I concur with others who've commented that the military justice system does not operate like the civilian justice system. I read that Bradley is being held for a pre-trial hearing that is scheduled for May or June, when it will be decided if he goes to trial.
Anyone who has ever been arrested knows you are strip searched at the jail even though you are presumed innocent. While I support Bradley Manning, to insinuate that is torture is pretty ridiculous.
I'm afraid I don't know enough of this situation to draw any conclusion of my own.
That said, as a veteran I -can- confirm that military justice does operate differently than civil. A person can be detained without being convicted or even charged. In cases like this, where sensitive information has been 'leaked', it is SOP for a suspect individual to be held in solitary confinement until the investigation is complete and he/she is released or charged with a crime under the UCMJ.
It's good to know that this Manning is getting justice. Lives were lost because he broke both civilian and military laws. Government transparency is good, to a degree, but it can't come at the cost of lives.
@TheMathKing Fisrt of all, you don't know that lives were lost BECAUSE of his actions. Secondly, there is an overlapping of civilian and military laws when it comes revealing states secrets, neither of which applies when it comes to exposing corruption or gvnmt wrong-doing. So to say he broke the law is your assumption, and no more. You'd be singing a different tune if you were locked down 23hrs a day!
@DeathofSpeech The government released statements that his hands are covered in blood already. Also, if you just think about it you'll see that it's very likely somebody could die. Wikileaks released statements identifying informants in countries where they could easily be killed for aiding the US, so it follows that his actions are likely to cause the death of innocents.
I don't care what who released... He isn't presumed guilty until he's found guilty and repeating bullshit without being able to back it is called propaganda, not evidence.
No credible source has made any claim to any single person having been killed due to wikileaks.
Unless you have specifics, and a positive causal correlation, you're just babbling.
@DeathofSpeech Thats very hypocritical of you. I've supported my argument by referring you to professionals that said he has caused deaths, and I've presented a strong logical argument for the high chance of deaths. What have you brought? By your definition, you are spreading propaganda yourself, right? Also, doesn't the military have a different legal system when dealing with soldiers? To assume Manning has the same rights as us, then claim there is an injustice is a "non sequitur" fallacy.
@DeathofSpeech The truth of the matter is that the information is classified and we won't be able to pull up a list of informants hurt. The only thing that we have to debate is the logical argument of the possibility and probability that this leak could get people killed. That is what I'm trying to debate, you're just throwing a temper tantrum. It's similar to arguing with a creationist, people want to believe what they want to believe. I want the most refined truth on the matter.
@DeathofSpeech There are truth deniers in every walk of life. Creationists, idealistic liberals (they want to believe their ideals work without considering all arguments for and against them), metaphysics advocates, etc. In the same fashion you dislike creationists for not reading all the facts, I dislike some (maybe most) idealists for not thinking through all of the consequences to their actions or plans. The arguments I've studied suggest that governments need to act imperfectly to be ideal.
@DeathofSpeech I'm not sure if you're aware that you're setting up a straw man argument here or haven't considered that he falls under another scheme of law called military law. There is an entire set of legal implications behind that fact. The conditions he's in follow the U.S. military prison guidelines (Google it). Maybe it's the heat of the discussion, or inexperience, but you're not really debating things rationally. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it's a bad day.
@DeathofSpeech I think I'm being trolled here. I won't spend anymore time endlessly refuting you or correcting your claims about what I've said. There is nothing productive in this.
You are welcome to expand upon, explain, modify or clarify anything you've said, but what you've said really isn't as far as I can see, otherwise interpretable as written.
@DeathofSpeech That's very reasonable of you (except for the troll comment). Maybe I'm guilty of being too heated in this as well. I just wanted to come here to advocate the other side of the argument and was immediately slammed by the "popular opinion". A few character attacks against me and I got lost in the "bickering" about technicalities.
I think that might be because what this event implies is deeply offensive to the common sensibilities.
...That someone has been imprisoned without a trial and without external contact is compounded by the charge being that he exposed massive amounts of bizarre and illegal behavior within our government, and in other governments around the world.
