Bradley Manning: Hey.. nobody was harmed!

posted at 10:41 am on July 20, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

Lest we forget, the court martial proceedings against Bradley Manning continue to grind on, bogged down by one delay after another raised by his seemingly inept defense team. This week, yet another pair of charges which Team Manning wanted thrown out remained on the table.

A military judge has again refused to throw out two of the 22 charges against an Army private charged in the biggest leak of classified information in U.S. history.

Attorneys for Pfc. Bradley Manning argued earlier this week during a hearing at Maryland’s Fort Meade that two charges should be dropped. The judge overseeing the case, Col. Denise Lind, denied the request Wednesday. She agreed with military prosecutors it would be improper to drop the charges at this point.

So what new line of attack are Manning’s lawyers taking? This one may be even tougher than the rest to translate into any human language, but the short version seems to be… no harm no foul.

A US soldier accused of passing a trove of documents to WikiLeaks asked a military judge Wednesday to allow him to cite evidence showing his leak caused no damage to the United States.

A defense lawyer for US Army private Bradley Manning argued that his client took care to disclose files that would not harm US interests and subsequent government reports have shown no major “injury” was caused.

Look… I’m no fan of Bradley Manning, as is well known. (Assuming that the charges are proven true, which his own attorney seems to have just confessed.) But David Coombs needs to be fired. Manning, like any US citizen and soldier, deserves a fair and valid attempt at a defense in a proper inquiry, even assuming he’s guilty. This latest twist just makes Coombs look deranged.

His argument is that, since the US military isn’t willing to go into court and empty the bag on top secret information detailing precisely which efforts were harmed by Manning’s actions, then.. what? Then nobody got hurt so flushing a quarter million sensitive documents shouldn’t be illegal?

Where did this guy get his law degree? From a cereal box?


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

except the nation and our allies.

rob verdi on July 20, 2012 at 10:42 AM

The rebuttal on this will likely be a list of US contacts who were burned by him and subsequently ended up dead.

That’s probably a sizable list.

teke184 on July 20, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Convict.

Execute.

hawkdriver on July 20, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Bradley Manning: Hey.. nobody was harmed!

Well, then I guess it starts with you, darling!

Valkyriepundit on July 20, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Bradley Manning: Hey.. nobody was harmed!

…liberal speak!

KOOLAID2 on July 20, 2012 at 10:45 AM

You should introduce Coombs as his attorney. I was hella confused for about 30 seconds.

thirtyandseven on July 20, 2012 at 10:45 AM

When the list of dead agents and contacts reaches one, Manning should also get conspiracy to commit murder charges.

After his fair trail, maybe they can execute him multiple times and claim no harm, no foul.

WhatNot on July 20, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Judas: “Hey. It’s not like I was the one that hung him on a cross to die. Worst I did was kiss him.”

Well. OK, then.

apostic on July 20, 2012 at 10:46 AM

be nice to cereal boxes, Jazz…..

/

ted c on July 20, 2012 at 10:49 AM

The incompetent lawyer took on this case voluntarily, and probably pro bono. So what the hell is he complaining about? How many men died thanks to “Tokyo Rose”? Can’t name one? Neither can I, but I know many DID.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on July 20, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Yes, the most significant leak of US intelligence and perhaps most prolific treasonous act in memory…caused no harm?

Iv’e frankly grown tired of the sideshow and this queen-for-a-day sideshow replete with show-tune-singing, boa wearing supporters.

They should place Manning in front of a firing squad and let it rip.

Marcus Traianus on July 20, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Look… I’m no fan of Bradley Manning, as is well known. (Assuming that the charges are proven true, which his own attorney seems to have just confessed.) But David Coombs needs to be fired. Manning, like any US citizen and soldier, deserves a fair and valid attempt at a defense in a proper inquiry, even assuming he’s guilty. This latest twist just makes Coombs look deranged.

His argument is that, since the US military isn’t willing to go into court and empty the bag on top secret information detailing precisely which efforts were harmed by Manning’s actions, then.. what? Then nobody got hurt so flushing a quarter million sensitive documents shouldn’t be illegal?

Where did this guy get his law degree? From a cereal box?

