×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bradley Manning's Court Date Finally Set

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the speedy-is-subjective dept.

The Courts 523

bs0d3 writes "Bradley Manning has finally been scheduled for a day in court. On December 16, he will have an Article 32 hearing (military pre-trial). Private Manning has been in jail for one and half years. The Article 32 hearing will begin at Fort Meade, Maryland. The primary purpose of the hearing is to evaluate the relative strengths and weaknesses of the government's case, as well as to provide the defense with an opportunity to obtain pretrial discovery. Further trial dates and locations are still unknown."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

523 comments

Hang him! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38128426)

Hang his traitor ass high!

Hang him! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38128454)

Hang his traitor ass high!!

spin. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38128460)

The primary purpose of the hearing is to instill fear into anyone else who might have access to sensitive information the public might want to know.

Re:spin. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38128488)

Duh? Traitors like Manning should be hung to stop more traitors from doing this shit.

Re:spin. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38128708)

He just let the world see the crimes of the US government.

Re:spin. (0, Troll)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128802)

The best that people seem to be able to scrape together for "crimes that Manning revealed" is the whole "collateral murder" thing which was the biggest example of bias in reporting Ive seen in my life. Once you remove Assange's whole "make a hero out friendly-fire casualties and bash the US whilst we're at it" commentary, and watch the raw footage, you get a much different picture. I suppose if youve seen the commentaried version first, it will color subsequent viewings, but having seen both, I think that it doesnt take wacky, far-fetched conspiracy theories to explain what seems to be pretty simple-- people obeying the chain of command but making a mistaken ID.

Or was there a better example of "crimes" that you can come up with out of the leaks?

Re:spin. (5, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128762)

Bradley Manning is a true American patriot and hero for exposing the malignant corruption infesting and perverting the great American ideal.

Re:spin. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38128764)

>Duh? Traitors like Manning should be hung to stop more traitors from doing this shit.

Doing what? Exposing the atrocities and shady dealings of some people who work for the most powerful nation on earth that claims to be a forerunner in democracy and freedom?

You should be praising Manning for exposing the crooks that are doing bad things in the name of the glorious and just US of A.

Unless you're against freedom and democracy, of course... What are you, some kind of Muslim terrorist who wants to destroy the US?

Re:spin. (3, Insightful)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128750)

Spin is when someone takes a military personel's violation of his oaths and betrayal of trust as something that should be ignored or lauded. Of course the public wants to know military secrets, that doesnt make it any less against the law, and any less deserving of a military trial.

Mod me down, but ask yourself this-- if this were 1863, and manning has spilled military secrets to the papers, do you think
A) he would have been given a medal
B) he would have languished in a cell until after the war was over, given a trial, and hung as a traitor?

This is neither new, nor surprising. When you get cleared to handle sensitive information, and when you are in the military no less, violating that trust has really serious implications.

Re:spin. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38128964)

"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason." -- Ovid

(Can't believe I just used a quote I first heard in 'JFK', none the less it seems appropriate to me)

Re:spin. (5, Insightful)

The Creator (4611) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128984)

violation of his oaths

Against all enemies, foreign and domestic

How would you interpret the bolded part? Do you think it means unconditional loyalty even when the state begins to commit atrocities?

Re:spin. (1, Insightful)

itchythebear (2198688) | more than 2 years ago | (#38129078)

Against all enemies, foreign and domestic

I bolded a different part for you. It isn't about who Bradley Manning thinks is an enemy, it's about who the U.S. government thinks is an enemy.

Re:spin. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38129120)

He also signed a legal document saying he agreed to be punished for leaking sensitive documents.

Re:spin. (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128992)

This is neither new, nor surprising.

Doesn't mean it isn't deeply stupid. The whole point of a fair trial etc in civillian circles is to make sure the wrong person doesn't get gaoled. The trouble with suspending it in military circles is that you risk gaoling the wrong person while the original bad guy is still free to run around doing bad stuff.

That's not how the law works. (5, Insightful)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38129010)

Of course the public wants to know military secrets, that doesnt make it any less against the law, and any less deserving of a military trial.

Yes it does. Laws are written around public opinion. Also, there's whistleblower protection. If you are uncovering corruption, rather than giving aid to the enemy, your actions are not criminal. That may well be the case here. The information released was not of a tactical nature. It didn't disclose troop strengths and numbers, positions, weaknesses, or anything like that. Rather, it exposed a bunch of dirty laundry. Information that shouldn't be classified.

