Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Babe Ruth

Bradley Manning Trial

104 posts in this topic

From where do you get the notion that Manning was violent?

It is public knowledge...

On December 20, 2009, after being told he would lose his one day off a week for being persistently late, he overturned a table in a conference room, damaging a computer that was sitting on it, and in the view of one soldier looked as though he was about to grab a rifle from a gun rack, before his arms were pinned behind his back. Several witnesses to the incident believed his access to sensitive material ought to have been withdrawn at that point.
A few hours later he had an altercation with a female intelligence analyst, Specialist Jihrleah Showman, during which he punched her in the face. The brigade psychiatrist recommended a discharge, referring to an "occupational problem and adjustment disorder." His master sergeant removed the bolt from his weapon, and he was sent to work in the supply office, though at this point his security clearance remained in place. He was demoted from Specialist to Private First Class

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning

Maybe you should read up on people you are trying to defend? So that you are not defending people who do NOT deserve to be defended.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He sounds mentally ill which isn't a crime.

Should the guy, Jared Loughner, who shot Gabrielle Giffords, the Congressional Representative from Arizona, walk free then? Or any "insane" criminal?

His crime is that he committed a crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is public knowledge...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning

Maybe you should read up on people you are trying to defend? So that you are not defending people who do NOT deserve to be defended.

Thank you DC. I was headed into a meeting at work when I posted my info this morning... I didn't have time to source like I would have liked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand corrected gentlemen, and I had forgotten that he overturned a table, slapped a woman and was demoted. Assuming all that is true, and for the sake of argument I will, he is a vicious man in a vicious organization. I guess we should be happy that he was not a rapist, in a rapist organization, eh? Maybe the incidence of rape in the military would be lower if more gays were serving?

Yes, and for his vicious and violent outburst he should be kept in solitary and sleep deprived well beyond his UCMJ Speedy Trial provision of 120 days.

Pallidin might be right--slapping women and overturning tables deserves having one's fingernails pulled out prior to execution.

Rave on gents--your sense of proportion is outstanding.

And even more heinous than overturning a table and slapping a woman is the crime of exposing the crimes of government! Maybe Pallidin would like to cut off the offending hand that Manning used to download the data? Heck, cut off both hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand corrected gentlemen, and I had forgotten that he overturned a table, slapped a woman and was demoted. Assuming all that is true, and for the sake of argument I will, he is a vicious man in a vicious organization. I guess we should be happy that he was not a rapist, in a rapist organization, eh? Maybe the incidence of rape in the military would be lower if more gays were serving?

Yes, and for his vicious and violent outburst he should be kept in solitary and sleep deprived well beyond his UCMJ Speedy Trial provision of 120 days.

Pallidin might be right--slapping women and overturning tables deserves having one's fingernails pulled out prior to execution.

Rave on gents--your sense of proportion is outstanding.

And even more heinous than overturning a table and slapping a woman is the crime of exposing the crimes of government! Maybe Pallidin would like to cut off the offending hand that Manning used to download the data? Heck, cut off both hands.

As stated previously... I think you should actually do a little research on Manning... maybe read his own words.... maybe know What you are talking about instead of trying to promote him as a martyr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anti-Suicide measure such as this are used everywhere, from Prisons to Hospitals. I know for a fact that those on suicide watch in hospitals are strapped down to their beds completely in order to keep them from doing harm to themselves or others.

Manning had ZERO idea as to what he was releasing when he released these documents, that has been proven time and time again. The only reasoning he or anyone else can offer up after listening to his statements and reviewing his files is that he did this because he could not handle being gay in the military. Im in no way stating that I agree with the military's stance on homosexuality. Thats not what this is about. Manning is on trial for HIS actions. If some one wants to go after any of the information that was released as being criminal, please lawyer up and go for it. This topic is about MANNING and what MANNING did. He is guilty, his plea deal only further proves that. What disgust me so much about this is that he had no idea what he was releasing. For all he knew he could have been releasing information on safe houses, cia operatives, security protocols... etc. If you are paying attention to this case you also know that a majority of what he released was above his clearance level/need to know. Again, im not saying the military isnt at fault and that wrong things have not been done by the US Military... however, they are not on trial here, Manning is. I would love to see some one go after the Military for some things... for me its not a case of defending the home team right now, its a case that Manning became an ememy of the US the moment he released any classified information to a FN. If he had released them to a government official, retired official or some one of that nature I might be less ill about the situation.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://tinyurl.com/bgf7ycv

I've been reading the public details about Manning since it started Dredimus, so please blow your spittle another direction, what with your implied claim to perfection in the human species. I know what he did, and I just admitted my forgetful error in the last post.

