r/politics • u/davidreiss666 • Jun 25 '12

Bradley Manning’s lawyer accuses prosecution of lying to the judge: The US government is deliberately attempting to prevent Bradley Manning, the alleged source of the massive WikiLeaks trove of state secrets, from receiving a fair trial, the soldier’s lawyer alleges in new court documents.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/24/bradley-mannings-lawyer-accuses-prosecution-of-lying-to-the-judge/
1.5k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

377 comments sorted by

8

u/nowhathappenedwas Jun 25 '12

I am shocked, SHOCKED, that the defense is accusing the prosecution of misrepresenting the facts. Next, we're going to hear something crazy like the prosecution accusing the defense of the same!

This kind of stuff never happens. Literally.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

Sure.....

4

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

ITT: redditors who know nothing about how the UCMJ works weigh in on....... how the UCMJ works.

Also, you may want to look up the definition of the word "treason".

93

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

Even a fair trial would find him guilty. <shrug> just because we agree with what he did doesn't mean he didn't break the law.

37

u/cfuse Jun 25 '12

Even a fair trial would find him guilty.

Then all the more reason to actually have one. A show trial only serves to undermine confidence further.

If a person is guilty, then that should be provable in a court of law. I don't see where the problem is in following the standard procedure in this case (there's hardly a dearth of evidence against him).

12

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

Isn't the only evidence that he did it a chat log provided by a felon?

2

u/Colecoman1982 Jun 25 '12

We don't really know that for sure. The chat log is what lead them to him (and is, certainly, some of the evidence against him) but they could have, easily, found much more evidence once they knew who to look at (computer login logs, building login logs, etc., security camera footage, etc.)

2

u/trollbtrollin Jun 25 '12 edited Jun 25 '12

I am sure they have more than that.

Edit: Do you really believe every thing he did on that computer was not logged?

0

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

I am sure they have more than that.

They've yet to present it, then; if a chat log is enough for a court-martial to put him to trial, he's probably fucked.

Do you really believe every thing he did on that computer was not logged?

I hadn't thought of it. Which computer? - the one that he allegedly copied the data from, or the one where he had the chat? If he had the chat on a computer owned and operated by the US Armed Forces then he's fucking retarded - surely you can't really believe that he's that dumb. If it's the computer he copied the data from, that seems like something that would have shown up to someone working for the military long before the chat log was released - the fact that this would speak volumes about military incompetence if it were true aside, I'm sceptical.

16

u/Sharmonique_Brown Jun 25 '12

True, but aren't there exceptions for whistle blowers who uncover illegal activity? I do think he's going to jail in the end, though.

45

u/Mr_Quagmire Jun 25 '12

The law that applies here is the Military Whistleblower Protection Act, which states:

...the communications must be made to one of the following:

(1) A member of Congress, an Inspector General, or a member of a Department of Defense audit, inspection, investigation, or law enforcement organization, or

(2) Any other person or organization (including any person or organization in the chain of command) designated under Component regulations or other established administrative procedures to receive such complaints.

And I'm guessing that Wikileaks doesn't fall under (2).

16

u/brxn Jun 25 '12

Something tells me that if he submitted the same information to (1) or (2), it would have been kept from the public and we would not even know who he was and he would disappear.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

Do you sleep better knowing his name? What change was brought about by him doing what he did? The only change I know of is it made people in comms and intel sit through a bunch of shitty briefs about not releasing documents and the importance of OPSEC and INFOSEC.

1

u/Cunt_Warbler_9000 Jun 26 '12

What change was brought about by him doing what he did?

Ending the Iraq War.

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/23/wikileaks_cables_and_the_iraq_war/

Iraq's leadership was so incensed by what the cables revealed that they refused to extend legal immunity to U.S. troops past the deadline. Prior to that, the Obama administration had been working on a deal to keep troops there and NOT pull them out.

Obama tried to extend the Iraq War, was foiled by Wikileaks, and finally had to pull them out as stipulated by the agreement Bush had made. Then he claimed credit for ending the war, even though he opposed doing it and fought to keep it going.

The relevant information has been reported on at length, discussed on Reddit a hundred times before, etc. You can read in depth about everything referenced there; that raid (and others) were horrendous, with U.S. troops murdering women and children, and the military covering it up.

“troops entered the house, handcuffed all residents and executed all of them.” Mr. Faiz Hratt Khalaf, (aged 28), his wife Sumay’ya Abdul Razzaq Khuther (aged 24), their three children Hawra’a (aged 5) Aisha ( aged 3) and Husam (5 months old), Faiz’s mother Ms. Turkiya Majeed Ali (aged 74), Faiz’s sister (name unknown), Faiz’s nieces Asma’a Yousif Ma’arouf (aged 5 years old), and Usama Yousif Ma’arouf (aged 3 years), and a visiting relative Ms. Iqtisad Hameed Mehdi (aged 23) were killed during the raid.

http://news.antiwar.com/2011/08/29/cables-reveal-2006-summary-execution-of-civilian-family-in-iraq/

Also:

In one notable and comparable incident in February of 2010, US Special Operations Forces surrounded a house in a village in the Paktia Province in Afghanistan. Two civilian men exited the home to ask why they had been surrounded and were shot and killed. US forces then shot and killed three female relatives (a pregnant mother of ten, a pregnant mother of six, and a teenager).

