Manning supporters shocked(!) that hearing on classified info will be closed to public

posted at 11:25 am on December 19, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

Supporters of Bradley Manning (or Breanna, depending on who you ask) are up in arms over the latest development in the accused traitor’s pre-trial hearing. It seems that portions of the next phase will involve discussions of classified documents and the Army has granted a request to have those sections closed to the public and the press. Ah… the unfairness of it all. You can simply smell the injustice in the air.

Supporters of Army Pfc. Bradley Manning and WikiLeaks are objecting to plans to close portions of Manning’s military hearing to the public and media on Monday.

Manning, 24, is accused of giving hundreds of thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks, which published much of the material on the Internet last year.

Lt. Col. Paul Almanza, the investigating officer who is conducting the preliminary hearing at Fort Meade, said Sunday he would empty the courtroom on Monday to hear testimony involving classified information.

Among those to be excluded are an attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights, which is representing WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange.

I initially found out about this via an urgent, outrageously outraged e-mail alert from the Breanna Bradley Manning Support Network.

The Bradley Manning Support Network is deeply troubled by the imposition of an unexplained media blackout without any avenue for redress. The investigating officer has already prevented Manning’s defense from considering internal administration assessments that found these materials did not pose a threat to national security. Now he is seeking to prevent journalists and the public from reporting on testimony related to materials that are already in the public domain.

I see. So, essentially your argument is that the classified material to be discussed shouldn’t be a reason to keep you all out of the hearing because… he already leaked all of the classified material to Assange anyway? It’s an innovative argument to say the least. And Manning is likely going to require quite a few more creative bits of defense if he ever hopes to see the sun shine again without shadows of prison bars obscuring it. According to The Guardian, it seems that a forensic investigator has been pouring through all of the files on the private’s computer and found them to be an exact match for the ones that showed up on Wikileaks. And he’s going to be testifying to that effect.

Adding fuel to an already expanding fire, investigators found records of searches which Manning performed on the government databases with keywords that included “WikiLeaks,” “Julian Assange” and “Guantanamo Bay detainee assessments.” None of these, according to the report, are things which Manning would have needed to be searching on in the course of his assigned duties. (There’s a reminder for you here kids… always clear your browser history.)

The latest round of pearl clutching and hand wringing from Manning’s supporters is almost comical in its failed attempt at rational discourse. Even if the privileged material already was dumped off to Assange via a third party, there hasn’t been time for everyone to go through nearly three quarter of a million documents in detail. There is absolutely no excuse for trotting them out in front of the media or anyone else at this point simply because you feel that cat is out of the bag. Further, leaked or not, classified material is still classified material, and exposing it all over again is no less of a violation.

The hearing is slated to wrap up either tomorrow or Wednesday. Shortly after that we should know the details of the court martial. Given the nature of these recent items which the prosecution will present, I’d be very surprised if there wasn’t going to be one.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I only care about whether the execution will be closed to the public or not.

revolutionismyname on December 19, 2011 at 11:28 AM

Shocked, I tell you. Just shocked! NOT!

they lie on December 19, 2011 at 11:31 AM

“Hearing highly classified military information and then blabbing it to everyone, everywhere is a human right!”

-average lib

Bishop on December 19, 2011 at 11:32 AM

I am undecided on how he should be executed: the firing squad or the gallows. At any rate, is must be public.

Elric on December 19, 2011 at 11:34 AM

The investigating officer has already prevented Manning’s defense from considering internal administration assessments that found these materials did not pose a threat to national security.

That’s not Manning’s decision to make. Privates do not get the right to decide which secrets need to be secret.

rbj on December 19, 2011 at 11:35 AM

I wonder if this snake will try the mental illness route by defense? I just hope he gets what he deserves for his actions.
L

letget on December 19, 2011 at 11:35 AM

This kid is a grade A moron.

Red Cloud on December 19, 2011 at 11:35 AM

I am undecided on how he should be executed: the firing squad or the gallows. At any rate, is must be public.

Elric on December 19, 2011 at 11:34 AM

Gallows. On the Capitol steps. Just to give some congress critters something to think about.

LoganSix on December 19, 2011 at 11:36 AM

I am guessing if there was an execution for treason, that would be closed to the public also. Just sayin.

But in the interest of equal treatment, we will make sure “it” is put in a pink dress for the occasion.

Marcus Traianus on December 19, 2011 at 11:36 AM

I sit on the fence concerning the death penalty, no matter how heinous or egregious the crime. Figuring out Manning’s punishment is one thing, convicting of a crime is another.

It is evident that Manning’s supporters have zero respect for laws, ethics and morality… unless it directly affects them.

Manning’s suppporters, like that of so many clear criminals, are relativists. They can boo-hoo all they want, but there are points on which our government and military will not budge. Classified/secret documents typically are not one of those points on which our military/government are willing to budge – unless it’s usefulness has ended or for political expediency.

B. Manning will no doubt be spending the rest of his life behind bars, and he can spend all that time contemplating his navel and whether or not in his mind he’s a woman or a man, irrespective of what his chromosomes say.

