Army To Try Bradley Manning In WikiLeaks Data Case - Polidicks

[IMG]http://www.cartalk.com/sites/default/files/npr-logo.gif[/IMG] [release][I]February 3, 2012 [/I]An Army officer ordered a court-martial Friday for a low-ranking intelligence analyst charged in the biggest leak of classified information in U.S. history. Military District of Washington commander Maj. Gen. Michael Linnington referred all charges against Pfc. Bradley Manning to a general court-martial, the Army said in a statement. The referral means Manning will stand trial for allegedly giving more than 700,000 secret U.S. documents and classified combat video to the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks for publication. The 24-year-old Crescent, Oklahoma, native faces 22 counts, including aiding the enemy. [B]He could be imprisoned for life if convicted of that charge.[/B] A judge who is yet to be appointed will set the trial date. Manning's lead defense counsel, civilian attorney David Coombs, didn't immediately return a call Friday evening seeking comment on the decision. Defense lawyers say Manning was clearly a troubled young soldier whom the Army should never have deployed to Iraq or given access to classified material while he was stationed there from late 2009 to mid-2010. At a preliminary hearing in December, military prosecutors produced evidence that Manning downloaded and electronically transferred to WikiLeaks nearly half a million sensitive battlefield reports from Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables, and video of a deadly 2007 Army helicopter attack that WikiLeaks shared with the world and dubbed "Collateral Murder." Manning's lawyers countered that others had access to Manning's workplace computers. They say he was in emotional turmoil, partly because he was a gay soldier at a time when homosexuals were barred from serving openly in the U.S. armed forces. The defense also claims Manning's apparent disregard for security rules during stateside training and his increasingly violent outbursts after deployment were red flags that should have prevented him from having access to classified material. Manning's lawyers also contend that the material WikiLeaks published did little or no harm to national security. In the December hearing at Fort Meade, Md., prosecutors also presented excerpts of online chats found on Manning's personal computer that allegedly document collaboration between him and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Federal prosecutors in northern Virginia are investigating Assange and others for allegedly facilitating the disclosures. The Bradley Manning Support Group, which contends Manning heroically exposed war crimes, issued a statement calling his prosecution "fundamentally unjust." "This administration owes all Americans an honest explanation for their extraordinary retaliation against Bradley Manning," said Jeff Paterson, one of the group's lead organizers [T]http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2012/02/03/manning12_vert.jpg?t=1328320061&s=2[/T] [SUB]Army Pfc. Bradley Manning[/SUB] .[/release] [URL=http://www.npr.org/2012/02/03/146377661/army-to-try-bradley-manning-in-wikileaks-data-case]Source[/url]

Justice. /sarcasm

He committed treason, but a life sentence is a little much. There's murderers that get less than that. EDIT: he did leak some sensitive info that has possibly gotten people killed, but he also exposed a bunch of naughty shit our glorious army has done.

[QUOTE=zombini;34536214]he did leak some sensitive info that has possibly gotten people killed[/QUOTE] One case. Give me one case.

[QUOTE=zombini;34536214]He committed treason, but a life sentence is a little much. There's murderers that get less than that. EDIT: he did leak some sensitive info that has possibly gotten people killed, but he also exposed a bunch of naughty shit our glorious army has done.[/QUOTE] Regardless, the UCMJ clearly states the punishment, in time of war, this is punishable by death.

[QUOTE=Florence;34536173]Justice. /sarcasm[/QUOTE] Going to trial is pretty much the text book definition of justice. Are you saying he shouldn't be tried or something? [QUOTE=zombini;34536214]He committed treason, but a life sentence is a little much. There's murderers that get less than that.[/quote] The punishment for treason is death. A life sentence is lenient. It's the only crime described in The Constitution. [quote]EDIT: he did leak some sensitive info that has possibly gotten people killed, but he also exposed a bunch of naughty shit our glorious army has done.[/QUOTE] The damage of the leak was not the possible deaths of those on the ground but the damage to the international diplomatic community.

[quote]The 24-year-old Crescent, Oklahoma, native faces 22 counts, [b]including aiding the enemy.[/b][/quote] thats hilarious. no america, you did that when you spurred the manufacturing for all those guns the taliban are using i cant think of a government and justice system thats more hypocritical

[QUOTE=Bobie;34536295]thats hilarious. no america, you did that when you spurred the manufacturing for all those guns the taliban are using i cant think of a government and justice system thats more hypocritical[/QUOTE] So is your argument that those who supplied arms to the Mujaheddin (not the same as the Taliban) actively and knowingly aided the enemy? The Mujaheddin were not America's enemy at the time. Is your argument that the United States government should be unable to enforce laws that other elements of that government have in the past broken? Really. Pick one. If you can't think of a government or justice system that's more hypocritical I recommend learning about the governments of the United Arab Emirates, the Russian Federation, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, Sudan, South Africa, Liberia, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, and Venezuela, to name a few off the top of my head. How can you understand so little about the world and still speak about it?

