Army general officially orders court-martial on Bradley Manning

Story.

Military District of Washington commander Maj. Gen. Michael Linnington referred all charges against Pfc. Bradley Manning to a general court-martial, the Army said in a statement.

The referral means Manning will stand trial for allegedly giving more than 700,000 secret U.S. documents and cIassified combat video to the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks for publication.AP

He's facing life if he's convicted of all charges. His defense is blaming the Army saying they should have known better than to trust him in the first place. They are also saying that him being a homosexual had a big part in him revealing what he did.

Manning's supporters are accusing the government of retaliation against him and are saying that he shouldn't be on trial in the first place.

- This isn't a surprise.

- He's a goddamned idiot if that's his defense. Or his lawyer is. Ether way one is an idiot for dreaming up that defense and the other is a moron for going along with it.

- Yeah, he should be on trial.

I thought treason was punishable by death? I don\'t care if what he was was right or not, it is against the law and he was acting against his country.SF_KiLLaMaN

It is, but since death is not listed as an option then they're obviously not persuing treason charges.

I'd run to Mexico or Canada.Fightingfan

Pretty sure he's not in a positition to run, what with being in custody and all.

- This isn't a surprise.

- He's a goddamned idiot if that's his defense. Or his lawyer is. Ether way one is an idiot for dreaming up that defense and the other is a moron for going along with it.

- Yeah, he should be on trial.

worlock77

Who is this guy and did he do anything worthwhile or good?

Regardless of what he did, his defense is fuking retarded. So retarded it might work.

Ilovegames1992

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

- This isn't a surprise.

- He's a goddamned idiot if that's his defense. Or his lawyer is. Ether way one is an idiot for dreaming up that defense and the other is a moron for going along with it.

- Yeah, he should be on trial.

Fightingfan

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

Who is this guy and did he do anything worthwhile or good?

Regardless of what he did, his defense is fuking retarded. So retarded it might work.

SF_KiLLaMaN

Ohhhh that guy.

I thought everyone loved Wikileaks.... hmmmm.... :roll:

His defense is blaming the Army saying they should have known better than to trust him in the first place. They are also saying that him being a homosexual had a big part in him revealing what he did.

Manning's supporters are accusing the government of retaliation against him and are saying that he shouldn't be on trial in the first place.

ad1x2

[QUOTE="ad1x2"] His defense is blaming the Army saying they should have known better than to trust him in the first place. They are also saying that him being a homosexual had a big part in him revealing what he did.

Manning's supporters are accusing the government of retaliation against him and are saying that he shouldn't be on trial in the first place.

BranKetra

AIDS...

geddit?

We have the "Twinkie defense", the "black rage defense", the gay panic defence", etc. So will we now have the "cockhound defense"?

Shoot the bastard.

We have the "Twinkie defense", the "black rage defense", the gay panic defence", etc. So will we now have the "cockhound defense"?

worlock77

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

[QUOTE="ad1x2"] His defense is blaming the Army saying they should have known better than to trust him in the first place. They are also saying that him being a homosexual had a big part in him revealing what he did.

Manning's supporters are accusing the government of retaliation against him and are saying that he shouldn't be on trial in the first place.

Ilovegames1992

AIDS...

geddit?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

We have the "Twinkie defense", the "black rage defense", the gay panic defence", etc. So will we now have the "cockhound defense"?

Fightingfan

There was this case in the mid 90s where this dude (name escapes me now) shot up a NYC commuter train station then this "black rage" (basically saying he's not guilty because white racism drove him to do it) defense was proposed by his lawyer.

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

We have the "Twinkie defense", the "black rage defense", the gay panic defence", etc. So will we now have the "cockhound defense"?

worlock77

There was this case in the mid 90s where this dude (name escapes me now) shot up a NYC commuter train station then this "black rage" (basically saying he's not guilty because white racism drove him to do it) defense was proposed by his lawyer.

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

We have the "Twinkie defense", the "black rage defense", the gay panic defence", etc. So will we now have the "cockhound defense"?

worlock77

There was this case in the mid 90s where this dude (name escapes me now) shot up a NYC commuter train station then this "black rage" (basically saying he's not guilty because white racism drove him to do it) defense was proposed by his lawyer.

