Another bad day for Bradley Manning

posted at 2:01 pm on April 29, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

It’s been quite a while since we last checked in on the continuing adventures of Wikileaks media sensation and accused traitor Bradley Manning, but as promised, the military justice system is grinding along at its own pace and moving toward a resolution. The latest round of activity surrounds requests by Manning’s attorney, David Coombs, to simply skip over all of this bothersome nonsense about having a Court Martial and just dismiss some of the most serious charges out of hand. So… how did that work out?

Not very well.

The judge in the case of accused WikiLeaker PFC Bradley Manning has denied a defense motion to dismiss the charge of aiding the enemy, the most serious charge Manning will face during his court martial.

On the third and final day of pre-trial hearings in Manning’s case, presiding judge Col. Denise Lind on Thursday denied two other defense motions. They included an assertion that prosecutors unreasonably multiplied charges against Manning, and a motion to dismiss a charge dealing with publishing information on the Internet knowing the enemy has access to the Web…

Manning faces 22 charges, including aiding the enemy, wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the Internet knowing that it is accessible to the enemy, theft of public property or records, and transmitting defense information.

On what basis did David Coombs want to have the charge of aiding the enemy dismissed? Because it was, “too vague.” (Seriously?) As to the other requests, he complained that the government was simply “piling on offenses to increase the sentence.”

I have now sat through numerous conference calls with Manning’s supporters and interviewed a few people involved in the case. While I don’t really have much sympathy for his situation, (assuming, that is, that a conviction is obtained and he is guilty as charged) at this point I have to wonder if he’s really being well served by his defense team. A charge of aiding the enemy is, “too vague?” And for a lawyer to argue that adding more charges is intended to produce a harsher sentence… if you break more laws you do more time. Words really fail me at this point.

In any event, the Court Martial is set to kick off in September. We’ll keep you updated. Most of it will not be open to the public, as is proper in such a sensitive case, but I’m sure we’ll get the results and the highlights in due time.


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

good

rob verdi on April 29, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Most of it will not be open to the public

Well, when it comes to secrets, we know the media is going to be slamming on the doors to be let in.

upinak on April 29, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Words don’t fail me: string the little lady up.

BKeyser on April 29, 2012 at 2:06 PM

He should be swinging for treason, but we are to PC now.

cobrakai99 on April 29, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Another bad day for Breanna Manning.

Fixed it for you. You’re welcome.

BigGator5 on April 29, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Words don’t fail me: string the little lady up.

YES and while the military is at it, get to dealing with that Ft Hood terrorist rop type murderer! I can not imagine why this horrible man isn’t hung now for all the people he killed!
L

letget on April 29, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Fixed it for you. You’re welcome.

BigGator5 on April 29, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Thank you. I was confused there for a moment. I didn’t know who this Bradley Manning was. I thought maybe it was a different traitor.

NotCoach on April 29, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Another loss for 21st century Liberalism.

CW on April 29, 2012 at 2:14 PM

How in the heck did he ever get into the military in the first place. Doesn’t look like he could fight his way out of paper bag. (and no, I’m not referring to his sexual orientation.)

chickie on April 29, 2012 at 2:15 PM

A really specious argument (the “too vague” approach). Manning was charged under the UCMJ. Coombs isn’t going to get the wording of the UCMJ litigated in this court-martial. Dumb tactic.

J.E. Dyer on April 29, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Tie him together with Julian Assange and Jane Fonda.

Save on ammo.

Rixon on April 29, 2012 at 2:16 PM

He should be swinging for treason, but we are to PC now.

cobrakai99 on April 29, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Justice would be to pin his biography to his back and turn him over to the Taliban!

landlines on April 29, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Justice would be to pin his biography to his back and turn him over to the Taliban!

landlines on April 29, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Prisoner swap.

VegasRick on April 29, 2012 at 2:24 PM

He is such a hero. Maybe the defense team can negotiate for martyrdom?

Kenosha Kid on April 29, 2012 at 2:24 PM

he complained that the government was simply “piling on offenses to increase the sentence.”

