Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 (WikiLeaks Source) Given Hearing After 2 Years In Jail

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the somebody-ought-to-make-an-amendment dept.

The Courts 369

TrueSatan writes "Finally, Bradley Manning's military court case starts. He's only had to wait 2 years to be heard. Manning claims that while remanded in custody in Iraq he 'passed out due to the heat' and 'contemplated suicide.' The United Nations special rapporteur on torture found Manning's detention was 'cruel and inhuman.' Manning wants the case against him to be dismissed because his pre-trial punishment was so severe. Manning's attorney, David Coombs, earlier released an 11-page letter detailing the conditions of Manning's confinement. Manning offered guilty pleas to minor charges, but not to spying, aiding American enemies or treason, and those pleas have been accepted by the judge."

cancel ×

369 comments

FP (-1, Troll)

ungodlychicken (1474111) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141113)

FP?

This is truly a difficult situation (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141127)

One one had so much transparency has come from this but on the other so many terrible things COULD have happened. What needs to happen from this is a NON-military group be created to act as a place where individuals within the military can report situations without the public seeing everything. That group would then be charged to release appropriate information and act on those responsible for illegal acts.

The military is supposed to have these mechanisms internally but it doesn't work at this level.

Re:This is truly a difficult situation (5, Interesting)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141235)

The shenanigans go much deeper than you realize [democracynow.org] :

"The mass surveillance and mass interception that is occurring to all of us now who use the internet is also a mass transfer of power from individuals into extremely sophisticated state and private intelligence organizations and their cronies," he says. Assange also discusses the United States’ targeting of WikiLeaks. "The Pentagon is maintaining a line that WikiLeaks inherently, as an institution that tells military and government whistleblowers to step forward with information, is a crime. They allege we are criminal, moving forward," Assange says. "Now, the new interpretation of the Espionage Act that the Pentagon is trying to hammer in to the legal system, and which the Department of Justice is complicit in, would mean the end of national security journalism in the United States." [includes rush transcript]

Re:This is truly a difficult situation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141431)

I don't believe in "national security journalism". Hopefully as the baby boomers die off, we can get over the Sixties-worship that makes people think "national security journalism" is even a thing.

... likely outcome (2)

elfprince13 (1521333) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141131)

Charges dropped? I don't think there's even the foggiest chance that that will happen, but I wouldn't be surprised for some sort of reduced sentence and not life.

Re:... likely outcome (0, Troll)

characterZer0 (138196) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141213)

I would be extremely surprised if he gets anything less than life. He, presumably, did what he thought was right, and the government is torturing him for it. They made sure he would be a liability if he ever got out.

Re:... likely outcome (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141363)

That is about the most uneducated, ignorant and apathetic comment I've read ina while. He was in the military, and there are strict guidlines governing classified documents. This includes punishments for breaking the rules. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) are rules above and beyond what the civilian population has to deal with. An individual is made aware of the rules and the consequences at the beginning. He knew what he was doing, and the consequences. He is lucky that all the prosecution is going for is a life sentence. In time of war, and with charges of treason, he could be put in front of a firing squad.

Re:... likely outcome (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141445)

That is about the most uneducated, ignorant and apathetic comment I've read ina while. He was in the military, and there are strict guidlines governing classified documents. This includes punishments for breaking the rules. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) are rules above and beyond what the civilian population has to deal with. An individual is made aware of the rules and the consequences at the beginning. He knew what he was doing, and the consequences. He is lucky that all the prosecution is going for is a life sentence. In time of war, and with charges of treason, he could be put in front of a firing squad.

Does the UCMJ contemplate the use of torture ? Because torture is what Manning has had to endure for the last 2 years awaiting for a trial. This trial is a farce, as were farce the trials held in the old good Soviet Union.

code reds are not in the book just like where the (2)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141513)

code reds are not in the book just like where the mess hall is at.

Re:... likely outcome (2)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141613)

" He knew what he was doing, and the consequences. "

I highly doubt that. He was a fucking moron for talking to a known Government informant weazle. if he "knew what he was doing" he would have kept his mouth shut, Instead of bragging.

Re:... likely outcome (4, Informative)

howardd21 (1001567) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141707)

I do not know why the parent was modded to -1; I was in the military for 12 years and also happen to highly value privacy of personal information and freedoms, and freedom of speech. But there is a necessity of trust in the military that is essential to the mission, and he knowingly broke that trust.