Most people would prefer that their cat litter box be cleaned out from time to time, and it seems to be overdue.
@DeathofSpeech I agree that the whistle blowing he did would have been fine in an ideal society where there would have been little negative concequence for doing so. But I think that the conditions under which he did this was dangerous and very reckless. It all boils down to the fact that our society (and it's values) have competitors that we need to strategize for\against. This may mean secretly weakening dictatorships to spread democracy, or making secret plans against other countries.
Whether or not it was reckless should be decided with the decision of guilt during a trial.
Wikileaks requested participation from the government to redact specific sensitive information. The government declined and wikileaks used reasonable care in exercising discretion. It will be for a jury to determine whether this was part of the design of the leaking of the data. Whether the ends justify the means, whether it is actually criminal, and whether Manning is guilty.
@DeathofSpeech Agreed, but he can still be detained till that decision is made. Also the entire legal situation for Manning is different than a civilian legal situation. Being in the military revokes a bunch of your rights, and gives you a few new ones (like the right to kill, etc). Because of that, he is not entitled to the same treatment a civilian would be. It's actually within the government's right pursue execution for him right now, where it would be unthinkable normally.
If he is a suspect, then indeed he should be detained.
...and his treatment, access to him by independent oversight, and council should not be different than permitted under law and international treaty for the detention of a foreign agent of espionage.
If security is the concern, then there are plenty of people available with proper clearances.
The investigation should be of reasonable duration.
If a stronger case can't be made then they need to proceed with whatever they have,
There is precedent in law that one may not be required as a condition of employment or any contract to commit, or by omission facilitate or abet a crime.
If the jury reasonably is made to believe by the evidence that Manning was bound by a moral duty to expose a pattern of criminal activity, and the activity is shown to be actually criminal, then regardless of any oath or contract or law otherwise prohibiting release of secrets, the charges will have to be at minimum, mitigated.
@DeathofSpeech (part 2) The common sensibilities don't always function in highly specialized situations. Politics is very complicated and involved. The heroic actions of a misguided person who meant to do good could cause major damage. (Consider Taliban suicide bombers who believed they were harming an evil in 9\11). Actions that affect large scale situations on a international level need to be reviewed by professionals that know what they are doing. His jailing could have some legal issues tho.
Highly specialized, does not mean free from obligation to standards of law.
The government is not exempt from acting within the law.
A specific covert activity might be exempted by executive order, but it would have to carry that exemption, and even then, some of it would still be suspect unless some form of oversight was involved.
@DeathofSpeech I agree, the constitution isn't a convenience. However, do we have evidence that they are breaking the constitution with manning? If there is something unconstitutional happening to manning, then that's no good. Perhaps, you're saying, that the government was doing something unconstitutional and manning tried to reveal it? In that case, it might turn into a "Do we break the law for the greater good, or do we suffer but keep the law" debates.
Sleep deprivation, and being denied clothing are both violations of international treaty... Keeping him sedated, while depriving him of sleep are known to permanently damage cognitive abilities and are specifically listed as prohibited forms of torture by international convention.
They are deliberately depriving him of the ability to competently defend himself.
"I've supported my argument by referring you to professionals "
No... you said somebody in government claimed it happened.
That claim was made within hours of the publication (zero analysis time) and when asked nobody was able to support the claim with actual names of dead people.
In other words it was a knee jerk lie.
Why should that surprise me that my government is lying?
@DeathofSpeech That was the professional I referred to. We can debate the validity of the claim, but denying what I've done doesn't really help the debating process.
@TheMathKing Absolute government transparency would be an embodiment of truth, and truth, in my opinion, is worth dying for. So take your ridiculous mindset and shove it up your ass, right there alongside your head. This is not justice, this is a travesty that proves humanity still has a long way to go.
@MrTear3 Absolute transparency is ideal, just like world peace, one world government, etc. However we are at a place in history where we can't have these ideals just yet. There are people with very strong values that are directly in opposition to our western values. China, the middle east are a few examples. If we want to be competitive with their economies or if we want to protect our interests we need to deny these competitors access to the governments strategies.
