Skip to main content

View Diary: CNN Losing Bradley Manning Story: Manning Was Reporting a War Crime, "The Van Thing" (286 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Please explain (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chimene

    What "rights" of PFC Manning were violated?

    There have been numerous trials for service members charged with committing crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Just because you didn't hear about them doesn't mean they didn't happen.  Your name doesnt appear on the jury pool for General Courts Martials.  Mine does.

    It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

    by ksuwildkat on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 01:39:12 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  The right for a speedy trial, to name one. (10+ / 0-)

      Also, having his underwear removed every night for 9 months at the brig in Quantico etc

      “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.” Terry Pratchett

      by 420 forever on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 01:49:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  His own attorneys were the ones (7+ / 0-)

        requesting a delay in the trial. If he has been so upset by the delay, why request an additional one? And why are you blaming the Army in any event?

      •  LOCK UP DANIEL ELLSBERG and (9+ / 0-)
        throw away the key.

        And while you're at it, punish him as he awaits a trial for OVER A YEAR!

        OOOOOps.  That van already crashed. . . and we're all the beneficiaries--

        because the Ellsberg's expose in the "Pentagon Papers" was the leading factor in precipitating the end of the Viet Nam War.

        My how things have changed!

        Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

        by Einsteinia on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 01:56:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  he has been charged (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        databob

        and will eventually go to trial.  it is my understanding that the source of delay right now is from the extensive bargaining going on.  He is facing multiple capital crimes and it is in his best interest to not go to trial.  In cases of loss of classified information, it is in the governments interest not to go to trial either so there is often a long period of negotiating.  

        As for his under ware, it is my understanding that he choose to make "jokes" to his jailers about the ability to hang himself with the elastic band.  When Privates make dumb jokes Sergeants normally make them regret that.  PFC Manning remains on active duty is is held to the same standards any other soldier is.  When I was a PFC I received some expert "Wall to Wall" counseling for making a smart remark.  

        It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

        by ksuwildkat on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 01:57:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ah, so taking Manning's pants off (10+ / 0-)

          for 9 months had nothing to do with Manning being suicidal? Instead, it's because he made a "dumb joke"?

          “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.” Terry Pratchett

          by 420 forever on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 02:06:44 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Excessive? Maybe (1+ / 3-)
            Recommended by:
            databob
            Hidden by:
            chalatenango, Mindful Nature, aliasalias

            but last I checked tighty whitties were not a right.  

            Personally I would not have wanted to see him nekked all the time.  I would have given him rope, sharp objects and lots of alone time.  And a video camera monitoring him so there was ample proof that any harm was self inflicted.

            Quantico is a nasty place and Marines are nasty people.  He got his shorts  back when he moved to Leavenworth.  And he has stopped making stupid jokes.  

            It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

            by ksuwildkat on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 02:13:00 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  hey fuckwad you are proving everything wrong with (5+ / 6-)

              America and it's wars.

              Thanks for doing such a great job of it.

              •  I said personally (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                databob

                As a military commander his wellbeing would be my responsibility so I would have ordered everything harmful removed from his cell....including his under ware

                It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                by ksuwildkat on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 03:40:05 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  IE (12+ / 0-)

                  "I harbor lethal hatred for him and would act upon it, unless my job prevented me from doing so."

                  •  no (0+ / 0-)

                    its the difference between my personal feeling for someone who would betray his country and his fellow soldiers and my professional obligations.  And there is a big difference between harming someone and providing the means for them to harm themselves.

                    It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                    by ksuwildkat on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 08:52:32 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Rigid thinking (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      raincrow

                      Whistle-blowing isn't exactly what comes to mind when one hears the phrase "betray his country and his fellow soldiers."  It's very distinct from the sort of brazen treachery that should inspire contempt in a reasonable person.  

                      •  Don't insult whistle blowers (0+ / 0-)

                        PFC Manning had multiple avenues to report any bad acts and not compromise classified information.  In fact, because of his access to sensitive information he had MORE ways than the average soldier.  He passed on all of them.

                        What he did he did for revenge and a need for attention.  Nothing more, nothing less.  

                        It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                        by ksuwildkat on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:35:25 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  There is a cloud of (0+ / 0-)

                          emotion interfering with your judgment.  When one ascertains, as BM appeared to do, that one's employer is in fact nefarious, it goes without saying that the channels for whistle-blowing operated by that same employer will not lead to resolution.  And I've never seen anything to suggest "revenge" as a motivation for the disclosure.  Revenge against whom?  For what?  

                          Honestly, your need for a punching bag is so controlling here that you're simply making things up to justify your feelings.  

                    •  Betrayal. Yeah, right. Like gwb, cheney didn't (0+ / 0-)

                      And Manning did.  

                      You got it exactly upside down.

                       We have a military beating the bushes looking for projects, missions, anything to justify hundreds of billions flowing to the well connected, the same ones offering sinecures to retired professional military in an incestuous closed loop of a decaying economic system. We all pay, we will all bleed, we will all pay dearly for outsourcing citizenship and waiving our duty to do informed decision making.

                      Bradley did something audacious and heroic. He simply revealed, like Abu Gharib, something the powers that be wanted to be kept away from oversight, from the public.

                      For that the tools, and loyal followers of various power centers and the self serving want him dead, or silenced permanently, or both.  They always show up to do the death dance on his grave.  Except he isn't buried yet and the story won't go away.