Manning should be executed for his treason.

But only once.

Parsons on April 29, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Nancy looks silly in that man’s uniform. They should get him out of it.

Jaibones on April 29, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Treason should be on that list, along with a declaration that his butt-buddy julian assangehole is an enemy of the state and should be shot in the face on sight.

Wolfmoon on April 29, 2012 at 2:27 PM

How in the heck did he ever get into the military in the first place. Doesn’t look like he could fight his way out of paper bag. (and no, I’m not referring to his sexual orientation.)

chickie on April 29, 2012 at 2:15 PM

I’m sure there are others who don’t look like they could fight their way out of a paper bag yet are patriotic and enlisted because they had something to offer in service of their country. Let’s not let the Mannings of the world ruin it for those who wish to serve with honor.

Blake on April 29, 2012 at 2:28 PM

YES and while the military is at it, get to dealing with that Ft Hood terrorist rop type murderer! I can not imagine why this horrible man isn’t hung now for all the people he killed!
L

letget on April 29, 2012 at 2:11 PM

You and me both.

TugboatPhil on April 29, 2012 at 2:30 PM

In my experience*, Manning wouldn’t be charged under the UCMJ unless the trial council had all the elements of proof of the offense covered. The charging authority wouldn’t have signed the charge sheet.

Because of this, most military trials are fairly straight forward. The trial council merely produces the elements of proof for the charges and the court convicts. The defendant’s rights are always ensured, but unless a member of the court is an uncompromising extreme liberal, to the violation of his/her oath of office, bye bye manning.

*26/26 convictions as TC, 1/1 acquittal ad DC

Old Country Boy on April 29, 2012 at 2:33 PM

…Oh!…another speedy trial like that of Nidal Malik Hasan who on Nov. 5, 2009 shot up Fort Hood.

the military justice system is grinding along at its own pace and moving toward a resolution

…a snails pace is faster!

KOOLAID2 on April 29, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Standard liberal argument by the defense team.

“It is not fair to hold my client accountable for his actions. You are just being mean.”

Grunt on April 29, 2012 at 2:35 PM

A really specious argument (the “too vague” approach). Manning was charged under the UCMJ. Coombs isn’t going to get the wording of the UCMJ litigated in this court-martial. Dumb tactic.

J.E. Dyer on April 29, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Perhaps Coombs earned his law degree at “Verrilli’s Soliciter General Approved School of Law”? He seems to have similar methods and strategies.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on April 29, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Manning is a disgrace to the uniform he wears. The vast majority of men and women serve with courage and integrity. We honor them, and have no use for him.

indyvet on April 29, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Treason should be on that list, along with a declaration that his butt-buddy julian assangehole is an enemy of the state and should be shot in the face on sight.

Wolfmoon on April 29, 2012 at 2:27 PM

I am in concurrence w/ this…well stated…

Static21 on April 29, 2012 at 2:43 PM

I really loved the other argument made earlier that it was the military fault for letting someone like him join and have access to the info.
I expect to see a bunch of stop bullying bradley celebrities to step fwd soon.
kill him.
publicly.

dmacleo on April 29, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Another bad day for Bradley. Why? Did Bubba ditch him for a prettier one ?

galtani on April 29, 2012 at 2:45 PM

…Why don’t they have a full body picture of Ms. Manning…so we can see the green skirt and not just the jacket?

KOOLAID2 on April 29, 2012 at 2:46 PM

chickie on April 29, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Ever hear of Audie Murphy?

Grunt on April 29, 2012 at 2:47 PM

I’m generally opposed to the death penalty but I’ll make an exception for this little turd.

Red Cloud on April 29, 2012 at 2:49 PM

1. Bullet
2. Rifle
3. Firing Squad

BierManVA on April 29, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Ever hear of Audie Murphy?

Grunt on April 29, 2012 at 2:47 PM

:) that man had a gigantic pair!

upinak on April 29, 2012 at 3:06 PM

letget on April 29, 2012 at 2:11 PM

I know..very quiet on the Maj Hassan updates…

Both deserve death. Love all the PC’ness.

bazil9 on April 29, 2012 at 3:07 PM

chickie on April 29, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Ever hear of Audie Murphy?

Grunt on April 29, 2012 at 2:47 PM

My thoughts exactly. Murphy looked like a short, peach-fuzzed kid but in combat he was a deadly killer.

And Desmond Doss – a thin, gentle pacifist medic but absolutely brave as hell.

reginaldL on April 29, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Where can we sign up for the firing squad. Disgrace to the uniform.

crosshugger on April 29, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Manning is a disgrace to the uniform he wears. The vast majority of men and women serve with courage and integrity. We honor them, and have no use for him.

indyvet on April 29, 2012 at 2:41 PM

He should not be allowed to wear it, until his case is resolved, and why isn’t treason on the charge list?

dogsoldier on April 29, 2012 at 3:13 PM

reginaldL on April 29, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Sgt. York also needs to be added to the list!
L

letget on April 29, 2012 at 3:14 PM

For the charge of “aiding the enemy” the prosecution will have to outline and assert as to how the enemy was aided based upon the information provided. Considering the incredible scope of what he dumped out there (and our current, well-oiled, intelligence capacity) that shouldn’t be a very difficult case to make. Precedent is also against Manning as there many others that got charged similarly after providing similar information.

have fun in federal PMITA prison, champ.

ted c on April 29, 2012 at 3:23 PM

He should not be allowed to wear it, until his case is resolved, and why isn’t treason on the charge list?

dogsoldier on April 29, 2012 at 3:13 PM

I think that he is allowed to wear it until he is convicted. Then, he might be allowed to wear the uniform, but not the beret, and he cannot salute.

ted c on April 29, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Which attorney is more inept? David Coombs or U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli?

BigAlSouth on April 29, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Where can we sign up for the firing squad. Disgrace to the uniform.

crosshugger on April 29, 2012 at 3:09 PM

..were I selected, I would bring my own round to the soiree and substitute it for the one they gave me to chamber — just in case it was the dummy one.

Hell, I might even insist they let me man the 60 instead of some wimpy-assed M4.

The War Planner on April 29, 2012 at 3:33 PM

It is ridiculous and intellectually bankrupt to argue Manning was aiding the enemy. Only an Orwellian government and society would make that claim.

Dante on April 29, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Most of it will not be open to the public

Well, when it comes to secrets, we know the media is going to be slamming on the doors to be let in.

upinak on April 29, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Ironic, given that we are supposed to have an open government, and that Manning is just a whistleblower, not a traitor. Further irony in that so-called conservatives want a government operating in secrecy and not accountable to the citizens.

Dante on April 29, 2012 at 3:50 PM

The Rosenbergs were executed for far less.

Treason is lower on my list than Sandusky.

Typicalwhitewoman on April 29, 2012 at 3:52 PM

I have to wonder if he’s really being well served by his defense team.

Jazz, it’s called ‘laying the ground-work for an appeal based on “ineffective counsel”.

Two lawyers(?) here in Kalifornia appealed a death sentence on that basis. Their argument was that if their client had been given effective counsel, he wouldn’t be on death row.

And they were serious! Of course after their client got his shots, they didn’t run off to the State Bar Association to turn in their licenses. And the State Bar didn’t come around asking for them.

GarandFan on April 29, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Jazz, it’s called ‘laying the ground-work for an appeal based on “ineffective counsel”.

GarandFan on April 29, 2012 at 3:57 PM

No, it’s called pointing out the emperor wears no clothes. Manning’s counsel is 100% correct.

Dante on April 29, 2012 at 4:03 PM

It is ridiculous and intellectually bankrupt to argue Manning was aiding the enemy. Only an Orwellian government and society would make that claim.

Dante

Your statement is “ridiculous and intellectually bankrupt”, champ.

