It looks like PFC Bradley Manning is heading for a full court martial

Army PFC Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of copying and sending to Julian Assange of WikiLeaks hundreds of thousands of classified documents, has been recommended for court martial:


WikiLeaks: Judge recommends court-martial for Bradley Manning


January 12, 2012 |  3:38 pm

A military judge has recommended that Pfc. Bradley Manning face a general court-martial for allegedly disclosing hundreds of thousands of classified military and diplomatic files and reports to WikiLeaks, the Army announced Thursday.

Manning, 24, is charged with aiding the enemy, transmitting national defense information in violation of the Espionage Act, and more than 20 other criminal charges. If convicted, he could be sente

nced to life in a military prison.

Lt. Col. Paul Alamanza heard evidence against Manning during a weeklong Article 32 hearing, a military proceeding similar to a civilian grand jury, last month at Ft. Meade, Md. According to an Army statement, Alamanza concluded that “the charges and specifications are in the proper form and that reasonable grounds exist to believe that the accused committed the offenses alleged.”

A more senior judge, Col. Carl R. Coffman, will now review Alamanza’s report and will decide whether to refer the case to a general court-martial.

There was a line on the television show NCIS, where Special Agent Gibbs, in intimidating two college boys who appeared to be withholding information to solve a crime, said, “Believe me, you won't do well in prison.” Somehow, it looks to me like PFC Manning might fit that description.

Perhaps he should have thought of that before he (allegedly) stole and dumped classified information.

zp8497586rq

40 Comments

  1. Somehow I see the lefty MSM bringing on numerous lefty lawyers defending what Manning did and saying he should not be tried and is actually a hero. And yet these same idiots would also be advocating that the 4 Marines who urinated on the dead Taliban get life in prison.

  2. Contrary to your incomplete understanding of our jurisprudence, koolo, we honor the right of any accused to defend himself in a court of law.

    I do have a problem with Bradley being held, often in solitary confinement, for a year and a half without charges and without having his day in court. Do you agree with this treatment.

    Bradley a hero? Four marines get life in prison? Where does this come from, koolo? From you? If not, please show me where the MSM has published any of this hyperbolic information. In fact, it appears to me as though you are making it up, just to make an ideological spash. I am not impressed at all!

  3. WW wrote:

    I do have a problem with Bradley being held, often in solitary confinement, for a year and a half without charges and without having his day in court. Do you agree with this treatment.

    PFC Manning had access to classified information; to house him among the general population of prisoners, when he has nothing more to lose, is to invite further disclosure of classified information to men who are already known to be untrustworthy, the other prisoners. Keeping him away from the other prisoners was the prudent thing to do.

    That said, if the reported conditions of PFC Manning’s solitary confinement were as reported, that was both stupid and counterproductive. There is no reasonable purpose served by denying him a pillow, or requiring him to sleep naked, or giving him sufficient blankets and sheets. Such would be stupid, because it provides the defense with yet another angle — complaints about PFC Manning’s conditions of confinement — and counterproductive because there were serious concerns over whether he would be fit to stand trial. And if they were worried that he would have used those materials to commit suicide, many of us have absolutely no problem with him committing suicide.

  4. ” There was a line on the television show NCIS, where Special Agent Gibbs, in intimidating two college boys who appeared to be withholding information to solve a crime, said, “Believe me, you won’t do well in prison.” “

    In guessing at what you are implying, I would also guess that the “gender confused” (according to his lawyers) Bradley Manning might view it as an opportunity for expressing his inner self. Maybe they’ll let him keep his Lady Gaga music collection, and a few pink hankies to drape over the lights in his cell. Who knows what he might succeed in making of his life …

  5. WW writes

    Contrary to your incomplete understanding of our jurisprudence, koolo, we honor the right of any accused to defend himself in a court of law.

    Of course, nothing in what I wrote contradicts the concept of jurisprudence, so you’re LYING again, WW.

    Bradley a hero? Four marines get life in prison? Where does this come from, koolo? From you? If not, please show me where the MSM has published any of this hyperbolic information. In fact, it appears to me as though you are making it up, just to make an ideological spash. I am not impressed at all!

    Since you’ve expressed virulent hatred towards Republicans and conservatives, NOTHING they do would “impress” you. And who CARES to impress YOU anyway? Nevertheless, you fail to read the words I wrote. Here, I’ll repost them again for you: Somehow I see the lefty MSM bringing on numerous lefty lawyers defending what Manning did …” See? It’s a hypothetical, but a hypothetical based much in reality as I noted: The Marine story is headline stuff with the emphasis on the outrage; Manning’s story waffles between the outrage (tho not much) and the supposed “righteousness” of his actions.

