Well of course he's aided the enemy
He's given information to the people of the US about what their government is doing in their name. If that isn't aiding the enemy, what is?
A military judge will deliver her verdict on Private Bradley Manning's disclosure of secret Army documents to whistleblowing site Wikileaks later today. Colonel Denise Lind will issue the verdict of the court martial at 1pm EDT (6pm BST) today, following two months of hearing evidence. Manning has already pleaded guilty to …
I am not sure how this comes out, but the Military isn't quite like civilian courts. It seems likely that this young soldier is going to lose a lot of time out of his life when the sentence comes out.
I am against war as much as anyone, but when you sign on to a team and take that Oath, you cannot just turn your back on it. There are a lot of people in the Military that feel strongly about that Oath.
"Would you simply prefer that the Good Ol USA continue to spy on all and sundry at their pleasure....."
Do try to keep track. His spillage of massive amounts of classified data had nothing on US spying on anyone at all. The spying bit was Snowden, not Manning.
"Geanted there should be a investigation on who allowed this dipshit tohave access to the infomation he vomited out though."
I've been saying that from day one. Once he was flagged for deleterious personnel actions, regulations demand his access be immediately revoked. That was not done, which permitted him to act out on a desire for vengeance against the military that was involuntarily separating him from service.
His company commander, intelligence officer and NCOIC, personnel officer and NCOIC and battalion commander all should have been on the docket with him for dereliction of duty at a minimum.
"Isn't there something in that Oath about a soldier's duty to defend and protect the citizens of his country as well?"
Nope, the oath talks about defending the Constitution and laws of the nation, not the citizens at all.
The US Army oath of enlistment is available online, Google it.
He not only violated his oath of enlistment by disobeying the lawful orders of his superiors, he violated his sworn oath on his signed NDA for his security clearance.
Of all that he exposed, the only laudable thing was the prisoner abuse bit, which was thankfully stopped after.
The rest, informants names and addresses, an Apache gunship video of a strike against men with AK's and RPG's, diplomatic cables showing what diplomats *really* think about each other and assorted general diplomatic cable gossip proved of no utility for the nation or the world.
Well, save for those informant names, which were of utility to certain, rather unpleasant folks.
Funny thing abouth that oath, it's a parallel to the one our elected leaders take. Seems that Justice is not being applied equally in either Mannings or Snowdens cases.
"I, _____, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
The problem comes from the statement stating that the President will "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Sorry, but a President and others who willfully and deliberately undermined the first 11 Constitutional Amendments seems to me to be a lot more treasonous than what either Bradley Manning or Snowden did.
Since none of those politicians are in jail awaiting trial then neither should Manning or Snowden. Both in fact deserve public commendation while our leaders deserve public condemnation
The oath doesn't consider what happens when a soldier concludes (justifiably or otherwise) that the US government is not an enemy of the constitution. That's what happened here.
I'm predicting he won't get a 'life' sentence, but will get a fixed-term sentence considerably longer than any human can reasonably expect to live. Probably something like twenty charges, ten years a charge, served consecutively. And he'll be classified a security risk, so he'll spend the rest of his life in solitary confinement. There will be a brief period of outrage, but as time goes on the public and the media will eventually forget about him.
"The oath doesn't consider what happens when a soldier concludes (justifiably or otherwise) that the US government is not an enemy of the constitution. That's what happened here."
He did nothing out of conscience. He sought vengeance for his upcoming involuntary discharge. US Army and US DoD regulations require that his access to classified data be revoked once he was flagged for deleterious personnel actions, of which involuntary separation from the service most assuredly is. That wasn't done, which permitted him to attempt vengeance by spilling massive amounts of classified data. Just as those regulations were written to avoid.
Whatever he rightfully is sentenced to, his commanders, intelligence officer and NCO and personnel officer and NCO should get double.
Save that Manning and Snowden are unlike the President in that the President enjoys immunity.
Snowden is further different in that he swore only to an NDA that he violated.
Manning is different in that he sought vengeance for his pending discharge from the military.
