Army Pfc. Bradley Manning

**triggerhappy2005** · 03-16-11, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by Blakeman

They are, but under military law because they are in the military. Read the UCMJ and the majority of those laws/rules/regulations makes sense under the conditions that the military must operate.

Give me an example how it's different so that I can understand.

**triggerhappy2005** · 03-16-11, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by DuDDy

you going to do some research yourself and actually read the other thread at all? like i said there's more information there regarding this whole thing.

It doesn't work that way Duddy. If you're going to make an assertion, especially a vague one, then the onus is on you to back it up with proof.

**Blakeman** · 03-16-11, 03:17 PM

I provided all the proof you need, just read the UCMJ and think about how military life must be different from civilian life in order to maintain order and discipline.

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

But why would they keep him under those conditions? It's obviously a form of torture. To treat an un-convicted person like this seems wrong to me. If he were a civilian, they wouldn't be able to do that. Third world country shit is what that is and it's nothing to be proud of.

Solitary so he can't speak to others freely and thus give away any more secrets. No clothing or anything to hang himself with.

Plenty of documentaries, books, papers, etc on how military personnel must have a different set of rules in order for the Army/Navy/Marines/AirForce/CoastGuard to operate under the conditions it has. You can look it all up if you want to, but I am not going to do the work for you as I know and I am not trying to convince you of anything.

**triggerhappy2005** · 03-16-11, 03:19 PM

This is a blight on our military. They could very easily keep him isolated w/o having to torture him. We're no different than those we claim to be against.

**DuDDy** · 03-16-11, 03:23 PM

Ok Ill play your little game trigger, just so you can be lazy.

first link is the msnb article that deathgod originally linked in his thread on this:
Manning faces new charges, possible death penalty - U.S. news - Security - msnbc.com
From that link we have this little quote that pertains to the charges surrounding the identities of people that helped with operations in Afghanistan

Pentagon and military officials say some of the classified information released by WikiLeaks contained the names of informants and others who had cooperated with U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, endangering their lives.

Then from the official charges that Fove linked to: http://cryptome.org/manning-charge.pdf we have charges that are accusing him of downloading illegally a video of a military exercise in Baghdad. Now for all we know that video could be something as simple as changing a tire on a humvee in a simulated combat situation. Either way that video in the wrong hands could potentially be hazardous to troop's lives in Iraq.

satisfied now?

**triggerhappy2005** · 03-16-11, 03:31 PM

Not at all. No one has come forward with any proof that that any informants or military personal were harmed b/c of this. Anyone can make a baseless charge like the pentagon did. It doesn't make it true. And if someone had been harmed you can bet your ass it would have been reported.

As far as the military exercise thing goes, more vague shit. He downloaded it, yes or no? Did he pass it around, yes or no? Did it have any useful information that our enemies could use, yes or no?

And lastly, I'm not the one being lazy. You made the baseless, vague allegation and wouldn't back it up with cold, hard proof. It's on you bro.

**Glitch** · 03-16-11, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by ***COMMANDER***

It sucks for him..... but he made his circumstances with his choices. He chose to be a traitor, nobody forced him, it was on his own behalf. Now his is paying for his actions.

I had to quote to agree. I don't do that with Commander very often

**deathgodusmc** · 03-16-11, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

I already answered that. When he signed he up he didn't agree to not release documents that endanger the country, he agreed to not release anything marked confidential, or whatever designation. So once again, if Hillary Clinton ordered sushi for lunch, but marked it confidential so nobody knows, and he released it, then he is in violation of his commitment.

Not true. When he signed up his contract contained a line that stated he can not talk to the press without approval from his CO. Then when he got his secutiry clearance he signed more documents stating that any classified or above material would not leave the office unless they were being transported to another person with clearance. So he violated his enlistment contract and his security clearance.

**deathgodusmc** · 03-16-11, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by DJ Mr. White

Makes me wonder. Did the Pfc. actually do any whistle blowing?

Would not matter if he did or not. In the end he violated his agreements which is punishable by the ucmj. With the quantity of violations he has he will never see daylight again without a set of bars or fencing obstructing his view.

**deathgodusmc** · 03-16-11, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

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. Yes you are innocent until proven guilty but it isn't like a civilian court and even if that was the issue he already cconfessed to what he did.
B. The government does.