Bradley Manning found not guilty on "Aiding the enemy".

If Manning was aiding the enemy, so has every news media outlet since the dawn of news.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Ok sorry.. Its late and I probably should have noticed that you quoted the other guy too....

Originally posted by thesaneone
He is no hero I repeat he is no hero. I thought when you join the military you are protecting the American people not giving information to the world, I hope they lock him up for life.

Manning did what was morally right in exposing war crimes, People who hide this kind of nonsense and cover for these low life's are cowards and bring shame to their fellow brothers and sisters.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809[890].ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.

During the Iran-Contra hearings of 1987, Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, a decorated World War II veteran and hero, told Lt. Col. Oliver North that North was breaking his oath when he blindly followed the commands of Ronald Reagan. As Inouye stated, "The uniform code makes it abundantly clear that it must be the Lawful orders of a superior officer. In fact it says, 'Members of the military have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders.' This principle was considered so important that we--we, the government of the United States--proposed that it be internationally applied in the Nuremberg trials." (Bill Moyers, "The Secret Government", Seven Locks Press; also in the PBS 1987 documentary, "The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis."

Originally posted by thesaneone
reply to post by BobAthome

 

He is a criminal so that makes him a punk in my eyes, I have so much respect for our military. This punk should be ashamed to wear a U.S military uniform.

You contradict yourself so much. I have so much respect for the military then you go onto call him a "punk"? Have you ever served ? Not your father, not your uncle or cousin, YOU?

Originally posted by thesaneone
reply to post by benrl

 

People will forget this punks name in a few years.

and they will likely never even learn yours to forget it....whats yer point?

Originally posted by eLPresidente
Rhetorical question :

If what Bradley Manning did was espionage, does that mean whistle blowing is espionage? Is that how this government views us?

edit on 30-7-2013 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)

To answer your question you need to understand the difference between Civilian Domestic Law and Military Law. They are completely different being you give up / accept restrictions on certain Constitutional Rights (this is explained when people want to join and before they sign on the dotted line).

Manning had access to material most civilians do not, so trying to compare Manning and the government actions against him to that of civilians is difficult.

But to help the argument along all people need to do is research the Pentagon Papers. The BIGGEST MISCONCEPTION is the media is protected when in fact they are not. The two reporters in the Pentagon Papers scandal were actually charged with a crime, however the PA screwed up and the charges were dropped and never refilled.

All the US Supreme Court did was rule that the Us Government cannot exercise prior restraint when the only issue is embarrassment of said Government.

There is a procedure when it comes to whistle blowing, both in the military and in the civilian realm. As has been argued many times before by me and others, the large bulk of information manning released did not show signs of a crime / cover-up. This means manning's actions were not protected.

Whistle Blowing is an area people really need to learn about before stating Manning's actions are covered by it.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
However, if you'd followed the trial closely with the daily material, you'd know they were counting on a connection established here between Manning and Assange for intent and purpose, to carry a prosecution in CIVILIAN LAW against Assange. A few days of analysis among trial watchers and media were all but dedicated to the question and issue. I'm surprised you were't fully aware of the subtext in this trial. It seemed to play a major role in decisions and direction.

I did follow however my statement stands. The criteria used in courts are different (military and civilian).

The point you are missing is when the Government is going to use information from a prosecution in order to go after another party, the person being charges is usually given a choice of cooperation in return for reduced charges / sentences.

That did not happen in this case

* - The evidence and admission of guilt by Manning on all counts but 1 sealed his fate so there is no need for the military to go after Assange / Wikileaks.

Manning himself is contradicting the claims people are making in these threads by pleading guilty to the charges. Manning himself is stating he was not a whistle blower in the sense people want him to be.

The conviction of Manning by his plea's of guilty pretty much undermines the wikileaks assertion that they are a media outlet and are protected, which they are not (again research pentagon papers for those who are curious).

reply to post by Xcathdra


There may be no need to go after Assange...but then the whole trial for Manning was almost pure spite and without practical purpose. He already plead out to most of it. This was as much about building a case on Assange and has been from day 1. There is some connection or a few of them they deem absolutely critical to have established and I got the impression by end of day trial material each day of this thing, they got MOST of that. Just not everything they were after.

Manning did, incidentally, get his offer to cooperate. I'm really surprised you hadn't followed that as close as everything else? His plea deal, which he almost entirely threw back at them in terms of what THEY wanted out of it, was all about confirming those critical connections.

His Plea Deal Largely Rejected, Bradley Manning Convictions May Mean More Than A Century In Prison

Should have taken the deal? They're going after Assange either way.

Manning’s conviction seen as making prosecution of WikiLeaks’ Assange likely

We just got to watch them waste millions of dollars and a good deal of time to prosecute a man who had already plead to almost every charge and was already going away for most of his useful life. Overkill is a kind way of putting the vengeance motive on display here. Manning personally kicked Obama where it hurts and all but destroyed Hillary's legacy before it had a chance to be one. I think this has been as personal a matter as we've seen a President and his people be around in at least my years of watching politics. ...after all, people seem to forget or miss the fact, Manning and Co. burned hundreds of communications from Hillary herself, as SOS. Ouch.

