Pvt Bradley Manning is

[Electric Monk]

(this poll is inspired by this other thread here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=958726&mesg_id=958726 )

[GKirk]

1. He is a criminal

who is being treated in a criminal manner.

[bahrbearian]

2. And Bush is a ?

[seabeyond]

7. And Bush is a ? criminal.

give me another.... lol

[bahrbearian]

11. And he is being treated in what fashion?

[seabeyond]

15. hey... fry his ass. because bush is not being prosecuted, we should not prosecute ANY

criminal? lol

[NorthCarolina]

33. ?=Corrupt DC insider and therefore a member of the protected class. nt

[Bluebear]

4. Thank you, Mr President

[Renew Deal]

49. You should thank Manning.

Obama has nothing to do with it.

[atreides1]

12. And what crime was he convicted of?

[NorthCarolina]

34. Exposing government corruption to the masses.

nt

[garybeck]

46. that is not a crime and he hasn't been convicted.

[garybeck]

45. what has he been convicted of?

[sabrina 1]

3. He's a hero. The criminals who were exposed

by the leaks, people who murdered innocent people and tortured them, have not even been investigated.

[JVS]

5. A whistleblower.

[glinda]

13. ditto

[NavyDem]

19. So he complied with this to the letter?

Title 10, U.S.C Section 1034

The act protects a military service member who makes a "protected communication" regarding a violation of law or regulation. The superiors of these service members are prohibited from retaliating against the service member making the protected statements.<2> The Congressional statute is implemented by Department of Defense Directive 7050.06 (July 23, 2007), which protects:
(1) Any lawful communication to a member of Congress or an Inspector General. <3>


(2) A communication which the Armed Forces’ member reasonably believes evidences a violation of law or regulation, including sexual harassment or unlawful discrimination, mismanagement, a gross waste of funds or other resources, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.<4>

But the communications must be made to one of the following:



(1) A member of Congress, an Inspector General, or a member of a Department of Defense audit, inspection, investigation, or law enforcement organization, or


(2) Any other person or organization (including any person or organization in the chain of command) designated under Component regulations or other established administrative procedures to receive such complaints.

[no limit]

6. We don't know what he is. He hasn't been charged with any crime

and he sure as hell hasn't been found guilty of anything. But don't tell Obama that.

[mike_c]

8. bingo!

We have a winner.

Bradley Manning is entirely innocent of any crime. Never having been tried or convicted, he cannot be called a "criminal" except by those who have utter contempt for our justice system. People like the president....

[jberryhill]

17. Can I ask you a question?

Having nothing to do with Bradley Manning, but with people's take on what is meant by a "presumption" of any kind in court....

If you know me quite well, and I walk up to you on a street, say hello and make sure you recognize me, and then stab you with a knife, then:

Would you have "utter contempt for our justice system" if you thought I was guilty of a crime?

I mean, just how is it that you think we let prosecutors into courtrooms in the first place? They don't waltz in with, "I have no idea what happened here and I hope we all figure it out."

[mike_c]

24. under the circumstances you describe I *MIGHT* know that you're guilty...

...of attacking me. I say "might know" because one can propose many such scenarios in which I might not know who attacked me, e.g. if you attacked me from behind, or wore a disguise. Or perhaps you believed your actions were legal and justified. In either case I would have to "prove" it was you beyond a reasonable doubt-- but let's stick with your proposed scenario. At the end of the day, I know three things with certainty:

1) I was attacked and harmed.

2) You did it.

3) Your actions were illegal.

Now I just call the local prison and send for some guards to take you away, right? I mean, there's no doubt in my mind that you're responsible for a crime committed against me, so there's equally no doubt that I can send you to prison as punishment. Correct?

Of course not. I don't have the authority to take away your freedom, EVEN IF I'M 100 PERCENT CERTAIN THAT YOU'RE GUILTY. The persons who do have that authority were not there when I was attacked, so I have to convince them that I'm correct. They don't even know for certain that #1 occurred, so my first task is to prove that. Once they agree that the attack happened, I have to prove that you did it and that it was a violation of law-- even if I know for certain that you're guilty.

The presumption of innocence lies within that conveyance of proof. Unless I can make a sufficient case, you, the accused, deserve to be treated fairly as an innocent person. What if I were lying? What if I were simply mistaken? What if I were pursuing a personal vendetta against you? What if you were merely a convenient scapegoat? And even if you were guilty, don't you have the right to present a defense? Might your actions have been justified? Even if they weren't, how can the court know that without allowing you due process opportunities to defend yourself?