"Absolute transparency is ideal, just like world peace, one world government, etc. However we are at a place in history where we can't have these ideals just yet."
At the point that we subvert our own values for expedient ends, we no longer need to defend our ideals against enemies from without, because the enemies within will have already done their job for them.
When the government is caught in illegal strategies, then our competitors are the least of our problems.
@DeathofSpeech Well values are a function of your environment. If the environment cannot permit you security and success while following your value system, you have to change them in that environment. I ask that you think about a few examples of this. Certain, enlightened values can only happen when there is a system in place that permits us to live by said values. I couldn't live by even half my values if lived in the middle east, for example. The government deals with very extreme environments
@TheMathKing (part 2). While they need show an example of our value system on the public stage, they have to get their hands dirty a bit. They express this need by pushing democracy as hard as possible in other countries that reject those values. Another way is by creating military laws that permit them to confine and even execute soldiers for disobeying critical commands needed to defend ourselves. Your desire for transparency is good, but it needs to be done logically and with a lot of thought
So, as much as I hate to play devil's advocate...and I'm probably going to get mad shit for this...Manning broke the law. Not only did he break the law, he broke his oath. How people can have pity for him eludes me.
@CobraJones If he broke the law why havent he been convicted yet? You know thats what you do with crimminals that have broken the law. Just follow the law and you have a leg to stand on. The law should not be bias. What if they decide you broke the law and lock you away and tell tell everybody you broke the law. Does that make it correct?
@CobraJones whether he is guilty or not is yet to be proven in Court. the denial of Constitutional rights should concern us all, it has nothing to do with pity. the social contract is being broken. the only reason a government has the authority to enforce laws is because they are also beholden to them.
its not as straight forward as "he broke the law", since precedent has established that it cannot be illegal to expose illegal activity. not to expose it makes one complicit. we need a trial.
Until both are true, anything he is alleged to have done is not a justification of that which is being done to him, which is also prohibited by law, and international conventions on human rights.
Manning may or may not be guilty... in THIS country he is presumed innocent until he is found guilty.
@CobraJones he is innocent until proven guilty in a court, Also the treatment of him is against international laws concerning human rights. We normally see this behavior in countries as China, Uzbekistan and other totalitarian regimes.
When USA is doing this do US loose its moral high ground. It is why i care about Bradley Manning. Also if he point out illegal stuff your government did isn't he a traitor he is a hero. How can you else keep the government responsible if you dont know what they do
For one, he's in the military, he doesn't get the same treatment as civilians. He's held to a higher standard, which he failed. Ask any member of the military and they'll tell you the same thing.
For another, they've created very simple, very straightforward avenues to expose illegal activity, so that you're not breaking the law while exposing illegal activity. If he had used those avenues, he wouldn't be locked up right now.
He obviously did expose illegal activity, and some very embarrassing activity at that, and not just by our government.
Whether he is charged under civil law or a martial court, he is entitled to a trial, and council, and to have his conditions inspected against abuses.
If the government had nothing to hide, they wouldn't be hiding.
@DeathofSpeech For one, the trial hasn't started yet, so that information is confidential. You do know that evidence isn't made public in any trials, whether they be military or civilian, until the trial, correct?
No... the USA is a land of human beings, subject to human failings.
You will not generalize the people of my country as evil and corrupt other than to illustrate the evils and corruption of bigotry.
The fact that you are posting your comment to a server, located on US soil and both enjoying and being subject to the freedom of speech and the right to descent is all the evidence you should need that the US is not corrupt or evil, especially while it is busy being otherwise stupid.
Maybe we will bomb ourselves for denying access to the UN inspectors.
.
One can only hope.
FFS... Russia is having to explain to us why an autocracy is a bad idea.
China is rightly able to point fingers at our human rights record....
...and I have to watch TV from a former communist country to get news that reflects journalistic integrity and a free press because my country has forgotten... everything.