*** Not sure if anyone had posted this yet, but they are the two abstract sheets from the verdict of the Manning Trial. What I linked on Page 2 was a conversion into a nice table by someone out there. This one is the raw papers...

Manning Verdict Sheet from Court Martial

The War on Terror can be won like this.

Lawful transparent investigation into Government corruption.

ter·ror·ism
/ˈterəˌrizəm/
Noun
The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
Synonyms
terror

Adolf Hitler ' Mein Kampf

Outlines his political Ideology : Hope, Change and Struggle.

He ran on Hope and Change.

Who else do we know that ran on hope and Change.


9/11 = Burning of the Reichstag by terrorists.

Muslims = Jews


I have been ODD my entire life ahahaha
www.abovetopsecret.com...


I TOTALLY CANNOT WAIT UNTIL SOME KIND OF NEW AGE NUREMBERG LAWS COME OUT
en.wikipedia.org...

OH WAIT TOO LATE
www.abovetopsecret.com...


The "Powers that be" are trying to push us to gambit a violent uprising because they are getting desperate because we are becoming too informed.


I have my suspicions about how the American Government views some key leakers
en.wikipedia.org...

If anything BM should have waited until he was a civilian. Military courts are extra-constitutional - extra judicial with respect to US jurisprudence. The military is a law unto itself. You all should realize that before making comparisons regarding the American way of justice to anything that has occurred in the BM 'Court Martial' which is certainly not to be compared to a trial by jury with rights to appeal etc. The Supreme Court cannot even weigh in on the case or the verdict.

As for espionage - there is only the military (UCMJ) definition we need concern ourselves with here:

Punitive Articles of the UCMJ - Article 106a—Espionage

(a) “(1) Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent or reason
to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States
or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or
transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any
entity described in paragraph (2), either directly or indirectly,
anything described in paragraph (3) shall be punished as a
court-martial may direct, except that if the accused is found guilty
of an offense that directly concerns (A) nuclear weaponry, military
spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of
defense or retaliation against large scale attack, (B) war plans,
(C) communications intelligence or cryptographic information, or (D)
any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy,
the accused shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a
court-martial may direct.

(2) An entity referred to in paragraph (1) is—

(A) a foreign government;

(B) a faction or party or military or naval force within a
foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the
United States; or

(C) a representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or
citizen of such a government, faction, party, or force.

(3) A thing referred to in paragraph (1) is a document, writing,
code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative,
blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or
information relating to the national defense.

READ ON There is more.......

Originally posted by Wyrdnews
Good, I'm really glad. I know he will do some time to set an example, but he has half of the worlds support with what he done, the Government would do better to listen to those of us who give a # about the world and grant him a pardon (and apologise for all the abuses the US Govt. has committed.)

edit::Almost forgot- a flag and if I could star this properly a whole Eisenhower. :: end edit

At least as found under the UCMJ Manning was a vehicle: for the military to
prove to iself that the American People, who were allowed by the first intent the
information to be outed, are not the enemy as aided. I personally am sounding
off on this case to friends, and take heart folks-- even they're starting to wake up.

This is what digs at me-- when being politically informed makes you dangerous
to the government past the point of it calling you a terrorist or worse, It's
time for everyone to grab an AlexHorn and a couple fresh magazines of batteries.

This example made of him, an overt and severe punishment of whistleblowers later
branded spies is the hallmark of a kind of government we've been chewed on by for
a long time. Looks like none of the root wrongdoing or involved high-up perps are ever
going to get investigated, or a second of expense paid vacation respectively are they?

"We got him", sure did W. -- the patsy to keep the heat off. Call Bradley, Joseph,
Valerie's husband Joe Wilson, or any/all of them what you will;
but good or bad for the personnel infrastructure or the government in general we need
them... maybe many more where they bravely came from.

Originally posted by BobAthome
reply to post by Wyrdnews

 

"are so brainwashed that they can't see what they are doing is wrong.",,but if your Government sanctions it,,ie:Commander in Chief,, then it is not wrong.
Thats why Congress had too declare an Act of War,,,on terroists.
signed,sealed,and approved.

So where does it stop?

It stops with the American people standing up and saying "You can't declare war on an
idealogy any more than declare peace after having immorally or illegally waging it."
America may well prove someday, sadly not during my lifetime: that no army has ever
perpetuated a victorious occupation, which is already solid.

I wonder if there was White House pressure for that outcome?

To set up someone else they want to get?

Manning 'Not Guilty of aiding the enemy'' kinda shoots the villian America out of the water with Snowdens asylum requests.

Something to think about.

and they will likely never even learn yours to forget it....whats yer point?




I think your wrong considering how many people have put me on the foe list for having an opinion.

Then..... We have the dark dark side of that SAME machine,

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


What you speak of is the relative good and evil and it applies to people like the Rockefellers. Do you have any doubt that what that family is doing concerning depopulation cancels out the good done in their charities? It's always a mixed bag with the Elites. Jay Rockefeller and Thune are sponsoring a new cyber bill. I don't care what charities his family has been involved with, that guy is branded in my mind.

www.fiercegovernmentit.com...

