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
jugoso

Bradley Manning gets 35 years

29 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

He certainly has to!!

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...s-sentence.html

His statement after sentencing

The decisions that I made in 2010 were made out of a concern for my country and the world that we live in. Since the tragic events of 9/11, our country has been at war. We've been at war with an enemy that chooses not to meet us on any traditional battlefield, and due tothis fact we've had to alter our methods of combating the risks posed to us and our way of life.I initially agreed with these methods and chose to volunteer to help defend my country. It was not until I was in Iraq and reading secret military reports on a daily basis that I started to question the morality of what we were doing. It was at this time I realized in our efforts to meet this risk posed to us by the enemy, we have forgotten our humanity. We consciously elected to devalue human life both in Iraq and Afghanistan. When we engaged those that we perceived were the enemy, we sometimes killed innocent civilians. Whenever we killed innocent civilians, instead of accepting responsibility for our conduct, we elected to hide behind the veil of national security and classified information in order to avoid any public accountability.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/08/21-7

Edited by jugoso
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said before: If he really gave that much of a damn, he could have bothered to take a couple more hours to search for the relevant files.

And if he thinks civilian deaths are bad now, I'd hate to see how he'd react to virtually any other war before 1990.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Over the course of nearly two hours, Private Manning detailed with startling clarity his precise motivations for each leak. On the
and
, he expressed his shock and dismay at the rampant use of targeted killings as a conflict-resolution tactic. On the
cable: the world should know of the U.S. and U.K.’s bullying tactics against Iceland to accept austerity measures in the wake of the global financial meltdown. On the Iraqi police’s arrests and disappearances of anti-corruption leafleters: that U.S. should not support those stifling democratic processes in Iraq. On the
: the Obama administration’s stance is two-faced, claiming on the one hand to want to close the prison, yet on the other, knowingly holding innocent and low-level prisoners. On the
: the so-called “leader of the free world” engaged in “seemingly criminal activity” via backdoor deals is wrong and hypocritical. And on the most famous of his leaks, the “
” video: the soldiers’ “bloodlust” as they wantonly shot Reuters journalists whom they had mistaken for insurgents from an apache helicopter, along with the ensuing cover-up must be open to public review.

Upon Wednesday's sentencing, an "outraged" CCR said that convicting Manning under the "archaic" Espionage Act sends "an unmistakable warning to potential whistleblowers and journalists willing to publish their information."

"Something is seriously wrong with our justice system," added Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Speech, Privacy & Technology Project, "when a soldier who shared information with the press and public is punished far more harshly than others who tortured prisoners and killed civilians."

Echoing this, the CCR continued:

It is a travesty of justice that Manning, who helped bring to light the criminality of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, is being punished while the alleged perpetrators of the crimes he exposed are not even investigated.
Every aspect of this case sets a dangerous precedent for future prosecutions of whistleblowers – who play an essential role in democratic government by telling us the truth about government wrongdoing – and we fear for the future of our country in the wake of this case.

Link: http://www.commondre...ne/2013/08/21-2

Edited by Kowalski
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This pretty much puts things in perspective...

The only US marine to face sentencing for the killing of two dozen unarmed Iraqis in one of the Iraq war's defining moments has been spared jail time after defending his squad's storming of the homes of Haditha as a necessary act "to keep the rest of my marines alive".

Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich's sentence ends a six-year prosecution for the 2005 attack. Eight Marines were initially charged; one was acquitted and six others had their cases dropped.

Wuterich, who admitted ordering his squad to "shoot first, ask questions later" after a roadside bomb killed a fellow Marine, ended his manslaughter trial by pleading guilty on Monday to a single count of negligent dereliction of duty.

The deal that dropped nine counts of manslaughter sparked outrage in the besieged Iraqi town and claims that the US didn't hold the military accountable

"The truth is I never fired my weapon at any women or children that day," Wuterich told Jones.

The contention by Wuterich, 31, contradicts prosecutors and counters testimony from a former squad mate who said he joined Wuterich in firing in a dark back bedroom where a woman and children were killed.

Prosecutors argued that Wuterich's knee-jerk reaction of sending the squad to assault nearby homes without positively identifying a threat went against his training and caused the needless deaths of 10 women and children.