                •  Please... (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  raincrow, 84thProblem, ksuwildkat

                  "underWEAR".

                  "I'm not scared of anyone or anything, Angie. Isn't that the way life should be?" Jack Hawksmoor

                  by skyounkin on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 06:03:51 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Not a remark that reflects well on you (n/t) (8+ / 0-)

              "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

              by wader on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:15:03 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Hey, ksuwildkat, you are proving everything wrong (4+ / 0-)

              with America and it's wars.

              Thanks for doing such a great job of it.

              [slightly edited version of donoevil's post, which I agree with 100%.]

            •  HR'd for fascist suggestions and sadistic spew (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              aliasalias

              I preach the church without Christ, where the lame don't walk, the blind don't see and what's dead stays that way! Hazel Motes in "Wise Blood"

              by chalatenango on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 08:30:52 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I disagree (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Wordsinthewind

                I suppose that if you either go looking for something to complain about, or just walked into this thread, you'd HR this.

                But if you'd participated in this thread, especially if you'd read all of ksuwildcat's comments, you'd understand his comment in a different context, I reckon.

                Speaking for myself, I don't understand the whole 'suicide watch' thing, perhaps because I believe that not only is suicide a personal thing but also that in some cases it's the honorable choice.... and who are we to deny a person that right?

                Or maybe you don't agree that Marines are nasty people and Quantico is a nasty place.... just proves you don't know anything about either. But that doesn't deserve an HR, does it?

                And, before I get pummeled by anyone, I WANT our Marines to be nasty people, because we DEMAND they do NASTY things, and I respect that.

                Cheers.

                Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. Friedrich Schiller

                by databob on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 08:46:42 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I read them (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  raincrow

                  and he's way out of line.  If that's a common attitude, then a lot of military guys need to learn some professionalism

                  Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                  by Mindful Nature on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:24:00 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What exactly? (0+ / 0-)

                    What exactly is "out of line"?

                    That I dont want to see someone necked - which of course he was not.

                    That on a personal level I would give him the option of being free from his troubles?

                    Or that on a professional level I would ensure his safety - even tot he point of having people with no knowledge of the situation call me terrible things for doing so.

                    You cant have it both ways.  Either Im evil for preventing him from killing himself or evil for enabling him.  

                    Please be precise.  

                    It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                    by ksuwildkat on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 01:02:07 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The suggestion of enabling (0+ / 0-)

                      Is far over the line.  If military detention has created such mental conditions it is time to remove him from military custody

                      Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                      by Mindful Nature on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 04:00:40 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  In other words (0+ / 0-)

                        you were just talking out of your butt and have no real basis for complaining.  

                        PFC Manning was unhinged long before he was detained.  

                        It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                        by ksuwildkat on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 06:48:13 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  no (0+ / 0-)

                          you suggested facilitating the suicide of a prisoner.  That is a grave breach.

                          Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                          by Mindful Nature on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 06:56:36 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  See (0+ / 0-)

                            Now you are just displaying the emptiness of your arguments.

                            First you say it is evil to take away the mens he himself suggested he could kill himself with then you say I am evil for suggesting I would provide him with more.

                            And of course you take the position that suicide is evil contrary to most liberal thought.

                            Empty

                            It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                            by ksuwildkat on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 07:11:45 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I never said the former at all (0+ / 0-)

                            I said that trying to get a prisoner to commit suicide shows an utter depravity

                            Suicide isn't evil.  Trying to get someone under your power to commit suicide  is

                            Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                            by Mindful Nature on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 08:15:30 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                •  Wow. (0+ / 0-)

                  YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

                  by raincrow on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:53:56 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  you have never been in the service is my guess (0+ / 0-)

                  without the ants the rainforest dies

                  by aliasalias on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:19:21 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Vietnam era, actually (USCG) (0+ / 0-)

                    And the tales I heard about Navy brigs would curl yer hair.
                    The sociopathic comment would be more at home at Glenn Beck's site.

                    I preach the church without Christ, where the lame don't walk, the blind don't see and what's dead stays that way! Hazel Motes in "Wise Blood"

                    by chalatenango on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 09:59:06 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  and now sociopathic (0+ / 0-)

                      Really, you need to look these words up before using them:

                      so·ci·o·path
                       [soh-see-uh-path, soh-shee-]
                      noun, Psychiatry.
                      a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

                      I have been accused of many things in my years but lack of moral responsibility has never been one of them.  

                      You do realize that PFC Manning is almost a case study in sociopathic behavior.  

                      dictionary.com

                      its free
                      use it and live better

                      It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                      by ksuwildkat on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 01:24:25 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  If you're the officer responsible for a prisoner's (0+ / 0-)

                  safety, you should obviously be the one to "deny a person that right" or your ass would get busted.

                  I preach the church without Christ, where the lame don't walk, the blind don't see and what's dead stays that way! Hazel Motes in "Wise Blood"

                  by chalatenango on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 10:07:10 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

                Please explain the "fascist suggestion."

                From Dictionary.com:

                fascism  (ˈfæʃɪzəm)

                — n
                1.    any ideology or movement inspired by Italian Fascism, such as German National Socialism; any right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with an authoritarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism
                2.    any ideology, movement, programme, tendency, etc, that may be characterized as right-wing, chauvinist, authoritarian, etc
                3.    prejudice in relation to the subject specified: body fascism

                I would assume you believe that suggesting tighty whities are not a right I am somehow a fascist.  I have checked the Constitution and I dont see anything about undergarments.  

                sa·dis·tic
                 [suh-dis-tik, sey-, sa-]
                adjective
                pertaining to or characterized by sadism; deriving pleasure or sexual gratification from extreme cruelty: a sadistic psychopath.