I don’t know anything about this Coombs fellow, but I don’t see what you are seeing. I think Coombs was handed a crap sandwich and now he is doing his best to try and distract everyone from the crap sandwich. Manning is clearly guilty and will be found so. If Coombs is serious about trying to get this treasonous dirt bag off what option does he have but distraction.

Perhaps a real defense attorney could comment on Coombs conduct as it relates to how good a defense he is giving Manning.

NotCoach on July 20, 2012 at 10:54 AM

They should place Manning in front of a firing squad and let it rip.

Marcus Traianus on July 20, 2012 at 10:51 AM

To paraphrase Judge Roy Bean, he deserves a fair trial followed by a first-class hanging.

teke184 on July 20, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Even if nobody was harmed, he still fits the definition of a traitor or is his attorney seriously arguing that publishing sensitive information, secrets concerning our national security doesnt constitute giving “aid and comfort” to the enemy?

Even if all our agents made it out alive, Manning is still a traitor and should be executed as such.

Valkyriepundit on July 20, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Convict.

Execute.

hawkdriver on July 20, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Burn the body
Add salt
Flush down the toilet

banzaibob on July 20, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Remember the good ole days when traitors were stood up before a firing squad? Oh, the problems we could solve! [sigh]

DannoJyd on July 20, 2012 at 10:56 AM

“There are reports that Manning may have leaked the information due to the acute PTSD he suffered as a violently persecuted homosexual in the Military, a serious problem and one reason why Our Lord And Savior Emperor Obladee-Obla-dah ended Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

/ Entire MSM

CorporatePiggy on July 20, 2012 at 10:58 AM

This is a deliberate strategy by the defense to make the counsel seem ineffective, so when he gets convicted he will have a good case for a new trial and MORE delays.

And why should this traitor get a better lawyer at tax payer expense?

They need to bring back public executions for this traitor.

Raquel Pinkbullet on July 20, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Manning, like any US citizen and soldier, deserves a fair and valid attempt at a defense in a proper inquiry, even assuming he’s guilty.

I agree with you he deserves a fair trial and a proper defense. This lawyer may indeed be incompetent, but if you have a guilty client, why start out claiming he’s innocent instead of trying to get the best result in his interest? And even then, maybe there’s nothing to mitigate a harsh sentence.

cartooner on July 20, 2012 at 10:58 AM

If the prosecution doesn’t want to disclose the files publicly, the judge(s) may doubtless examine them or a reasonable summary of them in camera.

You don’t think the court will take into account the damage Manning caused if and when he’s sentenced? And how do you suppose the court will get that information? By speculation?

Seth Halpern on July 20, 2012 at 11:00 AM

No, the defense is not inept. They are making a record for the appeal.

Blake on July 20, 2012 at 11:00 AM

I agree with you he deserves a fair trial and a proper defense. This lawyer may indeed be incompetent, but if you have a guilty client, why start out claiming he’s innocent instead of trying to get the best result in his interest? And even then, maybe there’s nothing to mitigate a harsh sentence.

cartooner on July 20, 2012 at 10:58 AM

An attorney can only do what his client wants. If Manning refuses to deal Coombs is forced to pursue acquittal.

NotCoach on July 20, 2012 at 11:01 AM

This is a deliberate strategy by the defense to make the counsel seem ineffective, so when he gets convicted he will have a good case for a new trial and MORE delays.

And why should this traitor get a better lawyer at tax payer expense?

They need to bring back public executions for this traitor.

Raquel Pinkbullet on July 20, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Maybe he’s hanging his hopes on Bambi getting tossed out and getting a last-second pardon on his way out the door.

teke184 on July 20, 2012 at 11:01 AM

To paraphrase Judge Roy Bean, he deserves a fair trial followed by a first-class hanging.

teke184 on July 20, 2012 at 10:55 AM

heh!

ted c on July 20, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Look… I’m no fan of Bradley Manning, as is well known. (Assuming that the charges are proven true, which his own attorney seems to have just confessed.) But David Coombs needs to be fired. Manning, like any US citizen and soldier, deserves a fair and valid attempt at a defense in a proper inquiry, even assuming he’s guilty. This latest twist just makes Coombs look deranged.

It also fuels the scum (largely overseas) who try to make Manning out to be some kind of martyr, political prisoner, and human rights case.

I agree. Get rid of him.

