.
I hope I'm not expected to defend this cookie cutter stereotype you've created.
It's the duty of the press to ask the tough questions, and that duty is correctly protected by the Constitution.
It's the duty of those entrusted with classified information to not divulge that information to anyone not cleared for it.
It shouldn't be a criminal offense to ask a question. The whole notion is absurd.
You think I created this stereotype? Did a black man create the stereotype that white men can't jump? The thing about stereotypes is that they are usually true to life and they are only branded racist or ignorant because the people that fit into them find the truth uncomfortable.
You are playing into the stereotype yourself. Was it the duty of liberals to ask questions and seek out "truth" under the Bush administration? Of course it was, however, conservatives weren't singing the tune you are singing here in this post. If it is the job of the media to seek out "truth" (and then twist it into bias commentary), then it is their duty no matter the administration. I don't like the media, politicians, or their many sheep that contradict who they are according to the story they like at the time.