Manning: Guilty of everything but Aiding the Enemy

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by corpgator, Jul 31, 2013.

  1. corpgator
    Offline

    corpgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    6,387
    Likes Received:
    163
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +746
  2. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,512
    Likes Received:
    259
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,279
    More likely that the government can't submit into evidence the occasions it did lead to aiding an enemy. Disclosing known occasions where it affected people would "open the door" (to use the legal phrase) to national security secrets and, more importantly sources, being put out in the open for discovery.
  3. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,275
    Likes Received:
    357
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,345
    Or even more likely, they just overvalued the information that Manning released, and have no evidence that its release aided the enemy at all.
  4. oaklandroadie
    Offline

    oaklandroadie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Messages:
    1,547
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +128
    You heroes do know he released tactical information on how our forces went about detecting, approaching, and disarming IEDs, correct? His act of cowardice did nothing to advance the discussion of our national security, but almost certainly led to more American deaths.
  5. VAg8r1
    Offline

    VAg8r1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,838
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +81
    My guess is that aiding the enemy is a crime that requires specific intent. Unless the prosecution could prove that Manning actually intended to aid the enemy, a guilty verdict would not have been appropriate. That being said, he could still be sentenced to over 100 years on the remaining charges so he will have plenty of time in a secured institution to contemplate his decision to release the documents.
  6. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,512
    Likes Received:
    259
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,279
    You're a smarter poster than that wgb.

    Legal standards require evidence, witnesses, etc.

    To prove a legal case that the Taliban or Al Qaeda changed their tactics once they learned how our operational tactics were changing would require the prosecution to somehow depose a member of said organizations. Granted, there are other ways, but they would require too much time, effort, or money. But from a practical standpoint, when you gain access to a few chapters of the other side's playbook--do you honestly think the opposing team wouldn't study them and change their tactics in response? Come now man...it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

    Same thing with intelligence sources that were undoubtedly compromised. The ones that were killed obviously can't provide testimony...and if they're alive, they still wouldn't be provided because it outs a one-time source and "opens the door" to the defense questioning him about specifics regarding their activities. A BIG no-no for intelligence agencies.

    Manning deserves to be locked in a rubber room for the rest of his/her (he's apparently "confused" in that department) miserable life. Attempts to portray him as an honest whistleblower are pretty shallow and transparent. Had that been the case, he would have said so from the beginning. He didn't. He's changed his story about a half dozen times about why.
  7. MichiGator2002
    Offline

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    15,590
    Likes Received:
    403
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,710
    Throwing treason at Manning but not at Hissan makes the charges sort of a joke to me anyway. Hissan could all but take out adspace saying "I'm a traitor, ask me how!" and PC would keep them from charging it.
  8. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,275
    Likes Received:
    357
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,345
    Honest question: how much evidence introduced in a military trial is available to the public no matter how banal? I assume its not the same as a civilian trial. Moreover, does introducing classified intelligence in a military trial remove its priviledged status and make it "unclassified?" Intellectually, I do have a little bit of a problem with the idea that not introducing evidence somehow means something other than there isnt any that is admissable or relevant. Seems like if the government is unwilling to divulge potentially senisitive information to prove its case and get a conviction it was seeking for fear of making in "known," there is something wrong with the basic structure of a mililtary trial, especially pertaining to potential leakers and those engaging in espionage.
  9. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,555
    Likes Received:
    2,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,274
    Stealing is stealing, and we still don't know if the information is "overvalued" or not.
  10. tideh8rGator
    Offline

    tideh8rGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    3,290
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Stuck in the heart of crimson darkness
    Ratings Received:
    +178
    Love how the libs are praising manning yet trashing Snowden, for doing essentially the same thing.

    Wonder why that would be? Could it be because:

    1. manning hurt Bush's foreign policy while Snowden hurts obsama's, or

    2. manning is gay whereas Snowden is heterosexual

    Should be the other way around because:

    1. manning essentially spied ON the military, whereas the abuses Snowden uncovered (NSA, etc) are against American citizens and civilians, and

    2. Snowden is a civilian whistleblower and manning is a member of the MILITARY who has taken an oath not to do such things
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,555
    Likes Received:
    2,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,274

    Excellent points of fact.
  12. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,512
    Likes Received:
    259
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,279
    There is limited public access to military trials and you're right in suspecting that the rules are slightly different, so there is more ability to shield information produced at trial.

    Regardless however, the intel agencies would still be loathe to allow classified information to be produced. It costs significant amounts of time and money to develop intelligence. Why risk wasting both by risking divulging it to unvetted persons, who's job it is to use such information against you?
  13. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,275
    Likes Received:
    357
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,345
    Seems like their motive in charging him with "aiding the enemy" was in part to scare off future leakers. If they wanted to make an example of him, why add that charge and then purposely fail to make the case if there was one to be made? You may be right, but from my POV, it seems like a trace of conspiratorial thinking in this notion, where the absence of evidence still confirms a story in some way.
  14. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,512
    Likes Received:
    259
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,279
    That's the conspiratorial or skeptical view of things.

    More likely though that the prosecutors had plenty of evidence to substantiate the charge, but were shot down by their superiors in their attempts to introduce it at trial. That's a big difference between military lawyers and civilian lawyers, who have a substantially greater amount of leeway in going on proverbial "fishing expeditions" to discover evidence.

Share This Page