  6. Koolo says:
    January 13, 2012 at 07:52

    “Somehow I see the lefty MSM bringing on numerous lefty lawyers defending what Manning did and saying he should not be tried and is actually a hero. And yet these same idiots would also be advocating that the 4 Marines who urinated on the dead Taliban get life in prison.”

    The MSM perhaps. I came across an MSM web article on the event which asked for votes. The usual kind of selection. Something like, vote: 1, It’s an atrocity; 2, It’s regrettable; 3, Sh*t happens, it’s war.

    As I recall, at the time I voted, about 80 plus percent had voted 3.

    My general feeling is that if a 4th option had been offered that proposed something along the lines of, “Good, now dump the bodies in the cesspit,” it would have split the vote garnered by option #3.

  7. DNW writes

    The MSM perhaps.

    Precisely. Your average joe believes that’s the BEST thing that could happen to those Taliban scumbags. Which shows (again) just how out of touch our contemporary MSM is.

  8. So now a possible misunderstanding becomes a lie, is that it koolo?

    And the virulent hatred is in your mind, koolo, as you project your own feelings. Intense disagreement by me does not constitute hatred, so please mind your manners.

    Why do you assume that lawyers who defend Bradley are “lefties”, koolo? So no, I don’t “see”, and I don’t agree with your attempt to politicize the defense of Bradley. It is the duty of a defense attorney to defend, regardless of how odious a crime is. So yes, this is indeed a misunderstanding on your part of our jurisprudence system, or, you are just trying to be hyperbolically nasty. Your choice, koolo! And why so abrasive rather than conversant?

  9. “Precisely. Your average joe believes that’s the BEST thing that could happen to those Taliban scumbags. Which shows (again) just how out of touch our contemporary MSM is.”

    Did you ever stop to think, koolo, that they would attribute to you what you attribute to them.

    You might not like their ideology, nor do I. But it is their country, and not ours. And though the sentiment of our Marines is understandable, what they did is totally inappropriate, as our head of the Department of Defense has so stated as well. One hopes that we are more civilized than to do that. It goes to show what a war does to a person’s head, which is why we must exert more effort to avoid them and seek alternative conflict resolutions.

  10. Yorkshire, it is so alleged. Let us wait until his trial is concluded and a verdict given before going off like that.

    There are some who view that what Bradley allegedly did was heroic, as a whistleblower. That said, this does not mean that he should not be punished if he did indeed breach security, which appears that he did do.

  11. Wagonwheel says:
    January 13, 2012 at 11:02 (Edit)

    Yorkshire, it is so alleged. Let us wait until his trial is concluded and a verdict given before going off like that.

    There are some who view that what Bradley allegedly did was heroic, as a whistleblower. That said, this does not mean that he should not be punished if he did indeed breach security, which appears that he did do.

    WW, did you ever serve in the Armed Forces?

  12. Yes I did, and overseas as well, in this man’s army in the Quartermaster Corp. Howeever, I’m not sure what this has to do with our discussion. I was fortunate, however, not to have served in combat during my two years active duty.

    And please note that I said earlier, that I can understand the sentiment of these Marines, standing before the bodies of those who wanted to kill them. But consider our reaction if we had a photo of the Taliban pissing over the bodies of our own.

    I find it useful to try to look at situations through the eyes of others, even our opponents. I suggest that you try to do the same. It may alter your outlook a little.

  13. Wagonwheel says:
    January 13, 2012 at 11:11

    Yes I did, and overseas as well, in this man’s army in the Quartermaster Corp. Howeever, I’m not sure what this has to do with our discussion.

    Just want you to remember the classes you and I went to that made sure breaking laws under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) are not the same as Civil Code. John Hitchcock and daughter, and the Editor’s two daughters would confirm this quickly. When I worked for the Corps of Engineers I figuratively had a “foot” in both set of laws.

  14. “You might not like their ideology, nor do I. But it is their country, and not ours.”

    1, How do you precisely determine whose country it is, and how do you establish a “they”?

    2, Does this view of yours imply that political boundaries should properly operate to insulate one from “moral” interference?

