George W. Bush vs. Bradley Manning:

[MiddleFingerMom]

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

[Renew Deal]

1. Manning didn't "tell the truth" about anything.

He stole information and gave it to someone that cares more about the US looking bad than the truth. Assange only cares about himself. That's why he won't release all the files.

[MiddleFingerMom]

3. I missed it somewhere. What did Bradley Manning lie about? n/t

.
.
.
Not Assange. Manning.
.
.
.

[Cid_B]

4. This part...

"I, Bradley Manning, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

[MiddleFingerMom]

5. You forgot the Presidential Oath at the Inauguration, methinks.

.
.
.
And Vietnam, not to mention Nuremburg, showed us how wrong blind obedience can be.
.
.
.

[Rex]

7. But the information he sent out was true? You didn't mention any of that.

Okay he broke his oath...is they information he sent untrue or are you just out of straws to grasp at?

[Cid_B]

8. What difference does it make if its true?

It matters that it isn't his to distribute as he sees fit based on his mood...

Did anyone claim it was untrue? :shrug:

[MiddleFingerMom]

12. "What difference does it make it its true?"

.
.
.
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
.
.
.
Thank you. Thank you so much.
.
.
.
.
.
And yes -- the anti-Manning person just before you did said that Manning "didn't tell the truth".
.
.
.
Perhaps YOU missed something as well.
.
.
.

[Rex]

16. Exactly.

Your point is well made...congradulations.

:hi:

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rex]

15. Well, since he didn't send out fabrications like GWB did (WMD, Plame, Yellow Cake, etc)

and get an untold number of people killed over lies, I would think even a single celled organizism could distinguish how much difference their is in the way Manning gets treated vs GWB. I mean that WAS the intent of the OPs post...did that go right over your head?

:shrug:

[Exilednight]

9. I'd argue that Bradley Manning supported and defended the Constitution. n/t

[Cid_B]

10. Which part exactly was that?

?

[Exilednight]

24. We the people

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[MiddleFingerMom]

25. DAMMIT!!!!!

.
.
.
Did Manning let THAT out of the bag, too?!?!?
.
.
.
Damn that seditious document.
.
.
.

[Renew Deal]

31. Article 3, Section 3

Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

[Exilednight]

33. Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Preamble also holds judicial relevance.

[Exilednight]

34. Let's take a look at the facts

Did he give the enemy aid and comfort? No.
Did he levy war against the United States? No.
Was he adhering to our enemies? No.

Not much for a case of treason.

[walldude]

11. Yeah BUsh took that oath.. So did Obama and both of them

violated the Constitution. So tell me, why is Manning in jail, Bush is walking free and Obama is the President of the US?

[Cid_B]

14. Lets see....

Manning has been charged under UCMJ..

Bush has not been charged under US laws..

Do I need to get out an electoral map to explain why Obama is the president?

[walldude]

17. Thats not an answer.

Try again. You say Manning is in jail for violating his oath. Both Bush and Obama have violated their oaths. When are you going to demand they be put in prison? Why has Bush not been charged? Why is Obama allowed to stay in office if he violated his oath?

Tell me what is the difference between Bush and Obama's violation and Mannings, that he should be in jail and they shouldn't.

[Rex]

19. Well since it doesn't matter if the guy released lies or the actual truth

about US wrong doings...what is the point of further discussion? You really think you will make any kind of headway? Series!?

[walldude]

20. I like poking the badger

:shrug:

[Rex]

21. Poking the badger.

Have to remember that one. :thumbsup:

[Cid_B]

22. It just doesn't make any god damn sense...

It is a logical dud.

The question is not about the accuracy of the information released but whether or not Manning was authorized to release and distribute it (and as a side note what his motivations for that were.)

I'll help you out.

This is the part where you say it was true but showed something that you believe to be a crime or something best shown to the world for reason X.

Yes I am "Series"

[Rex]

23. I know it makes no sense to you.

The OP goes right over your head...np that is not my fault.

[sabrina 1]

35. 'against all enemies, foreign and domestic'. When your own

military is committing war crimes, or facilitating them, and you point that out and nothing is done, then they become 'domestic enemies'. He took an oath and he abided by it. More soldiers need to find the courage to do that and these horrific war crimes would not be possible.

You also need to read the laws on 'following illegal orders'. He was ordered to hand over detainees to torturers. That is an illegal order. Good for him for exposing the crimes.

[Renew Deal]

28. It's not about him lying or telling the truth. It's about him being a thief.

[Exilednight]

29. It's about Manning upholding the Constitution. n/t

[Renew Deal]

30. In that case, he failed.

He betrayed his oath.

[Exilednight]

32. No he didn't.. Read the Preamble. n/t

[MiddleFingerMom]

36. You're just knocking your head on a stonewall -- that's obvious. Of COURSE, it's his duty...

.
.
.
...under both the Constitution AND the UCMJ to expose illegal acts and orders.
.
.
.
But to some... that's, ahem... beside the point.
.
.
.
No.
.
.
.
Matter.
.
.
.
What.
.
.
.
Daniel Ellsberg (who released "The Pentagon Papers" in 1971 and was indicted for it:
.
"As part of their attempt to blacken WikiLeaks and Assange, pundit commentary over
the weekend has tried to portray Assange’s exposure of classified materials as very
different from — and far less laudable than — what Daniel Ellsberg did in releasing
the Pentagon Papers in 1971. Ellsberg strongly rejects the mantra “Pentagon Papers
good; WikiLeaks material bad.” He continues: “That’s just a cover for people who
don’t want to admit that they oppose any and all exposure of even the most misguided,
secretive foreign policy. The truth is that EVERY attack now made on WikiLeaks and
Julian Assange was made against me and the release of the Pentagon Papers at the time.”
-- Daniel Ellsberg (from his own website)
.
http://www.ellsberg.net/archive/public-accuracy-press-r...
.
.
.

[Rex]

2. Class warfare.

A POTUS vs a PFC...that will never be a challenge. The serf loses every time.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. But..but. Bush only muredered a bunch of people. Manning (gasp) embarrassed some bigshots.

[Scuba]

13. Seems to me Manning did his sworn duty to the Constitution. Exposing US war crimes...

...is not a crime. It's the path to healing our nation.

[Exilednight]

26. It's, also, part of the UCMJ.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.


URL: http://able2know.org/topic/113935-1

[MiddleFingerMom]

27. Excellent. Pesky facts. Pesky UCMJ. Pesky Constitution. I'm beginning to think...

.
.
.
...that except for the Second Amendment... that Constitution is starting to sound more and more like some Socialist/Fascist document
foisted upon this country by seditious members... nay POSEURS/AGENTS PROVOCATEURS among our Founding Fathers. I want to see
their birth certificates.
.
.
.
They certainly didn't have the perspective of some of the more conservative among us in mind.
.
.
.
We definitely need a re-do, n-est-ce pas?
.
.
.
Who'da thunk I'd be resenting that darned Constitution?
.
.
.
Who CARES about the Constitution and the UCMJ anyways? Manning was WRONG.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(crickets)
.
.
.