Pfc. Bradley Manning offers guilty plea in Wikileaks case (Whoa!)

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Looks like he cut himself a deal. Good for him, they were going to fry him

snip>

The U.S. Army soldier charged with sending reams of government secrets to WikiLeaks is offering to plead guilty to some less serious offenses.

Pfc. Bradley Manning's civilian defense attorney, David Coombs, revealed the offer Wednesday during a pretrial hearing that continues Thursday.

Coombs says Manning isn't pleading guilty to the offenses charged by the government. He's offering to take responsibility for less serious offenses that are encapsulated within the charged crimes.


www.csmonitor.com...




posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   
I was thinking at first that he was going to maybe offer testimony against Assange. According to this article it says no.

www.guardian.co.uk...

snip>
The statement is technically known as "pleading by exceptions and substitutions". By taking this legal route, Manning is not pleading guilty to any of the 22 charges brought against him, and nor is he making a plea bargain. He is asking the court to rule on whether his plea accepting limited responsibility is admissible in the case. Coombs set out the details in a statement that was posted on his website after the hearing.

Should the judge presiding over Manning's court martial allow the soldier to plead guilty by "exceptions and substitutions", army prosecutors could still press on with all 22 counts. In this instance, a full trial would go ahead next year. Manning would continue to face the most serious charge of "aiding the enemy", which carries a maximum sentence of life in military custody with no chance of parole.

snip>



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrantedBail
Looks like he cut himself a deal. Good for him, they were going to fry him

snip>

The U.S. Army soldier charged with sending reams of government secrets to WikiLeaks is offering to plead guilty to some less serious offenses.

Pfc. Bradley Manning's civilian defense attorney, David Coombs, revealed the offer Wednesday during a pretrial hearing that continues Thursday.

Coombs says Manning isn't pleading guilty to the offenses charged by the government. He's offering to take responsibility for less serious offenses that are encapsulated within the charged crimes.


www.csmonitor.com...


Your source says his defense offered a deal in which Manning pleads to some of the lesser charges.

It doesn't say anything about the court accepting the deal or Manning avoiding the "Aiding the enemy" charge which carries the possibility of death or life in prison.

I don't believe they will give him the death penalty but at this point it looks reasonably certain that the military prosecution are going to nail him to the wall.

In the eyes of the military and according to the letter of the law laid out in the UCMJ he is guilty.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
He is still going to fry, for life without parole

Assange will be next

Then it's you , then me......



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by GrantedBail
 


He did what he swore to do. Shame he is going to be punished for it.


I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God - Army Oath of Enlistment



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


Yes, I read that. Sorry. They don't have to accept it but it is a defense strategy. I am sure that a request for Manning's testimony against Assange will be forthcoming.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


Yes, I read that. Sorry. They don't have to accept it but it is a defense strategy. I am sure that a request for Manning's testimony against Assange will be forthcoming.


That would be an interesting setup since no charges have been offically filed against assange (much to my irritation). In order to get some type of plea bargain the military side would have to work with the civilian criminal system since Assange, if charged, would be subject to that and not military law.

We need t watch how this all goes if the plea is struck, specifically the words used to describe what went to wikileaks. While that term is used in general, a plea generally means the person allocutes (or whatever the UCMJ equivelant is), explains to the court how they committed the crime and why. Will he used the term wikileaks alone or will Assanges name be used as well?



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


If they ever do prosecute Assange, if he is for real, and not an intelligence asset, they would use a military court. That is what I think anyway.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


If they ever do prosecute Assange, if he is for real, and not an intelligence asset, they would use a military court. That is what I think anyway.


Assange is not subject to the UCMJ since he is not military and has not been captured on a battlefield. If he is charged it will be civilian court.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   
funny how the authoritarians slavering at the possibility
of manning testifying against assange
are ignoring the fact that his being isolated is a form of torture
wouldn't that discredit any such testimony.?


oh well, authoritarianism is a mental disease, after all, with all that is implied regarding
cognition of reality.

after all mannings info given to wikileaks is evidence of psychopathic criminal
behavior, however if you have a 7+ figure bank account or the right uniform you get a pass
for all manner of bestial and inhuman behavior


op needs to change the title to what is really being related by the source link and not op's and choruses little fantasies
as if winston smith *COUGH* i mean bradley manning, after being psychologically tortured into declaring himself guilty will automatically make a diseased and criminal system innocent and justifiable.