You appear to have a hard time establishing what is right and what is wrong. I can only speculate as to why.

But it's NEVER wrong to expose government crimes.

You would have me believe otherwise, and you're not persuasive.

Glenn Greenwald in the article above is very persuasive, mostly because he argues from a place of moral highground.

Edited by Babe Ruth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://tinyurl.com/bgf7ycv

I've been reading the public details about Manning since it started Dredimus, so please blow your spittle another direction, what with your implied claim to perfection in the human species. I know what he did, and I just admitted my forgetful error in the last post.

You appear to have a hard time establishing what is right and what is wrong. I can only speculate as to why.

But it's NEVER wrong to expose government crimes.

You would have me believe otherwise, and you're not persuasive.

Glenn Greenwald in the article above is very persuasive, mostly because he argues from a place of moral highground.

Your defense for Manning is "the military did something so It's Alright that Manning did this". I would almost be inclined to agree in some respects to that if Manning had any idea as to What he Was actually sending out and if he had actually sent it to a responsible state side organization. But he didn't... he did this because he Was p***ed that he signed a contract that said he had to behave in a certain way and he couldn't get out of it. This is not a case of " The people need to know" It's more of a case of " I don't like you so I'm going to do something to hurt you."

Like I said... if It's such a big thing for you... lawyer up and go after the Military instead of trying to use their indiscretions as a defense for Manning. Manning is on trial here... is he guilty of the 20 some odd charges against him? Yes or No? It's as simple as that. I maintain that my answer is Yes. He violated his contract and multiple laws in doing What he did. Period.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dredimus

It has been clear from the beginning that Manning acted ONLY out of conscience. Out of shame that his government was committing all manner of war crimes. Because he wanted to make a difference, hoping that right would prevail over wrong.

Even the guy who turned him in (can't think of the guy's name) acknowledged that.

I'm assuming you are or were in the military. What is the official position about following orders to commit crimes? About keeping knowledge of crimes secret?

I'm standing on it is NEVER a crime to expose the crimes of government. I have "lawyered up" in the sense that I give financial support to Manning's cause.

From all posts so far on this subject, it appears you have a hard time telling right from wrong.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been clear from the beginning that Manning acted ONLY out of conscience. Out of shame that his government was committing all manner of war crimes. Because he wanted to make a difference, hoping that right would prevail over wrong.

Reading over Manning's chat logs, I can see where Manning might have had that idea/motivation. But his motivation is not against the law here, his actions are. He could have found the evidence of George Bush himself popping live rounds into Iraqi orphans, and unless he sent it to someone who could be responsible for taking action, he did the Wrong thing.

Manning had the opportunity to do the right thing several times, but he was angry at the military and did not trust anyone, and... he was infatuated with Assange. So he did the wrong thing and sent the documents to a foreign national who used them to further his own glory and celebrity. It is not like Assange sent the docs to the JAG, or a Congressman... he put them up for anyone to see. Friends, allys, enemys.....

Edited by DieChecker
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading over Manning's chat logs, I can see where Manning might have had that idea/motivation. But his motivation is not against the law here, his actions are. He could have found the evidence of George Bush himself popping live rounds into Iraqi orphans, and unless he sent it to someone who could be responsible for taking action, he did the Wrong thing.

Manning had the opportunity to do the right thing several times, but he was angry at the military and did not trust anyone, and... he was infatuated with Assange. So he did the wrong thing and sent the documents to a foreign national who used them to further his own glory and celebrity. It is not like Assange sent the docs to the JAG, or a Congressman... he put them up for anyone to see. Friends, allys, enemys.....

Well DC, we are at the heart of the controversy--what is right, and what is wrong? Everyman must answer that question for himself, and clearly Manning did then, and you and I are attempting to answer it now.

It is wrong to commit war crimes, and I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that you and I agree on that point.

The gunship footage showed the commission of war crimes, both by the crew and HQ. Fog of war? Sure, but nobody on the ground was firing at the helicopter. They had cameras, NOT weapons. The banter overheard on the ship's intercom was the most disgusting part for me.

So now you want me to believe that it is wrong to expose war crimes? I guess your position then becomes that the Nuremberg Trials were in error? They were wrong?

No sir, if there is such a thing as justice, and maybe there ain't, then the just thing to do is to reveal said crimes and to punish those responsible for them.

