Skip to main content

You could have knocked me over with a feather that the major media was talking about the Bradley Manning trial at all, after years of being confined to the progressive Internet, but although it is important for Manning's treatment in virtual isolation be a focus, the real  story is being ignored.  Bradley Manning is where he is in the first place because he was reporting a war crime.

No matter what Manning's treatment, many Americans, not always the most big-hearted people, will believe Manning deserved every bit of it unless context is provided.  The CNN reports on the trial which have run so far delve no deeper than his complaints about being forced to stand naked, not being allowed to sleep, and being harassed under a bogus "suicide watch" by being asked every five minutes "are you okay?"

Manning wrote to his then friend Adrian Lamo of the Wikileaks video which has since made the news:

"At first glance it was just a bunch of guys getting shot up by a helicopter...No big deal ... about two dozen more where that came from, right? But something struck me as odd with the van thing, and also the fact it was being stored in a JAG officer’s directory. So I looked into it."
Manning was talking about the now-famous video in which an American Apache helicopter crew is seen firing upon a group of Iraqi men in "New Baghdad" in 2007.  Most of the public debate has since centered around the first of two attacks in the video, in which a Reuters journalist is killed.

Manning's eyes were elsewhere, and in perhaps a sad commentary on the rules of engagement at the time, accepted the first attack as "just a bunch of guys getting shot up."  It was the second attack, the "van thing," which caught Manning's attention.  Manning knew a war crime when he saw one.

In the second attack, unarmed men are attempting to evacuate a wounded man, an act which since the Geneva Convention of 1864 is protected.  Article 12 of the Geneva Convention of 1864 states that,

 

  "...Members of the armed forces and other persons (...) who are wounded or sick, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances. They shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Party to the conflict...Any attempts upon their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited; in particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated...".
In the second attack a man is seen crawling upon the ground after the first attack, when a van pulls up with men who attempt to evacuate him.  The Apache gunner in his bloodlust requests and receives permission to open fire, muttering the words "just pick up a weapon," even though no weapons are anywhere visible near the crawling man.  It is in this attack that two children in the van are wounded, whereupon the gunner remarks "that's what they get for bringing their kids to the battle."  

These are the children saved by Spc. Ethan McCord, who brings them to a Bradley vehicle after another soldier, upon discovering them, runs away vomiting.  A documentary has been made about the shooting featuring McCord which has won the award for Best Documentary Short at the Tribeca Film Festival, "Incident in New Baghdad."

A perusal of soldier's and veterans blogs shows surprising unanimity even among the battle-hardened.  Remarks go roughly: First shooting, tough sh*t.  Second shooting, war crime.

If it came out that Manning had been hung upside down and beaten on the soles of his feet, many Americans would conclude it was deserved given the incomplete reporting which merely mentions that Manning is accused of leaking classified documents.  This may be part of it, but the fact also remains that Bradley Manning was reporting a clear war crime.

Bradley Manning's "van thing" can be seen starting at about 9 minutes.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (183+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snoopydawg, Anak, jrooth, hopi13, susakinovember, sceptical observer, vacantlook, merrily1000, JonBarleycorn, old wobbly, ask, flitedocnm, Timaeus, Bob Love, Sandino, glitterscale, Lost Left Coaster, Floande, Robobagpiper, Crashing Vor, stevej, Involuntary Exile, wayoutinthestix, justiceputnam, ctsteve, codairem, Kayakbiker, tiponeill, Publius2008, karlpk, Alice Olson, albrt, Cronesense, democracy is coming, svboston, CitizenOfEarth, blueoasis, Horace Boothroyd III, rapala, atana, Gustogirl, Joe Bob, Friendlystranger, anodnhajo, Assaf, p gorden lippy, YucatanMan, bleeding blue, flowerfarmer, cosmic debris, LucyandByron, Gowrie Gal, Caneel, rb608, AllisonInSeattle, shaharazade, muddy boots, Farkletoo, tofumagoo, swarf, CT yanqui, temptxan, eru, RF, gloriana, bsmechanic, Hayate Yagami, LakeSuperior, scarvegas, CwV, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Garrett, docmidwest, deviant24x, Tool, lotlizard, Jim R, Barbara Marquardt, xynz, armadillo, BlackSheep1, Mathazar, jhop7, TheDuckManCometh, bronte17, Eddie L, joanneleon, pioneer111, Chi, Morgan Sandlin, tommymet, elwior, Chaddiwicker, antirove, nuclear winter solstice, offgrid, doingbusinessas, 420 forever, FogCityJohn, slatsg, Lily O Lady, Einsteinia, asym, democracy inaction, tardis10, OllieGarkey, hubcap, taonow, cybersaur, 2020adam, BYw, nailbender, Lisa Lockwood, glorificus, Dobber, DvCM, beth meacham, Miss Jones, shenderson, Buzzybill, Zwoof, DeminNewJ, walkshills, maybeeso in michigan, Alumbrados, Independent Musings, daddybunny, shortgirl, shinobi9, JesseCW, ewmorr, wader, Karl Rover, petulans, Eikyu Saha, sidnora, Lefty Coaster, StrayCat, chantedor, WI Deadhead, Leftcandid, ladybug53, howd, ZenTrainer, forgore, skyounkin, ashowboat, trueblueliberal, bluedust, Julia Grey, yoduuuh do or do not, martini, white blitz, raincrow, lennysfo, bnasley, Agathena, Dumbo, erratic, Trotskyrepublican, psnyder, LilithGardener, MsGrin, Habitat Vic, eyesoars, wenchacha, doesnotworkorplaywellwithothers, winsock, jayden, zesty grapher, Hedwig, chalatenango, Texknight, Jujuree, kevinpdx, chimene, Bule Betawi, aliasalias, BlueMississippi, deben, WB Reeves, OMwordTHRUdaFOG, pot
  •  I agree (51+ / 0-)

    most people think Manning's treatment is deserved.
    Doesn't matter to them that he was reporting a war crime.
    Doesn't matter to them that his Right's were violated.
    But it would matter to them if our troops were slaughtered and the rescuers were too.
    I find it abhorrent that what was wrong when Bush was doing it, is considered ok now that there is a Dem in the WH.
    Why is this site so quiet on the NDAA?
    No prosecutions for war crimes for the previous administration, the banks, the oil, mining, you name it companies?
    Or the fact that Obama is droning the hell out of the ME with drones and has a fucking kill list?

    America never needed so much in the last election and got so little.

    by snoopydawg on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:46:25 AM PST

    •  Please explain (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chimene

      What "rights" of PFC Manning were violated?

      There have been numerous trials for service members charged with committing crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Just because you didn't hear about them doesn't mean they didn't happen.  Your name doesnt appear on the jury pool for General Courts Martials.  Mine does.

      It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

      by ksuwildkat on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 01:39:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The right for a speedy trial, to name one. (10+ / 0-)

        Also, having his underwear removed every night for 9 months at the brig in Quantico etc

        “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.” Terry Pratchett

        by 420 forever on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 01:49:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  His own attorneys were the ones (7+ / 0-)

          requesting a delay in the trial. If he has been so upset by the delay, why request an additional one? And why are you blaming the Army in any event?

        •  LOCK UP DANIEL ELLSBERG and (9+ / 0-)
          throw away the key.

          And while you're at it, punish him as he awaits a trial for OVER A YEAR!

          OOOOOps.  That van already crashed. . . and we're all the beneficiaries--

          because the Ellsberg's expose in the "Pentagon Papers" was the leading factor in precipitating the end of the Viet Nam War.

          My how things have changed!

          Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

          by Einsteinia on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 01:56:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  he has been charged (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          databob

          and will eventually go to trial.  it is my understanding that the source of delay right now is from the extensive bargaining going on.  He is facing multiple capital crimes and it is in his best interest to not go to trial.  In cases of loss of classified information, it is in the governments interest not to go to trial either so there is often a long period of negotiating.  

          As for his under ware, it is my understanding that he choose to make "jokes" to his jailers about the ability to hang himself with the elastic band.  When Privates make dumb jokes Sergeants normally make them regret that.  PFC Manning remains on active duty is is held to the same standards any other soldier is.  When I was a PFC I received some expert "Wall to Wall" counseling for making a smart remark.  

          It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

          by ksuwildkat on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 01:57:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ah, so taking Manning's pants off (10+ / 0-)

            for 9 months had nothing to do with Manning being suicidal? Instead, it's because he made a "dumb joke"?

            “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.” Terry Pratchett

            by 420 forever on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 02:06:44 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Excessive? Maybe (1+ / 3-)
              Recommended by:
              databob
              Hidden by:
              chalatenango, Mindful Nature, aliasalias

              but last I checked tighty whitties were not a right.  

              Personally I would not have wanted to see him nekked all the time.  I would have given him rope, sharp objects and lots of alone time.  And a video camera monitoring him so there was ample proof that any harm was self inflicted.

              Quantico is a nasty place and Marines are nasty people.  He got his shorts  back when he moved to Leavenworth.  And he has stopped making stupid jokes.  

              It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

              by ksuwildkat on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 02:13:00 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  hey fuckwad you are proving everything wrong with (5+ / 6-)

                America and it's wars.

                Thanks for doing such a great job of it.

                •  I said personally (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  databob

                  As a military commander his wellbeing would be my responsibility so I would have ordered everything harmful removed from his cell....including his under ware

                  It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                  by ksuwildkat on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 03:40:05 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  IE (12+ / 0-)

                    "I harbor lethal hatred for him and would act upon it, unless my job prevented me from doing so."

                    •  no (0+ / 0-)

                      its the difference between my personal feeling for someone who would betray his country and his fellow soldiers and my professional obligations.  And there is a big difference between harming someone and providing the means for them to harm themselves.

                      It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                      by ksuwildkat on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 08:52:32 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Rigid thinking (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        raincrow

                        Whistle-blowing isn't exactly what comes to mind when one hears the phrase "betray his country and his fellow soldiers."  It's very distinct from the sort of brazen treachery that should inspire contempt in a reasonable person.  

                        •  Don't insult whistle blowers (0+ / 0-)

                          PFC Manning had multiple avenues to report any bad acts and not compromise classified information.  In fact, because of his access to sensitive information he had MORE ways than the average soldier.  He passed on all of them.

                          What he did he did for revenge and a need for attention.  Nothing more, nothing less.  

                          It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                          by ksuwildkat on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:35:25 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  There is a cloud of (0+ / 0-)

                            emotion interfering with your judgment.  When one ascertains, as BM appeared to do, that one's employer is in fact nefarious, it goes without saying that the channels for whistle-blowing operated by that same employer will not lead to resolution.  And I've never seen anything to suggest "revenge" as a motivation for the disclosure.  Revenge against whom?  For what?  

                            Honestly, your need for a punching bag is so controlling here that you're simply making things up to justify your feelings.  

                      •  Betrayal. Yeah, right. Like gwb, cheney didn't (0+ / 0-)

                        And Manning did.  

                        You got it exactly upside down.

                         We have a military beating the bushes looking for projects, missions, anything to justify hundreds of billions flowing to the well connected, the same ones offering sinecures to retired professional military in an incestuous closed loop of a decaying economic system. We all pay, we will all bleed, we will all pay dearly for outsourcing citizenship and waiving our duty to do informed decision making.

                        Bradley did something audacious and heroic. He simply revealed, like Abu Gharib, something the powers that be wanted to be kept away from oversight, from the public.

                        For that the tools, and loyal followers of various power centers and the self serving want him dead, or silenced permanently, or both.  They always show up to do the death dance on his grave.  Except he isn't buried yet and the story won't go away.

                  •  Please... (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    raincrow, 84thProblem, ksuwildkat

                    "underWEAR".

                    "I'm not scared of anyone or anything, Angie. Isn't that the way life should be?" Jack Hawksmoor

                    by skyounkin on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 06:03:51 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Not a remark that reflects well on you (n/t) (8+ / 0-)

                "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

                by wader on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:15:03 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Hey, ksuwildkat, you are proving everything wrong (4+ / 0-)

                with America and it's wars.

                Thanks for doing such a great job of it.

                [slightly edited version of donoevil's post, which I agree with 100%.]

              •  HR'd for fascist suggestions and sadistic spew (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                aliasalias

                I preach the church without Christ, where the lame don't walk, the blind don't see and what's dead stays that way! Hazel Motes in "Wise Blood"

                by chalatenango on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 08:30:52 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I disagree (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Wordsinthewind

                  I suppose that if you either go looking for something to complain about, or just walked into this thread, you'd HR this.

                  But if you'd participated in this thread, especially if you'd read all of ksuwildcat's comments, you'd understand his comment in a different context, I reckon.

                  Speaking for myself, I don't understand the whole 'suicide watch' thing, perhaps because I believe that not only is suicide a personal thing but also that in some cases it's the honorable choice.... and who are we to deny a person that right?

                  Or maybe you don't agree that Marines are nasty people and Quantico is a nasty place.... just proves you don't know anything about either. But that doesn't deserve an HR, does it?

                  And, before I get pummeled by anyone, I WANT our Marines to be nasty people, because we DEMAND they do NASTY things, and I respect that.

                  Cheers.

                  Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. Friedrich Schiller

                  by databob on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 08:46:42 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I read them (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    raincrow

                    and he's way out of line.  If that's a common attitude, then a lot of military guys need to learn some professionalism

                    Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                    by Mindful Nature on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:24:00 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  What exactly? (0+ / 0-)

                      What exactly is "out of line"?

                      That I dont want to see someone necked - which of course he was not.

                      That on a personal level I would give him the option of being free from his troubles?

                      Or that on a professional level I would ensure his safety - even tot he point of having people with no knowledge of the situation call me terrible things for doing so.

                      You cant have it both ways.  Either Im evil for preventing him from killing himself or evil for enabling him.  

                      Please be precise.  

                      It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                      by ksuwildkat on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 01:02:07 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The suggestion of enabling (0+ / 0-)

                        Is far over the line.  If military detention has created such mental conditions it is time to remove him from military custody

                        Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                        by Mindful Nature on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 04:00:40 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  In other words (0+ / 0-)

                          you were just talking out of your butt and have no real basis for complaining.  

                          PFC Manning was unhinged long before he was detained.  

                          It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                          by ksuwildkat on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 06:48:13 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  no (0+ / 0-)

                            you suggested facilitating the suicide of a prisoner.  That is a grave breach.

