Thread: Army Pfc. Bradley Manning

A. Isn't he innocent until proven guilty?

B. Who decides the difference between whistle blowing and releasing secrets that put the U.S. at real, measurable risk?

As far as material that might make someone hate us, they already hate us. Our mere presence and occupation is all the fuel they need.

A. In the military, you're guilty until proven innocent. That's how military law works as far as I understand it.
B. A jury would decide that. That being said, whether it's whistle blowing or not will only determine the leniency of the sentence. Furthermore, as has already been pointed out, while the prosecutors could be asking for the death penalty, they are not seeking it.

Trigger,

Do any of your employees sign any type of confidentiality clause, or no compete? If so do they get to decide what they can and can't share, or do you and/or your management? What would happen if one of your employees did release something you marked private to your competitor(s)? Would you prosecute to the fullest extent of the law?

Once again, I don't support the solitary confinement, but to me it does not matter if anyone agrees whether it should be marked confidential or not it was, and that means he broke the rules, allegedly, and should stand trial for it.

Not all classified documents are classified because they're "super secret". I worked on some classified research a few years back that was classified for quality control assurances.

And commander, I don't think you understand exactly what whistle blowing is. Whistle blowing almost always involves the release of secret information.

Civil, I get what you're saying. What I'm trying to understand is what secrets is he being accused of releasing, that warrant such actions against him. All I read in the media from his accusers are vague stories about how he has imperiled this nation. If he did in fact release confidential documents, then he should be punished. But to call it treason when this country was not put at risk and I mean real, measurable risk i.e. troop movements, battle plans...is not right.

Treason - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

That's a pretty high bar to jump over in order to call it treason. I don't think they had Hillary Clinton's lunch order in mind when they came up with that definition.

isnt this the same guy that gave anti US militants in Iraq information regarding our defenses there, or something of that nature? If that is the case then yes he did betray his country by giving information regarding military defenses.

Originally Posted by DuDDy

isnt this the same guy that gave anti US militants in Iraq information regarding our defenses there, or something of that nature? If that is the case then yes he did betray his country by giving information regarding military defenses.

I like you Duddy but if you you're going to make a vague assertion like that, bring some proof otherwise keep that shit out of here.

Originally Posted by DuDDy

isnt this the same guy that gave anti US militants in Iraq information regarding our defenses there, or something of that nature? If that is the case then yes he did betray his country by giving information regarding military defenses.

No, afaik, this is the guy that gave State department Cables (Like the ones where we had given nickname to other leaders) to an Australian guy who apparently then picked through them and decided to publish some on his website.

Or basically Manning is the guy who supplied the files wikileaks used.