    I mean, I take it that on your view, that if some group of folks set up a country and and established political power and dominance over a territory, and then regularly purged it of what they found to be annoying infiltrating collectivists, and willful dependency and puling share the wealth types, by, say, hanging them from tree limbs, you would shrug and say: I don’t personally like it, but it’s their country”?

  15. WW writes

    And the virulent hatred is in your mind, koolo, as you project your own feelings. Intense disagreement by me does not constitute hatred, so please mind your manners.

    Seriously. You stated at this very site you hate Republicans. This is a fact. Should I track that comment down? What will you do when I do? Let me guess: “You’re ‘misconstruing’ my words.” Or, “You didn’t ‘understand’ the context.” Or some other such nonsense. Spare us all.

    And why so abrasive rather than conversant?

    I just return in kind what lefties — like you — give.

  16. WW writes

    But consider our reaction if we had a photo of the Taliban pissing over the bodies of our own.

    Perfect. You often were criticized for your silly moral relativism over at CSPT, WW; here is a perfect example. You are actually equating the Taliban with our US Marines???

    You have serious problems.

  17. WW writes

    Did you ever stop to think, koolo, that they would attribute to you what you attribute to them.

    Right. And somehow I should care what a culture thinks of ME that

    beheads people for “blasphemy,”
    that cuts off the limbs of those accused of theft,
    that stones women to death for revealing too much of her body,
    that beats senseless women who are raped

    Etc.

    You might not like their ideology, nor do I. But it is their country, and not ours.

    No, you just make excuses for it. And we’re there because those that attacked us on 9/11 were harbored there. That’s on them, not us.

  18. “But consider our reaction if we had a photo of the Taliban pissing over the bodies of our own.”

    There is some mundane truth to this if taken in a merely psychological phenomenon sense; as anyone who has talked to a father who saw service in WWII, and recounted seeing films of his fellow sailors swimming through burning oil slicked seas, and hearing him describing his reaction, would instantly know.

    But the mechanical calculation or experiential anticipation of a some probable result to an action, given certain antecedent circumstances, is a different matter from rendering moral judgments.

    For example, if I killed all the sharks in the ocean for sport or revenge, one might calculate that it was probable that certain ecological effects might follow. But that would be different from saying that I had done anything wrong to the sharks themselves.

    And of course most of your “mechanical” objections, if that is what they are, could technically speaking, be approached with a “kill them all” strategy if it were mere retaliation that concerned you. Presumably though you would find that approach unsatisfactory for something you would probably think of as a “moral” reason, despite your manifest and explicit values relativism.

  19. WW wrote:

    But consider our reaction if we had a photo of the Taliban pissing over the bodies of our own.

    We already had something similar, the episode in Fallujah where four American contractors for Blackwater were caught, tortured, burned alive, and then had their bodies strung up.

    But anyone who thinks that we can have a “clean” war is deluding himself. War is brutal and deadly. The Taliban will naturally use this for just more propaganda, but had this not occurred they’d still hate us and still be fighting.

  20. What the Taliban may or may not do, have or have not done, should be no barometer to determine our own behavior on the battlefield. War is war, which is why we should not wage one except as a last resort.

    And I make my point again to our interventionist here: What would our reaction be to a power who attacked us? Well you already know the answer, and it is our reaction to 9/11 – two wars plus continual intervention into certain countries who happen to have active terrorists operating. Is it possible, Mr Editor, that some may decide, rightly from their viewpoint, that the USA are terrorists? If one observes some of our actions in recent years, and hears our flaming rhetoric against Islamists (Note Mr Hitchcock’s rhetoric as a nearby example.), even directed at some who are American citizens in our own country, don’t we behave like terrorist ourselves?

    We need to clean up our act too!

  21. WW writes

    Well you already know the answer, and it is our reaction to 9/11 – two wars plus continual intervention into certain countries who happen to have active terrorists operating. Is it possible, Mr Editor, that some may decide, rightly from their viewpoint, that the USA are terrorists?

    Perfect example of moral equivalence here: “From their viewpoint,” the USA could be terrorists because … we intervened in countries that have active terrorists.

    Hilarious.

  22. Mr Wheel, you seem to think that the United States ought to be judged by the same standards as you would judge the Taliban or North Korea or al Qaeda. Sorry, but I don’t accept that sort of moral equivalence type of thinking. All democracies are inherently superior to tyrannies, period, and may do what is necessary to defend themselves, and others, from encroaching tyranny.