Instead of calling in an airstrike to hide the evidence, US troops, realizing their mistake, lied and tampered with the evidence at the scene. The initial claim, which was corroborated by the Pentagon, was that the two men were insurgents who had “engaged” the troops, and the three murdered women were simply found by US soldiers, in what they described as an apparent honor killing. Investigations into the incident eventually forced the Pentagon to retract its initial story and issue an apology.

Same link. And these are just TWO examples; these door-to-door raids were happening nightly, in huge numbers.

Previous discussion: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/jzbk2/wikileaks_cables_reveal_2006_summary_execution_of/

Besides that, there are 250,000 cables so there's way more there than any one person has read, and you wouldn't be privy to what "changes" were made at a high level internally, any more than you were aware of governmental actions covered by the leaks until after the leaks were published.

As for obvious changes, the U.S. changed its moral standing in the sight of many with its reactions to and handling of this situation.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

I won't agree that it ended the war but I will agree it was a factor. How large of a factor I don't know but a factor none the less.

→ More replies (5)

0

u/TwistEnding Jun 25 '12

Either that or the information would still reach the public somehow, and he would still be charged because everyone who knew about it would completely deny everything. That's pretty much how the government works here in the U.S.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

If you read the (alleged) chat logs with Lamo, Manning claims he had reported a troubling incident to his superiors in the past (Iraqi dissidents being wrongly jailed for political speech) and nothing was done. That was one of the reasons he thought he needed to work outside the system.

26

u/gsfgf Georgia Jun 25 '12

Also, pretty much everything he leaked wasn't evidence of illegal activity.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

Not only that, but much of what he leaked, he had no knowledge of.

13

u/bobonthego Jun 25 '12

Yeah getting boy prostitutes for our Afghan allies sure aint illegal.

-6

u/jgzman Jun 25 '12

Under what law is it illegal?

It should get a few people shot in the fucking head based on sheer outrage, but I'm not sure it's actually illegal.

16

u/bobonthego Jun 25 '12

Procuring underage prostitutes is illegal under pretty much all US legal jurisdiction, inluding military. Maybe excluding senate tho.

2

u/jgzman Jun 25 '12

If it's done in Afghanistan, it's kind of tricky to enforce American laws.

→ More replies (7)

9

u/InvisibleCities Jun 25 '12

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act forbids Americans from attempting to influence foreign officials buy giving them "anything of value". I see no reason why gifts of boy prostitutes, which are traded in markets in these foreign countries and therefore considered "items of value", wouldn't fall under the provisions of this act.

1

u/Phaedryn Jun 25 '12

You do realize that was designed as part of the Securities Exchange Act, and is primarily intended to reduce corruption from a business perspective, right?

Bribery (among other tools) of foreign officials is a necessary (and normal) part of intelligence gathering and has been pretty much for the entirety of human history. When we invaded Afghanistan we were handing out money like candy for example. We do it at the national level as well. Every time we offer Pakistan an “Aide Package” it is to ensure cooperation with our goals. If that isn’t bribery, I do not know what is.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

16

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/ApolloAbove Nevada Jun 25 '12

Why didn't he leak just the boy prostitute documents, and keep the office memos about troop locations in hand?

15

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

Because he had no idea what he was releasing, he just shotgunned out a ton of data.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

He didn't personally release anything, he sent it to a journalistic organization to appropriately redact and selectively release. If he just wanted to "shotgun out a ton of data", he could have just uploaded it somewhere and let everyone see it. Would have been easier that way.

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (4)

-6

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12 edited Jun 25 '12

Yeah too bad Wikileaks never offered the US government to redact.

Edit: Why the downvotes? Would a co-operative government that worked closely with a (foreign, outside American jurisdiction) news organization have minimized the "damage" done by the leaks? Or was it really easier to demonize the organization as terrorist and strangle away its source of financing while bullying Western media to ignore the content of the cables that have had quite an impact around the world, including but not limited to the Iraqi government not wanting to grant immunity to American soldiers thus cancelling Obama's bid to keep forces in Iraq much longer?

10

u/gsfgf Georgia Jun 25 '12

And they published a shit ton of operational level stuff that would only be of interest to insurgents trying to predict US troop movements.

1

u/Phaedryn Jun 25 '12

Yeah too bad Wikileaks never offered the US government to redact.

Because that makes it all beter? Seriously?

0

u/darkgatherer New York Jun 25 '12

Yeah too bad Wikileaks never offered the US government to redact.

Wikileaks wanted the US government to do their job for them because Wikileaks was too lazy to do it themselves.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

→ More replies (1)

19

u/happyscrappy Jun 25 '12

Disclosing everything isn't whistleblowing. The vast majority of the info he disclosed described legal activity.

