Bradley Manning Faces Death Penalty

[rmnunez]

One doesn't swear an oath to the UCMJ, those are the initials of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, its basically commonlaw codified for application in military jurisdiction (on military bases). The oath sworn in military court by witnesses before testifying is the same as what is sworn (or promised) in any court, "to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".

The UCMJ has relatively unimportant variations in trial procedure, for example everyone is absolutely guaranteed court-appointed counsel in military court, but it has to be a military attorney. Commonlaw doesn't have much weight, so there's less reliance on precedent and more focus on the specific interpretation of the statutory language in whatever law applies.

For a critical lefty, a military trial is very distressing, there's no emotional appeal, no consideration for a criminal defendant's socio-economic background, whether he was raised in a 'broken' family, if his mother had to work or the level of education his parents had, it makes no difference if he lived all his life in crime-infested gang neighborhoods and suffered lots of peer pressure, his ethnicity makes no difference either.

Military law is a lot like Roman law, like the French system of codified law. All the applicable laws are written down as articles or statutes and strictly applied. To defend oneself in a military proceeding requires showing some difference between what is specified in the stature and the conduct to which it is being applied. In Manning's case the whole defence must rely on this explicit reference to an "enemy" as the recipient of the classified documents, likely there will be some discussion of whether Wikileaks is a news organization or if a business can fit under the enemy definition.

[Senor Hoint]

If we kill him, any further arguments that
a) The US is better than the Soviet Union
b) The US is better than China
c) The US is "the freest country in the world"
will be rejected with great amusement by me.

[Dan74]

"Arbitrary, and the Military oath? What?? Have you been in the Military? If you have, you considered it an "arbitrary thing?" Sorry, as far as Manning goes, ain't buying it! There has been a big concern about his living quarters. The fact that he has been in the Brig (not jail) for 7 months, etc.etc.. My comments have been directed to the fact, this is the Military! Manning's justice is different from civilian justice! Way different! Doesn't matter if he was doing what he thought best. He knew what would go down once he leaked the documents.

Question:

Does the military oath override human nature?

[Senor Hoint]

All the people who are so gung-ho about military justice and the letter of the law should step back.


We're going to kill a person, and why? Because he made us feel a little uncomfortable? A little embarrassed?

Land of the free indeed.

[tishe]

One doesn't swear an oath to the UCMJ, those are the initials of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, its basically commonlaw codified for application in military jurisdiction (on military bases). The oath sworn in military court by witnesses before testifying is the same as what is sworn (or promised) in any court, "to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".

The UCMJ has relatively unimportant variations in trial procedure, for example everyone is absolutely guaranteed court-appointed counsel in military court, but it has to be a military attorney. Commonlaw doesn't have much weight, so there's less reliance on precedent and more focus on the specific interpretation of the statutory language in whatever law applies.

For a critical lefty, a military trial is very distressing, there's no emotional appeal, no consideration for a criminal defendant's socio-economic background, whether he was raised in a 'broken' family, if his mother had to work or the level of education his parents had, it makes no difference if he lived all his life in crime-infested gang neighborhoods and suffered lots of peer pressure, his ethnicity makes no difference either.

Military law is a lot like Roman law, like the French system of codified law. All the applicable laws are written down as articles or statutes and strictly applied. To defend oneself in a military proceeding requires showing some difference between what is specified in the stature and the conduct to which it is being applied. In Manning's case the whole defence must rely on this explicit reference to an "enemy" as the recipient of the classified documents, likely there will be some discussion of whether Wikileaks is a news organization or if a business can fit under the enemy definition.

With respect, I know what the UCMJ is You go in and join the military, you have just signed your rights, life etc. away to the military. You learn this immediately. Lack of a better a word (oath), it is part of the whole package you signed up for. Did you Bing or Google your definition of UCMJ? Find A Vet, ask him or her what it means.

[rmnunez]

I know what the UCMJ is, learned about it in Law School, its an interesting consideration when trying to figure out what law would apply if there was federal criminal law (which there isn't). Its pretty straightforward, nothing that violates constitutional standards and plenty of appeals have been upheld by the Supreme Court. There's due process, jury, free counsel. Discipline is not a big deal in the law itself, the stuff critical lefties get all excited about (things like rank, saluting, gender discrimination, chaplains and all that killing) are minor elements in the UCMJ which is a comprehensive code of law to govern all aspects of military life which basically is the same as civilian life except everyone goes around in a uniform, serves a common master and is hierarchically organized.

[tishe]

Okay, way over my head! You win (yea), I will go have a few beers with a few friends. (Vets) Will let ya know about the outcome! Back to the topic, Manning faces the death penalty. He knew what he was doing!! He knew it was wrong! He's not going to die over it tho, probably won't see the light of day until he's a senior citizen.

[Dan74]

Hey man, thanks for answering my question!

[Grogybear]

All the people who are so gung-ho about military justice and the letter of the law should step back.


We're going to kill a person, and why? Because he made us feel a little uncomfortable? A little embarrassed?

As has been pointed out already in the thread you're not. Prosecutors said they wouldn't seek the death penalty. Unless something has changed he's simply going to go to jail for the remainder of his life if convicted.

[rmnunez]

Nobody is going to be killed, the prosecution already acknowledged it is NOT seeking the death penalty. Nonetheless, someone strictly interpreting the law should realize the death penalty is applicable and in this case could easily be granted. The only chance Manning would get sentenced to execution would be if his defence was very bad and he seemed uncontrite.

[rmnunez]

Disclosure of the "collateral murder" video is different from all these diplomatic cables. The video is short, easy to grasp and supports an outrageous conclusion, the diplomatic cables, taken together, hundreds of thousands of separate documents, when associated, under certain interpretations could sustain a critical perspective of US diplomacy.

If we came across the videot and realized what was shown, some of us might disclose the contents withou hesitation, outraged to find what we saw even if we only saw if we had sworn not to reveal such things. The video admits a spontaneous reaction.

Not so the diplomatic cables, these are very unlike the video. No easily understood pictures with an audio narrative. The cables consist of interviews and commentary, often without details on its source or his position. The cables are disconnected items, hundreds of thousands of them which require detailed analysis. Only after one considers all the cables from the same source, in chronological order, knowing the position of the source and with the proper larger context, can any sense of their import be reached.

What would a simple private know of vying strategies between competing EU oil companies to contextualize the commentary on or from corporate figures from Spain's Repsol and Italy's ENI in Libya? I'm old enough to be his father and have devoted many years to the study, and can't figure out the implications.

The cables are different, Manning wouldn't be immediately outraged over any of them, some of the more outrageous of them are statements by foreign sources (like that Gulf prince demanding terrorist captives be summarily executed) how does that cause outrage over US diplomacy, its not like the US Admiral is agreeing with him or advising such views be applied.

I see these as two very different types of leaked documents. Manning was obliged to refrain from disclosing both, but arguably could have felt compelled to disclose the video, this could easily provoke a sense of outrage. The cables require too much analysis, there are too many of them, an individual would need an extensive background to contextualize them and draw any conclusion. Even now, after thousands of analysts have sorted through heaps of cables and brought their own varying depths of analysis, can any conclusion be reached, but not much outrage.

I think Wikileaks thought it was all like the video, that they empathised with Manning for the video and urged him to get more and he dumped tons of stuff which by sheer volume would have to include some compromising stuff, but for the most part is unimportant.

He might be excused for the video release if we figure the outrage overwhelms duty to refrain from disclosing (though in the military duty trumps everything). For the cables this excuse won't apply.

[tishe]

Question:

Does the military oath override human nature?

Yes, it does, if you are in the military. If you feel your "human nature kicking in", do what you think is best. Be prepared to face the consequences. That's it, it's that easy.