It's my understanding that the Government's case against Bradley Manning is exceedingly thin and speculative. It's cases like that which specifically justify the presumption of innocence. Much of what they've done to him amounts to pre-trial punishment in hopes that he'll cooperate and provide them with evidence in exchange for a lessening of mistreatment. Even if he is guilty on all counts, such treatment is unconscionable in civilized societies. The charges against him are unproven. He hasn't even been given an opportunity to answer them yet.

[jberryhill]

29. He is going to be tried under the UCMJ

But anyone is entitled to their own opinion of matters and to express them.

I believe two things with relative certainty:

1. He is going to get a fair trial, and

2. Whatever the prosecution's case is, and whatever the defense's case is, neither of those has been or is likely to be published in great detail in advance of the trial.

The presumption of innocence is a rule of procedure. There are all sorts of things which are deemed "presumptions" for the purpose of establishing who has the burden to do what, and how great a burden they must overcome, in order to establish proof of any proposition. But it is not some sort of all encompassing rule of ordering one's thoughts and expressions if one has no role in the proceeding.

The notion that a government official of any stripe may express an opinion is subject to certain rules, but it goes without saying that the government has expressed its belief of probable cause or, quite simply, nobody would ever be arrested and charged with anything.

Try not to confuse law with either moral precepts or justice. The law provides a set of procedures for the approximation of outcomes over a large number of instances which, over time, have been deemed close enough for the purpose of regulating behavior within what passes for consensus of "what oughtta happen".

Whether Manning's pre-trial confinement has been punitive, or whether there have been prejudicial pre-trial statements, will be grist for the mill of motions at trial and appeals. The defense has also been using its time to build its case and to determine an appropriate defense. But the bottom line here is that the UCMJ governs persons who have voluntarily given up a number of rights ordinarily available to the general population. Live in the armed services, even out of confinement, can itself be difficult - even to the extent of severe physical deprivation and mortal danger. The power to ensure that you are never subject to any proceeding under the military justice system is entirely within your own two hands in deciding whether to join the military or not.

But the peanut gallery is perfectly entitled to hold and express their various opinions - whether it be condemnation, proclamations of innocence, or affirmative justifications.

But, really, I wasn't asking specifically out of anything related to Manning. I see the presumption of innocence thrown around a lot, as if it were "words to live by" in some general sense. The fact of the matter is that we certainly have required roles within the justice system itself in which the persons involved are most assuredly not required to presume anyone is innocent (e.g. prosecutors).

[OnyxCollie]

35. Just think,

if Manning had joined Blackwater/Xe, he wouldn't have to worry about the UCMJ, or any other laws for that matter.

[Bluebear]

9. That's nice. Now where was I?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x950593

[TorchTheWitch]

23. Yes, he has been charged with crimes

He was originally charged last July, and 22 new charges were added just this past March.

[tammywammy]

28. Manning was charged last July with additional charges in March 2011. n/t

July 2010:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/manning-charges/

March 2011:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/us/03manning.html

[moriah]

41. He has been charged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bradley_Manning

He's not being held without charges. He had actually 22 more charges added. The President is not a judge or jury -- he's allowed to give his opinion, in my opinion.

[robcon]

10. He's a criminal.

Why he was held naked in his cell is a mystery to me. But he should be held without bail.

[struggle4progress]

14. There was a suicide at Quantico earlier this year. A few weeks later, Manning made

comments to his guard about how easily he could commit suicide. So the facility took his clothes away at night once or twice until they were able to obtain a non-shreddable night-smock

[Erose999]

26. What crime is he guilty of? Please, expound upon that thesis.

[jwirr]

16. Other: He is a human being and a citizen. Both things which the

military has forgotten.

[Paradoxical]

18. By technicality, he is a criminal. But he's also a hero.

He is a criminal because he committed a crime. That doesn't mean his actions were malevolent.

[Capitalocracy]

20. I maintain that exposing war crimes is NOT a crime

that leaking documents the government classified not for any legal purpose, which would be national security reasons, but to cover up their own crimes, is perfectly legal and commendable.

[Paradoxical]

21. You're arguing a moral question. This is a legal problem.

He committed a crime. He broke the law.