L
L
edit on 8-11-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: added edit



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 


That is the title of the article. So I am not going to change it. But thanks for the advise. I would bet that his defense attorney will do anything he can to save him.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by magma
He is still going to fry, for life without parole


Good!



Assange will be next


As it should be.



Then it's you , then me......


Nah, They® LIKE me. It's you first, buddy. I get your stuff, the deal is already made.

Now I'D like to add in his commanding officer, the guy that was in charge of SCIF security, and the guys that cleared him. The very idea that he could enter and leave the secure area with a backpack. Godalmightydamn. You do NOT do that here, and overall we're pretty lax. There's only one place you're going to put removable media, and it's on my machine, and it's padlocked. NO user system in a secure area should have the ability to access removable or rewriteable media. NONE. The printers also ought to be secured. Anything you pack out needs to be inspected too, at least randomly for everyone and anyone with something bulky. You bring a cell phone in that's not SCIF rated, it's gone. Any CD or DVD, writeable or no, gone. Flash media, gone. Your ipad, it's mine, as is any Kindle or Nook. Had that been done, Manning wouldn't be in trouble.
edit on 8-11-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by zroth
reply to post by GrantedBail
 


He did what he swore to do. Shame he is going to be punished for it.


I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God - Army Oath of Enlistment


I took that oath once, and several more like it with the UCMJ parts left out after I ETS'd.

Which is the part that says "I get to decide unilaterally which secrets I'm sworn to keep that I can just blow when I feel like it"? I don't see it in there. Unless he was ordered to - I don't see it.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
funny how the authoritarians slavering at the possibility
of manning testifying against assange
are ignoring the fact that his being isolated is a form of torture
wouldn't that discredit any such testimony.?



Nope... Its not torture at all under US law nor is it torture under the UCMJ.

Leave the UN definitions / requirements at the door as they do not have anything to do with our internal legal system.

Secondly Manning knew what could occur if he got caught since he is required to learn the UCMJ.



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
funny how the authoritarians slavering at the possibility
of manning testifying against assange
are ignoring the fact that his being isolated is a form of torture
wouldn't that discredit any such testimony.?



Nope... Its not torture at all under US law nor is it torture under the UCMJ.

Leave the UN definitions / requirements at the door as they do not have anything to do with our internal legal system.

Secondly Manning knew what could occur if he got caught since he is required to learn the UCMJ.


legal smeegal:
waterboarding is torture and is legal, so is the Murder Program 120 million bots voted for.

how's that working out for you?

if the victim of these "legal" practices is none other than yourself, or a loved one
i'll bet you'd sing a different tune.


"when one considers the genocide of Native Americans and the centuries-long practice of slavery, one appreciates that systematized, institutional torture is as American as sickeningly rancid, fatally poisoned apple pie."
powerofnarrative.blogspot.com...



And never forget the grave personal risk undertaken by Assange and those who work with him. As noted in the story above: "A US army intelligence analyst has been charged in connection with the video leak and Mr Assange has not visited the US since, fearing arrest." If you were to tell me that you could demonstrate that Assange is nothing more than an opportunistic seeker after glory, I would not believe you. I don't believe that mere opportunists run risks of this particular kind. And in another sense, I wouldn't care even if you could prove such a contention. Just as I will be demonstrating the importance of the leaks entirely apart from their specific content, Assange's repeated actions take on their own significance apart from his particular motivation. My evaluation of Assange's personal character might alter; my evaluation of the value and immense worth of his actions themselves would not.

Speaking of grave risks brings us to Bradley Manning. I urge you to read this story at Wired. As the direct result of Manning's (alleged) leaks of videos and documents to Wikileaks, Manning has been charged with eight violations of federal criminal law. If he is convicted on all eight charges, he faces up to 52 years in jail. Even now, Manning is under "pretrial confinement."

Bradley Manning is 22 years old. His life has barely begun. Due to the actions of our endlessly destructive and murderous Death State, his life may effectively already be over. Words that are far more damning than "evil" and "monstrous" are required to identify accurately the nature of the goddamned bastards who would condemn this young man to such a fate.
powerofnarrative.blogspot.com...



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
legal smeegal:
waterboarding is torture and is legal, so is the Murder Program 120 million bots voted for.

Not at the time of its use.. Something you and others seem to ignore. The UN does not crate US domestic law nor does it create laws under the UCMJ. So while the US is a signatory to CAT, the head money case made it, and all foreign treaties, subservient to the US Constitution and its legal system.