Re:... likely outcome (4, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141797)

trust in the military that is essential to the mission

What if the mission is wrong?

Re:... likely outcome (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141573)

They made sure he would be a liability if he ever got out.

Whoa whoa whoa, I think I see what you're saying. That once you cross that line of performing unforgivable acts upon someone you don't want to let them go off and chat to others about it. But there is no way that we would EVER allow Bradly Manning to simply disappear. Not without some serious repercussions. They'd have to stage some sort of in-prison assassination and frankly, I don't think the people in power are competent enough to pull of that sort of conspiracy and keep it secret.

No. Manning will remain alive and in contact. He may not appear on David Letterman, but if he's smart he'll eventually write a book. Or rant enough to someone can write a book out of it. So, RIGHT NOW, Bradly Manning, having been tortured, IS A LIABILITY. It's the sort of example that people can wave in the face of the smiling diplomat and call bullshit when they say "trust me". It's the sort of example that UN members can whip out and laugh at when the USA demands they stop torturing our spies.

Re:... likely outcome (1)

jasper160 (2642717) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141231)

I don't think he will get less than twenty years. The current administration seems to have a hardon for any crime that is internet or leak releated.

Re:... likely outcome (3, Insightful)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141299)

One thing to note on a courtmartial is acceptance of a plea on some charges does not mean you can't be tried on the others. His pretri detention was done in accordance with military law which differs from civilian in a number of ways, so even though his trial was not started as quickly as normal or that things were rough in Iraq may well have no impact on the outcome. What is key is Manning new the rules he agreeded to, was convinced to break them and now is on the hook for his actions.

Re:... likely outcome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141409)

Manning new the rules he agreeded to

You mean rules like being silent about a crime is being complicit, and "following orders" is not a valid defense?

Re:... likely outcome (5, Insightful)

tnk1 (899206) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141679)

You know, there's a difference between being ordered to shoot some civilians in Vietnam, and deciding that you are going to break published classification rules that everyone is aware of, when no one's life is immediately at stake. And, more to the point, grabbing everything you can on the classified network, so you can release it en masse to a third party that isn't even run by people from your own country.

I'm sorry, but that's not heroism or "not following an illegal order", it's crass irresponsibility.

Re:... likely outcome (5, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141535)

His pretri detention was done in accordance with military law which differs from civilian in a number of ways, so even though his trial was not started as quickly as normal or that things were rough in Iraq may well have no impact on the outcome.

The UCMJ is very clear: military personnel do not relinquish their constitutional rights. Yes, military law is different, but they're still required to have a speedy and public trial, and are still prohibited from engaging in cruel and unusual punishment. Manning has a strong argument that both of those were violated.

Re:... likely outcome (0, Troll)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141583)

Dude it's military, they can have him shot. They dont have to play by the rules of civillian life.

Re:... likely outcome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141703)

What retard modded him down? he is 100% correct. war time, treason = firing squad.

He thinks that's severe? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141159)

Wait until he learns what we do with traitors who act against the interests of the United States.



We vote them to a second term.

Re:He thinks that's severe? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141543)

Wait until he learns what we do with traitors who act against the interests of the United States. We vote them to a second term.

Dubya has been out of office for about 4 years now...

Re:He thinks that's severe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141721)

Obama isn't also a traitor to the working class of the US? OK, so Dubya wasn't a traitor the workers...

Re:He thinks that's severe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141683)

They usually re-elect them for another term, what's your point?

Re:He thinks that's severe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141713)

Give them 5-10 in Leavenworth?

I don't think anyone who wants him shot for treason is going to be happy with what comes down. It's the military, so it will be a real sentence with real time, but they won't give him life and certainly not a firing squad.

Case dismissed? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141161)

He's lucky he is getting a case at all. Traitors should be subject to summary execution during wartime.

Re:Case dismissed? (5, Insightful)

flonker (526111) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141187)

He's lucky he is getting a case at all. Traitors should be subject to summary execution during wartime.

"Congress shall have power to ... declare War"
        - http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html [usconstitution.net]

I don't recall seeing any Congressional declaration of war.

Re:Case dismissed? (-1, Troll)

SOOPRcow (1279010) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141225)

Congress authorized both Military Actions. Use the whole quote, "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

Re:Case dismissed? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141323)

Pretty sure you need a declaration of war to have wartime, kid.

Re:Case dismissed? (1)

Xphile101361 (1017774) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141395)

Exactly what do you call the past decade then?