                I will further assume that you qualify providing the means to terminate ones life is "sadistic spew."

                From Wikipedia:  Liberalism asserts that a person's life belongs only to them, and no other person has the right to force their own ideals that life must be lived. Rather, only the individual involved can make such decision, and whatever decision they make should be respected.

                Philosopher and psychiatrist Thomas Szasz goes further, arguing that suicide is the most basic right of all. If freedom is self-ownership—ownership over one's own life and body—then the right to end that life is the most basic of all. If others can force you to live, you do not own yourself and belong to them.

                Your accusations seem to be in conflict.  if I am a Fascist I am fundamentally opposed to liberalism yet if I allow someone the freedom to continue or end their life on their own terms, I am at the very extreme of Liberalism.  

                Now you might be opposed to the things I say and might even find them offensive but do a little more research before trying to articulate your displeasure.  Words mean things.  Your words mean you dont know what they mean.

                It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                by ksuwildkat on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 01:16:08 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  sick (0+ / 0-)

              without the ants the rainforest dies

              by aliasalias on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:17:26 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  If we don't hear about them they don't "happen" (13+ / 0-)

      Like a tree falling in the forest.  

      If the Pentagon was serious about America's reputation and soul, these disgraceful War Crimes (from the generals on down) would have been big news.  

      The fact that we "didn't hear about them" is all that really matters.

      Please remind us of a single CIA operative, or military officer above Lt., that has been prosecuted for War Crimes anywhere since Vietnam

      The military needs to be subject to the same laws as everyone else.  It's way past time to get rid of these bogus military "courts."

      •  ORLY?? (0+ / 0-)

        Well if you pick up any copy of Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times or Marine Corps Times you will read about military trials.  You can also contact the service Public Affairs, DoD Public Affairs or even your congressman as some trials become part of the congressional record.  Just because the national media doesnt pick up on them does not mean they are being hidden.  

        Allen West, LTC, US Army.  Charged with and convicted of crimes in combat.  You might have heard of him.

        "Same Laws?"  Are you kidding?  How exactly are you going to enforce US law in Korea?  Or Afghanistan?  Or anywhere else for that matter?  You cant charge me with a crime committed outside the US against a non-US citizen.  No US court would hear it because they have no jurisdiction.  What you propose would make things worse, not better.  

        How do you propose we follow "normal" as it applies to military discipline?  Can I now tell my commander to fuck off and face no punishment?  Can I be late, smoke medical MJ and bang my soldiers wives?

        Stick to what ever you do for a living and leave the military to the experts.

        It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

        by ksuwildkat on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 02:06:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  They didn't convict West, dang it! (16+ / 0-)

          They did an Article 32 investigation and then offered him an Article 15, which he accepted, paid a $5000 fine and retired..... a semi-graceful exit for a truly despicable person.

          As you know, ksuwildcat, but others may not, an Article 15 (known as non-judicial punishment) may only be offered by a commander, not forced on a soldier. Punishment is limited and the maximum depends on the rank of the commander, and is usually some amount of confinement, extra duty, loss of pay and/or rank.

          It's an 'out' for all parties in a situation like this, but the soldier can refuse the offer, leaving the commander to decide to either drop the charge or move it up to a real court-martial.

          I've never heard of a soldier refusing an Article 15, but I'm sure it happens.... hell of a gamble, though.

          Geez, I guess I'm REALLY bored at work today - I've never written this many comments before. :-)

          Cheers.

          Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. Friedrich Schiller

          by databob on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 02:24:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  more to it (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            raincrow

            The decision to charge him with NJP was based on the circumstances surrounding the incident.  LTC West actually had a good case and probably a better than 50/50 chance of making it though a General Courts Martial.  The command held the threat of convening a Summary Court where a single officer would decide vice a jury.  Had it gone to Summary trial, he probably would have lost as they generally hold a stricter view where as a jury is a crap shoot every time.

            LTC West reported his actions immediately and his command took no action.  Much later when a CENTCOM IG investigator was looking into a different matter the incident surfaced.  Basically someone who was about to go down said "well Im not as bad as LTC West."  Only then did the Brigade Commander involved bring charges against LTC West.  Any jury is going to hold a dim view of charges brought late in an obvious attempt to get the IG to look another direction.

            I happen to know LTC West and I corresponded with him during the time before he was sentenced.  I thought what he did was wrong but I also understood why he did it.  He was faced with a very personal threat and acted as one might expect in the situation.  I think, but do not know, I would have acted differently.  Had I been on the jury, I would likely have voted to convict but I would understand why others would not.  I have no doubt that those who were involved in the plea negotiations did the same mental math.  The final outcome was both good and bad for both sides.  Some would say that is the definition of justice.  

            It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

            by ksuwildkat on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 03:15:49 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  He went over the line... (0+ / 0-)

              and I believe he knows it. From his Wikipedia page:

              During a hearing held as part of an Article 32 investigation in November 2003, West stated, "I know the method I used was not right, but I wanted to take care of my soldiers."[
              I admit that my opinion of West comes mainly from his outrageous behavior as a member of Congress - like most people, I'd never heard of him before he was elected.

              I've spent most of my life associated with the Army - my dad was a West Point grad (1950), and I enlisted when I was 19 and served 4 years, then spent 18 years as a tech rep working on electronic warfare and comm systems. So I have a framework for evaluating this stuff.

              Allen West doesn't measure up in my book.

              Cheers.

              Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. Friedrich Schiller

              by databob on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:02:29 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

                He knew it was wrong, did it anyway and then self reported.  In many ways he did the right thing.  Many others have done similar things and then tried to cover it up.  It was the lack of cover up that cast him in a positive light and made the command think twice about rolling the dice with a jury.  

                And Ill be honest - when I heard about this I was not surprised at all.  it was very much "in character" for him.  He generally placed himself above the rules while expecting everyone else to follow them.  

                Personally I wish the command had tried him.  He would have either been guilty or innocent instead of this half way state.  Its better to stand for justice and lose than stand by and allow wrong.

                It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                by ksuwildkat on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 02:23:55 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  "it is better to stand for justice and lose than (0+ / 0-)

                  stand by and allow wrong."

                  That, in essence is the core of the Manning case.

                  Let the chips fly.  In the court of public opinion there is a determined effort to have a selected, sliver of formality while building a case in the popular media against him personally.

                  Where is the war crimes trial of an incident of three years ago now?  More important to silence the messenger than have the basis of the Iraq fiasco revealed and dealt with. There will be more in the future, fiascos that is. America runs on wars like this, ever since WW 2. Won't change.

          •  Band of Brothers (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ladybug53, ksuwildkat
            I've never heard of a soldier refusing an Article 15, but I'm sure it happens.... hell of a gamble, though.
            In the video and the book (and in real life) Dick Winters turned down administrative punishment( what was later called an article 15) for a court martial and beat the charge. Its the thing to do when a soldier thinks he has been accused unfairly by his commander (as Winters did)

            Arrticle 15s put WAY too much power in the hands of your commander. They can really fuck with your life solely because they don't like you.  In what other theater of life can your boss fine you, restrict you to your barracks, restrict who you associate with? This is why liberals keep their mouths shut in the army---the bosses tend to be conservative, very conservative
            I got one articlle 15 in 3 years, for something others did regularly (sleeping on radio guard)  I thought it was real unfair but that was the Army all over

            Happy just to be alive

            by exlrrp on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:31:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not just conservatives (0+ / 0-)

              Im about as liberal as they come but sleeping on guard.....would have to be some serious mitigation for me not to give an AR 15.  Of course I would also want to know what the heck the SOG was doing and how he managed to let that happen.

              If you think the Army is bad, the Air Force doesnt even have Summarized Article 15s and in the Navy everything goes to the O6.  AR 15 is a great tool if it is used right and if there is followup.  It is an evil tool if used for evil.

              It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

              by ksuwildkat on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 02:28:11 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  The last comment is a bit excession. That way lies (5+ / 0-)

          a Preatorian guard.  

          BUT, your other pts are well-taken.  The lack a draft for over 40 years means many simply do not understand how any of this works, the discipline required OTOH and the real actual prosecutions of military personel for crimes on duty, including in war zones against foriegn nationals (and even combatants).  The US military takes them seriously bc 1) it offends everything they know of honor, which most actually believe in, 2) they really do try and follow the law (but legal technicalities - often caused by respect for rights of all parties in the investigation/litigation -sometimes make things very murky), and 3) how your soldiers are treated often depends on how you treat theirs (tho this may break down when dealing with non-state combatants).

          OTOoH, r/c has a pt about the lack of accountability for General level officers.  The problem there is, among other things, 1) its very difficult to establish direct complicity and thus responsibility, and 2) much of the actual accountability takes the form of denail of promotion or loss of grade and forced retirement (ala West).  Given the 'law and order' propaganda since Gates militarize policing in the 60s, i understand how that might seem more a cover-up than a punishment.

          OTOooH ( :) ), diaresty has pt re: war crime incident.  BUT, that was a tiny fraction of classified material Manning allegedly took/passed.

          However, I find much about the handling of Manning pre-trial to be objectionable, starting with his continued incarceration when a civilian would likely have been on bail.

          •  Rephrased (0+ / 0-)

            I should have said "leave military LAW to the military legal experts."

            I would agree, in general, that holding General Officers accountable is an area that can be improved.  That said, I know of four current investigations and two recently decided ones.  Given the small size of the population, that a lot.  All were for some form of misconduct.

            What we have been less good at is holding them accountable being bad generals.  LTG Sanchez was promoted three times past his peter principle and would have been promoted again had Abu Ghraib not come to light.  General Franks left town one step ahead of the mob and then got a medal from the President.  I cant speak for the other services but from listening to my Air Force peers incompetence is required for promotion past one star.  

            I agree with you that much of PFC Mannings pre-trial has been mishandled.  Why he was ever in a Marine facility in the DC area  I will never understand.  In fact, I would have tried him in Afghanistan or baring that sent him to Ft Riley - in the middle of no where with as little media attention as possible.  Believe it or not, it would lead to a more fair trial.

            It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

            by ksuwildkat on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 03:54:08 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Better. (0+ / 0-)

              And certainly will not argue with the PeterPrinciple stupidity of promotions.  But then above 1 star seems to be all about politics and who you know, and the Pentagon has always seemed to care more about itself and the MIC than the soldier in that.  Franks for example certainly seemed to be promoted bc he was good at kissing neo-con butt.  It may just be inherent in any huge institution with such a central role in so many Washington pies... ::shrug::

              I would have been more bothered by trying Manning in theater on any of the more serious charges he now faces (which I think are egregiously excessive in many cases, and farcial in some - i.e., aiding and abbetting the enemy?  Do they srlsy think he intended to hurt this country?) Frankly, the whole thing seems much overblown to me: he violated some laws re: classiified documents, and that's were the charges should have stopped - and frankly seems to be were the prosecution is headed, with a relatively short sentence, perhaps even time served.  That does not seem unreasonable, given his idealistic motives - and some of the truly nasty stuff he brought to light.

              Having so escalated the stakes, I think the media access and resultant circus was essential to ensure he didn;t simply disappear down a hole as the proverbial 'bad apple'.  But that's just my 2 cents.

              Query: Do you think 23 hours lockdown in a very small, windowless (if irrc) cell was truly justified?  A civilian similarly situated was bailed with 'house arrest' cpnditions.  Surely a 'barracks arrest' would have been sufficient.

              •  10-15 years (0+ / 0-)

                I think Manning will get 10-15 minus time served.  If he is a model prisoner he will do 1/3 of that meaning on a 15 year he would do 5 minus time served.  Thats about right.  That said he has not demonstrated the ability to be a model prisoner.  His lockdown is entirely of his own doing.  He seems to lack the self preservation skills to keep himself out of trouble.  If I were a betting man I would guess that what ever sentence he is given he will serve that plus more for "lost time." Under the military system you can have time added for being a jerk.  I will bet that he uses up all his time served and then some before he gets the message.

                It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                by ksuwildkat on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 08:50:03 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Hope your wrong. That's far too harsh imo, given (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Eikyu Saha

                  the devestating effect of a dishonorable and felony convictions.  Little of what he released should have been classified and/or truly harmed real US interests.

                  Many of the Gitmo defendant's who were active combatants and real supporters of our enemies (as opposed to the poor saps BushCo caught and kept in their ridiculously overlarge net) got less than 5 years, many considerably less.  Manning should not get more than that imo.

                  Though I am not, of course, a member of his jury and so not privy to the actual evidence that will be admitted.  Perhaps it will justify more.  But, I haven't seen it.

                  I do agree he has 'tweaked the nose' of authority, but then I expected no less from a computer nerd.  And frankly, I think that's pretty much the duty of any American. I understand the initial reactions of prison authorities to those things I'm aware of (the joke-underwear thing for example) but think they were far too harsh for far too long.  Often it appears they were punative and primarily serving interests of authority at the expense of need, justice and reasonableness.  Tho that is not unusual for the civilian prison system either.  (Remember the student 'guard-prisioner' academic experiments?)

                  •  Its a tough case (0+ / 0-)

                    Depending on how he is charged, he might be able to upgrade his discharge at a later date though community service.  If he is charged with disobeying a lawful order he would be eligible for upgrade as that is a military specific crime.  If I were his lawyer I would offer to plea to ten bazillion counts of disobeying and 15 years.  That way he has the chance of doing only 3-5 years and eventual upgrade and no felony.  If I were the government I would want one felony charge to deny him those things.  We will learn who was the better deal maker when he is sentenced.

                    Gitmo is a false equivalence.  Funny thing is that the folks around President Bush were so clueless about the military they automatically assumed military tribunals were kangaroo courts.  Instead they got real soldiers who saw a lot of guys doing what they themselves would do if their country were invaded.  The sentences - which are usually the equivalent to time served - are a reflection of military professionals opinion of Gitmo.

                    It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                    by ksuwildkat on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 01:40:03 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I have a feeling we're actually close but coming a (0+ / 0-)

                      t it from different sides.  I'd rather the certinty of a lighter sentence, versus the chance of early release and 'upgrading' later (which you seemed to say in prior post was not likely given what you feel is Manning's personality and likely behavior in custody).  

                      And I feel that, based on info presently public that I've read/heard, that is the most likely the proper sentence, morally.

                      As for 'equivalency'... your pt supports mine: military juries gave many defendant's sentences commensurate with what they expected soldiers to do in war, recognizing many of the defendant were just as much soldiers as they.  So too Manning: who claims to have been serving the 'higher law' recognized since at least Nuremberg, that 'following orders' is not a defense for military personnel to apparent war crimes.  And this includes failure to disclose war crimes.  Manning and his supporters claim following procedure would have been tantamount to a cover-up.  There is strong evidence that something like that occurred re: Abu Grab, at least in allowing some bigger fish to escape and delaying justice for those caught.  Indeed, that was the entire reason BushCo wanted the photos suppressed - bc their release made a cover up impossible (tho not the slow walk they then engaged in).  It could thus be argued that Abu Grab supports Manning's claims.  The only issue then becomes was the scope of the violation (going beyond eg the helo/van video) justifiable.  And to that must be added the (not irrational) claim that Manning's acts shortened the wars by helping turn public opinion against them, thus lending them further moral legitimacy.

                      I am not saying that is a defense to all the charges (tho imo is to some), but it is surely mitigating and thus should imo reduce the sentence.  That imo strikes a proper balance bt military necessity and moral demands.

                      Your mileage may vary.

                  •  Manning should be released until (0+ / 0-)

                    those whose crimes he reported have all been fully tried.  At that point, Manning can be tried.  

                    If it turns out that the "crimes" he revealed were indeed criminal, and if it turns out that those crimes would otherwise have gone unaddressed, then he needs to be fully exonerated.  Why?  Because failure to report a crime is itself a crime; and reporting a crime to a "hierarchy" that fails to address the crime is the same as a cover-up.  

                    The evidence that crimes were committed is, in my opinion, very strong.  If they weren't then I would like to see a full explanation.  And if the revelations happened to cause collateral damage, then tough.  Manning goes free.  

                    •  If he were released (0+ / 0-)

                      he would be dead in a week.  Remember he is still in the Army and would have to go to a regular unit.  That is a death sentence.

                      As I have said before, he had methods of reporting suspected crimes without compromising security and placing himself in jeopardy.  Think about how we learned of Abu Ghraib.  That soldier was widely praised because he did it the right way.

                      Really, he is not well and is probably in the best place possible for now.  

                      It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                      by ksuwildkat on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 02:32:44 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

          •  There is nothing honorable (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Eikyu Saha

            in trying to set up a prisoner to commit "suicide."  It's a crime, pure and simple.

            Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

            by Mindful Nature on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:27:37 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  your opinion (0+ / 0-)

              and not one universally held.  For some, suicide is a release and a gift.  Others see it as a basic right of all people.  In three states its legal for doctors to assist in termination of life.

              Again, you need to do your research or you will continue to look silly.

              It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

              by ksuwildkat on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 01:43:41 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  The American military is (8+ / 0-)

          ultimately under civilian command.

          (Thank goodness).

          The folks who wrote the US Constitution did that for a reason.  It is the American people who are supposed to control their military, not the other way around.  

          Military "experts" control places like Pakistan, and Egypt.

          As for "jurisdiction:"

          Protocol I of 1977 Geneva Convention. "Every State bound by the treaties is under the legal obligation to search for and prosecute those in their territory suspected of having committed grave breaches, irrespective of the nationality of the suspect or victim or the place where the act was allegedly committed."

          Unfortunately, the US military has gotten the wink from the US Justice Dept. that the GC doesn't apply to them.  

          It does.

          •  Yes, exactly (0+ / 0-)

            and it is CONGRESS who writes the UCMJ.  It is CONGRESS who defines military law and justice.

            Imposing that justice in accordance with the law is left to military EXPERTS - judges, lawyers and commanders.

            While I am sure theft and murder are easy to judge by both military and civilian juries what about crimes like failure to repair or missing movement?  What do you know about conduct unbecoming?  Civil courts cant convict you for being a jerk but military courts can.  What you call valid political speech we call contempt toward officials.  How are you going to sit in judgement when you know nothing of the law?

            While I lived in Saudi Arabia I drank beer.  Should I be subject to Saudi law and potentially death for having a beer?  I looked at porn too.  Should I be subject to stoning?

            My job title includes killing people.  Were I subject to civilian laws I would be guilty of murder.  Would you give me blanket exemption?  Case by case?  Easy to do when we are fighting small wars but think about D-Day or Gettysburg.  

            It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

            by ksuwildkat on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 03:27:10 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, unfortunately (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              aliasalias

              killing people is Murder when it's not in immediate self defense.

              And insubordination will get you fired at any job, including McDonalds.  That's what a dishonorable discharge should be for.  (Though speech, obviously, shouldn't be criminalized, even in the military).

              If you are in a foreign country, of course you should b subject to the laws of that country.  You need to not get caught, or stay the fuck out of other people's countries if you don't wanna be subject to their rules.  It doesn't make their laws "right," it makes them their laws.  Just like ours.

              None of this is rocket science.  

              It simply runs counter to years of military "tradition."

              Having two sets of legal standards for American citizens is anachronistic, and constitutionally and ethically unjustifiable.   Having two sets of legal standards for HUMAN BEINGS is ethically unjustifiable.  

              I understand the "logic" to justify a separate "military justice" system.  My father was an Air Force Captain.  But that doesn't make it appropriate for a 21st century democracy.

              We will have to disagree that joining the US military should take away one's rights as an American citizen, or as a human being, or gives one legal or ethical cover to take away the rights of other people.  

              If laws aren't universally applied, they are morally bankrupt.

              •  Ah so now we get to the core (0+ / 0-)

                "killing people is Murder when it's not in immediate self defense"

                This is a great idea but pretty much rules out effective military operations and in fact would prolong any conflict.  The trench warfare of WWI is a great example of two inherently defensive forces locked into a bloody struggle without end.  Extending a conflict by not using the means to end it is is fact a key failure point in just war theory.  Choosing to continue a conflict when the means to end it (attack) are available is immoral.  Yet your theory would deny any non-defensive action and lead to endless absorption of losses.

                Please remember that everyone who joins the military is made well aware of the freedoms they are giving up including absolute freedom of speech.  You demonstrate a lack of understanding of military justice - I cannot think of a single dishonorable discharge for insubordination.  In fact, as a military specific crime it is one of the few charges that can lead to a later upgrade of a discharge like a General or Other than Honorable.  We recognize the unique requirements we place on people and the unique nature of the offense.