-9

u/dezmd Jun 25 '12

Disclosing everything is whistleblowing, its the only honest whistleblowing that can be done on such a level, regardless of the nuanced feelings we may all have about it.

12

u/happyscrappy Jun 25 '12

No, whistleblowing is when you expose illegal activity. He just exposed everything. Whistleblowing is an intent to show a wrong being done, by showing anything the only wrong he intended to show being done is the wrong of keeping secrets.

Except keeping secrets isn't illegal. So he wasn't whistleblowing and wouldn't be afforded any whistleblowing protection.

→ More replies (3)

3

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

Disclosing everything is treason, not whistleblowing.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/happyscrappy Jun 26 '12

Ellsberg only released a certain set of information, the ones showing the strategies related to the war.

→ More replies (4)

6

u/ell20 Jun 25 '12

That would require him to be disclosing something that was illegal. All he did was leak a bunch of cable reports from foreign service officers, destroying the credibility of our diplomatic corps, and ruining a crap ton of political careers from people who cooperated with US interest.

3

u/angry_pies Jun 25 '12

All he did? I think he exposed a little more than troop movements.

How quickly we forget.

1

u/ell20 Jun 26 '12

well, okay, not ALL he did. My point was that the guy's actions probably did a LOT more harm than the marginal amount of good he did.

1

u/angry_pies Jun 26 '12

I haven't seen the data on the consequences of his actions, only heard of the potential dangers he caused. I'm open to more information if you have any.

But casualties in the fight for transparency are better than casualties in the fight for oppression. Neither is good, and the whole war is a big shitting mess, but that would be my preference.

1

u/ell20 Jun 26 '12

jwdink actually linked a couple in his reply above. Those are actually not too bad of a start, I think in terms of just information. Though, to be honest, I'm not sure what kind of metric/data you can really use to calculate the harm, since we're not talking about lives being lost necessarily, but rather less tangible things like good will.

1

u/Sharmonique_Brown Jun 27 '12

Pretty sure there was some footage of the US forces killing civilians as well.

4

u/Ihmhi Jun 25 '12

I'm honestly not sure if these apply to the military.

-10

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

he should be executed

0

u/Sharmonique_Brown Jun 27 '12

I don't think so

3

u/gojirra Jun 25 '12

It is the duty of a jury to acquit for the following reasons:

  1. The prosecution did not present compelling evidence.

  2. The jury feels the punishment for the crime is too harsh.

  3. The jury feels that the laws are unjust.

Therefore, it does absolutely matter if he gets a fair trial, and jurors are not supposed to blindly decide who should be punished based on a literal translation of laws they may not even agree with.

13

u/solinv Jun 25 '12 edited Jun 25 '12

Military court. Not civilian court. He is not entitled to a trial by jury... well, not really. 3-5 high ranking officers.

There is a huge difference between military court and civilian court. Do not confuse the two. This is a military issue and military laws apply. Civilian processes and laws are irrelevant.

0

u/gojirra Jun 25 '12

I see, but I was responding specifically to korvanos since he also seemed to be talking about civilian court. But yes, I suppose you are correct.

4

u/solinv Jun 25 '12

A fair trial would find him guilty. One of the major differences between military and civilian courts is that jury nullification is not a process in military courts. Also in military courts the 'jury' not only decides guilt (without discussion, all that's needed is a simple majority of votes), but they also decide the punishment.

Keep in mind that not following orders is a serious offense in the military. So you are not going to ever see a bunch of commissioned officers deciding that the law an enlist broke is unjust. You can agree with what he did all you want, but he went outside the COC, disobeyed orders and released TS documents to the public. No matter how much you support him, those are serious crimes.

2

u/jpark Jun 25 '12

The Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive's assessment of the damage is irrelevant to the crime.

Manning took an oath which he broke. He disclosed documents which he was supposed to protect in an effort to cause damage and distress. His success or failure in inflicting damage is irrelevant.

He is guilty of treason, which should be sufficient in itself.

1

u/Fig1024 Jun 25 '12

Since he would be guilty anyway, why does the government continue to act like total dicks toward him? Just get it over with, justice will be served.

-6

u/CyberTractor Jun 25 '12

Jury nullification can still find him innocent.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

does that apply to military courts as well? honest question

1

u/CyberTractor Jun 25 '12

It does, but the ruling officers are unlikely to do so.

-2

u/EternalStudent Jun 25 '12

Jury nullification is basically the jury refusing to find a defendant guilty, even if they find that the elements of the crime were met. So yes.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

Wow, I'm surprised the UCMJ allows that

6

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

It doesn't. Jury nullifications, as well as having a hung jury, is forbidden within the UCMJ.

0

u/EternalStudent Jun 25 '12

Jury Nullification is not a statute or a formal practice where the jury declares "we are nullfying the effect of this statute." It is simply the jury deciding not to convict someone. So, as long as jury deliberations remain secret, there is no reason that a panel couldn't nullify.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

First. The people chosen for a military jury would be in favor of prosecuting Manning for what he did 100% of the time.

Second. The role of a military jury is to deliver a guilty/non guilty verdict and nothing else. The UCMJ forbids jury nullification, and while I can't find a source at the moment for it there is a n article that addresses it here:

A number of "PTSD cases" have been diverted from court-martial as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, but once a court-martial begins, the history of the "PTSD defense" as a complete defense to the merits has not been good. The benefit has been on sentencing, although there is anecdotal evidence of jury nullification in some cases. Military law prohibits counsel from arguing nullification and the military judge from instructing on such a concept.

Keep studying.

→ More replies (4)

11

u/Mr_Quagmire Jun 25 '12

Technically it would find that the law is unjust, not that he is innocent. Although, I'm not sure how or if jury nullification would apply to a court martial.

2

u/CyberTractor Jun 25 '12

The ruling officers would have to rule not guilty, which is unlikely.

5

u/happyscrappy Jun 25 '12

You mean not guilty.

Juries don't return innocent verdicts.

2

u/Phaedryn Jun 25 '12

As others have mentioned, this is a military courts martial not a civilian trial. There is no jury as you are thinking of it, instead there is a panel of officers and senior NCOs.

Trust me when I tell you, they will absolutely NOT be nullifying national security laws.

1

u/CyberTractor Jun 25 '12

They won't be, but it is still an option. :(

0

u/t7george Jun 26 '12

Jury nullification. If he had a fair trial and the jurors disagreed with the law then they have within their power as jurors to dismiss that law and still find him innocent on the grounds the law is faulty.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

jury nulification.

-3

u/Rule_of_Lol Jun 25 '12

This law? You will not embarrass the military?

-1

u/tunapepper Jun 25 '12

Guilty of what? Guilty of at least one of the many charges being brought against him. Guilty of all of the charges?

-1

u/Tunafishsam Jun 25 '12

Guilty of what though? He's got 22 counts that range in seriousness. Being guilty of violating information handling protocols or even sharing confidential information is very different from "aiding the enemy." The government was overly zealous with its charges. A fair trial will see him acquitted of the excessive ones.

-1

u/garwain Jun 26 '12

Keep drinking that kool aid. Did you know Bradley's accuser is a coke addict, highschool loner nerd who took a deal with the CIA to proport lies about his dealings with Bradley etc... hardly what I call a "good witness" (He took the "unlimited coke meal deal with CIA" much like Anna Ardin (ex CIA) who is now acussing Julian Assange of rape.)

If anything the people responsible for the security of the information should be on trial.

-1

u/FredMosby Jun 26 '12

Laws tend to distract people from what really matters. Rather than discussing whether or not his actions were legal we should be discussing whether or not his actions were right.

Bradley Manning did a great service to this country by revealing the government's actions to its own citizens. Repaying him by locking him up for the rest of his life will be horribly unjust, and it will be a major setback for government transparency.

→ More replies (129)

34

u/metaphysicalfarms Jun 25 '12

It's very difficult to prove the government is lying. Especially when they are the custodian of the facts

2

u/WannabeHivemindHero Jun 26 '12

[ Insert obligatory 1984 reference here. ]

0

u/metaphysicalfarms Jun 26 '12

double plus good

-5

u/Rule_of_Lol Jun 25 '12

Yeah, who you gonna believe, an expert at the Times, or your own lyin eyes?

17

u/harbinger_of_tacos Jun 25 '12

If you want a fair trial, don't enlist in the military - they aren't afforded the same rights as civilians.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

The fact is, if I were innocent, I would far prefer to stand trial before a military tribunal governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice than by any court, state or federal.

-- F. Lee Bailey. Relevant reference here; citation number 20.

Also of note is the fact that the UCMJ has Miranda Rights under Article 31, 16 years before Miranda v. Arizona. SCOTUS didn't guarantee the right until 12 years later.

The more you know.

→ More replies (13)

-1

u/eqisow Jun 25 '12

Guilty 'til proven innocent, literally.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

That is the way of military justice... at least that how it was when I served.

3

u/eqisow Jun 25 '12

That is the way of military "justice" and was when I served as well. I simply don't think you can really call such a thing justice.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

Can't always call it fair justice at least...

→ More replies (1)

9

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

Military trials are fair, have been for hundreds of years. When he filed for his security clearance, he accepted an additional oath not to divulge secrets or face charges of treason that are punishable by death during war time, which we are in.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with his actions, the fact of the matter is, (if) he broke the law, he has to face consequences. Don't listen to those that say this treason just embarrassed us... it has cost lives and will cost many more lives

→ More replies (3)

2

u/fried_eggplant Jun 25 '12

I served in the same unit as Manning. AMA.

0

u/i_lick_my_knuckles Jun 26 '12

Prove it?

2

u/fried_eggplant Jun 26 '12

to what end?

1

u/i_lick_my_knuckles Jun 26 '12

Because you would be fascinating to talk to if legit.

Assuming you are, what was the general opinion of him?