[Capitalocracy]

22. I would question the constitutionality of any law that maintains this is a crime.

The U.S. government doesn't actually have constitutional authority to maintain state secrets or classify any information not directly related to national security, especially not to cover up crimes.

[upi402]

25. Obama, Harvard lawyer, publicly declared him guilty - BEFORE ANY TRIAL

Thanks to Democracy Now! and FSTV!

[jberryhill]

30. Good thing he's not the judge or the jury then, eh?

President Obama has no power to determine the outcome of the trial.

[upi402]

43. he has immense influence

you ARE kidding right?

[jberryhill]

44. No, I'm not kidding

Every criminal trial involves someone from the executive branch of the state or federal government prosecuting the case. Good golly, every criminal arrested in Delaware is prosecuted by Joe Biden's son.

[upi402]

47. So, a Harvard Law grad declares a suspect guilty before a trial as he's the Chief Executive

and that's an apple that compares with all oranges?

Nah, I'm not really feeling that one, myself. But no worries, I see your argument now.

cheers

[Shandris]

27. Isn't the UCMJ a lot different than our normal laws?

Its a question -- I personally don't know the extent to which it differs, having never served in the military. I do know that when most military members accused of crimes are talked about, somewhere or another that comment comes up. (Yes, that's a call to anyone who may actually know the difference to comment on how it might affect what we see Pvt. Manning going through. I DON'T believe it involves anything regarding his ~treatment~ though, I believe he's been treated very inhumanely. My UCMJ reference is in regards to presumption of innocence.)

Personally -- assuming guilt, as all evidence indicates -- I see him as both a criminal and a hero. For the crimes exposed, he is a hero. I really don't see any way a sane, normal person could question that.

For the communiques involving our political stances, politics on the world stage, etc where there were not crimes committed, he's a criminal (again, assuming that he is the one who released them, finding in a proper court, etc.).

One should mitigate the other, I would also say. I don't see that as likely...but in a Just World, it would.

[jberryhill]

31. Yes

The balance of process in civilian law is based on the principle that among a free people, it is better to let a guilty person go free than to fail to provide ample due process protections.

The balance is set somewhat differently under the UCMJ, as those subject to it are not at full liberty in the first place.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

32. He is both, and there isn't really a doubt about that in my eyes

He is a 'hero' of sorts for releasing the information of criminal acts and corruption, he is a criminal for releasing a ton of classified information that had nothing to do with crimes and corruption

[Capitalocracy]

36. Kind of complicated to do one without the other in this case

and it was imperative that the information be released in good conscience, even at the risk of releasing trivial things. If this were the Nuremburg trial, he would be considered a responsible party to these crimes if he participated without doing anything about it.

And it's also perfectly legitimate and arguably necessary to release not just classified evidence of crimes committed, but any over-classified documentation. All that stuff people were saying was trivial or meaningless does hold one very significant meaning: that our government is classifying things that have nothing to do with national security, which is in and of itself a crime.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

37. and he became the one to decide why something was overclassified when?

[Capitalocracy]

38. Who should be the one to decide?

Crimes were uncovered. Documents having nothing to do with national security were classified (direct national security concerns and slightly vaguer diplomatic concerns are the ONLY legally recognized reasons to classify documents. Anything else is illegitimate). He was clearly right. If he was just crazy and declassified things that were perfectly legitimately classified, including national security information potentially leading to public safety or troop security concerns, then yes, he would be a criminal, regardless of his motives. But he did not do this, and he is not a criminal.

[moriah]

42. Pretty much that's my opinion.

There's a difference between straight whistleblowing and scooping up as much data as you can to release whether or not you know if it is proof of any wrongdoing in your government.

Some of the stuff he released I think was justly shared. It was the cables that really pissed people off, and most of those had nothing at all to do with any kind of alleged wrongdoing.

[trof]

39. How about 'fucked'?

Forever.
If this guy EVER goes free (doubtful), his solitary naked incarceration has psychologically damaged him beyond ever complete recovery.
:grr:

[Zorra]

40. Bradley went to jail for me. If this is a crime, who is the victim?

Those criminals that threw all that Tea into Boston Harbor back in the

day were just like Bradley.

They did the right thing that needed to be done and didn't care if it was illegal.

Bradley did the same.
:applause:

Fuck the King.

[Terra Alta]

48. He is a hero.

The real criminals are Dumbya, Cheney, Rummy, etc. who started the illegal war in the first place. Free Manning, and put the real war criminals in prison instead.