...wait, wrong guy... sorry. :(

Manning has not actually commited treason.

Manning has not actually commited treason.

worlock77

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Manning has not actually commited treason.

SF_KiLLaMaN

The crime of treason is specifically defined in the U.S. Constitution, and Manning's crime does not fit the criteria. If it did don't you think they'd be persuing such a charge?

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Manning has not actually commited treason.

worlock77

The crime of treason is specifically defined in the U.S. Constitution, and Manning's crime does not fit the criteria. If it did don't you think they'd be persuing such a charge?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"] How so? I though betraying your country was considered treason? SF_KiLLaMaN

The crime of treason is specifically defined in the U.S. Constitution, and Manning's crime does not fit the criteria. If it did don't you think they'd be persuing such a charge?

Well for thing he wasn't actively giving aid to any enemy of ours.

I thought treason was punishable by death? I don\'t care if what he was was right or not, it is against the law and he was acting against his country.SF_KiLLaMaN

What the government was doing in the first place wasn't right. If exposing the truth is punishable by death simply because of appeal to law then this really is a sad day for justice.

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"]I thought treason was punishable by death? I don\'t care if what he was was right or not, it is against the law and he was acting against his country.theone86

What the government was doing in the first place wasn't right. If exposing the truth is punishable by death simply because of appeal to law then this really is a sad day for justice.

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"]I thought treason was punishable by death? I don\'t care if what he was was right or not, it is against the law and he was acting against his country.theone86

What the government was doing in the first place wasn't right. If exposing the truth is punishable by death simply because of appeal to law then this really is a sad day for justice.

Just or not a person willing to violate his oaths or orders, or violates the law for some cause should be willing to face whatever the consequence should be. That said Manning didn't actually commit treason. And treason's a serious charge, and one that isn't used lightly. In fact I think there's been around 40 people actually charged with treason in the United States since our country was founded, and of those only a couple of dozen actual convictions.

(Note: for what it's worth I really have no opinion one way or the other on the issue of the leaks themselves. I am neither bothered by them, nor am I pleased about them.)

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"]I thought treason was punishable by death? I don\'t care if what he was was right or not, it is against the law and he was acting against his country.SF_KiLLaMaN

What the government was doing in the first place wasn't right. If exposing the truth is punishable by death simply because of appeal to law then this really is a sad day for justice.

This is a ridiculous attitude, when law becomes more important than justice and truth then despotism follows. If the U.S. government were conducting killings behind everyone's back and someone came forward with the evidence would that be considered treason? What if they were commiting genocide? Where do you draw the line. When you side with the rule of law over the exposition of truth then you are fragging accountability. Governments are supposed to be held accountable to their people, governments exist through the will of the people. When governments are doing things behind the backs of their people then it is the responsibility of every citizen, from students to soldiers, to do their duty to their highest authority, the people, and expose the truth. Bradley Manning is a hero, if anyone should be on trial it's the people behind the things he exposed and the people who are putting him on trial.

Were those men in the 'Collateral Murder' video ever charged with anything?

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"]I thought treason was punishable by death? I don\'t care if what he was was right or not, it is against the law and he was acting against his country.worlock77

What the government was doing in the first place wasn't right. If exposing the truth is punishable by death simply because of appeal to law then this really is a sad day for justice.

Just or not a person willing to violate his oaths or orders, or violates the law for some cause should be willing to face whatever the consequence should be. That said Manning didn't actually commit treason. And treason's a serious charge, and one that isn't used lightly. In fact I think there's been around 40 people actually charged with treason in the United States since our country was founded, and of those only a couple of dozen actual convictions.

(Note: for what it's worth I really have no opinion one way or the other on the issue of the leaks themselves. I am neither bothered by them, nor am I pleased about them.)

His oath to the Constitution. The government outlined in that Constitution was never supposed to be keeping secrets from its people. He never broke his oath, his commanders did, and he's being put on trial for it.