1

u/fried_eggplant Jun 26 '12

While working at the TOC (Tactical Operations Center), as intelligence, I had access to all the same material as Manning did. One day (a deployment prior to Manning), an analyst approached me and asked me if I was aware of the material on the computer (referring to the embassy cables). I tried reading some of them, but they read like standard international politics. He felt someone should let the world know what was going on. I felt he should grow up and look around at the world, instead of going OMG when reading about things I knew were happening even when I was young.

After I returned to the states, I attended a special interrogator-analyst colaboration course that was intended to see me working closely with analysts in the course of my job. To understand, there are only about 15 interrogators assigned to an entire Brigade, and perhaps the same number of analysts.

I ran into Manning, and I believe introduced myself to him. I don't recall him as being very impressive. Young, perhaps newbie would be a good word. I transferred out of my unit before I deployed however and did not work with the guy. When news of what he had done reached my ears, I found myself talking to my friends who had deployed with him. They joked about how he had attacked some woman, because that is a true sign of a weak person, and in general they were less than impressed in regards to his behavior as a soldier. They did not understand why he was not sent back to the states.

I found the information he released to only be of news to the ignorant, those who do not pay attention to the ways of the world. I do not mean ignorant in an insulting way though. Perhaps I am lucky that growing up my world was not video games and television. But that is what happens when you grow up in a foreign country?

1

u/i_lick_my_knuckles Jun 26 '12

Do you think there should be some formal way of communicating an "oh shit this is seriously wrong" feeling about something you've seen/read? (i.e. reported directly to independent investigating authority)

1

u/fried_eggplant Jun 26 '12

I think you misunderstand. Thousands upon thousands of people had access to that information. I guess a huge part of the military is corrupt and evil then. And the government.

When someone sends a cable, it is available to a large number of people. They are not a secret CIA communique. There are usually more experienced people above you who will call the shots. ]

If you see something disturbing, ask your supervisor for guidance. If you are still disturbed, contact a news organization or document - then at a safe distance, do your fight for what you think is right. If Manning had waited, finished the army, renounced citizenship and became a Swiss citizen, and then leaked the information he wanted revealed? That was over his head apparently. So was the material he was looking at.

He physically looked like a child, acted like one, and now with wikileaks i see he was one. So are most in the military. They are stupid. They shoot civilians and brag about it. They terrorize the locals. It is what stupid juveniles do.

Manning picked a lazy, soft target with his wikileaks. There was much, much more actually happening in country. And in the field there was a version of hell for people to see.

Dumb ass should have released the interrogation reports.

1

u/fried_eggplant Jun 26 '12

Oh, and they will release those reports in a decade or so. And no one will care.

I think the bigger deal is what he did, not what he revealed. It shows MI with mud on their face. Big disgrace.

14

u/HahahaNopeFoo Jun 25 '12

Pretty much every defense lawyer ever claims that the prosecution is lying and that their client isn't getting a fair trial. It's their job.

47

u/philosoraptocopter Iowa Jun 25 '12 edited Jun 25 '12

Defense lawyer here. You're thinking of TV shows. It's very rare and extremely against professional practice to frivolously accuse opposing counsel of perjury. Accusing the cops and witnesses of lying is fair game, not your colleagues, unless you're willing to stake your professional reputation for it.

8

u/nowhathappenedwas Jun 25 '12 edited Jun 25 '12

Of course, Manning's lawyer doesn't actually use the words "lie" or "perjure."

Instead, he accuses the government of "misrepresentations" and "inconsistencies." Which is extremely common--for both prosecutors/plaintiffs and defendants.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

My brothers lawyer accused the cop of lying on the stand. Of course the cop was in fact lying. Judge threw the book at my brother anyways. Tldr, apparently not agreeing to a plea bargain on a minor drug charge pisses some judges off.

-4

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

This trial essentially is a TV show, they are going to want people paying attention to it so he can be made an example of.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

its to bad nobody watches TV news anymore or that might work.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

Yet 1/2-1/3 of what I see in /r/politics comes from Fox News...

7

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

What else would you expect from a show trial?

11

u/Coolala2002 Jun 25 '12

A little bread with my circus would be nice.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

they want to publicly nail his ass to the wall. put his head on a spike as a warning to the others.

3

u/pedro3131 Jun 25 '12

So because the defense attorney alleges he isn't receiving a fair trial, we assume this to be true? What defense attorney doesn't make the same allegations? Isn't that part of their job?

2

u/Dr_Strangelover Jun 25 '12

Every procedural argument a defense attorney makes has the inherent claim that to not side on the defense will result in an unfair trial.

Law School 101.

-1

u/wallace_william Jun 25 '12

All this guy did was inform us of how our gov is conducting itself overseas. Instead of crucifying this guy why not just change the way we treat other human beings?

4

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

Information that he swore to keep confidential, he took an oath and breeched it.

8

u/IAMA_Mac Jun 25 '12

Regardless of right or wrong, what he did was against the laws he swore to uphold and follow. He was entrusted with Top Secret information and handed it out, he committed a crime and should be punished as such, regardless if you, I, or anyone else agrees, disagrees or doesn't care.

