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: 2
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock2009
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 ..@#$%^&*


Is it to much to ask that people get their facts right?

[exBush was one of seven directors (including W. Averell Harriman) of the Union Banking Corporation, an investment bank controlled by the Thyssen family.[2] In July 1942 the bank was suspected of holding gold on behalf of Nazi leaders.[3] A subsequent government investigation disproved those allegations, but confirmed the Thyssens' control, and in October 1942 the United States seized the bank under the Trading with the Enemy Act and held the assets for the duration of World War II.[2]

Joe Conason said that Bush's involvement with UBC was purely commercial and that he was not a Nazi sympathizer.[4] The Anti-Defamation League[5] and historian Herbert Parmet[6] agreed with that assessment.

The person you are ignoring is Fritz Thyssen. After the government investigation, which all members were cleared of, the government seized the bank because Thyssen was a German and supported Hitler.

None of which has anything to do with the thread..


Originally posted by Sherlock2009
Poor Manning, he did the right thing.
Some things just dont make sense now do they..

Actually no he did not but thats fine..
Things would make sense if people researched before posting. It would certainly help for those who don't understand US laws / history.

They don't have to agree with the info or change their mind, but at the very least they have a basic understanding, increasing the chance of all of the people participating in this thread to expand their knowledge.
edit on 24-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


No the information Bradley Manning released was for the good of the US and the world. It shows the US compicit in war crimes and Mannings had an international duty to report that. He tried to release the information using the correct channels and was stopped. So he leaked it..

The man is a true American hero. Those responsible for illegal war and mass murder should be locked up. The world is messed up.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


What crimes?



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Hey you we always seem at logger heads...
There are lists of crimes that have been exposed by the leaks... Here is one..




In March 2007 a convoy of U.S. Marines, after being hit by an explosives-rigged minivan, opened fire with automatic weapons as they tore down a six-mile stretch of highway. They hit just about anyone in their way—including teenage girls in fields, motorists in cars, old men walking down the road. Nineteen unarmed civilians were killed and 50 wounded. None of this, however, was reported in the initial military account written by the Marines involved.

The Afghan Human Rights Commission published a report into the shooting which said the victims included a 16-year-old newlywed girl carrying a bundle of grass and a 75-year-old man walking back from shopping. There was an inquiry in which 50 witnesses, including Afghans, testified. But the four soldiers who fired their weapons did not testify because they had not been granted immunity from prosecution


another.



September 2009, in Kunduz in the north of Afghanistan, NATO forces bomb a crowd of people surrounding two fuel tankers stuck in a riverbed. The military reports say the air strike was authorized "after ensuring that no civilians were in the vicinity" and the "battle damage assessment" claimed the 56 deaths had been "enemy insurgents." Media reports followed by official inquiries, however, established something closer to the real death toll, which included 30 to 70 civilian


revcom.us...


If you care to look. There are a lot of incidents like this.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


You at least take the time and effort to do research and post the sources you use to make your argument, so in those regards its a friendly butting heads.

I take a different view, obviously, in that its war. Its not organized, its not nice and neat like we see in the movies and until you are one of the soldiers in that convoy you referenced, one cannot adequately understand what occurred.

Hindsight is 20/20, and 5 seconds in an extremely volatile situation can feel like 5 hours. I really don't know how to phrase the next part without getting flamed by some, so im just going to put it out there and go from there.

Just because people say its a crime, does not make it a crime. I will grant the premise that crimes have occurred, and we know this because we have sent member of our military to court martial. Secondly its not a conventional war. What we see the Taliban / Al Queida / etc etc etc is akin to the Vietnam war (VC irregulars and not NVA)..

An inability, at times, to distinguish between non combatant / civilian and threat / foe. If there is evidence of a crime then by all means, investigate it using the appropriate context and rules of warfare / UCMJ etc. However those people who want to see investigations and charges must acknowledge that the Taliban / Al Queida / etc actions must be held to the same standard. The Taliban / etc consistently violate the rules of warfare by purposely engaging enemy forces in civilian areas / heavily occupied civilian areas.

When manning released the info in the manner he did, he effectively destroyed / buried the true crime info that should be investigated with hundreds of thousands of documents that show no wrong doing or have absolutely nothing to do with military action.

If the goal is to expose crimes, then you shouldn't bury those crimes under 10 tones of hay. That is one of the reasons I don't believe Manning and the whistle blower argument (which wont even apply due to the volume of info he released.

