• 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!

Bradley Manning Hearing: Judge Refuses To Dismiss 'Aiding The Enemy' Charge

I would say it is definitely premature to drop that charge. It will be hard to get a conviction on that charge and he will almost certainly be convicted of enough that he will spend the rest of his life in prison, but the charge is certainly not impossible to get a conviction on, and as such should not be dropped.
 
Redress said:
... he will almost certainly be convicted of enough that he will spend the rest of his life in prison...
Click to expand...

Ah yes, how dare he release documents proving U.S. lawlessness and human rights abuse! The fact that not a single person has been harmed as a result of the released documents means nothing. It seems perfectly natural to me for a nation to desire to imprison a person for life when he exposes war crimes!

Land of the free? Innocent until proven guilty? Right to a speedy trial?

Bradley Manning has spent nearly a year in solitary confinement, has been imprisoned for almost two years and hasn't even started his trial. The U.S. refused to allow the UN special rapporteur on torture an unmonitored examination of Mr. Manning. After a fourteen month investigation, the special rapporteur issued a statement saying that Bradley Manning’s treatment has been "cruel and inhuman."

But certainly, let's throw this kid in jail for the rest of his life for exposing the truth of U.S. wars in the Middle East. Certainly gives a new meaning to the "Land of the free" for me...
 
TNAR said:
Ah yes, how dare he release documents proving U.S. lawlessness and human rights abuse! The fact that not a single person has been harmed as a result of the released documents means nothing. It seems perfectly natural to me for a nation to desire to imprison a person for life when he exposes war crimes!

Land of the free? Innocent until proven guilty? Right to a speedy trial?

Bradley Manning has spent nearly a year in solitary confinement, has been imprisoned for almost two years and hasn't even started his trial. The U.S. refused to allow the UN special rapporteur on torture an unmonitored examination of Mr. Manning. After a fourteen month investigation, the special rapporteur issued a statement saying that Bradley Manning’s treatment has been "cruel and inhuman."

But certainly, let's throw this kid in jail for the rest of his life for exposing the truth of U.S. wars in the Middle East. Certainly gives a new meaning to the "Land of the free" for me...
Click to expand...

Umm..he broke the law and military regulations. That is what we call a crime. In this country, where we have laws, we have set punishments for crimes.
 
Redress said:
Umm..he broke the law and military regulations. That is what we call a crime. In this country, where we have laws, we have set punishments for crimes.
Click to expand...

In this country, where we have laws, people are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of your peers. Therefore the key word you are forgetting is he allegedly broke the law.
 
TNAR said:
Ah yes, how dare he release documents proving U.S. lawlessness and human rights abuse! The fact that not a single person has been harmed as a result of the released documents means nothing. It seems perfectly natural to me for a nation to desire to imprison a person for life when he exposes war crimes!

Land of the free? Innocent until proven guilty? Right to a speedy trial?

Bradley Manning has spent nearly a year in solitary confinement, has been imprisoned for almost two years and hasn't even started his trial. The U.S. refused to allow the UN special rapporteur on torture an unmonitored examination of Mr. Manning. After a fourteen month investigation, the special rapporteur issued a statement saying that Bradley Manning’s treatment has been "cruel and inhuman."

But certainly, let's throw this kid in jail for the rest of his life for exposing the truth of U.S. wars in the Middle East. Certainly gives a new meaning to the "Land of the free" for me...
Click to expand...

I agree with much of what you said but it is oversimplified. I personally hope he doesn’t spend life in prison as I believe his reasons had some merit. However, he should do time because:

1. He violated military law
2. He violated the non-disclosure agreement he signed in order to obtain a security clearance
3. Unlike the release of the Pentagon Papers, Manning didn’t vet the information he released. He didn’t just go through and select the cables that showed misconduct, he released them all without even reading them. Wikileaks does seem to have done a good job of ensuring anything they released did not jeopardize sources, but Manning had no right to trust Wikileaks to do so.

