• 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

You are inventing BS. The Apache was firing on what it thought was enemy combatants. It did not intentionally target a Reuters news crew - that's ludicrous, unfounded and, frankly, disconnected.

I never said it intentionally fired upon a Reuters crew, never once. YOU said that, attributing it to me.

No sir, probably unlike yourself, I actually listened to the tapes. Having been in the Army, and still being a radio monitor, I understand exactly what happened. It was certainly unfortunate, and to some degree understandable.

The crew lost all benefit of the doubt with the remark to the effect "they should not bring children to a gunfight". That, as they fired on the van full of good samaritans who were there only to render aid to the wounded from the first burst.

You would be amazed at what you might discover when doing your own research instead of just repeating government talking points.
 
I never said it intentionally fired upon a Reuters crew, never once. YOU said that, attributing it to me.

If it was an accident, then how was it a war crime (~"like My Lai")?


The Apache crew, and their superiors ALL THE WAY UP the chain of command, committed war crimes in the same fashion that William Calley did at My Lai.

You're claiming that the president was responsible as well, a total disconnect. This BS belongs in the conspiracy theory subforum.
 
D Co. 3/505th PIR 82nd Abn

Good, then you ought to know what I'm talking about regarding the chain of command. I was commissioned at Fort Bragg in the summer of 1969.

Now if you would view the tapes and listen to them, we might get somewhere. :)
 
I never said it intentionally fired upon a Reuters crew, never once. YOU said that, attributing it to me.

No sir, probably unlike yourself, I actually listened to the tapes. Having been in the Army, and still being a radio monitor, I understand exactly what happened. It was certainly unfortunate, and to some degree understandable.

The crew lost all benefit of the doubt with the remark to the effect "they should not bring children to a gunfight". That, as they fired on the van full of good samaritans who were there only to render aid to the wounded from the first burst.

You would be amazed at what you might discover when doing your own research instead of just repeating government talking points.

First, I was not a dirty nasty leg. Second, I've done plenty of research. Third, your position is BS - hysterical fantasy invented through a disconnect - an attempt to demonize not only the US military but the president himself. I find it pathetic.

As no charges have been brought against the Apache crew, how do you explain your twisted and totally unsupported position as anything more than frantic and imaginary.
 
Good, then you ought to know what I'm talking about regarding the chain of command. I was commissioned at Fort Bragg in the summer of 1969.

Now if you would view the tapes and listen to them, we might get somewhere. :)


I've viewed and listened to them, and I think your position is paranoid, hateful, hysterical, panicked, disconnected fantasy.
 
I've viewed and listened to them, and I think your position is paranoid, hateful, hysterical, panicked, disconnected fantasy.

That's the way some people can be; no amount of evidence and logic will ever suffice. When presented with overwhelming evidence they just claim it's made up by big brother etc. Those who've never been in the fog of war are quick to make assumptions and Monday morning quarterback- pathetic...
 
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.

Hey, listen - I don't think Manning should get a tough sentence but are you saying that he didn't realize WikiLeaks was going to release the information to the world - which I'll remind you - includes enemies of the US?
 
First, I was not a dirty nasty leg. Second, I've done plenty of research. Third, your position is BS - hysterical fantasy invented through a disconnect - an attempt to demonize not only the US military but the president himself. I find it pathetic.

As no charges have been brought against the Apache crew, how do you explain your twisted and totally unsupported position as anything more than frantic and imaginary.

That's nothing--no charges have been brought against anybody from either the Bush or the Obama administrations who have violated the letter of numerous laws. Who cares about 2 warrant officers getting excited about killing civilians? Nancy Pelosi went so far as to stop the imminent impeachment proceedings brought by Kucinich, Wexler, and others.

I know how the system works Ecofarm. That you so strongly support such a corrupt system tells me all I need to know about your character.
 
I know how the system works Ecofarm. That you so strongly support such a corrupt system tells me all I need to know about your character.

I'd rather be worried about my character than my sanity.
 
This all comes back down to does this make Wikileaks a "enemy of the US"?
Yes it does because, they have to prove that Manning had "actual knowledge" that by passing documents to WikiLeaks he was giving information to an enemy of the US.


But a legal judge can. Thats why they are called judges.

Uh, reread what the actual article from the UCMJ says. Indirectly is part of it, see (2).

No it does not. The court has to prove that the enemy, aka Taliban/Al Queda could of received intelligence, period.

No, a "legal judge" cannot. The military judicial system is completely separate from other courts until it reaches the Supreme Court. The SCOTUS is the only civilian court that has any say in the military judicial system.
 
I understand the story made up after the fact, and I don't really care. Prior to Desert Storm, the media were allowed into war zones. Why did we stop? Because the public started getting disgusted with what the reality of war looked like. The media ended the Vietnam War. Now we have media blackouts in our campaign zones. How is a democracy supposed to function when we are being kept in the dark of the realities of our violent campaigns?

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.
 
Uh, reread what the actual article from the UCMJ says. Indirectly is part of it, see (2).

No it does not. The court has to prove that the enemy, aka Taliban/Al Queda could of received intelligence, period.

No, a "legal judge" cannot. The military judicial system is completely separate from other courts until it reaches the Supreme Court. The SCOTUS is the only civilian court that has any say in the military judicial system.

" in order to convict Manning, they are only required to prove that he had “actual knowledge”
Is Judge Denise Lind Bradley Manning
 
Hey, listen - I don't think Manning should get a tough sentence but are you saying that he didn't realize WikiLeaks was going to release the information to the world - which I'll remind you - includes enemies of the US?

That could be literally anything, including a journalist organization and many would label Wikileaks as such, therefor many many people should of been convicted like this and therfor many organizations including MSM news outlest should be labeled "enemies of the US".
 
" in order to convict Manning, they are only required to prove that he had “actual knowledge”
Is Judge Denise Lind Bradley Manning

And who are they quoting? I quoted you the actual article extracted from the UCMJ, which is what the panel will be using to judge innocence or guilt. Perhaps your sources need to understand some of the differences between military law and civil law.
 
And who are they quoting?
The judge..
"But Lind concluded that Manning did have “actual knowledge” that the intelligence he leaked would end up in the hands of the enemy."
JUDGE IN MANNING CASE ALLOWS CHARGE OF AIDING THE ENEMY - Nation - The Boston Globe

I quoted you the actual article extracted from the UCMJ, which is what the panel will be using to judge innocence or guilt. Perhaps your sources need to understand some of the differences between military law and civil law.
Yes because the judge herself isnt a "source"?
 
That could be literally anything, including a journalist organization and many would label Wikileaks as such, therefor many many people should of been convicted like this and therfor many organizations including MSM news outlest should be labeled "enemies of the US".

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.
 
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.

Just like the Guardian did? 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.
 
Just like the Guardian did? 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.

(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;

The bolded is what it really revolves around. A member of the panel is going to judge it based upon that statement, period. That is the legal grounds and definition that is appropriate to this case.

If I was a member of the panel, I would weigh the evidence against the appropriate article and determine if he violated that article. How he did it, where he did it, through what outlet/media he did, why he did it, etc, does not matter, only whether he did it or not. Did he or did he not without proper authority, give intelligence to or communicate or correspond with or hold any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly? That is the question, everything else has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
 
Back
Top Bottom