Logus on December 19, 2011 at 11:37 AM

String up the traitor—- and don’t take years to do so!

Bullhead on December 19, 2011 at 11:39 AM

I wonder if this snake will try the mental illness route by defense?

He already it. See the “gender issues” column on the left side of the page a little ways down.

tommyboy on December 19, 2011 at 11:39 AM

Compromise: Manning should be shot dead without so much as a last meal request. But woManning can be freed to open a candle shop and hit the talkshow circuit–in North Korea.

Western_Civ on December 19, 2011 at 11:40 AM

Well, his defense team is certainly trying everything. Next they will be blaming it on aliens or asking for a delay due to Kim Jong-il’s death.

McDuck on December 19, 2011 at 11:42 AM

I wonder if this snake will try the mental illness route by defense? I just hope he gets what he deserves for his actions.
L

letget on December 19, 2011 at 11:35 AM

As I noted in the other Manning post/thread, I believe that if Manning’s defense team go the “insanity” route full bore, I think they’re opening up a can of ugly worms for the homosexual movement at large… and frankly I’ll sit back with popcorn and watch with amusement.

If homosexuals knew what was good for their efforts at “normalizing” their sexuality and push for full “equality”, there would be plenty of quiet but vociferous “advising” of Manning’s defense to find a different tack.

Logus on December 19, 2011 at 11:42 AM

Kinda funny, gays, lesbians, and transgendered have spent so many years trying to convince everyone that their situation is totally ‘NORMAL’ and now this joker is trying to use the ‘gender confusion’ as a mental issue in his defense. Did anyone bother to tell them, they can’t have it both ways…

Ltlgeneral64 on December 19, 2011 at 11:47 AM

The intelligence and national security game has few rules, but the ones they have are strictly adhered to. Especially the one where under the Geneva Convention a nation is allowed to shoot spies and saboteurs with no need for trial. If a hostile nation knows Ahmed is a CIA agent, that hostile nation can up and kill Ahmed, with no need for niceties like an arrest and trial. And if there isn’t a possibility of trading spies, why take up the jail space?

Information like this is classified because it can literally kill. How many American agents did Bradley Man(?)ning kill? Moreover, how many honest and honorably serving gay servicemen (and servicewomen) have had their names dragged through the mud to protect this unstable little boy’s temper tantrum?

Sekhmet on December 19, 2011 at 11:48 AM

Thanks all for the information on my last post. I haven’t been reading all that much about this snake here, guess I should have been?
L

letget on December 19, 2011 at 11:49 AM

I am undecided on how he should be executed: the firing squad or the gallows. At any rate, is must be public.

Elric on December 19, 2011 at 11:34 AM

I don’t care how you do it. Just put this kid out of my misery ASAP.

- SoS H. Clinton

Flora Duh on December 19, 2011 at 11:51 AM

I smell a hugh backfire with the Gender = Equality group. I still perfer the Rope, unfortunately it went out in 1961, now Lethal Injection is the only method, Sad.

D-fusit on December 19, 2011 at 11:53 AM

Sekhmet on December 19, 2011 at 11:48 AM

Manning gambled on civilians mitigating on his behalf the military’s code of conduct. One has no say in the other.

He should ask Johnny Taliban (civilian) how appealing to civilians for sympathy to mitigate his punishment worked out for him.

Dr Evil on December 19, 2011 at 11:55 AM

Just curious, does the fact that he leaked intel regarding patently unconstitutional wars mean anything to anyone here? The constitution is waved around by people (especially on this site sometimes) but it is quickly forgotten when their is a war to be waged. Regardless of what arguments people may make about past presidents actions or authorizations to use force etc etc, it doesn’t matter. The 10 year war that just “ended” yesterday should have been formally declared by congress and their is no way to consistently argue otherwise if you fancy yourself a constitutional conservative.

If being a whistle blower during an unconstitutional war is worthy of the gallows when is it ok? If someone knew and blew the whistle on the Gulf of Tonkin incident and we were able to avoid an escalation in Vietnam would people here have applauded when the whistle blower was swinging from the rope? Hopefully not.

If you like the constitution be consistent. It’s not a living breathing document, but when you support things that directly violate it you are endorsing that view.

Beermeliberty on December 19, 2011 at 11:55 AM

Just curious, does the fact that he leaked intel regarding patently unconstitutional wars mean anything to anyone here? The constitution is waved around by people (especially on this site sometimes) but it is quickly forgotten when their is a war to be waged. Regardless of what arguments people may make about past presidents actions or authorizations to use force etc etc, it doesn’t matter. The 10 year war that just “ended” yesterday should have been formally declared by congress and their is no way to consistently argue otherwise if you fancy yourself a constitutional conservative.

If being a whistle blower during an unconstitutional war is worthy of the gallows when is it ok? If someone knew and blew the whistle on the Gulf of Tonkin incident and we were able to avoid an escalation in Vietnam would people here have applauded when the whistle blower was swinging from the rope? Hopefully not.