                            Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                            by Mindful Nature on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 06:56:36 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  See (0+ / 0-)

                            Now you are just displaying the emptiness of your arguments.

                            First you say it is evil to take away the mens he himself suggested he could kill himself with then you say I am evil for suggesting I would provide him with more.

                            And of course you take the position that suicide is evil contrary to most liberal thought.

                            Empty

                            It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                            by ksuwildkat on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 07:11:45 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I never said the former at all (0+ / 0-)

                            I said that trying to get a prisoner to commit suicide shows an utter depravity

                            Suicide isn't evil.  Trying to get someone under your power to commit suicide  is

                            Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                            by Mindful Nature on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 08:15:30 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  Wow. (0+ / 0-)

                    YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

                    by raincrow on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:53:56 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  you have never been in the service is my guess (0+ / 0-)

                    without the ants the rainforest dies

                    by aliasalias on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:19:21 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Vietnam era, actually (USCG) (0+ / 0-)

                      And the tales I heard about Navy brigs would curl yer hair.
                      The sociopathic comment would be more at home at Glenn Beck's site.

                      I preach the church without Christ, where the lame don't walk, the blind don't see and what's dead stays that way! Hazel Motes in "Wise Blood"

                      by chalatenango on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 09:59:06 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  and now sociopathic (0+ / 0-)

                        Really, you need to look these words up before using them:

                        so·ci·o·path
                         [soh-see-uh-path, soh-shee-]
                        noun, Psychiatry.
                        a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

                        I have been accused of many things in my years but lack of moral responsibility has never been one of them.  

                        You do realize that PFC Manning is almost a case study in sociopathic behavior.  

                        dictionary.com

                        its free
                        use it and live better

                        It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                        by ksuwildkat on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 01:24:25 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  If you're the officer responsible for a prisoner's (0+ / 0-)

                    safety, you should obviously be the one to "deny a person that right" or your ass would get busted.

                    I preach the church without Christ, where the lame don't walk, the blind don't see and what's dead stays that way! Hazel Motes in "Wise Blood"

                    by chalatenango on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 10:07:10 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

                  Please explain the "fascist suggestion."

                  From Dictionary.com:

                  fascism  (ˈfæʃɪzəm)

                  — n
                  1.    any ideology or movement inspired by Italian Fascism, such as German National Socialism; any right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with an authoritarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism
                  2.    any ideology, movement, programme, tendency, etc, that may be characterized as right-wing, chauvinist, authoritarian, etc
                  3.    prejudice in relation to the subject specified: body fascism

                  I would assume you believe that suggesting tighty whities are not a right I am somehow a fascist.  I have checked the Constitution and I dont see anything about undergarments.  

                  sa·dis·tic
                   [suh-dis-tik, sey-, sa-]
                  adjective
                  pertaining to or characterized by sadism; deriving pleasure or sexual gratification from extreme cruelty: a sadistic psychopath.

                  I will further assume that you qualify providing the means to terminate ones life is "sadistic spew."

                  From Wikipedia:  Liberalism asserts that a person's life belongs only to them, and no other person has the right to force their own ideals that life must be lived. Rather, only the individual involved can make such decision, and whatever decision they make should be respected.

                  Philosopher and psychiatrist Thomas Szasz goes further, arguing that suicide is the most basic right of all. If freedom is self-ownership—ownership over one's own life and body—then the right to end that life is the most basic of all. If others can force you to live, you do not own yourself and belong to them.

                  Your accusations seem to be in conflict.  if I am a Fascist I am fundamentally opposed to liberalism yet if I allow someone the freedom to continue or end their life on their own terms, I am at the very extreme of Liberalism.  

                  Now you might be opposed to the things I say and might even find them offensive but do a little more research before trying to articulate your displeasure.  Words mean things.  Your words mean you dont know what they mean.

                  It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                  by ksuwildkat on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 01:16:08 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  sick (0+ / 0-)

                without the ants the rainforest dies

                by aliasalias on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:17:26 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  If we don't hear about them they don't "happen" (13+ / 0-)

        Like a tree falling in the forest.  

        If the Pentagon was serious about America's reputation and soul, these disgraceful War Crimes (from the generals on down) would have been big news.  

        The fact that we "didn't hear about them" is all that really matters.

        Please remind us of a single CIA operative, or military officer above Lt., that has been prosecuted for War Crimes anywhere since Vietnam

        The military needs to be subject to the same laws as everyone else.  It's way past time to get rid of these bogus military "courts."

        •  ORLY?? (0+ / 0-)

          Well if you pick up any copy of Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times or Marine Corps Times you will read about military trials.  You can also contact the service Public Affairs, DoD Public Affairs or even your congressman as some trials become part of the congressional record.  Just because the national media doesnt pick up on them does not mean they are being hidden.  

          Allen West, LTC, US Army.  Charged with and convicted of crimes in combat.  You might have heard of him.

          "Same Laws?"  Are you kidding?  How exactly are you going to enforce US law in Korea?  Or Afghanistan?  Or anywhere else for that matter?  You cant charge me with a crime committed outside the US against a non-US citizen.  No US court would hear it because they have no jurisdiction.  What you propose would make things worse, not better.  

          How do you propose we follow "normal" as it applies to military discipline?  Can I now tell my commander to fuck off and face no punishment?  Can I be late, smoke medical MJ and bang my soldiers wives?

          Stick to what ever you do for a living and leave the military to the experts.

          It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

          by ksuwildkat on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 02:06:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  They didn't convict West, dang it! (16+ / 0-)

            They did an Article 32 investigation and then offered him an Article 15, which he accepted, paid a $5000 fine and retired..... a semi-graceful exit for a truly despicable person.

            As you know, ksuwildcat, but others may not, an Article 15 (known as non-judicial punishment) may only be offered by a commander, not forced on a soldier. Punishment is limited and the maximum depends on the rank of the commander, and is usually some amount of confinement, extra duty, loss of pay and/or rank.

            It's an 'out' for all parties in a situation like this, but the soldier can refuse the offer, leaving the commander to decide to either drop the charge or move it up to a real court-martial.

            I've never heard of a soldier refusing an Article 15, but I'm sure it happens.... hell of a gamble, though.

            Geez, I guess I'm REALLY bored at work today - I've never written this many comments before. :-)

            Cheers.

            Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. Friedrich Schiller

            by databob on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 02:24:21 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  more to it (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              raincrow

              The decision to charge him with NJP was based on the circumstances surrounding the incident.  LTC West actually had a good case and probably a better than 50/50 chance of making it though a General Courts Martial.  The command held the threat of convening a Summary Court where a single officer would decide vice a jury.  Had it gone to Summary trial, he probably would have lost as they generally hold a stricter view where as a jury is a crap shoot every time.

              LTC West reported his actions immediately and his command took no action.  Much later when a CENTCOM IG investigator was looking into a different matter the incident surfaced.  Basically someone who was about to go down said "well Im not as bad as LTC West."  Only then did the Brigade Commander involved bring charges against LTC West.  Any jury is going to hold a dim view of charges brought late in an obvious attempt to get the IG to look another direction.

              I happen to know LTC West and I corresponded with him during the time before he was sentenced.  I thought what he did was wrong but I also understood why he did it.  He was faced with a very personal threat and acted as one might expect in the situation.  I think, but do not know, I would have acted differently.  Had I been on the jury, I would likely have voted to convict but I would understand why others would not.  I have no doubt that those who were involved in the plea negotiations did the same mental math.  The final outcome was both good and bad for both sides.  Some would say that is the definition of justice.  

              It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

              by ksuwildkat on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 03:15:49 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  He went over the line... (0+ / 0-)

                and I believe he knows it. From his Wikipedia page:

                During a hearing held as part of an Article 32 investigation in November 2003, West stated, "I know the method I used was not right, but I wanted to take care of my soldiers."[
                I admit that my opinion of West comes mainly from his outrageous behavior as a member of Congress - like most people, I'd never heard of him before he was elected.

                I've spent most of my life associated with the Army - my dad was a West Point grad (1950), and I enlisted when I was 19 and served 4 years, then spent 18 years as a tech rep working on electronic warfare and comm systems. So I have a framework for evaluating this stuff.

                Allen West doesn't measure up in my book.

                Cheers.

                Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. Friedrich Schiller

                by databob on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:02:29 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

                  He knew it was wrong, did it anyway and then self reported.  In many ways he did the right thing.  Many others have done similar things and then tried to cover it up.  It was the lack of cover up that cast him in a positive light and made the command think twice about rolling the dice with a jury.  

                  And Ill be honest - when I heard about this I was not surprised at all.  it was very much "in character" for him.  He generally placed himself above the rules while expecting everyone else to follow them.  

                  Personally I wish the command had tried him.  He would have either been guilty or innocent instead of this half way state.  Its better to stand for justice and lose than stand by and allow wrong.

                  It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                  by ksuwildkat on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 02:23:55 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  "it is better to stand for justice and lose than (0+ / 0-)

                    stand by and allow wrong."

                    That, in essence is the core of the Manning case.

                    Let the chips fly.  In the court of public opinion there is a determined effort to have a selected, sliver of formality while building a case in the popular media against him personally.

                    Where is the war crimes trial of an incident of three years ago now?  More important to silence the messenger than have the basis of the Iraq fiasco revealed and dealt with. There will be more in the future, fiascos that is. America runs on wars like this, ever since WW 2. Won't change.

            •  Band of Brothers (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ladybug53, ksuwildkat
              I've never heard of a soldier refusing an Article 15, but I'm sure it happens.... hell of a gamble, though.
              In the video and the book (and in real life) Dick Winters turned down administrative punishment( what was later called an article 15) for a court martial and beat the charge. Its the thing to do when a soldier thinks he has been accused unfairly by his commander (as Winters did)

              Arrticle 15s put WAY too much power in the hands of your commander. They can really fuck with your life solely because they don't like you.  In what other theater of life can your boss fine you, restrict you to your barracks, restrict who you associate with? This is why liberals keep their mouths shut in the army---the bosses tend to be conservative, very conservative
              I got one articlle 15 in 3 years, for something others did regularly (sleeping on radio guard)  I thought it was real unfair but that was the Army all over

              Happy just to be alive

              by exlrrp on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:31:48 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not just conservatives (0+ / 0-)

                Im about as liberal as they come but sleeping on guard.....would have to be some serious mitigation for me not to give an AR 15.  Of course I would also want to know what the heck the SOG was doing and how he managed to let that happen.

                If you think the Army is bad, the Air Force doesnt even have Summarized Article 15s and in the Navy everything goes to the O6.  AR 15 is a great tool if it is used right and if there is followup.  It is an evil tool if used for evil.

                It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                by ksuwildkat on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 02:28:11 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  The last comment is a bit excession. That way lies (5+ / 0-)

            a Preatorian guard.  

            BUT, your other pts are well-taken.  The lack a draft for over 40 years means many simply do not understand how any of this works, the discipline required OTOH and the real actual prosecutions of military personel for crimes on duty, including in war zones against foriegn nationals (and even combatants).  The US military takes them seriously bc 1) it offends everything they know of honor, which most actually believe in, 2) they really do try and follow the law (but legal technicalities - often caused by respect for rights of all parties in the investigation/litigation -sometimes make things very murky), and 3) how your soldiers are treated often depends on how you treat theirs (tho this may break down when dealing with non-state combatants).

            OTOoH, r/c has a pt about the lack of accountability for General level officers.  The problem there is, among other things, 1) its very difficult to establish direct complicity and thus responsibility, and 2) much of the actual accountability takes the form of denail of promotion or loss of grade and forced retirement (ala West).  Given the 'law and order' propaganda since Gates militarize policing in the 60s, i understand how that might seem more a cover-up than a punishment.

            OTOooH ( :) ), diaresty has pt re: war crime incident.  BUT, that was a tiny fraction of classified material Manning allegedly took/passed.

            However, I find much about the handling of Manning pre-trial to be objectionable, starting with his continued incarceration when a civilian would likely have been on bail.

            •  Rephrased (0+ / 0-)

              I should have said "leave military LAW to the military legal experts."

              I would agree, in general, that holding General Officers accountable is an area that can be improved.  That said, I know of four current investigations and two recently decided ones.  Given the small size of the population, that a lot.  All were for some form of misconduct.

              What we have been less good at is holding them accountable being bad generals.  LTG Sanchez was promoted three times past his peter principle and would have been promoted again had Abu Ghraib not come to light.  General Franks left town one step ahead of the mob and then got a medal from the President.  I cant speak for the other services but from listening to my Air Force peers incompetence is required for promotion past one star.  

              I agree with you that much of PFC Mannings pre-trial has been mishandled.  Why he was ever in a Marine facility in the DC area  I will never understand.  In fact, I would have tried him in Afghanistan or baring that sent him to Ft Riley - in the middle of no where with as little media attention as possible.  Believe it or not, it would lead to a more fair trial.

              It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

              by ksuwildkat on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 03:54:08 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Better. (0+ / 0-)

                And certainly will not argue with the PeterPrinciple stupidity of promotions.  But then above 1 star seems to be all about politics and who you know, and the Pentagon has always seemed to care more about itself and the MIC than the soldier in that.  Franks for example certainly seemed to be promoted bc he was good at kissing neo-con butt.  It may just be inherent in any huge institution with such a central role in so many Washington pies... ::shrug::

                I would have been more bothered by trying Manning in theater on any of the more serious charges he now faces (which I think are egregiously excessive in many cases, and farcial in some - i.e., aiding and abbetting the enemy?  Do they srlsy think he intended to hurt this country?) Frankly, the whole thing seems much overblown to me: he violated some laws re: classiified documents, and that's were the charges should have stopped - and frankly seems to be were the prosecution is headed, with a relatively short sentence, perhaps even time served.  That does not seem unreasonable, given his idealistic motives - and some of the truly nasty stuff he brought to light.

                Having so escalated the stakes, I think the media access and resultant circus was essential to ensure he didn;t simply disappear down a hole as the proverbial 'bad apple'.  But that's just my 2 cents.

                Query: Do you think 23 hours lockdown in a very small, windowless (if irrc) cell was truly justified?  A civilian similarly situated was bailed with 'house arrest' cpnditions.  Surely a 'barracks arrest' would have been sufficient.