                In 27 years in the military the only country I was in uninvited was Iraq.  I not only was asked to come to Saudi Arabia the government reimbursed the Department of Defense for every dime of my "cost" for almost two years.  We establish Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA) that say which foreign laws we will follow and which we will be exempt from.  It was the failure of the US and Iraq to reach a SOFA that lead to our withdrawal of Title 10 personnel (the remaining are Title 22).  Contrary to popular belief, the US military is rarely in countries uninvited but before we show up we make sure the legal status of those soldiers is well defined.  It is not "tradition" any more than the status of diplomats is "tradition."  Without such agreements our ability to work with allies would be severely restricted and we would all suffer.

                How is it any less appropriate for "21st century democracy" to impose different but complimentary legal standards on soldiers and civilians?  No rights are ever taken from a citizen when he/she joins the military.  They are voluntarily forfeited.  I choose to serve and I serve understanding the requirements of service.  No rights have been taken from me.

                It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                by ksuwildkat on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 02:05:30 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Are you a US citizen? (0+ / 0-)

          then, yes, there sure are bases for US jurisdiction over you internationally.

          And if we leave the military to the "experts" we'll end up with the Lord of the Flies.

          Be professional, or go home.  This attitude is a disgrace to the country, and has a lot to explain why our wars go so poorly.

          Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

          by Mindful Nature on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:26:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  once again (0+ / 0-)

            you display basic ignorance of US law.

            If I go to a foreign country and commit a crime in that country that involves no other US citizen or the property of a US citizen I cannot be tried for that crime in US court.  I can be extradited  to that country for trial but no US court has jurisdiction over crimes committed in foreign lands....with one exception - a MILITARY COURT - which has world wide jurisdiction over military personnel.

            Here is a great example for you - Bhopal.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/...

            Had this occurred on US soil the people involved would have been looking at a LOT of time.  But it didnt and the victims had no recourse in US criminal court.  

            It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

            by ksuwildkat on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 02:14:23 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  YOu aren't a lawyer (0+ / 0-)

              so by all means, rely on wikipedia as you r authority.

              Hilarious.

              Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

              by Mindful Nature on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 06:58:26 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  really? (0+ / 0-)

                you are so ignorant of basic law.

                Please, show me some other authoritative document that shows a US person being tried in US court for a crime committed in a foreign country.

                You can mock wikipedia but it doesn't change that you know nothing of the law.

                Come on smart guy, PROVE ME WRONG.

                It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                by ksuwildkat on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 07:20:28 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Funny (0+ / 0-)

                  I am a lawyer.  I love being told how I don't understand basic law by people who have never passed a bar anywhere. Amusing.

                  Ill direct you first to The ATS that shows clearly that Congress can authorize jurisdiction in US courts for foreign acts.  And of course as you yourself pointed out, US court try members of the military who commit crimes in foreign territory. The espionage acts and piracy are similar examples.  There are no inherent limits to US jurisdiction, just because Congress hasn't exercised those authorities.  

                  Got more fish for my rain barrel?

                  Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                  by Mindful Nature on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 08:12:18 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I weep (0+ / 0-)

                    for your law school and your clients

                    You cite MILITARY courts having jurisdiction over military personnel yet your original argument was that there should just be civilian courts.  Nice try but you made my point.

                    Espionage is a crime against the US Government and therefore does not fall under the category of a US person committing a crime outside of the US with no US nexus.  Again, nice try but no blue ribbon.

                    Piracy falls under Admiralty Law which is a very strange mix of military law and international Law of the Sea.  Ill grant that under some very very specific circumstances a US person who commits piracy in international waters and is subsequently captured or extradited could be tried under Admiralty Law in the US.  

                    I truly hope you don't ever defend a military client in an espionage case, which happens to be my specialty.

                    It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                    by ksuwildkat on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 08:52:20 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yes. US military (0+ / 0-)

                      Which shows US sovereign jurisdiction.  It is stil Congress authorizing jurisdiction.  Te fact that it is housed in a particular kind of court is immaterial.  Maybe if youd studied law, youd understand that. Period full stop

                      You are raising series of false distinctions none of which show that the US is incapable of asserting jurisdiction extraterritorially.  Also, you may recall various trials of the USS Cole bombers whom the option of trying in civilian courts was a distinct possibility.  

                      And I drive a 1998 Subaru. Guess being a lawyer isn't as lucrative as being a corrupt member of our ridiculously bloated gold played military.  

                      Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                      by Mindful Nature on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 09:10:55 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  hmmmm.... (0+ / 0-)

                        I happen to know a lot about the Cole investigation.  let me check my notes on the number of US persons involved.....right...NONE.

                        And at the end of it all you accuse me of being corrupt.  As a lawyer I am sure you understand libel.  Might want to think of that one.

                        It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                        by ksuwildkat on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 09:55:34 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  oh (0+ / 0-)

                    and you still failed to show me an authoritative document.

                    I fired up my Lexus-nexus, how about you.........

                    It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                    by ksuwildkat on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 08:55:32 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

      •  oh and (0+ / 0-)

        the tree really did fall.  

        Really bad example

        It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

        by ksuwildkat on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 02:18:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Bradley Mannings Treatment was a Military Hazing (4+ / 0-)

      We must all be willing to stipulate that Bradley Manning gave classified information to someone outside his chain of command....before we can agree as to whether or not he was somehow motivated by reporting a war crime.

      He may be a hero to some for reporting that war crime.

      He chose an odd way of reporting it.

      Bradley Manning made far more data public than simply feeling an obligation to report that 'van incident'.

