It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BREAKING: Military Harassing David House, Jane Hamsher for Visiting Bradley Manning

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kangaruex4Ewe
reply to post by purplemer
 


Truth be told if they let him out to await trial or let him into GP somebody would probably kill him.

I notice this is a very polarizing issue. He is considered a hero or a traitor. I think they are protecting him as best as they can. If he is being harmed by those in charge it will come to light.


look at the conditions oliver north was kept in compared to mannings...




posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 



I am sorry but he is not a political prisoner.
He violated the UCMJ and is being dealt with as such.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by purplemer
 



I am sorry but he is not a political prisoner.
He violated the UCMJ and is being dealt with as such.


No he is not being dealt with as such. oliver north violated the UCMJ was he dealt with as such...no
what is the difference then...mannings upheld the constitution...he is a political prisoner...

kx



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by purplemer
 



I am sorry but he is not a political prisoner.
He violated the UCMJ and is being dealt with as such.


No he is not being dealt with as such. oliver north violated the UCMJ was he dealt with as such...no
what is the difference then...mannings upheld the constitution...he is a political prisoner...

kx


He is a political prisoner in your eyes, but nowhere within the UCMJ does it state as such.
One of the great things within the UCMJ and military tribunals is that they don't really hold to case law or such. The progressive idea as not yet really infected the military.
Comparing him to North is of no substance.
He did not uphold the Constitution by stealing. If he were merely a whistle blower, then this would be a different matter.
Plain and simple, he violated the UJMC, his contract with the military and is being dealt with as such.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 

why not compare him to oliver north both violated UCMJ. North because he was obeying orders andey manning because of his beleifs. They were both treated very differently in there pre trial because of this.
so manning is being treated differently because of his political beliefs....
therefore he is a politcal prisoner...

kx



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by macman
 

why not compare him to oliver north both violated UCMJ. North because he was obeying orders andey manning because of his beleifs. They were both treated very differently in there pre trial because of this.
so manning is being treated differently because of his political beliefs....
therefore he is a politcal prisoner...

kx


You validated my argument.
Oly was directed to do by a superior.
Manning was not.
The UCMJ covers this topic very explicitly.

He is as much a political prisoner as I am an Oompa-Lumpa.

His is not a descent from the political tide. He broke/violated military laws.
If he disagreed with the political ideas of the Govt, he should have never joined the Military.
Or, did he join to willfully violate laws/UCMJ in order to get the info?
Either way, his actions are criminal in nature.

Now, if you want to debate whether this info needs to come to light? Lets start a new topic.
I bet I will shock with with my view on it.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer

No as such he has been charged with no crime.. yet he is being punished... he is a political prisoner..when did the rule of law go out of the window in america?


Actually lets play with facts here. Manning was charged in July 2010.


According to a statement issued by the 1st Armored Division public-affairs staff in Baghdad, Manning was formally charged yesterday with committing two offences under the US Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) between November 2009 and May 2010.

source


The first charge is under artcile 92 of the UCMJ which is

92. Failure to obey order or regulation

source

and also Article 134

General Article

which included

"communicating, transmitting and delivering national defense information to an unauthorized source"; "disclosing classified information concerning the national defense with reason to believe that the information could cause injury to the United States" and "exceeding authorized computer access to obtain classified information".


So any pretext that Manning has not been charged and is being held illegally is simply untrue.
In fact he has pretrial hearings already scheduled occuring in about 100 days or so.
You can not have pretrial hearing without being charged.

Second point of fact here: The constant comparison of Private First Class Manning to Lt. Col. Oliver North.
I have searched for info on North's pretrial conditions, and the only info I can find on it is Mr. House's extremely biased blog, so I am assuming that the info id not available, a safe assumption since Mr. House stated in his blog that he can not find it either. I find it unfair to both Manning and North to compare the two without facts in place. If we have info on North's condition, let's provide it for all to see.

Is this the only place where we are getting info from? A biased blog? I seriously hope not.


To address the political prisoner comment.
No. He has been charged with actual crimes, and as I have stated before, he understood what he was doing was illegal both under UCMJ and civilian law. He stated as much in his chat logs, re read them. He states he was violating the law because of his personal beliefs yes, but that does not make it justifiable.