Another example would be Soros. I once told somebody that Soros had confiscated the wealth of many people in Germany and this guy I told decided to google Soros. A bit later on he told me, oh well he gives a lot of money away(and I suspect the underlying motive here was that Soros supports Obama) so he said he thought he was a good guy. So in the end in the minds of many people, you can take the wealth of an entire group of people on behalf of the German SS but if you give money away later you are a good guy. Soros gives money away on behalf of his Socialist agenda and nothing more. His charitable donations go to fund leftist front groups. He is not a genuine philanthropist and neither is Gates.

I don't know really much about the Manning case, but it is too bad that the real bad guys get away with their dirty deeds.

The government giveth and the government taketh away.

Originally posted by neo96
I wonder if there was White House pressure for that outcome?

To set up someone else they want to get?

Manning 'Not Guilty of aiding the enemy'' kinda shoots the villian America out of the water with Snowdens asylum requests.

Something to think about.

I have yet to see this administration do anything truly right for the country. I'm sorry but even getting Bin Ladin isn't enough for me, not that I was even hoping for that. But that is about the most positive thing he has done, and even that is borderline for me. To me just about every decision ever made in this current admin is over the top wrong. Maybe I missed something though. There has always been a sordid agenda going with this gang.

I was talking with some people in our little campaign group yesterday....talk of RINOS and NEOCONS in the Republican Party came up. The Republican Party is not what it used to be. I said I was shocked at what some Repubs had been saying after the 2012 election cycle. It's like they are all promoting the Democrat Party and being more like the Democrats to get elected.
In my view this is evidence of Hegelian Dialectic, that the Republicans have become Democrats already. McCain is a perfect example of a Progressive in the Repub Party.
What good is it if both parties stand for the same Elite garbage? In our group people were mad at Boehner and rightly so. He is behaving just like a Progressive, and we thought he would be better than Pelosi. Well he is, but not by a lot.
I believe that today to be an elected politician you have to sellout. And why do we, the People, put up with that? The Manning and Snowden trials both remind me of Martha Stewart having to take the fall and go to jail for the same thing that Pelosi can do because she is in Congress. And there's quite a bit more money involved in Pelosi's insider trading deals I'm sure.

Originally posted by thesaneone
He is no hero I repeat he is no hero. I thought when you join the military you are protecting the American people not giving information to the world, I hope they lock him up for life.

You mean they are supposed to protect people of Mexico and Canada too?

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

There may be no need to go after Assange...but then the whole trial for Manning was almost pure spite and without practical purpose. He already plead out to most of it. This was as much about building a case on Assange and has been from day 1. There is some connection or a few of them they deem absolutely critical to have established and I got the impression by end of day trial material each day of this thing, they got MOST of that. Just not everything they were after.

Manning did, incidentally, get his offer to cooperate. I'm really surprised you hadn't followed that as close as everything else? His plea deal, which he almost entirely threw back at them in terms of what THEY wanted out of it, was all about confirming those critical connections.

His Plea Deal Largely Rejected, Bradley Manning Convictions May Mean More Than A Century In Prison

Should have taken the deal? They're going after Assange either way.

Manning’s conviction seen as making prosecution of WikiLeaks’ Assange likely

We just got to watch them waste millions of dollars and a good deal of time to prosecute a man who had already plead to almost every charge and was already going away for most of his useful life. Overkill is a kind way of putting the vengeance motive on display here. Manning personally kicked Obama where it hurts and all but destroyed Hillary's legacy before it had a chance to be one. I think this has been as personal a matter as we've seen a President and his people be around in at least my years of watching politics. ...after all, people seem to forget or miss the fact, Manning and Co. burned hundreds of communications from Hillary herself, as SOS. Ouch.

*** Not sure if anyone had posted this yet, but they are the two abstract sheets from the verdict of the Manning Trial. What I linked on Page 2 was a conversion into a nice table by someone out there. This one is the raw papers...

Manning Verdict Sheet from Court Martial

edit on 31-7-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

I think you hit on it. Manning is personal for them, and that's why they're doing this. I agree that Manning should do some jail time, because not everything he released was related to war crimes, however 134 years (or even 20 years) seems excessive to me. 5-10 is more along the lines of what I think is right. Like many others I think Manning should be made an example of, I just think he should be a different type of example. If Obama's pledge to create more whistleblower protections is to mean anything, he should be pushing for a light sentence on Manning as an example to people to stand up for what's right, even when it's illegal.

reply to post by derfreebie


"that no army has ever
perpetuated a victorious occupation"
The American Army ,,,,,,occupation,,,of West Berlin,, during the "Berlin Blockade",,,did pretty good.

u did say,,,,,,NO,,,as in none ever. i disagree.

reply to post by derfreebie


"that no army has ever
perpetuated a victorious occupation"
The American Army ,,,,,,occupation,,,of West Berlin,, during the "Berlin Blockade",,,did pretty good.

u did say,,,,,,NO,,,as in none ever. i disagree.


it ddbl posts cause someone wants a peeky-poo,,