I will say the majority of things we classify shouldn’t be classified, in my opinion. But some of it should and Manning disregarded that little distinction.

That said, the treatment of Bradley Manning pending trial is inexcusable. A year in solitary confinement, even for a convicted felon, is cruel and unusual. And they did it to Manning even before trial. So on that point, TNAR, we are in 100% agreement.
 
TNAR said:
Ah yes, how dare he release documents proving U.S. lawlessness and human rights abuse! The fact that not a single person has been harmed as a result of the released documents means nothing. It seems perfectly natural to me for a nation to desire to imprison a person for life when he exposes war crimes!
Click to expand...

Manning was a soldier, and as such was responsible for protecting the secrets of the military that he swore an oath of allegiance to. If he had actual evidence of war crimes his responsibility was to report the info to his superior officers. What Manning did was take a generic top secret records dump and indiscriminately handed the info over to individuals outside of the military community who did not have proper clearance for the info. That is treason, regardless of what results the info dump had. I seriously doubt Manning knew what was in the files he handed over, only that they were secret.

Land of the free? Innocent until proven guilty? Right to a speedy trial?

Bradley Manning has spent nearly a year in solitary confinement, has been imprisoned for almost two years and hasn't even started his trial. The U.S. refused to allow the UN special rapporteur on torture an unmonitored examination of Mr. Manning. After a fourteen month investigation, the special rapporteur issued a statement saying that Bradley Manning’s treatment has been "cruel and inhuman.[/URL
Click to expand...


In serious cases suspects are often not released on their own recognizance. In a case like this where a massive amount of top secret info was leaked, I think it is reasonable to detain the suspect until trial.

However, I do tend to agree that solitary confinement seems excessive, unless its for his own protection. High profile suspects are often targets for prison violence and they are put in solitary to keep them safe. Also, in the case of Manning I believe he was suicidal, and again for his own protection such a person should be closely monitored and have their interactions kept under strict scrutiny.

As for the rest of that Guardian article, I think this special rapporteur is using the loosest definitions of the U.N. charter to give the U.S. a black eye. Of course the U.S. is not going to let Mannings communications go unmonitored, no suspect being held for any crime in the U.S. has that right. I am pretty certain that Manning can shower, BM and dress without someone watching him, which is all the privacy he really needs.

I do not think of Manning as a hero, I think he is a disturbed, angry young man who made a horrendous mistake and will now pay for it for the rest of his life. His emotions wrote a big check that his ass now has to cash.
 
The man is a traitor. He gets no sympathy from me.
 
TNAR said:
In this country, where we have laws, people are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of your peers. Therefore the key word you are forgetting is he allegedly broke the law.
Click to expand...

Correct, all the charges are allegations at this point. That changes nothing I said in any significant way.
 
Sarcogito said:
I agree with much of what you said but it is oversimplified. I personally hope he doesn’t spend life in prison as I believe his reasons had some merit. However, he should do time because:
Click to expand...

Of course it is oversimplified. We are also not privy to much of the details of the case and, as such, are not qualified to place a guilty judgment on him. Violating any law, military or otherwise, can be excused for a wide variety of reasons. In this particular case, he allegedly violated the law in order to correct other laws which were also being violated. Do two wrongs make a right? Not necessarily, but there certainly may be extenuating circumstances which we are not aware of. On this it seems we are in agreement. He has served two years in jail; perhaps that is enough?

ChuckBerry said:
Manning was a soldier, and as such was responsible for protecting the secrets of the military that he swore an oath of allegiance to. If he had actual evidence of war crimes his responsibility was to report the info to his superior officers.
Click to expand...

Don't give me that BS. There were no superior officers available because the misconduct went to the top. It is next to impossible for a PFC to directly contact the theater commander or President. Soldiers swear an oath to defend the nation against all enemies both foreign and domestic. Lawlessness falls into that category and he was doing what he thought was right. Why don't we leave the judgement of guilt to the jury?