Re:Case dismissed? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141443)

Wartime requires a declaration of war. The past decade has been a long string of (bumbling and incompetent) military actions. You know, because Congress authorized military actions, not war. Do words mean something else on your planet?

Re:Case dismissed? (4, Informative)

besalope (1186101) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141485)

Military action under the War Powers Resolution (1973) that was authorized by Congress to extend beyond the 60 day max. It's one of their favorite loopholes.

Re:Case dismissed? (4, Funny)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141633)

Helping. we are Helping the middle east.

Re:Case dismissed? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141645)

And it doesn't say the wording that needs to be used. War was de-facto, and in all ways sufficiently declared by congress. If you cannot see that, and, indeed use the wording as a justification for some policy position, you are insane.

Re:Case dismissed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141245)

A formal declaration of war, besides being so outmoded an idea as to be laughable, is hardly required to be in a state of war.

Further, while no "formal" declaration exists, the current conflict in Afghanistan and the then-conflict in Iraq were indeed "authorized" by Congress. Your recollection is clouded by formal language that has not been relevant since WWII.

A formal declaration of war is required (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141317)

Otherwise you are not in wartime, therefore the claim of the arsehole OP "Traitors should be subject to summary execution during wartime." doesn't apply.

Might as well have said "People called Bradley should be shot if we are invaded by aliens who hate that name".

Re:A formal declaration of war is required (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141387)

Right, so the US has not been in a state of war since 1945. You could at least try to be earnest in your replies.

Yup, they've not been in a state of war since 45. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141427)

What's the problem here? Do you think guns are only fired in wartime? Is that all you think is needed to declare war? What?

The US has not been in a state of war since 1945. Correct.

Then why are you crying "You could at least try to be earnest in your replies."? The US has not been in a state of war since 1945.

Re:Yup, they've not been in a state of war since 4 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141591)

Because you're either a dishonest prick or a fucking idiot. Given your tone, I suspect the former, despite the satisfaction that would be gleaned from labeling you the latter. Why not log in and let us see who you really are?

Re:Yup, they've not been in a state of war since 4 (2)

ScentCone (795499) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141817)

The US has not been in a state of war since 1945. Correct.

Just out of curiosity, what do you personally get out of being a troll? How does lying about history, or pretending that places like Korea don't exist ... what does that actually achieve for you? I'm guessing it's all an indirect way to attempt to paint Manning as some sort of Really Nice Guy who doesn't deserve to be given a hard time for his staggering breach of trust. But because that position is also completely irrational and held only by clueless, non-worldly people who can't muster the energy and attention span to actually understand consequences, I'm assuming you're just a 10th grader copying/pasting from zealous lefty blogs.

Re:Case dismissed? (2)

Ieshan (409693) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141321)

Why does this insanity continued to be repeated on Slashdot?

Resolutions were passed authorizing the use of force. Congress has authorized vast sums of money to wage war. Politicians in both parties have acknowledged that we are at war. Personally, I'm not particularly happy that we went to war, but it's pretty clear that we did so.

Re:Case dismissed? (3, Insightful)

snl2587 (1177409) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141325)

And so begins the Great War of Semantics (undeclared)!

*gets popcorn*

Re:Case dismissed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141405)

Quoting the constitution to justify(or condemn) something is like citing the bible. It has nothing to do with reality; no basis in truth validly built up from axioms and apodictic propositions.

Instead of worrying about the meaningless made up rules of killing people, ignore that distraction and look at what is actually happening. A man is being tortured and possibly faces eventual murder by people that rule us.

Re:Case dismissed? (1)

DaHat (247651) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141467)

Any chance you could cite an authoritative source as to what all is involved in or required by a 'declaration of war'?

I'll give you a hint... whatever you find will actually be in line with the authorizations to use military force in Afghanistan & Iraq.

Unlike the Obama Administration's actions in Libya... the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are quite legal under US law. Can't say the same about the unauthorized military action which was the first in the history of the War Powers Act to violate it.

Your constitution? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141559)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

Congress has to declare it, not just stamp "PAID" on military budgets. Budgets are confirmed by Congress all the time, these are not declarations of war.

Congress has allowed the military to be paid.

Not declared war.

Re:Your constitution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141759)

Bottom line is that this position requires the acceptance that the US has not been in a state of war since 1945, which is absurd. If this is truly your position, then you have no position worthy of consideration.