[QUOTE=Regulas021;34536292]Going to trial is pretty much the text book definition of justice. Are you saying he shouldn't be tried or something? The punishment for treason is death. A life sentence is lenient. It's the only crime described in The Constitution. The damage of the leak was not the possible deaths of those on the ground but the damage to the international diplomatic community.[/QUOTE] The UCMJ says its punishable by death, doesn't specifically say its the only punishment. [url]http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl106a.htm[/url] [editline]3rd February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Bobie;34536295]thats hilarious. no america, you did that when you spurred the manufacturing for all those guns the taliban are using i cant think of a government and justice system thats more hypocritical[/QUOTE] You're an idiot.

Reading through the defense's arguments that he is innocent, he seems pretty screwed. This guys going to jail for life. Poor guy.

I'd say the bastard deserves jail time. Maybe not life sentence, but he definitely deserves a court martial and 10-20 in a military prison. It [i]is[/i] high treason, after all. Can't see anyone justifying that one.

[QUOTE=Regulas021;34536348]So is your argument that those who supplied arms to the Mujaheddin (not the same as the Taliban) actively and knowingly aided the enemy? The Mujaheddin were not America's enemy at the time. Is your argument that the United States government should be unable to enforce laws that other elements of that government have in the past broken? Really. Pick one. If you can't think of a government or justice system that's more hypocritical I recommend learning about the governments of the United Arab Emirates, the Russian Federation, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, Sudan, South Africa, Liberia, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, and Venezuela, to name a few off the top of my head. How can you understand so little about the world and still speak about it?[/QUOTE] 'the us is good because there are a few dictatorships that are way shitter' how many deaths has your beloved empire caused in the last 50 years? more than most of those countries combined i bet. and selling arms to a third party, neutral or not is a terrible idea. you cant actually be suggesting that supplying arms is a good idea in any case?

[QUOTE=Bobie;34536413]'the us is good because there are a few dictatorships that are way shitter'[/QUOTE] Wow. I thought internet liberals weren't supposed to be so fucking retarded.

You know, I wish I could say 'no, they'll probably go easy on him', but they really won't. Not because they don't want to, but because they can't in my opinion. Picture it from the Military/Prosecutions point of view. If they display leniency, that would create a precedent for this sort of thing and they'd have to be lenient with every future person who leaks classified information. I hate to say it, but I can see no other alternative than life in prison for Manning. Poor guy.

[QUOTE=Bobie;34536413]'the us is good because there are a few dictatorships that are way shitter' how many deaths has your beloved empire caused in the last 50 years? more than most of those countries combined i bet. and selling arms to a third party, neutral or not is a terrible idea. you cant actually be suggesting that supplying arms is a good idea in any case?[/QUOTE] I don't know. How many has it caused? Why don't you give me a statistic of deaths directly attributable to American decisions. Then we can compare it to a list from every other country. Or you can begin to study the way international politics work so that you understand that decisions aren't made on pure statistics. There's a term called realpolitik and it defines just about every decision made in anywhere that isn't Europe or North America. Genocides prevented by intervention in Kosovo and deaths prevented by the toppling of Saddam Hussein are pretty important, don't you think? Or the women who are allowed to read and drive in Afghanistan. They're every bit as important as the deaths caused by American occupations or arms trafficking. It's not a black and white issue, even if it helps you sleep at night to think that it is.

[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;34536392]Can't see anyone justifying that one.[/QUOTE] How is exposing war crimes treason.

[QUOTE=Florence;34536588]How is exposing war crimes treason.[/QUOTE] There are whistle blowing laws that protect exposing war crimes. He is being tried for the unbelievable amount of information he exposed that was simply classified, completely legal, and compromising to the United States.

[QUOTE=Gordy H.;34536460]You know, I wish I could say 'no, they'll probably go easy on him', but they really won't. Not because they don't want to, but because they can't in my opinion. Picture it from the Military/Prosecutions point of view. If they display leniency, that would create a precedent for this sort of thing and they'd have to be lenient with every future person who leaks classified information. I hate to say it, but I can see no other alternative than life in prison for Manning. Poor guy.[/QUOTE] Thank you for actually taking the time to think this through.

[QUOTE=Regulas021;34536529]I don't know. How many has it caused? Why don't you give me a statistic of deaths directly attributable to American decisions. Then we can compare it to a list from every other country. Or you can begin to study the way international politics work so that you understand that decisions aren't made on pure statistics. There's a term called realpolitik and it defines just about every decision made in anywhere that isn't Europe or North America. Genocides prevented by intervention in Kosovo and deaths prevented by the toppling of Saddam Hussein are pretty important, don't you think? Or the women who are allowed to read and drive in Afghanistan. They're every bit as important as the deaths caused by American occupations or arms trafficking. It's not a black and white issue, even if it helps you sleep at night to think that it is.[/QUOTE] i can understand intervention, but that's been and gone. since going in originally under the guise of looking for wmds, there's been a number of reasons that troops have apparently needed to stay there- why not prevent human rights violations elsewhere? syria was having crises way worse than any in afghanistan or libya before all of this- and italy had the time to give hundreds of millions to gadaffi's regime and the bush/obama administration didnt even take notice. yes, genocides are terrible acts of war and must be stopped but what is being prevented in the incarceration of bradley manning? whose lives are saved by putting him away for life, and why is it that a country that claims to be a haven of human rights and dreams contain so many holes in its politics. my initial point was that the US is far more hypocritical, not worse in any manner- countries like Afghanistan know what they're doing and don't hesitate to admit that they treat women poorly, albeit with awful reasoning.