    The notion that tyrannies or Islamist states or Islamist terrorist groups or movements are somehow the moral and legal equivalent of a free and democratic society is self-defeating, ethically repugnant, intellectually facile, and totally abhorrent. You would put freedom and democracy on one side, Islamist tyranny on another, and the communists on yet another, and try to step back, rest your chin in your hand, perhaps puffing on a professorial-looking pipe, and say, “Hmmm, three different types of government; they must each have advantages, and are all surely relevant to their own cultural settings.”

    I do not: I employ judgement, and am perfectly willing to say that some things are inherently superior to others, and that democracies are always superior to those forms of government in which the consent of the governed is not required.

  23. “I do not: I employ judgement, and am perfectly willing to say that some things are inherently superior to others, and that democracies are always superior to those forms of government in which the consent of the governed is not required.”

    Mr. Wheel likes to have his moral relativism and nonjudgmentalism cake and to eat it too. Just like he wants stare decisis, but only when he wants it to apply. And just like he wants social evolution, but only of a particular, and unidirectional kind; and just like he wants the “general will” to be expressed, Constitutional considerations hindrances be damned or interpreted away, unless of course the general will says something like, for example, immediately deport all illegal aliens, or abolish the income tax or redistributive tax policy.

    Then of course he becomes a man of inflexible principle, more or less, as suits the occasion and his convenience.

  24. DNW wrote:

    ” There was a line on the television show NCIS, where Special Agent Gibbs, in intimidating two college boys who appeared to be withholding information to solve a crime, said, “Believe me, you won’t do well in prison.” “

    In guessing at what you are implying, I would also guess that the “gender confused” (according to his lawyers) Bradley Manning might view it as an opportunity for expressing his inner self. Maybe they’ll let him keep his Lady Gaga music collection, and a few pink hankies to drape over the lights in his cell. Who knows what he might succeed in making of his life …

    What you inferred is not quite what I meant to imply. PFC Manning is homosexual, but I rather doubt homosexuals like being raped. When I saw the picture, what jumped out at me was how physically small he is: prison is a rough, often violent place, and PFC Manning will be hard pressed to defend himself.

  25. “I do not: I employ judgement, and am perfectly willing to say that some things are inherently superior to others, and that democracies are always superior to those forms of government in which the consent of the governed is not required.”

    No you do not, Mr Editor, otherwise you would make an effort to put yourself in the place of the Iraqi wife/mom who faces the threat of losing members of her family to an American bomb, missile, or to a squad who would suddenly burst into her home. This woman then experiences American terror, obviously, which you cannot deny without telling an outright lie!

    Moreover, I made no statement about moral equivalence. I merely contend that our actions can be defined as terrorism, just as the behavior of certain of our enemies. That is not a statement of moral equivalence, except in the minds of neocon warhawks who think nothing of intervening and attacking a sovereign nation who did not attack us. Nothing that has ever been said truthfully can justify such an act of pure American barbarism.

    I don’t know about koolo, but the thing that truly amazes me the most, is that you and DNW are both professing Christians, yet you both wholeheartedly support and promote this barbarism, which you know full well is counter to the teachings of Christ, and of the Pope as well, by the way.

    So now I am to believe that there are different levels of morality, your latest rationalization and justification for our behavior. Sorry, but you both are fools, phonies, and hypocrites all three, in this regard, in my view.

  26. “Seriously. You stated at this very site you hate Republicans. This is a fact. Should I track that comment down? What will you do when I do? Let me guess: “You’re ‘misconstruing’ my words.” Or, “You didn’t ‘understand’ the context.” Or some other such nonsense. Spare us all.”

    Sure, koolo, produce the evidence.

    Speaking of hateful, you have much improvement to make there, my friend.

  27. You might not like their ideology, nor do I. But it is their country, and not ours.

    No, you just make excuses for it. And we’re there because those that attacked us on 9/11 were harbored there. That’s on them, not us.

    Citation please!

    Even if true, we should declare and fight a ten year war. You might also include what we gained with our war on a sovereign nation, other than deposing Saddam, which was an internal matter up to the Iraqis themselves to take care of. Do you think that the 100,000 plus civilian deaths were justified, even if those who attacked us were harbored in Iraq. You need to document your assertions, otherwise they are not credible.

  28. WW writes

    But consider our reaction if we had a photo of the Taliban pissing over the bodies of our own.