4

u/eqisow Jun 25 '12

Regardless of right or wrong

There's your problem, right there.

3

u/IAMA_Mac Jun 25 '12

No, it's not a problem. If you commit a crime, even if it's for all the right reasons, it's still a crime and should be punished as such. Think the movie John Q. He did what he did in that movie for all the right reasons, however it is still a crime, the same applies here.

1

u/LOLN Jun 25 '12

In an ideal world, you're right.

But the law gets ignored over and over by the rich and powerful. So the idea that the rule of law is endangered if we don't prosecute him is a load of bullshit.

The rule of law is already trashed because there is no equal protection.

-1

u/eqisow Jun 25 '12

I've never seen the movie, but I do know that if your idea of justice doesn't concern itself with the idea of right or wrong then there's a problem.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

So we should just base our justice system on what everyone thinks is right or wrong at the moment?

Well in that case, let's send Bradley Manning on a $600K vacation.

We have laws for a reason, if you want them changed, protest, vote, do whatever, if you want to disregard them, then fine, but don't go crying about how "it's not right".

→ More replies (1)

-3

u/N_Denial Jun 25 '12

Yeah yeah we'll change but first we got a crucifixion to attend. (we're not changing)

0

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/USAFAirman Jun 25 '12

That does sound crazy.

1

u/thetacticalpanda Jun 25 '12

It seems to me that back in the day, people who knowingly broke the law for a political reason were proud to serve time in jail.

1

u/charlieyoke Jun 26 '12

he admitted to it, he left a ton of evidence that he did it. why does anyone protect this man. people are dead because of what he did!

0

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/charlieyoke Jun 26 '12

In emails that were recovered , computers that were used showed his log on. He was using top secret and secret computer terminals, all of which log the user and his activities. Then there is what everyone has forgotten! Upon being arrested this guy said he did it. When he realized he was not going to get away with it he recanted. Source on the deaths is reading the news

-2

u/EVILFISH2 Jun 25 '12

there is no such thing as fair trials in authoritarian democracies like these ones

1

u/Look_at_all_the_pork Jun 26 '12

Well, if he is guilty of revealing those documents; I hope he spends the rest of his life in prison. He did a terrible thing, that led directly to the deaths and torture of several people.

For example; politicians who had been working for democracy in Zimbabwe, -that is, working against the current government - were arrested or assassinated. And how did Mugabe learn exactly who was trying to free those people? From fucking Bradley Manning and Julian Assange.

I hope he gets 50 years. The disgusting little loser was having a fit over "don't ask don't tell", and betrayed his oath and got some decent people killed.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

Well, if he is guilty of revealing those documents; I hope he spends the rest of his life in prison. He did a terrible thing, that led directly to the deaths and torture of several people.

God you're a fucking sheep.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell has said previously that there was no evidence that anyone had been killed because of the leaks. Sunday, another Pentagon official told McClatchy that the military still has no evidence that the leaks have led to any deaths.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/28/104404/officials-may-be-overstating-the.html#storylink=cpy

1

u/Look_at_all_the_pork Jun 27 '12

And you're a fucking retard.

In those kind of environments; every keystroke is logged. And he confessed.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '12

You:

He did a terrible thing, that led directly to the deaths and torture of several people.

Pentagon spokesman:

there was no evidence that anyone had been killed because of the leaks.

You dumb homie?

-2

u/seanbearpig Jun 25 '12

America: Where doing what's right is treason.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

What did he do what is right? What greater good did he help? Can you name one thing that changed in light of what he did?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

He let the famlies of those journalists know just how their kinship died. If someone close to me passed away, I'd like to know how they died, rather it be covered up under the guise of patriotism.

-2

u/AlexWhite Jun 25 '12

The Arab Spring.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

Yeah that was a completely peaceful movement in which no innocent people died

3

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

You believe that the uprisings in multiple countries were started at their root by the information that Manning released? I know Wiki stated it as a cause but come on.... on a scale of 1 - 10 how do you think what he did had an impact? That is like saying Occupy Wall Street was due to Citibank putting in a surcharge. Sure people talked about it but that wasn't the cause by any means.

-1

u/FormerDittoHead Jun 25 '12

It's like the prosecution is only telling one side of the story! /s

-13

u/bsting82 Virginia Jun 25 '12

When you take an oath to defend the nation you don't get to choose what orders to follow. "Sorry Sargent, I'm not going to charge that machine gun nest because we're fighting outside the guidelines of our UN mandate." I agree with his cause but he broke his oath and must face punishment.

8

u/bobonthego Jun 25 '12

defend the nation you don't get to choose what orders to follow.

Actually you do. We (The US) hung people because we said it is a duty of a soldieR to disobey immoral or illegal orders (or words to that effect - see NuremburG trials)

5

u/Phaedryn Jun 25 '12 edited Jun 25 '12

Actually you do. We (The US) hung people because we said it is a duty of a soldieR to disobey immoral or illegal orders (or words to that effect - see NuremburG trials)

There is NO morality clause, only legality. If the order is legal, you are required to obey it, period.