                •  10-15 years (0+ / 0-)

                  I think Manning will get 10-15 minus time served.  If he is a model prisoner he will do 1/3 of that meaning on a 15 year he would do 5 minus time served.  Thats about right.  That said he has not demonstrated the ability to be a model prisoner.  His lockdown is entirely of his own doing.  He seems to lack the self preservation skills to keep himself out of trouble.  If I were a betting man I would guess that what ever sentence he is given he will serve that plus more for "lost time." Under the military system you can have time added for being a jerk.  I will bet that he uses up all his time served and then some before he gets the message.

                  It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                  by ksuwildkat on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 08:50:03 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Hope your wrong. That's far too harsh imo, given (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Eikyu Saha

                    the devestating effect of a dishonorable and felony convictions.  Little of what he released should have been classified and/or truly harmed real US interests.

                    Many of the Gitmo defendant's who were active combatants and real supporters of our enemies (as opposed to the poor saps BushCo caught and kept in their ridiculously overlarge net) got less than 5 years, many considerably less.  Manning should not get more than that imo.

                    Though I am not, of course, a member of his jury and so not privy to the actual evidence that will be admitted.  Perhaps it will justify more.  But, I haven't seen it.

                    I do agree he has 'tweaked the nose' of authority, but then I expected no less from a computer nerd.  And frankly, I think that's pretty much the duty of any American. I understand the initial reactions of prison authorities to those things I'm aware of (the joke-underwear thing for example) but think they were far too harsh for far too long.  Often it appears they were punative and primarily serving interests of authority at the expense of need, justice and reasonableness.  Tho that is not unusual for the civilian prison system either.  (Remember the student 'guard-prisioner' academic experiments?)

                    •  Its a tough case (0+ / 0-)

                      Depending on how he is charged, he might be able to upgrade his discharge at a later date though community service.  If he is charged with disobeying a lawful order he would be eligible for upgrade as that is a military specific crime.  If I were his lawyer I would offer to plea to ten bazillion counts of disobeying and 15 years.  That way he has the chance of doing only 3-5 years and eventual upgrade and no felony.  If I were the government I would want one felony charge to deny him those things.  We will learn who was the better deal maker when he is sentenced.

                      Gitmo is a false equivalence.  Funny thing is that the folks around President Bush were so clueless about the military they automatically assumed military tribunals were kangaroo courts.  Instead they got real soldiers who saw a lot of guys doing what they themselves would do if their country were invaded.  The sentences - which are usually the equivalent to time served - are a reflection of military professionals opinion of Gitmo.

                      It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                      by ksuwildkat on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 01:40:03 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I have a feeling we're actually close but coming a (0+ / 0-)

                        t it from different sides.  I'd rather the certinty of a lighter sentence, versus the chance of early release and 'upgrading' later (which you seemed to say in prior post was not likely given what you feel is Manning's personality and likely behavior in custody).  

                        And I feel that, based on info presently public that I've read/heard, that is the most likely the proper sentence, morally.

                        As for 'equivalency'... your pt supports mine: military juries gave many defendant's sentences commensurate with what they expected soldiers to do in war, recognizing many of the defendant were just as much soldiers as they.  So too Manning: who claims to have been serving the 'higher law' recognized since at least Nuremberg, that 'following orders' is not a defense for military personnel to apparent war crimes.  And this includes failure to disclose war crimes.  Manning and his supporters claim following procedure would have been tantamount to a cover-up.  There is strong evidence that something like that occurred re: Abu Grab, at least in allowing some bigger fish to escape and delaying justice for those caught.  Indeed, that was the entire reason BushCo wanted the photos suppressed - bc their release made a cover up impossible (tho not the slow walk they then engaged in).  It could thus be argued that Abu Grab supports Manning's claims.  The only issue then becomes was the scope of the violation (going beyond eg the helo/van video) justifiable.  And to that must be added the (not irrational) claim that Manning's acts shortened the wars by helping turn public opinion against them, thus lending them further moral legitimacy.

                        I am not saying that is a defense to all the charges (tho imo is to some), but it is surely mitigating and thus should imo reduce the sentence.  That imo strikes a proper balance bt military necessity and moral demands.

                        Your mileage may vary.

                    •  Manning should be released until (0+ / 0-)

                      those whose crimes he reported have all been fully tried.  At that point, Manning can be tried.  

                      If it turns out that the "crimes" he revealed were indeed criminal, and if it turns out that those crimes would otherwise have gone unaddressed, then he needs to be fully exonerated.  Why?  Because failure to report a crime is itself a crime; and reporting a crime to a "hierarchy" that fails to address the crime is the same as a cover-up.  

                      The evidence that crimes were committed is, in my opinion, very strong.  If they weren't then I would like to see a full explanation.  And if the revelations happened to cause collateral damage, then tough.  Manning goes free.  

                      •  If he were released (0+ / 0-)

                        he would be dead in a week.  Remember he is still in the Army and would have to go to a regular unit.  That is a death sentence.

                        As I have said before, he had methods of reporting suspected crimes without compromising security and placing himself in jeopardy.  Think about how we learned of Abu Ghraib.  That soldier was widely praised because he did it the right way.

                        Really, he is not well and is probably in the best place possible for now.  

                        It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                        by ksuwildkat on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 02:32:44 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

            •  There is nothing honorable (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Eikyu Saha

              in trying to set up a prisoner to commit "suicide."  It's a crime, pure and simple.

              Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

              by Mindful Nature on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:27:37 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  your opinion (0+ / 0-)

                and not one universally held.  For some, suicide is a release and a gift.  Others see it as a basic right of all people.  In three states its legal for doctors to assist in termination of life.

                Again, you need to do your research or you will continue to look silly.

                It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                by ksuwildkat on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 01:43:41 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  The American military is (8+ / 0-)

            ultimately under civilian command.

            (Thank goodness).

            The folks who wrote the US Constitution did that for a reason.  It is the American people who are supposed to control their military, not the other way around.  

            Military "experts" control places like Pakistan, and Egypt.

            As for "jurisdiction:"

            Protocol I of 1977 Geneva Convention. "Every State bound by the treaties is under the legal obligation to search for and prosecute those in their territory suspected of having committed grave breaches, irrespective of the nationality of the suspect or victim or the place where the act was allegedly committed."

            Unfortunately, the US military has gotten the wink from the US Justice Dept. that the GC doesn't apply to them.  

            It does.

            •  Yes, exactly (0+ / 0-)

              and it is CONGRESS who writes the UCMJ.  It is CONGRESS who defines military law and justice.

              Imposing that justice in accordance with the law is left to military EXPERTS - judges, lawyers and commanders.

              While I am sure theft and murder are easy to judge by both military and civilian juries what about crimes like failure to repair or missing movement?  What do you know about conduct unbecoming?  Civil courts cant convict you for being a jerk but military courts can.  What you call valid political speech we call contempt toward officials.  How are you going to sit in judgement when you know nothing of the law?

              While I lived in Saudi Arabia I drank beer.  Should I be subject to Saudi law and potentially death for having a beer?  I looked at porn too.  Should I be subject to stoning?

              My job title includes killing people.  Were I subject to civilian laws I would be guilty of murder.  Would you give me blanket exemption?  Case by case?  Easy to do when we are fighting small wars but think about D-Day or Gettysburg.  

              It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

              by ksuwildkat on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 03:27:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, unfortunately (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                aliasalias

                killing people is Murder when it's not in immediate self defense.

                And insubordination will get you fired at any job, including McDonalds.  That's what a dishonorable discharge should be for.  (Though speech, obviously, shouldn't be criminalized, even in the military).

                If you are in a foreign country, of course you should b subject to the laws of that country.  You need to not get caught, or stay the fuck out of other people's countries if you don't wanna be subject to their rules.  It doesn't make their laws "right," it makes them their laws.  Just like ours.

                None of this is rocket science.  

                It simply runs counter to years of military "tradition."

                Having two sets of legal standards for American citizens is anachronistic, and constitutionally and ethically unjustifiable.   Having two sets of legal standards for HUMAN BEINGS is ethically unjustifiable.  

                I understand the "logic" to justify a separate "military justice" system.  My father was an Air Force Captain.  But that doesn't make it appropriate for a 21st century democracy.

                We will have to disagree that joining the US military should take away one's rights as an American citizen, or as a human being, or gives one legal or ethical cover to take away the rights of other people.  

                If laws aren't universally applied, they are morally bankrupt.

                •  Ah so now we get to the core (0+ / 0-)

                  "killing people is Murder when it's not in immediate self defense"

                  This is a great idea but pretty much rules out effective military operations and in fact would prolong any conflict.  The trench warfare of WWI is a great example of two inherently defensive forces locked into a bloody struggle without end.  Extending a conflict by not using the means to end it is is fact a key failure point in just war theory.  Choosing to continue a conflict when the means to end it (attack) are available is immoral.  Yet your theory would deny any non-defensive action and lead to endless absorption of losses.

                  Please remember that everyone who joins the military is made well aware of the freedoms they are giving up including absolute freedom of speech.  You demonstrate a lack of understanding of military justice - I cannot think of a single dishonorable discharge for insubordination.  In fact, as a military specific crime it is one of the few charges that can lead to a later upgrade of a discharge like a General or Other than Honorable.  We recognize the unique requirements we place on people and the unique nature of the offense.

                  In 27 years in the military the only country I was in uninvited was Iraq.  I not only was asked to come to Saudi Arabia the government reimbursed the Department of Defense for every dime of my "cost" for almost two years.  We establish Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA) that say which foreign laws we will follow and which we will be exempt from.  It was the failure of the US and Iraq to reach a SOFA that lead to our withdrawal of Title 10 personnel (the remaining are Title 22).  Contrary to popular belief, the US military is rarely in countries uninvited but before we show up we make sure the legal status of those soldiers is well defined.  It is not "tradition" any more than the status of diplomats is "tradition."  Without such agreements our ability to work with allies would be severely restricted and we would all suffer.

                  How is it any less appropriate for "21st century democracy" to impose different but complimentary legal standards on soldiers and civilians?  No rights are ever taken from a citizen when he/she joins the military.  They are voluntarily forfeited.  I choose to serve and I serve understanding the requirements of service.  No rights have been taken from me.

                  It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                  by ksuwildkat on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 02:05:30 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Are you a US citizen? (0+ / 0-)

            then, yes, there sure are bases for US jurisdiction over you internationally.

            And if we leave the military to the "experts" we'll end up with the Lord of the Flies.

            Be professional, or go home.  This attitude is a disgrace to the country, and has a lot to explain why our wars go so poorly.

            Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

            by Mindful Nature on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:26:35 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  once again (0+ / 0-)

              you display basic ignorance of US law.

              If I go to a foreign country and commit a crime in that country that involves no other US citizen or the property of a US citizen I cannot be tried for that crime in US court.  I can be extradited  to that country for trial but no US court has jurisdiction over crimes committed in foreign lands....with one exception - a MILITARY COURT - which has world wide jurisdiction over military personnel.

              Here is a great example for you - Bhopal.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/...

              Had this occurred on US soil the people involved would have been looking at a LOT of time.  But it didnt and the victims had no recourse in US criminal court.  

              It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

              by ksuwildkat on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 02:14:23 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  YOu aren't a lawyer (0+ / 0-)

                so by all means, rely on wikipedia as you r authority.

                Hilarious.

                Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                by Mindful Nature on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 06:58:26 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  really? (0+ / 0-)

                  you are so ignorant of basic law.

                  Please, show me some other authoritative document that shows a US person being tried in US court for a crime committed in a foreign country.

                  You can mock wikipedia but it doesn't change that you know nothing of the law.

                  Come on smart guy, PROVE ME WRONG.

                  It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                  by ksuwildkat on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 07:20:28 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Funny (0+ / 0-)

                    I am a lawyer.  I love being told how I don't understand basic law by people who have never passed a bar anywhere. Amusing.

                    Ill direct you first to The ATS that shows clearly that Congress can authorize jurisdiction in US courts for foreign acts.  And of course as you yourself pointed out, US court try members of the military who commit crimes in foreign territory. The espionage acts and piracy are similar examples.  There are no inherent limits to US jurisdiction, just because Congress hasn't exercised those authorities.  

                    Got more fish for my rain barrel?

                    Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                    by Mindful Nature on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 08:12:18 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I weep (0+ / 0-)

                      for your law school and your clients

                      You cite MILITARY courts having jurisdiction over military personnel yet your original argument was that there should just be civilian courts.  Nice try but you made my point.

                      Espionage is a crime against the US Government and therefore does not fall under the category of a US person committing a crime outside of the US with no US nexus.  Again, nice try but no blue ribbon.

                      Piracy falls under Admiralty Law which is a very strange mix of military law and international Law of the Sea.  Ill grant that under some very very specific circumstances a US person who commits piracy in international waters and is subsequently captured or extradited could be tried under Admiralty Law in the US.  

                      I truly hope you don't ever defend a military client in an espionage case, which happens to be my specialty.

                      It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                      by ksuwildkat on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 08:52:20 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Yes. US military (0+ / 0-)

                        Which shows US sovereign jurisdiction.  It is stil Congress authorizing jurisdiction.  Te fact that it is housed in a particular kind of court is immaterial.  Maybe if youd studied law, youd understand that. Period full stop

                        You are raising series of false distinctions none of which show that the US is incapable of asserting jurisdiction extraterritorially.  Also, you may recall various trials of the USS Cole bombers whom the option of trying in civilian courts was a distinct possibility.  

                        And I drive a 1998 Subaru. Guess being a lawyer isn't as lucrative as being a corrupt member of our ridiculously bloated gold played military.  

                        Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                        by Mindful Nature on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 09:10:55 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  hmmmm.... (0+ / 0-)

                          I happen to know a lot about the Cole investigation.  let me check my notes on the number of US persons involved.....right...NONE.

                          And at the end of it all you accuse me of being corrupt.  As a lawyer I am sure you understand libel.  Might want to think of that one.

                          It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                          by ksuwildkat on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 09:55:34 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  oh (0+ / 0-)

                      and you still failed to show me an authoritative document.

                      I fired up my Lexus-nexus, how about you.........

                      It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                      by ksuwildkat on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 08:55:32 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

        •  oh and (0+ / 0-)

          the tree really did fall.  

          Really bad example

          It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

          by ksuwildkat on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 02:18:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Bradley Mannings Treatment was a Military Hazing (4+ / 0-)

        We must all be willing to stipulate that Bradley Manning gave classified information to someone outside his chain of command....before we can agree as to whether or not he was somehow motivated by reporting a war crime.

        He may be a hero to some for reporting that war crime.

        He chose an odd way of reporting it.

        Bradley Manning made far more data public than simply feeling an obligation to report that 'van incident'.

        Bradley Manning did not appear to discriminate all too much in the data he provided to WikiLeaks.  Would folks who are more on the hero-side of this discussion please explain why Bradley Manning is not guilty of a crime for releasing a score of now-evidentiary materials that had noting to do with a war crime?  In matters of International war crimes such as these, should Bradley Manning be standing in a World Court or a U.S. Military Court?

        I can understand the 'hero' that some feel when listening or reading about Bradley Manning and his reporting a war crime.  But if I understand anything about the Army, it's the need to be faithful to your fellow comrades.  Bradley Manning may be in the Army, but the Marines expression, Sempre Fi "Always Faithful' seems to have been the last thing on the mind of Bradley Manning.  Is anyone really surprised by the treatment he has received?

        •  One need not be surprised to be both (7+ / 0-)

          disgusted and ashamed.

          "the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared material at these facilities and LOFs."

          by JesseCW on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:10:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Hmmm... (3+ / 0-)

          I wouldn't doubt that BM technically violated laws, but I will say that many people have lost so much faith in the institutions that promulgate such laws that the chasm between what's morally correct and what's legal has widened to the point that the latter often has no probative bearing on the former.  It's difficult to garner sympathy for the departments engaged in wrongdoing that intend to make an example out of this young man to avenge and prevent future revelations of malfeasance, even in the case where that malfeasance is not a "war crime" (an egregious example being the Western contractors partaking in sex acts with young Afghan boys dressed as girls).  Further, the U.S. upper class has made enough of a mockery out of the Rule of Law (ie robosigning, flagrant violations of international law, lobbying/bribery) that imploring the rest of us to suddenly take it seriously again is a tough sell.  Finally, there is the unshakable impression that the occupations in the mid-East have more to do with advancing U.S. commercial interests  than keeping U.S. civilians "safe."  It would be easier to tolerate some misbehavior in the service of advancing a greater good if we really believed a greater good was being served.  But that charade ended years ago.  It seems there are not even any attempts to convince us anymore that there's a righteous basis for military presence in that region; it is enough that the war(s) be out of sight/out of mind.  Taken altogether, these circumstances lead to a more sympathetic disposition towards BM, a troubled man who overreacted in what appears to have been a crisis of conscience.      

          •  Hindsight is 20/20 (0+ / 0-)

            It's easy to suggest that, "Taken altogether, these circumstances lead to a more sympathetic disposition towards BM, a troubled man who overreacted in what appears to have been a crisis of conscience."

            But no thoughts about what might have been had Bradley Manning dumped information about troop movements, or covert operatives, or nuclear weapons codes?

            If you saw a crime being committed or video of a crime, would your first reaction be to run to the media?  And then run to the media not just with the evidence of a crime, but an entire library of military internal affairs records.

            This was far more than an overreaction by BM.  Bradley Manning showed a complete disregard not only to his fellow soldiers, but anyone whose name might have appeared in his document dump.  Further, anyone who ever came in contact with any of the people whose names were in those documents may have also been put in danger.

            Folks seem to be giving Bradley Manning a bit too much credit for knowing what was or was not inside those documents.  If you believe that any 'Tom, Dick, or Jane' in the military should run to the media with all the information they can carry if they ever suspect a crime is being committed or covered-up, then keeping State Secrets would be impossible.

            Do folks really believe there should be no State Secrets?

            •  I wouldn't have done the same thing in his (0+ / 0-)

              position.  I don't endorse the action.  I was answering your question as to why some might find what he did to be less troublesome on a moral level.  

              Suppose something leaked led to the death of a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan.  Who would be to blame?  Options include BM, Julian Assange, the newspapers publishing leaks, the person(s) who physically murdered the soldier, the tactician behind the assault, or perhaps the regime responsible for the war in the first place without which the soldier would be stateside, the commanding officers who negligently entrusted BM with access, and so forth.  Life doesn't readily supply an easy answer, as there would be much culpability in that chain of causation.  

              As I mentioned earlier, there may have been more outrage if we had a strong sense that we lived in a country with unified national interests and that U.S. foreign policy existed to promote them equally.  Unfortunately, the profits generated by these wars of choice aren't exactly trickling down to Main Street.  So why would any of us lose sleep over an exposure of wrongdoing by a department that seems by all empirical accounts to be pretty nefarious and adverse to our interests in the first place?  

              That said, I agree with the view that BM should be punished primarily to deter repeats.  But it's not something that fills me with righteous anger or the kind of bloodlust I see in authoritarian types looking for cartoon-simple answers to complicated questions.  Best to you, -B

        •  Any person who would look the other way (5+ / 0-)

          while war crimes were committed, is unfit to call himself an American.  They certainly aren't being faithful to the oath they took to my Constitution.

          It's been a hundred years, isn't it time we stopped blaming Captain Smith for sinking the Titanic?

          by happymisanthropy on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 05:59:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  If this is the kind of treatment to be expected (0+ / 0-)

          then the Marines should not be keeping him. Perhaps civilian authorities should if military ones are not up to the job.

          Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

          by Mindful Nature on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:31:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  well, you sound like a real impartial juror (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eikyu Saha, 84thProblem
        Your name doesnt appear on the jury pool for General Courts Martials.  Mine does.
        Pray tell, how does one get on these jury pools? Probably not by being a registered voter, like most juries. Maybe that's why most US war criminals get off with little or no punishment.

        This Rover crossed over.. Willie Nelson, written by Dorothy Fields

        by Karl Rover on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:32:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I dont think his treatment was deserved (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wader, raincrow, wenchacha, LilithGardener

      I am glad he got out of the Marine detention facility and into the Army facility.

      I also think that it was good that the incident in the video was brought to light.

      But I do not think that he is a hero, and I do not think that his rather indiscriminate release of classified material, much of it not war crimes, is justified by the fact that some of the material he released contained war crimes.

      Now, do I think they've spent way too long making way too big of a deal out of this? Absolutely. He should have been convicted long ago, given a moderate but relatively small sentence, discharged and we move on.

  •  I agree regarding the attack video (11+ / 0-)

    The State Dept. "cables" are a different matter, however.  One can make other arguments regarding them (i.e. the bulk of them were not properly classified) but not that they exposed any kind of war crime.

    “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

    by jrooth on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:49:43 AM PST

    •  Yes this may be true, but CNN is giving a very (28+ / 0-)

      small slice of the whole picture.  I don't believe the war crime should be ignored.

      •  Any application of Rule of Law to the military (8+ / 0-)

        during a Republican Administration would be a surprise.

        Rape-and-murder of a teenage girl and her parents got prosecution, but not execution.

        Video game behavior was commonplace in Iraq.

        •  Proof? (0+ / 0-)

          or are you just pulling things out of your ass?

          How many soldiers were discharged for misconduct last year?  

          How many during the Bush administration?

          Military justice is conducted by commanders at the lowest level possible.  In 27 years of active service I have NEVER seen a commander make decisions on military justice based on the administration.  We didnt stop charging people with adultery during the CLinton years and we didnt stop charging people with financial crimes during the Bush years.  And we certainly didnt stop charging people with crimes in combat during the Bush years.  Goodness how do you think we got Allen West?

          Do a little research instead of just running your mouth.

          It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

          by ksuwildkat on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 01:43:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Or during the Obama administration (7+ / 0-)

          to our great embarrassment.  

          "Video game" murders continue to this day.  Directed from the White House  The Obama team has actually attempted to concoct a theory that the execution without trial of Americans is "legal" when the President does it.

          Another small step towards a military dictatorship and "martial law."  (An oxymoron).

          So it is unlikely we'll see ANY prosecution for War Crimes in this country by Republicans or Democrats.   Instead we will see the marginalization of whistle blowers like Manning.  

          It's going to take an international court.  Much to our national shame.

    •  Manning, assuming he's WL's sole source (18+ / 0-)

      exposed all sort of crime and corruption.

      Wikileaks releases video depicting US forces killing of two Reuters journalists in Iraq

      'Ha ha, I hit 'em': Top secret video showing U.S. helicopter pilots gunning down 12 civilians in Baghdad attack leaked online

      Iraq war logs: Secret order that let US ignore abuse

      Iraq war logs reveal 15,000 previously unlisted civilian deaths

      Clinton ordered American diplomats to spy on U.N. officials

      Obama and GOPers Worked Together to Kill Bush Torture Probe

      U.S. Pressured Germany Not To Prosecute CIA Officers For Torture And Rendition

      Yemeni president lied about US strikes

      Contrary to public statements, Obama admin fueled conflict in Yemen

      Wikileaks: India 'tortured' Kashmir prisoners

      UK training Bangladesh 'death squad'

      WikiLeaks: Pope refused to cooperate in sex abuse investigation

      Wikileaks, Open and shut: the case of the Honduran Coup

      Afghanistan war logs: Massive leak of secret files exposes truth of occupation

      Expose war crimes; get locked away.
      Commit war crimes: --------------------
      •  Oh yeah the Pope (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eyesbright

        that was a "war crime."  And spying on UN officials.  And of course the President of Yemen lying is a revelation.  If something showed Ali Abdullah Saleh told the truth, THAT would be a secret worth sharing.

        HE BROKE THE LAW!

        It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

        by ksuwildkat on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 01:47:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Uh (14+ / 0-)

          The point of the "Saleh lying" story is that he was trying to cover up U.S. military airstrikes. The point is that these stories of crimes and corruption are surprising -- such stories almost never are -- but that WL provides proof of quite predictable crimes.

          As for yelling He-Broke-the-Law! only an authoritarian would think that's an end of the argument. He's done more good in the last couple of years and most people do in a lifetime. And he's done more to serve his country than most soldiers.

            •  you are clueless (3+ / 0-)

              You think you are anti war
              I know I am
              I hate it
              I hate it with my very being
              I hate it so much I joined the military to prevent it
              No one hates war like a soldier does
              No one pays the price a soldier does for war
              What do you know of war?
              TV?
              Movies?
              how many of your friends wont ever see their families again because of war?
              how many nightmares have you had because of war?
              How many YEARS have you been separated from those you love because of war?
              How many YEARS have you spent not knowing if today, this hour, this minute is your last?
              How many times have you had to think about what to do if the next few minutes dont go well?
              How many times have you told someone to do something knowing it might get them killed?
              How many times have you gotten up and done your job when all you want to do is hide in a safe place?
              How many times have you lived and relived those decisions?
              How many times have you woken up and been surprised you were alive?
              I
              Hate
              War

              It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

              by ksuwildkat on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 03:37:07 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Do you think you're poetic or are you just trying (5+ / 0-)

                to scroll as much page space as possible in an effort to keep people from reading much of the actual discussion that's going on below?

                "the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared material at these facilities and LOFs."

                by JesseCW on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:14:34 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  You hate war... (7+ / 0-)

                But love to punish those who expose war crimes.

                "I'm not scared of anyone or anything, Angie. Isn't that the way life should be?" Jack Hawksmoor

                by skyounkin on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 06:01:54 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Rule of law (0+ / 0-)

                  We cannot exist without it.  I have had the opportunity to see first hand what happens when we follow "ends justify the means" rather than rule of law.

                  In the end, what PFC Manning did may be a net positive for the nation.  May.  But his methods were wrong and violated the law.  Therefore no matter his good intent, he will suffer consequences for his acts.

                  It might interest you to know that I feel the same way about the invasion of Iraq.  In the end, the people of Iraq were freed from a tyrant but that end result does not justify an unjust war.  We had no just cause, did not execute comparative justice, lacked competent authority, had no right intention and were not at last resort.  That leaves probability of success and proportionality and passing both of those does not make the war just.  The ends of removing a terrible dictator do not justify the mean of an unjust war.

                  It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                  by ksuwildkat on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:03:44 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  you illustrate perfectly the problem. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JesseCW, aliasalias, FloraLine

                Respect for a system that deserves no respect.

                You hate war?

                Then don't defend the criminals going after the people trying to stop it.

                It's kind of like when Butcher started the wars.  Every supposed anti war argument was supposed to start with "I support the troops", nobody ever heard "But this war is illegal, immoral, criminal, military dictatorship at it's worst".

                Nobody ever heard that.  All anyone ever got out before getting "schooled" by pro war nuts was "I support the troops".

                It's interesting that you say you are anti war and you hate it because I read several of your comments before I posted mine and all I could see was defense of the crimes committed against Bradley Manning.

                By the way I don't need to be in a war to know it's wrong.

                It's wrong.  I have a brain, I use it, I studied our wars, I know why they were fought.  Almost all of them have not been for self defense.

                Our latest 2 wars are completely criminal offenses of the highest order for a nation that touts it's "Exceptionalism" and "Democracy".  It seems we're too busy fighting with each other to stop the wars.

                •  Mark Twain (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  aliasalias

                  Each must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, and which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide it against your convictions is to be an unqualified and inexcusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let men label you as they may. If you alone of all the nation shall decide one way, and that way be the right way according to your convictions of the right, you have done your duty by yourself and by your country — hold up your head! You have nothing to be ashamed of.

                  Only when a republic's life is in danger should a man uphold his government when it is in the wrong. There is no other time.

                  This Republic's life is not in peril. The nation has sold its honor for a phrase. It has swung itself loose from its safe anchorage and is drifting, its helm is in pirate hands.

                  Part VI: "Two Fragments from a Suppressed Book Called 'Glances at History' or 'Outlines of History' ".

                  "the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared material at these facilities and LOFs."

                  by JesseCW on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 08:19:47 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Lets be serious (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  sviscusi

                  PFC Manning had no desire to stop any war or report any war crime.  Its a nice tale after the fact.

                  PFC Manning was angry and confused.  He has some serious personal issues and was in a high stress position.  He choose to act out in a way to get attention for himself and to get back at people he felt were less than nice to him.  The fact that he got to that point was a failure of his leadership.  They should have been able to identify that he was a problem and remove him from a position where he could do harm.

                  Personally I cringe every time I hear "I support the troops" because it has become a cover for doing the exact opposite.  99% of those who say it have no "skin in the fight" and would not think twice about cutting benefits to families.  I dont need a yellow magnet on a car or a speech from someone in office.  I want the equipment to do my job, fair pay and good medical care for my family.  I do my job because it is my profession and I love it.  I dont need thanks, parades or praise, I need doctors, pay and retirement.  

