Manning Declared American Hero

[Freehold DM]

Andrew R wrote:

Andrew Tuttle wrote:

<shrug>

There's some video here, where Bradley Manning's dad, Brian, talks a bit.

I don't consider a parent necessarily an "unbiased source" on matters such as this, but as I posted a while back (in this very thread, in fact), I suspect Bradley Manning is not being treated up to the standards I'd expect one citizen of the US to extend towards another.

Whether or not that citizen is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or not (i.e., is or is not subject to the United States Code of Military Justice).

I'm looking forward to the FRONTLINE on March 29th. I'd like to know more.

-- Andy

He leaked gov. documents to our enemies, he is lucky he isn't kicking at the end of a rope.

How would you have gone about this were you in his situation, Andrew?

[Thiago Cardozo]

pres man wrote:

I love how some are going off about, "You have no facts to prove he did anything wrong." And then immediately turn around and say things like, "I know he is being treated badly." Really? Where did you get those facts? Were you there in his cell when he was forced to stand naked? No, then maybe you are not getting all the facts. Or maybe you are and so are the other people. Or maybe you all are wrong. Seriously, don't act as if being "sure" is a bad thing and then do it yourself.

His lawyer has stated so and has not been disputed.

Apparently, even one of the spokesmen of the Secretary of Defense has stated his concern over the matter.

[LazarX]

pres man wrote:

I thought I heard that Julian Assange believed the Jews were the ones that pushed for Bradley Manning to be in prisoned.

You may have heard it... but it's got no qualitative basis. Something this charged tends to generate a lot of noise as there is the mentality to simply make up things on someone to whom you've already condemmed for other reasons. "Obama Death Panels" come to mind.

[TigerDave]

Andrew Tuttle wrote:

Hey TigerDave!

I sign my posts as "Andy," it's my preferred form of address. :D

Point taken. I grew up under other rules, many times violently enforced. Habits still remain.

Andrew Tuttle wrote:

As a citizen of the United States of America, I enjoy the presumption of innocence. I know Bradley Manning enjoys US citizenship (else wise he'd not be serving in my military), so I know he enjoys that same courtesy of the law as well.

This is what you said regarding citizenship. What I'm trying to say has nothing to do with whether or not Manning is a citizen, but that, like you are incorrect in your statement that Service=Citizenship, you are also wrong in assuming that Civil Rights Under Law=Military Rights Under Law. From my service experience I *want to say* there's no such thing as "innocent until guilty* under military law. Unfortunately, that's my PERCEPTION - I am not a lawyer, and I am not going to debate the various strictures of the Code.

As you said by your own experience - you got three days' "bread and water" for telling your Captain off. What civilian example do we have that even matches that? None that I can think of.

Long story short - be careful in assuming that service members are afforded the same rights and privleges that pure civilian counterparts are.

[Spanky the Leprechaun]

pres man wrote:

I love how some are going off about, "You have no facts to prove he did anything wrong." And then immediately turn around and say things like, "I know he is being treated badly." Really? Where did you get those facts? Were you there in his cell when he was forced to stand naked? No, then maybe you are not getting all the facts. Or maybe you are and so are the other people. Or maybe you all are wrong. Seriously, don't act as if being "sure" is a bad thing and then do it yourself.

I know, right?

[pres man]

LazarX wrote:

pres man wrote:

I thought I heard that Julian Assange believed the Jews were the ones that pushed for Bradley Manning to be in prisoned.

You may have heard it... but it's got no qualitative basis. Something this charged tends to generate a lot of noise as there is the mentality to simply make up things on someone to whom you've already condemmed for other reasons. "Obama Death Panels" come to mind.

Oh yeah, right it was this actually.

[LazarX]

pres man wrote:

LazarX wrote:

pres man wrote:

I thought I heard that Julian Assange believed the Jews were the ones that pushed for Bradley Manning to be in prisoned.

You may have heard it... but it's got no qualitative basis. Something this charged tends to generate a lot of noise as there is the mentality to simply make up things on someone to whom you've already condemmed for other reasons. "Obama Death Panels" come to mind.