ChuckBerry said:
That is treason
Click to expand...

Better check your UCMJ again on that one.

ChuckBerry said:
In serious cases suspects are often not released on their own recognizance. In a case like this where a massive amount of top secret info was leaked, I think it is reasonable to detain the suspect until trial.
Click to expand...

I do not disagree. But the laws of the U.S. guarantees a speedy trial. Two years in prison and the inability to discreetly meet with a UN investigator are hardly speedy or within typical human rights agreements. Put this case in another country and the U.S. media would be slobbering all over it with allegations of human rights violations, but because the U.S. is the perpetrator it is just fine. I'm calling BS.

ChuckBerry said:
Of course the U.S. is not going to let Mannings communications go unmonitored, no suspect being held for any crime in the U.S. has that right.
Click to expand...

Every suspected criminal has the right to meet with an attorney without being monitored.
 
ChuckBerry said:
What Manning did was take a generic top secret records dump and indiscriminately handed the info over to individuals outside of the military community who did not have proper clearance for the info.
Click to expand...

Just for the sake of accuracy, I don't think he is accused of leaking anything classified higher than Secret NOFORN.
 
TNAR said:
Ah yes, how dare he release documents proving U.S. lawlessness and human rights abuse!
Click to expand...
If he discovered evidence of criminal acts, he should have taken them though the correct legal process. If there was legitimate concern of a cover-up or similar, there could be justification for releasing only the information specifically relating to such criminal acts.

What he is actually accused of doing is gathering a vast amount of data, much more than he could possibly have checked for evidence of criminality and risks to national security or individuals safety (not that he was in a position to make that judgement anyway), and freely handing it over to a private organisation.

TNAR said:
The fact that not a single person has been harmed as a result of the released documents means nothing.
Click to expand...
That's true. The fact that it could have done is very relevant though.

TNAR said:
It seems perfectly natural to me for a nation to desire to imprison a person for life when he exposes war crimes!
Click to expand...
I've no doubt that political embarrassment has influence how this case has played out but that is independent of the questions of whether what he actually did was either legal or morally justified.
 
Here is the bottom line ( as far as I'm concerned)
In order to capture people like
Bin Laden and find and recover our POWs like Lynch and Bergdahl we need intelligence networks ( liaison, sources, etc )

Who is going to want to talk to us if we can't keep a secret?

I realize arm chair generals feel like they are entitled to know everything but guess what? When they find out so do our enemies.

The man is a traitor.
 
o
Redress said:
Umm..he broke the law and military regulations. That is what we call a crime. In this country, where we have laws, we have set punishments for crimes.
Click to expand...

In May 2010 when Manning gave the material to Wikileaks DADT was military law. Manning was openly gay and his Commander looked the other way. If she had followed the law Manning would have been discharged before the crime was committed. In addition, before deploying to Iraq he had sent his CO a photo of himself dressed as a woman, calling himself Brianna and said that his gender identity issues were making it difficult to perform his job. He asked for help and his chain of command took no action. Even after they arrived in Iraq and his behavior became so bizarre that she ordered the bolt removed from his weapon, his security clearance and access to classified material were never revoked. This is a huge embarrassment to his entire chain of command. It's obvious that he was dealing with major psychological problems and should have, at a minimum, been counseled by mental health professionals. His entire chain of command is guilty of dereliction of duty and should be punished to the max. Manning's lawyer is right to use diminished mental capacity as a defense. His Commanding Officer also needs to be put on trial.
 
I saw people try to play the gay angle all the time to get out of deploying, chances are his command had too.

Even before DADT was repealed
there were guys we knew were gay and over looked it
because they were cool and didn't make a big deal out of it.

Being gay is not a mental disorder.

Looking back with 20/20 hindsight I'm sure they might handle it different.