When you the US is being schooled by China, you know there is a problem. I think it's disgusting how Manning is being treated, especially when you consider he hasn't been charged with anything. Obama could stop this immediately. Do I need to add anymore reasons to my list to despise him? Just this alone is enough reason.
Russia Today is one of the only television channels I actually watch as it actually shows actual news and events, things that you wouldn't even hear about on MSNBC or FOX. The state of "law" is ridiculous nowadays and it seems like it is set in a way that favors whomever can afford the best/most lawyers/officials.
some people just needs to be exterminated and there are a lot of them.ö
suutari13 10 months ago
Manning = the most patriotic American.
videoguy604 10 months ago
Wait a minute. The US gov is actually doing something illegal? NOOOOOOO!!! It can't be true!! Torture in a US brig? NOOOOO! Say it ain't true.
saxmanchiro 10 months ago
I concur with others who've commented that the military justice system does not operate like the civilian justice system. I read that Bradley is being held for a pre-trial hearing that is scheduled for May or June, when it will be decided if he goes to trial.
phenixwryter 10 months ago
Bradley Manning for Nobel Peace Prize take Obama's one away from him for starting a war.
yourcamden 10 months ago
Anyone who has ever been arrested knows you are strip searched at the jail even though you are presumed innocent. While I support Bradley Manning, to insinuate that is torture is pretty ridiculous.
YourBrainOnReligion 10 months ago
@YourBrainOnReligion
He is drugged and forbidden to sleep. He's forbidden clothing... not just strip searched.
He is forbidden to exercise.
How long can you go without sleep and without being allowed to stretch your arms?
What is being done to him is calculated to cause deep vein thrombosis.
DeathofSpeech 10 months ago
I'm afraid I don't know enough of this situation to draw any conclusion of my own.
That said, as a veteran I -can- confirm that military justice does operate differently than civil. A person can be detained without being convicted or even charged. In cases like this, where sensitive information has been 'leaked', it is SOP for a suspect individual to be held in solitary confinement until the investigation is complete and he/she is released or charged with a crime under the UCMJ.
Alisterwolf66 10 months ago
America being america as usual
cestrianvlogger 10 months ago
Shit me - is that true? All of it, including the "every 5 minutes" ?
Christ.
Widgetas 10 months ago 4
@Widgetas
Nod... from best accounts. The government won't allow observation that confirms or refutes it.
The government is calling it SOP.
The international human rights community is calling it torture and gross human rights violations.
DeathofSpeech 10 months ago
Let's draw a picture of Mohammed that will free us all.
TheLummer66 10 months ago
It's good to know that this Manning is getting justice. Lives were lost because he broke both civilian and military laws. Government transparency is good, to a degree, but it can't come at the cost of lives.
TheMathKing 10 months ago
@TheMathKing Fisrt of all, you don't know that lives were lost BECAUSE of his actions. Secondly, there is an overlapping of civilian and military laws when it comes revealing states secrets, neither of which applies when it comes to exposing corruption or gvnmt wrong-doing. So to say he broke the law is your assumption, and no more. You'd be singing a different tune if you were locked down 23hrs a day!
metalskinstudios 10 months ago
@TheMathKing
Really?
Provide the names of the lives that were lost and the causal correlation to wikileaks.
DeathofSpeech 10 months ago
@DeathofSpeech The government released statements that his hands are covered in blood already. Also, if you just think about it you'll see that it's very likely somebody could die. Wikileaks released statements identifying informants in countries where they could easily be killed for aiding the US, so it follows that his actions are likely to cause the death of innocents.
TheMathKing 10 months ago
@TheMathKing
I don't care what who released... He isn't presumed guilty until he's found guilty and repeating bullshit without being able to back it is called propaganda, not evidence.
No credible source has made any claim to any single person having been killed due to wikileaks.
Unless you have specifics, and a positive causal correlation, you're just babbling.