"That is a horrific result from that derelict order of shoot first, ask questions later," said Lieutenant Colonel Sean Sullivan

Link: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jan/25/us-marine-haditha-case-spared-jail

By the way, Wuterich did this:

Link: https://www.google.com/search?q=haditha+massacre+images&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=i9QUUpGCA8Ki2wXqmYCoDQ&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=595

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said before: If he really gave that much of a damn, he could have bothered to take a couple more hours to search for the relevant files.

And if he thinks civilian deaths are bad now, I'd hate to see how he'd react to virtually any other war before 1990.

Yeah.....let´s shoot the messenger. I think it fair that US citizens know what is being done by their country in their name and on their dime.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yeah.....let´s shoot the messenger. I think it fair that US citizens know what is being done by their country in their name and on their dime.

I think it more of the fact that the majority of citizens just don't care.

last presidential election the turn out was 53% of eligible voters.... and that is from a presidential election. Presidential elections have the highest turn out

http://www.infopleas...a/A0781453.html

People just want to watch their tv shows and not think about anything uncomfortable :innocent:

Edited by spartan max2
7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it more of the fact that the majority of citizens just don't care.

last presidential election the turn out was 53% of eligible voters.... and that is from a presidential election. Presidential elections have the highest turn out

http://www.infopleas...a/A0781453.html

People just want to watch their tv shows and not think about anything uncomfortable :innocent:

As long as it doesn't effect them, or their lives, they just don't care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The military said on 27 August that three marines had pleaded guilty to charges over the video, but their punishment fell short of criminal prosecution and the men did not face courts martial.

Two of the three pleaded guilty to wrongfully posing for an unofficial photograph with human casualties and admitted urinating on the body of a dead Taliban fighter. The third pleaded guilty to failing to report the mistreatment of human casualties by other marines, and admitted making a false statement to an investigative officer about his knowledge of the video, according to the Military Times.

The three men face punishments within the military, such as a reduction in rank or extra duties, meaning their names would not have to be published in public.

Chamblin and Deptola, however, also face a series of charges for failing to supervise junior marines.

This includes simple things like failing to require them to wear protective equipment to more serious breaches, like failing to report the "negligent discharge" of a grenade launcher. Deptola is also charged with failing to stop the unnecessary damaging of Afghan compounds, the marines said.

The marines said there were other pending cases in the video investigation. They declined to elaborate on the incident in which the negligent actions took place.

Link: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/24/us-marines-charged-dead-taliban

What a wonderful image, we send to the rest of the world....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it more of the fact that the majority of citizens just don't care.

last presidential election the turn out was 53% of eligible voters.... and that is from a presidential election. Presidential elections have the highest turn out

http://www.infopleas...a/A0781453.html

People just want to watch their tv shows and not think about anything uncomfortable :innocent:

Do you really have a choice.....tweedle-dee or tweedle-dum. One is no better than the other and I think that has been proven

And what people do care about is $$. Make it clear how much they are paying for the antics of Blackwater and the like and they just may start to. The MSM doesn´t really cover the important topics in an unbiased way. The news is filled with **** and stuff that really doesn´t matter. If people choose to stick their heads in the sand that´s their choice, but they shouldn´t have to play detective to find out what their country is doing in their name. What´s happened is the sam thing as with Snowden, focus on the legality/illegality of the persons actions and ignore the real issues.....what happened,how and why. He was doing what he believed to be right and I personally agree with him. Now he´s paying the price. As Kowalski pointed out above, the perpetrators are not.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really have a choice.....tweedle-dee or tweedle-dum. One is no better than the other and I think that has been proven

And what people do care about is $$. Make it clear how much they are paying for the antics of Blackwater and the like and they just may start to. The MSM doesn´t really cover the important topics in an unbiased way. The news is filled with **** and stuff that really doesn´t matter. If people choose to stick their heads in the sand that´s their choice, but they shouldn´t have to play detective to find out what their country is doing in their name. What´s happened is the sam thing as with Snowden, focus on the legality/illegality of the persons actions and ignore the real issues.....what happened,how and why. He was doing what he believed to be right and I personally agree with him. Now he´s paying the price. As Kowalski pointed out above, the perpetrators are not.

Well said.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

George Orwell

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now he´s paying the price. As Kowalski pointed out above, the perpetrators are not.

Exactly! Why are they persecuting Manning, and not the soldiers who do this horrible stuff? Why is a soldier who commits war crimes, not prosecuted, but the soldier who reveals that war crime is! Is this the same America that brought Nazi War Criminals on trial? Has anyone ever read the Nuremberg Principles?