Yeah sure, we could argue about whether Manning should have kept it 'in house', in the chain of command, but at this point in time that is purely academic.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm walking away from this topic.... not because I have been swayed but because some fail to answer the question at hand. Is Manning guilty? Some people have such a hatred for the current or past administration that they can't focus on anything else. There is No point in going through the same statements over and over again only to have 80% of the information I present ignored off hand. Bradley Manning is on trial for his actions... his own admitted actions... actions that are proven by a mountain of evidence. He is guilty of breaking the law. Period.... there is No way around that... you cant let him walk because you think that a tenth of a percentage of the information should have been released by the government to begin with. It doesn't work that way.... you can't scream for justice and then ignore What Manning did. Have a Good day folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm walking away from this topic.... not because I have been swayed but because some fail to answer the question at hand. Is Manning guilty? Some people have such a hatred for the current or past administration that they can't focus on anything else. There is No point in going through the same statements over and over again only to have 80% of the information I present ignored off hand. Bradley Manning is on trial for his actions... his own admitted actions... actions that are proven by a mountain of evidence. He is guilty of breaking the law. Period.... there is No way around that... you cant let him walk because you think that a tenth of a percentage of the information should have been released by the government to begin with. It doesn't work that way.... you can't scream for justice and then ignore What Manning did. Have a Good day folks.

You're walking away from it because it is a most unpleasant topic, especially when one has chosen, essentially, to defend government crimes and torture. Not to mention violation of UCMJ standards.

He is INDEED guilty of breaking some petty government regulation, NO DOUBT. I have never claimed otherwise. Indeed, he has hero status in my book BECAUSE he had the courage and principles to stand up for what is right, no matter if he broke some obscure AR.

The question at hand is who was harmed? Manning harmed nobody, whereas military aggression has killed many innocents.

Right v. Wrong

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're walking away from it because it is a most unpleasant topic, especially when one has chosen, essentially, to defend government crimes and torture. Not to mention violation of UCMJ standards.

He is INDEED guilty of breaking some petty government regulation, NO DOUBT. I have never claimed otherwise. Indeed, he has hero status in my book BECAUSE he had the courage and principles to stand up for what is right, no matter if he broke some obscure AR.

The question at hand is who was harmed? Manning harmed nobody, whereas military aggression has killed many innocents.

Right v. Wrong

You don't know who or what Was hurt because you have No idea What all Was released. Drop your self righteous delusions. I'm done with this thread because you are biased to the point of lunacy and it doesn't even matter because Manning is going to jail... he is going to serve time... No way around it.

Edited by Dredimus
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well DC, we are at the heart of the controversy--what is right, and what is wrong? Everyman must answer that question for himself, and clearly Manning did then, and you and I are attempting to answer it now.

It is wrong to commit war crimes, and I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that you and I agree on that point.

You are right. War crimes are wrong and should be punished.

The gunship footage showed the commission of war crimes, both by the crew and HQ. Fog of war? Sure, but nobody on the ground was firing at the helicopter. They had cameras, NOT weapons. The banter overheard on the ship's intercom was the most disgusting part for me.

One of the fellows on the ground did have an RPG, but once he was down, the cameramen were targeted wrongly. This I will agree with.

So now you want me to believe that it is wrong to expose war crimes? I guess your position then becomes that the Nuremberg Trials were in error? They were wrong?

It is not wrong to expose war crimes. It is wrong tto provide any Secret Confidential Material to those not cleared for such.

The Nuremberg trials tried the war crimes based on the facts, right? What are the facts behind Bradley Manning? He sent 750000 documents of a Secret nature to someone who had no problem with providing this data to Enemies of the US (by posting it publically). So, by the standards of the Nurembert trials, Manning is not a hero.

No sir, if there is such a thing as justice, and maybe there ain't, then the just thing to do is to reveal said crimes and to punish those responsible for them.

Agreed. And what if even one civilian, or soldier of any nationality was killed Directly from Bradley Mannings document leak? Does that make him a war criminal? Hundreds of operatives worldwide had to be pulled out for Security reasons, because the data released could get them killed. Not sure if any soldiers in Afghanistan died because of his documents, but my suspicion is that the Military Trial will have that data.

Yeah sure, we could argue about whether Manning should have kept it 'in house', in the chain of command, but at this point in time that is purely academic.