If you like the constitution be consistent. It’s not a living breathing document, but when you support things that directly violate it you are endorsing that view.

Beermeliberty on December 19, 2011 at 11:55 AM

I’ll try to be nice here.

Nah, Bite Me!

D-fusit on December 19, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Who are these idiot supporters of his and don’t they have a park to occupy somewhere?

swinia sutki on December 19, 2011 at 11:59 AM

D-fusit on December 19, 2011 at 11:53 AM

Actually, I wouldn’t mind if not only does Manning’s defense use this tactic, but that it succeeds – if only for the sentencing factor, not the conviction.

Homosexuals all over will be writhing like snails with salt on them.

So, I cheer on Manning’s insanity plea and hope the military accepts it as viable evidence to affect the punishment phase.

Anyone for a game of dominos or chess?

Logus on December 19, 2011 at 11:59 AM

I am undecided on how he should be executed: the firing squad or the gallows. At any rate, is must be public.

Elric on December 19, 2011 at 11:34 AM

Firing squads are considered a “soldier’s death”. Manning should hang.

cartooner on December 19, 2011 at 12:01 PM

Put Muhammed cartoon tattoos on him and turn him loose in Pakistan.

Dexter_Alarius on December 19, 2011 at 12:02 PM

1. He’s not facing the death penalty.

2. As to whether the items closed should have been classified or not, it’s important that private conversations remain private – especially in diplomatic circles. His disclosures hurt us. Also, if Manning doesn’t think confidentiality is important, let’s sit in on all his discussions with his atty and see how he likes it.

Blake on December 19, 2011 at 12:02 PM

closed = disclosed

Blake on December 19, 2011 at 12:03 PM

Logus on December 19, 2011 at 11:59 AM

Then use it to reinstate DADT, now that would be a hoot.

D-fusit on December 19, 2011 at 12:05 PM

So, I cheer on Manning’s insanity plea and hope the military accepts it as viable evidence to affect the punishment phase.
Logus on December 19, 2011 at 11:59 AM

It would certainly help explain and justify why we had a ban on gays in the military in the first place.

tommyboy on December 19, 2011 at 12:05 PM

What about the problem of “confirming” the classification of the documents? Just because wikileaks has a bunch of docs that seem legit doesn’t mean they are really legit. By acknowledging in open court which of the docs were classified would be confirming they are classified. Given the highly sensitive or political nature of the cables it would seem good policy to only confirm the minimum number required to obtain a conviction…and allow the rest to maintain some benefit of doubt.

Unfortunately, this numnut and other high profile guilty bastirds (penn state pervert) will never get the street justice they deserve in the pen. They’ll enjoy special treatment and separation from the gen population.

SwabJockey on December 19, 2011 at 12:06 PM

The constitution is waved around by people (especially on this site sometimes) but it is quickly forgotten when their is a war to be waged.
Beermeliberty on December 19, 2011 at 11:55 AM

You mean like with Libya?

Oh that’s right, that wasn’t war, it was a “Kinetic Military Action”.

Flora Duh on December 19, 2011 at 12:06 PM

ltdanchoi Dan Choi
Was handcuffed and pinned to ground now escorted off base. They ripped off my rank.

Hahahahahaha!

Blake on December 19, 2011 at 12:07 PM

Shriek! Shriek! Shriek!

They are giving him mean looks! lol!

https://twitter.com/#!/ltdanchoi

Blake on December 19, 2011 at 12:09 PM

Beermeliberty on December 19, 2011 at 11:55 AM

Your tirade is a joke, right? I mean nobody can be that ignorant about so much in just three paragraphs and do it with a straight face.

Trafalgar on December 19, 2011 at 12:11 PM

I’m perfectly willing to see Manning made an example of. Treason.

Just because it’s easier to get the information out than by using IMF tactics, doesn’t make it any righter.

Our mission, should we decide to accept it, is to convict this man of treason.

originalpechanga on December 19, 2011 at 12:11 PM

Just curious, does the fact that he leaked intel regarding patently unconstitutional wars mean anything to anyone here? The constitution is waved around by people (especially on this site sometimes) but it is quickly forgotten when their is a war to be waged.

Beermeliberty on December 19, 2011 at 11:55 AM

What makes it “patently unconstitutional”? What is the difference in congress declaring war and giving their permission to wage war? I see little, if any, difference. Plus the war has never been ruled unconstitutional. But let’s pretend it was, it still would not justify breaking military law.

cartooner on December 19, 2011 at 12:11 PM

He could sail on this charge. He’s a cross-gender, transgender, confused something or other…

Under this administration I wouldn’t be surprised if he walked.

CorporatePiggy on December 19, 2011 at 12:12 PM

This is hilarious! This guy tried to give Manning a break when he violated the DADT provisions, and now he is in trouble for it.

http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2011/12/18/investigative-officer-refuses-to-compel-two-key-witnesses-to-testify-at-manning-hearing/

Blake on December 19, 2011 at 12:12 PM

I love how some of these comments lump all gays together. The “Homosexuals all over will be writhing like snails with salt” was particularly amusing in an ignorant sort of way. The gay people I know who have served want this guy dead.