So no, its not legal smeegal.. You shoujld understand how it works before claiming something its not. Secondly I suggest you learn how many people live in the United States, and how many are of voting age, and of that how many cast votes, and of that how many voted for one party or the other. You will find it comes no where close to 120 million.



Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
how's that working out for you?

Just fine.. You should spend some time learning about the laws and country you are trying to ciriticise.. Maye if you did you would understand how its working out instead of burying your head under a pile of half truths and willful ignorance.




Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
if the victim of these "legal" practices is none other than yourself, or a loved one
i'll bet you'd sing a different tune.

I have no desire to violate the oath I took, where as Manning did. I have no desire to act in a cowardly and self serving manner like Assange did. If you arte going to try and seize the moral highground you should make sure your argument does not include illegal activity. Simply trying to downplay it while invoking an argument that does not apply to either individual (waterboarding / torture) again shosw just how off course and out of touch you are when it comes to the facts and laws governing this case.



Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger


"when one considers the genocide of Native Americans and the centuries-long practice of slavery, one appreciates that systematized, institutional torture is as American as sickeningly rancid, fatally poisoned apple pie."


If you are going to invoke native Americans would you please learn history? In case you dont know the US was not a country at the time Europeans arrived. That genocide started long before we were the United States of America. Again, learn history and stop trying to rewrite it to support your propoganda.



Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger


And never forget the grave personal risk undertaken by Assange and .... blah blah blah blah

Assange is a coward and nothing more.. Plain and simple.. He has a personal vendetta aginst the US and has stated such numerous times now. He has taken NO personal risk and trying to portray him as being in danger is assinine to say the least.

Manning was not charged because of the video.. He was charged because he accessed classified material and passed that info along to people who are not authorized to have it. Something Assange is doing himself by whoring himself out to media outlets while begging people for money for his own personal gains..


Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
Speaking of grave risks brings us to Bradley Manning. I urge you to read this story at Wired. As the direct result of Manning's (alleged) leaks of videos and documents to Wikileaks, Manning has been charged with eight violations of federal criminal law. If he is convicted on all eight charges, he faces up to 52 years in jail. Even now, Manning is under "pretrial confinement."

Bradley Manning is 22 years old. His life has barely begun. Due to the actions of our endlessly destructive and murderous Death State, his life may effectively already be over. Words that are far more damning than "evil" and "monstrous" are required to identify accurately the nature of the goddamned bastards who would condemn this young man to such a fate.
powerofnarrative.blogspot.com...


The coward Manning is lucky they are not seeking the death penalty for aiding the enemy during a time of war. 52 years in my opinion is not enough time.. Ironically enough the very legal system he ignored is going out of its way to protect him and afford him his legal rights under the UCMJ.

If people are going to whine about Mannings conditions then take the time to learn how the UCMJ works and the fact people are notified of their diminished legal rights when joining the military. Joining is voluntary and they know what they are giving up prior to enlisting / being comissioned.

I hvae no issues with you citicising... Wnhat sad though is the fact you failed / refused to actually learn all sides of the equation before opning your mouth...

Just as Assange did...

Just as Manning did...

2 wrongs dont make a right, no matter how desparately you wisah they did in order to justify your position in support of the coward manning and the meglomaniac assange.
edit on 23-11-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Many of us on ATS are civilians and don't understand how they compartmentalize and classify sensitive information in the military? We understand that many of you signed rigorous non disclosure agreements before obtaining training that involved classified technology and protocols. Even if the secret later is declassified and someone else discusses it you can't talk about it because the non disclosure agreement lasts forever?

Now the Navy used to allow information published in graphical picture format but with no text. Is that why they are coming down so hard on Wikileaks? For example a funny picture of someone eating a Gyro sandwich on a plate with doritos is considered innocuous, but a Wikileaks document detailing ring laser gyro technology with Valknut logos would have been considered leaking classified information? (in its day when RLG technology was still classified that is).



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cauliflower
Many of us on ATS are civilians and don't understand how they compartmentalize and classify sensitive information in the military? We understand that many of you signed rigorous non disclosure agreements before obtaining training that involved classified technology and protocols. Even if the secret later is declassified and someone else discusses it you can't talk about it because the non disclosure agreement lasts forever?


Bingo. Sort of. If the secret is blown but not declassed, you may not discuss it in any way - your NDA has not lapsed. That's why you got that weird behavior when that SEAL published his book, where the Pentagon was scrambling to decide if active service personnel could legally purchase one and read it, or discuss the contents.

Some NDAs contain an implied out clause - if the material becomes widely known, the NDA auto-terminates. That's more for contractors on secret clearance projects than TS or SCI. But in general, unless you know it was declassed by being formally informed your NDA no longer binds you, it's generally safer not to discuss things. You don't know, for instance, if EVERYTHING on that project is now out. And a lot of times the fact that x happened in country Y on date Z doesn't tag the guys that were involved in perpetrating said X. So if you say "Oh, yeah, Sergeants Carnes and Adolph were on that you know, ODA0113!" now you've possibly put targets on their backs.

Some NDAs lapse after a number of years. Others never do.



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
legal smeegal:
waterboarding is torture and is legal, so is the Murder Program 120 million bots voted for.

1-Not at the time of its use.. Something you and others seem to ignore. The UN does not crate US domestic law nor does it create laws under the UCMJ. So while the US is a signatory to CAT, the head money case made it, and all foreign treaties, subservient to the US Constitution and its legal system.

2-So no, its not legal smeegal.. 2aYou shoujld understand how it works before claiming something its not. 2bSecondly I suggest you learn how many people live in the United States, and how many are of voting age, and of that how many cast votes, and of that how many voted for one party or the other. You will find it comes no where close to 120 million.



Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
how's that working out for you?

3-Just fine.. You should spend some time learning about the laws and country you are trying to ciriticise.. Maye if you did you would understand how its working out instead of burying your head under a pile of half truths and willful ignorance.




Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
if the victim of these "legal" practices is none other than yourself, or a loved one
i'll bet you'd sing a different tune.

4-I have no desire to violate the oath I took, 5-where as Manning did. 6-I have no desire to act in a cowardly and self serving manner like Assange did. 7-If you arte going to try and seize the moral highground 7a-you should make sure your argument does not include illegal activity. Simply trying to downplay it while invoking an argument that does not apply to either individual (waterboarding / torture) again shosw just how off course and out of touch you are when it comes to the facts and laws governing this case.



Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger


"when one considers the genocide of Native Americans and the centuries-long practice of slavery, one appreciates that systematized, institutional torture is as American as sickeningly rancid, fatally poisoned apple pie."

If you are going to invoke native Americans would you please learn history? In case you dont know the US was not a country at the time Europeans arrived. That genocide started long before we were the United States of America. Again, learn history and stop trying to rewrite it to support your propoganda.



Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger


And never forget the grave personal risk undertaken by Assange and .... blah blah blah blah

Assange is a coward and nothing more.. Plain and simple.. He has a personal vendetta aginst the US and has stated such numerous times now. He has taken NO personal risk and trying to portray him as being in danger is assinine to say the least.

Manning was not charged because of the video.. He was charged because he accessed classified material and passed that info along to people who are not authorized to have it. Something Assange is doing himself by whoring himself out to media outlets while begging people for money for his own personal gains..


Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
Speaking of grave risks brings us to Bradley Manning. I urge you to read this story at Wired. As the direct result of Manning's (alleged) leaks of videos and documents to Wikileaks, Manning has been charged with eight violations of federal criminal law. If he is convicted on all eight charges, he faces up to 52 years in jail. Even now, Manning is under "pretrial confinement."

Bradley Manning is 22 years old. His life has barely begun. Due to the actions of our endlessly destructive and murderous Death State, his life may effectively already be over. Words that are far more damning than "evil" and "monstrous" are required to identify accurately the nature of the goddamned bastards who would condemn this young man to such a fate.
powerofnarrative.blogspot.com...


The coward Manning is lucky they are not seeking the death penalty for aiding the enemy during a time of war. 52 years in my opinion is not enough time.. Ironically enough the very legal system he ignored is going out of its way to protect him and afford him his legal rights under the UCMJ.

If people are going to whine about Mannings conditions then take the time to learn how the UCMJ works and the fact people are notified of their diminished legal rights when joining the military. Joining is voluntary and they know what they are giving up prior to enlisting / being comissioned.

I hvae no issues with you citicising... Wnhat sad though is the fact you failed / refused to actually learn all sides of the equation before opning your mouth...

Just as Assange did...

Just as Manning did...

2 wrongs dont make a right, no matter how desparately you wisah they did in order to justify your position in support of the coward manning and the meglomaniac assange.
edit on 23-11-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


1-legalistic sophistry, which is irrelevant to the matter at hand.
overuled.
my point which you choose to ignore by spouting rubbish is that torture is wrong
whether sanctified by legality or not.
2-yes it is legal smeegal, don't waste my time defending your modus vivendi, as a conflict of interest can be shown.
2a- oh, but i understand it much better than you, having gamed the courts on multiple occassions, without counsel
[think of me as the exception to the rule regarding self defenders, having a fool for a client]
stripped of it's mystique, THE LAW is merely a tool of violence used by those who would rule over others
2b-as for the 120 million: a copy paste error [agrravated by a 2 week post ban]

lol, nitpicking a tree so the forest can be chopped down while we distract ourselves.

seeing it from the outside i can see the law for what it is, your being an insider, on the other hand, means you are the one living in a bubble L
L

3- already argued in 2 and 2a
as for burying ones head and wallowing in the muck of ignorance,
sounds like a psychological projection to me.

4- oh, you will, eventually, 60% of people will kill if ordered to

board.freedomainradio.com...
i find it hilarious that you occassionally go to pains to claim that YOU would never point your guns against the people if the gov orders you to, yet here you are as usual, as cheerleader for criminals, protected by "legalities"
nothin' personal mind you, when push comes to shove, you might actually refuse, however any and all forms of compromise with evil tend to be fatal, just as any compromise between food and poison leads to death.

5-nope, manning refused to be an accomplice to crimes and set out to blow the whistle
don't presume to speak for him, or his motives unless you're counsel for prosecution in that case
which i doubt, given your speaking on the subject.

6- lol but you'll mince around avoiding the elephant in the room
you only hate and fear assange because he's pointing it out
who's being cowardly? [see 3]

7-and lol, height is relative to the observer. if you see me as being or taking the moral high-ground
what does that say about your position? L
L

7a- lol, your prejudice regarding the case stands exposed here, in your little world, manning is GUILTY
you simply refuse to think otherwise as it could be bad for your self-esteem/mental health to admit even the possibility of your being wrong, all you care is whether he's hung, shot or electrocuted.
so much for you being off course and out of touch when it comes to reality


no it's you who needs to learn history, i on the other hand have been a student of such since childhood
i would educate you on the matter, but thats your plan: to get off topic, conveniently pointing to the past in order to ignore the present. me, i live in reality, where it is acknowledged that americans are the most vicious breed of inhuman killers ever seen in human history. imagine, just yesterday y'all was celebrating the awesome thank you the pilgrims gave the natives from saving them from rank animal starvation, by exterminating them, every last man, woman, and child of that foolish tribe, ten years later. and you then tell the children a half truth, disney version that ignores that act of ingratitude.
just as you all ignore evil , and indeed, defend it.
www.chris-floyd.com...

not even going to bother with the rest of your crapulent arguments
in judging and condeming manning and assange, and actually standing against them in defense of inhuman monsters that murder, rape, torture, bomb, and loot the world, you are in reality judging and condemning your self.

as you you were.

toodles
edit on 23-11-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: /*@#$%%^%$%$ BBcode
edit on 23-11-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-11-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


To expand on your explanation a bit...

When it comes to classified material people automatically assume it comes from only one source when in fact it does not.

If the CIA, NSA, DIA and Naval Intelligence work on a program together, they all do not have access to the same information, and the classification levels on the respective sections can vary.

If an NSA report is released / leaked, it can very well identify portions of the report that came from the other agencies. If the NSA report refers to informant B who supplied technical schematics A, its possible the information about informant B came from Naval intelligence and schematic A could have come from the CIA.

The CIA and Naval Intelligence reports will contain more information on the informant and the technical schematics because their intelligence sources are the ones who provided the info.

A leak of one classified document, no matter how insigificant (like what a world leader eats for lunch), can possibly adversly affect other inteliigence operations / information recovery.

Since meals for world leades are generally prepared by a few people who have been vetted, releasing that information can pinpoint where the info came from. While what a person eats does not seem important, it entirely possible that person was also providing information other than meals.

The world of intelligence is compartmentalized for a reason, even more so when it the information being used comes from multiple agencies that go into one comprehensive report. This nis looking just at US intelligence, so it becomes even more problematic if the info we have comes from an allied intelligence source. Those agencies have just as much right to be pissed about a leak since it jeopradizes their operations, people and assetts.

Its not always about the US.



  exclusive video


new topics
top topics
 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join



atslive.com

hi-def

low-def