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

What the government was doing in the first place wasn't right. If exposing the truth is punishable by death simply because of appeal to law then this really is a sad day for justice.

theone86

This is a ridiculous attitude, when law becomes more important than justice and truth then despotism follows. If the U.S. government were conducting killings behind everyone's back and someone came forward with the evidence would that be considered treason? What if they were commiting genocide? Where do you draw the line. When you side with the rule of law over the exposition of truth then you are fragging accountability. Governments are supposed to be held accountable to their people, governments exist through the will of the people. When governments are doing things behind the backs of their people then it is the responsibility of every citizen, from students to soldiers, to do their duty to their highest authority, the people, and expose the truth. Bradley Manning is a hero, if anyone should be on trial it's the people behind the things he exposed and the people who are putting him on trial.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

What the government was doing in the first place wasn't right. If exposing the truth is punishable by death simply because of appeal to law then this really is a sad day for justice.

theone86

Just or not a person willing to violate his oaths or orders, or violates the law for some cause should be willing to face whatever the consequence should be. That said Manning didn't actually commit treason. And treason's a serious charge, and one that isn't used lightly. In fact I think there's been around 40 people actually charged with treason in the United States since our country was founded, and of those only a couple of dozen actual convictions.

(Note: for what it's worth I really have no opinion one way or the other on the issue of the leaks themselves. I am neither bothered by them, nor am I pleased about them.)

His oath to the Constitution. The government outlined in that Constitution was never supposed to be keeping secrets from its people. He never broke his oath, his commanders did, and he's being put on trial for it.

The fact is he leaked military and governmental secrets. He violated the bonds he agreed to. And again, a person with a cause should be willing to face whatever consequences of that cause. The founders of this nation certainly were.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"] He broke an oath and betrayed his country. Whether what he did was right or not is a completely separate issue. However, I will say this. It is good that the government doesn't announce everything bad that happens in war, the public can't handle it. War really is hell, and not everyone can be expected to keep cool when they see their friend's lower body blown off by an IED. There are some things better left private. I do think the military should still punish soldiers for their war crimes or give them some help from psychologists, but making the crimes public isn't the best idea.

SF_KiLLaMaN

This is a ridiculous attitude, when law becomes more important than justice and truth then despotism follows. If the U.S. government were conducting killings behind everyone's back and someone came forward with the evidence would that be considered treason? What if they were commiting genocide? Where do you draw the line. When you side with the rule of law over the exposition of truth then you are fragging accountability. Governments are supposed to be held accountable to their people, governments exist through the will of the people. When governments are doing things behind the backs of their people then it is the responsibility of every citizen, from students to soldiers, to do their duty to their highest authority, the people, and expose the truth. Bradley Manning is a hero, if anyone should be on trial it's the people behind the things he exposed and the people who are putting him on trial.

And what about commanders covering up for that soldier, keeping him on the field, or even encouraging that kind of attitude? Where do you draw the line? Fifty people or fifty million, the killings are still unjustified and the people who this army is SUPPOSED to answer to have a right to know about it. Are we going to start letting first time murderers off the hook? Only serial killers get punished? What number are we going to set this at for soldiers, kill fifty you're OK but kill 100 and it's not? What about the commanders who don't take the proper precautions? How many civilians have to die under their watch before they're held accountable for it? It makes perfect sense to revert to extremes because you haven't quantified what is acceptable, which makes sense because I don't think your argument has anything to do with what is acceptable anyways, it's just an appeal to authority. That's dangerous, when you appeal to authority simply because it is authority then you set a dangerous precedent. Governments have covered up genocides, by the way.

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

This is a ridiculous attitude, when law becomes more important than justice and truth then despotism follows. If the U.S. government were conducting killings behind everyone's back and someone came forward with the evidence would that be considered treason? What if they were commiting genocide? Where do you draw the line. When you side with the rule of law over the exposition of truth then you are fragging accountability. Governments are supposed to be held accountable to their people, governments exist through the will of the people. When governments are doing things behind the backs of their people then it is the responsibility of every citizen, from students to soldiers, to do their duty to their highest authority, the people, and expose the truth. Bradley Manning is a hero, if anyone should be on trial it's the people behind the things he exposed and the people who are putting him on trial.

