I'm going to add my "Amen" to what Rob wrote. Or, in referring to the pastor's actions, as REAL, ethical liberals USED to say, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it" This is what people that call themselves "liberals" do - they insist that they know what other people are thinking, then condemn the thinking. These people call themselves liberals, but they are not - they are anarchists. They don't give a damn about the law, they only want their way. Take Private Manning. He broke the law, clearly committed a crime, betrayed those who trusted him, ignored valid actions open to him, and violated his oath. But the "liberals" here want to ignore those laws. They want to PRETEND that the law doesn't apply where they don't want it to apply. These aren't liberals, they are anarchists. They have a hallucination that the military is bad and therefore ANYTHING that hurts the military is good, end of story. they feel hate and they need to direct that hate at others, no matter how misguided.
Lost in the incarceration is whether any further actions will be taken against the combatants in the disclosed tape or simply allowing the incident and civilian casualties to remain unresolved.
@robjones & Corwin - you are both saying that Manning broke the law. I'm sorry but that statement is yet to be proved. It is statements like that that IMHO says you're not being impartial here. You have him tried, judged and convicted already, based on what, a chat log? If I was in here saying that then it would be said in public. That's not to say the CIA hasn't hacked my password and is typing for me. The 'evidence' presented is a supposed chat log, said in private. Lamo, who has previously been convicted of hacking, presented this chat log as evidence. How do you know it wasn't Lamo, or a close friend, who hacked the military and then concocted a log of his conversation with Manning?
Bushranger: Manning's admission to publishing the classified video for the purpose to expose a military cover-up is his defense. The intelligence analyst knew the on-line chat would be discovered with or without the informant. The case rests on whether exposing criminal activity warrants the release of classified information. However the extent of the material released will have a detrimental affect against the original purpose. Under normal circumstances the excessive charges are used as leverage for an agreement - The Defense has yet to make its case for the determination of the trial. ............ The pastor seems to have pushed his luck a little to far.
Finally! Wonderful news! Maybe now we can round up all those gay protesters in their colorful outfits and arrest them as well! All we need are members of the very large anti-gay community(including Muslims) to threaten violence at their protests and make it a "safety" issue. In other news, apparently the judge in Michigan didn't bother to read the recent 8-1 court ruling by the SCOTUS regarding this very issue. What a moron. Again, what specific criminal activity did anything Manning released expose? I mean, he released hundreds of thousands of documents, so you'd figure some where in that mountain of espionage would be the exculpatory evidence you are describing..... right? Of course even if such a thing existed, which it doesn't, he would still have to explain why he released the other 99,999 documents which had absolutely nothing incriminating on it. In other words, your boy is gonna fry, and most Americans are gonna bring popcorn to watch.
thats a stupid act and it tells how weak are these people who has no logic to go ahead, burning the Quran is not a solution to anything but its a problem that spreads hate and indecent attitude. Quran is the most read book in the world, Its the perfect book that teaches mankind the path of sucess in this world and hereafter.
The initial video where combatants use deadly force against civilians - the claim the military attempted to classify the information to cover-up the event. The defense will have to explain what rational there was for the release of the other extensive information. Not impossible but not helpful to the original video. as stated already, the defense has yet to issue its case..... ............ Well, spreading fire on the Koran may not be so different than screaming fire in the Theature, another by SCOTUS.
Breeze is still under the false impression one can get off these charges if they provide a really really good "rationale". The only available defense would be to prove he didn't do it. Last month as a result of a 7 month investigation there were an additional 22 charges added to the original charge sheet... Including "aiding the enemy"... Which can end in a life sentence or death penalty. The prosecutor has indicated they plan to seek the life sentence, but the judge can still over rule and go with the death penalty. There's an upcoming article 32 hearing (similar to a grand jury hearing in a civilian court) to decide whether there is enough evidence for this to go to trial. Based on the added charges it seems they're sure they can prove more than they originally had evidence of. Breeze keeps talking as if manning has weathered the worst and some uprising of popular opinion is going to make the military magically ignore the law and release him. That has never happened in any previous military trials, so I have no idea where breeze confident pronouncements come from (unless he's been smoking the garden). That video he keeps referencing is but one of hundreds of thousands of pieces manning released, is not on trial. Manning is. See http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mili...bradley-manning-suspected/t/story?id=13041445.