Manning knew what he was doing, admitted it, expected repercussions, accepted the repercussions.
He is ready to pay the piper here, why is no one else ready for him to do so.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 





Either way, his actions are criminal in nature.

the governments action have been illegal in nature... two wars illegal under united nations law and violations of the geneva convention. this man helped to expose the truth and you have a duty to report a violation of the geneval convention
criminal under national law maybe not under international law...time will tell...

your type of thought is dangerous. it was the same kind of thinking that has allowed genocide to happen in times past...
swap it round for a minute... if you a solider commiting or hiding wars crimes under the nazi regime...would you not report the truth....



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer

the governments action have been illegal in nature... two wars illegal under united nations law and violations of the geneva convention. this man helped to expose the truth and you have a duty to report a violation of the geneval convention
criminal under national law maybe not under international law

If this was the case, then the UN or the governing body of the Geneva Convention should be seeking the repercussions of said supposed violations. I do not recall this being the case here.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


It matters not what the Govt is doing in regards to war.

even if he was not officially charged under the UCMJ. he is a member of the US military. If they wanted to place him under house arrest, with no outside communications and they can and will do so.

Again, the military is there to preserve Democracy, not practice it.

Have you been or are you now in the Military?

edit on 24-1-2011 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


As for me being dangerous? Hog wash. I am as nice and gentle as a puppy dog.


Your comment about me and my type bringing about genocide? I have kept my replies and posts civil. But you really are crossing the line.
Comparing me to a Nazi following orders? Might as well meet up and spit in my face.
The UCMJ is constructed to protect military personnel from disobeying a direct order which is not lawful. Like "Private, shoot those innocent civilians" stated the Lt. "No sir", replied the Prvt.
Not, hey I think I will hack into Govt databases, steal the info, give it to JA/Wikileaks and then have a bunch or maroons type some letters when I get caught and placed into Federal Prison.
Manning is a turd, that is it. The way he went about this is disgusting.
His character shows that he is not in it to shine light onto the darkness. His involvement with JA defines this.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
swap it round for a minute... if you a solider commiting or hiding wars crimes under the nazi regime...would you not report the truth....


Let us swap it around and play with hypotheticals on the slippery slope.

You previsouly stated that PFC Manningis being held becuase of his beliefs and is a political prisoner that has not been charged.....one of those 'facts' we have already seen to be untrue.

My hypothetcial:
One of the guards entrusted at Quantico to guard Manning fundamentally disagrees with Manning and murders him because of his own beliefs.

What to do with the guard? Do we feel sympathy for him because he acted in regards to his beliefs?
Do we charge him under the UCMJ for murder?
Do we create a blog praising this man for his crimes? and weep over the conditions that a prisoner is held?


The Manning situation exists on a slippery slope, just because we might agree with what he has done for whatever reason, does not mean that we throw away the jurisprudence of the situation. At the end of the day, he committed a crime(s). He knows it and we know it

Its tough because he is a sympathetic figure.
Young man, handsome, the rest of his life in front of him, defending the freedom of the US, and he is attached to wikileaks which brings an extra air of sympathy to him.

Its tough, but what he did was wrong, and he understood that.
He will be punished under the law.
If he is not, then the law has begun to unravel.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by youdidntseeme
 


yes you are correct he has been charged.. soz i am tired. I meant to refer to the period of time he had been held before he was charged. in reference to his treatement..



Bradley Manning, the 22-year-old U.S. Army Private accused of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks, has never been convicted of that crime, nor of any other crime. Despite that, he has been detained at the U.S. Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia for five months -- and for two months before that in a military jail in Kuwait -- under conditions that constitute cruel and inhumane treatment and, by the standards of many nations, even torture. Interviews with several people directly familiar with the conditions of Manning's detention, ultimately including a Quantico brig official (Lt. Brian Villiard) who confirmed much of what they conveyed, establishes that the accused leaker is subjected to detention conditions likely to create long-term psychological injuries.


Former Commander of Headquarters Company at Quantico Objects to Treatment of Bradley Manning. It not just on a blog there are many peeps saying it....