theone86

And what about commanders covering up for that soldier, keeping him on the field, or even encouraging that kind of attitude? Where do you draw the line? Fifty people or fifty million, the killings are still unjustified and the people who this army is SUPPOSED to answer to have a right to know about it. Are we going to start letting first time murderers off the hook? Only serial killers get punished? What number are we going to set this at for soldiers, kill fifty you're OK but kill 100 and it's not? What about the commanders who don't take the proper precautions? How many civilians have to die under their watch before they're held accountable for it? It makes perfect sense to revert to extremes because you haven't quantified what is acceptable, which makes sense because I don't think your argument has anything to do with what is acceptable anyways, it's just an appeal to authority. That's dangerous, when you appeal to authority simply because it is authority then you set a dangerous precedent. Governments have covered up genocides, by the way.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Just or not a person willing to violate his oaths or orders, or violates the law for some cause should be willing to face whatever the consequence should be. That said Manning didn't actually commit treason. And treason's a serious charge, and one that isn't used lightly. In fact I think there's been around 40 people actually charged with treason in the United States since our country was founded, and of those only a couple of dozen actual convictions.

(Note: for what it's worth I really have no opinion one way or the other on the issue of the leaks themselves. I am neither bothered by them, nor am I pleased about them.)

worlock77

His oath to the Constitution. The government outlined in that Constitution was never supposed to be keeping secrets from its people. He never broke his oath, his commanders did, and he's being put on trial for it.

The fact is he leaked military and governmental secrets. He violated the bonds he agreed to. And again, a person with a cause should be willing to face whatever consequences of that cause. The founders of this nation certainly were.

And the government violated the bonds it agreed to. The actions of military personnel led to unnecessary deaths and military personnel decided to cover it up. They lied to the people they were sworn to serve, and when Bradley Manning exposed the truth they came down on him. Those in authority don't get held responsible, those who care about truth and justice do. Appeal to authority is no appeal at all, authority has to be accountable to those it governs and right now it is not.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"] You seemed to have missed the point of my post. Genocide and mass killings is obviously not the same as a soldier shooting civilians because he is so **** up from seeing real war. Genocide isn't the same as shooting civilians because the enemy looks exactly like all the civilians. No way in hell can the government cover up genocide anyways. That's a stupid point to make. No sense in reverting to extremes to try to prove your point, it's not what we're talking about.

SF_KiLLaMaN

And what about commanders covering up for that soldier, keeping him on the field, or even encouraging that kind of attitude? Where do you draw the line? Fifty people or fifty million, the killings are still unjustified and the people who this army is SUPPOSED to answer to have a right to know about it. Are we going to start letting first time murderers off the hook? Only serial killers get punished? What number are we going to set this at for soldiers, kill fifty you're OK but kill 100 and it's not? What about the commanders who don't take the proper precautions? How many civilians have to die under their watch before they're held accountable for it? It makes perfect sense to revert to extremes because you haven't quantified what is acceptable, which makes sense because I don't think your argument has anything to do with what is acceptable anyways, it's just an appeal to authority. That's dangerous, when you appeal to authority simply because it is authority then you set a dangerous precedent. Governments have covered up genocides, by the way.

And how do you know the soldiers are getting help if you keep it from the public? You don't, it's at the discretion of the military. In fact, that's part of what Bradley Manning leaked, that not only did military commanders know that some of their soldiers were exhibiting dangerous behavior and did nothing about it, but that they were encouraging that behavior. Covering these things up is not a solution. Military answers to the citizens of this country, its actions need to be known to the citizens of this country. There is no good reason to cover this up.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

His oath to the Constitution. The government outlined in that Constitution was never supposed to be keeping secrets from its people. He never broke his oath, his commanders did, and he's being put on trial for it.

theone86

The fact is he leaked military and governmental secrets. He violated the bonds he agreed to. And again, a person with a cause should be willing to face whatever consequences of that cause. The founders of this nation certainly were.

And the government violated the bonds it agreed to. The actions of military personnel led to unnecessary deaths and military personnel decided to cover it up. They lied to the people they were sworn to serve, and when Bradley Manning exposed the truth they came down on him. Those in authority don't get held responsible, those who care about truth and justice do. Appeal to authority is no appeal at all, authority has to be accountable to those it governs and right now it is not.

