• 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!

US judge rules not to drop Manning charge

Just like the Guardian did?

You're trying to drag other people down with Manning. The Guardian wasn't the one who made the decision to take the information from computers they weren't allowed to.

The whole thing revolves around giving the information to an "enemy of the US" he handed the information over to Wikileaks, therefor wikileaks is free to do what they want with the infromation just like any journalist organization, are we going to label Wikileaks as an enemy of the US because they are the ones that released it to the public at large.

No, it really doesn't. The issue revolves around: Were they aware of what would be done with the information they were giving out? If yes, they were aiding and abetting. The fact that journalistic organizations can now print the information given to them is another issue entirely unto itself. The Guardian didn't steal the information. Neither did Wikileaks. If the people who originally stole the information knew it would be given to enemies of the state or made readily available to them, they were committing treason.
 
Since Wikileaks is in fact a journalist organization, it seems incredibly unlikely that the charge of aiding the enemy will fall through. I believe that if they actually wanted to get him in prison (assuming no court bias), then they would have charged him with similar crimes as they did Snowden: theft of government property, willful communication of intelligence to an unauthorized person, etc.

Oh, and where is the evidence that the information released actually could allow enemies of the U.S. to further their goals? Could I get a link or something?

If it can't, then by definition he rendered no aid to the enemy.
 
Last edited:
Since Wikileaks is in fact a journalist organization, it seems incredibly unlikely that the charge of aiding the enemy will fall through. I believe that if they actually wanted to get him in prison (assuming no court bias), then they would have charged him with similar crimes as they did Snowden: theft of government property, willful communication of intelligence to an unauthorized person, etc.

Oh, and where is the evidence that the information released actually could allow enemies of the U.S. to further their goals? Could I get a link or something?

If it can't, then by definition he rendered no aid to the enemy.

Wikilieaks is not a journalist organization- thats an insult to journalists. WL is an anti-secrecy cult.
 
That's not what I asked. The question I asked was: Did he or did he not know Wikileaks would make sure the information became available to enemies? If he did, he's aiding and abetting. Case closed.

Did you know that Wikileaks was his third choice? Did you know he tried to give the material to NYT and WaPo while home on leave?
 
Actually, even during the invasion of Iraq, there were reporters embedded with the troops. Jeraldo Rivera was kicked out because he released their location, a big no no. The military grants a lot of access, but yes, there are times and places where the press is not welcomed because it could reveal tactics, methods, capabilities, reveal sources and what we know, among other things that are classified so that the enemy does not learn them through public release.

The media is still 'embedded'. So deeply embedded on all levels that the media merely regurgitates without question what it is told.

The days of the Fourth Estate in this country are over. In the old days the media usually held the government accountable for its lies, mischief and criminal actions.

Today's media rather performs a bizarre act of fellatio on the government.
 
Did you know that Wikileaks was his third choice? Did you know he tried to give the material to NYT and WaPo while home on leave?

Which basically shows he knew the information would be made available to enemies of the state. Aiding & abetting.
 
The press has plenty of access; however there were lessons learned from Vietnam and in today's hyper connected world there are CI reasons why some information is not real time.
 
Which basically shows he knew the information would be made available to enemies of the state. Aiding & abetting.

That's assuming that WaPo and NYT inform the enemies, and that Manning understood that.

Given his statements to the court and elsewhere, Manning's goal was the same as Ellsberg's and many others--to inform the american people of the crimes being committed in their name, and with their tax dollars, by their government.

I understand that. Is it too complicated for you to grasp? Do you object to the american people being informed of government mischief?
 
That's assuming that WaPo and NYT inform the enemies, and that Manning understood that.

They're global publications. Which pretty much ensures that they would have. Unless of course NK, Iran etc, don't have internet. Which then, all cool. I guess.
 
Since Wikileaks is in fact a journalist organization, it seems incredibly unlikely that the charge of aiding the enemy will fall through. I believe that if they actually wanted to get him in prison (assuming no court bias), then they would have charged him with similar crimes as they did Snowden: theft of government property, willful communication of intelligence to an unauthorized person, etc.

Oh, and where is the evidence that the information released actually could allow enemies of the U.S. to further their goals? Could I get a link or something?

If it can't, then by definition he rendered no aid to the enemy.

From 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.[2][3]
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

UCMJ 134 (General article): 24 counts. Most of these counts incorporate civilian statutes from the United States Code:
18 U.S.C. § 641: Embezzlement and Theft of Public Money, Property or Records. The government has claimed that various sets of records that Manning transferred were 'things of value' and has thus charged him under this statute.
18 U.S.C. § 793(e): This is part of the Espionage Act. The law forbids 'unauthorized persons' from taking 'national defense' information and either 'retaining' it or delivering it to 'persons not entitled to receive it'. The terminology is rather complicated and often contested in court. 793(e) exists because the McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950 modified the original 1917 Espionage Act, partly because of the Alger Hiss/Pumpkin papers case. It is also the same law used against Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo in the Pentagon papers case.[4][5]
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a) 1 & 2: These are from the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986. 1030(a)(1) is sometimes called the 'Computer Espionage' law as it borrows much of its language from the Espionage Act. It was modified by the USA Patriot Act of 2001, which added it to the 'Federal Crimes of Terrorism' list, as well as making it prosecutable under RICO (Racketeering) law.[6]

Total number of counts: 34

He is being charged with similar charges to Snowden, however, because he is military and was outside the US at the time, the military justice system takes jurisdiction and the charges all have to be related to the UCMJ somehow. The OP only focused upon the one charge.
 