Re:Case dismissed? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141515)

Article 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

So where are the two witnesses that saw Manning give data to Wikileaks? Also, when was war declared against Wikileaks?

Re:Case dismissed? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141205)

Nice try, Obama. You're not King yet.

Re:Case dismissed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141349)

Right, because *everyone* knows a traitor when he sees one. No proof required. The very fact that he's accused means he's guilty!

No wonder GWB wanted to be a wartime president. Things are so much easier to get done during wartime.

Re:Case dismissed? (1)

JigJag (2046772) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141723)

Let me quote this from theregister.co.uk [theregister.co.uk] :

I see your point. Let me ask you this:
was he a traitor to:
1) the United States of America,
2) its Government
3) the human race

I pick #2, and at the same time make him a hero for #1 and #3.

Trator (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141179)

You Are Part Of The Rebel Alliance And A Traitor

Cruel and unusual (2, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141191)

The only reason that the US government has treated Manning the way it did was to break him and to try and get him to sign some fake confession that would help them to accuse Wikileaks and Assange in some form or 'espionage' or even 'treason' (which is pure nonsense, can't charge a foreigner with treason). What they did to Manning is cruel an unusual punishment no doubt.

I guess individual freedoms can go fuck themselves as long as the mob is on the side of the government on all issues surrounding 'taxing the rich', because this is what America is all about today. As long as the government promises to 'tax the rich' (and the rich are paying more taxes now than they have ever paid in America, regardless of the nominal marginal tax rates [slashdot.org] ) then the government can do whatever it wants.

Re:Cruel and unusual (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141357)

Here's roman_mir again, shoehorning his political agenda into a story not related to taxes at all.

Re:Cruel and unusual (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141377)

The only reason that the US government has treated Manning the way it did was to break him and to try and get him to sign some fake confession that would help them to accuse Wikileaks and Assange in some form or 'espionage' or even 'treason' (which is pure nonsense, can't charge a foreigner with treason).

I agree with the latter part. As for the former, I think a good part of the reason is that they assumed he's guilty and are basically a bunch of shitheads. They don't seem to realise that there is a really good reason for the presumption of innocence: not only do you put an innocent guy in gaol, but you don't catch the bad guy either!

They obviously don't care about the innocent guy, but they really ought to care about getting the bad guy.

the rich are paying more taxes now than they have ever paid in America, regardless of the nominal marginal tax rates

Aaaah and now er have slashdot's favourite capitalista [hutman.net] . If the government taxes the rich so hard then how come Warren Buffet's secretary pays a higher rate of tax than Warren Buffet [go.com] ?

Re:Cruel and unusual (3, Insightful)

Phrogman (80473) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141553)

I think this is more about setting an example to discourage anyone else from airing the US Government's dirty laundry. No way to tell just how much evil being done behind the scenes might get out if another Bradley Manning steps up to the plate. As such, I expect he will get life without parole.

I also expect it will come out in years to come that this verdict was determined before the trial began.

Re:Cruel and unusual (1)

thedonger (1317951) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141563)

Aaaah and now er have slashdot's favourite capitalista [hutman.net]. If the government taxes the rich so hard then how come Warren Buffet's secretary pays a higher rate of tax than Warren Buffet [go.com]?

Are you people still beating that drum? It is probably the difference between tax on ordinary income and tax on capital gains. I am not rich, but I like a low capital gains tax. First, because that money has - depending on the investment vehicle - already been taxed at the ordinary income rate. And, second, because whether I have $100K or $100M in the bank I pay the same 15%.

Re:Cruel and unusual (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141785)

Are you people still beating that drum?

Which people?

First, because that money has - depending on the investment vehicle - already been taxed at the ordinary income rate.

Well, OK, so why isn't normal interest taxable at the capital gains tax rate. And as you point out it depends on the investment vehicle.

And secondly, you seem to be misunderstnding something. If you buy stocks with taxed money, then sell them at the same price, you pay no extra tax.

You only pay tax on the difference. In other words, the money you make is not double taxed, it's merely taxed at a lower rate.

And, second, because whether I have $100K or $100M in the bank I pay the same 15%.

That's always the case: tax is not based on wealth.

Re:Cruel and unusual (1, Informative)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141773)

Let me clarify the record on the liar that is Warren Buffet.