Red Cloud on July 20, 2012 at 11:02 AM

I think Coombs was handed a crap sandwich and now he is doing his best to try and distract everyone from the crap sandwich. Manning is clearly guilty and will be found so.
(snip)
NotCoach on July 20, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Who forced him to take on the case?
Just Curious
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on July 20, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Ah, well…no one was harmed by the Rosenburgs and Klaus Fuchs giving atomic secrets to the Soviets, right? The Russians never used a nuke, after all.

/snark

Liam on July 20, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Maybe he’s hanging his hopes on Bambi getting tossed out and getting a last-second pardon on his way out the door.

teke184 on July 20, 2012 at 11:01 AM

I wouldn’t put it past Obama to do something like that. He is our first Anti-American president.

Raquel Pinkbullet on July 20, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Who forced him to take on the case?
Just Curious
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on July 20, 2012 at 11:05 AM

I don’t know enough about the proceedings to know how Coombs got involved. Is he a court appointed JAG lawyer? Was he hired by Manning? Regardless, even if no one is willing to defend Manning, someone would be forced to do so by the court.

NotCoach on July 20, 2012 at 11:07 AM

David Edward Coombs

NotCoach on July 20, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Jazz just loves him some authoritarianism. How dare lawyers point out the ridiculousness of a charge and try to defend their client.

Why, he’s a commie pinko bastard who hates mom, apple pie, and America! We can’t have any of that!

Dante on July 20, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Sounds to me like Coombs knows he can’t beat the verdict so he’s focusing on minimizing the sentence.

Speaking from experience, sometimes a “win” for the defense is to avoid the worst case scenario.

If Manning gets 10 years or less he should feel lucky.

myiq2xu on July 20, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Heh. We were just talking about this the other day:

He’s nothin’ but a low down, double deailn’, backstabbin’, larcenous, perverted worm! Hangin’s too good for him. Burnin’s too good for him. He should be torn into itsy-bitsy peices and buried alive!

See

apostic on July 20, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Where did this guy get his law degree? From a cereal box?

Perhaps Harvard? They’ve been producing a lot of well-known fruitcakes lately…. :-)

Wine_N_Dine on July 20, 2012 at 11:16 AM

In a way I sort of feel sorry for Coombs. Imagine having to defend this, imagine having been put in charge of defending Bin Laden at trial:

“Your honor, my client was…uh…well, he’s a family man and loves kittens…sooooooo….”

Bishop on July 20, 2012 at 11:17 AM

NotCoach on July 20, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Great minds….

It really doesn’t matter how much lettuce, tomato, bacon and mayonaise you put on a crap sandwhich, once you take that first bite you know exactly whats on your plate.

StompUDead on July 20, 2012 at 11:18 AM

I don’t like it when my employees lie and hide information from me.

smoe on July 20, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Dante on July 20, 2012 at 11:14 AM

O_O

-_-

Bishop on July 20, 2012 at 11:18 AM

I don’t know enough about the proceedings to know how Coombs got involved. Is he a court appointed JAG lawyer? Was he hired by Manning? Regardless, even if no one is willing to defend Manning, someone would be forced to do so by the court.

NotCoach on July 20, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Yep.
It’s called: The Army J.A.G. Office. FREE counsel.
Now, who forced Coombs to take the case?
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on July 20, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Bishop on July 20, 2012 at 11:17 AM

“Your honor, my client was…uh…well, he’s a family man and loves dogs…wait, strike that!” – Obama’s defense attorney

NotCoach on July 20, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Karl Magnus on July 20, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Doesn’t look like anyone did, but what’s your point? Once he took the case he is bound by law and tradition to provide the best defense he can, and to abide by his client’s wishes.

NotCoach on July 20, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Isn’t it funny how people use hyperbole when they’re railing against … hyperbole.

hawkdriver on July 20, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Where did this guy get his law degree?

He must have attended one of Obama’s law classes in college—where he was taught that social inadequacies trumps actual law.

Rovin on July 20, 2012 at 11:27 AM

How dare a lawyer try to cite evidence showing the charge is bogus.

The outrage!

Dante on July 20, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Heh. We were just talking about this the other day:

He’s nothin’ but a low down, double deailn’, backstabbin’, larcenous, perverted worm! Hangin’s too good for him. Burnin’s too good for him. He should be torn into itsy-bitsy peices and buried alive!

