Bradley Manning Faces Death Penalty

[rmnunez]

I'm reaching my conclusions based on the commentary and information I have. It has been reported there is evidence Manning supplied Wikileaks with hundreds of thousands of pages of classified diplomatic cables, I believe this is true.

If Manning had nothing to do with the transfer of all those classified diplomatic cables which fell into the hands of Wikileaks, then it is awful what they've done to innocent Manning, truly reprehensible, an atrocity of indescribable perfidy -but we can surmise this isn't the case.

People are eager to defend Manning as some sort of highly responsible individual who came across such evidence of grave misdeeds by his government he indignantly made it all public in an effort to correct the situation.

Now step back and consider this a bit more carefully. If Manning acted outraged over what he found, then he must have intentionally disseminated these classified diplomatic cables, no? If that was the case, then Manning isn't some innocent scapegoat railroaded by the military because of that "collateral murder" video, is he?

Next question has to do with the sheer volume of material divulged. Manning was a "Private" in the army, this is one of the lowest ranks for an enlisted soldier (below Corporal which is subordinate to Sargeant). The military thuroughly tests and evaluates every enlistee to identify all the qualities, skills, knowledge, abilities and education they have so as to better put them to use. They subjected Manning to the same Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery tests they submit all enlistee to and came up with a simple Private with a bureaucratic role processing documents. My guess is that Manning must have shown proficiency in attention to detail and classifying things, if he was good and mechanical things, knew languages, had a fine ear, musical talent, was very strong or had any other aptitude, the army would have put him in a different position.

Now you've got this relatively unskilled and uneducated Private who is quite methodical, has a good eye for detail and good at classifying things and assign him to sort through a huge volume of sensitive diplomatic cables from around the world, and so he does. He must have processed enough of them with adequacy to be left in that position.

You and I (me a fully accredited professor of Law and of International Relations with more than a decade of teaching experience in the faculties of over a dozen universities on 3 continents) and you with all the learning and interest in the subject you may have, read and analyze commentary and documents from Manning's disclosures to reach differing but similar indictments of US foreign policy. Are we pressuming this lowly Private did as well? I admit I've only seen bits and pieces of a few documents, though I have a keen interest and have sought out and searched for more. I've seen reference to close to half a million pages and read that the volume of material is so great it had to be digitally compressed and divided so it could be distributed. I don't think Manning could possibly have read it all, nobody has yet, there is no compendium, no comprehensive summary its a huge document dump. As I've noted, a Spanish periodical has a huge compilation they've gathered just with documents that include the word "Spain", visitors are invited to root through and report what they find (interesting stuff on Repsol's dealings in Libya).

Now reconsider what you think Private Manning's intent was. If it was to make public the evil wrongdoings of the US government or its military, why did he also include this stuff on a Spanish oil company in Libya which has nothing to do with the government or military of the US?

No, Manning acted with recklessness, not animated by some altruistic goal to make public wrongful conduct by the US. He may have wanted attention, maybe was offered money, he couldn't have read everything he disseminated, likely only noted it was "classified" and maybe "diplomatic", this was what his recipient was looking for and Manning obliged dumping hundreds of thousands of embarrassingly candid diplomatic cables. There are no records of assasinations, details of secret renditions, instructions on torture training, accounting for drug smugglings, contraband weapons routes to mercenaries, no, its mostly just lots of frank but embarrassing opinion of other diplomats and issues that preferably would have not been disclosed.

Its all available to the wwhole world now, millions are perusing these secret cables, nobody has come up with that truly shameful "smoking gun", there's a lot more to peruse, maybe eventually someone will find the truly outrageous thing that Private Manning wanted us to know.

[Zeebadee]

People are eager to defend Manning as some sort of highly responsible individual who came across such evidence of grave misdeeds by his government he indignantly made it all public in an effort to correct the situation.

Nonsense, we aren't defending Manning, we are defending the rights supposedly guaranteed to all of us under the Constitution.

You and I (me a fully accredited professor of Law and of International Relations with more than a decade of teaching experience in the faculties of over a dozen universities on 3 continents) ...

And yet the concept of innocent until proven guilty evidently is something that continues to elude you.

[Dan74]

What is so bad about leaking this information? I guess it is true that in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth can be considered a revolutionary act.

