FREE BRADLEY MANNING

This is insane.



http://www.bradleymanning.org/

Partially disagree. There was A LOT more info besides war crimes issues released to wikileaks. Including diplomatic cables back an forth from the State Dept and Embassies

There are some things that are classified for good reasons, and sometimes not. It's not an Army Private's decision on what is and what is not. I can't figure out why he ever had access to that type of information in the first place.

And it ridiculous he had been imprisoned for 1000 days without being brought to trial.

Let's have a real trial and sort it out then.

Agreed, no issue there.

Let's have a real trial and sort it out then. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Put StupidOldLyingFart in the category of Bad Guy Coddler!

I say fuk the bad guys and while we're at it, fuk the "Coddling" bitching and moaners too!

Getting the guy to trial is not coddling, in my opinion.
But there is a case to be made for a violation of the 6th amendment here.

So you are judge, jury and executioner, eh, BiSex? I know you don't like freedom, or due process, which is why you are un-American. You are an embarrassment to our Founders.

So you are judge, jury and executioner, eh, BiSex? I know you don't like freedom, or due process, which is why you are un-American. You are an embarrassment to our Founders. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

StupidOldLyingFart is clearly in favor of coddling the bad guys and when the they blow up a couple of heavily occupied buildings in Downtown NYC, he follows that up by bitching and moaning that the President did not do enough to stop the attack!

Put StupidOldLyingFart in the category of:

Bad Guy Coddler!

Next!

Another nothing thread by nobody from nowhere.

COG likes terrorists and condones anyone who is anti American.

I suppose you COULD sound stupider, Eva, but I don't know how.

Getting the guy to trial is not coddling, in my opinion.
But there is a case to be made for a violation of the 6th amendment here. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

Manning is subject to the UCMJ. Per United States Constitution in Article I, Section 8, "The Congress shall have Power . . . To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces."
Scope of the congressional and executive authority to prescribe the rules for the governance of the military is broad and subject to great deference by the judiciary. The Court recognizes “that the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society,” that “[t]he military constitutes a specialized community governed by a separate discipline from that of the civilian,” and that “Congress is permitted to legislate both with greater breadth and with greater flexibility when prescribing the rules by which [military society] shall be governed than it is when prescribing rules for [civilian society].” Denying that Congress or military authorities are free to disregard the Constitution when acting in this area, the Court nonetheless operates with “a healthy deference to legislative and executive judgments” with respect to military affairs, so that, while constitutional guarantees apply, “the different character of the military community and of the military mission requires a different application of those protections."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/se...ag78_user.html

Manning put himself in the pot, let him stew.

I suppose you COULD sound stupider, Eva, but I don't know how. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

That would be easy. All he (or anyone else for the matter) would have to do is try to duplicate your stupid posts. That's why you have been named:

StupidOldLyingFart

Manning is a traitor, and is actually getting off quite easy.

Chica is correct in that he stole a lot of documents. And he has done dammage that continues to this day that goes well beyond what folks here want to argue about.

So, are we claiming that now everyne with access to classified data should have the right to decide what should and should not be protected? Do we then follow the logical next step and claim anyone working in the marketing and research department of a corporation has the right to decide what to protect and what not give to the competition?

Trials in this area are rather difficult. If the issue is punishing someone for leaking sensitive information, then a trial often threatens to make public even mre information. Not a clear way to go.

But based upon his oath, and upon his assurances given when he received access to the information, he is a person without honor. To paint him as a hero is a disgusting slap at a lot of good people who have died.

Tell me, if anyone here actually believes the crap about "the truth will set you free", then why aren't you all posting with your real name and your photo for your avatar? I have to believe essentially everyone on here believes he should be lauded because "All he did was reveal what is true", then why is outing someone's identity considered the worst crime here?

And to say "He didn't even hurt anyone" is a pathetic, knowing lie.

But we're in the sandbox, so why should I be surprised at lies.