Indeed, Manning is in a lot of trouble. In response to protesters, Obama said, "We're a nation of laws. We don't let individuals make their own decisions about how the laws operate. He broke the law." Video of Obama talking to protesters: [video]http://youtu.be/IfmtUpd4id0[/video]
You are obsessed with responding as though you can speak for someone else - to bad you are just yourself, I guess not to your liking. I have stated already as my understanding is that Manning's motivation is to expose the militarys role in the unwarranted deaths of civilians caused by armed combatants. The tape in question was classified and was obstructing justice. The intelligence analysts discussions during on-line chat reflects his openness to the subject. The additional charges will have no bearing on the case if the military is proven to have obstructed Justice in the first instance. When you paraphrase, an honest person does so without deceit - obviously not your calling.
That'd be a better argument if he was in jail cause he informed his superiors he conscientiously objected to something. Hes there cause he stole a boatload of classified data and transferred it to a foreign national. Check the applicable part of the UCMJ. He isn't going to get off on some defense about having a really neat motive for that. Sorry kid, you're obviously outta your depth.
The issue is his superiors were not receptive to the civilian casualties and he pursued his objection. He may very well be prepared to receive a stiff sentence and accept his fate. As the tapes prove his point the sentence will be unjustified and politically motivated. There really is nothing more to be said till Manning's defense formerly presents its case.
The issue is he stole classified docs and gave them to a foreign national. That's what he's on trial for. His excuse for doing it doesn't mean jack. As for the sentence being "Politically motivated"... It'd be the same type sentence they give anyone that steals classified docs and transfers them to a foreign national. The sentencing parameters are set forth in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. They didn't invent the code just for this one little PFC. It's a military thing... There are military laws, there are penalties for breaking them. I assure you he didn't get into the job he was in without many many lectures explaining the penalty for the actions he did.
The purpose of the download was to make it public.....Wikileaks or a few other sites are meant for that purpose. The analyst received no compensations for making public the classified document - the classification by the military was to prevent public acknowledgment of civilian casualties, likewise a political decision. ........ Manning may agree with your argument himself on face value for classified documents but not in regards to dismissing the civilian casualties caused by the armed combatants - he may very well be willing to face the stiff punishment irregardless the evidence provided by the tape of wrongful deaths as he is following his conscious / God rather than the military code.
Great fodder for a heartfelt blog, but doesn't make a hill of beans difference in the trial. You do read English, right? Once more. His motive does not matter. He could have an authentic signed and dated letter from God telling him to do it and he'd still be convicted and imprisoned if he transferred classified documents to a foreign national. The ONLY question before the court is "Did he do it". Motive isn't a factor. His *actions* are on trial, not his *motives*. ........
Oh, you mean the video which edited out the guys carrying assault rifles and an RPG when Assange published it? That video? Perhaps nobody told you Breeze, but that video had already been investigated, like all incidents of friendly fire. The video was not classified to cover up anything. The video, like all videos coming out of a US military aircraft in a combat zone, was classified the moment it was shot. Still haven't provided us with the earth shattering revelations brought to us by Manning's treason(you know, something like the "kill team", or Abu Ghraib). Manning building a defense based on the need to show the world friendly fire incidents happens in a war zone is a bit like trying to build a defense based on showing the world the government spends money inefficiently. Nobody is happy about it, but it isn't criminal. Certainly no more impossible than flapping your arms and flying like a bird, considering the release of the original video didn't even merit a new investigation into the incident. I can picture the defense making its case. "We will prove to you that the defendant had no choice but to release hundreds of thousands of classified documents because the first classified document he released made him really upset". He'd have better luck going with the Chewbacca defense: Or protesting the funeral of a fallen soldier because he was gay? Those protesters enrage a good 90% of the US population. I guess if just a small percentage of that 90% start setting fire to Christian churches because the protesters claim to be Christians, perhaps the Supreme Court will overturn its 8-1 decision which clearly stated the protesters are exercising their rights of free speech. What a wonderful precedence that would set. All we need is some group of people to threaten violence whenever someone says something that we disagree with and we can take away their rights of free speech with the "Fire in a movie theatre" argument.
The simple issue is Manning followed his conscious and is willing to accept the consequences. Something the civilian casualties would appreciate if no one else. . I support Manning's courage and believe his the appropriate course in light of those who invaded a defenseless nation under false pretense and who now shelter combatants that without provocation attacked civilians. ........... The above is protest....and am in full agreement with the decision. "Quran burnt in Florida Church" - burning the Quran in their own church is not the same as city to city pyrotechnics. When threat of violence is implicit with any exercise the courts have issued cognizant opinions - - O, burning a cross in your neighbors yard and hanging a noose from their tree is no longer one of your protected rights, sorry.
Major Nadal Hassan followed his conscience as well. Not sure what you were getting at there. English please. I cant urinate on my neighbors lawn either. What does that have to do with anything? Breeze, put down the spliff and focus.