He chooses to pay himself dividends, not a salary. This means that his earnings are taxed on both sides, the corporate side and the individual side. As the major stock holder of BH, Buffet pays 35% as a corporation (lower actually, he is fighting IRS on this, he wants to pay only 30% or so, there is a huge legal battle going on there).

His actual tax (just the federal portion, excluding the State tax), is 35% corporate and 15% dividend, which is about 44% total. Again, that's before State and other taxes. So he is a liar.

Now, he pays himself about 60Million in taxes out of about a billion or so that he earns as a corporation (and corporate earnings are his earnings, it doesn't matter what side they are taxed at, it's the money he can't give himself he has to give to the gov't). He was actually asked in a show about this, his response was: "well, I am giving away 99% of my money, so to me it doesn't matter what I pay as a corporation".

Do you not see a problem with that logic? If he gives 99% of money to charity, the fact that he is actually taxed at 35% or so as a corporation doesn't mean anything to him, he is going to give away all of his corporate earnings anyway, but this goes directly against his message that he is paying only 15% tax (pure nonsense).

Also Buffet likes to say that tax rates have no bearing on people making investment decisions.

I have explained this nonsense position in a comment here [slashdot.org] , the short of it is: if your investments are GUARANTEED to always succeed, that's one thing, but that's not how investments work, so taxes play a huge role in investment decisions, that's by the way why VCs are leaving.

Do you understand the problem with Buffet? AFAIC Buffet is paying back the gov't that bailed him out in 2009 through the AIG bailout [nytimes.com] with this propaganda. He'd be on the streets today if not for the tax payer money bailing out his company through AIG.

Also don't forget that BH (Buffet's company) profits directly from other companies being shut down, going into bankruptcy and such (which higher taxes help to set up) because BH buys companies in distress at a huge discount, restructures and sells them for parts.

Re:Cruel and unusual (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141391)

the second half of your post appears to have no relationship with the first half.

is it just a rant you attach to every post?

minor side note, I don't have data for the last couple of years but:

top 1% 1979, average effective federal tax rate: 35.1%
top 1% 2009, average effective federal tax rate:
28.9%
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456 [taxpolicycenter.org]

Re:Cruel and unusual (1)

aurum42 (712010) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141657)

Income tax rates are mostly irrelevant when it comes to much of the income of the "rich", including the "idle rich" and trust fund babies. The capital gains tax in the 50s was 25%. The estate tax was 77% on estates > $10E6. Both have been gutted today, with little evidence that either "helps the economy". They certainly "help" the deficit. You probably know this, and are just ignoring this in your confirmation-biased little mind.

Bradley Manning (WikiLeaks Source) (0)

Kell Bengal (711123) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141201)

I'm sure glad the editor thought to clarify which Bradley Manning it is we're talking about. I was so confused!

Who cares (1, Troll)

jasper160 (2642717) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141209)

He had a security clearance and knew what would happen if he violated it.

Re:Who cares (0)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141261)

Yeah, were exactly my thoughts, too.

Re:Who cares (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141291)

Yup.

I'm of the opinion that the documents that were released because of his actions are documents that should be in public.

But... He is a member of the US Military, sworn to protect government secrets. If he chooses to release those without authorization, he needs to "harden the fuck up" and face the consequences.

Real patriots take responsibility for their actions, even when it results in dire consequences. (See Rosa Parks, She didn't go "but I just wanted a seat on the bus - please don't jail me - I was roughed up, charges should be dropped!" She accepted that what she was doing was both in the public good, and illegal, and took the punishment.)

Bradley Manning caused this with his actions, knowing full well that his actions could result in HIS DEATH. He now needs to accept responsibility, plead guilty with a statement of "I did this for the public good," and accept a long prison sentence.

If he wasn't willing to accept the possibility of death or long imprisonment, *HE SHOULDN'T HAVE LEAKED THEM*

Nope, he didn't swear to protect secrets. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141361)

He swore to uphold the constitution.

He agreed to keep secrets safe, but stuff that should not be secret are not secrets, merely hidden, and still does not constitute an oath to keep them no matter what.

PS What do you think about Carl Sagan now?

Subject to military conduct rules - toughen up (1)

clay_buster (521703) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141525)

The guy violated the military code of conduct and broke his clearance agreements. He deserves the time he's going to get and should quit whining. He and his supporters know exactly what should happen and so does the the government. If it turns out american soldiers or agents died because of his action then feels like treason and he deserves the appropriate punishment.

Re:Who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141639)

*HE SHOULDN'T HAVE LEAKED THEM*

Translated: He should have helped the cover up.