                  As for "crimes" committed against PFC Manning, there are none.  He committed a crime and is being treated like every other criminal in the military justice system.  Prior to being convicted and sentenced he is subject to the exact same military discipline standards as any other soldier.  He has failed to uphold those standards and is being punished as such.  I have said here before I think the Marines were excessive but they are still within the boundaries of military discipline.  Believe it or not we still have bread and water diet on the books as a tool.  Given the high profile nature of PFC Manning's case, I can understand that the commander in charge of the detention facility would error on the side of caution in ensuring he had no means to harm himself.  PFC Manning has only himself to blame for the behavior that placed him in isolation and suicide watch.

                  You can read about war all day and know nothing.  Spend a day in war and you will know everything.  Now do that for years.  We have learned that everyone has a limit, a point where they are full of war and cant take any more.  I found out mine was 18 months.  Unfortunately I found out 3 months after finishing a 22 month tour.  It took me another year to get "right" and then I got deployed again for another 12 months.  Pills and perspective got me through that tour without incident.  After that was over I had the wonderful opportunity to withdraw from Paxil, something I would not wish on my worst enemy.  Now I am "normal" but I am never going to be "right."  I will never be who I was before I hit my limit and I fight my demons every day.  

                  You will get no argument from me about the Iraq war but Afghanistan still has the chance to end up being a just cause with a just outcome.

                  It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                  by ksuwildkat on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:29:23 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  you make a lot of statements about Manning's case (0+ / 0-)

                    and I'm curious as to how much you've been following his trial . Firedoglake has been the best at coverage as far as I know and if you know a better source I'd like to hear about (I'm sure they would too as Manning's lawyer posts there sometimes).
                    I don't see how you can have been seriously following the case (especially in the last two days) and say this...

                    He committed a crime and is being treated like every other criminal in the military justice system.  Prior to being convicted and sentenced he is subject to the exact same military discipline standards as any other soldier.
                    You've been watching a different channel.

                    without the ants the rainforest dies

                    by aliasalias on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 12:27:46 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Its my job (0+ / 0-)

                      I follow every counter intelligence case because that is what you pay me for.

                      This is a pretty good description of his detention:

                      http://usnews.nbcnews.com/...

                      Now for some perspective.  When I was in Kuwait I was afforded roughly 6' x 4' and there was no TV, internet or bathroom in that space.  Because I was not a prisoner, I could travel to all those.  In Afghanistan I had 6' x 8' and again, I was not a prisoner.  Kuwait was not set up for holding prisoners long term and his behavior from the time he was first detained made it extremely difficult to safely control him.  You have to understand that in Iraq and Kuwait EVERYONE is armed so the normal program of assigning an escort/guard doesnt work.  

                      I have seen the "shark attack" once in person.  It is not pretty but it has a purpose.  Military prisoners are not like normal ones.  Some of us have been specifically trained to survive detention and all of us are trained in the basics.  The "shark attack" is designed to strip away any sense of self and sense of control so that the prisoner is completely at the mercy of the guards and understands that they are in control.  I was on the receiving end of the exact same thing my first day in Basic Training.  The difference there was it was 20+ drill sergeants for 20 recruits.  At a detention facility its normally 4-6 detention sergeants and one prisoner.  The one I saw lasted three hours and at the end the person - an experienced Staff Sergeant who was about 6' and fit - was on the ground in the fetal position sobbing.  No one touched him during that time.  It was all mental and very effective.

                      The linked article provides a good description of how PFC Manning has consistently made his situation worse though his own actions.  Whether anyone here believes it or not, his safety and well being is a primary concern for the military.  First, it is a professional obligation.  Second, if he harmed himself it would be a public relations disaster.  Finally, he knows things that we want to know - the mechanics and extent of his betrayal.  Even he seems to acknowledge that his statements during intake in Quantico were not the smartest thing to do.  And yet once he got to Leavenworth and his conditions improved he still managed to get into trouble.  He seems to lack the ability to stay out of trouble - a trait he had before he decided to betray secrets.  

                      Not everyone should be in the military. Of those in the military, not everyone should be in military intelligence.  We work very hard to screen out those who dont belong - PFC Manning was in fact selected for discharge at one point.  In peace time, we probably would have caught and screened out PFC Manning but many of the behaviors that would normally trigger discharge are the same for someone scared to deploy.  I assume that his command looked at him and decided it was deploying that was causing the issues.  They were wrong but it is an understandable mistake.  

                      We in the CI community are actively reviewing his case because in hindsight there were lots of indicators that he was a problem.  What seems to have thrown us off is that he never had contact with any foreign actors and was missing all the normal motivations - money, sex, ideology.  He is quite possibly the first person to "give away" secrets instead of selling them.  

                      Never forget that PFC Manning found himself in the military, in Iraq of his own doing.  He actively sought out and choose to be there.  No one forced him to sign up in January of 2008 and he cant say he didnt think he would deploy.  The news was filled with stories of people deploying too often, not stories of bored soldiers wanting to "get in the fight."

                      It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                      by ksuwildkat on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 09:07:38 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  He is a square peg in a round hole. (0+ / 0-)

                        Round off his edges, break him, and you will have the authority and moral standing of the armed services in Iraq restored!  (That is snark) Real life means he will get some kind of multi year penalty, otherwise the system looks like crap.

                        It really devolves down to making sure the machinery of permanent war and profits there from are protected. You, me, Manning, Petraeus, the rest are simply actors in the political theatre to keep it going.

        •  isn't their a right wing pro war web site (3+ / 0-)

          waiting for you to log in and comment somewhere?

        •  Some of those things that David posted above (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Brown Thrasher, 84thProblem

          ARE LAWS BEING BROKEN!!

          But...shit...who cares right?

          "I'm not scared of anyone or anything, Angie. Isn't that the way life should be?" Jack Hawksmoor

          by skyounkin on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 06:00:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Let me help you with your comments (8+ / 0-)

        Commit war crimes:

        1 - Write a book about the war crimes you committed

        2 - Profit

        “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.” Terry Pratchett

        by 420 forever on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 01:54:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  US = criminal enterprise. (0+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      Hidden by:
      Eyesbright

      The more exposure the better.

    •  The cables proved our government (3+ / 0-)

      had lied to us for years about the number of civilian deaths we inflicted in Iraq.

      They proved our contractors were using the cash we paid them to hire child prostitutes for locals in Afghanistan.

      They proved the Obama administration was working behind the scenes to relegalize whaling.

      I could go on and on, but it's clear - the facts don't matter.  You've already heard it all, right here, a dozen times.

      You've got a talking point in hand and you're sticking to it.

      "the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared material at these facilities and LOFs."

      by JesseCW on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:12:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is the 2nd time I've heard this. Link please. (0+ / 0-)
        They proved the Obama administration was working behind the scenes to relegalize whaling.
        An accusation this damning needs more than just a passing mention.

        Remember Savita Halappanavar!

        by Brown Thrasher on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 06:54:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Re-legalize whaling? Never heard that (0+ / 0-)

        Please provide a reference - that's disturbing if it's true.

        Cheers.

        Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. Friedrich Schiller

        by databob on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:15:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  none of which is a crime (0+ / 0-)

        and the decision as to whether to release that information is better left to elected officials and not to random fool who thinks he's dictator of the world.  If Manley wants to make those decisions, let him stand for office and make his case for why his judgment is best.

        Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

        by Mindful Nature on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:37:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  The trouble I have with this case is that he (9+ / 0-)

    disclosed more information to wikileaks than he could possibly have reviewed. I'm not wild about the way he was treated but he seems to be guilty of something.

    •  Hmmm. (28+ / 0-)

      Ever want to take something out of context and run with it?  Because I'm going to do that now.  I know I'm not being fair to you, but I have to say this:

      These words, in this order, scare the hell out of me:

      he seems to be guilty of something.
      Okay, I'm done.  

      I know you're not a knee-jerk "lock him up, who cares why, he's probably guilty anyway" drooling fascist loon.  I get the feeling there's something more specific behind that statement, like, "Those cables turned out to contain X, which from what I understand isn't supposed to be disclosed, so I'm guessing he committed a crime there," or something like that, and I'm just missing it.  Am I correct?

      •  To clarify -- (3+ / 0-)

        I'm not weighing in one way or the other regarding Manning in that comment.  Every time I think I know what to believe about this case, I think, "but on the other hand..."

        •  gee I can't decide (4+ / 0-)

          continue committing war crimes, "but on the other hand", stop the war and therefore also the war crimes.

          Gee what a tough decision.

          •  Gee, what a simplistic interpretation. (4+ / 0-)
            •  right and wrong when it comes to prosecuting (0+ / 0-)

              illegal immoral wars is simple, no interpretation necessary.

              Don't like having war crimes leaked?  Don't have optional wars (with their predictable war crimes) for something other than self defense.

              •  Who are you talking to? (0+ / 0-)

                You've been insulting, you've been simplistic (not the same as "simple"), but in your zeal to show off how moral you are, you haven't responded to anything I've actually said.

                Maybe you're better than this in other diaries -- I have no idea.  But in this one there have been moments where you've treated the comments section like The Donoevil Show, showing off with cute little zingers and bumper sticker comments rather than engaging in mature and intelligent discussion -- which is interesting, given the difficult questions Bradley Manning's case poses.  And yes, despite your insistence that it's simple, the reality is that anyone who knows there's a world outside his or her own head knows that teasing out the larger rights and wrongs in this requires serious thought.  

                Shorter version:  Purposeful denial of complexity is not insight.  

                So here:  are we a nation of laws, or of men?  I say we're a nation of laws.

                But laws themselves are not always moral.  What if men break laws for a moral purpose?  Should the punishment be different if the law is broken for a moral reason?

                Which raises this question: who decides whether the law was broken for a moral purpose, or for a selfish, amoral one?  You?  Paul Ryan?  Bernie Sanders?  Me?

                If a person is given the authority to say a law was broken for a moral reason, so it's okay, don't we become a nation of men rather than of laws?  

                If that's bad, then we can only consider whether someone broke a law, but not why.  Isn't that dehumanizing?

                Would you get rid of government secrecy entirely?  If not, where do you think maintaining secrecy is a good idea?

                As a responsible citizen, how do I answer these questions about my country, and about the people I vote for or against, and how do I reconcile any contradictions?

                And last but not least:  do you finally understand how my original "on the one hand, but on the other hand" comment went completely over your head?

      •  If he gave wikileaks what it is said that he did, (12+ / 0-)

        i.e. everything he could get, then he is guilty of something.

        Not all of the facts are in evidence at this time. The allegations are serious if true.

        I signed an NDA when I left the Army. You can peruse my comments and you will not find any substantive comments regarding the Pershing missile system that are not clearly in the public domain.

        I congratulate Manning for disclosing a clear crime. The problem is that he used a blunderbuss . . .

        •  I think the chilling part referred to above (14+ / 0-)

          is you don't get Presumed Innocence.

          You (and I might add the current President) have presumed guilt, without a trial. Obama called him guilty long ago.

          You brush off unlimited detention so easily.

          Another flaw in the human character is that everybody wants to build and nobody wants to do maintenance. Kurt Vonnegut

          by ToKnowWhy on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 12:14:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The difficulty is that there are two cases. (5+ / 0-)

            One is that he is obviously guilty.

            I suspect that this is the actual case.

            The other case is that he is being railroaded.

            At this time he is offering a claim of innocence on the worst charges though he has admitted guilt on minor charges.

            I'm willing at this time to see the difference split.

            •  He's "obviously guilty" because someone (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Brown Thrasher, aliasalias, FloraLine

              at Wired has chat logs and they claim Manning was one of the participants?

              I'm not sure you know what "obviously" means.

              "the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared material at these facilities and LOFs."

              by JesseCW on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:16:28 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I read more into aoeu's comment than that (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Brown Thrasher

                Specifically, I read up to (and then past) where aoeu says "I suspect that is the actual case."  

                This implies to me that Manning's guilt isn't "obvious" to aoeu, but aeou suspects it may be obvious to whomever is investigating, and that's why Manning is where he is.

                Also, aoeu only listed the "obvious" guilt as one possibility, with the other being "he is being railroaded."

                Can't speak for aoeu, though -- but that was my take on it.  

            •   we need some more "obviously guilty" (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FloraLine

              people to start exposing war crimes, but what is missing is talk about prosecuting the people committing those exposed war crimes.

              without the ants the rainforest dies

              by aliasalias on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 12:41:42 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  If he disclosed classified information (3+ / 0-)

            to an unauthorized recipient, he committed a crime.
            That might be mitigated by the fact that one (or maybe more) of the bits of information were evidence of war crimes. But the fact remains that he disclosed, illegally. And he knew that what he was doing was illegal.
            The fact that he did it from the battlefield, during a war, released war logs that revealed details of operations, he's damm lucky he wasn't summarily shot.
            All that said, I salute his courage to go through with it and believe that his intentions were sterling. He should be brought to trial and consideration for his mistreatment should be weighed as part of that trial. Also the fact that both the State Dept and the Pentagon have said publicly that his dump didn't harm US or put our people in danger, should count in his favor.
            I'm not convinced that he sent all of the WikiLeaks files, either. Just for one: How is it possible that sensitive State Department files are accessible by a Pfc in the Army in Iraq? Why are State and the Pentagon's networks open to each other at all? And how much else is available to basically, anyone?
            Assange has said that he has no way to know who sent him the files, that there was an anonymous drop box set up and publicized. It could have been anyone.
            And of course, we have no statement from Manning as to what he sent.

            If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

            by CwV on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 12:40:01 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's part of the problem with the WL - how (0+ / 0-)

              do they authenticate anything? If they don't have any knowledge of the source, who verifies that the documents are real?

              The war crimes, the corruption, sure does need more sunshine, but without effective editorial policies, WL is also a potential conduit for propaganda.

              Who's to say that whistleblowers haven't submitted documents, and Julian Assange has secretly auctioned them off to someone who want to use them to blackmail the subject.

          •  There's that, but... (0+ / 0-)

            Really, it wasn't about Manning, specifically.  I wasn't clear on that.