What concerns me here, and I hasten to admit that I respect Manning’s motives, is the manner in which the legal action against him is being conducted. I wonder, in the first place, why an Army enlisted man is being held in a Marine Corps installation. Second, I question the length of confinement prior to conduct of court-martial. The sixth amendment to the US Constitution, guaranteeing to the accused in all criminal prosecutions the right to a speedy and public trial, extends to those being prosecuted in the military justice system. Third, I seriously doubt that the conditions of his confinement—solitary confinement, sleep interruption, denial of all but minimal physical exercise, etc.—are necessary, customary, or in accordance with law, US or international.



It would be inappropriate, I think, to use this letter, in which I urge you to use your authority to make the conditions of Pfc. Manning’s confinement less extreme, to review my Marine Corps career except to note that my last duty prior to resigning my captain’s commission in 1959 was commanding the headquarters company at Quantico. More relevantly, during the 1980s, following a stint as a senior estimates officer in the CIA, I played a very public role as a “whistleblower “ in the Iran-contra affair. At that time, I wondered why Lt. Col. Oliver North, who very clearly violated the UCMJ — and, in my opinion, disgraced our service — was not court-martialed.


knowledgeempire.wordpress.com...

mannings attorney has made comparisions too



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by purplemer
 


As for me being dangerous? Hog wash. I am as nice and gentle as a puppy dog.


Your comment about me and my type bringing about genocide? I have kept my replies and posts civil. But you really are crossing the line.
Comparing me to a Nazi following orders? Might as well meet up and spit in my face.
The UCMJ is constructed to protect military personnel from disobeying a direct order which is not lawful. Like "Private, shoot those innocent civilians" stated the Lt. "No sir", replied the Prvt.
Not, hey I think I will hack into Govt databases, steal the info, give it to JA/Wikileaks and then have a bunch or maroons type some letters when I get caught and placed into Federal Prison.
Manning is a turd, that is it. The way he went about this is disgusting.
His character shows that he is not in it to shine light onto the darkness. His involvement with JA defines this.




sorry i never meant to offend you, i did not mean you personaly i was refeering to the though process...
look at it this way.. america has just fought in two illegal wars and killed an aprox 2 million people.
This amounts to acts of mass murder. How is this any different to what the nazis done in the war...?



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


You are missing the whole point of its not the normal civilian court and trial.
It is a military tribunal. Their rules. He signed up and agreed to those rules.
Why are so many people playing off the fact that he is responsible for his actions?
He willfully committed crimes within the US Military.
What was he expecting?
What is anyone expecting in this? A slap on the wrist? Maybe General Discharge and his GI Bill benefits?
NO. He is a military criminal.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by purplemer
 


As for me being dangerous? Hog wash. I am as nice and gentle as a puppy dog.


Your comment about me and my type bringing about genocide? I have kept my replies and posts civil. But you really are crossing the line.
Comparing me to a Nazi following orders? Might as well meet up and spit in my face.
The UCMJ is constructed to protect military personnel from disobeying a direct order which is not lawful. Like "Private, shoot those innocent civilians" stated the Lt. "No sir", replied the Prvt.
Not, hey I think I will hack into Govt databases, steal the info, give it to JA/Wikileaks and then have a bunch or maroons type some letters when I get caught and placed into Federal Prison.
Manning is a turd, that is it. The way he went about this is disgusting.
His character shows that he is not in it to shine light onto the darkness. His involvement with JA defines this.




sorry i never meant to offend you, i did not mean you personaly i was refeering to the though process...
look at it this way.. america has just fought in two illegal wars and killed an aprox 2 million people.
This amounts to acts of mass murder. How is this any different to what the nazis done in the war...?


Then go after those individuals responsible for each action.
There is a large difference between the Nazis and the US Military.
While the Nazis prime campaign was directed at exterminating a certain type of person, the US Military does no promote this.
Are there horrible actions and atrocities in war, yes. It is war.
Are the wrong people killed sometimes? Yes. It is war.
As for illegal wars? Come on. That retort is so old and beaten. I figured you of all people would come up with something worthwhile.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
sorry i never meant to offend you, i did not mean you personaly i was refeering to the though process...
look at it this way.. america has just fought in two illegal wars and killed an aprox 2 million people.
This amounts to acts of mass murder. How is this any different to what the nazis done in the war...?