DeathofSpeech 10 months ago
@DeathofSpeech Thats very hypocritical of you. I've supported my argument by referring you to professionals that said he has caused deaths, and I've presented a strong logical argument for the high chance of deaths. What have you brought? By your definition, you are spreading propaganda yourself, right? Also, doesn't the military have a different legal system when dealing with soldiers? To assume Manning has the same rights as us, then claim there is an injustice is a "non sequitur" fallacy.
TheMathKing 10 months ago
@TheMathKing
No... not hypocritical. Hypocritical would be if I claimed to embrace the Constitution... but only when it served my agenda.
You're weaksauce.
DeathofSpeech 10 months ago
@DeathofSpeech The truth of the matter is that the information is classified and we won't be able to pull up a list of informants hurt. The only thing that we have to debate is the logical argument of the possibility and probability that this leak could get people killed. That is what I'm trying to debate, you're just throwing a temper tantrum. It's similar to arguing with a creationist, people want to believe what they want to believe. I want the most refined truth on the matter.
TheMathKing 10 months ago
@DeathofSpeech There are truth deniers in every walk of life. Creationists, idealistic liberals (they want to believe their ideals work without considering all arguments for and against them), metaphysics advocates, etc. In the same fashion you dislike creationists for not reading all the facts, I dislike some (maybe most) idealists for not thinking through all of the consequences to their actions or plans. The arguments I've studied suggest that governments need to act imperfectly to be ideal.
TheMathKing 10 months ago
@TheMathKing
And there are those who simply don't understand that what they are saying, doesn't resemble truth.
A man can't be guilty by accusation, and if he isn't automatically guilty by accusation, then he is presumed innocent.
.
A system in which this is not the case, is arbitrary...
and arbitrary imprisonment without trial is a violation of US and international law.
It isn't a question of an irrational or impractical ideal.
It's a matter of holding our own government to established law.
DeathofSpeech 10 months ago
@DeathofSpeech I'm not sure if you're aware that you're setting up a straw man argument here or haven't considered that he falls under another scheme of law called military law. There is an entire set of legal implications behind that fact. The conditions he's in follow the U.S. military prison guidelines (Google it). Maybe it's the heat of the discussion, or inexperience, but you're not really debating things rationally. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it's a bad day.
TheMathKing 10 months ago
@TheMathKing
It would only be a strawman if you weren't arguing manning's guilt by accusation alone.
Please learn how to recognize an actual fallacy argument, like an equivocation fallacy wherein accusation equals guilt.
DeathofSpeech 10 months ago
@DeathofSpeech I think I'm being trolled here. I won't spend anymore time endlessly refuting you or correcting your claims about what I've said. There is nothing productive in this.
TheMathKing 10 months ago
@TheMathKing
That's okay... I think you're being a troll here.
You are welcome to expand upon, explain, modify or clarify anything you've said, but what you've said really isn't as far as I can see, otherwise interpretable as written.
Clarification is never a waste of time.
Apologetics always are.
DeathofSpeech 10 months ago
@DeathofSpeech That's very reasonable of you (except for the troll comment). Maybe I'm guilty of being too heated in this as well. I just wanted to come here to advocate the other side of the argument and was immediately slammed by the "popular opinion". A few character attacks against me and I got lost in the "bickering" about technicalities.
TheMathKing 10 months ago
@TheMathKing
I think that might be because what this event implies is deeply offensive to the common sensibilities.
...That someone has been imprisoned without a trial and without external contact is compounded by the charge being that he exposed massive amounts of bizarre and illegal behavior within our government, and in other governments around the world.
Most people would prefer that their cat litter box be cleaned out from time to time, and it seems to be overdue.
DeathofSpeech 10 months ago
@DeathofSpeech I agree that the whistle blowing he did would have been fine in an ideal society where there would have been little negative concequence for doing so. But I think that the conditions under which he did this was dangerous and very reckless. It all boils down to the fact that our society (and it's values) have competitors that we need to strategize for\against. This may mean secretly weakening dictatorships to spread democracy, or making secret plans against other countries.
TheMathKing 10 months ago
@TheMathKing
Whether or not it was reckless should be decided with the decision of guilt during a trial.