Oh yeah, right it was this actually.

Assange claimed that it was a Jewish attack on him personally. It had nothing to do with Manning.

To tell the truth, I really don't care. The fact that Assange isn't really that likeable a person is secondary to the larger issues surrounding Wikileaks, international secrets, and government accountability. In comparison, I really couldn't care less what happens to him personally.

[Andrew Tuttle]

Chris Mortika wrote:

James, I'm pretty sure he's being court martialled, not tried in civilian courts. At a court martial, the accused is not presumed innocent.

Chris Mortika,

This is factually incorrect, see here. (It's from a great military law site hosted by the Air University, "a key component of Air Education and Training Command, and is the Air Force's center for professional military education.)

"The Uniformed Code of Military Justice states
(c) Before a vote is taken on the findings, the military judge or the president of a court-martial without a military judge shall, in the presence of the accused and counsel, instruct the members of the court as to the elements of the offense and charge them -
(1) that the accused must be presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established by legal and competent evidence beyond reasonable doubt;
(2) that in the case being considered, if there is a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused and he must be acquitted;
(3) that, if there is a reasonable doubt as to the degree of guilt, the finding must be in a lower degree as to which there is no reasonable doubt; and
4) that the burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is upon the United States."

(bold mine)

Regards,

-- Andy

[Andrew Tuttle]

TigerDave,

TigerDave wrote:

Point taken. I grew up under other rules, many times violently enforced. Habits still remain.

Again, thanks for being polite in the first place.

I was raised in the South of the US, so I suffered mightily myself in the military calling everyone "Sir" or "Ma'am" (independent of rank ... quite a few enlisted folks take umbrage at those terms ["You idiot, don't call me 'Sir!' I work for a living!"]).

TigerDave wrote:

Andrew Tuttle wrote:

As a citizen of the United States of America, I enjoy the presumption of innocence. I know Bradley Manning enjoys US citizenship (else wise he'd not be serving in my military), so I know he enjoys that same courtesy of the law as well.

This is what you said regarding citizenship. What I'm trying to say has nothing to do with whether or not Manning is a citizen, but that, like you are incorrect in your statement that Service=Citizenship, you are also wrong in assuming that Civil Rights Under Law=Military Rights Under Law.

Even though I've already typed it to you here once, I'll repeat it.

I didn't mean to communicate a person has to be a citizen of the US enlist and serve in the US military. If I did so, and you took offense, I apologize.

TigerDave wrote:

As you said by your own experience - you got three days' "bread and water" for telling your Captain off.

I didn't tell my Captain off, I told off one of his flunkies lower down the chain-of-command. When my Division Officer offered me the chance to write an apology to this flunky, and read it aloud in front of Department, I told him I'd not take that offer, and go ahead and move on towards non-judicial punishment. That's where I stood before the Captain of my ship, at "Captain's Mast" (The Navy's flavor of non-judicial punishment). He's judge and jury, he tries to find out what happened, and dismiss / correct / chastise / punish, as necessary.

TigerDave wrote:

What civilian example do we have that even matches that? None that I can think of.

Other than the power dynamics of a family, there's nothing that comes to my mind either.

TigerDave wrote:

Long story short - be careful in assuming that service members are afforded the same rights and privleges that pure civilian counterparts are.

Thanks for your concern, and I'll do my best.

-- Andy

[TigerDave]

Hey Andy -

Andrew Tuttle wrote:

I didn't mean to communicate a person has to be a citizen of the US enlist and serve in the US military. If I did so, and you took offense, I apologize.

Nah. Not even close. I was trying to draw a parallel between two statements and it looks like I failed miserably. I vote we just sweep that one up as a failure on my part and move on.

Andrew Tuttle wrote:

I was raised in the South of the US, so I suffered mightily myself in the military calling everyone "Sir" or "Ma'am" (independent of rank ... quite a few enlisted folks take umbrage at those terms ["You idiot, don't call me 'Sir!' I work for a living!"]).

I got in quite a bit of trouble over that one - I never could resist a, "Just not any time recently ... " side remark.