If he had helped cover up crimes he would be complicit to them, and would risk being imprisoned for that. "Just following orders" is not a valid defense, as the Germans learned when the USA (and others) set up courts after world war 2.

So basically, if you are a US citizen, and you love your country, the only way to show it is to stay away from the military. Because if you join, you may get knowledge of some things that if you tell anyone, you can be imprisoned for doing so, and if you don't, you can be imprisoned for being complicit to those things.

Over here, we have our own such case. One officer who was a complicit in covering up some stuff that happened in Iraq, changed his mind, and has been telling the press about what he saw. Rather than putting him in prison, the politicians suddenly started listening, and there is now a court case against those involved, where he is a witness for the prosecution.

That's how this kind of stuff should be handled.

Re:Who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141327)

A cautiously worded reprimand, a hefty pension plus a "consulting" job?

Re:Who cares (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141599)

Did he know he would be held for two years without trial? Nearly one whole year in solitary? Is this really how you think we should be treating people who are innocent until proven guilty? Or do you want to dispense with that entirely?

People like you are far more dangerous than Manning.

This situation is so utterly exposing of ... (2)

3seas (184403) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141253)

... the psychopathic authoritarians

Uhm.... (-1, Troll)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141255)

So he contemplated committing suicide at one point, then was upset that he was put on suicide watch? Even if those events were separated by a couple years, that isn't a legitimate complaint per se.

Re:Uhm.... (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141477)

Maybe I didn't write enough there. What I'm trying to say is that there was a legitimate requirement for the government to be concerned for his welfare and protect him from himself. Now people reading this might not understand what suicide watch normally is and read the description and think that its a cruel and unusual punishment reserved for Manning, but its not. One should also keep in mind that he's still in the Armed forces. Daily life in the Armed forces isn't a pleasure cruise and soldiers are subjected to things that may kill them on a routine basis. He shouldn't experience any kind of tortue in prison, but we should keep in mind A) military life is different and B) life in prison sucks in the US regardless of who you are. I think this is more a treatise on how bad prisons are and how bad military life is, than any kind of cruel retribution from the government.

Hero (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141263)

I wished more people had the courage and strength that Bradley Manning has showed. A real hero!

Re:Hero (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141601)

Oh really?

He was mad that the military was throwing him out over his sexual orientation. His actions were out of spite, not any kind of honor. And the only reason he went through with it is because he thought he wouldn't get caught. That makes him a coward.

He's a terrorist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141269)

He should be tried as a terrorist and be put to death. It scared the bejeezus out of the military, and anything that makes our military accountable, is succor to terrorists!

Plus he helped make North Africa into democracies and help kick out an Egyptian dictator, which upset out partner Israel. So that makes him, like a Nazi! Yes I went there, Nazi boy should be tried and executed, and found guilty.

I watched the documentary on Fox News and got all I need to know about him! Oh and he started the war on Christmas!

In Before The Bleeding Hearts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141279)

Let's be perfectly clear. There is a big difference between whistle blowing and military personnel disseminating classified information.

Yes, it's good that someone leaked the information. But, Manning was not the person to do it and Manning knew that all too well. He knew what he was doing, what the consequences were and that he was held to a higher standard than John Q. Public. That he was caught and imprisoned should come as no surprise to him or anyone else. That he doesn't like being imprisoned is precisely the point of imprisoning him. Duh!

Manning will get no sympathy form me.

Re:In Before The Bleeding Hearts (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141421)

How does one blow the whistle on the government as john q public when they don't have the access to classified data that deserves to be shown to the the people so that the government/military can be held responsible. Only someone with access can leak it and be a whistle blower.

Re:In Before The Bleeding Hearts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141519)

Oh, so Manning "was not the person to do it", eh? So only "normal" citizens with no access to classified military information are allowed to publish illegal acts hidden behind classified military information? How very reasonable!

Re:In Before The Bleeding Hearts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141655)

So somebody should have leaked the info, just not him? Given that whoever did leak it would be smeared mercilessly you'd claim any whistleblower wasn't the man/woman/other for the job. Do you not see the problem in maintaining that the information should be leaked, but disapproving of any leaker?

All this ignores the fact he may not even be guilty. When did he even actually confess? Even if he did ever confess he was subject to torture at the time so any such confession is highly suspect. But no, you think a man held and tortured without trial for 2 years is guilty without a shadow of a doubt because the government says so and some media hack claims he confessed it to him in an online interview. Surely nobody would ever lie to try and impress another person in an online chat!