It is not academic, it is the Core of his crimes.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't know who or what Was hurt because you have No idea What all Was released. Drop your self righteous delusions. I'm done with this thread because you are biased to the point of lunacy and it doesn't even matter because Manning is going to jail... he is going to serve time... No way around it.

He has already served time sir. Under conditions that certain civilized countries describe as "torturous". And in violation of the Speedy Trial rule under UCMJ. Jeez, such a clear cut case of wrongdoing, and the government can't even get together a coherent case against him.

Yes, I am biased. And in Orwell's context of "in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is considered a radical act", I guess I am biased in a radical fashion.

That's OK by me, but it is sad how far my fellow citizens and soldiers have strayed from the principles encoded in the US Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right. War crimes are wrong and should be punished.

One of the fellows on the ground did have an RPG, but once he was down, the cameramen were targeted wrongly. This I will agree with.

It is not wrong to expose war crimes. It is wrong tto provide any Secret Confidential Material to those not cleared for such.

The Nuremberg trials tried the war crimes based on the facts, right? What are the facts behind Bradley Manning? He sent 750000 documents of a Secret nature to someone who had no problem with providing this data to Enemies of the US (by posting it publically). So, by the standards of the Nurembert trials, Manning is not a hero.

Agreed. And what if even one civilian, or soldier of any nationality was killed Directly from Bradley Mannings document leak? Does that make him a war criminal? Hundreds of operatives worldwide had to be pulled out for Security reasons, because the data released could get them killed. Not sure if any soldiers in Afghanistan died because of his documents, but my suspicion is that the Military Trial will have that data.

It is not academic, it is the Core of his crimes.

I appreciate the outstanding post and discussion.

We agree that it is not wrong to expose war crimes.

We DISagree on whether it is wrong, in and of itself, to release classified documents. Yes, it is a violation of the law, but it is not wrong in and of itself. There is a latin term for it that the lawyers use, but I can't remember it right now. Malum ipsos, or something like that.

That was very much the issue with Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers, and the Supreme Court did rule in favor of justice and government accountability. Those papers and the legal actions around them revealed "purposeful witholding and distortion of facts", and that is rather the case here too. You may recall that Ellsberg released reams of "Top Secret" documents that were considered by many, and were in fact, far more damaging to the government than anything Manning released.

Anyway, Manning has been imprisoned now for several years, without any sort of conviction. So, looking ahead, we must find a way to deliver justice in the case and put it all behind us.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Ninja! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Violent outbursts don't make him innocent or guilty in this case. The good and bad his actions caused stay the same. Character assassinations about all manner of irrelevancy are quite effective at swaying the court of popular opinion though.

He sounds mentally ill which isn't a crime.

I agree that he sounds as though he has mental issues that could stand to be treated -JMO! - but even those with such issues still are to be held accountable for crimes. I've said it before and will repeat - if he had done this without being in the uniform on active duty I'd have had little or no problem with him. He was using the uniform to besmirch the service he was sworn to be a part of. If he was so of a mind to be a whistleblower he should have taken it up the chain and even threatened to do what he eventually DID do. But to do that would have taken real integrity and a willingness to be held responsible for his actions. And his physical size or limitations is no more important than his sexuality. I'm sure there are some gay infantry types that could beat the crap out of me on my best day - it doesn't make him less liable for his actions. In fact he should have known that his actions would reflect poorly on all gay people in the service. If he gets away from the consequences of his actions then it will set a very bad precedent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that he sounds as though he has mental issues that could stand to be treated -JMO! - but even those with such issues still are to be held accountable for crimes. I've said it before and will repeat - if he had done this without being in the uniform on active duty I'd have had little or no problem with him. He was using the uniform to besmirch the service he was sworn to be a part of. If he was so of a mind to be a whistleblower he should have taken it up the chain and even threatened to do what he eventually DID do. But to do that would have taken real integrity and a willingness to be held responsible for his actions. And his physical size or limitations is no more important than his sexuality. I'm sure there are some gay infantry types that could beat the crap out of me on my best day - it doesn't make him less liable for his actions. In fact he should have known that his actions would reflect poorly on all gay people in the service. If he gets away from the consequences of his actions then it will set a very bad precedent.

But if the government gets away from the consequences of its actions, or the gunship pilots and HQ, well, that's quite OK, eh?

Yes, it's no wonder at all we have the government we deserve. :cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if the government gets away from the consequences of its actions, or the gunship pilots and HQ, well, that's quite OK, eh?