Apology accepted.
Not much gets my blood up. But you really struck a never with that.
I served and I know that the military wants its members to think for themselves. The UCMJ is constructed to promote this.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 





Then go after those individuals responsible for each action. There is a large difference between the Nazis and the US Military. While the Nazis prime campaign was directed at exterminating a certain type of person, the US Military does no promote this. Are there horrible actions and atrocities in war, yes. It is war. Are the wrong people killed sometimes? Yes. It is war. As for illegal wars? Come on. That retort is so old and beaten. I figured you of all people would come up with something worthwhile.

the fact that the wars were illegal is important. from over the pond it appears the rule of law in america does not hold much water anymore.. some of these laws were put in place to help stop what happened in germany from happening again. It is in my eyes of the highest disraspect to dishonur them...
it is of utmost importance that countries follow the law, these are the pillars on which stable societies are formed.
The only time the law should be broken is in acts of civil disobendiance of if there is an element of criminality involved,
A prime facter of WW2 was land grabs. This helped fuel the war machine. the resources plundered from each country . How is this different than the colalition in iraq oil grabbing?
how do you go after the people responsible for these actions... the bush 6 will be chaged in spain because america will not charge them...
how can one go after someone like bush...its not going to happen unless it happens from within...
dick cheeney just slimed his way out of a warrent being issued by interpol for his arrest due to bribary charges in nigeria.. Halliburton paid massive bribe monies to have the charges droped.
these people act like they are above the law and by the look of things atm they are....
justice needs to be served a lot of people on all sides have died for the wrong reasons...

kx


edit on 24-1-2011 by purplemer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


Ok, now you are going off topic.

If you have never been in the US Military, it is hard for me to swallow most opinions on the UCMJ.
The same laws that average Joe America live under, do not apply to the US Military member.
Manning signed the paperwork/contract agreeing to obeying these rules/laws. He violated them. He should and will be punished accordingly.
The fact that their is corruption with the US Govt is for another thread.
That is not a defense for his actions.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by youdidntseeme
If this was the case, then the UN or the governing body of the Geneva Convention should be seeking the repercussions of said supposed violations. I do not recall this being the case here.

Iraq: leaked files point to serious breaches of human rights law – UN rights chief

26 October 2010 – Leaked classified United States documents on the war in Iraq point to serious breaches of international human rights law, including summary executions of a large number of civilians, as well as torture and ill-treatment of detainees, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights said today. (...)

US and Iraqi authorities, Ms. Pillay said, should take necessary measures to investigate all allegations made in these reports and to bring those behind unlawful killings, summary executions, torture and other serious rights abuses to justice in line with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which both nations are parties, and other obligations.

The governing body of the Geneva Conventions is the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). This is what the ICRC has to say about the war against terrorism and detention of prisoners—

States have the obligation and right to defend their citizens against terrorist attacks. This may include the arrest and detention of persons suspected of terrorist crimes. However, this must always be done according to a clearly defined national and/or international legal framework. (...)

Persons detained in relation to an international armed conflict involving two or more states as part of the fight against terrorism – the case with Afghanistan until the establishment of the new government in June 2002 - are protected by IHL applicable to international armed conflicts. Captured combatants must be granted prisoner of war status (POW) and may be held until the end of active hostilities in that international armed conflict. (...)

Civilians detained for security reasons must be accorded the protections provided for in the Fourth Geneva Convention. Combatants who do not fulfil the requisite criteria for POW stat us (who, for example, do not carry arms openly) or civilians who have taken a direct part in hostilities in an international armed conflict (so-called "unprivileged" or "unlawful" belligerents) are protected by the Fourth Geneva Convention provided they are enemy nationals. (...)

Persons detained in relation to a non-international armed conflict waged as part of the fight against terrorism – as is the case with Afghanistan since June 2002 - are protected by Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and the relevant rules of customary international humanitarian law. (...)

All persons detained outside of an armed conflict in the fight against terrorism are protected by the domestic law of the detaining state and by international human rights law. (...)

What is important to know is that no person captured in the fight against terrorism can be considered outside the law. There is no such thing as a "black hole" in terms of legal protection.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join