Because this seems to be a pressing situation to some people, I take the opportunity to introduce another topic to the mingle forum



http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/16/journalism-on-trial-as-bradley-manning-case-nears-moment-of-truth.html

A soldier, Bradley Manning, faces charges for uploading military documents on to wikileaks,,,



Prosecutors failed to present evidence that Manning had the requisite knowledge that al Qaeda or the enemy used WikiLeaks, argued civilian defense counsel, David Coombs, on Monday. Anything less than actual knowledge would set a dangerous precedent for a free press, he said, because military prosecutors have already stated that they would have charged Manning similarly had the organization been The New York Times and not WikiLeaks.


Lind, the chief judge of the U.S. Army’s First Judicial Circuit, ruled Monday that she would allow the prosecution to rebut the defense case that WikiLeaks was a respected journalistic organization at the time of the charged offenses, and that Manning had a “noble motive” to inform the public, as the defense has asserted. Prosecutors intend to recall their lead forensic expert to discuss emails to members of the press as well as WikiLeaks tweets found on digital media belonging to Manning. Prosecutors also intend to call another member of Manning’s brigade to testify that the accused told him in May 2010 that “I would be shocked if you are not telling your kids about me in ten to fifteen years from now.”


Manning, who was arrested in May 2010 and spent an unprecedented 1,101 days in confinement before his trial began last month, is charged with 22 crimes. Despite his plea to 10 lesser included offenses carrying a sentence of up to 20 years, the government has pressed ahead on 21 of the charged offenses, which include aiding the enemy, espionage, stealing government property, and “wanton publication,” which could leave the 25-year-old facing life plus 149 years in a military prison if convicted.


Manning has opted to be tried by military judge alone, and not a panel of officers and enlisted personnel. After the closing arguments that follow the prosecution’s rebuttal case, Judge Lind will deliberate and announce her findings. Unlike in a federal criminal case where sentencing commences after the completion of a pre-sentencing report, if Manning is convicted, a sentencing case will begin immediately.


During the sentencing case, both defense and the prosecution will present evidence, call witnesses, and make arguments about appropriate punishment. The maximum sentences are outlined in the Manual for Courts-Martial and the judge’s previous court rulings.


While probation is not possible for an accused in a military court-martial, the “general convening authority,” Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Buchanan, the commander of the Military District of Washington, can dismiss Lind’s guilty findings and reduce Manning’s sentence. The general convening authority, however, cannot reverse a finding by Lind of not guilty or increase his sentence.


do soldiers have a 'duty' toward certain confidential behavior or are they free to SHARE military information with the world?


,,,,,,I say, ,they have and sign papers with a certain duty to confidentiality,, I also think this person will have a chance of a very light sentence that wont involve death or even much of an imprisonment,,


what do you think?

I think a grave injustice has already been done!

This young man was not afforded the protections of a whistleblower, but instead has been the subject of persecution by an administration that has failed America and it citizens at every turn.

The UCMJ and the constitution have guidelines and protections, rules and regulations that MUST be followed by all subject to them, but this admin has constantly placed themselves above adherence to them!

When they are confronted with questions as to validity to their claims, they either persecute those who would question their actions, or hide behind their imposed veil of false security claiming National Security, when in fact they have no rights to such actions!

This has been proven time and again! Journalists hacked and threatened, whistleblowers denied their rights by false statement, media manipulation, unjust labels or downright lies to discredit or malign them in the public view.... always using national security as a guise so as not to answer the necessary questions leading to the truth.

This is the most lying, cheating, crooked and corrupt administration to ever come down the pike. They resort to blackmail, coercion, bribery and even murder of US citizens without trial or due process.

It amazes me that America has become the joke and apologizer of the world under an administration that knows nothing of leadership and even fails miserably at covering their a$$ on their mistakes. It amazes me even more the American people seem to let it slide calling it "Freedumb"!

He's not a whistle blower, he's a traitor and should be executed. If he was a whistle blower he would have gone to Congress or the Senate and he would have found sympathetic sissy anti war loons like Ron Paul or Dennis Kookinich.

Typical response I would expect from an armchair warrior who's never volunteered or been in a battle, much less a war zone.

It's ok to kill civilians and children as long as they're foreigners in another country....right?