The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him".

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Principles

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Daniel Ellsberg: Bradley Manning's conviction is the beginning of a police state.

"We have not only the capability of a police state, but certain beginnings of it right now," Ellsberg said. "And I absolutely agree with Edward Snowden. It's worth a person's life, prospect of assassination, or life in prison or life in exile -- it's worth that to try to restore our liberties and make this a democratic country."
As a candidate in 2008, Barack Obama praised instances of whistle-blowing as "acts of courage and patriotism." Since becoming president, however, his administration has charged more people under the Espionage Act than all other presidents combined.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/22/daniel-ellsberg-bradley-manning_n_3793199.html

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This so-called War on Terror is a complete farce. Pre-emptive war or get them - before they get us has resulted in making the world less safe. Shame on the military... shame on our so-called western leaders. This isnt the freedom my grandfather fought for in WW2.

Edited by acidhead
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really have a choice.....tweedle-dee or tweedle-dum. One is no better than the other and I think that has been proven

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UthMHjoNyjA

The US is not a signatory to the ICC, and therefore is not legally required to hold it's military accountable for actions contravening Treaties and Charters overseen by that Court. And, in fact, the Rome Statute (agreed in 1998) neatly side-steps the Nuremburg Defence principle by modifying the conditions. The full text is:

1. The fact that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been committed by a person pursuant to an order of a Government or of a superior, whether military or civilian, shall not relieve that person of criminal responsibility unless:
  • (a) The person was under a legal obligation to obey orders of the Government or the superior in question;

  • (
    B)
    The person did not know that the order was unlawful; and

  • © The order was not manifestly unlawful.

All members of the US Military are under a legal obligation to follow the orders of the Govt or superior in question. In any case, the Rome Statute allows for an 'ignorance' defence, which is virtually impossible to disprove.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rank and file citizens who condemn Manning for his "crimes" are almost as guilty as the men who sent this country to war under fraud. Citizens who support the government in the prosecution of Manning also support the war crimes he revealed.

Those who say "well he broke the law because he revealed State Dept dirty laundry" are bloody hypocrites because they offer no condemnation of chain of command that sent Manning there under fraud. Not a word about the law breaking committed by Bush & Co, but righteous indignation because Manning revealed what many already knew.

Pure hypocrisy in action. Yes, we have the government we deserve.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, he wants to live as a woman now, and knowing this government that will be a wish granted. http://news.yahoo.com/bradley-manning-wants-live-woman-201526794.html. And it doesn't matter which party wins the presidential election. Both sides seem to be part of the same body and the same agenda still holds, no matter who is the figurehead. I think there are really only 2 major political parties so when something goes wrong they can all stand around and point to the other fellow. This country is a mess!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rank and file citizens who condemn Manning for his "crimes" are almost as guilty as the men who sent this country to war under fraud. Citizens who support the government in the prosecution of Manning also support the war crimes he revealed.

Those who say "well he broke the law because he revealed State Dept dirty laundry" are bloody hypocrites because they offer no condemnation of chain of command that sent Manning there under fraud. Not a word about the law breaking committed by Bush & Co, but righteous indignation because Manning revealed what many already knew.

Pure hypocrisy in action. Yes, we have the government we deserve.

Absolutely perfect. A lunchtime radio program I was listening to today was playing a recording of an interview between one of their journalists and Manning's defense lawyer (maybe one of his lawyers, but I'm pretty sure it was his primary). Anyways, it was very eye-opening to hear the account of how the proceedings actually unfolded. He was saying how the prosecution could not identify any real direct threat to national security from the material that manning leaked. He said they (the defense team) were actually pretty confident that the judge would rule in their favor simply because of how poorly the prosecution presented their case. He said one of his biggest concerns was the government intervention in the case that prevented him from reviewing any of the material Manning had leaked, despite having a security clearance etc. Obviously he needed that material to build a defense case but all the material was reviewed behind closed doors and the defense team had to go to the "counsel" to request any information, to which they were often told "this document is not relevant to the case". He also said there were a lot of people there who would not disclose who they worked for or what their position was. Manning's defense team is thoroughly convinced that 35 years is absurd for the crimes he was committed for, and that the government has worked hard to make an example of Manning to discourage other whistleblowers.

