Originally posted by SiddhartaThis exactly would be the same, if he was a member of the Hell's Angels.
No, as far as I am aware the Hell's Angels has no Hells Angels Code of Hells Angels Justice through which one can appeal to the Supreme Court for
redress after due process. I bet they'd just kill him for telling their secrets...your analogy is...a poor one.
Originally posted by SiddhartaFrom my point of view, he did not betray your country. He gave you the possibility to know, what is going
on behind the scenes with your government. He also gave you the possibility to see, what is going on in these wars so that you people can rethink, if
this is really what you want.
Your point of view is irrelevant as you are not: one, a party to the grievance, two, an entity with jurisdiction over the case. The parties are the
US Government, DOD and the US Army and PFC Manning. Jurisdiction is the US Army and the UCMJ and finally on appeal the Supreme Court.
Originally posted by SiddhartaOf course, I demand it from my government. That's why I approve any information of that kind.
While I do not know which country you call home I can assure you that if a Private in the Military or its equivalent there to have divulged state
secrets to a third party who posted them on the internet he would face similar or worse treatment and penalties.
Finally when one reads the Manual For Courts Martial one will find that:
Pretrial confinement in the military is similar to the civilian system in some respects and different in others. In the civilian community, police
arrest serious offenders and take them to jail. In military cases, servicemembers who are "apprehended" ("arrest" has a different technical meaning in
the military) are typically turned over to a member of command authority.
The command then decides whether to confine the member in a military jail (called "brig" or "stockade" or "confinement").
Throughout the confinement review process, a servicemember is provided a military lawyer, at no expense, to assist him or her. The "commander review"
must confirm, in writing:
1. that there is probable cause to believe that the servicemember committed an offense triable by courts-martial; 2. there is probable cause to
believe that confinement is necessary to prevent the servicemember from fleeing or engaging in serious criminal misconduct;
3.and there is probable cause to believe that lesser forms of restraint would be inadequate.
The "magistrate review" must find, in writing:
1. that there is probable cause to believe that the servicemember committed an offense triable by courts-martial;
2. based on the preponderance of the evidence (51%), there is reason to believe that confinement is necessary to prevent the servicemember from
fleeing or engaging in serious criminal misconduct;
3. based on the preponderance of the evidence (51%), there is reason to believe that lesser forms of restraint would be inadequate.
These review requirements may be suspended by the Secretary of Defense when operational necessities make them impractical. For the same reason, these
requirements are not applicable to ships at sea.
When his charges are "referred" or presented to a court-martial, the confined servicemember may ask the military judge presiding over the court to
review his pretrial confinement again.
If rules were violated, the military judge can release the servicemember, and he can reduce any subsequent sentence, giving additional credit for
PFC Manning will have his day in court and he can claim mistreatment at that time and if he wins - through due process even should he be found guilty
may get more credited time for that mistreatment from the reviewing military judge.
edit on 11-1-2011 by Golf66 because: oops