Wikileaks traitor withering away

[EagleKeeper]

I see that under that law, he is innocent...do you know of some other law that says different?

Or do conservatives get to ignore the law since they know better?

The law allows an innocent man to go free after being tried by a jury of his peers.

The law does not say that a person is not to be detained until trial.

Manning is being detained; based on the crimes that he is accused of.

He will have the opportunity to prove/demostrate his innocence with a staff of professional private and military lawyers.

 

[jonks]

Right!

So everyone should have every freedom in the world until the point in which a judge or jury finds him guilty!

nice strawman bro

You may intensely dislike his treatment and see him as some sort of hero, and certainly an argument can be made that his detainment does not HAVE to be so harsh, but his treatment is NOT breaking the law. Far too many people are watching it to convince me otherwise.

The question might be are the current guidelines violating the law if they allow such treatment, like the forced wakefulness for 23 hours a day. There might not have been a case on such treatment yet, so the treatment might be legal now, and declared unconstitutional later, but maybe we should follow the spirit of the law just in case, seeing as how we like to tout how we treat prisoners humanely.

 

[werepossum]

nice strawman bro



The question might be are the current guidelines violating the law if they allow such treatment, like the forced wakefulness for 23 hours a day. There might not have been a case on such treatment yet, so the treatment might be legal now, and declared unconstitutional later, but maybe we should follow the spirit of the law just in case, seeing as how we like to tout how we treat prisoners humanely.

Perhaps. I don't know, and don't much care. Still, it's good that he's being moved to Leavenworth. Although he's probably less popular with the armed forces in general than, say, Qadaffi, I imagine the Marines are more hard corps about it. Pun intended. Hopefully this move will satisfy the majority of those agitating on his behalf.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

No one is ignoring the law. Whenever his treatment has diverged from the law, a judge has smacked down the offending party. You may intensely dislike his treatment and see him as some sort of hero, and certainly an argument can be made that his detainment does not HAVE to be so harsh, but his treatment is NOT breaking the law. Far too many people are watching it to convince me otherwise.

You called him a traitor. I said he wasn't since he has not been convicted of anything. Do you disagree?

Traitors are people that haven't been convicted? Who knew?

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

the law allows an innocent man to go free anfter being tried by a jury of his peers.

The law does not say that a person is not to be detained until trial.

Manning is beingdetained. based on the crimes that he is accused of.

He will have the opportunity to prove/demostrate his innocence with a staff of professional private and military lawyers.

Ohh....strawman alert!

Never said that, but nice try. I am saying he can't be a traitor if he hasn't been convicted of anything.

And BTW, if you read the UCMJ, you are not allowed to punish before trial. His treatment almost certainly is punishment. And know they are changing his treatment, gee I wonder why?

I wonder if those soldiers that are accused of killing all those innocent Afghan civilians are being treated as poorly as Manning? I mean, they are accused of multiple murders. Double standard I guess. Revealing embarrassing files is way worse then killing innocent civilians I guess.

 

[Craig234]

You called him a traitor. I said he wasn't since he has not been convicted of anything. Do you disagree?

Traitors are people that haven't been convicted? Who knew?

To be fair, I think that conviction is not needed to be something.

If a person murders another, he's a murderer the moment he does it, not only after conviction. However, it's proper for the media to call him an alleged murderer.

If Manning were a traitor, I'd say he's one now, before conviction, though the media should call him an alleged traitor.

I don't think he's a traitor for reasons other than the lack of conviction, though I don't think he'll be convicted of treason, because he's not guilty of it.

IMO, treason involves the intent to help a force outside your country to gain advantage against your country, in a serious manner (if we just define it more loosely, many of our citizens and politicians who serve foreign interests could be called guilty of treason. Remember those Republican congressmen who sided with foreign auto makers, voting for the US auto industry to be allowed to be destroyed?)

Further, all kinds of 'mistaken' opinions could qualify - war supporters love to trot out the accusation for war opponents. Are Presidents who get us into bad wars guilty of treason for helping cause the killing of Americans? Was Gerald Ford guilty of treason for illegally authorizing Indonesia to violate US law and use US weapons ignoring restrictions, to invade their neighbor?

I think Richard Nixon was guilty of treason for pressuring the South Vietnamese to reject an LBJ peace initiative, to help him win the presidency (peace hurt him).

I have no indictation Manning's intent was to harm the US, helping an enemy this way.

In fact, he did not leak the information to anyone intending harm to the US.

He specifically leaked it - or it ended up at - an organization who specifically would make attempts to filter out any information that put people in danger.

One that contacted major media to assist in helping to filter out dangerous information, and even to offer the US government to offer input.

That's not the action of a 'traitor'. It's a crime insofar as it being a crime to release classified documents, however excessive their classification.

And despite the good they might do from informing US citizens to helping bring democracy to middle eastern countries more than our policies have for decades.

But releasing such documents to that type of group is not treason, at all.

 

[Craig234]

the law allows an innocent man to go free anfter being tried by a jury of his peers.

The law does not say that a person is not to be detained until trial.

Manning is beingdetained. based on the crimes that he is accused of.

He will have the opportunity to prove/demostrate his innocence with a staff of professional private and military lawyers.

No one objects to his being detained.

What they object to is what you completely omit from your straw man - the abuses.

 

[werepossum]

You called him a traitor. I said he wasn't since he has not been convicted of anything. Do you disagree?

Traitors are people that haven't been convicted? Who knew?

I do NOT agree. A traitor becomes a traitor when he betrays his country, NOT when a jury or judge finds him legally guilty. In much the same way, a white man who rapes a black woman is still a rapist even if an all-white jury fails to convict. (I use that race-charged example because this actually happened many times in the South, with such serious crimes as rape and even murder.) You could argue that Manning is not yet a felon, as that term applies principally to a felony conviction, but being a traitor refers to the act of betrayal, NOT the act of being convicted.

As Manning has reportedly admitted the deed, as well as his motivation - punishing his nation and its military for its perceived failure to accommodate him in the role he preferred - I have no problem at all calling him a traitor until such time as I see compelling evidence to the contrary.

 

[EagleKeeper]

No one objects to his being detained.

What they object to is what you completely omit from your straw man - the abuses.

Abuses can be identified; brought to a judge and ordered corrected inside 24 hours.
I have not heard of this happening.


Apparently, either his lawyers presented the facts and were found wanting or they are trying for a tiral in the public media eye instead of a military court.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Arnold was considered a traitor to his country - where was he tried?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Abuses can be identified; brought to a judge and ordered corrected inside 24 hours.
I have not heard of this happening.


Apparently, either his lawyers presented the facts and were found wanting or they are trying for a tiral in the public media eye instead of a military court.

Manning was treated in accordance with the UCMJ and the brig rules. Those who support him don't agree with how the military treats prisoners/detainees and want to have this case tried in the public eye. Due to the charges against Manning, he will be tried by a General Court Martial.

 

[werepossum]

Arnold was considered a traitor to his country - where was he tried?

Wasn't - he wasn't captured.

 

[jonks]

Arnold was considered a traitor to his country - where was he tried?

"whachoo talkin bout CC?"

 

[EagleKeeper]

Arnold was considered a traitor to his country - where was he tried?

Wasn't - he wasn't captured.

Arnold was considered a traitor to his country - where was he tried?

"whachoo talkin bout CC?"

The kittycat is stating that one is not a traitor until convicted of such a crime.

Our dear friend Arnold planned to surrender West Point to the British in return for a commission in the British Army.
He fought against the Colonials

Is he a traitor or not?
He was never brought to trial or convicted of a crime.

Not so much a strawman, but events and evidence make the dotting of an I and crossing a T just a formality.


What is kitty's take on this?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Military law is quite a bit different than civilian law...

 

[jonks]

The kittycat is stating that one is not a traitor until convicted of such a crime.

Our dear friend Arnold planned to surrender West Point to the British in return for a commission in the British Army.
He fought against the Colonials

I deliberately misunderstood your historical reference in favor of a pop culture reference thus allowing me to repeat a catchphrase.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I now see what you were referring to :thumbsup:

 

[werepossum]

The kittycat is stating that one is not a traitor until convicted of such a crime.

Our dear friend Arnold planned to surrender West Point to the British in return for a commission in the British Army.
He fought against the Colonials

Is he a traitor or not?
He was never brought to trial or convicted of a crime.

Not so much a strawman, but events and evidence make the dotting of an I and crossing a T just a formality.


What is kitty's take on this?

Ah, I missed that. Quite clever, actually.

 

[IGBT]

throw him in the orca tank and sell tickets.

 

[EagleKeeper]

throw him in the orca tank and sell tickets.

Then PITA will get involved :thumbsdown:

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Abuses can be identified; brought to a judge and ordered corrected inside 24 hours.
I have not heard of this happening.


Apparently, either his lawyers presented the facts and were found wanting or they are trying for a tiral in the public media eye instead of a military court.

LOL, O RLY?

Just to point a trivial example that happens all over the US, how many times have we heard about a citizen that gets arrested by the police, and claims police abuse? And of course, the police deny it.

What does the police dept do? "investigate" and say nothing happened. Of course, then a leaked video comes out shows clear-cut abuse, and ooops!, guess what? Busted. See a pattern? How do you know something similar hasn't happened here? The is certainly ample precedent.

If you bothered to keep up with this, everything so far has been administrative in action. Administrative complaints to the Marines, and up the admin chain of command. Of course, why would they side against themselves? LOL. Pay attention.

His lawyer was getting ready to file a *court* motion, which would have put it before a real military judge, and guess what? He got moved before it was filed. Wow, what a coincidence, right? In your mind, or course not.

Just like when Bush held a US citizen (does Padilla ring a bell?), he was held illegally (not given his rights as a US citizen), and before the case went to the Supreme Court, Bush bailed and transferred him from military custody so he wouldn't lose at the USSC.

So really, I admire your total blind loyalty to any and all authority. Do you think at all about this, or once again, just blindly accept authority without using any logic?

EDIT: to further show that CC doesn't pay attention, here is what his lawyer says:

The defense recently received reliable reports of a private meeting held on 13 January 2011, involving high-level Quantico officials where it was ordered that PFC Manning would remain in maximum custody and under prevention of injury watch indefinitely. The order to keep PFC Manning under these unduly harsh conditions was issued by a senior Quantico official who stated he would not risk anything happening “on his watch.” When challenged by a Brig psychiatrist present at the meeting that there was no mental health justification for the decision, the senior Quantico official issuing the order responded, “We will do whatever we want to do.” Based upon these statements and others, the defense was in the process of filing a writ of habeas corpus seeking a court ruling that the Quantico Brig violated PFC Manning’s constitutional right to due process.

Gee, the marines wouldn't do whatever they wanted, would they? Of course not! CC says they never do anything wrong.

Once again, the government shows that they do whatever they want, despite all expert medical advice to the contrary. Shocking. Ignore the Doctors, some line-officer certainly knows more then a licensed psychiatrist, right?

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

What is kitty's take on this?

I'd say that the common definition of traitor is someone that commits treason.

You got anyone you know convicted of treason? You and werepossum got some secret dirt on Manning? Maybe convicted him in your own star chamber? Otherwise, I would say, and US law would agree with me, nope, no traitor found.

As to a 200+ year old event, WTH? Are you that desperate to try and defend your predetermined prejudice? Really? Given that the Constitution wasn't around then, that is irrelevant.

So again, Manning has yet to be convicted of any crime. But in y'alls mind, he is already a traitor. Good to know you respect "innocent until proven guilty". Gotta love those neocons, always willing to ignore the law when they know they are right.

 

[comptr6]

So again, Manning has yet to be convicted of any crime. But in y'alls mind, he is already a traitor. Good to know you respect "innocent until proven guilty". Gotta love those neocons, always willing to ignore the law when they know they are right.

He confessed to his betrayal, you can read the chat logs yourself so there is no way he isn't guilty. Even your precious messiah says so:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20056566-503544.html

 

[Craig234]

He confessed to his betrayal, you can read the chat logs yourself so there is no way he isn't guilty.

He's guilty (IMO, though not yet proven in court) of A crime, not of treason.

 

[alkemyst]

He confessed to his betrayal, you can read the chat logs yourself so there is no way he isn't guilty. Even your precious messiah says so:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20056566-503544.html

The problem most are having is PERHAPS he is indeed guilty...however, he has not been convicted and there is no reason he should not already be tried.

A confession in a military prison like any other is sometimes based on a plea bargain. Most of the time that expedites the rest of the process...in this case it's just dragging out.

The biggest problem is most of our people that are so adamant that this man is a traitor are only going on hearing he is. They have done absolutely no research into it themselves.

This is the power of the media and how powerless retractions are later. You get days of big headlines, news updates etc...then when things are found out to have been incorrect all that happens is a quick 4th page update of 3 or 4 lines and perhaps a local news cast in the area that's most relevant stating "today, Mr so and so was acquited"