Bradley Manning trial opens with competing portraits of WikiLeaks whistleblower

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

In one moment before they open up and blow these people to pieces, they declare they see an RPG. Good God.. Even *I* can tell that's a professional DSLR with a telephoto lens on it. You can see, in the moment, where the WHOLE camera body comes out clear of the corner for a moment so you can see the entire object. RPG my ass. They murdered them. Then they shot the crap out of the people who came to render aid with kids in the vehicle and in CLEAR VIEW if anyone cared enough to have zoomed a click closer to check targets.

Ah. Well. You know where they picked that tactic up.

It can make sense in context, but I'm not real sure how you can do it from a gunship like that without being very indiscriminate.

They ought to be court martialed for it. I'm pretty sure LOAC wouldn't allow that one, even with the "they're coming right for me" RPG defense.

Now, you guys notice. The material in this case AFAIK is only S, not TS or SCI. They offered to empanel a jury for the guy but he chose to have it decided by a judge.

For an active duty serviceman that violates security, you can ALWAYS empanel a jury for a court martial. That's a truism that's always been true in practice. That's because there are always some servicemembers that are qualified to sit the jury and they only need five for a general court martial or three for a special.

For a civilian, if you're read onto a TS/SCI project and you egregiously blow the project in the news, they can simply choose to have a federal judge try the thing behind closed doors. You don't get the choice of a jury trial. They may allow you one if they can empanel a proper jury but it won't stop them from sentencing you to death on a judge's decision if they can't.

It's one reason you should be real suspicious of people who are supposedly "revealing all" when the subject's TS/SCI.

Did he release material to a foreign national? Yes.
Did he have authorisation to do so? No.
Did he break the UCMJ, the Official Secrets Act and a host of other laws and regulations? Yes.
Was this during a time at which the United States was in armed conflict with another nation or group? Yes.

Does the 'moral standing' of all the material released have to do anything with the above facts? No.

Guilty.

Personally, I'd go for the death penalty, and then hang the twit.
M.

Originally posted by Moshpet
Did he release material to a foreign national? Yes.
Did he have authorisation to do so? No.
Did he break the UCMJ, the Official Secrets Act and a host of other laws and regulations? Yes.
Was this during a time at which the United States was in armed conflict with another nation or group? Yes.

Does the 'moral standing' of all the material released have to do anything with the above facts? No.

Guilty.

Personally, I'd go for the death penalty, and then hang the twit.
M.

I completely understand what you are saying/typing. I can see both sides and I hate when that happens. What about the crimes he uncovered? They would have been brushed under the carpet...is he anymore guilty of inhumane acts then those animals? Shouldn't someone be there to expose the cream of the crap that joins the military just to kill and get away with it? I believe there should be. If he exposed one crime that would have gone unnoticed, I believe he did okay. I believe there was another thread where someone here suggested that people that are traitors to their own country deserve to die (once they were found to work for the US), and that seems like those were the only ones that did die as a result of the leaks. They were expendable by the US government before so now that they died as a result of a very high risk job, they want to pin it on Manning and claim they cared about their informers/employees? Did they care when they trained Osama and then left? No. They are embarrassed and will make it look like it is all his fault. I'm surprised they haven't blamed Benghazi on him yet...

The above are just my thoughts and opinions...they are not to be taken as facts.