Yes, it's no wonder at all we have the government we deserve. :cry:

BR you really have a real hatred for government don't you. Those pilots were aware that a firefight had taken place MINUTES before and only a few blocks away from the group they shot up. They acted in the heat of battle and you are more than willing to believe they are inherently evil and wanted to murder people (including children) just for their fun and grins. I think that says as much bad about your thought processes as it does theirs. Edited by and then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate the outstanding post and discussion.

We agree that it is not wrong to expose war crimes.

We DISagree on whether it is wrong, in and of itself, to release classified documents. Yes, it is a violation of the law, but it is not wrong in and of itself. There is a latin term for it that the lawyers use, but I can't remember it right now. Malum ipsos, or something like that.

That was very much the issue with Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers, and the Supreme Court did rule in favor of justice and government accountability. Those papers and the legal actions around them revealed "purposeful witholding and distortion of facts", and that is rather the case here too. You may recall that Ellsberg released reams of "Top Secret" documents that were considered by many, and were in fact, far more damaging to the government than anything Manning released.

Anyway, Manning has been imprisoned now for several years, without any sort of conviction. So, looking ahead, we must find a way to deliver justice in the case and put it all behind us.

Regardless of if 1%, 10%, 33%, or 90% of what Manning gave out was legit whistleblowing, he still sent out documents that had absolutely nothing to do with anything other then the workings of government. If what you are proposing, that Manning did no wrong, is true, then ANY government document can be released as whistleblowing.

And as I said before, there is no way he actually read all those documents. He would have needed over a year to read and understand all 750000+ of them. Unless he is a Mentat genius with a photographic memory and instantaneous comprehension. Which I don't think he has those abilities.

And that is asside from his sending the material to a foreign national with shady purposes. Even if 100% of the material was whistleblowing he could easily be found guilty of crimnal action there.

EDIT: The helicopter incident that itself is a good example. The pilots fired legally on a enemy combatant and then fired illegally on non-combatants right? Well Bradley "fired" the helicopter event and other worthy targets to WikiLeaks... and that could have been excused, but he continued to "Fire" off documents and sent out hundreds of thousands of "non-combatant" documents. Manning did the same exact act as the helicopter pilots, only on a cyber scale, not a physical scale.

Edited by DieChecker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BR you really have a real hatred for government don't you. Those pilots were aware that a firefight had taken place MINUTES before and only a few blocks away from the group they shot up. They acted in the heat of battle and you are more than willing to believe they are inherently evil and wanted to murder people (including children) just for their fun and grins. I think that says as much bad about your thought processes as it does theirs.

No sir, I do not hate government. I greatly mistrust government. Get out your dictionary and read the definitions.

I heard and watched the entire tape, and I assume you did too. They were not "in the heat of battle", and the tape made that perfectly clear. Cripes a'mighty, they were JOKING AROUND, as pilots do when they are getting a bit bored.

There was alot of grinning going on in that cockpit, and laughter. Deny reality in your own mind sir, but I know what I heard and saw. It was the same sort of "ugly american" behavior I witnessed personally in the Mekong Delta in 1970.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of if 1%, 10%, 33%, or 90% of what Manning gave out was legit whistleblowing, he still sent out documents that had absolutely nothing to do with anything other then the workings of government. If what you are proposing, that Manning did no wrong, is true, then ANY government document can be released as whistleblowing.

And as I said before, there is no way he actually read all those documents. He would have needed over a year to read and understand all 750000+ of them. Unless he is a Mentat genius with a photographic memory and instantaneous comprehension. Which I don't think he has those abilities.

And that is asside from his sending the material to a foreign national with shady purposes. Even if 100% of the material was whistleblowing he could easily be found guilty of crimnal action there.

EDIT: The helicopter incident that itself is a good example. The pilots fired legally on a enemy combatant and then fired illegally on non-combatants right? Well Bradley "fired" the helicopter event and other worthy targets to WikiLeaks... and that could have been excused, but he continued to "Fire" off documents and sent out hundreds of thousands of "non-combatant" documents. Manning did the same exact act as the helicopter pilots, only on a cyber scale, not a physical scale.

Oh gosh, he "fired off" documents that might have had nothing to do with war crimes. What a terrible crime.

No sir, releasing just ANY government document is not necessarily releasing evidence of a crime by government, and therefore is NOT necessarily whistleblowing. You offer a poor example there. And Manning is clearly guilty of that.

Today, as judge, what would YOU sentence him to for that heinous crime? Considering that Gates and others have stated that no person was harmed by Manning's actions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.