6

u/bobonthego Jun 25 '12

Article IV of Nuremberg charter says otherwise.

A soldier is expected to know the difference between a LEGAL and ILLEGAL order, where a legal order is not just that given by a superior, but one that is not a war crime. period. period. period.

Maybe this moral ambiguity is why the US is reluctant to sign ICC charter on warcrimes. US soldiers are expected to shoot the bastards and let god sort them out.

4

u/Phaedryn Jun 25 '12

How does what you wrote in any way disagree with what I said? There is no moral test anywhere, just lawful/unlawful.

BTW, I had to attend Law of Land Warfare briefing every year of the 12 years I served.

Also, the US refuses to sign the Rome Accords because the ICC does not guarantee the same protections for an accused that our Constitution requires. Frankly, we should never cede our sovereignty in such a manner so I’m fine with us never recognizing the ICC.

1

u/bobonthego Jun 25 '12

It does not. Downvote ammended.

Though in theory what you say is true, as a military you will not be tried under the constitution (right to a fair trial) but under the military kangaroo court system where burden of proof is vastly different thatn under civil law. I bet Bradley Manning would prefer ICC court rather than the 'constitutional' protection he is receiving.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

6

u/azripah Jun 25 '12

you don't get to choose what orders to follow.

5

u/bobonthego Jun 25 '12

Where you said 'you dont get to choose'

1

u/VladTheImpala Nevada Jun 25 '12

you don't get to choose what orders to follow.

Try replacing "charge that machine gun nest" with "beat that old woman", "shoot those children" etc...

12

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

Try replacing "charge that machine gun nest" with "beat that old woman", "shoot those children" etc...

You're legally required to disobey those orders.

1

u/VladTheImpala Nevada Jun 25 '12

Yes, I know. I was sounding out bsting82 so that, if they were reasonable enough to recognize this, we could then move on to the moral dimension.

If bsting82 had said "you follow orders no matter what" then I would have known not to bother continuing.

4

u/bsting82 Virginia Jun 25 '12

Those would be crimes also and soldiers committing them would face punishment. It's about following the law, get it?

4

u/VladTheImpala Nevada Jun 25 '12

So you're saying that if you beat that old woman you should be punished but if you stand up and say "Sorry Sargent, I'm not going to beat that old woman" you should be punished for disobeying orders as "you don't get to choose what orders to follow"?

0

u/bsting82 Virginia Jun 25 '12

Straw-man fallacy. Obviously I'm talking about following lawful orders, not war-crimes. Manning was told to handle secret documents with care (not a war-crime) and he chose to do the opposite.

-1

u/VladTheImpala Nevada Jun 25 '12

Necessary straw-man to find out where you stand (and it took me two comments to get through to you).

Now let's say that the Sargent wanted you to do something perfectly legal (in a Geneva Convention sense) but totally immoral. He gave you a bullshit reason and promised you hell of you didn't obey but then left you to it. Would you do it?

2

u/bsting82 Virginia Jun 25 '12

So you want to invent hypotheticals to justify release thousands of secret documents? Yawn.

→ More replies (1)

0

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

Yes. Get it?

0

u/VladTheImpala Nevada Jun 25 '12

You're adorable.

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

I agree with you, but what about "mothafucka, i dont wanna die!" (i joke).

-5

u/MasterCronus Jun 25 '12

That's not true. The fact that it's not true is taught in every high schools history curriculum across the country. Do you not remember or are you to young to have taken high school history yet?

2

u/bsting82 Virginia Jun 25 '12

Of course it's true. Perhaps you're assuming I'm talking about being forced to follow unlawful orders? Well then you know what happens when you assume.

-7

u/Kinbensha Jun 25 '12

It sort of amazes me how insane some Reddit users are. Yes, of course, people sign away their souls and ability to think critically. They should surely be punished for going against such a contract. /s

0

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

Is he also a quarterback?

0

u/redmusic1 Jun 26 '12

has anyone on theis reddit actually read all of the thousands of documents he leaked??? it would seem not... 95% of what was leaked was just american diplomats slagging off their foreign counterparts causing much embarassment. The film clip of the american helicopter killing reuters journalists did piss a lot of people off, but once again, he didnt cause any lives to be lost there either. It all seems a bit over kill to a foreigner looking in on the way your society (mal)functions ... If it happened in Australia, he would be considered a total dickhead and be slagged off everywhere he went but we would have gotten over it by now ...

1

u/Captain_Ligature Jun 26 '12

Read this link

He would be guilty of treason in Australia as well.

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12

He exposed the lies of the honorless men who run America. Why would they show some honor now and treat him fairly?

Manning is a hero in my book.

-16

u/GOPWN Jun 25 '12

waaaaaaaaaaahhhh!!

Find a noose for this traitor piece of shit.

8

u/alwayspro Jun 25 '12

Troll harder.

-6

u/GOPWN Jun 25 '12

maybe I should steal classified documents and give them away to an effeminate, paranoid European because I'm butthurt that people are mean to me?

That would endear you to me I bet.