Re:In Before The Bleeding Hearts (0)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141667)

Manning wasn't the person to do it, but whoever was that person failed. If Manning did this we should be thankful to him for bringing light to the abuses of military secrets. Very, very little of what Manning allegedly leaked should have been classified in the first place.

BTW, classifying documents without a legitimate reason is a crime in itself. How come you law and order types aren't calling for the prosecution of those who improperly classified documents? Oh, right. Because you're not interested in the law at all, only about punishing those who question authority.

crime and punishment (5, Insightful)

magic maverick (2615475) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141305)

Punishment. In civilized places we don't punish people. We attempt to rehabilitate them, and to prevent them from continuing to commit acts against others. But we don't punish them. The fact that the conditions that Manning has been held in equate to punishment, when he hasn't even had a trial and been convicted, is a disgrace. There should be outrage from the international community (at least those places that claim the labels "liberal" and "democratic").

Personally I'm not even convinced he leaked all that stuff. What did he get out of it? But props to whomever did leak those cables. It was a great service to the world. Highlighting hypocrisy by the US government, and also some of the nastiness done by other nations with the tacit support, and knowledge, of the US government.

Also, the pleas have not "been accepted by the judge" according to the BBC [bbc.co.uk] .

Earlier on Thursday, the case judge accepted the terms under which Pte Manning would plead guilty to eight charges for sending classified documents to Wikileaks.
He could face up to 16 years in prison for those charges.
Col Denise Lind's ruling does not mean the pleas have been formally accepted.

Why would he offer to plead guilty if he, as I suggest, didn't even do the crime? Because the conditions are so awful. It's long been the case that innocents have been tortured and then confessed. (I've been reading the Arabian Nights, and someone confessed to thieving because they were being beaten so much, and then they had their hand cut off. But they didn't actually do the crime.) Manning is being tortured.

Even just preventing him from seeing properly (taking his glasses away) is mistreatment.

Re:crime and punishment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141499)

"In civilized places we don't punish people"
I guess you would say that 'forced rehabilitation in a secure facility' is not punishment. I (and many others) think that prison is punishment, because it takes away many of your rights. Would you call it uncivilized to imprison a criminal? Your ideas about punishment and civilization are alien to me. It seems like you won't distinguish between punishment and torture?

Some people will take all the advantages that they can get, legal or not. Even in a 'civilized society' those criminals deserve to be ostracized for their antisocial and harmful behavior. That isolation (prison) is punishment, and it is civilized.

It is a different argument entirely, if you want to talk about a corrupt prison system, or "cruel or unusual" punishments which are obviously bad things.

Re:crime and punishment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141749)

Rehabilitation can be a punishment, but a punishment is not necessarily rehabilitation. If you just go for punishments, you might and most likely will cause more harm than good. Punishment-centered justice like in the USA does not seem to work.

Re:crime and punishment (2)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141735)

Why would he offer to plead guilty if he, as I suggest, didn't even do the crime?

Several other reasons I can think of:
1. His attorneys advised him that even if he hadn't done the crime, there was enough evidence (and possibly prejudice among the military jury who would hear his case) that he would be likely convicted. So a plea bargain might be the best he could do.
2. He knows who actually did it, but has chosen to plead guilty to protect someone else.
3. He doesn't know who did it, but has chosen to plead guilty because he believes that it was the right action and doesn't want someone else to suffer as he did.

You're right, it's also possible that it was tortured out of him.

2 years in jail without a hearing??? (5, Insightful)

Fool106 (977984) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141311)

USA! USA! USA! USA! /trolling

guanton-oh-no (1)

Korruptionen (2647747) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141447)

I believe they wanted to make it clear that if you operate against the industrial war machine, this could happen to you. It's not like we have a special place that we put people without a trial or anything..... oh...

As long as things like these exist, the USA is (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141453)

not a country, but an enemy of the world, just like Iran, North Korea or Nazi Germany. What I say now counts for all such countries and groups:

I will not consider Americans humans or individuals until they act like such, end the madness, and undo what they have done.
I will not do any kind of deals with Americans and America supporters. Total and complete embargo.
If an American grandma falls in the street, I will not help her up, or even offer her a seat.

You brought this on yourselves. And because of your rampaging ignorance of that fact, it will never ever change.