Gothguy on April 29, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Oops! Guess I hit a nerve with the paper bag comment. Guess I’ll have to label some of my comments with a sarc tag. :)

chickie on April 29, 2012 at 4:10 PM

We need to bring Obama up on charges of aiding the enemy just for the cash he gave to Palistinian Authority, not to mention everything else he’s done to destroy this country!

Vntnrse on April 29, 2012 at 4:12 PM

And yes, I do know who Audey Murphy was…

chickie on April 29, 2012 at 4:13 PM

This always happens. The defense always asks for a summary dismissal; it’s routine. Sometimes it’s even granted.

There isn’t anything noteworthy about it.

Steven Den Beste on April 29, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Ironic, given that we are supposed to have an open government, and that Manning is just a whistleblower, not a traitor. Further irony in that so-called conservatives want a government operating in secrecy and not accountable to the citizens.

Dante on April 29, 2012 at 3:50 PM

What inferno did you step out of? You don’t have whistleblowers in the military, particularly in time of war. You have been swallowing too many of your marxist professors BS opinions as fact. What he did was a crime even in industry. You can’t publish confidential, inside information from your employer and then claim you were only blowing the whistle. That’s against the law. That is also true in the military, where such publication can cost lives. You are obviously from the mike wallace school of international thought as to whatever is bad for the USA is good for everybody else. Excuse me while I wash my hands made filthy by you for this conversation.

Old Country Boy on April 29, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Old Country Boy on April 29, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Thank you for giving us Leviathan’s view.

Dante on April 29, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Thank you for giving us Leviathan’s view.

Dante on April 29, 2012 at 4:27 PM

What’s really funny is that you think you’re smart.

Let’s ignore the fact that Manning shared information with our enemies and he did not use the proper chain of command or other resources within the government to do his “whistle blowing”. What crime or crimes did Manning reveal to the rest of the world?

NotCoach on April 29, 2012 at 4:35 PM

It is ridiculous and intellectually bankrupt to argue Manning was aiding the enemy. Only an Orwellian government and society would make that claim.

Dante on April 29, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Publicly disseminating information that our enemies can use to kill us or our allies and calling that aiding the enemy is Orwellian? What’s next, freedom is slavery?

NotCoach on April 29, 2012 at 4:37 PM

What’s really funny is that you think you’re smart.

Let’s ignore the fact that Manning shared information with our enemies and he did not use the proper chain of command or other resources within the government to do his “whistle blowing”. What crime or crimes did Manning reveal to the rest of the world?

NotCoach on April 29, 2012 at 4:35 PM

You are confusing your opinion for fact. No, it is not a fact that he shared information with our “enemies”. I think arguing that one did not use “the proper chain of command” when whistle blowing is something that even Heller would appreciate. “Now see here. If you’re going to expose our secretive actions to the citizenry to whom we’re accountable, be sure to follow the manual on how to do so, since the people you will be reporting it to will be part and parcel of these actions and they’ll know best how to handle it.”

Come on. This isn’t passing on information like the cook is pissing in the stew every night.

Dante on April 29, 2012 at 4:45 PM

No sympathy for him: lock him up and throw away the key. The excuse given that his behavior was a result of the pressure of living under DADT, as I’ve heard from some of his defenders, not only sickens me but outright enrages me. As boneheaded of a law as DADT was, somehow I managed to keep my oath and not betray my country while in uniform all while dealing with the same pressure. Ditto for thousands of other gay/lesbian servicemembers. He is a disgrace to the uniform and deserves every bit of the scorn he is facing.

JohnAGJ on April 29, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Publicly disseminating information that our enemies can use to kill us or our allies and calling that aiding the enemy is Orwellian? What’s next, freedom is slavery?

NotCoach on April 29, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Oh, can use. Yes, the dangers of an open, free society. Why, one would think that anyone our government deems to be a danger and an enemy couldn’t get their hands on library books or blueprints or satellite photos or an unlimited host of information in order to carry out their dastardly plans. To be on the safe side, we should take Michelle Malkin’s advice and round everyone up since they could potentially be aiding this nebulous enemy.

