USAF Lt. Col: Bradley Manning has rights!

[jaminjim]

Actually it might tell ya many different things ....

It could, but reading his posts I think it means just what it says.

but before that would ever happen, you would actually have to have the desire to know and then ask ...

I think you might want to reread his responses.

That's not necessarily true (although it possibly might be) - because it's not the only possible answer.

You've heard of a 'truckstop attorney'? We called em 'Latrine lawyers'(sanitized version)

Another possiblity is:

"You're commenting to someone who understands the military all too well ....."

Nope that ain't it.

 

[layoutshooter]

Served in the military, with security clearances like Manning's. So yes, I do understand the military. Like Smedley Butler, a bona fide war hero, medal of honor awardee, and more medals than chest, maybe it's my military service that has brought me to what I believe.

When I was in, the government at least pretended to obey the Constitution.

You must be REALLY old since Lincoln ignored the Constitution. It has gone down hill since.

 

[jaminjim]

Served in the military, with security clearances like Manning's. So yes, I do understand the military. Like Smedley Butler, a bona fide war hero, medal of honor awardee, and more medals than chest, maybe it's my military service that has brought me to what I believe.

When I was in, the government at least pretended to obey the Constitution.

If I read this correctly you are saying that you have earned several medals for heroism, along with the Medal Of Honor. I respect your heroism, but why would you compare yourself to a General who died 70 years ago.

 

[AMonger]

Is there anyone that either carries a weapon or that leads people that carry them that you have any respect for?

Well, let's see...Col. Kwiatkowski was stationed in the Pentagon, so I suppose you could say she lead people who carried them, and I respect her. Calvin Coolidge was the Commander-In-Chief, and he was our last good president; I respect his memory.

Aside from that, I respect peace officers, as opposed to our modern LEO/sturmtruppen.Peace officers don't look on themselves as superior to their employers, respect and revere the Bill of Rights as the Supreme Law of the Land, and don't tase everybody who doesn't obey their orders within .00379 of a second. In fact, peace officers recognize that their authority to give orders is limited to few circumstances. Them, I respect.

As for soldiers, I respect the ones who remember that the Bill of Rights is the Supreme Law of the Land, that we own them rather than the reverse, and who recognize that an order has to be lawful for them to be obligated to follow it. A soldier I respect would never utter the foul words, "I was just following orders." A soldier I respect doesn't subjugate anyone, like the ones kicking in doors and jacking up the head of the household just to humiliate him in front of his family. A soldier I respect would, in fact, testify against anyone who does subjugate others or kill when unauthorized.

Those are the people who carry guns that I respect. I'm guessing you weren't referring to private citizens who carry guns, sometimes in manners that the state would consider unlawful, and who use them to defend themselves, their families, and their communities. Them, I also respect.

 

[AMonger]

If I read this correctly you are saying that you have earned several medals for heroism, along with the Medal Of Honor. I respect your heroism, but why would you compare yourself to a General who died 70 years ago.

No, didn't win any medals for heroism myself. But he did. And it was his military service that brought him to the conclusion that war is a racket. If you google that term, you'll find a lot of information about him. That he, through his military service, figured out that all is not as it seems, is how he and I are similar.

 

[layoutshooter]

How does being stationed at the Pentagon make you a leader? Lots of pvt's and pfc's there. Being stationed there is no biggie.

 

[AMonger]

You must be REALLY old since Lincoln ignored the Constitution. It has gone down hill since.

You are correct that Lincoln bears a huge amount of guilt for where we find ourselves, with weak states and a Leviathan federal government, the opposite of what our Founding Fathers intended, but it actually started earlier than that. The Whiskey Rebellion and the Alien and Sedition Acts were both completely offensive to the Constitution.

But when I was in, Reagan's conservative revolution was in full swing, and he talked a good game and did a few good things. He talked a better game than he played, but still, it seemed like utopia compared to today. But then again, seeing how far we've fallen, so does the Clinton administration. I never thought in the 90s that I'd be looking back on them, reflecting on how free we were. Then again, I also wish I had gotten into a cargo van back then, too. As bad as things were then, they were a lot better than now in many respects.

 

[AMonger]

How does being stationed at the Pentagon make you a leader? Lots of pvt's and pfc's there. Being stationed there is no biggie.

Yeah, but she was a senior officer there. You'd have to say she was a leader of armed men, if only indirectly. Of course, there they treat mere majors like airmen and privates, but nevertheless, even there, a Lt. Col is a senior officer.