When I am dispatched to work a homicide, I dont submit my report to the PA along with 700k other reports from all over the world.

It makes no sense, it doesn't hold anyone accountable, and in all likelihood it results in people who should be charged and tried to go free.
edit on 24-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by morpheusxxz
 


The man will probably be remembered as a true patriot in years to come, I expect he will be convicted and then pardoned by a later president. Until there is an acceptable level of accoutability what he did will be justified.

Who knows, maybe one day he will run for president himself? If true democracy if becomes a possibility, he will be the candidate with the most credibility, Americas Mandela.
edit on 24-2-2012 by Maponos because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock2009
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..


This^


I have mentioned this before. People need to be reminded of this!



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
What I'm wondering here is...

What is our government so concerned about? What they did right? Or what they did wrong?

I can't tell which upset them more about the leaks. It had to have been pretty sensitive...and if Manning felt the need to put both his career AND his life on the line, it had to have been important too.

What is the government so hell-bent on hiding from us? What has to be buried so deep?

Once again, the leaders with which we trust our safety and well-being prove to be very, very shady...duplicitous, even. Who the heck do we put our trust in now?!
edit on CFridaypm464643f43America/Chicago24 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


This whole issue has me scratching my head. On one hand I respect Manning for having the courage to release some of the information, on the other hand (like you mentioned in your post) he released a lot of information that had no real substance and could put individuals in danger.

But some of the information which was made available IMHO is of great importance when looking at how the military functions when not shining in the lime light of the media.

The cases Purplemer presented to me is very revealing.


In March 2007 a convoy of U.S. Marines, after being hit by an explosives-rigged minivan, opened fire with automatic weapons as they tore down a six-mile stretch of highway. They hit just about anyone in their way—including teenage girls in fields, motorists in cars, old men walking down the road. Nineteen unarmed civilians were killed and 50 wounded. None of this, however, was reported in the initial military account written by the Marines involved.

The Afghan Human Rights Commission published a report into the shooting which said the victims included a 16-year-old newlywed girl carrying a bundle of grass and a 75-year-old man walking back from shopping. There was an inquiry in which 50 witnesses, including Afghans, testified. But the four soldiers who fired their weapons did not testify because they had not been granted immunity from prosecution



September 2009, in Kunduz in the north of Afghanistan, NATO forces bomb a crowd of people surrounding two fuel tankers stuck in a riverbed. The military reports say the air strike was authorized "after ensuring that no civilians were in the vicinity" and the "battle damage assessment" claimed the 56 deaths had been "enemy insurgents." Media reports followed by official inquiries, however, established something closer to the real death toll, which included 30 to 70 civilian


The case of the soldiers being hit in the convoy, and than opening fir on the civilians was not mentioned in the report the Marines drafted. Why not? Because, such an act would look bad on the military. After reading a lot of your posts and posts from others on this site I have become more accepting of events that unfold on the battlefield, like you said its war and crazy $h1t happens all the time. But when details of the report are purposely omitted or are purposely changed, is that not historical revisionism?

It reminds me a lot of the days of Japanese nationalism When they would not publish anything if it showed the imperial military in a negative light.


An inability, at times, to distinguish between non combatant / civilian and threat / foe.


This is not a new trend though, this has gone on throughout most the history of combat. The excuse of civilian dressed combatants was used by the Japanese to excuse the The Rape of Nanking, Japanese nationalists to this day still deny that atrocities committed there, and still proclaim that most of the civilians in the photos are just Chinese soldiers in disguise. They even say that some of the Japanese soldiers in the pictures are Chinese wearing outdated Japanese uniforms.

The thing that scares me is I have heard the same excuses used by talking heads in the US media, "Oh it was a hectic situation so there was bound to be collateral damage. We didn't know that that house had a family in it before we through grenades in it and riddled it with bullet holes" or "Oh no we didn't kill those people insurgents did".

I believe the military should be held accountable for all the things they do, I also think they should be as transparent as possible without endangering the lives of informants or soldiers. Reporting that soldiers killed civilians only endangers and damages the image of the military, and it should so people can see when irresponsible decisions are made. Because honestly half the time I don't think they care anymore about who they kill or how much they destroy as long as the mission is accomplished.

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


All that being said I dont think Manning should be considered a traitor, he should be stripped of his uniform and barred from ever serving again.
edit on 24-2-2012 by Openeye because: (no reason given)

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

edit on 24-2-2012 by Openeye because: Formatting



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


It really is a shame this happened. Well, at the time he did this I was fast asleep and furious a soldier would do this to his own country.