And something people need to remember (4, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38129094)

Military laws are different than civilian laws. When you sign up for the military, you agree to be subjected to the Uniform Code of Military Justice when you are on duty or deployed. It is related to US civilian laws, but not the same. So if you want to sign up to be a solider, you need to be aware you are held to a different legal standard. A simple example would be that insubordination is against the law in the military.

Then there's the matter of revealing classified data. Military or not when you are given a security clearance, you agree to not reveal classified information. I don't mean they say "You agree to this," I mean you actually sign an agreement, an NDA. It is very much a full disclosure kind of situation in that you understand and agree not to reveal the things you'll be shown.

So you can certainly say he did the morally right thing leaking the information, if you believe that (though I would then ask you to show what information leaked you believe was so important for the public to know) but you can't argue it was legal or that he didn't know it was illegal. Since it was done in military service, that also makes it a military trial.

stfu faggot (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38128838)

you sound like a gay commie
use some pliers on his puny genitals and then burn bradley the traitor alive

Re:spin. (3, Interesting)

jkauzlar (596349) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128852)

I wonder if the treatment he received in prison will play into the trial at all? I agree he should of course be punished, as the law is the law, but let's not forget these leaks were a catalyst for the Tunisian uprising, which lead to the revolts in Egypt and Libya, which is leading to the ongoing riots in Syria, etc. Some would argue the Arab Spring was furthermore a catalyst for OWS and the earlier protests in Wisconsin.

Of course, by the looks of it, he leaked everything he could get his hands on and so had no particular motive in mind except to undermine the classification system, but wittingly or not, the man's a hero. I wish him the best of luck.

Re:spin. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38128884)

slashdot: where salient and well-thought-out comments take a back seat to kneejerk reaction and uneducated hyperbole.

Re:spin. (2)

apcullen (2504324) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128894)

sorry, but what information was that exactly? I still don't get what wrongdoing he was trying to expose. All the thousands of documents, and yeah, there was some embarrassing stuff there, but nothing that shouted "My God! The public needs to know about this!"

Re:spin. (2)

Spectre (1685) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128942)

There were plenty of cover-ups in those documents that needed to be exposed.

Here's one: http://www.salon.com/2011/10/23/wikileaks_cables_and_the_iraq_war/singleton/ [salon.com]

Re:spin. (2)

apcullen (2504324) | more than 2 years ago | (#38129106)

From the Salon article:

this incident had been previously documented by the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions...

The article seems to say that the wikileaks document just brought these allegations back into everyone's mind. So again, embarrassing, but not a smoking gun proving that this was true or revealing something unknown. I can't see anything good that came out of Manning's action. Given that he just dumped everything he could onto wikileaks, rather than just documents that revealed something in particular that he was concerned about, I wonder what motivated him to do this at all.

Re:spin. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38128996)

The primary purpose of the hearing is to instill fear into anyone else who might have access to sensitive information the public might want to know.

It fails to do that in spades, because anyone who looks into the case quickly discovers that Bradley Manning, while he may have been well-meaning, was an idiot who revealed his identity after the fact because he wouldn't just shut up and stay anonymous. I mean, Jesus Christ, Adrian Lamo? Lamo?!? Lame-O!

If that's the best they can do, then nobody with half a brain who has sensitive data that they want to reveal has anything to worry about.

Honer him! (3, Insightful)

dbasch (539559) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128464)

Give his hero ass a medal!

Re:Honer him! (4, Insightful)

anagama (611277) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128690)

A peace prize is in order if indeed Manning is the leaker. Without the released cables, Obama would have been able to convince Iraq that our troops should have stayed longer. Because of the leaks, Obama failed in his warmongering:

That cable was released by WikiLeaks in May, 2011, and, as McClatchy put it at the time, âoeprovides evidence that U.S. troops executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians, including a woman in her 70s and a 5-month-old infant, then called in an airstrike to destroy the evidence, during a controversial 2006 incident in the central Iraqi town of Ishaqi.â The U.S. then lied and claimed the civilians were killed by the airstrike. Although this incident had been previously documented by the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the high-profile release of the cable by WikiLeaks generated substantial attention (and disgust) in Iraq, which made it politically unpalatable for the Iraqi government to grant the legal immunity the Obama adminstration was seeking. Indeed, it was widely reported at the time the cable was released that it made it much more difficult for Iraq to allow U.S. troops to remain beyond the deadline under any conditions.

