Skip to main content

View Diary: Manning Gets Secret Hearing to Determine How Much of Trial for Disclosing Secrets Will Be Secret (67 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The UCMJ is NOT like civilian law (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    edrie, sebastianguy99, erush1345

    Nor should it be. Manning signed away many civilian rights when he signed up for the Army. This has been ruled on many times.

    I support secret hearings in this case absolutely. IT deals with classified information. It must be held in secret and again, this has been ruled on many times.

    As far as Manning goes, I do not think he will be punished enough for his crimes against his nation. The man is as guilty as any other spy and deserves life in prison at best.

    That's my opinion of this fiasco and the smarmy spy who all too many are all too quick to idolize.

    •  Ah, the UCMJ. So should Manning be freed (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RF, joe shikspack, 3goldens

      since the UCMJ says Manning should have gotten a trial within 4 months, not two years?

      http://usmilitary.about.com/...

      "In most cases, imposing pretrial confinement "starts the clock." After imposing pretrial confinement, the command must usually bring the case to trial within 120 days, or risk having the case overturned on appeal."

      •  What's the statute itself say? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NT Toons

        "In most cases" sounds like a giant loophole, so I'm curious what the actual text is.

        For me the really damning one is 10 USC § 813.13:

        No person, while being held for trial, may be subjected to punishment or penalty other than arrest or confinement upon the charges pending against him, nor shall the arrest or confinement imposed upon him be any more rigorous than the circumstances require to insure his presence, but he may be subjected to minor punishment during that period for infractions of discipline.
        If even a fraction of the reports are true, I don't know how this hasn't been violated repeatedly.

        Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

        by pico on Tue May 07, 2013 at 01:39:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  the idea that any member of the service with (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      reginahny, Walt starr, erush1345

      access to a computer can "decide" to release unscreened data because...

      do we actually KNOW the "because"?  i've read his transcripted phone conversations and it isn't clear at all why he did this.

      then we get raddack and her one-trick-pony GOVERNMENT IS BAAD! postings that further muck up the waters.

      i'd like to see a diary or series of diaries actually follow this trial and the real issues without the melodrama inserted by raddack and her followers.  that's the real pity here - the real issues aren't being examined at all here... just the raddackization of the issue.

      EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

      by edrie on Tue May 07, 2013 at 12:53:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So you agree (0+ / 0-)

        that exposing war crimes is a worse crime than committing war crimes?

        What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

        by happymisanthropy on Tue May 07, 2013 at 02:44:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  so, do YOU agree that exposing over 700,000 (0+ / 0-)

          data files without reviewing them is egregious?

          what is your philosophy on this - that a broken clock is right twice a day?

          and, how about the damage and harm done by the other 699,998 files that were released without consideration?

          EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

          by edrie on Tue May 07, 2013 at 03:20:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  breaking the rules (0+ / 0-)

            is the only way any information worth knowing can escape from the black hole.

            My philosophy is that Manning should be prosecuted for leaking and treated like other leakers.  Singling him out for extraordinary treatment because he embarrassed the criminals is insulting to the concept of democratic governance.

            What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

            by happymisanthropy on Tue May 07, 2013 at 03:38:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  i don't think he was singled out for embarrassing (0+ / 0-)

              anyone - he leaked over 700,000 to a person he knew would publish the entirety online without screening.

              that, to me, is huge.

              he put lives at risk, endangered relations between this nation and our allies, he did serious damage that we may not fully understand for decades.

              the limited "trust" between allies has been damaged seriously - and, quite frankly, i WANT that communication open so that we can prevent future conflict before it occurs.

              these weren't just "breaking the rules" - manning engaged in a serious, damaging release of classified information in spite of his own oath to refrain from doing so.

              had he sent specific files to members of the military or to congress, i might be more tolerant, HOWEVER, it was the manner in which he chose to release these files without considering the consequences of his actions.

              EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

              by edrie on Tue May 07, 2013 at 03:43:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  asdf (0+ / 0-)
                he put lives at risk, endangered relations between this nation and our allies, he did serious damage that we may not fully understand for decades.
                We won't fully understand the benefits of his actions either.  And since the military industrial complex always overstates the danger of excessive disclosure by at least a hundredfold, I'm confident the good will vastly exceed the bad.
                 
                the limited "trust" between allies has been damaged seriously - and, quite frankly, i WANT that communication open so that we can prevent future conflict before it occurs.
                If we're lying to our allies, then they shouldn't trust us.  If other countries are more skeptical of Niger documents next time around, that's an objectively good thing.
                these weren't just "breaking the rules" - manning engaged in a serious, damaging release of classified information in spite of his own oath to refrain from doing so.
                Speaking about the leak in 2010, then Defense Secretary Robert Gates seemed to agree, saying: "Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest."
                If even a made man calls it "fairly modest," I'm going with that over unspecified unsubstantiated assertions.
                had he sent specific files to members of the military or to congress, i might be more tolerant, HOWEVER, it was the manner in which he chose to release these files without considering the consequences of his actions.
                What good would that do?  The beast is not going to discipline itself, and congress is totally useless when it comes to reining in the military-industrial complex.