So let’s see … I give someone a baseball bat for a birthday present. He sells it at a garage sale where it’s purchased and then used to bash someone else’s head in. Lock me up for murder!

Dante on April 29, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Dante on April 29, 2012 at 4:45 PM

You didn’t answer the question. What crime or crimes did he reveal to the world with his “whistle blowing”?

NotCoach on April 29, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Every day has to be a bad day for Manning. I mean my G*d, just look at him.

beedubya on April 29, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Oh, can use. Yes, the dangers of an open, free society. Why, one would think that anyone our government deems to be a danger and an enemy couldn’t get their hands on library books or blueprints or satellite photos or an unlimited host of information in order to carry out their dastardly plans. To be on the safe side, we should take Michelle Malkin’s advice and round everyone up since they could potentially be aiding this nebulous enemy.

So let’s see … I give someone a baseball bat for a birthday present. He sells it at a garage sale where it’s purchased and then used to bash someone else’s head in. Lock me up for murder!

Dante on April 29, 2012 at 4:48 PM

You like to talk around inconvenient truths. Manning’s activities forced us to withdraw assets in Afghanistan because what he did revealed their identities. People who were useful to us and working against our enemies. But because of Manning their lives were instantly in danger and we lost them as valuable tools. And this isn’t counting the named Afghan civilians who most likely became targets because they would have been seen as working with the US.

Furthermore, many of these documents contained tactical information that could be potentially used against and endanger our troops. If that isn’t releasing information to the enemy then nothing is.

NotCoach on April 29, 2012 at 4:58 PM

So let’s see … I give someone a baseball bat for a birthday present. He sells it at a garage sale where it’s purchased and then used to bash someone else’s head in. Lock me up for murder!

Dante on April 29, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Were you under oath to not sell the baseball bat to anyone else?

NotCoach on April 29, 2012 at 4:59 PM

YES and while the military is at it, get to dealing with that Ft Hood terrorist rop type murderer! I can not imagine why this horrible man isn’t hung now for all the people he killed!
L

letget on April 29, 2012 at 2:11 PM

THAT .. the SOB is still drawing Major pay ..
I volunteer for the firing squad and will even
buy the rounds used …

conservative tarheel on April 29, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Can we count on an Executive Pardon in this case? Or are cases like this beyond the reach of the President? Maybe one of you posters with knowledge of Military Justice could answer this. I’m definitely curious if Obama has the power to get this traitor off the hook.

teacherman on April 29, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Furthermore, many of these documents contained tactical information that could be potentially used against and endanger our troops. If that isn’t releasing information to the enemy then nothing is.

NotCoach on April 29, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Here is where you are very confused, and here is the crux of the dismissal request: did Manning give these materials to an “enemy”, or did he give them to an individual who runs a whistle blowing website? He gave them to an individual and his group who operate a whistle blowing website.

And remember, the charge is “aiding the enemy”. Notice your hypothetical “could”. Either he did, or he didn’t. Hypotheticals do not fall under “did”.

You didn’t answer the question. What crime or crimes did he reveal to the world with his “whistle blowing”?

NotCoach on April 29, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Not necessarily crimes, per se (and it’s irrelevant if there were crimes or not), but actions and coverups, such as the Apache attack that killed some Reuters’ journalists and injured children. The military had said it had no idea how the children were injured … until the video was released, that is. This is just one example.

Dante on April 29, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Can we count on an Executive Pardon in this case? Or are cases like this beyond the reach of the President? Maybe one of you posters with knowledge of Military Justice could answer this. I’m definitely curious if Obama has the power to get this traitor off the hook.

teacherman on April 29, 2012 at 5:09 PM

in a word – yes the president as Command in Chief
has all the authority to pardon anyone …
and if he loses it is possible that he does that for
both Manning and Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan
since he would have nothing to lose …

conservative tarheel on April 29, 2012 at 5:17 PM

should read – if he loses the election it is possible that he does that -

conservative tarheel on April 29, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Obama may be able to pardon – but he can’t dismiss the charges and he can’t do a thing until there is a judgement.