In other words, whoever leaked that cable cast light on a heinous American war crime and, by doing so, likely played some significant role in thwarting an agreement between the Obama and Maliki governments to keep U.S. troops in Iraq and thus helped end this stage of the Iraq war

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/23/wikileaks_cables_and_the_iraq_war/singleton/

Obama is the warmongerer??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38128810)

Look, I am willing to entertain arguments that Obama could have done more to get our troops out quicker... but honestly he had a ton of opposition due the warmongering of the previous administration. To claim that Obama is a warmongerer and the reason for all the evils done in Iraq, Afgan, and Libya is rather illogical. The freaking quote in your reply states it was done in 2006... do you know when Obama took office?

Are you a super Right-Wing Republican, a racist, super anti-government or just horribly misinformed?

That's not the only thing (2, Insightful)

Quila (201335) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128874)

I may have some sympathy if he knew of specific illegal acts and divulged the information about those acts in order to bring about justice.

But that's not what he did. He just released a huge amount of classified information, some of which could get people killed.

Re:That's not the only thing (5, Insightful)

del_diablo (1747634) | more than 2 years ago | (#38129096)

I keep hearing people saying that. Can you at the least link me to a news story about some squad of soliders that has gotten killed DIRECTLY because of the leaks?

About fucking time (4, Insightful)

Aryden (1872756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128470)

cause being held without due process is full of awesome in this country.

Re:About fucking time (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38128512)

kill the bum... it's treason, pure and simple.

Re:About fucking time (5, Informative)

Aryden (1872756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128550)

Until a jury says he is guilty, he's fucking presumed innocent.

Re:About fucking time (5, Insightful)

RingDev (879105) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128618)

In the civilian world, yes. In the military world, he could stand before a general, or a tribunal, or a jury of his peers, which is to say, a bunch of active duty military guys who have been told over and over for the last year that this guy is evil.

-Rick

Re:About fucking time (4, Informative)

Aryden (1872756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128742)

Having been active duty military, you are obliged to enter into any criminal proceedings, as a member (juror), with impartiality the same as in the civilian world.

People are under the impression that the UCMJ is some oddball, ignores the constitution document. It isn't. The rules make less sense to civilians ,and it is harsher than the average civvy law, but it's also quite fair.

Re:About fucking time (1)

Dale512 (1073668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128848)

Normally I would agree with this. However, the military in general slants a specific way politically which makes it less likely to have a fair and impartial jury relative to what sampling of the general population would provide. The UCMJ is not bad overall. It does have some screwy things that crop up here and there though.

Re:About fucking time (1)

Aryden (1872756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128914)

Yeah the military is always going to slant on the side that gives the pay increases and other budgets, generally the conservative side. But none the less, if a jury finds him guilty, he can always appeal on the grounds of the jury being biased.

Re:About fucking time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38128930)

"quite fair"... is that like being "slightly pregnant"?

"quite fair" is the same as "not fair"

Re:About fucking time (3, Informative)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128872)

In the civilian world, yes. In the military world, he could stand before a general, or a tribunal, or a jury of his peers, which is to say, a bunch of active duty military guys who have been told over and over for the last year that this guy is evil.

-Rick

Juries under the UCMJ are almost always high raking officers and NCO's. It's not a jury of your peers. You may request enlisted, but you'll probably end up with Master SGT and above.

Note: I was on "Class-A Duty" right before my ETS, meaning I had to do all the details that required the green monkey suit. This included parade detail, charity poker night for the wives of generals, soldier of the month board (I won) and bailiff at court marshals. In the court marshal where I was a bailiff, the lowest ranking enlisted member of the jury was a SGT Major. The lowest ranking officer was a full bird colonel. Every one of those bastards stepped on my highly polished shoes on their way out of the jury box into the deliberation room as I was holding the door.

Re:About fucking time (2)

Aryden (1872756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128900)

You must have been a Marine, because in the Army, they taught us not to put our feet in other people's paths... ;)

Re:About fucking time (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38128976)

So its okay for the US to police the world, kill innocents and then lie to the american people about it? War is not a game.

If it was not for Mr Manning, and wiki leaks then the american people would never have seen the TRUTH. The US military/US Govt has been lying to us from day 1. We DO NOT need to be in Afghanistan, Iraq etc. WAKE THE FUCK UP!

