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: 3
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by aptness
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.



So the UN has made a statement, but is not doing anything other than recommending that US and Iraqi authorities investigate the findings, which were already known to both parties and only came to light by the leaks.

sounds more like a talking point and less like corrective action.

But thank you for providing these quotes, makes my point a little less salient, however this thread was about PFC Manning, not the information that he provided. The bottom line is still that he has been charged with a crime and is being held pending trial.
edit on 24-1-2011 by youdidntseeme because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by youdidntseeme
So the UN has made a statement, but is not doing anything other than recommending that US and Iraqi authorities investigate the findings, which were already known to both parties and only came to light by the leaks.
Because the existing legal frameworks stipulate, on a first instance, the relevant parties should investigate matters internally and report to the governing bodies. When the parties fail to do that’s when the competent external authorities come into play.


But thank you for providing these quotes, makes my point a little less salient, however this thread was about PFC Manning, not the information that he provided. The bottom line is still that he has been charged with a crime and is being held pending trial.
You are right, but my post was never meant to try to invalidate your main point, because I have never disputed that Manning should be in military custody, or that he is liable for the things he has been accused of, assuming he is the leaker.

Whether he is being treated according to regulation is another question, but since I am not well versed in UCMJ I would defer that question to those that are, and seeing as you and some other members have specifically mentioned it, I was hoping you could elaborate on Manning’s detention and treatment in respect to those regulations.

From what I have read so far, however, the only justifications I’ve seen consist of claims that “he is in the military, things are different,” or “he is lucky he wasn’t put to death already,” but little or no information on how his current detention relates to the UCMJ you’ve mentioned.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
sourcereply to post by aptness
 


Here are some quotes from First Lt Brian Villard regarding the conditions, I am ot sure if the UCMJ outlines the detention protocol, or if that is up to the armed services at a specified prison. Anyway here goes:


Prison spokesman First Lieutenant Brian Villiard said that Manning was placed under maximum security because he is considered as a risk to national security. Villiard said: “Maximum custody detainees include those whose escape would cause concern of a threat to life, property or national security… What I will tell you is that he is not treated any differently than any other maximum confinement detainee.”

Security rules for maximum custody detainees include being allowed out of the cell for only one hour a day, for exercise outside or in an indoor gym. The same rules hold true for Manning as well as other detainees who are classified as maximum confinement detainees. He has, according to the feature, “access to newspapers, is within speaking range of other inmates in his wing, is permitted visitors and chooses from the same food menu as his fellow prisoners.”

Villiard said that inmates, Manning included, “are treated with firmness, fairness, dignity and compassion.” That being said, however, Villiard said that “it is no Shangri-la.”


The one thing that I havnt seen written, but i think might be alluded to above, is the threat to Manning if he was held in a genpop situation. How would his fellow military prisoners feel about his breach of security and the possibility of endangering the lives of their fellow brothers in arms. How would Manning handle being faced with 2 or 3 gung ho Marines that are in the brig for getting drunk and into a bar fight?

Perhaps this confinement is actually for his protection?
edit on 24-1-2011 by youdidntseeme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
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.


If he exposes crimess then has he not done the correct thing by disobying......



These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it.

usmilitary.about.com...
edit on 24-1-2011 by purplemer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
If he exposes crimess then has he not done the correct thing by disobying......



These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it.

usmilitary.about.com...
edit on 24-1-2011 by purplemer because: (no reason given)


No he has not. His directives are to not disclose classified material. End of story.
Disseminating classified material to third parties who do not have the clearance to see such material.
And to boot, he had to search out such material. If you read his chat logs you will see the ends that he went to to find the material, gather it, organize it, and then disseminate it. Its not like he was delivered a memo by mistake and took it to the press. There was willful intent here.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by youdidntseeme

Originally posted by purplemer
If he exposes crimess then has he not done the correct thing by disobying......



These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it.

usmilitary.about.com...
edit on 24-1-2011 by purplemer because: (no reason given)


No he has not. His directives are to not disclose classified material. End of story.
Disseminating classified material to third parties who do not have the clearance to see such material.
And to boot, he had to search out such material. If you read his chat logs you will see the ends that he went to to find the material, gather it, organize it, and then disseminate it. Its not like he was delivered a memo by mistake and took it to the press. There was willful intent here.


no his directives allow him to carry out lawful orders...what is lawfull about covering up murder....?

kx



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
His lawful order was to perform his job.
Not to conceal this info.
The lawful order argument does not apply to this.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
no his directives allow him to carry out lawful orders...what is lawfull about covering up murder....?

kx


So by this line of reasoning everyone who had access to the information is guilty and PFC Manning is not?
Anyone who had access to SIPRNet should be guilty, that includes a half million million according to the state department plus overseas allies.
From Obama on down, in your eyes all are guilty and should be charged, but Manning did nothing wrong, he is a white knight.

And we keep forgetting the fact that he admitted to what he was doing to Lamo.
He admitted that he knew it was wrong, and that he was ready for the consequences.
Now he is paying them, perhaps its too much for him, but it seems like its too much for his supporters, he knew what was to become of himself.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join