Anyway, back to the actual topic at hand, it never ceases to amaze me how some leftists think that virtually every bit of information related to the military should be open to the public. Sure, some only insist on that when conservatives are in power, but others genuinely believe it. yikes.

McDuck on December 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM

The ridiculous thing is that this process under the UCMJ is a pro-forma step. In theory there could be a ruling that there isn’t enough evidence to go to courts martial but the reality is that the traitor will be tried for his treason.

Manning swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies. Handing over classified documents to a commie with an ax to grind against the United States violates that oath and the bastard needs to rot in military prison for decades.

As for Manning’s fan club, they can go back to “occupying” stuff because they are not going to get their demands met by the military justice system.

Happy Nomad on December 19, 2011 at 12:16 PM

“Ltlgeneral64 on December 19, 2011 at 11:47 AM”

BINGO!!!!

ARIZONAVETERAN on December 19, 2011 at 12:19 PM

I should add to my comment at 12:15 that the gay friends I know who have served want this guy dead not because he happens to be transgendered or gay or whatever the heck he claims he is this week, but because he’s a POS who has done damage to this country. It’s pretty clear that most people who aren’t leftists feel the same way and for the same reason.

McDuck on December 19, 2011 at 12:20 PM

I am shocked!
Gender confusion SHOCKED!

KOOLAID2 on December 19, 2011 at 12:23 PM

I love how some of these comments lump all gays together. The “Homosexuals all over will be writhing like snails with salt” was particularly amusing in an ignorant sort of way. The gay people I know who have served want this guy dead.

McDuck on December 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM

I think some of it is payback toward the DADT repeal crowd who preached for decades that every homosexual serving was a super-patriot denied the right to flaunt their sexual orientation by the very same nation they so proudly defend. I can’t tell you how many times I heard about those 17 Arabic linguists kicked out for being gay at the very time we needed their skills to fight the war on terror.

Well, here at the same time we have the repeal of DADT, a gay soldier who is a member of the intelligence community decides to commit treason. After listening to the idea that gays can not be traitors for so long, it seems only fair to point to Manning and assure the pro-gay military crowd that indeed not all homosexuals are patriots. And it is relevant because supposedly he leaked classified information to impress a boyfriend. Gay military members should be at the forefront of wanting to kick this guy out. He has become a poster boy for gays in the military whether it is fair or not.

Happy Nomad on December 19, 2011 at 12:23 PM

Liberals don’t actually know what the word “right” means. Leaking military secrets is a right, running your business is not. You have a right to be married to who or whatever you please, you don’t have a right to be born.

As for the comment on the war, the AUMF from Congress is a de facto declaration.
Congress is given the power to declare war, the President is CiC.
When the body with power to declare war gives the CiC authority to use military force in a country, the CiC has the authority to use military force in the country.
This goes for Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other country where Al Qaeda is found. It does not go for Libya, where we appear to have been fighting on the same side as Al Qaeda, in possible violation of the War Powers Act (in other words, in direct violation of Congress’ wishes)

FlareCorran on December 19, 2011 at 12:23 PM

@ Beermeliberty and all those who support the traitor Manning

The issue here is not the ‘constitutionality’ of a war, nor is it a case of ‘whistle-blowing’.

Show me where in all the leaked intelligence the ‘constitutionality’ of the war is the issue.

Show me where the leaked intel brings that into question.

YOU CAN’T, because that is NOT what this is about.

I have held an extremely high level security clearance for over 15 years, and no matter how I feel, I am NOT ALLOWED to share intel with anyone who does not

A) possess the appropriate clearance level, and

B) have a NEED TO KNOW. I will go to prison for the rest of my life if I disclose what I know regardless of how ‘wrong’ I may think things are.

Therefore, this petulant child with ‘gender issues’ and ALL OF YOU who support the traitor, are wrong. End of story. No qualifiers required.

majordomomojo on December 19, 2011 at 12:25 PM

Mannings ‘fan club’ can LEAN FORWARD, BEND OVER, and SHOVE IT! As for Breanna, hope he/she likes Bubba.

Would imagine that Manning is rethinking that whole “I’m smarter than all of them” thing right now.

GarandFan on December 19, 2011 at 12:26 PM

The intelligence and national security game has few rules, but the ones they have are strictly adhered to. Especially the one where under the Geneva Convention a nation is allowed to shoot spies and saboteurs with no need for trial. If a hostile nation knows Ahmed is a CIA agent, that hostile nation can up and kill Ahmed, with no need for niceties like an arrest and trial. And if there isn’t a possibility of trading spies, why take up the jail space?

Information like this is classified because it can literally kill. How many American agents did Bradley Man(?)ning kill? Moreover, how many honest and honorably serving gay servicemen (and servicewomen) have had their names dragged through the mud to protect this unstable little boy’s temper tantrum?