Wikileaks requested participation from the government to redact specific sensitive information. The government declined and wikileaks used reasonable care in exercising discretion. It will be for a jury to determine whether this was part of the design of the leaking of the data. Whether the ends justify the means, whether it is actually criminal, and whether Manning is guilty.
DeathofSpeech 10 months ago
@DeathofSpeech Agreed, but he can still be detained till that decision is made. Also the entire legal situation for Manning is different than a civilian legal situation. Being in the military revokes a bunch of your rights, and gives you a few new ones (like the right to kill, etc). Because of that, he is not entitled to the same treatment a civilian would be. It's actually within the government's right pursue execution for him right now, where it would be unthinkable normally.
TheMathKing 10 months ago
@TheMathKing
If he is a suspect, then indeed he should be detained.
...and his treatment, access to him by independent oversight, and council should not be different than permitted under law and international treaty for the detention of a foreign agent of espionage.
If security is the concern, then there are plenty of people available with proper clearances.
The investigation should be of reasonable duration.
If a stronger case can't be made then they need to proceed with whatever they have,
DeathofSpeech 10 months ago
@TheMathKing
There is precedent in law that one may not be required as a condition of employment or any contract to commit, or by omission facilitate or abet a crime.
If the jury reasonably is made to believe by the evidence that Manning was bound by a moral duty to expose a pattern of criminal activity, and the activity is shown to be actually criminal, then regardless of any oath or contract or law otherwise prohibiting release of secrets, the charges will have to be at minimum, mitigated.
DeathofSpeech 10 months ago
@DeathofSpeech (part 2) The common sensibilities don't always function in highly specialized situations. Politics is very complicated and involved. The heroic actions of a misguided person who meant to do good could cause major damage. (Consider Taliban suicide bombers who believed they were harming an evil in 9\11). Actions that affect large scale situations on a international level need to be reviewed by professionals that know what they are doing. His jailing could have some legal issues tho.
TheMathKing 10 months ago
@TheMathKing
Highly specialized, does not mean free from obligation to standards of law.
The government is not exempt from acting within the law.
A specific covert activity might be exempted by executive order, but it would have to carry that exemption, and even then, some of it would still be suspect unless some form of oversight was involved.
The Constitution is not a convenience.
DeathofSpeech 10 months ago
@DeathofSpeech I agree, the constitution isn't a convenience. However, do we have evidence that they are breaking the constitution with manning? If there is something unconstitutional happening to manning, then that's no good. Perhaps, you're saying, that the government was doing something unconstitutional and manning tried to reveal it? In that case, it might turn into a "Do we break the law for the greater good, or do we suffer but keep the law" debates.
TheMathKing 10 months ago
@TheMathKing
Sleep deprivation, and being denied clothing are both violations of international treaty... Keeping him sedated, while depriving him of sleep are known to permanently damage cognitive abilities and are specifically listed as prohibited forms of torture by international convention.
They are deliberately depriving him of the ability to competently defend himself.
DeathofSpeech 10 months ago
@TheMathKing
"I've supported my argument by referring you to professionals "
No... you said somebody in government claimed it happened.
That claim was made within hours of the publication (zero analysis time) and when asked nobody was able to support the claim with actual names of dead people.
In other words it was a knee jerk lie.
Why should that surprise me that my government is lying?
DeathofSpeech 10 months ago
@DeathofSpeech That was the professional I referred to. We can debate the validity of the claim, but denying what I've done doesn't really help the debating process.
TheMathKing 10 months ago
@TheMathKing Absolute government transparency would be an embodiment of truth, and truth, in my opinion, is worth dying for. So take your ridiculous mindset and shove it up your ass, right there alongside your head. This is not justice, this is a travesty that proves humanity still has a long way to go.
MrTear3 10 months ago
@MrTear3 Absolute transparency is ideal, just like world peace, one world government, etc. However we are at a place in history where we can't have these ideals just yet. There are people with very strong values that are directly in opposition to our western values. China, the middle east are a few examples. If we want to be competitive with their economies or if we want to protect our interests we need to deny these competitors access to the governments strategies.