            The part about someone seeming guilty of something made me uncomfortable because in general, that's a pretty dangerous line of reasoning.  Sometimes people "seem" guilty because they are, but often when anyone says someone "seems" guilty, they're using it to justify acting on their own ignorance, fear and spite to mistreat someone else.  Standing on a corner with friends while appearing Hispanic, black teenagers wearing hoodies, a woman not reacting to abuse the way other people think she should so she must have made it up, etc.  And yes, indefinite detention and no presumption of innocence.

            Either you have evidence and he's guilty of something specific, or you don't have evidence, and he's not guilty of anything.  "He seems guilty of something" doesn't work.

            (BTW, I hate the term "person of interest" for the same reason.  That was the Bush administration's way of implying guilt without having enough evidence to even call the person a suspect.  Way to lower the bar.)

            Anyway, that's why I took that part of the comment out of context and ran with it -- just to say "look how the sentiment expressed here can be harmful."  

            Having said all of that, though -- I'm just talking about that particular choice if words.  None of what I've said is meant to be an attack on aoeu.  Clearly aoeu was using much more thoughtful reasoning than that, and wasn't being a blind authoritarian fool.

          •  Sure you do (0+ / 0-)

            until proven otherwise.  This will be determined at trial.

            Basic logic suggests that the work "if" shows that presumption is still in effect. "If" the things alleged are true, then the presumption of innocence will have been refuted.

            Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

            by Mindful Nature on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:39:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Whatever he did, prison treatment still wrong (16+ / 0-)

          Nobody has that coming, and if he's acquitted, it can't possibly be made right.  

          The part that gets me:  of the war crime,  his cruel and unusual treatment in custody, and the disclosure, only the disclosure seems to merit outrage and severe punishment.     The rest is the new normal.  

          "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold...The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity" -W.B. Yeats

          by LucyandByron on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 12:24:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  If he broke the law, (13+ / 0-)

          he was morally correct to do so.

          And he's been entirely vindicated: not only did he expose numerous crimes; the revelations therein helped to blow up the negotiations between Iraq and the U.S.. securing a full withdrawal, and helped to trigger the democratic uprisings in the Middle East. An enormous service to humanity. We need more disclosure, more sunlight.

          •  I'm going to strongly disagree (0+ / 0-)

            because I still believe in Democracy, and Manley is in no position to arrogate to himself decisionmaking for the entire American people.

            The job of determining what secrets are or are not kept falls to Congress and the PResident.  Maybe we need more sunlight:  Make that case to your fellow citizens and get people of that view elected.

            Otherwise, we're just back to the whole soverign citizen nonsense.

            Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

            by Mindful Nature on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:41:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  no you don't leave all decisions up to authorities (0+ / 0-)

              like Congress and the President to act on revealing war crimes or mass misinformation, in fact they are usually the reason someone has to blow the whistle after reporting wrongs up the chain of command to no avail.

              The way you describe it the Pentagon Papers should have not been exposed by anyone other than the ones it exposed.

              Question authority.

              without the ants the rainforest dies

              by aliasalias on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 12:52:08 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Manning plead guilty to some charges yesterday. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        antirove

        Maybe the poster is a fascist.  Maybe he's just a good guesser.  At any rate, Manning does in fact "seem to be guilty of something".

        Shortly before Manning took the stand Thursday, the judge accepted terms that could allow him to plead guilty to the lesser charges. Manning would accept responsibility for providing classified material to WikiLeaks in exchange for a maximum term of 16 years in prison.
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

        One piece of free advice to the GOP: Drop the culture wars, explicitly.

        by Inland on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 01:26:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I never meant to imply aoeu is a fascist, BTW (0+ / 0-)

          I'm not sure if it was clear in my original comment -- I wasn't being sarcastic, or trying to attack aoeu.  We're all on the same side 95% of the time, so I don't feel a raging need to alienate fellow Kossacks or assume the worst about anyone without proof.  

          Or maybe it was clear that I wasn't attacking, in which case, never mind.  /Litella

        •  It's not as if any innocent person has ever (4+ / 0-)

          in history decided that pleading out for a lighter sentence when the President of the United States has utterly destroyed any chance they had of a fair trial is the smart thing to do, whether or not they're guilty.

          When the CIC has publicly instructed the Military Tribunal you'll be facing that you are guilty, you're not going to win.

          "the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared material at these facilities and LOFs."

          by JesseCW on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:18:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  That statement sounds about par for you (0+ / 0-)

      "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room." - President Merkin Muffley

      by Farkletoo on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:53:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  he seems to be guilty of something (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chi, PennBrian, 84thProblem

      Yeah that might be an expected take away on the subject for anyone who considers CNN newsworthy, trustworthy or capable of no bias and exclusively views one-way infotainment news product(s) asif they adhered to any plausible journo standards, which CNN et al rarely, if ever do-

      Your here since circa 2009, and appear to be respected in the community, but that tripe snip from your comment is one expected from a narrow, myopic CNNesque viewpoint; not one I would expect from a Daily Kos reader, and community participant-

      The treatment PFC Manning has received is more indicative of the United States military metastasis  "seeming to be guilty of something..." than Manning; IMHO-

      The US Senate couldn't secure their own file system via appropriate ACL knowledge for Network shares, and NTFS disk permissions, so possibly the massive doc dump was an expression of how poorly secured the diplomatic cables were-

      Evidence that contradicts the ruling belief system is held to extraordinary standards, while evidence that entrenches it is uncritically accepted. -Carl Sagan

      by RF on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 12:24:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  He released over 400,000 cables. (5+ / 0-)

      He had no idea what was in the vast, vast majority of them. So how is he a whistleblower? He released truckloads of information, and some of it shows bad acts by the US military. But he didnt seem bothered by releasing hundreds of thousands of documents completely unaware of what was in them, who could be compromised by the information, etc. He was a messed up kid who made a very bad decision that was clearly illegal. Given the absolute amount of volume of information he decided to release, i dont understand those who think him some sort of hero.

      •  Well, I'll tell you why I think he's some sort (5+ / 0-)

        of hero.

        He exposed many instances of lying and deception. He exposed the war crimes committed and written about in this diary.

        He exposed the classification system for the evil clusterfuck it is.

        It was a huge amout of info, and he didn't know much of it. However, the goddamn U.S. Military needs a LOT more sunshine shown on it.

        Then, his abominable treatment by the marines is a crime in itself.

        And who was compromised by the information? I don't give a rat's ass if someone was embarrassed, WHO DIED?

        Besides the Iraqis, of course.

        If you don't understand what I've written, you are not someone whose opinion I would care about anyway.

        "I believe more women should carry guns. I believe armed women will make the world a better place. Women need to come to think of themselves not as victims but as dangerous." Anna Pigeon

        by glorificus on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 03:05:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  But... (3+ / 0-)

          All that said, he broke a law. And its a good law, not an unjust one. The law cant be "people with security clearances may disseminate any information they decide to disseminate". I think everyone here is smart enough to understand why that cannot be the law.

          •  Government derive their just authority from (4+ / 0-)

            the consent of the Governed.

            Uninformed Consent is an oxymoron.

            To the extent that our Government acts without our knowledge, our Government acts unjustly.

            I do find it interesting that those with the lowest regard for an individual right to privacy are almost universally those with the most religious dedication to the protection of state secrets.

            Warrantless wiretaps?  Hell yeah!!!

            Release of information that wasn't Secret or Top Secret, but merely classified?

            Fry the fucker!!!

            "the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared material at these facilities and LOFs."

            by JesseCW on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:21:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I would not be in favor of executing the guy, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Wordsinthewind

              and especially not for electrocuting him. Not sure where you got that from. He just should get whatever others who would commit his crimes would get, no more no less. Thats pretty non-controversial, unless you believe that the law shouldnt apply to liberals,

              •  I do not support the Empire you support. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                84thProblem, glorificus, aliasalias

                I do not support Governance by secret laws and secret acts, as you do.

                I am an American.

                "the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared material at these facilities and LOFs."

                by JesseCW on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 05:12:06 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  wow..not a fan of American history eh? (4+ / 0-)
                  I am an American.
                  So anyone who disagrees with you isn't?

                  jeezus

                  Obama 2012 http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

                  by jiffypop on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 05:34:53 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  WTF does "not a fan of American history" (0+ / 0-)

                    mean?

                    I don't know if there's a Daniel Ellsberg for every Tuskegee Airmen story, but your comment smacks of trying to take a cheap shot because you've nothing else of substance to argue.

                    "I believe more women should carry guns. I believe armed women will make the world a better place. Women need to come to think of themselves not as victims but as dangerous." Anna Pigeon

                    by glorificus on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 08:41:43 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  The law is a secret? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Wordsinthewind

                  Even i know that military intelligence analysts are not allowed to decide on their own to release 400,000 classified documents. It is no secret.

                  And as an american, i thought that i get to participate in elections to choose our leaders. I dont recall ever voting for Manning, yet he assumed the power only presidents have to declassify information. He decided, on behalf of all of us, what he thought we should release. I doubt you would be so dismissive of the law if he were a neocon rightie as opposed to a gay leftie. But that is irrelevant.

            •  HEre's the problem (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              doc2

              he broke laws enacted by the duly elected representatives of the American people.  

              To the extent that our Government acts without our knowledge, our Government acts unjustly.
              This is naive foolery, because a large majority understand precisely why OUR government must have the ability to keep secrets.  

              Want to change that law? Run for office, or make your case, and if you change the minds of the American people, then the law will change.

              Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

              by Mindful Nature on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:44:11 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  do Bush, Cheney, Rice, Banksters on White House (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                glorificus

                Street that committed massive fraud (as itemized in Senate Report) face any charges?
                More of that the law is like taxes, it's for the little people.

                without the ants the rainforest dies

                by aliasalias on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 01:00:14 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  If the fraud violated laws, they should be proscut (0+ / 0-)

                  prosecuted by our Representatives.  Which is why I'm a little irked certain of our Representatives with the duty to uphold the law.

                  Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                  by Mindful Nature on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 07:09:32 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  hell even 'savvy businessman' lied to Congress (0+ / 0-)

                    but nothing happens to these guys and that includes from the Senate Report by Sen. Carl Levin's two year study using terms like "massive fraud" to describe what they found.

                    without the ants the rainforest dies

                    by aliasalias on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 01:10:38 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Exactly. Cant have, as a matter (0+ / 0-)

                of public policy, everyone in the military deciding what to publicly release and when. So we must make it illegal to do so. No exceptions. Not even for liberals.

            •  some of us (0+ / 0-)

              understand and appreciate democracy.  An appreciation you apparently do not share.

              Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

              by Mindful Nature on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:44:54 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  If we had elected Manning president, (0+ / 0-)

                He'd have the power to declassify these documents (though if he were responsible he'd first order all of them read to ensure it safe to do so). He ain't the president though. He was democratically elected to nothing. He just assumed powers. That is why he will, and should, serve many years in prison.

              •  and I apologize for the snotty tone, FWIW (0+ / 0-)

                though Doc captures the argument well

                Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                by Mindful Nature on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 07:08:15 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  I agree that the whole MIC, wars, and (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Garrett, databob

          war mongering companies, the mess needs more sunshine, and that whistleblowers need avenues and intermediaries to interrupt corruption, but their needs to be some kind of editorial judgment in between the raw evidence and disclosure.

          That there is some important benefits to the US and to the world to expose war crimes, yes, that is clear.

          But you and I can not possibly know who paid the cost for the gross volume, indescriminating data dump.

          I don't see how any government can function without confidential diplomatic meetings and reports.  The fact that many of the diplomatic cables were not top secret, and were merely confidential, doesn't mitigate the fact that the documents were STOLEN by someone under a duty to safeguard them.

          The break down in military discipline was evident long before Bradley's alleged theft/whistle/data dump.

          •  As a user of the information, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener, aliasalias

            I very specifically like the "indiscriminate" and "gross volume" aspects of some of the Wikileaks data dumps.

            Quite formally: someone else's editorial judgment, prefiltering the raw data, wrecks the data's usefulness for inductively drawing conclusions.

            •  I agree that any kind of raw data has value (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Garrett, wenchacha

              for it's own sake, without any imposed biases or filters, a fresh pair of eyes can sift, filter, identify patterns that others did not see, or could not see.

              It's an immense challenge, how to deal with the break down in the rule of law, the wide-spread breakdown in military discipline, the likely number of war crimes, and graft, and so on. When so many actors each seeking to establish their own spy network, with intelligence that can be held against others, I suspect we will be sorting out the modern "J Edgar Hoover" age for many decades to come.

              Question for you: How do you know the raw data is authentic? How do you know some was not held back? How do you know false information wasn't intentionally planted?

              Understand where I'm coming from?  A whistleblower platform that has no knowledge of the source, can not possible be a secure source of knowledge.  It would be too easy for one organization to feed prejudicial information into it about it's competitor.

              How do you deal with the possibility of fake data?

            •  Even if BM did hand off 200,000 documents (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Garrett, databob

              and even if he claims that yes, he did, and even if some intermediate says, yes, I received X gigabytes from BM, and gave them to Wikileaks, there is authentication in that chain.

              Bradley can't point to each page, and say for certain, yes, that's one of the pages I stole and gave to my contact.  

              I'm not invoking CT, I'm just suggesting that except for a few indelible memories, he can't certify which files are exact copies. Only someone with access to the original source or personal knowledge of the events recorded can certify that copies weren't edited.

            •  One aspect that makes me very sad, is that (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Garrett, wenchacha

              I believe most people serving in the military are honorable people who, most of the time, attempt to do the right thing, in shitty circumstances.

              BM should never have been sent to combat. I watched the video of the interview with his father and I felt really sorry for BM, although he's not entirely blameless either. It seemed evident from about age 7 his father was not around much. His mother was isolated and completely dependent.  I think his father didn't know how to have a father-son relationship.

              BM is very bright, and if he had remained stateside, with a company commander who looked out for him, gave him enough structure, but also guided him to channel his creativity and drive in a useful direction, he might have matured into a decent soldier, doing some kind of geeky office work.

            •  The conditions of his detention are a disgrace - (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Garrett

              I feel ashamed, again, about what some in our military are willing to do to their fellow man.

              At the same time, it was also mildly disturbing to read accounts of his testimony, where he answered in such a way that the people present laughed.  Laughter? It made it sound like he was well prepared to tell his story, and "entertain" them.  He has every right to present himself as a sympathetic and likable person. But that seemed off to me. And could mean many different things, an intelligent person under enormous stress, coping with a surreal experience, or it could mean the story of his life is now bigger than he had ever dared to dream and he's working it for full effect, with sarcasm, etc. as if it's a game.