    Perfect. You often were criticized for your silly moral relativism over at CSPT, WW; here is a perfect example. You are actually equating the Taliban with our US Marines???

    You have serious problems.

    If I don’t agree with you, I either have serious problems or I lie. A little introspection is in order here.

    Pissing on a corpse is wrong, no matter who is doing the pissing. And you call this “moral relativism”. What is wrong with you, man?

  29. WW writes

    Pissing on a corpse is wrong, no matter who is doing the pissing. And you call this “moral relativism”. What is wrong with you, man?

    You’re what’s wrong with me. And culture in general.

    Question: Who is [vastly] morally superior: A US Marine or a member of the Taliban? Then, given the values of each, how is pissing on a corpse wrong “no matter who is doing the pissing”?

  30. Wagonwheel writes

    If I don’t agree with you, I either have serious problems or I lie. A little introspection is in order here.

    Pissing on a corpse is wrong, no matter who is doing the pissing. And you call this “moral relativism”. What is wrong with you, man?

    You’re seriously stating there’s no difference between the Taliban and our military?

  31. Wagonwheel writes

    Sure, koolo, produce the evidence.

    Well, unfortunatey it seems many past threads have had comments turned off. The ones still active, after examination, do not have the quote.

  32. Well, unfortunatey it seems many past threads have had comments turned off. The ones still active, after examination, do not have the quote.

    Appreciate the effort, koolo.

    “Hi Hube! Take it easy, my friend. I’ll handle WW. :)

    That’s the problem here; you are in here to “handle me”, instead of having a dialogue about some of the rather critical problems we face as a nation. It might be worthwhile to follow some of your own instincts instead of Hube’s.

  33. Wagon writes

    That’s the problem here; you are in here to “handle me”, instead of having a dialogue about some of the rather critical problems we face as a nation.

    How’s that a problem? You yourself say you’re here to “push back” against us conservatives. And “dialogue?” Really? C’mon man, can you be honest just ONCE? Your idea of dialogue is this: Agree with me or you’re a radical extremist.

    If you begin to stray from that tactic, maybe I’ll take your advice. Until then, I’ll continue to “handle” you.

  34. WW wrote:

    Pissing on a corpse is wrong, no matter who is doing the pissing. And you call this “moral relativism”. What is wrong with you, man?

    Uhhh, the corpses urinated on were Taliban fighters that the Marines were sent out to kill! A few minutes prior to them being urinated upon, they were living, breathing human beings, but, because of the nature of the war, it was perfectly legitimate to kill them. It’s OK to put bullets in their heads, but not to urinate on their dead bodies?

    Killing enemy soldiers involves dehumanizing them; without that, soldiers really can’t do their jobs. The only difference in this case is that someone took a video and posted it on YouTube; the real crime is the stupidity of allowing yourself to be photographed doing something like that, and letting such be posted on-line.

  35. “I don’t know about koolo, but the thing that truly amazes me the most, is that you and DNW are both professing Christians …”

    Where exactly did you get this idea from?

  36. Editor says:
    January 13, 2012 at 18:39

    DNW wrote:

    ” There was a line on the television show NCIS, where Special Agent Gibbs, in intimidating two college boys who appeared to be withholding information to solve a crime, said, “Believe me, you won’t do well in prison.” “

    In guessing at what you are implying, I would also guess that the “gender confused” (according to his lawyers) Bradley Manning might view it as an opportunity for expressing his inner self. Maybe they’ll let him keep his Lady Gaga music collection, and a few pink hankies to drape over the lights in his cell. Who knows what he might succeed in making of his life …

    What you inferred is not quite what I meant to imply. PFC Manning is homosexual, but I rather doubt homosexuals like being raped. When I saw the picture, what jumped out at me was how physically small he is: prison is a rough, often violent place, and PFC Manning will be hard pressed to defend himself.

    What you understood me to infer as to your ostensible implication is not what I uhh deduced from, the implication of that which you uhhh …

    Oh hell. I didn’t think that you were implying that the little guy wanted to be forcibly sodomized. Though as a liberal as well as a homosexual, it’s possible that that is a standard part of his psychological make-up. No, I was suggesting instead that he might find the prison environment more congenial than you would imagine; and would possibly take it as an opportunity to create within it a satisfying little ecological niche for himself.

    If you talk about those of whom we do not speak, have you not spoken of that about which we do not talk?” Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus … or wait … maybe it was Scary Movie 4.

Comments are closed.