Analysis: Bradley Manning accepts responsibility for act of conscience

[SalisburySage]

http://www.bradleymanning.org/news/a...responsibility

“PFC Manning has offered to plead guilty to various offenses through a process known as “pleading by exceptions and substitutions,” explained Manning civilian defense attorney David Coombs on his blog. Manning is “attempting to accept responsibility for offenses that are encapsulated within, or are a subset of, the charged offenses…. PFC Manning is not pleading guilty to the specifications as charged by the government,” added Coombs. Nor is he “submitting a plea as part of an agreement or deal with the government.”

[SalisburySage]

http://www.bradleymanning.org/news/n...radley-manning

By Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Mairead Maguire and Adolfo Pérez Esquivel. November 14, 2012. As published by The Nation and The Guardian (UK).

The military prosecution has not presented evidence that Private Manning injured anyone by releasing secret documents, and it has asserted in court that the charge of “aiding the enemy through indirect means” does not require it to do so. Nor has the prosecution denied that his motivations were conscientious; it has simply argued they are irrelevant. In ignoring this context and recommending a much more severe punishment for Bradley Manning than is given to US soldiers guilty of murdering civilians, military leadership is sending a chilling warning to other soldiers who might feel compelled by conscience to reveal misdeeds. It is our belief that leaders who use fear to govern, rather than sharing wisdom born from facts, cannot be just.

[can you hear me now!]

it's not about injury son, it's about breaking the law...he's not charged with injusring anyone, he is charged with unauthorized releasing of classified data...he also violated other laws and directives by plugging in portable memory devices into government computers...again without authorization... I realize that a part-time patriot like yourself has a hard time understanding the difference....he broke the law and did so willingly after signing a very clear non-disclosure agreement...you know the same NDA that tens of thousands have signed but only less than two dozen spineless cowards have broken...he had a chain of command but he ignored it...he had an avenue to the DoD IG..he ignored it....he chose to sell out his country for a couple of cyber hugs from an equally effeminate and cowardly POS....all of these people who are involved int emotional hand-wringing and rationalizing for a fairly useless, dishonest and obviously desperate individual are conveniently ignoring the fact he broke the law....

not sure why you cannot grasp this....actually I know why and it's fairly sad considering you claim to be a veteran....

[zenwalk]

His is a crime of conscience and should be treated as such. There is no evidence that any security was breached by the wikileaks and there's certainly no evidence of espionage. The elephant in the room is if the Defense Department believed in the first amendment as fervently as they do the second none of this would ever have happened.

[Jeebus]

Who cares what Pvt Manning wants to plead to.

The Govt has no obligation to accept any deal offered by the traitor or his lawyers.

He is simply seeking some way to mitigate his treason.

He knowingly, consciously, and deliberately broke anti-espionage laws, violated his oath of office, and subjected himself to the punishments of the UCMJ.

No one did it to him, he did it ALL himself. Now he has to face the music.

He deserves 30 years hard labor @ Leavenworth.

This ain't civilian liberal judge court, this is the UMCJ - an active duty military officer will preside, and a jury of active duty military will be the jury. All of them took the same oath, none of them have violated it, and you can be sure that they don't look too kindly on some confused little worm like Manning and his treason.

Hope he gets it the maximum sentence.

Little scumbag.

[Jeebus]

His is a crime of conscience and should be treated as such. There is no evidence that any security was breached by the wikileaks and there's certainly no evidence of espionage.

So your position is "if no one was harmed by a crime, the crime should not be punished." In other words, "if she enjoyed the rape, the rapist should go free."

The elephant in the room is if the Defense Department believed in the first amendment as fervently as they do the second none of this would ever have happened.

Obviously you have never served in uniform.

The 1st Amendment does not apply to those under the UCMJ.

Nor would the 1st Amendment be an affirmative defense even under civilian law, as espionage (passing top secret documents) and treason is still a crime under civilian US Code.

Too bad they won't hang him.

[octoburn]

Too bad they won't hang him.

I agree.

[SalisburySage]

it's not about injury son, it's about breaking the law...he's not charged with injusring anyone, he is charged with unauthorized releasing of classified data...he also violated other laws and directives by plugging in portable memory devices into government computers...again without authorization... I realize that a part-time patriot like yourself has a hard time understanding the difference....he broke the law and did so willingly after signing a very clear non-disclosure agreement...you know the same NDA that tens of thousands have signed but only less than two dozen spineless cowards have broken...he had a chain of command but he ignored it...he had an avenue to the DoD IG..he ignored it....he chose to sell out his country for a couple of cyber hugs from an equally effeminate and cowardly POS....all of these people who are involved int emotional hand-wringing and rationalizing for a fairly useless, dishonest and obviously desperate individual are conveniently ignoring the fact he broke the law....

not sure why you cannot grasp this....actually I know why and it's fairly sad considering you claim to be a veteran....

This is why you will never be a Nobel Laureate. I'll take Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Mairead Maguire and Adolfo Pérez Esquivel view on this anyday.

Is your nasty comment that I might not be a 23 yr veteran of the Navy your attempt to ask me for a date? You better tell you wife about your tendencies. Its ok to come out of the closet.

[zenwalk]

So your position is "if no one was harmed by a crime, the crime should not be punished." In other words, "if she enjoyed the rape, the rapist should go free."