TheMathKing 10 months ago
@TheMathKing
"Absolute transparency is ideal, just like world peace, one world government, etc. However we are at a place in history where we can't have these ideals just yet."
At the point that we subvert our own values for expedient ends, we no longer need to defend our ideals against enemies from without, because the enemies within will have already done their job for them.
When the government is caught in illegal strategies, then our competitors are the least of our problems.
DeathofSpeech 10 months ago
@DeathofSpeech Well values are a function of your environment. If the environment cannot permit you security and success while following your value system, you have to change them in that environment. I ask that you think about a few examples of this. Certain, enlightened values can only happen when there is a system in place that permits us to live by said values. I couldn't live by even half my values if lived in the middle east, for example. The government deals with very extreme environments
TheMathKing 10 months ago
@TheMathKing (part 2). While they need show an example of our value system on the public stage, they have to get their hands dirty a bit. They express this need by pushing democracy as hard as possible in other countries that reject those values. Another way is by creating military laws that permit them to confine and even execute soldiers for disobeying critical commands needed to defend ourselves. Your desire for transparency is good, but it needs to be done logically and with a lot of thought
TheMathKing 10 months ago
@TheMathKing
Maybe the government should have given that some consideration before starting an illegal war over a lie.
DeathofSpeech 10 months ago
So, as much as I hate to play devil's advocate...and I'm probably going to get mad shit for this...Manning broke the law. Not only did he break the law, he broke his oath. How people can have pity for him eludes me.
CobraJones 10 months ago
@CobraJones If he broke the law why havent he been convicted yet? You know thats what you do with crimminals that have broken the law. Just follow the law and you have a leg to stand on. The law should not be bias. What if they decide you broke the law and lock you away and tell tell everybody you broke the law. Does that make it correct?
Engletroll 10 months ago 3
@CobraJones whether he is guilty or not is yet to be proven in Court. the denial of Constitutional rights should concern us all, it has nothing to do with pity. the social contract is being broken. the only reason a government has the authority to enforce laws is because they are also beholden to them.
its not as straight forward as "he broke the law", since precedent has established that it cannot be illegal to expose illegal activity. not to expose it makes one complicit. we need a trial.
gothatfunk 10 months ago 5
@gothatfunk they won't allow a trial, because it would make an international showcase for the embarassing information he released.
roentgen571 10 months ago
@CobraJones
Manning is accused of breaking the law.
He has not been tried. He has not been convicted.
Until both are true, anything he is alleged to have done is not a justification of that which is being done to him, which is also prohibited by law, and international conventions on human rights.
Manning may or may not be guilty... in THIS country he is presumed innocent until he is found guilty.
DeathofSpeech 10 months ago
@CobraJones he is innocent until proven guilty in a court, Also the treatment of him is against international laws concerning human rights. We normally see this behavior in countries as China, Uzbekistan and other totalitarian regimes.
When USA is doing this do US loose its moral high ground. It is why i care about Bradley Manning. Also if he point out illegal stuff your government did isn't he a traitor he is a hero. How can you else keep the government responsible if you dont know what they do
Gripen1974 10 months ago 2
For one, he's in the military, he doesn't get the same treatment as civilians. He's held to a higher standard, which he failed. Ask any member of the military and they'll tell you the same thing.
For another, they've created very simple, very straightforward avenues to expose illegal activity, so that you're not breaking the law while exposing illegal activity. If he had used those avenues, he wouldn't be locked up right now.
CobraJones 10 months ago
@CobraJones
Obviously that hasn't been established.
He obviously did expose illegal activity, and some very embarrassing activity at that, and not just by our government.
Whether he is charged under civil law or a martial court, he is entitled to a trial, and council, and to have his conditions inspected against abuses.
If the government had nothing to hide, they wouldn't be hiding.
DeathofSpeech 10 months ago
@DeathofSpeech Obviously what hasn't been established?
Also, exposing illegal activity by doing an illegal activity does not negate the fact that you did an illegal activity.