 

[letzrockexpress]

This guy has so far been charged with loading sensitive information on to his personal computer. That is the charge. Not Treason. This offense is punishable by up to 52 years in prison. NOT death in any way shape or form. As usual the D-12 have jumped the gun, babbling their gungho crap. It is true that he is charged under the UCMJ, so his rights as a prisoner are determined by this body. I have read some stuff about his history and this guy is some kind of wacko. I'm not making excuses for him at all, it's just that if a backgorund check was done on him they would have seen this guy has a track record of not being able to keep a secret. Somebody didn't do their due dilegence when recruiting this pinhead..

 

[layoutshooter]

Yeah, but she was a senior officer there. You'd have to say she was a leader of armed men, if only indirectly. Of course, there they treat mere majors like airmen and privates, but nevertheless, even there, a Lt. Col is a senior officer.

No, Lt. Col's are NOT senior officers. Most Lt. Col's were not even Branch chiefs at the Agency and a Branch chief is the second LOWEST supervisor position there. We had 6 in our division out of 211 people. I was only a mere GS12 (LtCol equivalent) Branch Chief when I got the major who worked for me promoted to LtCol. I briefly supervised him. Full birds were a different story. That is where the be change occurs. Many, maybe most, LtCol's do not got above that rank.

 

[RLENT]

It could, but reading his posts I think it means just what it says. I think you might want to reread his responses.

Fair enough .... I will.

But I'd suggest that, if unfamiliar, you might wanna to have a look at who Major General Smedley Butler was, what his record of service was, and then attempt to reconcile HOW it was that he, came to similar conclusions, or a similar mindset, as the individual you are referring to here (AMonger) ...

Smedley Butler

If you are able to reconcile that, please do let us all know how it worked out.

You've heard of a 'truckstop attorney'? We called em 'Latrine lawyers'(sanitized version) Nope that ain't it.

While anarchy (as a term) has come to have many bad connotations, and is often used as a perjorative, it (as a political philosophy) ain't necessary all bad .... depending on the specific type of anarchy the individual espouses ....

Anarchy

 

[layoutshooter]

This guy has so far been charged with loading sensitive information on to his personal computer. That is the charge. Not Treason. This offense is punishable by up to 52 years in prison. NOT death in any way shape or form. As usual the D-12 have jumped the gun, babbling their gungho crap. It is true that he is charged under the UCMJ, so his rights as a prisoner are determined by this body. I have read some stuff about his history and this guy is some kind of wacko. I'm not making excuses for him at all, it's just that if a backgorund check was done on him they would have seen this guy has a track record of not being able to keep a secret. Somebody didn't do their due dilegence when recruiting this pinhead..

It is VERY hard to weed out nut cases these days. The military is no longer allowed to "pressure" recruits in basic training. They poor little darlin's have "stress cards" they can flash to back off a DI that is getting to "rough on them". Basic training USED to be the place where these types got drummed out. Background checks are criminal and counter-intelligence. Most military with lower level jobs do not go through the checks like those with more sensitive positions. Having said that, we need to go back to the stricter "Cold War Standards" for clearances the were relaxed starting in the late 80's and early 90's.

 

[AMonger]

No, Lt. Col's are NOT senior officers. Most Lt. Col's were not even Branch chiefs at the Agency and a Branch chief is the second LOWEST supervisor position there. We had 6 in our division out of 211 people. I was only a mere GS12 (LtCol equivalent) Branch Chief when I got the major who worked for me promoted to LtCol. I briefly supervised him. Full birds were a different story. That is where the be change occurs. Many, maybe most, LtCol's do not got above that rank.

It's true that most Lt. Cols. don't advance beyond that. Kind of like Master Sergeant in the NCO rank; it's where most top-out. Yet, Lieutenants and Captains are junior officers. Majors and Lt. Cols. and above are senior officers. If a meeting were called for senior officers, the majors and lieutenant colonels would be there.

 

[AMonger]

This guy has so far been charged with loading sensitive information on to his personal computer. That is the charge. Not Treason. This offense is punishable by up to 52 years in prison. NOT death in any way shape or form.

I tried to tell 'em...

As usual the D-12 have jumped the gun, babbling their gungho crap..

Uh, D-12?

 

[RLENT]

Uh, D-12?

Dirty Dozen ?

 

[letzrockexpress]

Dirty Dozen ?

Yes. The pompous authoritarians, one or two with Napoleon complexes, who attempt to stifle intelligent, reasonable exchanges of ideas with macho, right wing extremist psycho babble. I am probably endangering myself simply by offering this loose definiton. I suspect you know who I mean.

 

[Turtle]

As for the charges against Manning, this is the Charge Sheet. It can, of course, be amended at any time. He is currently charged with 4 specifications of Article 92 and 8 specifications of Article 134 of the UCMJ.

2. First I've heard of the homosexual bit. You have anything to back that up?

It's pretty easy to find, even without looking. The story originated with the UK's Telegraph, who as one person on Alaska Pride (a gay Website, duh) so wryly put it, "Once again, a foreign media source reports what the gutless, co-opted, celebrity-obsessed American national media hasn't the courage to touch."

The political correctness of this scares the bejezus out of the American press, and the military. The military don't want anything to do with it, because the military will have to admit they put a gay man who was mad at the military over DADT in a position of classified intelligence, and the press don't want to touch it because they don't want to look like they're attacking the military (Fox) or attacking the liberal's gay agenda (CNN and everyone else). The gay crowd is all over it, but not about him being gay, no siree, because that risks blowback, at is were, so they rail on the inhumane confinement and torture, torture I tell you!, of an American hero, because, you know, all of the people in the past who have leaked stuff went down in the annals of American history as heroes, and Manning is, too. So there.

Here's Manning's Facebook page, before it went poof. Note carefully his "other" interests. It's a page turner.

Here's an article where it touches on things quite a bit, tho some of the speculation is (probably, tho not a certainty) a bit over the top.

The New York Times article that goes into more detail, most of it interesting stuff that you don't see on the Blogs.

Here's one (Bradley Manning, the Gay Soldier Behind Wikileaks, is Hot) with a pic of him holding a sign, well, you can read it at the link, or below. The best is in the comments below the blog article. There's little question of his sexual orientation. They know. They know.

Not a fan of DADT.

Bradley and his friend Tyler. They're cute, dontcha think?

 

[AMonger]

Yes. The pompous authoritarians, one or two with Napoleon complexes, who attempt to stifle intelligent, reasonable exchanges of ideas with macho, right wing extremist psycho babble. I am probably endangering myself simply by offering this loose definiton. I suspect you know who I mean.

Oh, yeah, unfortunately. The ones who would have defended Bush had he raped a nun on the White House lawn, yes. The ones that can't identify any wrong ever done by a cop, soldier, or firefighter. The ones who think that Lee Greenwood song is good. The ones who think opposing a war of any kind, type, or condition is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I know the type. (sigh) Used to be one.

Funny how you enter a room and after a while figure out all the cliques.

 

[AMonger]

Why'd you have to post that? I can't un-see it, you know. I mean, the text--ok, but the pictures?

Ok, so he's a sodomite. And looking at his FB page, it appears that not only should he have not had a clearance, he shouldn't have been allowed to know anyone who had a clearance.

Nevertheless:
1: he's innocent until proven guilty;
2: he's not charged with treason and therefore not eligible for the death sentence;
3: his detention goes beyond merely making sure he's present at his trial and is, in fact, punitive in nature;
4: this is a violation of his human, civil, and UCMJ rights.

Lots of regimes we would call tyrannical treated suspects of crimes lots better than Manning is being treated. Many were more like house arrest. Can we all agree to wait for a trial and a verdict before whatever else is done to him? That's how they do it in civilized countries. Remember when we were one?

 

[bugsysiegel]

Patently false. They teach in basic training that the Bill of Rights still applies, and that you still have every civil right you had before you enlisted.

NO, you do NOT. Period. I hate to bear bad news but when you enlist, you give up those rights. This is not a theory, it is a fact. I know from experience.

They are, indeed, two separate animals, and they exist in parallel. And in our system of government, the military is under civilian control. The military is subordinate to us, not the other way around.

What does that have to do with anything? The military may be subordinate to a civilian in the chain of command, that does not mean they follow the same rules. If your boss gives you an order to go kill someone, you tell him to get bored and stroked, and he has no recourse. If the general tells you to do it, you go do it.

The same applies to military law. The military judiciary system does not, and can not, be compared to a civilian court because they operate in completely different theaters.

Allegedly. His apparent motives were, similar to protesters, to improve America by exposing those damaging us.


The government has grudgingly conceded he's cost no lives, and again, we're dealing with allegations here. He's been convicted of nothing. And as I've pointed out, his pre-trial confinement is punitive in nature. Will you be civilized enough to agree that he should have a trial before you string him up or otherwise punish him?

Just a thought: "we're dealing with allegations here." Maybe the 'no bedding' is just an allegation made by someone who wants to shed the military in a negative light? Would it be the first time the media has lied or distorted facts to inflame or sway opinion? I think not.