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.

 

Bradley Manning formally charged with 'aiding the enemy' by giving files to WikiLeaks

page: 1
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Bradley Manning formally charged with 'aiding the enemy' by giving files to WikiLeaks


news.nationalpost.co m

FORT MEADE, Maryland — WikiLeaks suspect Bradley Manning was formally charged on Thursday ahead of a court-martial that could see the U.S. soldier sentenced to life in prison.

Manning was charged with 22 counts, the most serious of which is “aiding the enemy,” for allegedly turning over a trove of classified U.S. documents to WikiLeaks in one of the most serious intelligence breaches in US history.
(visit the link for the full news article)



+6 more 
posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   
I felt the need to post this, not so much for the sake of Bradley Manning, but rather for the sake of the nature of these charges.

He was charged with "aiding the enemy". What this means is that the US government has an identified enemy that Manning aided. Who is this enemy of the USA?

These documents were provided to wikileaks, which is an organization that releases secret documents to the public.

Is it just me, or did the US government just formally acknowledge that the public is their enemy? That we, the citizens of the world, are the enemy of the USA state?

I thought America was at war with terrorists and drug dealers, hense the "War on Terror" and "War on Drugs". But apparently, they just confirmed that they are at war against humanity.

news.nationalpost.co m
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   
At the time, we were at war with Iraq, and still at war with Afghanistan.
So, ya...such info, with the leaked names and such..that would be considered helpful to those wishing to attack or uncover our tactics in the field.

As much as I respect Manning for what he (may have) done, ya..he should indeed be charged and if found guilty, given the approprate sentence.
loose lips sinks ships and all that.

He knew the consequences of his actions as he was doing it...its not like this was done through pure ignorance..his flaw was underestimating the ability of the military to track down who did it (maybe).



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
I felt the need to post this, not so much for the sake of Bradley Manning, but rather for the sake of the nature of these charges.

People need to keep in mind Manning is not subject to civilian criminal law. He falls under the UCMJ, which is different than what we normally talk about on this site.

Uniform Code of Military Justice



Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
He was charged with "aiding the enemy". What this means is that the US government has an identified enemy that Manning aided. Who is this enemy of the USA?

By releasing those documents to wikileaks, Manning allowed that information to become available to anyone with a computer, including countries / groups the US is currently engaged with as well as non friendly nations we are not involved with.



Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
These documents were provided to wikileaks, which is an organization that releases secret documents to the public.

Under US law its against the law to be in possession of or distribute classified military information. Contrary to popular belief News organizations can be charged for printing classified information. The Pentagon papers is the most common argument people will give to justify the printing. If people read the court information they will find the 2 journalists were actually charged and it did go to court. The Prosecuting Attorney screwed up, which screwed their case over, which allowed the 2 journalists to have the charges dismissed.

Also - When media outlets argue about releasing information, its based on one incident, not millions of documents.



Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Is it just me, or did the US government just formally acknowledge that the public is their enemy? That we, the citizens of the world, are the enemy of the USA state?

Nope but nice try at the spin. They are stating the information was made available / accessed by countries / groups who are engaged in military conflict with the US.



Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
I thought America was at war with terrorists and drug dealers, hense the "War on Terror" and "War on Drugs". But apparently, they just confirmed that they are at war against humanity.

Nope - again though nice try at the spin.


Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
news.nationalpost.co m
(visit the link for the full news article)


Mannings lucky the prosecution is not seeking the death penalty, which was an option for him since we are at war when the info was leaked.

Every single charge leveled is justified in my opinion. Hopefully the Jag corp wont screw this up.
edit on 24-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Sometimes I just get too confused with what Manning did. Releasing the classified documents indeed could have aided the enemy country. But again when I see the Collateral Murder, I wish to see every bad thing done by the government that is marked under CLASSIFIED label. There are some people who support Manning for what he did because they care for people who are victim of these wars and there are some people who are somewhat close to the govt and the laws who know how severe crime Manning did.

It is very hard for me to say anything considering both sides. But what I can see is that it is actually the government (or some ill people inside it) who are responsible for all this. Manning leaked files and there is a jurisdiction under which he is being treated but who is to police the government for killing the innocents?