See

apostic on July 20, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Much like Captain Sternn’s lawyer, the best deal Manning’s defense could probably get is being buried in an unmarked grave so that no one can find him after he’s gone.

teke184 on July 20, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Manning is charged with “aiding the enemy” (presumably UCMJ Art. 104) so the harm he caused (or supposedly took care to prevent) is relevant. That said, it may be that Coombs intends to extort a deal from the prosecution by threatening to drag the case out indefinitely. Death by a thousand taxpayer-funded minutiae, in other words.

Seth Halpern on July 20, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Is it possible for you to find a picture of this traitor that does not show him in dress uniform? I know this is just nuance, but sometimes nuances do count.

Old Country Boy on July 20, 2012 at 11:33 AM

“The accursed has been advised of his lack of rights under the Secret Code of Military Toughness, and will conduct himself accordingly!”
– Firesign Theatre, “Bacon Rind on the Whistle Front”

It’s a court-martial. You are considered guilty until proven innocent. That’s the deal you signed, pal, even if you didn’t read the fine print. Stop whining, you pathetic loser.

mojo on July 20, 2012 at 11:35 AM

He might not get executed, but I sleep well at night knowing he’ll rot in jail for his entire pathetic, treasonous life for these bogus charges.

hawkdriver on July 20, 2012 at 11:43 AM

How dare a lawyer try to cite evidence showing the charge is bogus.

The outrage!

Dante on July 20, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Jazz is saying that Manning deserves a better lawyer. You think this defense is the best that can be done? Heh. Probably.

Lightswitch on July 20, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Coombs isn’t having to work pro bono.

There are two more support sites like this one.

J.E. Dyer on July 20, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Seriously, the defense attorney is not doing a bad job. Not sure why Jazz is personally attacking him. It’s unbecoming, Jazz. Frankly, I would consider his atty ineffective if he were not making these arguments.

Blake on July 20, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Last I checked, the death penalty was off the table in this case. Not sure why anyone even brings it up. Not that the feds ever execute anyone anymore. McVeigh was a volunteer. Part of the problem is that Leavenworth is in the 10th Circuit and they are just as bad as the 9th Circuit.

Blake on July 20, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Not sure why Jazz is personally attacking him. It’s unbecoming, Jazz.

Blake on July 20, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Because Jazz worships government.

Dante on July 20, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Coombs if more than qualified to handle this case, there is nothing wrong with his representation, and I don’t know why anyone is complaining except for the fact that they hate Manning and want him to be convicted and sentenced, asap. Well, it doesn’t work that way. Get over it.

Blake on July 20, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Because Jazz worships government.

Dante on July 20, 2012 at 11:55 AM

So do I.

Blake on July 20, 2012 at 11:59 AM

I let my CC permit lapse last yr…I’ll be going to reapply this evening.

TheAudacityofNOPE on July 20, 2012 at 12:06 PM

His argument is that, since the US military isn’t willing to go into court and empty the bag on top secret information detailing precisely which efforts were harmed by Manning’s actions, then.. what? Then nobody got hurt so flushing a quarter million sensitive documents shouldn’t be illegal?

Jazz,

I think you are missing the tactic in play here. The defense is trying to force the idea that the US Army and not the homosexual private should be put on trial. This is playing to the appeals process because it is clear that Manning will be convicted. The defense is banking on the idea that the Military Court of Appeals will go along with the idea that the prosecution failed to show harm.

Of course, we already know that this is not true. There is clear harm to international affairs when those State Department cables were leaked.

Happy Nomad on July 20, 2012 at 12:12 PM

I don’t know why anyone is complaining except for the fact that they hate Manning and want him to be convicted and sentenced, asap. Well, it doesn’t work that way. Get over it.

Blake on July 20, 2012 at 11:58 AM

There is something wrong with a system where the Fort Hood shooter is still in the trial process. He is clearly a Muslim terrorist despite what the jug-eared Kenyan says (Muslims stick together like that).

Manning is in much the same situation. There is no reason why the trial process should have taken this long. Manning’s guilt is hardly in dispute.

Happy Nomad on July 20, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Happy Nomad on July 20, 2012 at 12:15 PM

They are looking for the one-armed man.