                Oh, and FWIW Manning did talk to his chain of command about his concerns before going public.  It went nowhere.

                What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

                by happymisanthropy on Tue May 07, 2013 at 04:44:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  your post has many troubling aspects here. (0+ / 0-)

                  first off, the lt. col. was not a "made man", as you so refer.  that is, as i am sure you well know, an expression for a mafia killer.  it is insulting and offensive to the highest degree.

                  as for "lying to our allies" - some of those correspondences contained private comments made not to our allies but about our allies.  have you NEVER said anything about another person privately that expressed frustration and anger?  really?  not every word is supposed to be spread across the front page of the media.

                  and why won't we understand how his behavior and actions affect the situation in a war zone?  well, duh, because we are NOT in a position to have ALL the facts!  i don't want anyone who goes off half-cocked with a smattering of knowledge making decisions that cause harm to others.  bloated self-importance can kill people when indescriminately acted on.

                  and, on that note, quite frankly, i do NOT want uninformed sofa sitters deciding they are in a position of knowledge to decide what should and should not be considered classified information.  (referring to the jerk, assange, here)

                  if you think nothing should ever be private, then perhaps you'd not object to the release of all your bank, medical, personal files to be published on the internet for everyone to speculate what they mean.

                  just because the internet exists, it is NOT a reason to think everything should be posted on it.

                  so, manning didn't get his attention he wanted - that justifies releasing unscreened files to the friggin' internet?

                  i find this line of reasoning totally beyond comprehension.

                  EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                  by edrie on Tue May 07, 2013 at 05:08:04 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  jkl; (0+ / 0-)
                    first off, the lt. col. was not a "made man", as you so refer.  that is, as i am sure you well know, an expression for a mafia killer.  it is insulting and offensive to the highest degree.
                    The person quoted was the Secretary of Defense, not some lieutenant colonel.  And the military-industrial complex hasn't gotten less corrupt since General Butler accurately described war as a racket.
                    as for "lying to our allies" - some of those correspondences contained private comments made not to our allies but about our allies.  have you NEVER said anything about another person privately that expressed frustration and anger?  really?  not every word is supposed to be spread across the front page of the media.
                    The world's a tough place.  They'll get over it.  The idea that a country will forgive trade policies that drive their farmers to suicide, but will hold a grudge forever about calling their ambassador fat, is not worth serious contemplation.
                    and why won't we understand how his behavior and actions affect the situation in a war zone?  well, duh, because we are NOT in a position to have ALL the facts!  i don't want anyone who goes off half-cocked with a smattering of knowledge making decisions that cause harm to others.  bloated self-importance can kill people when indescriminately acted on.
                    The soldiers on patrol don't have all the facts either, yet we allow them to literally kill people.  Real deaths, not theoretical ones.  How can that be acceptable, if killing people can get people killed?

                    You don't seem to have addressed my point, either.

                    and, on that note, quite frankly, i do NOT want uninformed sofa sitters deciding they are in a position of knowledge to decide what should and should not be considered classified information.  (referring to the jerk, assange, here)
                    I agree, Assange seems to be a jerk.  However, as public information has become a strictly adversarial matter, with the Pentagon wanting to feed the public as many lies and as little true information as possible, I'm not horribly offended if there's one deeply imperfect person in the entire goddamned planet fighting for the opposite extreme position.

                    Remember the New York Fucking Times sitting on the story of unconstitutional warrantless wiretapping until after the 2004 election?  Good times.

                    if you think nothing should ever be private, then perhaps you'd not object to the release of all your bank, medical, personal files to be published on the internet for everyone to speculate what they mean.
                    Strawman.
                    just because the internet exists, it is NOT a reason to think everything should be posted on it.
                    Strawman.  
                    so, manning didn't get his attention he wanted - that justifies releasing unscreened files to the friggin' internet?
                    I'm not Brad Manning, so I can't answer what kind of attention he might or might not have wanted.  But I do feel strongly that anyone who sees evidence of war crimes and has no effective means to ensure their timely prosecution does have an obligation to do whatever he can to stop or minimize future war crimes.  That would include the public embarrassment of those who refuse to stop the war crimes.
                    i find this line of reasoning totally beyond comprehension.
                    And I find incomprehensible the reasoning that an individual soldier should quietly accept war crimes as long as their chain of command approves.  The oath is to defend the constitution, and then to uphold the laws.  Obeying orders is tertiary.

                    What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

                    by happymisanthropy on Tue May 07, 2013 at 06:06:36 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  ad hoc (0+ / 0-)

            "exposing over 700,000 data files without reviewing them is egregious"

            People keep saying this like it means something.  Manning is just one guy, which is why he went to responsible organizations to actually vet the documents before releasing them.  First he went to the mainstream press like the New York Times and the Washington Post.  After they ignored him, he went to Wikileaks, who did review and redact the files.

            And Manning was revealing war crimes.  Where's the prosecution of Dick Cheney for leaking Valerie Plame's covert status "indiscriminately"?  And Manning leaked files classified Secret.  Where are the indictments of high level officials from the Obama Administration and New York Times staff for publication of Top Secret information?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site