As far as sending a picture in a dress... You'd be surprised the things straight grunts will do for a laugh. Things that to a outside observer would seem "super gay". Like the "impossible situp"
 
Last edited:
Paratrooper said:
I saw people try to play the gay angle all the time to get out of deploying, chances are his command had too.

Even before DADT was repealed
there were guys we knew were gay and over looked it
because they were cool and didn't make a big deal out of it.

Being gay is not a mental disorder.

Looking back with 20/20 hindsight I'm sure they might handle it different.

As far as sending a picture in a dress... You'd be surprised the things straight grunts will do for a laugh. Things that to a outside observer would seem "super gay". Like the "impossible situp"
Click to expand...

anybody remember max klinger from M.A.S.H.
that was his gig
max mash 1.jpg
max mash 2.jpg
 
Sarcogito said:
Just for the sake of accuracy, I don't think he is accused of leaking anything classified higher than Secret NOFORN.
Click to expand...

Secret

This is the second-highest classification. Information is classified Secret when its release would cause "serious damage" to national security. Most information that is classified is held at the secret sensitivity.
Classified information in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOFORN means No Foreigners, this primarily exist because some service members are not US Citizens and because some information is shared with allies and some is not.

I am not for sure in what light you posted, but it kinda of sound like, gee, it's only Secret NOFORN and Top Secret, so hey, it's ok. I hope that is not the way you look at it, but if you do, I guess you are entitled to that opinion.

Interesting that they are only charging with Aiding the Enemy, Article III Section 3 of the Constitution states, Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

So, the way I read that is, Aiding the Enemy is definable as a treasonous act.

The UCMJ defines Aiding the Enemy in Article 104

ART. 104. AIDING THE ENEMY
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 punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.

If he did leak secret information to Wiki Leaks, then his action would indeed fall under Article 104 Paragraph 2. Also, if the military were to conduct His Courts Martial in accordance with this article, he would face the Death Penalty, not just life in prison.

I don't know exactly what information he leaked, but if I was sitting on the panel (military jury) and he released any information that could help either insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan, then I would indeed find him guilty under this article and since he did during a time of armed conflict, I would vote for death.
 
Last I heard the defense's motion to drop the charges and dismiss the case was based on the fact that the prosecution was refusing to release evidence on "national security" grounds, effectively meaning that they are in violation of Manning's right to a fair trial, as he cannot realistically defend himself.

Also, IIRC, the vast majority of the prosecution's case rests on the claims of the loser, liar hacker with which Manning was corresponding, and these chat logs. So if this is all true, then the prosecution doesn't have much of a case.
 
Paratrooper said:
I saw people try to play the gay angle all the time to get out of deploying, chances are his command had too.

Even before DADT was repealed
there were guys we knew were gay and over looked it
because they were cool and didn't make a big deal out of it.

Being gay is not a mental disorder.

Looking back with 20/20 hindsight I'm sure they might handle it different.

As far as sending a picture in a dress... You'd be surprised the things straight grunts will do for a laugh. Things that to a outside observer would seem "super gay". Like the "impossible situp"
Click to expand...

Transgenderism is a mental disorder. Striking a female soldier and curling up in a ball on the floor while on duty are way past playing the gay angle to get out of deployment. Ordering the bolt removed from his weapon while in Iraq is a sure sign that his CO knew the wheels were coming off. This is a huge failure and embarrassment for his chain of command. They need to be made accountable for their failure.

Is Transgenderism a mental illness? - Grey Matters
 
DVSentinel said:
I am not for sure in what light you posted, but it kinda of sound like, gee, it's only Secret NOFORN and Top Secret, so hey, it's ok. I hope that is not the way you look at it, but if you do, I guess you are entitled to that opinion.
.
Click to expand...

I'm writing as someone who deals with classified information for a living. Criticize Manning for what he allegedly did but there is no need to exaggerate, and claiming that Manning leaked TS is exaggerating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom