Bradley “Breanna” Manning to be court martialed
The officer who presided over the Article 32 hearing for Bradley Manning has decided that the case of Manning releasing classified material to the world through Wikileaks has merit and will go to trial. From the Washington Times;
Pfc. Manning faces 22 counts, including aiding the enemy, for allegedly giving more than 700,000 secret U.S. documents to the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks. Prosecutors say WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange collaborated with the soldier.
Defense lawyers say Pfc. Manning was clearly a troubled young soldier. They say the Army never should have sent him to Iraq or given him access to classified material.
The defense is brilliant. Their contention is that Manning didn’t leak the information, but if he did, the information shouldn’t have been classified, and he was confused about why he has a dick, so that’s another excuse right there.
ABC News reports that the morally bankrupt Left is aleady littering the landscape of the nation’s capitol with billboards in support of Manning;
The billboard at 1240 New York Ave. NE displays a picture of Manning with the words “Free Bradley Manning” and “Blowing the whistle on war crimes is not a crime.”
“Our goal was to basically display broad public support for Bradley,” said Jeff Paterson, project director of Courage to Resist. “We think Bradley deserves the same amount of support that Daniel Ellsberg received when he released the Pentagon papers.”
Yeah, Courage To Resist also supported Jason Abdo, the failed Fort Hood terrorist before his plot was revealed. They probably gave Abdo the wherewithal to escape the Army after he was charged with having child porn and a place from which to launch his doomed plot.
Category: Antiwar crowd, Shitbags
Smallish correction: Article 32 officers don’t “decide” whether a case goes to court-martial or not – commanders do. The 32 officers make recommendations, but the commander can ignore the recommendation and do whatever he wants. The difference is that, once an Article 32 has happened, the general can refer it to a general court-martial instead of a special court-martial. (Which increases the penalties the person can receive.)
This is one outcome that I don’t think was ever in doubt.
The other being that Bradley, Breanna, or what the hell he/she/it is named this week is going to be plowed by Bubba for the better part of the remainder of its life.
That’s right, give him the judicial process and then send him to the greybar for life.
Guess who has court martial duty at Ft. McNair next week. Does anyone know how long it takes to go from the Art. 32 hearing to the court martial?
I’m gonna take a SWAG and say you’re safe, Bobo.
Or more to the point, he’s safe from you.
“Defense lawyers say Pfc. Manning was clearly a troubled young soldier. They say the Army never should have sent him to Iraq or given him access to classified material.”
So basically, they’re saying that Manning had diminished capacity, wasn’t responsible for his own actions, etc, etc. I love this defense, because whether or not it’s successful, it completely eviscerates all of the claims that Manning was some kind of righteous warrior bound by his conscience to release this information. If his “troubles” made him do it, then it wasn’t a calculated move, so the left can stop building idols to this guy.
While the subject is hot… look at his recruiter that put him in the Army and look at his Drill Sergeants. His immediate command got spanked… just wondering how this nut job “slipped through the cracks.” The Army professes total accountability… then they should do it! If this guy put up a facade, OK I’ll be fine with those findings, however if he was a nut-job then… well? The killer at Ft. Hoods background is being thoroughly conducted because he pulled a trigger. This nut-job punched a keyboard which caused a lot of unseen problems that we will never know.
As for the “he was confused about why he has a dick” statement… I laughed so hard I spilled my drink.
#5 – could be weeks or could be months. If they preferred charges before the Article 32 (usual procedure) they’re supposed to at least get him arraigned within 4 months, but the prep time for the Article 32, and the time spent on the hearing itself, don’t count, and neither do delays approved by the CG or the judge. If the defense asks for lots of delays (like court-ordered sanity evaluations) they could drag it out longer.
This douche hammer is going away for a long, long time. Anyone know if they ruled out the death sentence?
The Supreme Court has ruled it out for just about anything except murder. Even child rape doesn’t get it any more. So, no, don’t expect it to be on the table.
he committed treason. Fuck him.
He committed treason.
I don’t claim in-depth knowledge of the law of treason, but I don’t agree with this – thinking about it, I looked up Cramer vs. United States –
“Thus the crime of treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy; and rendering him aid and comfort. A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country’s policy or interest, but so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the other hand, a citizen may take actions, which do aid and comfort the enemy – making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength – but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason.”
(Italics mine.) I see that he did things our enemies would like done; but what I haven’t seen yet is the proof that he actually “adhered” to the enemy (“I’m getting this information to make the Taliban stronger…I’m getting this information to help al-Qaida win…” – that sort of thing). No doubt he committed serious crimes; I just don’t think treason is one of them. (Though I could be shown otherwise, with facts I don’t have.)
Fuck him.
I agree completely with this.
The group paying the way for Manning’s “defense” estimates they’ll spend maybe $180K on his defense? They really need to get a grip, they can multiply that by 4 and still not get him off, they’d be smarter to have his attorney plead him out, I think he’d get less time.
And, did I really say, “get him off”?
No matter what lunacy his defense throws at the wall hoping it sticks, this little pukeface will die in prison.
@13: the “enemy” Is a wide an loose definition. Indeed Julian Assange could wel be considered an Enemy because his goals are clearly contrary to what is best for the United States of America. Now that is pretty wide. I’ll be willing to admit that. But knowingly or otherwise Manning did give Aid and Comfort. That being one of the Major articles of Treason. Sadly as it is rather ill defined in our books (and has only been tried a handful of times).
As an aside I think that our Death Penalty is too merciful and takes too F***ing long. If it is used as a deterrent against crime, then it should not be an easy death, and it should be swift. It has no value as a punishment if it takes 20 years to conduct the sentence.
@16 – I think that was the point of the quote I posted – that you can give “aid and comfort,” but if you don’t at the same time “adhere to the enemy” – like folks we are at war with – then you may’ve committed a crime, but that crime is not treason. Use the Rule of Lenity and I don’t see any way Assange is going to come out as an “enemy.”
I think that term’s the only one defined in the Constitution because it was the one most likely to be expanded for the wrong purposes.
Don’t disagree with you on the death penalty. Don’t have any useful suggestions for speeding it up more jotted down on my shirt cuff, either.
Saw this thread late, but decided I’d chime in anyway.
Redacted1775: Published reports I’ve read indicate that the Army did indeed take the death penalty “off the table”, so to speak. Don’t know why, and haven’t seen any article that gave the rationale for same. Don’t personally agree, but I can live with him doing life instead.
Alberich, Doc Bailey: a charge of treason would be virtually impossible to prosecute and would risk the little shithead getting away with it. The Constitution requires either two witnesses to the same overt act, or admission in open court, for a treason conviction (Article III, Section 3). Good luck convincing any court to accept testimony about computer forensics as being “witness to the same overt act”. And even someone who’s as big an idiot as Manning isn’t going to admit to committing treason in open court.
However, it really doesn’t matter if he’s charged with treason. The crime he’s facing – Aiding the Enemy (Article 104, UCMJ) – during wartime has the same max penalty (death or life imprisonment) as treason.
This’ll make your blood boil Hondo:
http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=28673
Redacted1775:
Had already seen that.
They’re from Iceland. Must be brain-freeze. That’s the only thing I can think of that explains their affinity for Manning, Bjork, and hákarl.
Yeah nobel peace prize nominations are pretty much a joke these days.