[rmnunez]

The presumption of innocence does not elude me, it is you that cannot distinguish between incarceration prior to conviction and after trial. The law establishes that the time a suspect is held in jail before trial is 'credited' against whatever time he gets sentenced to. In the unlikely event a suspect is found innocent there is a liability for "false arrest" and the "suspect" can claim 'damages' for the time denied freedom.

There are 3 phases of incarceration for some suspects; an initial period between arrest and arraignment for not more than 3 days, this is the "custodial arrest" time needed by the police and DA to get their paperwork together and bundle up the most recent catch; a second phase after the suspect gets formally charged in court is discretionary and follows a specific hearing in court to determine whether the accused has adequate ties to the community, excessive resources, is violent or otherwise poses a risk to either the community or that he will not appear in court on the trial date; and the third of incarceration which results after conviction when the now criminal is sentenced to whatever term the court finds fair.

We need a bit more precision in these claims Manning is being punished despite the presumption of his innocence. What phase of his incarceration do you think he is at?

[Zeebadee]

The presumption of innocence does not elude me, it is you that cannot distinguish between incarceration prior to conviction and after trial.

Despite your claim that the "presumption of innocence does not elude me" you continue to display a bias.

The law establishes that the time a suspect is held in jail before trial is 'credited' against whatever time he gets sentenced to. In the unlikely event a suspect is found innocent there is a liability for "false arrest" and the "suspect" can claim 'damages' for the time denied freedom.

I'm curious. In your view is "the unlikely event a suspect is found innocent" applicable in every case, or is it just this one? And I simply don't believe that Manning, if he's found to be innocent, will ever be fairly compensated for the (so far) 7 months of confinement under the current conditions.

There are 3 phases of incarceration for some suspects; an initial period between arrest and arraignment for not more than 3 days, this is the "custodial arrest" time needed by the police and DA to get their paperwork together and bundle up the most recent catch; a second phase after the suspect gets formally charged in court is discretionary and follows a specific hearing in court to determine whether the accused has adequate ties to the community, excessive resources, is violent or otherwise poses a risk to either the community or that he will not appear in court on the trial date; and the third of incarceration which results after conviction when the now criminal is sentenced to whatever term the court finds fair.

We need a bit more precision in these claims Manning is being punished despite the presumption of his innocence. What phase of his incarceration do you think he is at?

I think it's obvious that we are still in the first phase of the government's case. After 7 months of "custodial time", the government hasn't even set a trial date. How long is Manning to be incarcerated before the DA "gets his paperwork together"??

Pure and simple, Manning is a political prisoner, not a thing to be in America these days. He's going to be used to set an example to other potential whistle blowers.

[rmnunez]

That explains your perspective, if you see Manning as a "political prisoner" then since this is antithetical to the principles that the US is based on, any time he is denied to freely express himself, move about or do as he pleases is unjustifiable.

I don't think political expression extends to disclosure of classified documents.

[tishe]

Manning is in the U.S. military. He wears a Military uniform. He took a Military oath. He is innocent until proven guilty in the Military. Anyone who has been in the Military knows one basic fact. Do not fu--- with the Military. Right or wrong, it is what it is. His trial should be very , very interesting.

[Zeebadee]

That explains your perspective, if you see Manning as a "political prisoner" then since this is antithetical to the principles that the US is based on, any time he is denied to freely express himself, move about or do as he pleases is unjustifiable.

I don't think political expression extends to disclosure of classified documents.

Then simply convene a trial and settle this issue. Continued confinement without it is de facto punishment.

[rmnunez]

It can be de-facto all you like, what is important from a legal standpoint is de-jure.

[tishe]

So, one of you is talking about " concerning the law" and the other is talking about " concerning the facts" The Military trial will have both.

[Zeebadee]

It can be de-facto all you like, what is important from a legal standpoint is de-jure.

LOL, yeah, gotta protect the process, otherwise all the lawyers might lose a few bucks. Screw the facts.

The government says, "we think you're guilty, but we need time to collect evidence against you. You can sit in jail until we decide to try you".

Presumably, Manning can wait years before the government decides when or even if to try him. No wonder people hate lawyers with a passion. Shakespeare had it dead-on correct.

[Zeebadee]

So, one of you is talking about " concerning the law" and the other is talking about " concerning the facts" The Military trial will have both.

What trial? Manning has been jailed for 7 months now, and a trial date hasn't even been set.