If she enjoyed the rape it wasn't rape.

Obviously you have never served in uniform.

The 1st Amendment does not apply to those under the UCMJ.

Nor would the 1st Amendment be an affirmative defense even under civilian law, as espionage (passing top secret documents) and treason is still a crime under civilian US Code.

Too bad they won't hang him.

You missed the point as usual. Manning's crime was no different than Daniel Ellsberg's case only Ellsberg actually revealed previously unknown information. Ellsberg wasn't forced to stand 12 hours a day in a cell either. You think all that is fine? Then you have the country you want already. I'm not saying let Manning walk but charge his crime correctly an act of conscientious objection. It should be pointed out that legally, he's thrown away his only bargaining chip by admitting guilt.

[dsummoner]

The vast majority of the data should never have been classified in the first place. That it was goes to show the corrupt, rogue and illegitimate nature of the 'classification' system.

[zenwalk]

The vast majority of the data should never have been classified in the first place. That it was goes to show the corrupt, rogue and illegitimate nature of the 'classification' system.

We are turning authority into a cult of secrecy. I'm not saying let the kid go but facts are facts. His "crime" was forcing transparency that should have been there to begin with.

[dsummoner]

We are turning authority into a cult of secrecy. I'm not saying let the kid go but facts are facts. His "crime" was forcing transparency that should have been there to begin with.

It has only continued to accelerate under the current, most transparent e'vah and ever, regime. If 'oh noes, Qaida' is sufficient enough to invoke national security and result in fables being peddled rather than actuality then there is a problem. Interestingly enough, the private sector has been able to use the data in ways that would have been very beneficial to the military had the data been released earlier and in real time.

[zenwalk]

It has only continued to accelerate under the current, most transparent e'vah and ever, regime. If 'oh noes, Qaida' is sufficient enough to invoke national security and result in fables being peddled rather than actuality then there is a problem. Interestingly enough, the private sector has been able to use the data in ways that would have been very beneficial to the military had the data been released earlier and in real time.

When this happened I was struck that the information released was already in the public record, albeit scattered all over the place.

[dsummoner]

When this happened I was struck that the information released was already in the public record, albeit scattered all over the place.

Having the data and having done some geospatial and temporal modeling on it myself, I can tell you that a good portion of it was not open source. The data is orders of magnitude larger than what one will find in the START database.

[downhome]

If she enjoyed the rape it wasn't rape.



You missed the point as usual. Manning's crime was no different than Daniel Ellsberg's case only Ellsberg actually revealed previously unknown information. Ellsberg wasn't forced to stand 12 hours a day in a cell either. You think all that is fine? Then you have the country you want already. I'm not saying let Manning walk but charge his crime correctly an act of conscientious objection. It should be pointed out that legally, he's thrown away his only bargaining chip by admitting guilt.

So many troubling things about this case. I for one am not convinced Manning's motives were "pure" but am also not convinced that his motives are important. Reading between the lines it seems plain that his chain of command bear a great deal of responsibility for failing to enforce protocol as well as failing to deal with Manning's mental state. Most troubling is the cavalier attitude towards civilians in the war zone. A civilian death seems to be met with a shrug or a "these things happen in war" when further investigation often reveals that maybe it didn't have to happen. For that, I'm greatful the video and other data was made public regardless of the motivations of Manning or Assange.

[SalisburySage]

So many troubling things about this case. I for one am not convinced Manning's motives were "pure" but am also not convinced that his motives are important. Reading between the lines it seems plain that his chain of command bear a great deal of responsibility for failing to enforce protocol as well as failing to deal with Manning's mental state. Most troubling is the cavalier attitude towards civilians in the war zone. A civilian death seems to be met with a shrug or a "these things happen in war" when further investigation often reveals that maybe it didn't have to happen. For that, I'm greatful the video and other data was made public regardless of the motivations of Manning or Assange.

A fine analysis. I like it.Thanks.

[soulflower]

His is a crime of conscience and should be treated as such. There is no evidence that any security was breached by the wikileaks and there's certainly no evidence of espionage. The elephant in the room is if the Defense Department believed in the first amendment as fervently as they do the second none of this would ever have happened.

It's not about what he did. It's about making an example of him to deter others from trying to do what Manning did.

It's hard to feel any sympathy for Manning. He knew there would be consequences if he were caught.

[SalisburySage]

It's not about what he did. It's about making an example of him to deter others from trying to do what Manning did.

It's hard to feel any sympathy for Manning. He knew there would be consequences if he were caught.

You are ignoring the mitigating circumstances and as liberal as you are you still want blood as in the Roman Coliseum.

[flyboy56]

Good order and discipline and the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). It is whats taught to every recruit during basic. Without these the military would become a democratic organization. Not sure that would work well when a company is ordered to take a hill ASAP.

[zenwalk]

It's not about what he did. It's about making an example of him to deter others from trying to do what Manning did.

Absolutely correct. His case should go after governmental misconduct like Ellsberg did.

It's hard to feel any sympathy for Manning. He knew there would be consequences if he were caught.

I don't really know a thing about Manning's motives or that he's gay or that he's this that or the other thing. He appears to be a classic conscientious objector and at the very minimum shouldn't be given the Abu Graib treatment.