Roy Rogers on April 29, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Here is where you are very confused, and here is the crux of the dismissal request: did Manning give these materials to an “enemy”, or did he give them to an individual who runs a whistle blowing website? He gave them to an individual and his group who operate a whistle blowing website.

Dante on April 29, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Doesn’t matter. Illegally shared classified information can easily make its way into enemies hands. Sharing it with Assmange does not mitigate the fact that our enemies made use of this information.

Not necessarily crimes, per se (and it’s irrelevant if there were crimes or not), but actions and coverups, such as the Apache attack that killed some Reuters’ journalists and injured children. The military had said it had no idea how the children were injured … until the video was released, that is. This is just one example.

So Manning is an innocent scapegoat because you don’t like the narrative the Pentagon was using?

NotCoach on April 29, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Obama may be able to pardon – but he can’t dismiss the charges and he can’t do a thing until there is a judgement.

Roy Rogers on April 29, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Why can’t he?

NotCoach on April 29, 2012 at 5:28 PM

How the hell can anyone make the case that Manning was a whistle blower?

darkpixel on April 29, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Dante — writing as a mythological sea monster, I think the “aiding” term is from the constitutional definition of Treason. You commit a crime if you either aid or you comfort those who have been designated as our enemies. I’m not sure, but the conjuction “or” kinda ties both togeher. Not exactly helping them kill our troops, but providing information on political or emotional happenings definately can comfort them and help them plan their next target. But then of course, every piece of dirt you can publish hurts The United States, which is exactly what you want. You and obama from your positions on topics really do hate this country.

Thing you don’t get, especially you and the other USA haters is that manning was fully instructed on what he could and couldn’t do, what information, if any, he could disclose. He lied to his fellow soldiers and lied about following the rules. That is a crime in the U. S. Army.

Old Country Boy on April 29, 2012 at 5:32 PM

OCB,

First, Leviathan is not reference to a mythological sea monster, but to Thomas Hobbes’ publication; it is the name he gives to an artificial person, which is a metaphor for the State.

Secondly, I didn’t ask where the term comes from. I disagree with the charge since Manning did not aid the enemy. Here is Article III, Section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Giving material to Wikileaks is not aiding nor comforting the enemy, and is, as his counsel noted, too vague. Which “enemy”? Name the person who is a representative of this “enemy”.

Third, you make my point about intellectual bankruptcy when you resort to straw man arguments in attempt to impugn me and my argument.

Dante on April 29, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Anybody ever notice that you’ve never seen Bradley Manning and Dante together at the same time in the same place?

Dopenstrange on April 29, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Since when is an act of malicious petulance considered whistle blowing? You would have to be an idiot to think that.

BL@KBIRD on April 29, 2012 at 5:54 PM

First, Leviathan is not reference to a mythological sea monster, but to Thomas Hobbes’ publication; it is the name he gives to an artificial person, which is a metaphor for the State.

Dante on April 29, 2012 at 5:45 PM

And Hobbes got it from the Book of Job.

It’s variously translated, but a sea monster would be the most common.

Wethal on April 29, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Whistle blowing in Wartime by a soldier is called treason. You would have to be an idiot not to know that.

BL@KBIRD on April 29, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Here is where you are very confused, and here is the crux of the dismissal request: did Manning give these materials to an “enemy”, or did he give them to an individual who runs a whistle blowing website? He gave them to an individual and his group who operate a whistle blowing website.

And remember, the charge is “aiding the enemy”. Notice your hypothetical “could”. Either he did, or he didn’t. Hypotheticals do not fall under “did”.

You didn’t answer the question. What crime or crimes did he reveal to the world with his “whistle blowing”?

NotCoach on April 29, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Not necessarily crimes, per se (and it’s irrelevant if there were crimes or not), but actions and coverups, such as the Apache attack that killed some Reuters’ journalists and injured children. The military had said it had no idea how the children were injured … until the video was released, that is. This is just one example.