So have fun being the world's wasteland.

Not a whistle blower (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141463)

Manning is a criminal and a traitor. Not a whistle blower. He indiscriminately and recklessly released classified information without any thought as to what the repercussions would be and without any knowledge as to whether or not the information detailed criminal acts or behavior.

That being said, his treatment by the military and the government is deplorable and should be treated as a criminal act as well. It won't be though, which is shameful.

Ummmm...what's the problem exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141475)

You do not have the same rights as a civilian under the US Military's UCMJ. The military is also not a democracy. You sign a shiat-ton of paperwork acknowledging that when you enlist. You also sign even a greater shiat-ton of paperwork regarding the rules and laws around classified materials handling. You also get "read-in" and sworn in for such handling. He has zero excuse. Tough shiat.

Save the taxpayers money... (0)

whizbang77045 (1342005) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141503)

Just take the traitor out and shoot him, blindfold optional. He admits his crime. The amount of damage he did is significant.

Re:Save the taxpayers money... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141691)

And yet they refuse to prosecute Holder for ignoring suponeia involving massive gun running and even found him in Contempt of Congress.

Its odd that Manning, who released information illegally to the public is being prosecuted, while Holder who refued to release information to the public via a Congressional suponeia is free and not charged. "Most transparent administration ever?" I don't think that means what you think that means. They are the most tranparent in their blatent attempts to scam the US public at every opportunity.

Re:Save the taxpayers money... (-1, Troll)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141711)

Being a traitor to a criminal organization, and that's what the US government is, is something to be proud of. Every freedom loving individual should support anything that brings the crimes of the military to light.

Re:Save the taxpayers money... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141717)

lol ok kid

Hero (1)

wirehead_rick (308391) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141517)

That is all . . .

What a submission (1)

onyxruby (118189) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141631)

I think if you tried really, really, really hard you could make a more biased story submission. Can the crowd here come up with something even more biased (on either side) than this?

Too many missing the point (4, Insightful)

kcurtis (311610) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141647)

He is not a civilian. He is a sworn member of the military. Civilian laws only apply under very limited situations. He violated his oath. He committed espionage while on active duty. And while I agree that there has been a slow, dangerous process of reducing our civil liberties, this has nothing to do with the Manning case. It is a red herring that ignores the fact that Manning is a traitor who performed his crimes while a sworn, active member of the military. He is lucky that the military no longer pushes for capital punishment for these cases.

Blame it on Windows Operating System (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42141699)

Why do you blame a low ranking G.I. that doen't even really understand Technology? Viruses/Trojans reeks havoc on Windows Computers.
Do you think G.I.s could really get access of TOP SECRET files?
If Manny was working at a location that only runs Linux then Manny would of never received any files for wikileaks.

usa has issues in this case (1)

anonieuweling (536832) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141771)

will the lax security situation w.r.t. the information involved be taken seriously?
too many people have too much access so the info is not a secret any more.
also Bradley was not in a condition to be granted such access. big oversight/misjudgement by the superiors.
finally the 'national security' horn is touted wayyy too often in the former USA (now UPSA or USSA) so that has no value.
Bradley has to be treated like whistle blower exposing evil governments.

He is a hero.. (5, Interesting)

snowball21 (2186378) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141801)

..who has done more to change the face of the world, for the better, with one selfless action than decades of military action and varying degrees of sanctions,

I guess that's the question; was he a spy? (2)

BlueCoder (223005) | about a year and a half ago | (#42141815)

My personal opinion of the person is that is he cracked in the head; homosexual or not. And while I do feel that he failed in his duty and honor I don't think he was in a fit state of mind. Those that put such a nut in such a position of responsibility should be held accountable for dereliction of duty. When I first herd his story I felt he was a dishonorable solider but a contentious american but now I realize believe he was a cracked nut to begin with and the military just added heat and made pop-corn.

But lets just assume he qualifies as being criminally rational at the time he did the things he did. When I think of spying or being a traitor I think of it being for the purpose of specifically benefiting another group or groups. One such group could of course be himself if he could expect some significant benefit such as money. But I don't see any of that here. He didn't pass along information in private that could benefit a foreign power. Some may even say that what he made public helped Islamist's in the middle east in their revolutions; those most opposed to his own political leanings.

I think some distinction much be made between a cracked contentious whistle blower that tarnishes his honor by not keeping his mouth shut and a true traitor that in his position could have done far more damage.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...