Sekhmet on December 19, 2011 at 11:48 AM

I agree with you but under the GC even spies have rights. Four brave Brit female agents were captured, held, for several months, and then summarily executed. Those responsible were tried and two executed.

Blake on December 19, 2011 at 12:27 PM

I love how some of these comments lump all gays together. The “Homosexuals all over will be writhing like snails with salt” was particularly amusing in an ignorant sort of way. The gay people I know who have served want this guy dead.

McDuck on December 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM

You don’t think that gays should be distressed that he is planning on using the “My gender confusion made me do it” defense?

How will this help advance the notion that being gay/transgender is perfectly normal?

Lily on December 19, 2011 at 12:31 PM

Sekhmet on December 19, 2011 at 11:48 AM

Oh, and two others, who would have been convicted and executed, died in custody – one by heart attack the other slit his throat.

Blake on December 19, 2011 at 12:33 PM

I agree with you but under the GC even spies have rights. Four brave Brit female agents were captured, held, for several months, and then summarily executed. Those responsible were tried and two executed.

Blake on December 19, 2011 at 12:27 PM

Manning’s rights are fully protected under the UCMJ. It is only the hate America crowd that supports the traitor that bring up stupid stuff like his “rights” under the Geneva Convention.

Happy Nomad on December 19, 2011 at 12:33 PM

“I agree with you but under the GC even spies have rights”

That depends. If combatants are caught behind enemy lines wearing their opponant’s uniform then they can be summarily put up against the wall and shot under the GC. That’s exactly what the US did to a group of such German infiltrators it caught during the Battle of the Bulge.

tommyboy on December 19, 2011 at 12:33 PM

Beermeliberty on December 19, 2011 at 11:55 AM

He shouldn’t have leaked the info, period. Regarding your unconstitutional wars claim, what have you got to say about the congressional authorization for use of military force? Or am I just imagining things and those two resolutions (one for terrorists/Afghanistan and one for Iraq) never happened?

McDuck on December 19, 2011 at 12:35 PM

McDuck on December 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM

I was being somewhat hyperbolic. Nevertheless, I do feel that the homosexual agenda/movement in general is rather ignorant, so there is that. It’s all about pride, envy and anger.

There is zero proof that our sexuality is inborn, while there is plenty more circumstantial and real evidence that environment plays a large role, but that is a tangential issue.

Actions have consequences. When homosexuals in general as a movement start trying to change laws to favor them, there is a ripple affect that will naturally affect all of them in many ways they had never conceived because the movement as a whole is very single-minded and egocentric.

To that end it is foolhardy at the very least, regardless of how nice and upstanding in their social interactions and citizenry many homosexuals certainly are.

Logus on December 19, 2011 at 12:36 PM

tommyboy on December 19, 2011 at 12:33 PM

Correct.

Blake on December 19, 2011 at 12:38 PM

Hang this traitor soon.

dogsoldier on December 19, 2011 at 12:42 PM

I hope his execution is public, at least.

profitsbeard on December 19, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Hang this traitor soon.
dogsoldier on December 19, 2011 at 12:42 PM

I’d rather see him doing a life stretch in a 10×4 cell with no window and a light bulb that stays on 24/7

tommyboy on December 19, 2011 at 12:54 PM

(There’s a reminder for you here kids… always clear your browser history.)

Clearing the browser history on your PC does not clear the network history. I assume he was connected through a military server while doing these searches. If so, all of his browsing history is saved on the server.

NotCoach on December 19, 2011 at 12:57 PM

He should be put before a firing squad. What he did was deliberate. His silly defense of blaming the Army for putting him in contact with confidential information is absurd. He joined the Army. If he didn’t like it, I’m sure he could have conducted himself in a manner that would have gotten him discharged. How damaging the release of info was to our military is inconsequential. His behavior is traitorous, and should be punished as such if found guilty. These idiot “fans” crying about a lack of openness in the sensitive portions of the pretrial are of the Eric Holder ilk who think everything should be exposed. Certain rights are suspended upon entry into the armed services, quite by choice to those who choose to serve and see the sacrifice as worthy. Manning betrayed their trust, as well as the country he promised to serve.
Give him a fair courts-martial, and if found guilty, take him out back and shoot him. He can have a cigarette if he wants.

tpitman on December 19, 2011 at 12:58 PM

Most government computers don’t allow the user to erase browsing history, only an admin. Plus they flash big warnings about their right to monitor you before you can do anything…you have to acknowledge this.

Jay on December 19, 2011 at 1:01 PM

The prosecution is NOT asking for the death penalty.

Blake on December 19, 2011 at 1:06 PM

JAZZ SHAW, in the military you cannot delete your browser history unless you have administrator rights. That would be assigned to another section that Manning was not a part of.

MikeyA on December 19, 2011 at 1:07 PM

It has became rather clear after reading some of the comments on this story that after saying what I am about to say, I will have to change my name and my SSN# or just leave the country all together due to the fear of being hunted down and de-nailed by some here on HotAir.