Dante on April 29, 2012 at 5:13 PM

OK, long answer to your points. It is obvious that you have never held a security clearance. Everyone who has held such a clearance, from the highest level down to the janitor who accesses secured areas, is given the phone number for a fraud, waste, and abuse hotline that is outside of the normal channels of command. If criminal or other activities have taken place, there is a mechanism to elevate those charges that is anonymous and outside the reporting entity’s normal chain of command. That avenue was available to Manning. He chose to ignore that and instead removed classified information from Government information processing systems — a crime in itself.

To say that he did not directly give information to “the enemy” is specious and cynical on its face. He gave that information to an entity who he knew was going to make said information available to the world via the internet. His e-mails to Assange indicate that Manning intended that information to be published on WikiLeaks. He made that information available knowing that web access to WikiLeaks included both friendly and enemy entities. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand that fact and Manning knew that the person to whom he passed the information was going to publish it in said manner. Your “defense” of Manning in this manner is laughable.

Finally, the fact is that people have both been placed in mortal danger because of what he released and very likely have been killed as a result. That alone makes him guilty of providing aid to the enemy. His actions have caused severe damage to US national interests.

OK, that was the long response.

The short response?

Yer an idiot.

AZfederalist on April 29, 2012 at 5:59 PM

And Hobbes got it from the Book of Job.

It’s variously translated, but a sea monster would be the most common.

Wethal on April 29, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Yes, I know where Hobbes got it.

Dante on April 29, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Yes, I know where Hobbes got it.

Dante on April 29, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Of course you do…..

Wethal on April 29, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Are you surprised at the amount of fish you caught trolling with that ridiculous comment Dante?

It wasn’t a huge haul, granted, but you can pan fry the little filets in butter and call it an appetizer.

Troll on!

Wolfmoon on April 29, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Where can we sign up for the firing squad. Disgrace to the uniform.
crosshugger on April 29, 2012 at 3:09 PM

I would point out the irony of someone that chose “crosshugger” as a screen name to make this comment, but I doubt it would even register. WWJD indeed. Oh and what about innocent until proven guilty. Oh well I suppose that the government and this administration is so beyond reproach that we don’t need to bother with waiting for someone to be convicted by a jury of his peers before calling for him to be shot. A lot of people here don’t have much use for quaint notions like due process. He was charged, therefore he must be guilty. Disgusting.

iwasbornwithit on April 29, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Who is the “enemy” that we are at “war” with? Kind of important to prove up treason.

iwasbornwithit on April 29, 2012 at 6:47 PM

iwasbornwithit on April 29, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Sorry, no jury of his peers. You’re thinking of something else.

hawkdriver on April 29, 2012 at 6:49 PM

I apologize. Somebody needs to establish the facts of this case first before people start forming lynch mobs.

iwasbornwithit on April 29, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Traitors need to hang.

To show the next weasel-in-potential that treason is inadvisable.

profitsbeard on April 29, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Obama may be able to pardon – but he can’t dismiss the charges and he can’t do a thing until there is a judgement.

Roy Rogers on April 29, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Then maybe it’s best that this and the Fort Hood shooting case aren’t resolved until say, the end of the year, just in case…

Night Owl on April 29, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Giving material to Wikileaks is not aiding nor comforting the enemy,
Dante on April 29, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Sure it was.

V7_Sport on April 29, 2012 at 8:47 PM

iwasbornwithit on April 29, 2012 at 6:52 PM

There are certain “Facts” that are not in contention. One of which is that Bradley Manning disseminated classified information to Wikileaks.

That act, in and of itself, is problematic for his defense counsel. The remaining factual issue is whether the dissemination was treasonous, and if so, what is the punishment.

This is a free country and I suppose one can speculate about the odds of BM beating the rap. (Snowball/hell)

BigAlSouth on April 29, 2012 at 9:34 PM

There are certain “Facts” that are not in contention. One of which is that Bradley Manning disseminated classified information to Wikileaks.

