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.

 

Army Officials Felt Accused WikiLeaker Was Unfit To Serve

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Army Officials Felt Accused WikiLeaker Was Unfit To Serve


www.foxnews.com

Army investigators have concluded Iraq war commanders in desperate need of intelligence analysts ignored recommendations from low-level military officials at Fort Drum who said Pfc. Bradley Manning -- the accused source of the WikiLeaks document scandal -- was not fit for deployment because of behavioral problems, a military official tells Fox News.

(visit the link for the full news article)




edit on Thu, 03 Feb 2011 10:18:12 -0600 by JacKatMtn because: bbcode




posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
The Manning case is starting to remind me of the Susan Lindauer situation. Is this the beginning of a move to declare Manning incompetent to stand trial.

Lindauer was the person who was labelled a loon and locked up for events leading up to the Iraq war. By doing so, the government avoiding having a trial and possibly exposing the truth in her case..

Is Manning up for the same treatment?

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Perhaps being considered 'unfit to serve' is actually a good character reference from a certain point of view.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen
Perhaps being considered 'unfit to serve' is actually a good character reference from a certain point of view.



From the story:


First reported by McClatchy newspapers, an internal Army probe found Manning had violent outbursts while at Fort Drum in New York that included throwing chairs at colleagues and shouting at superiors.


I wouldn't call that good character.

If he had been in one my units, he would have been gone. There is no place in the US military for that kind of behavior



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


Agreed, which begs the question.. How did he get from a violent chair throwing insubordinate soldier in NY, to being a soldier serving overseas in a position with a security clearance with the opportunity to burn cd's of classified files?


Doesn't pass the smell test, IMO..



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


Someone should have revoked his security clearance, especially after he was demoted for fighting with fellow soldiers.

I know from firsthand experience though that scatbags do sometimes slip through the cracks, which usually involves supervisors failing in their jobs. He still shouldn't have been allowed around anything important. People we have had like that, we assign them to various crappy details. He could of done details overseas instead of having access to SIPR terminals, etc.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


Someone should have revoked his security clearance


BINGO... In the units I was in, this would have been almost immediate once his issues surfaced, then the unit would have tried for a reclassification if possible, or as you stated, put on some type of perma detail deal if his time was relatively short.. last case scenario would have been a discharge I would think, since it's not that unheard of to have soldiers get into a bit of trouble now and then..

That's why this situation and the Ft Hood shooter events, have raised my brow... it reeks of a fabricated cover up of sorts that puts the military in a bad light.

I know it's not perfect, but these two cases really have me shaking my head, has it gotten that bad in 10 years?



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS

Originally posted by wcitizen
Perhaps being considered 'unfit to serve' is actually a good character reference from a certain point of view.



From the story:


First reported by McClatchy newspapers, an internal Army probe found Manning had violent outbursts while at Fort Drum in New York that included throwing chairs at colleagues and shouting at superiors.


I wouldn't call that good character.

If he had been in one my units, he would have been gone. There is no place in the US military for that kind of behavior


And there's no place in a civilised world for the mass murder which masquerades as war and protection of national interest.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


Since you guys both served, how does one get an intelligence analyst position as opposed to a run-of-the-mill frontline soldier? Would Manning have aced tests to be promoted to an intelligence officer? Did he fail obstacle courses and training exercises? How did he get in his position if he had such an insubordinate history? It doesn’t make sense to me either.


edit nvm.
"Low-level analysts have to pass intense background checks and they have to score high on the military's entrance exam"
edit on 3-2-2011 by tooo many pills because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUSSomeone should have revoked his security clearance, especially after he was demoted for fighting with fellow soldiers.

I know from firsthand experience though that scatbags do sometimes slip through the cracks, which usually involves supervisors failing in their jobs. He still shouldn't have been allowed around anything important. People we have had like that, we assign them to various crappy details. He could have done details overseas instead of having access to SIPR terminals, etc.


Having had the unfortunate happenstance to be commissioned MI after commissioning and before the Q course I will just make an observation of mine - the MI unit Commanders tend to be:

1) About as eccentric a bunch as Manning seems to be.Commanders are likely afraid to use their tools and many of the company grade officers are the product of the same upbringing of our modern school system which tolerates a good deal of misbehavior from kids. I mean they have seen kids like Manning "main-streamed" throughout their schools and are likely to be very tolerant and indulgent of more behavior than old school guys who populate the field grades and such.

2) Really forgiving when it comes to discipline especially when it comes to revocation of clearances. This is for reasons like with MAJ Hassan - Commanders are very afraid to speak the truth when it comes to real discipline problems because being wrong or perceived as having an issue with someone's lifestyle (even in the face of evidence) will get you relieved in about two heartbeats.

Besides yanking a guy’s clearance just means he's hanging around the Company HQ all the time for something to do - it takes forever to adjudicate a dispute and the whole time the 1SG will have to make-work for the kid and deal with his crap on a daily basis. No one wants that drama. The system favors the Soldier more now than it ever has...

CCF will almost always take the recommendation of the Command when it comes to this - likely they wanted to give him a second chance.

3) He obviously slipped through the cracks at many levels since he had to have lied about his sexual history to the investigators for his SBI. Certainly unless his homosexual behavior was a new thing after he joined I find it hard to believe any DSS guy/gal would not have uncovered his orientation. Also, if he conducted himself as this article seems to indicate and maintained a homosexual relationship his whole chain of command deserves exactly what they have coming their way they should have known.

Seems to me if this were nature Manning would be orange and spiky giving a clear indicator to other species to give him wide birth and due caution in any dealings...

A bunch of people whose job it is to look for indicators, analyze facts and make appropriate recommendations totally dropped the ball. They need to get on the FAIL BOAT!


edit on 3/2/2011 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/2/2011 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/2/2011 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by tooo many pills
 


Its not difficult to make Intel Analyst, the biggest obstacle is getting the security clearance.

If you have no felonies, decent credit history, and no questionable associations its pretty easy to get.
The ASVAB scores are not hard at all. Plus if you don't score high enough on the ASVAB, it can be taken again and again.

They go through the standard 8 week basic training course, that almost all soldiers go through and then off to Fort Huachuca, Arizona for AIT. This portion is mainly intellectual and somewhat comparable to college, unlike many other AIT courses in different MOS fields, which are far more physically and psychologically challenging. You don't have to be real smart to do it, many of the younger guys I met who were analysts were big into table top role playing games. They were not dumb, but they were far from genius. Kind of remind me of people at gaming and comic conventions, but much thinner.
edit on 3/2/11 by MikeboydUS because: g



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


Is it possible that he is taking the fall for someone else? Could it be that someone made it lucrative for him to do so?




top topics



 
5

log in

join