That being said I belieave that the actions of Mr. Bradley Manning, Breanna or whatever name and gender He/She or IT is going by today, deserves nothing less than a full and complete court martial with harsh punishment, but not equal to death.

There I said it and now I will go into hiding so dont anyone try to find me……. :)

RiCkY.D. on December 19, 2011 at 1:10 PM

So the government is free to use the third-party doctrine as a shield and a sword? If the information has already been published, every bit of the justification for its continued censorship (if ever it existed) is absolutely illusory.

I might also add that the whole “kill the homo” undercurrent to much of this debate is rather shameful.

MrLambyLamb on December 19, 2011 at 1:23 PM

So the government is free to use the third-party doctrine as a shield and a sword? If the information has already been published, every bit of the justification for its continued censorship (if ever it existed) is absolutely illusory.

I might also add that the whole “kill the homo” undercurrent to much of this debate is rather shameful.

MrLambyLamb on December 19, 2011 at 1:23 PM

How do you know that everything that he illegally disclosed is all of the classified information this trial will go over?

And your insinuation about bigotry is ham fisted buffoonery. No defense for the indefensible, so you resort to dishonest and dishonorable ad hominem.

NotCoach on December 19, 2011 at 1:30 PM

I only care about whether the execution will be closed to the public or not.

revolutionismyname on December 19, 2011 at 11:28 AM

Proving emotional instability and inability for rational decision making might save him from execution. No way he can prove himself innocent of this given the existing facts. But proven emotionally unstable or insane might save him from the noose.

Lawrence on December 19, 2011 at 1:33 PM

The prosecution is NOT asking for the death penalty.

Blake on December 19, 2011 at 1:06 PM

The nutjobs of the left are upset that the gay traitor is even on trial, of course the DoD under Obama isn’t going to push for capital punishment. However much the bastard deserves to be put to death in the most painful way possible.

What your side won’t admit is that Manning is not a hero. He is not a whistleblower. Even if he legitimately saw stuff he didn’t like, there are procedures to bring it up within his chain-of-command. And it is not incumbent on a PFC to determine what the public has the “right” to know about national security and diplomatic issues.

Manning is an attention seeking traitor. He violated the oath he took when he joined the military. The full penalty for treason should be on the table for consideration at his court martial.

Happy Nomad on December 19, 2011 at 1:37 PM

I might also add that the whole “kill the homo” undercurrent to much of this debate is rather shameful.

MrLambyLamb on December 19, 2011 at 1:23 PM

Actually I don’t think anyone here is correlating his sexual preferences or confusion with/as a reason to kill him.

Quite the contrary we find his sexuality irrelevant to the issue which he was charged. Treason.

It is he and his defense’s strategy to apply his sexuality as a reasonable defense that we mock and deride as stupid for him and problematic for his fellow non-heterosexuals nationally.

I seriously doubt anyone here wants Manning killed just because he’s a homosexual.

Logus on December 19, 2011 at 1:42 PM

I wonder how releasing classified material fits into his oath to, “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice”

Since the constitution is regarded by many as just a guideline to be molded, perhaps these regulations and that UCMJ thing are just guidelines, as well.

STL_Vet on December 19, 2011 at 1:45 PM

Jazz – Making fun of Manning for being confused about his sexuality/gender/whatever is snarky, petty, and completely irrelevant to the story. You give your enemies fodder and all you have to show for it is an unfunny joke.

jarden on December 19, 2011 at 1:47 PM

How do you know that everything that he illegally disclosed is all of the classified information this trial will go over?

Because any other classified information is outside of the scope of the charges against Manning. Are they going to be trying him for information he didn’t leak? Besides, even if I am wrong, Jazz is clearly referencing the continued censorship of information that was leaked.

And your insinuation about bigotry is ham fisted buffoonery. No defense for the indefensible, so you resort to dishonest and dishonorable ad hominem.

My comment about the shamefulness of the “kill the homo” undercurrent, which is really more of an overcurrent, was neither directly or implicitly used to bolster my argument. It was an independent statement. Therefore, your conclusion that it ammounts to argumentum ad hominem is incorrect.

MrLambyLamb on December 19, 2011 at 1:48 PM

Defense Team: You’re just doing this to Manning because he has gender issues.

We the People: Nope, we’re doing this to him because he may have committed treason.

kens on December 19, 2011 at 1:50 PM

It is he and his defense’s strategy to apply his sexuality as a reasonable defense that we mock and deride as stupid for him and problematic for his fellow non-heterosexuals nationally.

I seriously doubt anyone here wants Manning killed just because he’s a homosexual.

Fair enough. I may have been overly hyperbolic. I was referring mostly to the Bradly/Breanna jests and the homosexuality/normality-related comments.

MrLambyLamb on December 19, 2011 at 1:53 PM

Just curious, does the fact that he leaked intel regarding patently unconstitutional wars mean anything to anyone here? The constitution is waved around by people (especially on this site sometimes) but it is quickly forgotten when their is a war to be waged. Regardless of what arguments people may make about past presidents actions or authorizations to use force etc etc, it doesn’t matter. The 10 year war that just “ended” yesterday should have been formally declared by congress and their is no way to consistently argue otherwise if you fancy yourself a constitutional conservative.

