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: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soshh

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.


I'm not going to waste my time. I already know why people make the "mentally unstable" claim when it comes to harrassment by the state. It's not as if I haven't experienced it myself before.




posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
I'm not going to waste my time. I already know why people make the "mentally unstable" claim when it comes to harrassment by the state. It's not as if I haven't experienced it myself before.


Oh no mate I'm sure that you're very experienced indeed. It was all part of his clever scheme. Tell your new internet friend that you think that you're a girl and your daddy beat you up, that'll get you reduced charges. Simply brilliant.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soshh

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
I'm not going to waste my time. I already know why people make the "mentally unstable" claim when it comes to harrassment by the state. It's not as if I haven't experienced it myself before.


Oh no mate I'm sure that you're very experienced indeed. It was all part of his clever scheme. Tell your new internet friend that you think that you're a girl and your daddy beat you up, that'll get you reduced charges. Simply brilliant.


I'm not exactly sure of what you expect from his situation. The guy just got charged with over a dozen crimes against his country, so why would he be shown to be anything other than a nutcase?

And the whole point of this threat pertains to what he was charged for, which was "aiding the enemy" which turns out to be us. I'm smart enough not to fall into some debate trap about the guy who I know or care little about, hence why my whole thread is not about him.

But as you can see, my original observation has evolved into some thread about Manning. This is probably due to Xcath's attempts to derail my thread with yet even more irrelevant descriptions of how the law is always right so therefore anyone who breaks it is wrong.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Well what do you expect when you make claims that aren't based in fact or law? You asked for proof of manning mental issue, and it was stated a few times now by multiple posters. Since you don't subscribe to the mental status issue, you are refusing to actually check the info provided because the info undermines your argument.

You've done this a few times now, in addition to half reading posts and making claims people said one thing when they didn't. I understand why you do it, its just sad that you don't know why you do it.

The mental competency issue, since you are not versed on American law or Judicial proceedings, is being used by Manning's team as a defense to some of the charges leveled. So no, the government is not calling him a whack job, he and his own lawyers are going down that road.

The governments position is manning knew exactly what he was doing and will argue his actions are based on revenge because the Army failed to help manning out.

These threads / conversations would be more productive if you researched / understood American jurist prudence before you comment / make claims. Or is your tactic the standard operating procedure used in the insignificant balkin states?

The goal is to get to the truth regardless of where that truth lies. Fitting the story to surround the facts in order to be justified does not work, as most of Russia and Eastern Europe can attest to.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
I'm not exactly sure of what you expect from his situation. The guy just got charged with over a dozen crimes against his country, so why would he be shown to be anything other than a nutcase?


The conversations that I was referring to were between Manning and the chap who reported him in the first place. He was not charged with anything at the time.


I'm smart enough not to fall into some debate trap about the guy who I know or care little about, hence why my whole thread is not about him.


No you wouldn't have done this on page 2. Much too smart. I would hardly call it a 'debate trap'; I don't expect people to chime in on things that they know nothing about.


But as you can see, my original observation has evolved into some thread about Manning.


Who would have seen it coming? It's not as if the first two words in the thread title are "Bradley Manning".



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Xcathdra - legal type question around this for you.

Ok, Manning took classified docs and gave them to wikileaks. Yup, that's against the law. He broke the law, etc. No question about that in my mind. I'm with you 100% there.

Where I'm lost is the aiding the enemy charge. Oh I agree, that when wiki-leaks made them public they aided the enemy because anyone could get them (including AQ, etc). That would be aiding the enemy.

But, it wasn't Manning that made them public. It was Wikileaks. So shouldn't Wikileaks be the ones facing that charge? Is Manning ending up facing it because they couldn't get to WikiLeaks?



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





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


Killing civilains is a crime... Its just that the US has the biggest stick atm and that is why they get away with it.. Do not forget the Nuremberg Trials. One day soldiers may well be held to account for there actions. The Geneva convention lays it out plain and clear that civilians are not to be attacked. Heck it even covers torture. The US is complicit in war crimes.

That is not in dispute among the international community.
What is sad about it all was the geneva convention was layed out to stop the same thing that happened in ww2 from happening again. Well it did happen again. Between 1-2 million people have been killed for economic reasons.

Bradley Manning reported war crimes and is a true American patriot.


I



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Where're the war crimes that Manning exposed?

All I've seen is a video and some allegations. The video shows a gunner on a helicopter observing some targets and getting authorization to fire on them. Never did I get the impression it was a crime. They may have joked one too many times, but many soldiers respond that way to the pains of war.

I watched a video where a soldier was saying he served in 2003 when they entered Iraq. He said that they were given orders to shoot anybody, even children, if they suspected it was militant. He said that his spirit was broken by these orders and apparently he witnessed others following them. But I also know that in the chaos of war, it's almost impossible to assure that no innocents are hurt. There's no time for a court and jury in war. This obviously bothers some people. This doesn't mean there's no law and order, though. The military constantly watches itself to ensure that people don't do their duties unlawfully. They have to practically get orders for every shot they make, except early on I think it was messier.

If what Manning had uncovered had been meaningful then he would be on citizen's shoulders in a parade right now. The fact that he's not is proof that he's mentally unsound and broke the law for... what?