BigAlSouth on April 29, 2012 at 9:34 PM

So the defendant admitted these facts? I am asking because if he has admitted to anything then I agree they are not in contention. Or are you just basing your “facts” on the charges filed against him and media reports?

iwasbornwithit on April 29, 2012 at 9:45 PM

Obama could pardon both Manning and Hassan at anytime. He doesn’t need to wait for a conviction. He could also end the prosecution at anytime as he is the ultimate convening authority of any Court martial. He would pay a very serious political price if he were to do either one, so I don’t see him doing either one.

Quartermaster on April 29, 2012 at 9:46 PM

I’d say give him the Gary Gilmore treatment, but that’d be too good. At least Gilmore was man enough to take his medicine. Let Manning dance from the end of a rope.

tpitman on April 29, 2012 at 9:51 PM

hawkdriver on April 29, 2012 at 6:49 PM

I assume you are or were a military helicopter pilot. To set the record straight “Jury of his peers” is a military requirement also. Just being in the military does not absolve you of a trial by jury of his peers. However, that being written, it is not the peer jury most non-military people think of. If the chargee is an officer, he/she will be tried by officers. Every enlisten soldier (E-ranks) will have at least 1/3 of the court be of enlisted ranks. Of course, in the US Army, all personnel are supposedly equal under the law (see the UCMJ), so regardless of the makeup of the cm panel, all are the charged’s equals under the law. (I will admit that some colonels are more equal than others.)

The problem here with the guardhouse lawyer trolls like Dante, is they will antagonize the system with their unique take on “who is the enemy”, etc. That under harsher conditins, the solution will be achieved by “friendly fire”, as it was before 1945.

Old Country Boy on April 29, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Old Country Boy on April 29, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Thanks for taking the time to explain OCB.

I don’t know that Dante has a take on “who is the enemy.” The question to you is “Who is the enemy?”. It doesn’t matter for every charge against him, but it certainly matters for the charge of treason that some have suggested above and for some of the charges against him.

I am former military and an attorney myself (not criminal, just paper-pusher type) but I was not a JAG. I am concerned about the ability of the federal government or the military to more easily charge citizens or military personnel with treason or other crimes as a means of suppressing what might otherwise be considered “free speech” or would be considered a “whistle-blower” activity deserving of praise rather than derision.

I don’t pretend to know the bright line between espionage/treason and lawful whistle-blowing activity, but I am not comfortable with condemning this type of activity although PFC Manning might have been specifically culpable under the specific facts of this case.

I am concerned that when we have this open-ended undeclared “war on terror” against a nebulous “enemy” that it makes it easier for the federal and state governments to continue their assault on our free speech and civil liberties.

Anyway, let’s at least establish the facts of this particular case before we start calling for Manning’s head. The only “facts” as I understand them at the moment is that he was a soldier serving in a combat zone and I think that he at least deserves the presumption of innocence that is afforded every other American.

iwasbornwithit on April 29, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Also, what is inherently wrong with “antagonizing the system”? Sometimes the system needs a little antagonizing.

iwasbornwithit on April 29, 2012 at 10:55 PM

Obviously he violated OPSEC. This should get him kicked out of the military. However, what did he do that was criminal? He allowed the American people to know what the government was doing. Last time I checked, transparency is a necessity in a free country.

RightXBrigade on April 29, 2012 at 10:58 PM

Whistle blowing in Wartime by a soldier is called treason. You would have to be an idiot not to know that.

BL@KBIRD on April 29, 2012 at 5:56 PM

When did Congress vote on a Declaration of War?

RightXBrigade on April 29, 2012 at 11:00 PM

RightX, I suspect we are in agreement but Whether he violated OPSEC remains to be proven as well. I would hope people here had learned a little bit about the imperfection of the military justice system from the Haditha episode.

iwasbornwithit on April 29, 2012 at 11:04 PM

But, but, but…Freedom of Speech!!! And he meant well!! Chimpy McBushitlerburton!!!!

CountDeMoney on April 29, 2012 at 11:15 PM

Comment pages: 1 2