If being a whistle blower during an unconstitutional war is worthy of the gallows when is it ok? If someone knew and blew the whistle on the Gulf of Tonkin incident and we were able to avoid an escalation in Vietnam would people here have applauded when the whistle blower was swinging from the rope? Hopefully not.

The fact that he search for data to give out shows that he was willing to violate his agreement with the government to hold classified to only authoirzed folks.
If he felt that this was a unconstitutional war he should have stated he was a C/O, run it up the chain of command or get out. His actions are more of a spoiled kid instead of a responsible adult (take responsibility for your actions? nah…..)

oh, yea, my first post, took forever to get a account…:)

lobo on December 19, 2011 at 1:53 PM

My comment about the shamefulness of the “kill the homo” undercurrent, which is really more of an overcurrent, was neither directly or implicitly used to bolster my argument. It was an independent statement. Therefore, your conclusion that it ammounts to argumentum ad hominem is incorrect.

MrLambyLamb on December 19, 2011 at 1:48 PM

I can tell by your sentence structure you like to rape little babies and torture kittens to death. Therefore anything you say can be ridiculed or ignored even if I am only making a dishonest statement not related to the subject matter at hand.

No sir! No argumentum ad hominem here!

NotCoach on December 19, 2011 at 1:56 PM

I can tell by your sentence structure you like to rape little babies and torture kittens to death. Therefore anything you say can be ridiculed or ignored even if I am only making a dishonest statement not related to the subject matter at hand.

So, I take it you have no response to my substantive argument? And you think I’m a jerk? Okay. It’s settled.

MrLambyLamb on December 19, 2011 at 1:59 PM

“The Bradley Manning Support Network is deeply troubled…”

Well, they got THAT right.

mojo on December 19, 2011 at 2:04 PM

So, I take it you have no response to my substantive argument? And you think I’m a jerk? Okay. It’s settled.

MrLambyLamb on December 19, 2011 at 1:59 PM

You are making assumptions and there is no reason to believe your assumptions are correct. But it doesn’t matter anyways. Classified is classified whether information is part of the public record or not. And if all we are going to do is make assumptions, I am going to assume the exact opposite of you.

I assume he accessed information not entirely in the public record and that information is considered sensitive. And in order to preserve its sensitive nature, the hearing on this information is closed.

NotCoach on December 19, 2011 at 2:05 PM

That’s not Manning’s decision to make. Privates do not get the right to decide which secrets need to be secret. orders they’ll decide to follow, BUT suffer the consequences if they can’t justify disobeying.

rbj on December 19, 2011 at 11:35 AM

FIFY & the rest of the B. Manning Chorus Girls & Review.

BlaxPac on December 19, 2011 at 2:06 PM

If only Benedict Arnold would have professed gender confusion.

NotCoach on December 19, 2011 at 2:07 PM

My comment about the shamefulness of the “kill the homo” undercurrent,

The man put other servicemember into harm with is idiocy, and you want to call out homophobes? How about you stop victimizing someone who isn’t a victim.

can’t tell you how many times I heard about those 17 Arabic linguists kicked out for being gay at the very time we needed their skills to fight the war on terror.

Nine of those were still in AIT.. Six went to the Commander and used the “I’m gay” card to get out, and three were caught in the act which is a no-no in AIT whether straight or gay. They were all sh!tbags The media worst kept secret is that most DADT ousters were because the Servicemember themselve outted themselves..or they did something just as bad and DADT was just one of the reasons they were ousted.

Just curious, does the fact that he leaked intel regarding patently unconstitutional wars mean anything to anyone here?

Just curious, how do you feel defending someone who did his best to get other servicemembers killed?

melle1228 on December 19, 2011 at 2:07 PM

And if all we are going to do is make assumptions, I am going to assume the exact opposite of you.

I assume he accessed information not entirely in the public record and that information is considered sensitive. And in order to preserve its sensitive nature, the hearing on this information is closed.

And here I had pegged you for a small government type.

MrLambyLamb on December 19, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Beermeliberty on December 19, 2011 at 11:55 AM

Then give me a number. What is an acceptable number of CIA agents you want lined up against the wall and shot in hostile nations to stop the war you don’t like?

100

1000

1000000?

Yes, and if said CIA agents and resources have wives and children within the reach of the hostile nation’s regime, let’s add their deaths as well. How much blood will satisfy you?

Give me a butcher’s bill.

Sekhmet on December 19, 2011 at 2:12 PM

And here I had pegged you for a small government type.

MrLambyLamb on December 19, 2011 at 2:08 PM

I certainly don’t have you pegged as an honest debater. Just to keep you up to date, we are discussing the merits of keeping this hearing closed. Not whether I wear boxers or briefs.