      •  The facebook entries - if they are truly his (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        awesumtenor, doc2

        entries, suggested to me that he was young, defiant, and reflexively rebellious, AND wanted to be recognized as a vocal challenger of Don't ask, Don't tell. He may have been an activist, or he may have been pulling the classic, "I dare you to catch me."

        Yes, DADT was a horrible policy, and I was very happy to see it repealed. But the sense I got from reading his FB was that this was a teenager, with a reflexive rebellious impulse and a desire for recognition (and love, experiencing his first love).

        If the chat logs were really Bradley Manning, that also suggested to me a compulsive desire to be known for his crime of stealing the largest cache of classified documents EVER. (Like awesome! OMG, I can't believe I'm telling you this! His motivation seemed to be part glee, part loneliness, part compulsively trying to engage, and part spinning emotionally out of control.)

        That was something unsettling to me, again, if the chat really was Bradley, that seemed like a desperate desire for fame, a desire to be SEEN as a hero/martyr.

        The "van thing" - he knew that video was important, because it was in a JAG officer's folder. I'm not convinced that he was motivated by a moral conviction to stop the war.  Rather, he seemed hell bent on a little anarchy, especially as his personal life was falling apart and he was so emotionally overwrought, and being reflexively rebellious, he grasped at leaking to cement a place for himself in the hacker hall of fame.

        Except he wasn't a hacker either. He didn't break in anywhere. If indeed, it was him, who gave the docs to someone, to give them to WL, he stole the documents.

        He had no desire to remain anonymous and get away with it.  

        Unless he has been completely framed, (which seems unlikely), it seems to me that he wanted to be KNOWN for doing it, even if he got himself killed in the fallout.

        •  he was a messed up young person (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener

          who could not have done a better job of destroying his life. It is indeed sad, and i think he is to some extent a sympathetic character. But these are serious laws, and he violated his oath, and simply must be deverely punished.

      •  call the prosecutor and explain how YOU know (0+ / 0-)

        what HE knew.

        without the ants the rainforest dies

        by aliasalias on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 12:55:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  right, just as soon as we stop the criminal (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JesseCW, 84thProblem

      warfare we can look into all the bad decisions of the people heroically trying to stop it.

    •  he has disclosed "more info than he could have (0+ / 0-)

      possibly reviewed" ? You need to contact the Court with your evidence immediately.

      without the ants the rainforest dies

      by aliasalias on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 12:35:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  If it was just the 'war crime' tape, OK... (38+ / 0-)

    but it isn't.

    Bradley Manning appears to have committed many crimes, and he has to pay for them if he's found guilty.

    I was in Military Intelligence (they called it the Army Security Agency back then) in the late '70s. I had a TS clearance with SCI access (no, it's not a TS/SCI 'clearance').

    I went to the briefings, read the warnings, learned the code words and signed the papers.. all of them. I worked in a SCIF, and we ALL understood the gravity of what we were doing.

    There is no way Bradley Manning could have not known he was breaking multiple laws and military regulations when (and if) he did what he is charged with.

    I don't necessarily agree with the way he was treated early in his pre-trial confinement, but that in no way mitigates the charges against him. I really wish the Army had provided him with mental health counseling, and hope they will in the future. I don't know why it's taken this long to bring him to trial, and if he's exonerated, perhaps he has a claim against the Army. If he's found guilty, that is immaterial as long as he gets credit for time served.

    I don't think he should be found guilty of 'aiding the enemy' if the other charges are proven, as I don't see any motive or intent to do that.

    As for 'overcharging'... hey, come on folks, that's probably the number one tactic available to prosecutors anywhere, and there's nothing wrong with it. Plea bargains are part of the justice system, and you always ask for more than you think you're going to get.

    Bradley Manning, if found guilty, needs a sentence commensurate with his crimes, both because he will need to be punished and because this type of behavior cannot be seen by others as in any way, shape or form as 'acceptable'.

    This is not a game, folks. I'm as progressive as any of you, and I agree that there are plenty of things the government does wrong, including in this case. But we can't all just sit around singing 'kumbaya' and doing whatever we want.

    Again, if it was just the 'war crime' tape, I would be more sympathetic. But it isn't.

    Cheers.

    Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. Friedrich Schiller

    by databob on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:15:50 AM PST

    •  Yeah, I still don't get that. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Paulie200

      Why didn't he just send the war crime tape out instead of sending tons of classified materials out?

      Did he go nuts?

      Show us your tax returns !!!!!!

      by Bush Bites on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:48:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think he sent some of the other stuff first... (6+ / 0-)

        the time-line's hazy - because the government's not tossing out evidence that could be used at trial, I guess - but that's my best guess.

        And yes, it sounds like he was 'mentally disturbed' by the time he started in this behavior. Read his Wikipedia page to get an idea of the challenges he was dealing with.

        Of course, the Army holds partial culpability in this: how the HELL did a guy with his issues even get through basic training (he failed once), much less get a Top Secret clearance with a Special Compartmented Intelligence access (not the highest, but WAY up there)?

        And then, even when he was behaving in an un-balanced manner - and apparently living at least a semi-open gay lifestyle, pre-DADT repeal - his chain of command decided to send him to a combat zone.

        Now don't get me wrong - I'm 100% pro-gay, and I stood up and applauded the repeal of DADT. But at the time it was against Army regulations, and even if they didn't want to use it to discharge him, how in HELL could they just ignore everything and keep him read in on his security clearance?????

        In my day, that clearance and SCI access would have been suspended in a heartbeat, and he would have been guarding a gate in the compound while they took a real close look at him and sorted things out.

        You don't mess with security, period.

        Cheers.

        Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. Friedrich Schiller

        by databob on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:01:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's a post hoc rationalization. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sviscusi

        By some of the comments in this diary it's a lot more convincing than I would have thought.

        One piece of free advice to the GOP: Drop the culture wars, explicitly.

        by Inland on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 01:29:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Seems clear that he craved recognition (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DBoon

        He's seems to me to be very bright, impulsive, defiant, unable to self-regulate, lonely, creative, and at times driven, and at some point after his boyfriend broke up with him, he reached for anarchy with only a very loose internal justification.  ("Information wants to be free. All the information belongs to the world.")

        It seems to me that if he really did steal all those documents, he wanted to be famous as a hero/martyr, even if he and others died or went to prison as a result of the fall-out.

    •  asdf (6+ / 0-)
      This is not a game, folks. I'm as progressive as any of you
      Not if you are trying to obfuscate and wish away war crimes you are not.
    •  Thanks databob. Your perspective is important ... (8+ / 0-)

      ... as someone who has both served in the military and knows the real security issues involved, as opposed to the CYA classifications done to keep war crimes from being exposed, and as a progressive.

      I share your concerns about the Bradley Manning case. And while I think his treatment in custody has bordered on the inhumane (and even torture), everything I've read about his conduct suggests that he has, in fact, committed serious crimes. That's still up to the prosecution to prove, but -- if he is convicted -- the odds of him being released for time already served don't look good.

      The truth is, I actually feel somewhat sorry for Manning. He seems to have gotten in way over his head. I do give him credit for being man enough to face the consequences of his actions, unlike Julian Assange.

      •  Agreed, although I wouldn't use the phrase (0+ / 0-)

        "man enough" given that Manning sent some emails out early on suggesting some degree of gender identity issues.

        •  I laughed AND groaned at your comment, Rei.... (0+ / 0-)

          although, all kidding (politically correct or not) aside, I don't get the impression that Manning turned himself in.

          Which brings up an interesting scene:

          Sergeant: Colonel, half a million of our files just got posted on the internet!

          Colonel: Who did it?

          Sergeant: How the hell would we know?

          The point being that it seems inconceivable to me that the computer system wouldn't log any 'touch' of a classified file, identifying both the machine and individual user. Why are they having so damn much trouble proving who copied and published these documents? (well, I know why, and it doesn't say good things for our national security, does it?)

          Cheers.

          Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. Friedrich Schiller

          by databob on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 02:15:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Thank you for making it clear why you (0+ / 0-)

          really spend so much time on Assange.

          "the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared material at these facilities and LOFs."

          by JesseCW on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:27:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

            I'm confused.  What does Manning's gender identity have to do with whether or not Assange f* a sleeping girl to work around her refusal to consent to unprotected sex, and pinned down and tried to force sex with another?

    •  You nailed it. n/t (3+ / 0-)

      Obama 2012 http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

      by jiffypop on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:21:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  A lot of people on this site "don't agree"... (8+ / 0-)

      ...with the way Manning was treated, but are all for finding him guilty.  As if disagreement with what amounts to torture is enough.

      Make no mistake - Manning's treatment at the hands of the government was nto part of procecdure to bind him over for trial to establish guilt (or lack of evidence to find guilt).  It was revenge, pure and simple, and that makes the government's crime far worse than any Manning might have committed.  I'm far, far more concerned about crimes the government commits against the individual that crimes an individual commits.

      The road to Hell is paved with pragmatism.

      by TheOrchid on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 01:01:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not 'finding him guilty'... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        doc2

        because I don't know enough about the evidence for and against him. That's what a trial is for.

        I will say that if he did do what he is accused of, he is guilty of serious crimes and deserves to be punished.

        And, once again, his pre-trial confinement and treatment has absolutely nothing to do with his guilt or innocence. How could it? It doesn't change what he did or didn't do. The only factor I see would be if his right to a speedy trial was infringed on, but other than claiming that it was, I haven't seen any pleading from the defense specifying WHY the delay was un-Constutional. Hell, for starters, there's a war on, right?

        I don't see anything on the Wikipedia page that constitutes torture or punishment. There's no explanation for the rationale behind the 'prevention of injury' status that brought about most of the restrictive rules regarding his behavior. I would hope that this designation would require a doctor's assessment, but we don't know.

        When he was placed on 'suicide watch', it lasted 3 days and resulted in the brig commander (who ordered it) being relieved. OK, it looks like that was wrong - but we don't know why it happened, do we? - and for a Marine field grade officer to be relieved like that, well, that's a serious punishment all by itself - end of career, most likely.

        So I don't see any organized punishment or torture in Manning's treatment - and no 'revenge' either.

        If that were the case, I suspect it would have gone far, far worse for him, especially while he was confined in Kuwait.

        Cheers.

        Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. Friedrich Schiller

        by databob on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 01:24:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  No, you're not. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy
      I'm as progressive as any of you
      You just illustrated that you're not.

      Screaming "I'm a Lizard" while preening your feathers is just bizarre behavior.

      "the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared material at these facilities and LOFs."

      by JesseCW on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:25:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is getting bizarre.... (0+ / 0-)

        I'll agree that I don't have any idea how progressive you are, so perhaps I mispoke a bit.

        So I'll rephrase this to: I'm pretty progressive.

        And if you doubt that, you don't know me.

        Cheers.

        Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. Friedrich Schiller

        by databob on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 07:29:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I support Manning's right to a fair trial. (12+ / 0-)

    However, he isn't being tried for reporting a war crime. He's being tried for downloading stuff off SIPRnet and passing it on to people not authorized to get data from that network.

    I support Wikileaks and Manning. That said, if he is convicted, it will be for something he did, knowing that it was against regs and the law (believe me, you can't even get near a hot port on that network without highly detailed, informed clearance).

    In the end, I'm glad Manning did what he did. But there's a price to pay and he knew what it would be. That he did it anyway speaks of his courage.

    Pardon our dust. Sig line under renovation.

    by Crashing Vor on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:56:55 AM PST

  •  It really does raise issues of international law. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaharazade, elwior

    Shouldn't all of this really end up at The Hague??

    "To recognize error, to cut losses, to alter course, is the most repugnant option in government." Historian Barbara Tuchman

    by Publius2008 on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:04:30 AM PST

    •  I don't think we joined the ICC (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rb608, CwV, elwior

      or is that the one that Clinton signed and BushW 'un-signed'?

      At any rate, I don't believe we're involved in that court system.

      Also, while the tape of the attack on the van might be evidence of a war crime, the rest of the documents wouldn't rise to that level.

      Cheers.

      Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. Friedrich Schiller

      by databob on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:19:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Now that Obama signed whistle blower protection (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaharazade, elwior, raincrow, aliasalias

    law, Manning should get retroactive protection, no?

    Obama champions transparency, signs whistle blower protections into law

    Yeah, I doubt it too.

    "It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth." - Morpheus

    by CitizenOfEarth on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:11:10 AM PST

    •  There are carefully defined channels (4+ / 0-)

      which whistleblowers are supposed to follow if they are to qualify for such protection.  Manning did in fact attempt to report some of what disturbed him up the chain of command, but gave up on that effort when he was rebuffed.  Delivering classified material to Wikileaks (if he did indeed do that) is entirely outside the proper channels.

      You can argue that the legally mandated process is inadequate and I would quite possibly agree.  But it's pretty unreasonable to expect that any "whistleblower protection" law would simply toss the classification system out the window.

      “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

      by jrooth on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:28:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  damn.................................n/t (0+ / 0-)

    This "Trickle Down" thing has turned out to be somebody pissing on my leg and tellin' me it's rainin'.

    by swtexas on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:51:15 AM PST

  •  It's likely not a war crime. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow

    As I opined at the time, the "Collateral Damage" video doesn't appear to depict a war crime.

    A perusal of soldier's and veterans blogs shows surprising unanimity even among the battle-hardened.  Remarks go roughly: First shooting, tough sh*t.  Second shooting, war crime.
    Cites?  I've seen the opposite.

    Here. Here. Here. Here and here.

    The JAG had the video because he thought it might be an act of war at first glance.  Which is understandable, but mistaking civilians for combatants under circumstances where the mistake is reasonable is not a war crime.

  •  No. "Manning says Manning reporting war crime" (0+ / 0-)

    which, given what he actually released and how he released it, is a doubtful story.  It might be different if all Manning released was the video which could possibly be argued to be showing some wrongdoing; at least, it would show his subjective desire to do the right thing.

    Maybe he'll come up with something more convincing for his sentencing for the counts where he has entered guilty pleas.

    One piece of free advice to the GOP: Drop the culture wars, explicitly.

    by Inland on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 01:22:31 PM PST

    •  I suspect the plea deal will go through... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      raincrow

      and he'll get something like 10 years, minus 2.5 served nets 7.5....... I don't know if the military does 'time off for good behavior', but worst case is he gets out in 2019 when he'll be 32.