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"][QUOTE="theone86"]

And what about commanders covering up for that soldier, keeping him on the field, or even encouraging that kind of attitude? Where do you draw the line? Fifty people or fifty million, the killings are still unjustified and the people who this army is SUPPOSED to answer to have a right to know about it. Are we going to start letting first time murderers off the hook? Only serial killers get punished? What number are we going to set this at for soldiers, kill fifty you're OK but kill 100 and it's not? What about the commanders who don't take the proper precautions? How many civilians have to die under their watch before they're held accountable for it? It makes perfect sense to revert to extremes because you haven't quantified what is acceptable, which makes sense because I don't think your argument has anything to do with what is acceptable anyways, it's just an appeal to authority. That's dangerous, when you appeal to authority simply because it is authority then you set a dangerous precedent. Governments have covered up genocides, by the way.

theone86

And how do you know the soldiers are getting help if you keep it from the public? You don't, it's at the discretion of the military. In fact, that's part of what Bradley Manning leaked, that not only did military commanders know that some of their soldiers were exhibiting dangerous behavior and did nothing about it, but that they were encouraging that behavior. Covering these things up is not a solution. Military answers to the citizens of this country, its actions need to be known to the citizens of this country. There is no good reason to cover this up.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

The fact is he leaked military and governmental secrets. He violated the bonds he agreed to. And again, a person with a cause should be willing to face whatever consequences of that cause. The founders of this nation certainly were.

LJS9502_basic

And the government violated the bonds it agreed to. The actions of military personnel led to unnecessary deaths and military personnel decided to cover it up. They lied to the people they were sworn to serve, and when Bradley Manning exposed the truth they came down on him. Those in authority don't get held responsible, those who care about truth and justice do. Appeal to authority is no appeal at all, authority has to be accountable to those it governs and right now it is not.

The truth is justification enough. People who care about accountability care about the truth, people who care about democracy care about accountability, people who care about democracy care about the truth. The people prosecuting Bradley Manning do not care about the truth, the people prosecuting Bradley Manning do not care about democracy.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="theone86"]

And the government violated the bonds it agreed to. The actions of military personnel led to unnecessary deaths and military personnel decided to cover it up. They lied to the people they were sworn to serve, and when Bradley Manning exposed the truth they came down on him. Those in authority don't get held responsible, those who care about truth and justice do. Appeal to authority is no appeal at all, authority has to be accountable to those it governs and right now it is not.

theone86

The truth is justification enough. People who care about accountability care about the truth, people who care about democracy care about accountability, people who care about democracy care about the truth. The people prosecuting Bradley Manning do not care about the truth, the people prosecuting Bradley Manning do not care about democracy.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="theone86"]

And the government violated the bonds it agreed to. The actions of military personnel led to unnecessary deaths and military personnel decided to cover it up. They lied to the people they were sworn to serve, and when Bradley Manning exposed the truth they came down on him. Those in authority don't get held responsible, those who care about truth and justice do. Appeal to authority is no appeal at all, authority has to be accountable to those it governs and right now it is not.

theone86

The truth is justification enough. People who care about accountability care about the truth, people who care about democracy care about accountability, people who care about democracy care about the truth. The people prosecuting Bradley Manning do not care about the truth, the people prosecuting Bradley Manning do not care about democracy.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

His oath to the Constitution. The government outlined in that Constitution was never supposed to be keeping secrets from its people. He never broke his oath, his commanders did, and he's being put on trial for it.

theone86

The fact is he leaked military and governmental secrets. He violated the bonds he agreed to. And again, a person with a cause should be willing to face whatever consequences of that cause. The founders of this nation certainly were.

And the government violated the bonds it agreed to. The actions of military personnel led to unnecessary deaths and military personnel decided to cover it up. They lied to the people they were sworn to serve, and when Bradley Manning exposed the truth they came down on him. Those in authority don't get held responsible, those who care about truth and justice do. Appeal to authority is no appeal at all, authority has to be accountable to those it governs and right now it is not.

I'm not appealing to authority. Nor am I suggesting that Manning's liabilty for his crimes absolves others of their crimes. Don't let your righteous indignation cloud your rationality.