I would hope anyone in the military that see's these lies and corruption would speak up. It's only classified because THEY ARE LYING ABOUT IT and they want you to keep your mouth shut. When there are people who take there oath seriously and actually defend against domestic terrorists; I applaud them and wish they would get a medal for their bravery.

Re:About fucking time (3, Interesting)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128548)

I'm actually curious about this. Normally, the defendant can assert their right to a speedy trial, and at that point the prosecution has to take the case to court within a short window (like a month or something). Has it taken this long because Mr. Manning has been getting his own ducks in a row before the trial? Or does the military not guarantee the right to a speedy trial? If it's the latter, what's to stop them from just locking someone up and throwing away the key by never actually going to court? The military justice code can't possibly be that fucked up.... can it?

Re:About fucking time (2)

Scutter (18425) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128584)

It's usually (not always) a defense tactic. Delay, delay, delay. Delay as long as possible.

Re:About fucking time (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38128710)

In Canada they used to count time in pre-trial custody as a 2x credit, under the assumption that it made up for the fact you were imprisoned before being guilty. Aside from the obvious problem that it didn't benefit the people who were ultimately proven innocent, it created a huge incentive for guilty folks to draw out the judicial process as long as possible.

Re:About fucking time (2)

skine (1524819) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128654)

The military justice code can't possibly be that fucked up.... can it?

You have heard about the Guantanimo Bay prison and the PATRIOT Act, right?

Re:About fucking time (2)

Smallpond (221300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128738)

"Mr Manning has also been charged with "aiding the enemy", a charge that could carry the death penalty."

Would you want a speedy trial in that case? I would like to see the government's definition of "the enemy" that was aided by this. The chief beneficiaries seem to have been news organizations.

Re:About fucking time (4, Insightful)

Hentai (165906) | more than 2 years ago | (#38129000)

If the alternative was being held naked in a jail cell with no access to books, internet, human conversation, or anything other than standing at attention and sleeping?

Yes, I think I'd rather they take me behind the tool shed already.

Re:About fucking time (2, Insightful)

Aryden (1872756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128772)

He was held as a prisoner of war / enemy combatant. He was not afforded the rights dictated by the constitution. The UCMJ treats him as a POW and revokes those rights that would otherwise apply to normal military personnel.

Re:About fucking time (2)

NetNinja (469346) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128792)

He is in the military court system. Been a part of it and cases usually take 1 to 2 years to even start to process. I love when people mouth off about speedy trials, they don't even have a remote clue as to how it works in the military.
He had access to sensitive information. he became some sort of conscientious objector.
When you serve in areas where top secret correspondences are being passed arround, just because you have a top secret clearence doesn't give you the right to read the communications. he barely left his whatever small town and now he has a top secret clearence and now he decides that the world is an ugly place and he is going to do something about it. As yoda said 'Ahh the inocence of a child" unfortunately what he did could have caused more damage than good. I suppose everyone wants him to run for the President of the U.S. because we all know his worldy experience and bleeding heart innocense will keep the world safe and secure. Stupid child.

No timeframe is required (5, Interesting)

Quila (201335) | more than 2 years ago | (#38129016)

Everything can be waived upon request. However, this is the period where the government conducts its investigation. A big, complex case would mean a long investigation.

Here the soldier is at an advantage over a civilian, because he actually gets to be involved in the hearing and present and cross examine witnesses. A civilian prosecutor can (and often does) hold a grand jury without the interests of the defense being presented, thus the saying about indicting a ham sandwich.

This is one reason why courts martial have a high conviction rate. Most cases that wouldn't result in a conviction don't get referred for trial after an Article 32 hearing. This is how our civilian grand jury system is supposed to work.

Re:About fucking time (5, Interesting)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128608)

cause being held without due process for 18 months under conditions that are considered torture by international observers is full of awesome in this country.

You're right, you just didn't quite make the point strongly enough.

One interesting question is whether the treatment of Bradley Manning is better or worse than the treatment of Yaser Hamdi [wikipedia.org] , a US citizen imprisoned for 3 years and then (once the US Supreme Court said that was not OK) deported to Saudi Arabia, all without having been charged with a crime, much less convicted of one.

Re:About fucking time (0)

Victor_0x53h (1164907) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128692)

After seeing this young chap's smiling face on each news article I've read about him I got curious. Why not a mug shot [newspirates.com] ?
br? Typically articles about a criminal aren't so kind as to use a nice picture - as if they're painting the criminal in as bad a light as possible. Using his mug shot though raised the same question about how well he's being treated.

Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38128798)

Says someone who has never carried a clearance.

He signed his right to due process as we know it in the civillian world when he accepted the responsibility to access classified information. And he knew damn well the risks associated with that responsibility if somebody were to actually think that he violated that trust.

He's still better off than Assange (5, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128472)

At least the charges against him are real.

Re:He's still better off than Assange (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38128612)

Whoa whoa whoa, Assange started a website that's just... total evil right there man.

Re:He's still better off than Assange (2)

orphiuchus (1146483) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128698)

Couldn't the same be said about individuals who start national socialist and eugenics enthusiast sites?

U.S.Awesome! (5, Insightful)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128480)

In the U.S a 1.5 year prison sentence is just part of a speedy trial.

Re:U.S.Awesome! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38128630)

He was probably the one delaying it.
Just like mitnick did.

Idealy Idealist (2)

gx5000 (863863) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128484)

Poor fool.... When you sign up you're supposed to understand what you're joining.

Re:Idealy Idealist (4, Insightful)

orphiuchus (1146483) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128580)

And when you get a clearance they make goddamn sure that you understand what happens if you misuse it.

Good Luck (5, Funny)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128494)

And since it's a military trial, he pretty much has to prove not only that he's innocent beyond a shadow of a doubt but further prove who actually did do it. He also has to prove cold fusion using only a pack of gum, a microwave oven, and the complete MacGyver dvd box set.

I'm being facetious, of course, but US military justice isn't famous for its fairness or friendliness to the accused. Just thought people should be aware that he's pretty much screwed whether or not there's any conspiracy to get him convicted.

Re:Good Luck (1)

blind monkey 3 (773904) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128706)

It's rigged - the MacGyver dvd box set he was given is missing a whole season!
Judging by some comments and flag waving going on, a significant number of US citizens (I suspect they are of US origin) would be extremely disappointed if he was found innocent.

Re:Good Luck (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38128820)

Having been a military paralegal, I have to say that the military actually offers many protections that civillian courts do not. Think of the article 32 hearing as a grand jury, but instead of the prosecutor running the show, the accused can actually bring evidence on his own behalf, has full representation by council, and the prosecution must give the defense all the evidence they will use. Full discovery rules apply here, not just at trial.

A beard. (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38128502)

I wonder if they let him grow a beard? He could be very bearded after one and a half years.

The Sixth Amendment called... (4, Informative)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128572)

I shudder to think of a world where "one and a half years" qualifies as "speedy". Or have we forgotten the Bill of Rights?

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

I know the government isn't the swiftest thing in the world, but I don't believe it's that slow. And I'm not sure courts martial qualify as "criminal" prosecutions. But I do know that if I were PFC Manning's lawyer, I'd definitely be bringing that up.

Re:The Sixth Amendment called... (4, Insightful)

Aryden (1872756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128632)

Court martial is very much a criminal prosecution. They got away with avoiding the 6th amendment by not filing charges against him until they felt like it. he's been kept as a prisoner of war for 1.5 years so that they could circumvent the rest of the constitution and federal laws.

Re:The Sixth Amendment called... (4, Interesting)

DeadCatX2 (950953) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128924)

I've seen you claim this POW thing elsewhere in comments. Got any evidence to support this?

Because the UCMJ Article 10 also promises a speedy trial. In fact, the courts have found that Article 10's Speedy Trial is more exacting than the Sixth Amendment.

United States v. Thompson, 68 M.J. 308 (when a servicemember is placed in pretrial confinement, Article 10, UCMJ, provides that immediate steps shall be taken to inform the accused of the charges and to either bring the accused to trial or dismiss the charges; Article 10 creates a more exacting speedy trial demand than does the Sixth Amendment).

Re:The Sixth Amendment called... (4, Informative)

oracleguy01 (1381327) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128664)

Your assuming he tried to assert that right and was denied. The defendant doesn't have to assert that right if they don't want to. For all we know the defense has been getting their ducks in a row and have been using the extra time.

Re:The Sixth Amendment called... (2)

RingDev (879105) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128686)

by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed

There's one rub - He commited his crime in Iraq.

Thus the reason this is a military trial, not a civilian court trial. He enjoys the rights provided by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which differ significantly from the Bill of Rights.

That is to say... he's screwed.

-Rick

Re:The Sixth Amendment called... (2, Informative)

Aryden (1872756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128826)

No, it doesn't matter where the crime is committed, you are first and foremost covered by the UCMJ then any applicable civil laws. Usually, the military will defer prosecution until local/state/federal trials have run their course, THEN they will try you under the UCMJ.

Re:The Sixth Amendment called... (1)

DeadCatX2 (950953) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128936)

I mentioned this elsewhere.

Article 10 of the UCMJ creates a more exacting speedy trial demand than the Sixth Amendment (United States v Thompson)

Re:The Sixth Amendment called... (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128998)

I can't say for the US but in Canada, "speedy trials" are determined by the jurisdiction that the case will be tried in, and the scope of the crime. 1.5 years for a criminal prosecution here? That's fairly reasonable. 1.5 years for a DUI charge or parking ticket, not so much. I get the feeling that US case law mirrors this as well.

Speedy Trial (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38128574)

I guess the right to a speedy trial doesn't apply to the military.

Re:Speedy Trial (1)

Aryden (1872756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128700)

Yes, it does.

Re:Speedy Trial (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38128806)

[citation needed]

Re:Speedy Trial (1)

DeadCatX2 (950953) | more than 2 years ago | (#38129052)

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/ucmj/blart-10.htm [about.com]

Any person subject to this chapter charged with an offense under this chapter shall be ordered into arrest or confinement, as circumstances may require; but when charged only with an offense normally tried by a summary court-martial, he shall not ordinarily be placed in confinement. When any person subject to this chapter is placed in arrest or confinement prior to trial, immediate steps shall be taken to inform him of the specific wrong of which he is accused and to try him or to dismiss the charges and release him.

Re:Speedy Trial (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 2 years ago | (#38129148)

Article 10 of the UCMJ.

When any person subject to this chapter is placed in arrest or confinement prior to trial, immediate steps shall be taken to inform him of the specific wrong of which he is accused and to try him or to dismiss the charges and release him.

Leaking Secret documents... not OK (1, Insightful)

orphiuchus (1146483) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128650)

I know a lot of people here like to live in a fantasy land where the military doesn't need any secrets, but the fact is that some things are secret for good reason. Troop deployment schedules for instance, can allow the enemy to effectively target less experienced units and kill more Americans.

Manning had this all explained to him when he got his clearance, and assuming that he really is guilty, he deserves what is coming to him. Like it or not, loose lips really do sink ships.

Re:Leaking Secret documents... not OK (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128740)

Some things are secret for good reason. Very little in what Manning released had any reason to be secret. On the whole, the country is better off having this information public than not.

Re:Leaking Secret documents... not OK (3, Insightful)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128944)

Some things are secret for good reason. Very little in what Manning released had any reason to be secret. On the whole, the country is better off having this information public than not.

Except, as a private in the US military, that was not Bradley Manning's job or duty to decide. 1 person never has the right to make a decision like that, especially one that had the possibility of costing other people their lives (Notice I said possibility, not did) And there was no way he could have known what was in those thousands of documents. If he did, then he was spending all his time reading them instead of his job, in which case he is still guilty of dereliction of duty. He is already guilty of accessing documents without authorization. These 2 charges alone probably merit forfeiture of pay and rank, as well as several years imprisonment and a dishonorable discharge. And he is probably lucky that he is being tried at court martial. Besides being supplied legal counsel that is an officer (and therefore bound by oath to the law, oath as an officer, and by honor to do the best job they can) and more than likely working solely on this case, a defendant in court martial can also bring in civilian counsel and assistance. Especially in a high profile case like this, his right are probably more protected in a court martial than in a civilian court.

Re:Leaking Secret documents... not OK (2, Insightful)

Java Pimp (98454) | more than 2 years ago | (#38129104)

People with clearance do not have the authority to just decide something should be declassified and released publicly regardless of their reason for doing so. It does not matter if you feel the country is better off or not, who knows, it very well may be. It is not up to you or a random PFC to make that determination.

Re:Leaking Secret documents... not OK (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38128794)

I doubt people have a problem keeping secret things that will get troops killed. I think the problem comes in when classifying things as secret that do nothing but make someone look bad, and then treating that info as though it was the same as that which causes troop deaths. It's the over use of classification for things that don't need it, and then prosecution when people make you look bad that tends people toward that fantasy land where military doesn't need secrets.