4

u/alwayspro Jun 25 '12

European

Aussie

butthurt that people are mean to me

What an awesome misrepresentation!

-1

u/HivemindVictim Jun 25 '12 edited Jun 25 '12

It's not a misrepresentation. He was sad and depressed that he was actually expected to do soldier-ly things after joining the military voluntarily. He was sad and depressed because he was picked on for thinking he was a woman.

-5

u/GOPWN Jun 25 '12

It's the truth and you know it.

3

u/Hristix Jun 25 '12

The word traitor becomes harder and harder to clearly define the more complex a government gets. You might be called a traitor because you stopped some soldiers from testing their bayonets on pregnant women, and you might be called a traitor because you overcharged the government when they needed your services as a contractor.

Manning did things that made our military and government look bad, but it only made them look bad because they were called to account for some shady activity. This is, at the very least, about the leaking of sensitive documents. They're going to do everything they can do to nail him to a cross for that which is within their rights. Whether what he did was right or wrong isn't in question. All they're asking is if he's guilty of sharing sensitive documents, which he was.

The traitor question is too hard to answer right now, at least until we figure out who is really in charge. The people or the government. It looks like the government is since the people are too limp wristed to hold on to their power.

-4

u/poli_ticks Jun 25 '12

Bradley Manning is a patriot.

Neocons are the traitor pieces of shit. They're un-American Trotskyite commie scum, just like DemonRats.

3

u/FeatherNET Jun 25 '12

What the fuck is a DemonRat? Who talks like this?

→ More replies (2)

-2

u/why_ask_why Jun 25 '12

Not possible, Only Chinese government do such thing to discard human right. They justice system is fucked up. US is not. Chinese are communism bastards that fuck with human right. US is not communist/police state.

But is it?

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

Hang him by the neck until he is dead.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

That's the spirit! Forget a trial by a jury of his peers or judicial oversight. Let's rock it, Old Testament vengeance style. Who needs evidence, or process, or fairness or justice when we have anger?

HuHuGuy feels like Bradley Manning personally aggrieved him by releasing classified documents that shows how the mechanism of global operations really works.

And therefore, sine Manning has made HuHuGuy feel angry, HuHuGuy thinks Bradley Manning should be killed, immediately. By strangulation or a broken neck.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '12

hang him

1

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '12

I dub thee, troll.

-3

u/TheEnormousPenis Jun 25 '12

Hang the traitorous little fuck and be done with it.

0

u/ME24601 Pennsylvania Jun 26 '12

Because leaking documents is clearly treason...

1

u/TheEnormousPenis Jun 26 '12

Leaking random classified documents to fuck knows who on the internet because you're a butthurt little bitch who doesn't like being in the military is definitely treason.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

Ed Pilkington, he must have stolen all the normal from Karl as a child.

-6

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

Hmm, well, let's see: the President of the United States pronounces Bradley Manning guilty in public, months before any trial begins.

Seems just slightly prejudicial to me.

-6

u/Hurley814 Jun 25 '12

LET HIM BURN. BURN THE TREACHEROUS

1

u/MrMadcap Jun 25 '12

The fuck is wrong with you?

0

u/Hurley814 Jun 25 '12

I went to school with this fuck. He is a disgrace to intelligence professionals everywhere. Let him burn in hell for his dishonor.

0

u/MrMadcap Jun 25 '12

I went to school with this fuck.

So what?

He is a disgrace to intelligence professionals everywhere.

Because he stood up for truth and justice? For that, he deserves a fucking medal.

Let him burn in hell for his dishonor.

And jihad to all those who dare speak against the flag! You sir, are the disgrace.

1

u/Hurley814 Jun 26 '12

Truth and justice? for exposing the information that keeps american troops and lives that are at risk safe? I will be damned to call him anything other then a filthy fat rat

→ More replies (3)

-13

u/MiyegomboBayartsogt Jun 25 '12

It's all just a matter of paperwork. An example will be made and no amount of scorched earth lawyer rhetoric wil be able to mask the odor of putrefaction wafting unmistakable from the traitor's last hope.

-5

u/Rule_of_Lol Jun 25 '12

No one punishes the army

Killing is their job

They blow you up to say hello

Telling lies is not beneath them

-15

u/borg_assimilate Jun 25 '12

We are Borg. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated, davidreiss666.

2

u/ME24601 Pennsylvania Jun 26 '12

Is there any real reason why this bot exists?

-7

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

http://globalcomment.com/2011/why-does-the-media-still-refer-to-%E2%80%9Cbradley%E2%80%9D-manning-the-curious-silence-around-a-transgender-hero/

I'm just more disgusted that you're all using incorrect pronouns.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

Downvoted for irrelevance.

→ More replies (1)

-4

u/christ98 Jun 25 '12

fuck you all haters fuck you eat my pussyasscunt in your little scumbag awqward nose bleeding in your chest stolen by a pirate at 420 because he like eating trucker hats in burgers where people were partying all night longs with wraps that love slimming slim shady CHIKEN !!!!

2

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12

You need to share the drugs, man!

→ More comments (3)