Sorry, but five star fuckups and sad sack troops are not heroes. Presidents don't operate within a vacuum, they operate alongside of Congress.
And of course, Congress also enjoys immunity.
That oath is to protect and defend the constitution, against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. If a United States soldier truly believes that his or her own government is a threat to the Constitution, then they are duty-bound to take action. It is NOT an oath of fealty to the government or to the military.
It is also made quite clear that officers enjoy the right to consider such things, enlisted scum don't get to ascertain such things.
The maximum an enlisted soldier, sailor, airman or marine can do is alert their congresscritter about any suspected unconstitutional or unlawful activities.
Interestingly enough, Manning uncovered nothing unconstitutional. Or do you think informant names in Iraq and Afghanistan is something unconstitutional? An Apache airstrike on armed men who were trading fire with US soldiers all morning? Perhaps the prisoner abuse (that *should* have been exposed and stopped)?
But, what would I know? I was only enlisted scum for nearly 28 years. You'd know more than I, based upon your vast experience acquired on your Twinkie encrusted sofa.
His company commander, battalion commander, intelligence officer, intelligence NCOIC and personnel officer and NCOIC all should have been charged alongside of him.
The lot of them are guilty of dereliction of duty for not revoking his access once he was flagged for deleterious personnel actions due to his upcoming involuntary separation from service.
Because they ignored those regulations, he still had access to classified data and did that which those regulations were designed to avoid.
Instead, it's even money that the lot of those five star fuckups got promoted instead.
"There is absolutely no justification for Mannings act of treason no matter how people try to spin it."
To the contrary, the soldier performed a valuable service to not just the US population but that of the rest of the world. It is absolutely justified.
Your vacuous, blood-lusty opinion, on the other hand.....
So, revealing to the world that the US covers up war crimes committed (on camera) by the soldiers in the field - Shooting unarmed civilians from a helicopter while telling command that they were armed and aiming at them. Shooting unarmed Journalists. etc. isn't something to justify this?
What in your mind would justify this sort of leak then?
You do realise that the "Collateral Murder" video was heavily edited and editorialised by Wikipedia. They nicely chopped out anything referring to people wandering round with RPGs and then told the person watching the video what to think about what was happening.
Wikileaks serves no purpose if it allows itself to change or comment on the information it is leaking, with the exception that they redact names to stop specific individuals coming to harm. What makes this doubly bad is that journos from the Guardian report that Julian Assange wanted to put up all of the Manning leaked documents completely un-redacted, because he didn't care about "snitches" coming to harm.
>There is absolutely no justification for Mannings act of treason no matter how people try to spin it.
That "act of treason" presumably being to hold the principles behind the US constitution and claims of democracy in higher regard than than the abuses of the current power-mongers?
Firing squad? No, the United States reserves that for unarmed journalists, though we're too shy to brag about it. Manning embarrassed the United States and its military. Now all the neighbors are mad at weird Uncle Sam the serial murderer. Whatever shall we do? Get Uncle Sam to mend his ways? Naw, that would be _hard_! Easier to torture and imprison the people gutsy or crazy enough to point out Uncle Sam's perversions. There, that's fixed. Now we can get back to blowing away unarmed civilians by remote control.
A military jury only needs a majority to find someone guilty. The question is, did he do it? Yes. It doesn't matter *why* he did it, but that he did do it. Manning has confessed to doing it, and I doubt that anyone on that jury will vote a verdict of innocent.
"Sentence First, Verdict later!!!!"
I've seen this a few times - sentence is already decided and the verdict is issued to match the decided sentence. I'll be flabbergasted if he's declared innocent of the additional charges besides what he's already declared guilty to
Poor guy! Should have left the US pronto a la Snowden
That's where a long hunt for enemies will lead. Enemies outside, enemies inside, enemies everywhere. Even that poor soul, who tries to point out that there's something wrong with that hunt, shall be labeled as enemy. Sad state of affairs indeed.
And it's not just US, it happens in many kingdoms these days.
What to do about it? Not much, except for stepping out of these games, and crossing that dirty word 'enemy' off the dictionary. Doesn't mean much anyway.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020