Re:Leaking Secret documents... not OK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38128972)

guess what? no one cares what private manning has to think about data classification. he was JUST a private, and obviously couldnt even handle that level of responsibility without cracking up.

tl;dr, he's a pussy and chose a pussy's method of righting what he saw as a wrong. fuck him.

Re:Leaking Secret documents... not OK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38128862)

Manning revealed war crimes. He did reveal more, but there's no evidence anybody's life was put in danger. Also, if troops had been put in danger, well that's their fault for committing war crimes that force heroes like Manning to publish secret information.

This is like committing murder, then complaining that the police investigation is harming your business.

Re:Leaking Secret documents... not OK (1)

Aryden (1872756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128866)

If he is guilty, sure. he deserves the punishment awarded, and I would hope it would be harsh. In this case, death.

However, he has not been tried, he has been denied rights as a US citizen and as military personnel because they labelled him as an enemy combatant.

Re:Leaking Secret documents... not OK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38128938)

So true.....and to top it off he leaked the info to foreign sources.

When he is found guilty I hope he gets a firing squad and not lifetime in Leavenworth.

Re:Leaking Secret documents... not OK (2)

Sedated2000 (1716470) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128956)

Did anyone else read the Manning/Lamo chat logs? After reading them you get a very different picture of Manning (and Lamo). In my view, Manning was revealed to be a troubled and hurt kid with really strong gender identity issues. He even expressed worry to Lamo that if he was caught, he'd be referred to as "He" instead of "Her". He had anger problems stemming from his confusion and a fight he had that ended in him being demoted (he punched a co-worker). He was definitely not stable and I just don't believe he released this stuff out any desire to serve the "common good". He simply made a grab for as many files as he could get, never actually reviewing them himself.

Lamo came across as a selfish user, begging Manning to sponsor him so he can have a .mil account, even during the times when Manning was trying to share his worries with him. Clearly Lamo just egged him on, and he probably knew he was going to turn this all over in the end. If you haven't read them, you might find them informative.

http://http//www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/manning-lamo-logs/ [http]

Re:Leaking Secret documents... not OK (3, Informative)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128958)

Loose lips also reveal war crimes.

He did violate his oath. And perhaps he should face the death penalty.

But his defiance of criminal acts suppressed through secrecy in spite of the risk also makes him an American patriot and hero.

And the illegal treatment he has received, that as circumvented the lawful process of justice is also a reprehensible failure of the system and an act of treason against the United States of America.

Re:Leaking Secret documents... not OK (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38128970)

I'm sure you'd feel differently if some foreign army came into your country, killed your grandmother and 5 month old child before destroying the evidence. I'm all for secrets that help keep soldiers alive, but not for secrets that help soldiers escape justice.

Source: http://www.salon.com/2011/10/23/wikileaks_cables_and_the_iraq_war/singleton/

hang 'em (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38128720)

hang the little faggot. 'nuff said

bit of a puzzler (1)

jwijnands (2313022) | more than 2 years ago | (#38128910)

You'd have expected the government to get the fix in quicker than 18 months. Wonder why it took so long.

Just a liar (1, Informative)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 2 years ago | (#38129062)

Manning is just a liar.

When he got is clearance he made an oath knowing what the penalty would be were he to break it, and he broke it.

He released more than 100K classified documents, did he check each one of those documents to see if there was evidence for a specific crime of the US?

I don't think so. He grabbed absolutely everything he could and sent it out.

Contrary to ignorant claims, Manning is no martyr, he's just a lying creep, who should hope that they shoot him rather than lock him away in the USDB forever.

That's another fun thing (1)

jwijnands (2313022) | more than 2 years ago | (#38129110)

About the US of A. Doesn't matter how heavy handed the government acts, there's always a queue forming to defend the actions.

Re:Just a liar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38129160)

Well done for presuming innocent until proven guilty.

He's 23! (1, Flamebait)

bigsexyjoe (581721) | more than 2 years ago | (#38129162)

So that video of a bunch of soldiers killing people for no reason was put in the hands of some random 23 year old. He released it, and now they want to charge the 23 year old with "aiding the enemy" which is a capital crime, along with 22 other charges. And they put him in solitary confinement while awaiting trial.

Well at least they are giving him a trial instead of just executing him.

So that's how long it took to break him. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38129168)

Solitary confinement and constant monitoring and harrassment will drive anyone insane eventually. So now that he's been thoroughly broken, the "trial" can begin.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...