Comments on: The government has made an “absolute mockery” of Bradley Manning’s right to a speedy trial

By: Robert Hauser

Robert Hauser — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 01:05:50 +0000

Can you name one person in public office in this so called ‘freedom loving ” country who isn’t in blatant violation of his/her/its oath of office hundreds of times per day? Even if it can be irrefutably argued that Manning did in fact “violate” his security oath, at least it was in the name of a much higher oath to the Constitution and certainly not in the name of personal self-aggrandizement as it is with anyone you could name in high office in this country now.

By: Paul V. Cassidy

Paul V. Cassidy — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 20:49:53 +0000

It seems from the comments by military personnel, who cannot understand how he obtained the information in the first place, that he was being used as a patsy to float a debate about ethical soldiering/warfare by way of providing a pretext for an exit strategy from Iraq. This no doubt coincided with the realisation that drone warfare was the future of war providing the opportunity to morph the ‘Perpetual War’, modus to one of perpetual policing with global supports; a far more intelligent, affordable and defensible strategy for the US providing opportunities for partnership forming with the nations from which the security threats were emanating as well as outsourcing war to private contractors once again removing the American government from the public relations firing line. The real issue here, in my view, is having used the guy – incredibly successfully – why continue to hang him out to dry? One or two of the comments from military personnel suggest that the real motive is to imply that Gay soldiers are less trustworthy than there heterosexual counterparts. So it seems clear to me at least that having capitalized on Manning’s naivety that the Army now wish to exploit the opportunity to scapegoats Gays in general by suggesting that they are likely to compromise their comrades in the field in more ways than one.

By: Jeff Paterson

Jeff Paterson — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 20:36:15 +0000

For nine months Bradley was subjected to pre-trial punishment that amounted to torture in clear violation of Article 13 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This abuse took place at the Marine brig at Quantico, Virginia. Since the military finally relented to public pressure in May 2011, and transferred Bradley to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, he has not been abused. Bradley’s attorney David Coombs will be arguing for dismissal of all charges at a Fort Meade, Maryland, hearing beginning November 27, 2012, due to the torture Bradley was subjected to at Quantico.

By: Paul V. Cassidy

Paul V. Cassidy — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:01:03 +0000

Which makes me wonder whether the people in charge in looking for an exit strategy – which they were – did not conclude that a debate on ethical soldiering was their best option, in which case Manning was a patsy. He didn’t release the files, Wikipedia did. But either way it did prove to be a very effective exit strategy and has led to the far more effective morphing of perpetual war into perpetual policing with global oversight strategy via entire flotillas of drones which reduce your casualty rate even further not to mention taking the edge off your foreign policy interventions. It also brings the US and its Allies into a more harmonious relationship with national police and security forces. You should be giving the guy some kind of award for getting you out of the mess you were in; and if you ain’t got one invent it. Oh yea it’s called a pay-off, you know all about that one.

By: blueIce

blueIce — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:25:44 +0000

Of course they’re holding back the trial and stalling. It will take years to undo the damage – if it’s possible, after what has been done to this young man in Guantanamo. The world would reel should they see Manning in his present state – if, as it’s been strongly suggested, he’s been tortured.

By: knukles

knukles — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 15:59:08 +0000

He knew what he was doing when he took the data; he planned the event; he released the data without authorization; he was in violation of the oath he took and legally binding direct orders he signed. The content of the information is irelavent; the data was classified and he is responsible for safeguarding this type of information, he was not authorized ot release it. He knew when he did it, he would go to jail. How he even got access to this data is another question that should be answered. He was an E-3 who was already on his way out for behavioral issues. Why anyone below the rank of LtCol had access to diplomatic cables is the issue that needs to be explored. Another question that I have is why aren’t the people who granted him access to this information standing right beside him, they should be there just for being idiots.

By: Paul V. Cassidy

Paul V. Cassidy — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 19:15:12 +0000

Prior to opening the debate on ethical soldiering the US hadn’t got an exit strategy from Iraq. I firmly believed that the Bradley Manning case was US intelligence getting clever using Wikileaks to create a front for a debate on ethical soldiering – as distinct from an anti-war or pacifism – in order to create the basis for a re-framing of military intervention strategies. The fact that it did just that and that we are now moving toward highly targeted, high-tech, low-impact, intelligence directed, surveillance based wars seems odd to me. Ideally war would be an extension of local policing and domestic military operations interfacing with international Allies and their global reach/capacities.
Manning’s case is quite different from Julian Assange’s case in so far as Assange presided over a massive un-edited leak of information which jeopardized troops and operations on the ground. He ought to have reviewed material before leaking it for sensitive data. Assange is coming from a purist anti-war perspective and entitled to his views but they are quite different from Manning’s views which happen to have pre-empted the shift in military operations from conventional thinking (blast the bastards and all belong to them) to the far more selective and effective approach being pursued today.
The real development for the Allies in terms of modern military interventions would be in making affordable smart fone packages available throughout conflict regions to women. Once you get the women chatting it’s all over bar the shouting.The truth is there’s a global gender war but nowhere more so than in the Muslim world. The fones are all traceable/trackable anyway. Win the women and you win the war. It’s that simple. Release Manning, give him the assignment and he’ll likely make the greatest intelligence officer you ever had.

By: jimbo

jimbo — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 00:46:32 +0000

And most Americans think the military is honorable?

By: John Kindel

John Kindel — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 23:17:25 +0000

Welcome to the brave new world!!! Thank God for people like Bradley Manning. How many people would have been as brave as Bradley given the opportunity? Not many….. As citizens of the U.S. we are, in theory, responsible for crimes committed by our government. Speaking out and supporting Bradley are our obligations at the very least. The military is so powerful and so well funded in the U.S. that I doubt we, as citizens can ever take our country back. Even more unsettling are the recent laws- “acts” that really make it possible for “extraordinary renditions” and other degradations of our constitutional rights. Anyone who has ears to hear, eyes to see- This is just the beginning…..Look to God Almighty, where there will be the ultimate justice!

By: Jeff Paterson

Jeff Paterson — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 16:18:41 +0000

The difference is that the US government made great effort to place the Gitmo prisoners into a legal “no-rules” (or a “we make the rules as we go”) situation–the fabricated “enemy combatant” label, the holding location in Cuba, etc. PFC Bradley Manning is a US soldier being held under the rules spelled out in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). But will our Government follow it is own rules? We ask this question in our new feature regarding David Coombs’ “Speedy Trial Motion”, and later during the Article 13 hearing regarding the illegal pre-trial punishment Bradley was subjected to at the Marine Base Quantico.