It looks to me like Manning made a big mess all for nothing, and may even have helped terrorists.
edit on 24-2-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





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


Killing civilains is a crime... Its just that the US has the biggest stick atm and that is why they get away with it.. Do not forget the Nuremberg Trials. One day soldiers may well be held to account for there actions. The Geneva convention lays it out plain and clear that civilians are not to be attacked. Heck it even covers torture. The US is complicit in war crimes.

That is not in dispute among the international community.
What is sad about it all was the geneva convention was layed out to stop the same thing that happened in ww2 from happening again. Well it did happen again. Between 1-2 million people have been killed for economic reasons.

Bradley Manning reported war crimes and is a true American patriot.


Don't bother talking rationally with this guy. The US refused to ratify itself subject to the International Criminal Court, so to Xcath that means that everything the US does is perfectly legal and justifiable because they have nobody to answer to. Seriously, this is how he thinks. He is a cop, afterall.

And notice how I made it clear that this thread went way of the rails in even the first page. I clearly stated that I posted this thread to discuss what "aiding the enemy" means and I still have these guys up my ass about Manning. I don't care about Manning, I care about who the US is labelling its enemy.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
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)


The U.S. public would never have allowed manning to be executed, and the military knows this.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 

Double post. Oops. Remove this one.
edit on 24-2-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 

I don't get how you don't understaind what "aiding the enemy" means. We were in Afghanistan and Iraq. You don't realize that releasing this information might cripple our activities in those countries?

You don't think that somebody on the other side might use this information against us?

Why do you think that that citizens of the US are the enemy? What makes you think that?

I'm not following you. Not understand your argument.
edit on 24-2-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 

I don't get how you don't understaind what "aiding the enemy" means. We were in Afghanistan and Iraq. You don't realize that releasing this information might cripple our activities in those countries?

You don't think that somebody on the other side might use this information against us?

Why do you think that that citizens of the US are the enemy? What makes you think that?

I'm not following you. Not understand your argument.
edit on 24-2-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)


And again, more flies in the trap


You just said that any real information released publically poses a threat to the US. You just said that common people who your military represents, are not allowed to know what their own military is actually doing.

I don't think you really see the flip side here. You can call releasing information to the public "aiding the enemy" or one can see it as the information is never to be released for public consumption for obvious reasons (being that the reality is far from what is portrayed in the media).

And again, who is the "enemy" that is being aided? Manning did not go to the Taliban or Al Qaeda with this information. He went to Wikileaks.

The fact that Manning was charged with "aiding the enemy" means conclusively that the US views dissidents, even non-US entities and people, as the enemy. Saying that "well, some bad guys in Afghanistan or Iraq might have seen this information means that he was aiding the enemy" is BS. There is no confirmation that any of your "enemies" saw what he exposed and used it for their tactical advantage.

In fact, what this proves is that the US is active in surpressing any threat to its own personnel from international criminal tribunals. It is no secret that the US has committed various war crimes in its recent campaigns. American personnel cannot be charged with these warcrimes outside of the US because the American government refused to ratify the US under ICC jurisdiction. There is even the so-called "Hague Invasion Act" within the US that makes it clear that it will use "any means necessary" to rescue its personnel from prosecution outside of its own courts.

And when it comes to prosecuting its own soldiers for war crimes, the US is extremely reluctant. The simple fact is that if they avoid doing so, then officially they aren't conducting war crimes. Any surpression of evidence that shows US implication in war crimes and crimes against humanity is deemed a threat to the US.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

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?


I don't have an opinion on Manning



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   
I'm fine with it... just a question

Whos the enemy? I... really have no idea...



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by morpheusxxz
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.


Your solution is the only solution. Remove corruption by removing politicians, and I say replace them with online voting by the people 100% for the people...place the executive aspect of government in the people's hands. What Manning may have done under current law is bad, but so are the wars and murders the elite in/influencing government perpetuate for oil or gold or power. Government has to be policed by it's people constantly. When something smells fishy, we have to really demand answers and disclosure legally until the day nothing smells fishy. Governments are here to serve the people and protect them, not to operate as a business for personal gain for a few.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 05:23 AM
link   
It's an appropriate charge. Manning is guilty of aiding the enemy.

The enemy being, of course, the American public.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frogs


Where I'm lost is the aiding the enemy charge. Oh I agree, that when wiki-leaks made them public they aided the enemy because anyone could get them (including AQ, etc). That would be aiding the enemy.

But, it wasn't Manning that made them public. It was Wikileaks. So shouldn't Wikileaks be the ones facing that charge? Is Manning ending up facing it because they couldn't get to WikiLeaks?


UCMJ Article 104 - Aiding the enemy


Any person who–


(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or

(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or [protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;

shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.


Wikileaks would never have released the info had they never received it in the first place.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


Please provide your sources showing 2 million people have died by direct US actions.

Its hypocritical as well to only single out the US. On the off chance you didn't know, if a country performs an action that violates the Geneva Conventions, it allows a proportional response in the same manner.

Secondly show us where the Taliban and Al Queida have signed those conventions.

Is there any particular reason you are ignoring the war crimes committed by Taliban / Al Queida?



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Drezden

Originally posted by Xcathdra
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)


The U.S. public would never have allowed manning to be executed, and the military knows this.


Actually yes they would.

Where are you getting the info that says the public would not allow it? Manning is not the first military member to do something like this. In those cases the public followed the updates, some people protest the issue, but in the end the public has never interfered with the military judicial system.

The PA decided to charge manning with aiding the enemy, which can result in death. The PA stated he would not seek that particular punishment, however manning is charged just the same.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join