Yeah, gone to congress, the body that has trampled our constitution, doesn't have the guts to stand against a corrupt administration, is funded by special interest and the Industrial War machine responsible for these acts, and hides their corruption behind national security...which is what Manning exposed....

Sure, makes perfect sense.... to a fool maybe! Or someone who is part of the problem and not the solution.

People who oppose this administration or reveal its corruption seem to have a short lifespan, or a long one confined to indefinite solitary detention or Gitmo without contact or representation. They are NEVER whistleblowers....always leakers, traitors or simply silenced!

what intrigues me is that he PLEAD (guilty?) to 10 charges and OPTED to have his case heard by just a military judge

I cant seem to find the injustice if he has broken laws and is getting the opportunity to let ONE individual with authority make a decision,,,,

Carey Shankman writes about the limitations that are undermining our democracy that the US government have posed on the Bradley Manning trial proceedings. As the trial enters its fourth week, it is anticipated that some of it will be classified from the public and the media. Carey writes “Journalists have been denied sufficient access and the public cannot see basic trial documents. Indeed, in many ways the military commissions at Guantánamo feature greater access than the Manning trial. Such limitations undermine our democracy. This trial affects our rights without allowing us a proper opportunity to observe, understand, or accurately report on it.”

From March:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xaa9tsQKgYY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aTMiZ0NQ7s

Since then of course, this admin and its lapdog media have smothered us in race baiting and the GZ trial to distract from this scandal they face....and continue to do so even after the verdict of "NOT GUILTY" which the idiots like self serving Sharpton and Jackson play their roles for their masters very well at!

People in the Military have a 'duty' toward certain confidential behavior. He should have had No trail. but straight to Prision .

So you agree with Obozo that American citizens, military or not, have no right to due process?

How sad our constitution and bill of rights has no merit in your opinion.

What I said is, "He should have had No trail. but straight to Prision. My Answer is to the OP, You don't have to Agree, and please do post Words I did not write.

Manning is soldier in the U.S. Army, and he is on trial for a crime that he allegedly committed in the Army. So, military law applies to his case, not civilian law.

I myself am a military veteran who once had clearance to read some low-level classified information. It was my duty to keep whatever classified information that I read confidential.

Manning clearly violated his military duty.

so,why is there a Military Law-Code?
Why not just take them out back and shoot them,Saddam-Style?
I am not in favor of all he did,but he has a RIGHT to be heard,and a RIGHT to defend himself!

military has a job

military is employed by government

military has obligation to its employer

military signs contract with employer

military which breaks a contract with its employer gives employer right to seek agreed upon 'damages' from employer

military or civilian,, the employee/employer relationship stands based on the contract signed

and I do understand why the military has certain information that shouldnt be viewed and available for anyone with internet access and a tv,,,,,,

He has the right to go straight to Prision, he is guilty. A waste of the court's time on this man. My statement didn't say anything about taking him out back and shooting him.
Some people like to add their own words.

Here we go again with your temper tantrums and name calling when someone disagrees with you and your conspiracies.

Bradley Manning endangered troops and cost several troops their lives, I would think people who serve would get upset when fellow soldiers die or are put in harms way.

Not only that, he compromised the investigation on Osama Bin Laden enough where they had to make a move sooner rather then later.

For one, the gov't works for us, number two, the military is for the defense of the country, not the gov't, they too work for us.

The UCMJ says that it is the duty of its rank and file to report injustice, to protect and defend, and gives the right to refuse an order they feel is unjust or will cause harm.

They swear an oath to the constitution, not the gov't!

That is what BM did, he reported grievous injustices that were brought about and condoned by his superiors in the chain of command. He reported them to those superiors, was told to ignore them by those superiors, and as a result revealed that info by the only means necessary to his top superiors....the American public!

So your assumption are entire NOT based on fact and wrong in their very core argument!

Your thumbs up makes you an enemy of the constitution and the American people who rights you wish to negate!

Some might perceive those an act of sedition

Uh, if Manning has pleaded "innocent", then he has a right to a trial.

No, it doesn't. It is going overboard to call a person an enemy.

Tell me how you figure denying someone there constitutional rights is not an act against the very constitution and law of the land that guarantees those rights?