And if you're up in arms about this, I'm surprised you're not up in arms against pretty much the whole UCMJ.
CobraJones 10 months ago
@CobraJones
What illegal activity?
That is what a trial is for.
DeathofSpeech 10 months ago
@DeathofSpeech Taking classified material and giving it to people not cleared for it is illegal.
And again...he's in the military...they don't really need a trial to hold him.
CobraJones 10 months ago
@CobraJones
Sorry... where is the trial that provides evidence that he did so?
DeathofSpeech 10 months ago
@DeathofSpeech For one, the trial hasn't started yet, so that information is confidential. You do know that evidence isn't made public in any trials, whether they be military or civilian, until the trial, correct?
CobraJones 10 months ago
@CobraJones
You and I both know there isn't going to be a trial.
DeathofSpeech 10 months ago
@DeathofSpeech You're right, they may decide to do a court-martial instead. In which case the evidence will be presented there instead.
CobraJones 10 months ago
@CobraJones
You do know that you have to have a trial before you can claim guilt, don't you?
DeathofSpeech 10 months ago
@DeathofSpeech ...what?
CobraJones 10 months ago
@CobraJones
And you still haven't established how guilt by accusation is permissible under any rule of law?
DeathofSpeech 10 months ago
@DeathofSpeech I wasn't aware that I said that.
CobraJones 10 months ago
@CobraJones
You have indeed. You have insisted that he is guilty, and that a trial is unnecessary.
If accusation is all that is required then what point is there in evidence?
DeathofSpeech 10 months ago
USA = Land of the evil and corrupt.
Temuldjin 10 months ago
@Temuldjin
No... the USA is a land of human beings, subject to human failings.
You will not generalize the people of my country as evil and corrupt other than to illustrate the evils and corruption of bigotry.
The fact that you are posting your comment to a server, located on US soil and both enjoying and being subject to the freedom of speech and the right to descent is all the evidence you should need that the US is not corrupt or evil, especially while it is busy being otherwise stupid.
DeathofSpeech 10 months ago
It was bad enough that shit like this went on under Bush. That Obama would do this feels somehow 10x times worse
SiriusMined 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SiriusMined
"That Obama would do this feels somehow 10x times worse"
He just promised change... he didn't promise that it would be change for the better.
sigh...
Yeah, I bought into it too. Seriously disappointed in him myself.
DeathofSpeech 10 months ago
Maybe we will bomb ourselves for denying access to the UN inspectors.
.
One can only hope.
FFS... Russia is having to explain to us why an autocracy is a bad idea.
China is rightly able to point fingers at our human rights record....
...and I have to watch TV from a former communist country to get news that reflects journalistic integrity and a free press because my country has forgotten... everything.
DeathofSpeech 10 months ago
@DeathofSpeech Hey DOS
"Maybe we will bomb ourselves for denying access to the UN inspectors"
I started to laugh, until I realized how sad the truth is
SiriusMined 10 months ago
@SiriusMined
I wonder how many people would recognize, "We Bombed in Newhaven?"
.
Because the enemy would never expect us to do that.
DeathofSpeech 10 months ago
And people wonder why I wish I wasn't born here.
bamboo4tameshigiri 10 months ago
When you the US is being schooled by China, you know there is a problem. I think it's disgusting how Manning is being treated, especially when you consider he hasn't been charged with anything. Obama could stop this immediately. Do I need to add anymore reasons to my list to despise him? Just this alone is enough reason.
tattooskin72 10 months ago
Russia Today is one of the only television channels I actually watch as it actually shows actual news and events, things that you wouldn't even hear about on MSNBC or FOX. The state of "law" is ridiculous nowadays and it seems like it is set in a way that favors whomever can afford the best/most lawyers/officials.
1rishShaman 10 months ago
@1rishShaman - And not to overshadow my point above (or below) but that reported who asked the question reminded me of Hitchens.
1rishShaman 10 months ago
I can understand a congressman being denied... I can understand Amnesty International.. But a UN OFFICIAL!!! I agree whole heartedly funk
Sasukelegend5 10 months ago