dagblog - Comments for "Bradley Manning trial begins with clash of interpretations over soldier's actions"

Wednesday : clever

artappraiser — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 20:10:04 +0000

Wednesday : clever cross-examination on purported collaboration with Assange.

...Government presents

artappraiser — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 19:55:45 +0000

In reply to Bradley Manning trial begins with clash of interpretations over soldier's actions

...Government presents evidence that WikiLeaks suspect revealed information about operations and tactics, including code words

Associated Press, 11 June, 2013

[....] For the first time, prosecutors presented evidence that the disclosures compromised sensitive information in dozens of categories. In one such statement, a classification expert, retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Martin Nehring, said his review of leaked Afghanistan and Iraq battlefield reports revealed techniques for neutralizing improvised explosives, the name of an enemy target, the names of criminal suspects and troop movements. Navy Reserve Lieutenant Commander Thomas Hoskins said his review of leaked Afghanistan battlefield reports found they revealed code words, tactics and techniques for responding to roadside bombings, weapon capabilities and assistance the United States had gotten from foreign nationals in locating suspects.

The evidence also covered leaked material from the Army's investigation into a 2009 airstrike in Afghanistan's Farah province that killed at least 26 civilians in the village of Garani. Manning has acknowledged leaking investigation documents and video of the airstrike. The leaked material forms the basis for one of eight federal espionage charges.

Prosecutors also presented a statement from Manning's aunt, Debra Van Alstyne, who talked about her interview with Army investigators in June 2010 [....]

I've been finding myself

Verified Atheist — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:17:24 +0000

In reply to Of course it should be a

I've been finding myself agreeing with much of what you've written lately. Frankly, I'm finding it disturbing…

I have no problem with

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:05:23 +0000

In reply to Bradley Manning is the

I have no problem with Manning facing real charges for the real (not hysterically assumed) impact of what he did, balanced with the possibly (as judged by a trial) good reasons for doing what he did.

I do have a problem that the extenuating circumstances will play no part, and that those who treated him badly for political and vindictive purposes will face no questioning much less sanction & punishment, or those who committed inexcusable misdeeds on the battlefield, endangering soldiers & undermining the supposed goals of our mission in "winning hearts and minds" will also skate.

Just like Obama's war on whistle blowers, while the DoJ helps Scott Bloch get off for wiping computers clean ahead of an investigation and then lie to Congress.

I understand that Versailles should have its own set of laws and the rest of us should eat "cake", but somehow the inequality would go better with the "no one above the law" bullshit wrapping we've come to expect. For all our progress in social media, "up yours - you'll eat shit and like it" seems a bit harsh messaging for the times, but what do I know? I'm not paid half a mill as a professional government contractor specializing in circumventing the constitution.

You mean being freed and your

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:53:06 +0000

In reply to And I have no problem with

You mean being freed and your name cleared isn't sufficient reward, after 10 years of trial over jaywalking? Boy, you are a sour sport. Where's your appreciation for the principle of the matter?

And I have no problem with

A Guy Called LULU — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 03:55:23 +0000

In reply to Lulu, Respectfully I've been

And I have no problem with Pvt. Manning using this forum as a means to explain why he did what he did.

Unfortunately, it is not up to you to grant Manning that forum and the court marshal judge has ruled differently than to allow that way which you have no problem with.

The Army private first class is not permitted to argue that he had a moral and legal obligation under international law to make public the war crimes he uncovered. The documents that detail the crimes, torture and killing Manning revealed, because they are classified, have been barred from discussion in court, effectively removing the fundamental issue of war crimes from the trial. Manning is forbidden by the court to challenge the government’s unverified assertion that he harmed national security. Lead defense attorney David E. Coombs said during pretrial proceedings that the judge’s refusal to permit information on the lack of actual damage from the leaks would “eliminate a viable defense, and cut defense off at the knees.” And this is what has happened. Manning is also barred from presenting to the court his motives for giving the website WikiLeaks hundreds of thousands of classified diplomatic cables, war logs from Afghanistan and Iraq, and videos. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_judicial_lynching_of_bradley_man...

Paul Woodward at War in Context has a good essay in which he offers a quote from Alexis de Tocqueville that seems relevant to our differing viewpoints. A part of it here with my emphasis

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

– “What sort of despotism democratic nations have to fear,” Chapter VI, Section IV, Volume III, Democracy in America, by Alexis de Tocqueville.

http://warincontext.org/2013/06/10/the-species-of-oppression-by-which-we...

And, should Dr. King have had to go to jail? Was he really a criminal engaged in activities that the law should have penalized? And, did the FBI have the right to exert its power and threaten Dr.King with release of information about his private life, which they acquired through illegal wire taps , in an attempt to shut him up? And, was Dr. King a hero?

Here is Matt taibbi with

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 15:57:40 +0000

In reply to Bradley Manning trial begins with clash of interpretations over soldier's actions

Here is Matt taibbi with analysis and opinion.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/as-bradley-manning-t...

Just another example that

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 04:35:58 +0000

In reply to Lulu, Is there a reason that

Just another example that shows how we see the lay of the land from such different angles. I see myself within spittin' distance of the fence in left field.

Lulu, Is there a reason that

Bruce Levine — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 03:25:22 +0000

In reply to "...I answered your question

Lulu,

Is there a reason that you're choosing to stay out in right field with this? Seriously, I'll say it again. I am satisfied with my answer on jury nullification, which of course has nothing to do with this case, as there is no jury.

"...I answered your question

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 01:41:18 +0000

In reply to Lulu, I answered your

"...I answered your question on nullification as I think that question should be answered by someone who sits in my seat, ..."

The part of your response/s that I italicized here and below is completely wrong, The seat you sit in might give you reason to not answer but not an excuse to not answer and then to claim that you did. I don't suppose you would want to explain how or why your seat makes you a special case such that you cannot offer an honest opinion? What, are you running for office. And, on the chance that you don't know, and of course this may be wrong, [I'm not a lawyer] but what I have read is that the act of jury nullification is completely non-operative in civil litigation, it is something that can only be done in criminal trials.
I respect your right to answer or not to answer, but since you didn't answer, I hope you respect my right to call bullshit when you say that you did. Remember the question? My question was; Do you say 'yes', jury nullification is sometimes justified, or do you say 'no', jury nullification is never justified? Your response:

Sorry about missing the jury nullification thing. My view is that the constitutional right to jury trial is sacrosanct. The jury is obligated to follow the law but of course the jury is the jury and what it decides in the criminal context is dispositive.

No, that italicized part is completely wrong. The jury does not have to follow the law, it can do any thing the jurors choose, it can nullify the law and nothing can be done about it after the fact, as you say yourself when you finish the sentence by saying that their decision is, "dispositive", which of course it only is in cases where the verdict is 'not guilty', a conviction can be appealed. And nothing there answers my question as to what is your opinion of something which can and sometimes does happen in criminal trials. Sometimes with justifiable reason, IMO.

I'll wait your non-response, whether you respond or not, with bated breath. Or should I say, 'with baited breath"?