      Hell, if they give him 20 years and he gets out at 42, he'll still be a VERY lucky guy, considering the gravity of the 'aiding the enemy' charge - death sentence possible.

      And I suspect the plea deal will go through because the aiding the enemy charge is going to be hard to prove, and Manning has obvious psychological issues that will further cloud the case.

      And, of course, the defense may be able to inject his pre-trial confinement treatment - 2 years of solitary confinement is not good for anyone, much less someone with existing challenges - to at least muddy the waters.

      All of that might take several more years to work through, with limited chances of success for a longer sentence.

      Finally, I suspect the government would really, really like this whole matter to just go away, and while they can't let him go, 10 or 20 years in Leavenworth is just about as good. I doubt anyone will care much by the time he is released.

      Cheers.

      Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. Friedrich Schiller

      by databob on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 01:34:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Two wrongs (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    databob

    dont make a right and that is assuming there was a first wrong.

    I have not seen the video nor will I.  It remains a classified document and I would be in violation of my own NDA to access it.  Having said that, there are almost always circumstances that we know little about.  Beyond that, the probation against violence against sick or injured is void if the person involved has the means to resist.  After shooting someone, I dont have to check if they are ok before shooting them again.  A person crawling, no matter how badly injured, is going to get more bullets sent his way and in an active fight anyone trying to evacuate injured is going to attract LOTS of bullets.  Why do you think we give so many medals for heroism that involve evacuating someone from an active fight?  It fricking dangerous and everyone knows it.  

    The short version of what an army does is "kill you and break your stuff."  Its not "hurt you badly and let you fight another day."  The last thing you want is for someone with combat experience to live and bring that knowledge back to the fight.  Who would you rather play against in a tight game late in the 4th Quarter - a rookie QB or Payton manning? Despite that, there is nothing better than rescuing and caring for your enemy.  You can take that experience off the battlefield and make that person never want to fight again.

    In the end, PFC Manning broke his oath and violated the UCMJ and for that he faces punishment.  His motivations for doing so do not matter.  He had multiple paths to reporting a war crime without divulging classified information and he choose not to.  

    It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

    by ksuwildkat on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 01:26:08 PM PST

    •  Very well stated, ksuwildcat (0+ / 0-)

      I think a lot of people watch the tape and feel bad for the guys who were obviously just trying to evacuate their wounded comrade from the scene - and that's human nature.

      What they aren't considering, perhaps, is that soldiers aren't cops, and a battlefield isn't a crime scene. Different rules apply, and for a lot of good reasons.

      What the tape does show VERY clearly is just how bad war sucks, and how impossible asymetric war is to wage from the uniformed side.

      A couple of Apache helicopters shot up a bunch of un-armed civilians walking in the street after mistaking cameras for guns and a telephoto lens for an RPG rocket launcher.... that's my take on it

      Were they following their rules of engagement? Yeah, probably, and that just shows how badly those rules of engagement were.... but how could they have been different on a battlefield?

      The problem is that the Iraqi civilians obviously didn't think they were wandering around a battlefield, even though Apache helicopters were circling and Army troops were nearby in Bradley IFVs and HumVees. And they didn't start acting like they were on a battlefield, even AFTER 8 of their friends were gunned down from above. What did they do? They came back a few minutes later in a van (unfortunately with 2 kids in it, further proof they still didn't realize they were in the middle of a battlefield) to try to get their buddy to the hospital.

      And that's a lot of what just really sucks about asymetrical warfare - it's a different scene for every participant (willing or accidental), and the scene shifts unpredictably.

      That, in large part, is why it is so impossible for the uniformed side to 'win' this type of war, no matter how many wonderful sounding theories and plans our military cooks up.

      The whole damn war was a war crime, but what was shown in the tape was nothing but one more unfortunate incident in a fucked-up war - not a war crime in and of itself.

      Cheers.

      Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. Friedrich Schiller

      by databob on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 02:07:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  War sucks (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        databob

        its supposed to suck
        its supposed to suck so much you dont choose it unless there is no other way
        I cant stand people who want to make a war nicer
        Dont you understand that if its easy, people will do it more?
        Dont you understand that making it terrible make sit less likely?
        Our goal should be to impose the maximum amount of violence for the shortest possible time not the opposite.

        It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

        by ksuwildkat on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 02:17:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  What a fantastic rewrite of history. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        raincrow, aliasalias

        There were no "guys trying to evacuate their wounded comrade".

        There was a non-combatant who stopped to help a wounded man.  

        The shit you do would make me vomit if tried to do it for an hour.

        "the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared material at these facilities and LOFs."

        by JesseCW on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:32:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  They can take into account when (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      databob, ksuwildkat

      it comes to sentencing that he was a messed-up kid with emotional issues, thought he was doing the right thing, etc. But in terms of charging him with crimes, I just don't see how some people here think the system should work. Should all people who commit crimes get go first appeal to some jury's sense of touchy-feely "good intent" before prosecutors decide whether to move forward? If we let off a liberal Brad Manning, what about a neocon intelligence analyst who decides to release classified information in order to further the neocon goals he thinks represent "doing the right thing"?

      It is pretty clear to me that violations of these types of serious laws need to happen whatever the theoretical intent of the suspect. And with Manning releasing hundreds of thousands of documents, it would be a betrayal of justice to NOT charge him. The only point I agree with his supporters about is that perhaps his solitary confinement was excessive (though the use of the term torture is debatable).

  •  Treatment (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aliasalias

    The treatment of Manning is a continuation of the degradation of respect for human rights that really got going under the Bush torture regime, but has been continued by Obama with drone murders without trial and also Manning.

    Pretty bloody disgusting ... and this will have an impact on the view of the US that the rest of the world has ... Essentially America is a hypocrite.

    There's room at the top they're telling you still But first you must learn how to smile as you kill If you want to be like the folks on the hill

    by taonow on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 02:31:31 PM PST

  •  This is the norm now. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JesseCW, aliasalias, FloraLine

    There have been a number of reports indicating that our government engages in the kind of "follow-up" strikes popularized by Al Qaeda, in which our drones wait for the arrival of first responders and concerned neighbors before firing again.

    "The Democratic Party is not our friend: it is the only party we can negotiate with."

    by 2020adam on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 02:47:38 PM PST

  •   Huge amount he leaked obscures War Crimes (0+ / 0-)

    alas.  

    The most important ignored issue facing this country, aside from the global pollution emergency.

    Because the US has a great stain on it until Americans who committed gross violations of human rights, and international law, are prosecuted by American civilian courts.

    It's the only way we will regain Constitutional (civilian) control of this country again, and begin to rehabilitate our national character.

    It should start with Bush and Cheney, and move on to the CIA and military psychopaths who ran with their theory that ethics and law didn't apply to them.

    Until then, we are a military dictatorship.

    •  No, it doesn't. The rest of humanity, outside (5+ / 0-)

      the US, saw the War Crimes perfectly clearly.

      Those in the US who didn't want to face them found excuses to look away, as they always do.

      "the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared material at these facilities and LOFs."

      by JesseCW on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:33:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  His ability to use exposure of War Crimes (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        databob

        may justify his leak of material pertaining to War Crimes.  

        It can't justify leaking secret diplomatic cables from Scotland.  

        War Crimes should be prosecuted by the US, and it's a disgrace that they haven't been.   Especially by the Obama Justice Dept.

        All I'm saying is that if Manning had limited his leaks to matters pertaining to "War Crimes," he could make that argument in a much more coherent manner.  

  •  "New York Times and AP launch Operation Amnesia" (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JesseCW, Agathena, 84thProblem, aliasalias

    http://www.chris-floyd.com/...

    But if you relied on the nation's pre-eminent journal of news reportage, the New York Times, you could have easily missed notice of the event altogether, much less learned any details of what transpired in the courtroom. The Times sent no reporter to the hearing, but contented itself with a brief bit of wire copy from AP, tucked away on Page 3, to note the occasion.

    That story — itself considered of such little importance by AP that it didn't even by-line the piece (perhaps the agency didn't send a reporter either, but simply picked up snippets from other sources) — reduced the entire motion, and the long, intricate, systematic government attack on Manning's psyche, to a matter of petty petulance on Manning's part, a whiner's attempt to weasel out of what's coming to him. This is AP's sole summary of the motion and its context:

    Private Manning is trying to avoid trial in the WikiLeaks case. He argues that he was punished enough when he was locked up alone in a small cell for nearly nine months at the brig in Quantico and had to sleep naked for several nights.
    It is clear what the unnamed writer wants the reader to take away from his passage. We are supposed to think: "That's it? That's all he's got? That they gave him a private room and made him sleep in the buff for a few nights? Is that supposed to be torture?"

    The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war.

    by lotlizard on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:05:14 PM PST

  •  Well (0+ / 0-)

    We can't let Assange get away with it.

    "I'll believe that corporations are people when I see Rick Perry execute one."

    by bink on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 05:00:10 PM PST

  •  In the end...the treatment of Bradley Manning (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow, 84thProblem, aliasalias

    isn't about getting to the issue if he committed a crimeor not.

    It's about sending a message.  

    Don't even THINK about leaking PROOF of a war crime committed by the United States.

    We will fuck you.

    We will fuck you hard.

    We will fucking end you.

    "I'm not scared of anyone or anything, Angie. Isn't that the way life should be?" Jack Hawksmoor

    by skyounkin on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 06:07:07 PM PST

  •  Great discussion, folks... (0+ / 0-)

    I haven't been this deep into a thread in years, and it was interesting.

    One thing I like about dailyKos is that, even though we may have our differences, we all look at the world from mostly the same direction.

    And, just about as important, we do it pretty much in a civil manner.

    Congratulations to all!

    Cheers.

    Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. Friedrich Schiller

    by databob on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 07:39:39 PM PST

  •  I know he's pretty much done for (0+ / 0-)

    but I would hope I had enough courage to do what he did.  I actually like wikileaks and think it should be for all governments to dump all the lies, deceit, treachery, and hate, and then maybe we could start moving some of these injustices into the light.  The Arab Spring was started partly with Wikileaks help.

    If we had wikileaks we wouldn't have let a radar blip start the vietnam war....

    Romney/Caligula 2012!

    by sujigu on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:05:15 PM PST

  •  Let me just throw something out there... (0+ / 0-)

    Say you send your children to the store to buy something to eat, just as you do regularly with no problems, and no thoughts of danger, other than your children not being mindful of traffic.

    So...they set off on thier bicycles, and get to the store.  They fool around a bit, they meet some school friends and share You Tube videos...and finally, the get the item you sent them for....

    While your children are there, the store is robbed, and the criminals shoot police officers...unfortunatly killing them.

    The robbers, now murderers run back into the store and dont let your children, the staff, or any of the other shoppers leave, and vow to kill anyone who comes near the store.

    Rather than 'negotiate' with the murderers to save the lives of the innocent people, the police call in the army to bomb the store, just to get the murderers who killed the police officers.

    That is what watching the whole video feels like to me.

    Of course, everyone else in the world saw the 'rest of the video'...demeaned and minimised by calling it 'the van thing'.

    We saw our children in a routine thing, riding in a car, being attacked for no reason, other than 'being there'.

    ...but, we hate you for your freedom.

    Oaths and alleginaces only become valid after being tested in adverstity.

    by Nur Alia Chang on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 04:34:07 AM PST

Thumb, RakDaddy, Alumbrados, paradox, Joe Bob, DeminNewJ, Chi, teacherken, deben, Timaeus, glitterscale, tiponeill, karlpk, Wintermute, CupaJoe, rubyr, xynz, HootieMcBoob, WI Deadhead, wenchacha, Caneel, hubcap, niemann, Dumbo, RubDMC, Gustogirl, bronte17, BlackSheep1, susakinovember, Agathena, ask, boadicea, stevej, cosmic debris, taonow, slatsg, jalbert, Nate Roberts, ctsteve, sidnora, Texknight, recontext, psnyder, Miss Jones, CitizenOfEarth, mnguitar, Jujuree, JayBat, AllisonInSeattle, vacantlook, Gowrie Gal, nailbender, maybeeso in michigan, jrooth, LakeSuperior, Independent Musings, chimene, democracy inaction, OpherGopher, one of 8, Dobber, eru, bleeding blue, Kayakbiker, lotlizard, skyounkin, Sandino, LucyandByron, Tool, Lisa Lockwood, snoopydawg, daddybunny, Jim R, WB Reeves, tommymet, Buzzybill, cybersaur, BeadLady, zesty grapher, raincrow, Lefty Coaster, blueoasis, StrayCat, erratic, NearlyNormal, armadillo, Zwoof, sceptical observer, OMwordTHRUdaFOG, Dinclusin, justiceputnam, BlueMississippi, democracy is coming, doingbusinessas, shaharazade, Tom Anderson, Eikyu Saha, Little, ZenTrainer, krwheaton, ammasdarling, old wobbly, out of left field, Habitat Vic, Deadicated Marxist, offgrid, gloriana, yoduuuh do or do not, beth meacham, DvCM, david mizner, aliasalias, bnasley, jhop7, hopi13, pioneer111, eyesoars, Assaf, South Park Democrat, vet, fb, gundyj, wayoutinthestix, Involuntary Exile, dadadata, elwior, Morgan Sandlin, tofumagoo, temptxan, ashowboat, codairem, petulans, BYw, Karl Rover, Bongobanger, Robobagpiper, forgore, bluebelle7, Bule Betawi, ewmorr, bsmechanic, Methinks They Lie, JesseCW, asym, histOries Marko, sfarkash, montecristo, deviant24x, Leftcandid, FogCityJohn, flitedocnm, Anak, Eddie L, albrt, Publius2008, MsGrin, Floande, Barbara Marquardt, Lost Left Coaster, Alice Olson, muddy boots, KVoimakas, merrily1000, bluedust, Friendlystranger, Hayate Yagami, Mentatmark, Mathazar, anodnhajo, Farkletoo, Trotskyrepublican, Horace Boothroyd III, OllieGarkey, sexgenderbody, databob, ProfessorWho, CalBearMom, nuclear winter solstice, MarkW53, Lily O Lady, Chaddiwicker, atana, glorificus, 84thProblem, goodpractice, aresea, MarEng, rigcath, bontemps2012, shinobi9

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site