[Orc Bits]

Still waiting for some one to explain what Manning actually accomplished by leaking classified documents.

[Thiago Cardozo]

Orc Bits wrote:

Still waiting for some one to explain what Manning actually accomplished by leaking classified documents.

Maybe you didn't get my reply to your first post...read up, the thread is not too long, I will not post it again. There is a list of important information revealed by the leaks, a list which is only a small subset of valuable information which should be public.

[Orc Bits]

Thiago Cardozo wrote:

Maybe you didn't get my reply to your first post...read up, the thread is not too long, I will not post it again. There is a list of important information revealed by the leaks, a list which is only a small subset of valuable information which should be public.

I replied to your post. The link you provided did not specify what ground breaking information--if any--came from Manning's documents. What exactly did this man accomplish?

[Thiago Cardozo]

Orc Bits wrote:

Thiago Cardozo wrote:

Maybe you didn't get my reply to your first post...read up, the thread is not too long, I will not post it again. There is a list of important information revealed by the leaks, a list which is only a small subset of valuable information which should be public.

I replied to your post. The link you provided did not specify what ground breaking information--if any--came from Manning's documents. What exactly did this man accomplish?

I see you are not an easily surprised person, or you have much inside intel which is redundant with the contents of the leaks. I cannot say the same for myself.

For instance, I have to say that accounts of spying on UN officials, gunning of journalists, lies from the former Secretary of Defense to the american people, specific information on multinational companies meddling in governments in Africa, to name only a few, were quite alarming to me.

However, the importance of the leaks is not so much the amount of surprise they cause, but the specificity of the information. Everyone suspects that companies do shady stuff to further their ends. However, this kind of diffuse information offers nothing. However, when specific companies are singled out for doing stuff which can now be verified and checked and, I don't know, STOPPED, it appears to me that this is quite important.
In the same tone, everyone knows that war brings lots of suffering and many things are done which should not be. However, when specific events of abusive use of force, or unlawful behavior, for instance, are revealed, taking the stance of "oh but we know bad things happen" is, in my opinion, a position of compliance. In fact, these revelations allow the public to question the decisions of their leaders, where the diffuse affirmations of "war is bad" do not. The same is obviously valid for informations concerning governments lying to their people. And so on.

[pres man]

New wrinkle?

Obama said Friday that he asked the Pentagon whether the confinement conditions were appropriate and whether they met basic standards.

"They assure me that they are," the president said.

[Andrew Tuttle]

It's kinda' sad that P.J. Crowley is falling on his sword over this.

The guy's had a distinguished career as a public servant, and that doesn't include the 26 years he served in the Air Force (he's a veteran of Desert Shield and Desert Storm).

He was at an "informal conversation" at MIT's Center for Future Civic Media where he said he was representative of “the old model of media, the one where I stand in front of a podium and answer questions from around the world."

One of the the guys that was there offered notes and an informal transcript of the exchange here:

Ethan Zuckerman (on 03/11/2011 10:04 am) wrote:

Charlie deTar: There’s an elephant in the room during this discussion: Wikileaks. The US government is torturing a whistleblower in prison right now. How do we resolve a conversation about the future of new media in diplomacy with the government’s actions regarding Wikileaks?

PJC: “I spent 26 years in the air force. What is happening to Manning is ridiculous, counterproductive and stupid, and I don’t know why the DoD is doing it. Nevertheless, Manning is in the right place.”

So Mr. Crowley offers his opinion, in an informal setting, to a bunch of academics ... and a few days later he decides he needs to tender his resignation, and Secretary Clinton accepts. <sigh>

The guys he spoke in front of wrote an open letter to Secretary Clinton expressing "severe disappointment" at Crowley's resignation, saying

"If public officials are made to fear expressing their truthful opinions, we have laid the groundwork for ineffective, dishonest, and unresponsive governance."

I think sometimes we're already there. :(

-- Andy

[Chris Mortika]

Andrew Tuttle wrote:

This is factually incorrect, see here. (It's from a great military law site hosted by the Air University, "a key component of Air Education and Training Command, and is the Air Force's center for professional military education.)

Thank you for the correction.