Lightswitch on July 20, 2012 at 12:21 PM

‘Nobody was harmed’ didn’t stop democratics from leading the crusade in the case of the faux-crime of the revealing of Valerie F’n Plame’s occupation.

slickwillie2001 on July 20, 2012 at 12:23 PM

What everybody seems to forget is, that in a military court martial the defendant is presumed guilty and it is his job to prove he is innocent. Which is opposite of the civilian courts.
Manning is in a world of hurt, he has no defense.

savage24 on July 20, 2012 at 12:28 PM

“Ah! Coombe’s a fool. They’re all fools!”

–Rex Harrison in The Ghost and Mrs. Muir (1947)

Pilgrimsarbour on July 20, 2012 at 12:39 PM

There is something wrong with a system where the Fort Hood shooter is still in the trial process. He is clearly a Muslim terrorist despite what the jug-eared Kenyan says (Muslims stick together like that).

Manning is in much the same situation. There is no reason why the trial process should have taken this long. Manning’s guilt is hardly in dispute.

Happy Nomad on July 20, 2012 at 12:15 PM

I don’t know if I would blame it on the system, per se. If Texas was prosecuting the Hood shooter he would have been tried, convicted, and already done with the state direct appeals by now. And no, it is not because Texas denies due process. They just have it set up right. They deliberately limit the counts they charge so both the trial and the appeal is quicker. They have a separate supreme court to handle criminal cases alone. The 5th Circuit has a lot of experience in capital cases and is not obstructionist. If they were really seeking justice, the feds would have deferred to Texas.

The federal/military system is just a mess. Again, part of the problem is the 10th Circuit and presidents who are unwilling to sign death warrants.

Blake on July 20, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Manning’s lead attorney David Coombs

J_Crater on July 20, 2012 at 12:49 PM

I don’t know anything about this Coombs fellow, but I don’t see what you are seeing. I think Coombs was handed a crap sandwich and now he is doing his best to try and distract everyone from the crap sandwich. Manning is clearly guilty and will be found so. If Coombs is serious about trying to get this treasonous dirt bag off what option does he have but distraction.

Perhaps a real defense attorney could comment on Coombs conduct as it relates to how good a defense he is giving Manning.

NotCoach on July 20, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Maybe he can go work for the Obama re-election committee after his work with Manning.

kim roy on July 20, 2012 at 12:51 PM

It’s a court-martial. You are considered guilty until proven innocent. That’s the deal you signed, pal, even if you didn’t read the fine print. Stop whining, you pathetic loser.

mojo on July 20, 2012 at 11:35 AM

I know that is what a lot of privates and military hating civilians think, but you are wrong. When someone is accused of an offense under the UCMJ, like all others, they are presumed innocent. However, unlike civilian courts, the UCMJ takes into account that the charging officer may not be a legal literate. The UCMJ lists the elements of proof for any particular charge and specification. If the charging officer or his appointee does not have the elements of proof covered, the defendant is almost never charged. Fishing expeditions are out.

The obverse of this is that if the defendant is charged, ALL the elements of proof are covered so it is relatively easy to convict. Did you know that the defendant gets any appointed defense council he wants from the military? All he has to do is ask for that particular (military) person in writing. The defendant can preemptorially challenge or challenge for cause any member of the court martial board. If the defendant is enlisted, at least one-third of the board must be enlisted.

In civialian courts, that you all think are superior to the military courts, where are the “elements of proof?” They exist in the minds of the prosecutors and judges, but not in the mind of the defendant or the jurors. ergo, There will be a lot of shennigans and obfuscations, unsubstantiated accusations and inplications. A lot of jurors’ ideas of proof come from Perry Masson or LA Law.

Old Country Boy on July 20, 2012 at 12:52 PM

A “military court martial”? Is there another kind?

Private Brainless is looking at 25-life at hard labor, under the loving gaze of Marine guards.

And too good for the little shit at that.

mojo on July 20, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Where did this guy get his law degree? From a cereal box?

When the FACTS are in your favor, HAMMER THE FACTS.

If the FACTS are not in your favor, BAFFLE THEM WITH BULL….!

GarandFan on July 20, 2012 at 12:58 PM

mojo on July 20, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Got me! You’re right. That is kinda the trap we fall into with “hot water heater.” If the water is hot, you don’t need to heat it.

I think that I’ll turn myself into the department of redundeancies department.

I think the guards will be Army.

Old Country Boy on July 20, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Eric withHolder: I’m not a drug cartel guy shooting people. I just gave them the guns.

Dexter_Alarius on July 20, 2012 at 1:14 PM

iwasbornwithit on July 20, 2012 at 1:25 PM

We don’t need, nor can we effectively use, 320 million Secretaries of State. And, yes, we don’t need to blindly trust any branch of government. However, we must try to elect responsible, trustworthy, people who will employ responsible, trustworthy people to perform the functions of government. There are a few departments that need a level of opaqueness to function in the best interests of the American People. Manning and Assange did not expose obama’s administration, but administrations of countries all over the world. Most of the exposees were from previous administrations. I’m not sure that the things he exposed were different than those in the making of sausage. I’m also not sure he was qualified to judge that which he exposed.

When these parts of government operate in a manner with which we would not agree, then we change them at the next election. And, as a different topic, when we have elected untrustworthy people such as obama etal, we will remove them from office at the next election.

Old Country Boy on July 20, 2012 at 1:42 PM

I thought they got rid of those stupid looking berets.

claudius on July 20, 2012 at 2:44 PM

“I think the guards will be Army.”

Depends on where he ends up. I think the guards at Leavenworth are Marines, but I could easily be wrong.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/leavenworth.htm

mojo on July 20, 2012 at 2:55 PM

The path is:

“…around the Department of Redundancy Department, through the Gates of Meaning, and straight to the Office of the Secretary of Failure himself!”
– Firesign Theatre

mojo on July 20, 2012 at 3:11 PM

I’ve never been to or in Leavenworth. However, my step brother was a guard there long ago, and he was Army. Your link refers to the guards as soldiers. Army is soldiers, Marines is marines. Don’t matter though; minor point.

You got a good sense of humor. A pleasure.

Old Country Boy on July 20, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Old Country Boy on July 20, 2012 at 1:42 PM

How do we know who to vote for if we don’t know what they have done or are doing?

iwasbornwithit on July 20, 2012 at 5:55 PM

i

How do we know who to vote for if we don’t know what they have done or are doing? wasbornwithit on July 20, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Critical thinking and watching the results of their actions. The only reason to agree with manning and ass-O had a valid overwhealming and valid justification for doing what they did was REALLY to hurt The hated United States. There was no other reason, no matter what you rationalize to yourself. That is why they were cheered on by all the radicals and marxists out there. They were particularly enthusiastic when they thought it would besmirch Bush and cheney, and hurt The USA internationally. Now that that is past, you guys are moving on to other rationalizations. (and I am not enamored with Bush and hate cheney.)

Nobody in the military wants to trust their live to the likes of manning.

Old Country Boy on July 20, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Old Country Boy on July 20, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Critical thinking and watching the results of their actions.

That is a great metric in theory. But what are the results of our actions? Isn’t that what the leaked documents actually exposed? Without those, it is left to the administration and a supine media to tell us what the effects of our actions are overseas. However, even with what we know, I don’t know that we have an awful lot to show for the blood and treasure that we have expended pursuant to our foreign policy over the last ten years.

The only reason to agree with manning and ass-O had a valid overwhealming and valid justification for doing what they did was REALLY to hurt The hated United States. There was no other reason, no matter what you rationalize to yourself.

How about basic whistle-blowing on our overseas actions that many Americans would be upset about? How about a modicum of transparency? Where else can you go to get information on what we are doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, et al? Whatever the motivation, we cannot simply repress all negative information regarding our actions. To argue otherwise is reflective of a desire to live in blissful ignorance.

That is why they were cheered on by all the radicals and marxists out there.

So because some marxists and radicals were happy about the leaks, that means that the leaks were bad? Nah.

They were particularly enthusiastic when they thought it would besmirch Bush and cheney, and hurt The USA internationally.

I’m sure some liberals would be happy to bludgeon the Bush administration with this information for purely partisan gain. But so what? It seems like you are conflating bad politics for Bush/GOP with anti-American. Sadly, I think this is a window into the mindset for the bloodthirsty calls above for summary execution of Pvt. Manning. “He made my guy look bad, therefore he must die.”
If you haven’t noticed, the MSM has not gotten behind Bradley Manning. Why are they essentially giving Bush/Obama a pass on the content of the leaked documents? That, in and of itself, should give you pause.