Accusing Manning and penalizing him won't make much difference as I believe there are more such people who want to expose the bad side of the governments. And even exposing this bad side won't make much difference as they will keep killing innocent lives as there is no one to watch & judge their actions. The only solution I can see is to eliminate corruption and bad people out of government.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 

Candidate Obama said he supported whistle blowers. President Obama not so much.


The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act was introduced in 2009 by Senator Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) to amend federal personnel law relating to whistleblower protections to provide that such protections shall apply to a disclosure of any violation of law, except for an alleged violation that is a minor, inadvertent violation that occurs during the conscientious carrying out of official duties.

In July 2009, Senator Akaka proposed a controversial amendment to S. 372 that further weakened the bill and contained several provisions that were insisted upon by the powerful federal agency managers lobby and the Obama administration. Despite campaign promises to support the stronger House bill, after the election, President Obama disappointed many when his administration actively supported the weaker Senate bill and Obama administration officials helped craft some of the controversial provisions contained in the Senate mark-up version of the bill in 2009.

en.wikipedia.org...


President Barack Obama made stunning accusations about accused Wikileaks whistleblower PFC Bradley Manning, directly asserting that Manning “broke the law.” Apparently the President of the United States of America and a self-described Constitutional scholar does not care that Manning has yet to be tried or convicted for any crime.

fdlaction.firedoglake.com...


In the case of Bradley Manning and company, the Obama administration's actions liken the task of a well-intentioned watchdog to that of a traitor. The position stands in stark contrast to candidate Obama's praise of whistleblowers and the current rules that have been pushed through the SEC.

www.theatlanticwire.com...

Compare that with Ron Paul who said "truth is treason in the empire of lies".

















edit on 24-2-2012 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)


+3 more 
posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



By releasing those documents to wikileaks, Manning allowed that information to become available to anyone with a computer, including countries / groups the US is currently engaged with as well as non friendly nations we are not involved with.


Great, you just fell into the very trap that I laid when I posted this thread.

What you've just stated, is that any real reports are not to be released to the public because if any real information is released into the public domain, then it is presumed to be released to the enemy. Therefore, all officially released information is not tactically accurate and is, by its very nature, deceptive.

For common people to openly access actual information/reports/statistics, is a threat to the state.

Thank you for confirming that all the state does, is spoonfeed people bullsh*t while crucifying anyone who passes on the real facts.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Who is this enemy of the USA?


Is it terrorists?

Maybe it's Obama?

Maybe it's Republicans?

Maybe it's gays?

Is it rich people?

Or is is straight people?

Maybe it's poor people?

Is it stupid and lazy people?

Is it educated, corporate elitist snobs?

Is it people who wish to erase the borders from within?

Is it people who support war?

Or is it people who support peace?

Crap I give up

Yuri Bezmenov says it best

Yuri Bezmenov ex KGB Psychological Warfare Techniques. Subversion & Control of Western Society 1/7
www.youtube.com...
edit on 24-2-2012 by ImpartialObserver because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:43 AM
link   
Is that like the "enemy of God" thingy they have in a theocracy called Iran? Sure seems like it.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Yay for betraying our military and putting our operatives at risk! Huzzah!



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by InfoKartel

Is that like the "enemy of God" thingy they have in a theocracy called Iran?




Theocracy - A system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.



Probably has something to do with it

Golf course rulership over the unwashed, uninformed and uninitiated?

Who's spying on who now?

Tables have been turned they have
edit on 24-2-2012 by ImpartialObserver because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar

Yay for betraying our military and putting our operatives at risk!

Huzzah!


Well that's one way of looking at it.

All wars are justified are they not?

Ask no questions, receive no answers.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
Yay for betraying our military and putting our operatives at risk! Huzzah!


It's not really "your" military when they deliberately deceive you with lies and manipulation in order to carry out an agenda that only the elite within the state realize- all at the expense of the peoples' resources and liberty.

Wouldn't it be nice to know what your soldiers are fighting for, considering they you pay for them with taxes and they fight in the name of your country? Or would you rather just leave that up to the state and refuse to ask questions?