Watch the interview and read the full transcript here;

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/8/22/he_wanted_to_help_america_manning

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time", springs to mind.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely perfect. A lunchtime radio program I was listening to today was playing a recording of an interview between one of their journalists and Manning's defense lawyer (maybe one of his lawyers, but I'm pretty sure it was his primary). Anyways, it was very eye-opening to hear the account of how the proceedings actually unfolded. He was saying how the prosecution could not identify any real direct threat to national security from the material that manning leaked. He said they (the defense team) were actually pretty confident that the judge would rule in their favor simply because of how poorly the prosecution presented their case. He said one of his biggest concerns was the government intervention in the case that prevented him from reviewing any of the material Manning had leaked, despite having a security clearance etc. Obviously he needed that material to build a defense case but all the material was reviewed behind closed doors and the defense team had to go to the "counsel" to request any information, to which they were often told "this document is not relevant to the case". He also said there were a lot of people there who would not disclose who they worked for or what their position was. Manning's defense team is thoroughly convinced that 35 years is absurd for the crimes he was committed for, and that the government has worked hard to make an example of Manning to discourage other whistleblowers.

Watch the interview and read the full transcript here;

http://www.democracy...america_manning

Wow. That's ridiculous.... :no:

About the files Manning released:

Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and now attorney for Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, was among the few individuals in the room at the military court facility in Fort Meade, Maryland, as Manning made that declaration. Ratnerwrote at the time:

Over the course of nearly two hours, Private Manning detailed with startling clarity his precise motivations for each leak. On the
and
, he expressed his shock and dismay at the rampant use of targeted killings as a conflict-resolution tactic. On the
cable: the world should know of the U.S. and U.K.’s bullying tactics against Iceland to accept austerity measures in the wake of the global financial meltdown. On the Iraqi police’s arrests and disappearances of anti-corruption leafleters: that U.S. should not support those stifling democratic processes in Iraq. On the
: the Obama administration’s stance is two-faced, claiming on the one hand to want to close the prison, yet on the other, knowingly holding innocent and low-level prisoners. On the
: the so-called “leader of the free world” engaged in “seemingly criminal activity” via backdoor deals is wrong and hypocritical. And on the most famous of his leaks, the “
” video: the soldiers’ “bloodlust” as they wantonly shot Reuters journalists whom they had mistaken for insurgents from an apache helicopter, along with the ensuing cover-up must be open to public review.

Link: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/08/21-2

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hope the Army sticks to its guns and doesn't allow this guy to bilk the US taxpayer for his sexual reassignment drugs and surgery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. That's ridiculous.... :no:

About the files Manning released:

Link: http://www.commondre...ne/2013/08/21-2

I don't understand, based on what Manning leaked, how people can say he "deserves 35 years for threatening our national security!!11"

Well...did he threaten our security? According to his defense lawyers, (I will entertain the notion they may be biased,) nothing presented by the prosecutors suggests that he did. At least in a direct manner like many would have you believe. According his chat logs, he sounds and seems like a young man who went in to the army with high hopes of doing something good in the world and was severely disappointed when his boots touched down overseas.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hope the Army sticks to its guns and doesn't allow this guy to bilk the US taxpayer for his sexual reassignment drugs and surgery.

Who cares - his sexual orientation is starting to take the focus away from the real issues here..

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand, based on what Manning leaked, how people can say he "deserves 35 years for threatening our national security!!11"

Well...did he threaten our security? According to his defense lawyers, (I will entertain the notion they may be biased,) nothing presented by the prosecutors suggests that he did. At least in a direct manner like many would have you believe. According his chat logs, he sounds and seems like a young man who went in to the army with high hopes of doing something good in the world and was severely disappointed when his boots touched down overseas.

Exactly right. Nothing he leaked, threatened "National Security"....

The US army intelligence analyst suspected of giving classified material to WikiLeaks says a White House review has concluded that the alleged leaks did no real damage to national security.

Bradley Manning's defence attorney made the claim in a court filing he released publicly on Monday.

The filing also claims a defence department review found that all the information allegedly leaked was either dated, represented low-level opinions, or was already known because of previous public disclosures

Link: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/nov/28/bradley-manning-wikileaks-national-security

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly right. Nothing he leaked, threatened "National Security"....

Link: http://www.theguardi...tional-security

You're always so quick to back up your comments with links :tsu:

1 person likes this

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.