Now that that is past, you guys are moving on to other rationalizations. (and I am not enamored with Bush and hate cheney.)

You got me all wrong. I voted for Bush twice and I volunteered to go to Iraq and served there in 2003-2004. I was a GOP delegate to our state convention. I’m probably more conservative than you are…not to invite a p*ssing contest. I grew completely disgusted with Bush in his second term, not because of the war(s), but because of his liberal domestic policy here in the US.

Nobody in the military wants to trust their live to the likes of manning.

There are many people in the military, mostly the higher-ups and the civilian folks, that I would be far more concerned with placing my life in their hands than Pvt. Manning. I don’t know what is in his heart and neither do you. Maybe he hates the US. I have no idea. I do know that there are plenty of people in this administration and in the past administration that could care less about my life.

iwasbornwithit on July 20, 2012 at 8:43 PM

His argument is that, since the US military isn’t willing to go into court and empty the bag on top secret information detailing precisely which efforts were harmed by Manning’s actions, then.. what? Then nobody got hurt so flushing a quarter million sensitive documents shouldn’t be illegal?

Where did this guy get his law degree? From a cereal box?

Manning compromised SIPRnet which is a system limited to the Secret, not Top Secret, level. Secret information is defined in the executive order as information that can be used by an adversary to “inflict serious harm on the national security.” Top Secret is “exceptionally grave harm.”

Actually, I think the defense is on point. By definition, if he can demonstrate that the stolen information could under no circumstances harm the national security (an “exceptionally” fat chance, to be sure), then he is able to argue that the information was improperly classified and Manning is therefore guilty of a lesser crime. The actual potential national security risk of the information (or lack of it)lies at the heart of this crime.

As for my personal opinion, put me down with the hang him high crowd. Such conduct is unforgivable and little of our national security information will be safe if individual users are able to leak the information with minor punishment.

And just to drive the point home – I’m not siding with Manning, I just think that this tactic was necessary in order to provide the accused with every possible defense opportunity.

Cricket624 on July 20, 2012 at 9:19 PM

A couple more thoughts…

We wouldn’t need to get information like this from people like Manning if the media had any interest in doing its job or if Congress would actually investigate the effects of our foreign policy rather than acting as a rubber-stamp for funding for our operations while giving far too much deference to the executive branch with very little oversight. Congress has effectively abdicated its oversight responsibilities.

I also believe that it is bad policy to just slap the “secret” or “top secret” label on any information because it might damage the political image of some particular administration. I think that our first instinct should be for transparency and if not then there needs to be a compelling reason why the information should be kept secret. “It makes the boss look bad” is not a compelling reason to slap the secret or TS label on information that really should be available to the public.

Why the hell would our country stop doing embarrassing crap if they know they will never be exposed for it because they have intimidated all the whistle-blowers?

iwasbornwithit on July 20, 2012 at 9:38 PM

iwasbornwithit on July 20, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Last paragraph. You are absolutely right here! – as far as not trusting my life to many of the military higher ups.(particularly LtCs and loggies.)

However, some of the stuff released was State Department evaluations of sources and people within other governments. I don’t think there is any benfit to releasing candid evaluations of state department contacts. It is probably important for the stateside foggy bottom personnel to know that a particularly named foreign contact can, can not, or may be trusted. It may be important that a particular sheikh drinks a lot inspite of his peoples’ ignorance of the alcohol habit.

In short, there was a lot of stuff released that falls outside your rationalization of need to know. That stuff can cause problems, but is of no consequence internally to the US. And, yes. I also think that information is over-classified. But with all the boogie men out there, that MAY be better than the alternative.

Old Country Boy on July 20, 2012 at 9:59 PM

It’s a court-martial. You are considered guilty until proven innocent. That’s the deal you signed, pal, even if you didn’t read the fine print. Stop whining, you pathetic loser.

mojo on July 20, 2012 at 11:35 AM

That’s what it is.
BTW, for those who don’t know, “hard labor” was ended many years ago.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on July 22, 2012 at 11:01 AM