PS: Funny comment about "putting our operatives at risk". Plame affair ring a bell? That's when Karl Rove and Lewis Libby, officials in the US government (also PNAC officials), exposed the identity of a covert CIA officer to the public. And was this accidental? No, it was intentional retribution for the acts of her husband (an ambassador) that didn't agree with the status-quo mentality.
edit on 24-2-2012 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
Yay for betraying our military and putting our operatives at risk! Huzzah!


Wouldn't it be nice to know what your soldiers are fighting for ...


What is the difference between a Warrior and a Soldier?



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImpartialObserver

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
Yay for betraying our military and putting our operatives at risk! Huzzah!


Wouldn't it be nice to know what your soldiers are fighting for ...


What is the difference between a Warrior and a Soldier?


A warrior fights for the sake of fighting (and this can range from physical to even political or psychological). A soldier fights for some kind of external satisfaction, such as acknowledgment, nationalism, or profit.

Not sure what that has to do with anything though.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by ImpartialObserver

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
Yay for betraying our military and putting our operatives at risk! Huzzah!


Wouldn't it be nice to know what your soldiers are fighting for ...


What is the difference between a Warrior and a Soldier?


A warrior fights for the sake of fighting (and this can range from physical to even political or psychological). A soldier fights for some kind of external satisfaction, such as acknowledgment, nationalism, or profit.

Not sure what that has to do with anything though.


I would say that a warrior fights for something that they believe in while a soldier fights for something that they are told to believe in.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImpartialObserver

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by ImpartialObserver

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
Yay for betraying our military and putting our operatives at risk! Huzzah!


Wouldn't it be nice to know what your soldiers are fighting for ...


What is the difference between a Warrior and a Soldier?


A warrior fights for the sake of fighting (and this can range from physical to even political or psychological). A soldier fights for some kind of external satisfaction, such as acknowledgment, nationalism, or profit.

Not sure what that has to do with anything though.


I would say that a warrior fights for something that they believe in while a soldier fights for something that they are told to believe in.


So you would call Manning a warrior because he believed in what he was doing?



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
Yay for betraying our military and putting our operatives at risk! Huzzah!


I differ. I'd call it a corporate military. Corporate government is complicit also but that's another thread.

I agree with Xcathadra, he is guilty of breaking the law. However, I don't agree with the law. I don't agree with most laws, so that's nothing new.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Lol just when I thought you couldn't be any more ridiculous.

The information Manning accessed was classified information from military branches as well as the State Department. Since they are classified, its illegal to take and disseminate.

Not a hard concept to understand.. If you did a little more research on US classification levels it might shed some light on the topic for you.

The originating agency and individual filing the report can classify the information. Part of the reason for this, and wikileaks and these documents are a prime example, has to do with US laws regarding what agencies can share what information.

Example - If the CIA is running a covert operation in Kerplakistan and discover a plot targeting buildings / areas inside the US from their informants, that info is put into report form and filed. Access to the information in that file needs to be passed to the FBI and local / state law enforcement.

Chances are the informant information will not be included in any information sent stateside (except for maybe the FBI who also run their own informant networks etc.

If the CIA report and FBI report are placed side by side, you would have a complete picture of the who what when where why and how. If that info is stolen and sent out, it compromises not only the CIA operation, but the FBI's and state and local law enforcement. It can result in the informants being pinpointed based on the specifics of the information.

So while you are desperately trying to take any comment made and twist it into something its not while at the same time putting words in peoples mouths is just sad. If you spent some time learning about the US and less time constantly trying to twist information, we can avoid the round robbin game you like to play.

The only person trying to fool the public is you through your constant, and wrong, reinterpretation of media reports and what people state, which only reinforces the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Deny ignorance, not embrace..

With that said I see this thread is shaping up nicely as another one of those propaganda, ignore the facts while spinning anything and everything while spamming stars / flags all over the place.

I shall leave you to your masterpiece theater.
edit on 24-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:56 AM
link   
Jesus......
Prescott Bush was "trading with the enemy" and helping the Nazi's win the war and his family went on to occupy the whitehouse, not life in jail ..@#$%^&*

Poor Manning, he did the right thing.
Some things just dont make sense now do they..



new topics

top topics



 
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join