Sounds like your average legal cluster**** on a larger scale than usual.
 
Sounds like your average legal cluster**** on a larger scale than usual.

Don't do the crime if you won't do the time- at least Manning didn't run like a punk though. Hard labor here he comes!
 
Don't do the crime if you won't do the time- at least Manning didn't run like a punk though. Hard labor here he comes!

Guilty until proven innocent, eh?
 
Read more @: US judge rules not to drop Manning charge - Americas - Al Jazeera English

This could seriously cause a very very slippery slope to define what "aiding the enemy is". [/FONT][/COLOR]

Why bother pretending that he's even going to have a chance in hell of being acquitted? The sad fact is that this young man will not walk. He pulled a run-around on the U.S. government, and embarrassed them to boot. There's no way you'll be freed if you make the U.S. government look bad. They'll find a way to make him pay.
 
Why bother pretending that he's even going to have a chance in hell of being acquitted? The sad fact is that this young man will not walk. He pulled a run-around on the U.S. government, and embarrassed them to boot. There's no way you'll be freed if you make the U.S. government look bad. They'll find a way to make him pay.

F yeah he'll pay! And dearly too! So the next time some little bitch punk thinks he is above the law- he'll think twice!
 
F yeah he'll pay! And dearly too! So the next time some little bitch punk thinks he is above the law- he'll think twice!

Oh it's you again. :roll:

Conscientious objectors never think twice. They do what is in the best interest of their country regardless of what the tyrants are saying. The world is a better place because of what Manning revealed.
 
Oh it's you again. :roll:

Conscientious objectors never think twice. They do what is in the best interest of their country regardless of what the tyrants are saying. The world is a better place because of what Manning revealed.

Fantasy world- Manning broke the law- just because you don't agree with the law doesn't change the fact that its the law. He will be punished accordingly; accept it. He is no hero.
 
... though I was not exactly surprised that an american helicopter crew would celebrate so much over killing innocent children and adults.

Those damned bloodthirsty 'Muricans, always looking for innocents to slaughter, huh?

The ultimate guilt for those crimes goes all the way UP the chain of command to the C-in-C.

The "C-in-C" is the President of the United States. So you believe the President of the United States is guilty of conspiracy and pre-meditated murder. Nice leap.
 
Those damned bloodthirsty 'Muricans, always looking for innocents to slaughter, huh?



The "C-in-C" is the President of the United States. So you believe the President of the United States is guilty of conspiracy and pre-meditated murder. Nice leap.

Well, look at the source Di. ;)
 
Those damned bloodthirsty 'Muricans, always looking for innocents to slaughter, huh?



The "C-in-C" is the President of the United States. So you believe the President of the United States is guilty of conspiracy and pre-meditated murder. Nice leap.

I'm of the old school DiAnna, rather like Harry Truman with his "the buck stops here" philosophy.

Perhaps you're not, and it appears you're perfectly content to accept that the C-in-C should be absolved of all responsibility for his actions.

Recall that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were brought under fraud. Remember 'curveball' and 'WMD'? Perhaps you don't remember them, but I do. Perhaps you believed all those lies told by Bush, Powell et al, but I didn't.

It's no leap at all. Sad to report, it's the brutal truth. Some of us can deal with it, some of us can't. :peace
 
Outstanding news, now can we get on with the court martial and execution of this worthless pos?
 
To prove that he aided the enemy the prosecution would have to prove that Manning had "actual knowledge" that by passing documents to WikiLeaks he was giving information to an enemy of the US.

Julian Asange is an enemy of the United States
 
Outstanding news, now can we get on with the court martial and execution of this worthless pos?

No death sentence; he should count his lucky stars...
 
I'm of the old school DiAnna, rather like Harry Truman with his "the buck stops here" philosophy.

Perhaps you're not, and it appears you're perfectly content to accept that the C-in-C should be absolved of all responsibility for his actions.

Recall that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were brought under fraud. Remember 'curveball' and 'WMD'? Perhaps you don't remember them, but I do. Perhaps you believed all those lies told by Bush, Powell et al, but I didn't.

It's no leap at all. Sad to report, it's the brutal truth. Some of us can deal with it, some of us can't. :peace

You're making presumptions again. I was against the war in Iraq, and will never forgive Bush for going after bin Laden in Afghanistan with only half the troops needed, which allowed Al Qaeda and the Taliban to escape Tora Bora. That's a truth I can certainly deal with. However, accusing the President of the United States of being guilty of every crime ever committed by military personnel is not only ludicrous, it speaks to an agenda, using any stretch to discredit and smear the entire government. So, what's your agenda? You keep your own location secret while you slander and defame. Interesting.
 
Back
Top Bottom