I know what he did was illegal, but a life imprisonment sentence seems a little too much for giving information away.

[QUOTE=Regulas021;34536428]Wow. I thought internet liberals weren't supposed to be so fucking retarded.[/QUOTE] Yes, because "internet liberals" are a hivemind.

[QUOTE=Eluveitie;34536695]I know what he did was illegal, but a life imprisonment sentence seems a little too much for giving information away.[/QUOTE]Better than death.

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;34536727]Better than death.[/QUOTE] True, but murderers often get a shorter sentence than this. It seems a little skewiff.

I hope a thousand more people do what he did. If everyone in the army had the will to risk their very freedom for what they thought was right, then the world would be a better place.

[QUOTE=Bobie;34536667]i can understand intervention, but that's been and gone. since going in originally under the guise of looking for wmds, there's been a number of reasons that troops have apparently needed to stay there- why not prevent human rights violations elsewhere? syria was having crises way worse than any in afghanistan or libya before all of this- and italy had the time to give hundreds of millions to gadaffi's regime and the bush/obama administration didnt even take notice. yes, genocides are terrible acts of war and must be stopped but what is being prevented in the incarceration of bradley manning? whose lives are saved by putting him away for life, and why is it that a country that claims to be a haven of human rights and dreams contain so many holes in its politics. my initial point was that the US is far more hypocritical, not worse in any manner- countries like Afghanistan know what they're doing and don't hesitate to admit that they treat women poorly, albeit with awful reasoning.[/QUOTE] We, as a nation, claim high ideals like human rights and clean institutions because they are ideals we aspire to. It's the idea that helped to found our nation, and it's an ideal we've pursued since the birth of the country. Gaping, massive flaws in our execution spring up a lot, and part of why it seems so bad is because we ourselves hold our country to such a high standard. Don't ever believe we're all standing here, waving American flags. Most of our harshest critics are Americans themselves. The trial of Bradley Manning is not about saving lives. He has already done his damage. He will go to jail because he knowingly violated the law. He volunteered for the Armed Forces. Once in, he further volunteered for a position that had security clearances. He voluntarily took an oath to protect his country and to follow the laws of those Armed Forces, and he violated it. Why? It doesn't matter. He is being tried because that is how judicial systems work. If you violate the law, and it is controversial enough, you might be able to appeal the ruling. That's why there is a layered court system. It is the foundation of a stable society.

[QUOTE=Eluveitie;34536737]True, but murderers often get a shorter sentence than this. It seems a little skewiff.[/QUOTE] In general terms, treason can be a lot more harmful to a nation as a whole than a murderer killing a few people. At the very least leaking information hurts the public image, and at the worst it can give a weapon to those who want to use it. And as was said, a life sentence is better than death, the usual punishment for treason. Also as was stated, and should be stated again, showing lenience and going by a case-by-case basis in a court system will cause more cunning people (defense lawyers) to try to put their foot in the door and get lower and lower charges. It would open the floodgates to people asking questions like "why did he only get 20 years in prison when I got a life sentence for the same crime"? A court system cannot afford moral optimism in a large nation, no matter how wrong it may seem. If you wish to change this, good luck - the only case [no pun intended] where a court has been based simply on "common sense" was way back during the time of tribalism before modern civilization, and it is present in a scant few African nations today.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;34536741]I hope a thousand more people do what he did. If everyone in the army had the will to risk their very freedom for what they thought was right, then the world would be a better place.[/QUOTE] What exactly is so "right" about what he did?

[QUOTE=Regulas021;34536612]There are whistle blowing laws that protect exposing war crimes. He is being tried for the unbelievable amount of information he exposed that was simply classified, completely legal, and compromising to the United States.[/QUOTE] Again, give one case where people died because of this. Wikileaks redacted the leaks as to not have that. Also, considering Bradley has been kept in torturous conditions (solitary, sleep deprived, whole nine yards) when he is clearly not a threat, the US has wavered their moral grounds to prosecute him considering they have done onto him is worse that he has. It's a load of fucking bullshit and they can shove their legal justifications up their ass. Fuck this shit, this guy has ten times the patriotism that any fuckface DoJ suit.

I correct myself, he committed espionage against the USA. Still doesn't warrant life in harsh military prison. I can understand those guys that murdered people getting life, but he doesn't deserve that bad of a punishment.

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;34536727]Better than death.[/QUOTE] Thats honestly debatable.