      Bradley Manning did not appear to discriminate all too much in the data he provided to WikiLeaks.  Would folks who are more on the hero-side of this discussion please explain why Bradley Manning is not guilty of a crime for releasing a score of now-evidentiary materials that had noting to do with a war crime?  In matters of International war crimes such as these, should Bradley Manning be standing in a World Court or a U.S. Military Court?

      I can understand the 'hero' that some feel when listening or reading about Bradley Manning and his reporting a war crime.  But if I understand anything about the Army, it's the need to be faithful to your fellow comrades.  Bradley Manning may be in the Army, but the Marines expression, Sempre Fi "Always Faithful' seems to have been the last thing on the mind of Bradley Manning.  Is anyone really surprised by the treatment he has received?

      •  One need not be surprised to be both (7+ / 0-)

        disgusted and ashamed.

        "the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared material at these facilities and LOFs."

        by JesseCW on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:10:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Hmmm... (3+ / 0-)

        I wouldn't doubt that BM technically violated laws, but I will say that many people have lost so much faith in the institutions that promulgate such laws that the chasm between what's morally correct and what's legal has widened to the point that the latter often has no probative bearing on the former.  It's difficult to garner sympathy for the departments engaged in wrongdoing that intend to make an example out of this young man to avenge and prevent future revelations of malfeasance, even in the case where that malfeasance is not a "war crime" (an egregious example being the Western contractors partaking in sex acts with young Afghan boys dressed as girls).  Further, the U.S. upper class has made enough of a mockery out of the Rule of Law (ie robosigning, flagrant violations of international law, lobbying/bribery) that imploring the rest of us to suddenly take it seriously again is a tough sell.  Finally, there is the unshakable impression that the occupations in the mid-East have more to do with advancing U.S. commercial interests  than keeping U.S. civilians "safe."  It would be easier to tolerate some misbehavior in the service of advancing a greater good if we really believed a greater good was being served.  But that charade ended years ago.  It seems there are not even any attempts to convince us anymore that there's a righteous basis for military presence in that region; it is enough that the war(s) be out of sight/out of mind.  Taken altogether, these circumstances lead to a more sympathetic disposition towards BM, a troubled man who overreacted in what appears to have been a crisis of conscience.      

        •  Hindsight is 20/20 (0+ / 0-)

          It's easy to suggest that, "Taken altogether, these circumstances lead to a more sympathetic disposition towards BM, a troubled man who overreacted in what appears to have been a crisis of conscience."

          But no thoughts about what might have been had Bradley Manning dumped information about troop movements, or covert operatives, or nuclear weapons codes?

          If you saw a crime being committed or video of a crime, would your first reaction be to run to the media?  And then run to the media not just with the evidence of a crime, but an entire library of military internal affairs records.

          This was far more than an overreaction by BM.  Bradley Manning showed a complete disregard not only to his fellow soldiers, but anyone whose name might have appeared in his document dump.  Further, anyone who ever came in contact with any of the people whose names were in those documents may have also been put in danger.

          Folks seem to be giving Bradley Manning a bit too much credit for knowing what was or was not inside those documents.  If you believe that any 'Tom, Dick, or Jane' in the military should run to the media with all the information they can carry if they ever suspect a crime is being committed or covered-up, then keeping State Secrets would be impossible.

          Do folks really believe there should be no State Secrets?

          •  I wouldn't have done the same thing in his (0+ / 0-)

            position.  I don't endorse the action.  I was answering your question as to why some might find what he did to be less troublesome on a moral level.  

            Suppose something leaked led to the death of a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan.  Who would be to blame?  Options include BM, Julian Assange, the newspapers publishing leaks, the person(s) who physically murdered the soldier, the tactician behind the assault, or perhaps the regime responsible for the war in the first place without which the soldier would be stateside, the commanding officers who negligently entrusted BM with access, and so forth.  Life doesn't readily supply an easy answer, as there would be much culpability in that chain of causation.  

            As I mentioned earlier, there may have been more outrage if we had a strong sense that we lived in a country with unified national interests and that U.S. foreign policy existed to promote them equally.  Unfortunately, the profits generated by these wars of choice aren't exactly trickling down to Main Street.  So why would any of us lose sleep over an exposure of wrongdoing by a department that seems by all empirical accounts to be pretty nefarious and adverse to our interests in the first place?  

            That said, I agree with the view that BM should be punished primarily to deter repeats.  But it's not something that fills me with righteous anger or the kind of bloodlust I see in authoritarian types looking for cartoon-simple answers to complicated questions.  Best to you, -B

      •  Any person who would look the other way (5+ / 0-)

        while war crimes were committed, is unfit to call himself an American.  They certainly aren't being faithful to the oath they took to my Constitution.

        It's been a hundred years, isn't it time we stopped blaming Captain Smith for sinking the Titanic?

        by happymisanthropy on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 05:59:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  If this is the kind of treatment to be expected (0+ / 0-)

        then the Marines should not be keeping him. Perhaps civilian authorities should if military ones are not up to the job.

        Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

        by Mindful Nature on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:31:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  well, you sound like a real impartial juror (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eikyu Saha, 84thProblem
      Your name doesnt appear on the jury pool for General Courts Martials.  Mine does.
      Pray tell, how does one get on these jury pools? Probably not by being a registered voter, like most juries. Maybe that's why most US war criminals get off with little or no punishment.

      This Rover crossed over.. Willie Nelson, written by Dorothy Fields

      by Karl Rover on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:32:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site