NotCoach on December 19, 2011 at 2:14 PM

Just curious, does the fact that he leaked intel regarding patently unconstitutional wars mean anything to anyone here? The constitution is waved around by people (especially on this site sometimes) but it is quickly forgotten when their is a war to be waged. Regardless of what arguments people may make about past presidents actions or authorizations to use force etc etc, it doesn’t matter. The 10 year war that just “ended” yesterday should have been formally declared by congress and their is no way to consistently argue otherwise if you fancy yourself a constitutional conservative.

Beermeliberty on December 19, 2011 at 11:55 AM

Do you mean Libya as an unconstitutional or illegal action?? See….G W Bush complied with the War Powers act and Obama did not. Have you read the “Congressional War Powers Act?” Authorizations of force by Congress and or funding of actions are all that are needed according to the Act. Can’t find the time in the past ten years to read the War Powers Act? Stuck on “George Bush Lied” and just can’t get back to reality? Does it hurt too much to look in the mirror and find that your whole world view of “George Lied – Obama is Awesome” is actually the exact opposite of reality?

The “arguments” of use of force and past Presidents actions are what is consistent. What you claim is not, never has been, and never will be, but you will never ever believe otherwise, nor even take the time to read the War Powers Act.

If you are so concerned about consistency, maybe you can show me Congress’ Declaration of War on Libya?

oldroy on December 19, 2011 at 2:14 PM

Lambylamb,

I ain’t gonna screw him for love or money, so I don’t give a flying damn how Bradley Manning likes it in the sack. I care that he perpetuated leaks that put lives in danger around the world for his own little egotistical bytchfeast. So can it with the “OMG They want to kill this homo. WAAAAA!!!”

Sekhmet on December 19, 2011 at 2:15 PM

I seriously doubt anyone here wants Manning killed just because he’s a homosexual.
Logus on December 19, 2011 at 1:42 PM

Of course no. You would find the same sentiment against Jonathon Pollard too.

tommyboy on December 19, 2011 at 2:19 PM

The seem to be using the “Animal House” defense …

You f*cked up… you trusted us! Hey, make the best of it! Maybe we can help.

… if the German had bombed Pearl Harbor, I’d think he might have a chance.

J_Crater on December 19, 2011 at 2:26 PM

None of these, according to the report, are things which Manning would have needed to be searching on in the course of his assigned duties. (There’s a reminder for you here kids… always clear your browser history.)

That won’t work. At work, we catch people all the time who thought they were smart for clearing their browser history after surfing inapropriate sites.

Privacy is never plugged in. Remember that.

Cricket624 on December 19, 2011 at 2:30 PM

If all else fails, Manning could embrace the Crazy Tiger defense.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 19, 2011 at 2:44 PM

I’d rather see him doing a life stretch in a 10×4 cell with no window and a light bulb that stays on 24/7

tommyboy on December 19, 2011 at 12:54 PM

I dont want to feed, clothe, house and provide satellite TV to a traitor. He should be hanged.

dogsoldier on December 19, 2011 at 3:17 PM

He joined the Army. If he didn’t like it, I’m sure he could have conducted himself in a manner that would have gotten him discharged.

tpitman on December 19, 2011 at 12:58 PM

From Mr. Shaw’s post on this subject yesterday:

The soldier had also reportedly assaulted a superior, turned over a table, damaged a computer and on another occasion was found “curled up in a ball”

Looks like the whole chain of command fell down re: failure to deal with this character.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 19, 2011 at 3:45 PM

The arguments to open the meeting to the public are increasing convoluted.

1. The information is in the public domain.

By all means, let’s confirm the validity of the classified material by opening classified briefings to the public. Unfortunately for Manning, the classification doesn’t change because of public disclosure, but by following declassification procedures.

2. Manning was morally obligated to break his oath, the law, and unlawful orders because of the unconstitutional nature of the war.

Manning committed treason. He did not respond to an unlawful order. Therefore, Manning cannot cite any immoral or unlawful orders, because there were none–he acted on his own. For a soldier, there is no valid defense for treason; and therefore, a war’s constitutionality is not a valid defense either.

3. He is in a state of gender confusion, or felt threatened, or feels threatened.

Bummer. This is unrelated to his crime or his punishment.

STL_Vet on December 19, 2011 at 4:53 PM

Manning was just giving Assange a “hands on” hygiene lesson.

The soap slipped.

Sorry. Wrong thread.

slp on December 19, 2011 at 5:13 PM

I’ve seen this situation likened to the Pentagon Papers episode. Of course this is to provide some sort of moral equivalency shield to Private Manning. I would just ask the loony left if they realize they are advocating that any average Corporal be allowed to make policy decisions for the USA.
+
Then I’d like to ask the average E-4 in Marine Force Recon, the Navy Seals or the Army Rangers to take over foreign relations duties from Obama’s State Department. The world would be a much safer place in 30 days I think.

Metanis on December 19, 2011 at 5:23 PM

Why Breanna? Why not Stanley Ann?

disa on December 19, 2011 at 6:12 PM

Comment pages: 1 2