Now that I have awakened, I see that this country is the worst criminal in the history of this planet and I applaud him for his bravery and honesty.

The American people need to rise and take their nation back before it is too late.

The other world powers will eventually end it . Only in doing so, the American public will end up hurt and no one wants that.

Stand up Americans and jail your criminal government now before the entire world turns on you.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 


The crux of the governments case revolves around Manning having security access to sensitive material, retrieving that info and then sending it out.

The vast majority of what was released contain no criminal wrong doing (Diplomat Cables). Since those files were classified, what they contained is irrelevant. The breech is the accessing, retrieving and distributing material he had no valid reason to access.

When you take all the info released, a person with a lot of time on their hands could go through those files and piece some of the puzzle back together. Each agency has their level of classification however if you have top secret access for the FBI, that does not grant you access to CIA / DIA files. The different agency reports on the same topic will be different because one agency might be protecting a source while another agency might be tracking what the source sends out and where it goes.

People have been able to back door FOIA requests doing that. They find a non classified / classified and retrieved by FOIA document that references a name or project another agency is running. They have used that info to demonstrate the original file they requested does exist.

Thats part of the aiding the enemy charge.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Openeye
 


You make some excellent points..

As far as the incident with the convoy we don't have all the information. What I mean by that is what were the rules of engagement at the time? Where did it occur? What was the resistance level etc? The other question I have is with regards to the witnesses. As much as I hate saying this, can their accounts be trust worthy? We have documented cases where insurgents have been trained on what to do if captured, which included making bogus allegations about abuse, denial of prayer, etc.

There are documented cases where insurgents have attacked civilians only to blame the allied forces. Were these witnesses coming forward voluntarily or were they / family threatened if they refused to comply? I am not trying to defend the actions however when people view these situations with no background in that area some of the more obvious questions are over looked simple because the assumption is guilty until proven innocent.

The comment about Immunity from Prosecution was another red flag for me. In 2007 the US military still had a valid status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government. What that means is any criminal wrong doing by US forces will be investigated and if need prosecuted through the military first. They can be turned over to the locals for prosecution but from what I have researched it doesn't happen to often.

Another thing - regarding bad conduct and not wanting the military to be embarrassed. The US government cannot classify documents based solely on the fact they would embarrass the US (Pentagon Paper / Prior restraint case). Military personnel retain the 5th amendment rights, so the comment in the article confuses me. It almost sounds like it was a local investigation / prosecution. If it is and the court is using Sharia law I dont blame them for not speaking. Sharia court procedures are radically different than what we use.

Hindsight will always be 20/20. It takes a tenth of a second to go from a stable situation to absolute Charlie foxtrot. Was the convoy being followed while trying to escape? Were they taking fire from buildings / positions while trying to escape?

I completely agree with holding the Military accountable. However it must be done in proper context using the rules / laws they are bound by, and not on personal opinion simply because minors / civilians were killed. Im not trying to sound cold or callous but as I said earlier, its a combat zone / war.

My favorite quote from the movie Valkyrie is appropriate -
"Remember, this is a military operation. Nothing ever goes according to plan".

We learn from our mistakes and we do our best not to repeat them. However we are human, so that goal will never be reached all the time.

As far as manning goes - Had he just stuck to the criminal actions then I could easily see justification. By releasing everything else, it moves his actions from legitimate whistle blower to trying to use the whistle blower statute to somehow diminish the severity of his actions.
edit on 24-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Individuals who are as mentally unstable as Manning should not be permitted to serve in the military in the first place, never mind be trusted with databases filled with shed loads of classified material.

This case has highlighted serious deficiencies in the vetting process, though with hundreds of thousands of people surfing those networks I suppose one should not be surprised if the odd cretin or two slips through the cracks.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soshh
Individuals who are as mentally unstable as Manning should not be permitted to serve in the military in the first place, never mind be trusted with databases filled with shed loads of classified material.

This case has highlighted serious deficiencies in the vetting process, though with hundreds of thousands of people surfing those networks I suppose one should not be surprised if the odd cretin or two slips through the cracks.


and you know he's mentally unstable how?



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by alienorgy
 


Actually Manning's lawyer used that argument for part of Manning's defense. He argued that the military knew there were problems with manning going all the way back to boot camp and his advanced school out of basic.

Questions surrounding his sexuality were also brought up in reference to effects that has on an individual who had no real recourse to end some of the harassment (dont ask dont tell was still in effect, so filing a complaint with the chain of command that people are making fun of you because your gay only adds insult to injury).

Based on all of that, the defense is saying its the Army's fault this occurred.
The prosecution (according to earlier articles) essentially made the accusation Manning purposely did this to embarrass / get even with the military for not helping him when he needed it.

When this goes into the courtroom im sure we will have some of our questions answered. The Prosecution did say they are not seeking the death penalty, so based on that and what they charged him with it will range from 40 years - to life. Because this occurred during a time of war I would expect, if found guilty, the longer sentence (life sentence or running individual sentences consecutively instead of concurrently..



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

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by alienorgy
 


Actually Manning's lawyer used that argument for part of Manning's defense. He argued that the military knew there were problems with manning going all the way back to boot camp and his advanced school out of basic.

Questions surrounding his sexuality were also brought up in reference to effects that has on an individual who had no real recourse to end some of the harassment (dont ask dont tell was still in effect, so filing a complaint with the chain of command that people are making fun of you because your gay only adds insult to injury).

Based on all of that, the defense is saying its the Army's fault this occurred.
The prosecution (according to earlier articles) essentially made the accusation Manning purposely did this to embarrass / get even with the military for not helping him when he needed it.

When this goes into the courtroom im sure we will have some of our questions answered. The Prosecution did say they are not seeking the death penalty, so based on that and what they charged him with it will range from 40 years - to life. Because this occurred during a time of war I would expect, if found guilty, the longer sentence (life sentence or running individual sentences consecutively instead of concurrently..


Well, I dont know your exact thoughts on it but mine,,,,,,,,,,the kid is a hero



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienorgy

Originally posted by Soshh
Individuals who are as mentally unstable as Manning should not be permitted to serve in the military in the first place, never mind be trusted with databases filled with shed loads of classified material.

This case has highlighted serious deficiencies in the vetting process, though with hundreds of thousands of people surfing those networks I suppose one should not be surprised if the odd cretin or two slips through the cracks.


and you know he's mentally unstable how?


He admitted as much himself. It was even used in his defence. Have you been living under a rock?



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienorgy
Well, I dont know your exact thoughts on it but mine,,,,,,,,,,the kid is a hero


Nothing wrong with that.

I particularly dont think he is one based on the amount of info he misappropriated / stole and the manner it was released. Had he just stuck with the criminal activity and followed the proper procedures then sure, I would agree his actions were justified and would most likely be standing behind and supporting him.

However, the info that showed no criminal wrong doing did have a negative impact on the US, all the way from military relations, to intelligence sharing, to diplomatic relations. When info is spoken in confidence one day, and the entire world is reading about it the next, it makes those people who just got screwed less likely to speak candidly around our diplomats / military / intelligence etc.

In my opinion, Mannings actions were designed to screw over the US. In the process, and most likely because it didn't cross his radar screen, it screwed over a bunch of other countries / groups / people. I dont think that was his intent, but the damage was done nonetheless.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soshh

Originally posted by alienorgy

Originally posted by Soshh
Individuals who are as mentally unstable as Manning should not be permitted to serve in the military in the first place, never mind be trusted with databases filled with shed loads of classified material.

This case has highlighted serious deficiencies in the vetting process, though with hundreds of thousands of people surfing those networks I suppose one should not be surprised if the odd cretin or two slips through the cracks.


and you know he's mentally unstable how?


He admitted as much himself. It was even used in his defence. Have you been living under a rock?


Have you? Obviously he would say that if it meant more lenient charges. Just because it has been established, doesn't make it true in the least.

I mean, really put some thought into this for just a brief moment. The guy said he was mentally unstable, so you believe that he is mentally unstable? Who the hell would ever say that they are mentally unstable? And is this something that a mentally unstable person would do? No, it isn't. In fact, it is pretty damn sane if you ask me, considering that the whole American machine is virtually psychotic these days.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by Soshh
He admitted as much himself. It was even used in his defence. Have you been living under a rock?


Have you? Obviously he would say that if it meant more lenient charges. Just because it has been established, doesn't make it true in the least.

I mean, really put some thought into this for just a brief moment. The guy said he was mentally unstable, so you believe that he is mentally unstable? Who the hell would ever say that they are mentally unstable? And is this something that a mentally unstable person would do? No, it isn't. In fact, it is pretty damn sane if you ask me, considering that the whole American machine is virtually psychotic these days.


Read the chat logs.




top topics



 
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join