So I guess we don't even need a trial then, either under the UCMJ or the Constitution?? Fine lawyer you turn out to be.Quote by: rmnunez
So I guess we don't even need a trial then, either under the UCMJ or the Constitution?? Fine lawyer you turn out to be.
I upped my income, up yours.
I don't think a trial would prove Manning is innocent, but he should be tried anyway, does anyone think Manning actually had nothing to do with the massive Wikileaks publication of all those diplomatic cables?
Manning should be tried because it would be salutory for the public at large and the military in particular, to be reminded of the effective constraints in disseminating information online. I get the impression some people think cyberspace changes the rules and it doesn't seem like this is the case for the military, nor is it evident it should be.
I'm sure Manning is guilty, that he knowingly distributed classified documents. I don't know whether he did this maliciously, for money, was deceived or coerced, but none of that makes any difference, its a prima facie case, he took classified documents, determined they covered matters of interest to Wikileaks and provided them to this source knowing they would be made public online. None of these facts is in doubt and they will sustain Manning;s conviction, the only variable is the degree of culpability that can be atributed to the soldier, how malicious was he in providing these documents? In the unlikely case Manning gave these classified documents away without any wrongful intent -he would still be guilty!
Assange and WikiLeaks have already said multiple times that they don't know Manning. In fact, all of their contributions are completely anonymous.
"The place of the worst barbarism is that modern forest that makes use of us, this forest of chimneys and bayonets, machines and weapons, of strange inanimate beasts that feed on human flesh"
Do you think that if Wikileaks denies any contact with Manning, and none could be proven, this would mean Manning is innocent?
Well, except that until these "facts" are proven in a court of law, they aren't really "facts" at all, are they??
I upped my income, up yours.
Zee, I'm just wondering, do you think the only guilty people are those who've been convicted in court?
No, not exactly.
You seem to be a big fan of laws being set in stone, at least with this scenario. I think you assume that the military should enact revenge upon Manning by severely punishing him.
I'll bring up the point I've brought up several times: If the military wants to clean up its horribly tainted image, then why would it seek to punish those who created that image for them? There is a fine line between doing what is right and the law. In this case, Manning did what he thought was right. The military's misdeeds ARE in the general interest of the public. In that case, shouldn't the military just boot him and let him go free? What's he gonna do? He has a family to go live with, apparently he has friends he trusts.
"The place of the worst barbarism is that modern forest that makes use of us, this forest of chimneys and bayonets, machines and weapons, of strange inanimate beasts that feed on human flesh"
This is not my assumption, I think laws should be upheld, there's a punishment for breaching security and disseminating classified information. For the military, this is a breach of the highest order, they regard such conduct as betrayal, treason and espionage, it certainly does present a risk to the armed forces. Manning breached security as a member of the armed forces, he should be punished for this.I think you assume that the military should enact revenge upon Manning by severely punishing him.
You are making some exceptional assumptions here. We don't know why Manning disseminated all that information, maybe it was for money, perhaps he was coerced, gave some information and was then blackmailed into getting more, or maybe he was persuaded that he was doing a good thing.Manning did what he thought was right. The military's misdeeds ARE in the general interest of the public. In that case, shouldn't the military just boot him and let him go free? What's he gonna do? He has a family to go live with, apparently he has friends he trusts.
The military is not the central theme in the disseminated information, most of the documents are diplomatic cables dealing with political figures and the impressions diplomats have of them, nothing to do with the military.
The military's misdeeds are of concern to the public, but members of the armed forces are not authorized to broadcast what they think are misdeeds, there are procedures and a code of conduct which governs what recourse they have when they confront misconduct in the military.
Of course not. But citizens shouldn't be forced to spend an inordinate amount of time locked up until they've been convicted of a crime.
I upped my income, up yours.
I am certain Manning will be credited with time served, but if he's going to be executed (unlikely) this delay is actually a good thing because he gets to live a bit longer. In the more likely case he gets sentenced to life in prison it really doesn't matter.
Naturally my assumption is that Manning actually did disseminate the leaked documents, I think they traced each one back to him and verified he was at the only location where all the documents were accessed.
The inordinate delay in prosecution would only be harmful if the outcome of Manning's trial was uncertain, if there was a possibility he had nothing to do with these leaks, he'd been 'framed', wrongfully accused, didn't actually have access to these documents or something like this.
I'd expect a defence might want to portray Manning as some sort of 'whistleblower', but note this is then an admission he did disseminate the documents and motive doesn't make any difference, the only issue is whether he did cause the classified documents to be published.
The problem with this rationale is that Manning didn't just release information on the "military's misdeeds", but also a wholesale release of all kinds of other classified information as well, if he actually is the guilty party in this affair.
My problem with the government in this case is that Manning has been held in prison, under draconian conditions, for more than 7 months now, and there has still been no date set for trial. Even the UCMJ includes the right to a speedy trial. This is simply a case of intimidation by the government, to show other whistle blowers that you can be jailed at the governments whim without ever being found guilty of a crime.
I upped my income, up yours.
Solitary confinement is a necessity for someone accused of espionage, after all, he may have other information he could share. Solitary confinement is not "draconian", nor is making him once stand naked for an inspection some sort of torture.
I think Manning is an idiot, he shouldn't have given Assange these documents, but Manning is just a fool. He deserved to be put in jail, should get a lengthy sentence because he breached the trust given him and caused a great deal of harm in so doing.
Members of the armed forces and other government employees should be discouraged from disseminating classified documents online, hopefully they will remember what happened to Manning.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks