he looks exactly like Dana Carveys character “Garth” in Waynes World.

“I never thought,” he said of Manning, “for the rest of my life, I would
ever hear anyone willing to do that, to risk their life, so that
horrible, awful secrets could be known.”

What horrible, awful secrets were brought to light here?

He should drop the “gay” defense and go for the “I was a little twerp in a man’s Army” defense.

This is a surprise why?  Is there is heroism defense to the charges?  If there was, would that defense have any chance of success in a military court?  Why feign surprise that Manning’s lawyers did not present evidence supporting a legal defense that doesn’t exist and, if it did, wouldn’t have any relevance to the proceeding (barely) described?

This article might be of some use if it actually explained the charges against Manning, the possible real defenses, the burden of proof, evidentiary issues, etc. The kernel of substance in this pile of crap appears to be that the defense will be that Manning either didn’t or couldn’t form the necessary intent to provide classified information to U.S. enemies because of mental or emotional problems. But what does the prosecution have to prove: that he intended to give the information directly to an “enemy,” that he disclosed information which he knew might end up with an enemy, or just he intended to make a disclosure to any unauthorized person. Guess I’ll have to go to a real journalism site to find out.

It will be interesting watching the politically correct media – much like Dan here – bury the lede about Manning’s defense which is essentially:  Homosexuals can’t be and shouldn’t be trusted with national secrets because they’re all insane.

That will go over like a stripper in church.

Well for one thing, this…allegedly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

“This article might be of some use if it actually explained the charges against Manning, the possible real defenses”

There is no affirmative defense for the charges that have been specified other than one based on diminished capacity.  That seems like the direction the defense is heading, given their comments about Manning’s lifestyle and emotional problems.

However, a military court is not a civilian court and the chances of such a diminished capacity defense prevailing at trial are just about zero.  The best Manning’s lawyers can hope to do is get him out of jail when he’s somewhere around 60, but right now, he’s a hands-on favorite to spend the rest of his miserable “conflicted” life in supermax prison – where he should.

In the 1960′s that was true but I assumed it was because they were easy subjects for blackmail.

Ooooooh, Bruce! There’s Brad! Lookin’ so sad about what he ain’t had.

That’s certainly why they will yank your clearance if you have debt. They don’t want anything hanging over your head.

This is pretty open and shut to me. To access classified material you need two things. 1) Proper clearance. 2) A need to know. If someone doesn’t have that, you don’t turn over classified information. Period. I don’t care if he was trying to be heroic. It’s not just about the reputation of the government. Recklessly releasing classified information has the potential to put lives at risk.

It appears the defense, is attempting to establish precedent, that being gay is normal, and not an excuse for behavior. By mounting this stupid defense, they are sacrificing Manning for the gay agenda!

Okay….looks to me that 12 crybabies didn’t get their free autographed Ellen Barkin photos that they BEGGED for.

A firing squad as soon as possible, for this Monster.
Ya let these weirdos in the military, and this is what you get.
Freaks in uniform, who like nothing better than to help America’s enemies.

Who are you talking about, besides Manning? I infer from your use of the plural, “freaks,” that you were speaking on more than that individual.

You think he’s the only one?

Dude, you’re really going off the deep end here. It’s hard to tell who you identify as “freaks” and “weirdos,” and just how the democrats have offered them preferential treatment. You might want to expound on that. Anyway, what I can tell you is that the first step to preventing a dirt-bag from getting into the military is the recruiter. Unfortunately, instead of serving as a filter, many recruiters are just trying to meet their quota, regardless if doing that involves recruiting someone who has no business serving. 

You are a sick person.
Bradley Manning deserves life in prison, but not because he is a “freak.” He deserves it because he willingly played “spy” and got caught. He broke the law and his oaths of duty, which different people have done for different reasons.
The classified information he passed to unauthorized persons was not the most dangerous to our nation, but that is not a legitimate excuse.

Others have done worse for money or just for the excitement of it. They also got life sentences. You don’t hear about them (much) because the secrets didn’t become public as was the case with Manning. Call that a “cover-up” if you want, but why confirm the validity of the secrets sold by making a public spectacle of them? That is why trials for espionage are more common than you think.

We do not do the death penalty for those acts, and almost never did.

Not for “the gay agenda.” As a claim of mental distress/illness. Any way you look at it, Manning is screwed by his own actions, and anyone who wants to defend him or his actions is an absolute fool.
But, it is also foolish to attack anyone else because of any similarities to him.

And?

hasan, the hero to the left

What the Hell are you on about now Censure.
I’m just saying what everyone knows.
This Freak is a “Guy” who says he wants to be a Women, is that what you want in the Military?
If so that makes you, the Enemy.

i agree dan abrams is a monster!
this article reads like it was written by a high school freshman.
as you stated – “A firing squad as soon as possible, for this Monster.”

Bradley Manning should be hanged. Period. But after his execution heads should figuratively roll at the Pentagon. Even after Manning was considered unfit to carry a weapon in a war zone (an amazing feat for any soldier) he was still allowed to keep his security clearance and access top secret intelligence. Heads should also roll for the lacks security where Manning worked. The fact that people were allowed to come and go with disks is outrageous. Those computers should not have had any external ports whatsoever where any kind of disk or memory stick can be inserted. And finally, the only “supporters” of Manning are in left wing precincts. Folks who hate the military. Manning didn’t expose any real wrong doing by the US at all. He just exposed everything he could get his hands on just for the hell of it. To strike back at his country because he was gay and a terrible soldier.

If I had sought to write a legal analysis of the case against Manning, I would have done just that. But instead of writing a piece about the “substance” of the case which is widely available at those “real journalism” sites you frequent, I wrote an opinion piece about the broad support Manning has received in certain communities and compared it with his seemingly incongruous legal defense. As I said, that is not a knock on his defense team just a reality check.  

Manning is a little wimmpy traitor who should be given the choice of hanging or a firing squad, hero? Not in thereal America world.

I agree with everything you’ve said, but I would – in fairness – point out that this is our new post-9/11 intelligence landscape – a landscape based largely on sharing information between agencies.  While there is a downside when siloing intelligence and other secured information, there is also an upside:  It makes it much harder for these cross-agency leaks.

Wow. You’re a real piece of shit.

It is quite curious that some want to use Bradley Manning’s gender identity issue and homosexuality as an excuse to justify Manning’s actions. Talk about begging the government to keep homosexuals and transgenders away from classified information.

The American People had an absolute need to know this information, and as the ones paying for the nonsense the Federal Government has been up to, has absolute clearance.  Bradley Manning is the greatest American Military hero I’ve encountered in my 50+ years!

Pointing out the sick things that the US Military/CIA, etc that has been done in our name is a hero.
Should the British News be charged too? They actually brought forth the use of Kerosene Napalm
on innocent Iraqis. Mostly women and children. {It burns the skins off it’s victims while they are
still alive. The use of Kerosene Napalm is a War Crime when used on Civilians, the city where we
used this was a urban city with no army or armed forces in the city. War Crime.

The information that Manning gave out was just more of these things. Which takes someone who
is brave. He’s a Hero in my book.

Your guy is not a hero. He’s a disgruntled employee getting back at his employer. The problem with people, like you, is that you look at a complex situation in oversimplified terms. To you it is the evil government versus the little man. I’m not siding with the government on some of these things, but the situation is more complex than the “A” vs “B” scenario you are painting. What “A” reveals to “C” about “B” could have repercussions for “X,” “Y,” and “Z,” without “A” ever truly understanding what he has done.

Your hero signed a contract and was firmly indoctrinated on the handling of classified information. There are people with their lives on the line, should certain classified information be revealed, who depend on the security of that information to keep them safe. Believe it or not, many of them are nobly performing their jobs, and not out there firing on innocents. As I said, it is more than a simple “A” vs “B” affair. Manning betrayed all of them. 

I hope for all of our safety that they keep freaks and weirdos like YOU out of the military. 

You and your “thinking” are an insult to America.

You ever serve in the military? Trust me, if I were the enemy you would be reading about me leaking classified material, not Manning.

I agree, there are lots of gays who served with distinction under DADT. They didn’t bitch, they didn’t whine, and they certainly didn’t steal government secrets and sell them to the enemy. Bradley Manning deserves to be hanged.
http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/

This is the typical mind of a bigot. He looks for an example, in this story, and casts broad aspersions about the entire community. If you had any idea what you were talking about you would know there have been numerous heterosexuals who have turned over classified material to the enemy.

First of all, he’s not “my guy”.  He is an independent, sovereign individual.  Second, he was using his “inalienable” rights to free speech and press which cannot be overridden by the Federal Government, to expose actions in violation of the US Constitution, a document he swore to defend and protect.  Third, no one’s life would be in danger if not for these unconstitutional acts which he exposed, since the US military would not be engaged in violent acts against those in other countries without a congressionally declared act of war.

Blame the political and military leaders who permitted, encouraged, and propagated these acts, not the Real American Hero who shined the light on their scurrilous, traitorous, and evil activities.

Unless Manning can supply evidence he was waterboarded into swearing an oath upon entrance to the military he has no leg to stand on. The military doesn’t obey from the bottom up or only on Sundays.

What information was it you needed to know? Hint: American Military Heroes don’t get charged with aiding the enemy.

Are you at all familiar with the UCMJ? Members of the military do not have inalienable free speech rights, and certainly no right to broadcast classified information.

What unconstitutional acts were exposed? Do tell.

I have read the UCMJ, which was passed by Congress.  However “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”  Inasmuch as the UCMJ does exactly that, it isn’t valid law.

The unconstitutional acts exposed are all acts reported under the the attacks made on those in other, sovereign nations, since there was no Congressionally passed declaration of war.  Absent this, these were acts of murder, assault, theft, and destruction of property.

A full and complete account of how the Federal Government is spending US Citizen’s tax money, plus the debt being incurred in their name.  Further, by implication, a charge of “aiding the enemy” equates the American People as the enemy. The real enemy is those in the US Federal Government ordering these acts, and to a lesser extent those who willingly go along with them.

These acts directly endanger the American People.

You completed bypassed every point I just made about this man harming third parties. As for that 1st Amendment argument you just tried to make, completely bogus. We both know there are limits to free speech. I can’t shout fire in a crowded movie theater. The Cpl cannot do what he did. Trust me, I know. I guarantee you there are documents with his name on it acknowledging the consequences for doing what he just did.

I most assuredly did NOT bypass the points about harming third parties; rather, I properly assigned the blame.  These “third parties” shouldn’t have been there in the first place.

Also, my arguments regarding the US Constitution stand.  It says “no law”.  It doesn’t say (“only a few laws”).  That’s what the US Supreme Court says, but guess what — the Constitution doesn’t give them the absolute authority to determine the meaning of the Constitution.  Who did?  Why the Supreme Court took that power for themselves — unconstitutionally — in Marbury v. Madison.

If you had studied the Constitution itself — rather than listening to what OTHERS tell you it means — you would know that.

You might also want to look into the “Nuremburg defense”, i.e., “just following orders”.  This didn’t fly at the end of WWII, and it doesn’t follow now.  Individuals must take personal responsibility for their own actions.  Manning knew this, and when he tried to raise his concerns within the Army and was rebuffed, he did the only honorable thing he could — he got the information to those over their heads — the American People, and did so risking his own personal safety (as we see now).  THAT is the definition of a real hero.

I’d like to see him given the Medal of Honor, followed by a prominent post in the Pentagon, CIA, or NSA, responsible for making sure this sort of information is never again hidden from the American People.

You agree to be bound by the UCMJ when you contract into the military. That contract is binding, and it always has been.

As for your ideas on unconstitutionality, did you not know we’ve got numerous overseas military actions going on before Manning leaked? Or is it that you really can’t point to any great awful secret he leaked?

So you don’t have any specifics you’d like to offer and you think all classified material should be made public. Is that about it?

Except under a declaration of war — in which case ONLY military plans should be kept classified — all such material should be made available to the American Public.  Keeping such material classified only brings on distrust, and provides a convenient way for scurrilous and/or embarassing behavior to be hidden.

As for specifics, I have seen NO material purportedly released by Bradley Manning that should not have been released.

YOU, however, have also listed no specifics.  Given that you focus on specifics (rather than principles), I challenge YOU to list specific examples of items that Bradley Manning is purported to have released that he should not have.

Bullshit!

Massive US war crimes and their coverup

Little do people know it, these incidents is what probably finally ended the Iraq war.   

I refer to your last posting on the issue to ask a simple question: did you really read and understand the constitution? The act of Manning, whatever his reasons, is an act of a traitor, as simple as that. In the armed forces traitors during WWII and before they were shot for their deeds. And just drop the “The American People have the right to know”
cliche it doesn’t work, the American People have the right to vote their government in as much as out of government.

Looking for a bigot,look in the mirror, you politically correct nincompoop.

Each one of your replies, makes less and less sense.
This guy wishes he was a “WOMEN”, that means he has a screwed up brain, screwed up brains ,mean screwed up ideas.
READ the News censure, that’s the defense, he is using.
Stop thinking like a PC robot, and rejoin the Human Race.

You are the insult, you half-baked commie.
You are a disgrace to your gender,
And I’m Canadian for your information, and Americans love my ideas
…I’ve got 17000 likes to prove it, how many you got …Huh!

Is the little FREAK, gonna change his last name to…Womanning?

The founding fathers were demonised as terrorist, traitors, cowards by the establishment of the day. In time we will appreciate this humble act of disobedience and simply doing what was right! Dr Ron Paul as president, will ensure a fair trial and Bradly Manning will walk free!

The reason to keep these perverts out of the military,
 is that they have a habit of sleeping with the enemy.

…when you let FREAKS in the military, it won’t be long before you have an army of FREAKS,and that’s exactly what the sick-in the-head democrats want.

It’s your hatred that fuels Obama drones killing spree

Your comments are right here for everyone to see, but you’re going to try and deny you’re a bigot? You probably believe you aren’t, too, right as you continue to spew bigoted comments. Seek help. There’s something wrong with you.

Except under a declaration of war — in which case ONLY military plans
should be kept classified — all such material should be made available
to the American Public.

So, the identities of all of our CIA agent should be public? The nuclear codes should be public? The particulars of our security programs at sensitive installations should be public? All information regarding ongoing criminal investigations should be public? And all of this because you say so?

Given that you focus on specifics (rather than principles), I challenge
YOU to list specific examples of items that Bradley Manning is purported
to have released that he should not have.

Anything that was classified. 251,287 State department cables. 91,731 Afghan War documents. 391,832 Iraq war docs. ALL OF IT. Manning was sworn to protect classified information. It is not within the purview of Army Privates to decide what should and should not be classified.

Manning knew this, and when he tried to raise his concerns within the
Army and was rebuffed, he did the only honorable thing he could — he
got the information to those over their heads — the American People,
and did so risking his own personal safety (as we see now).

Julian Assange is the American People? Interesting.

I have both read and understood the Constitution; I’ve also read a great deal of 18th Century Literature, which allows me to understand the language of the day (given that over time the semantics of languages — especially English — drifts over time, an understanding of how the language is used at the time of writing is important).  I have studied the Constitution as a primary source, rather than filtering it through others’ interpretations, which is a mistake that many, many people make — and are taught to make, given that most schools (the majority of which are controlled by government policy) take that approach.

As for WWII, that was a Constitutionally declared war — in fact, the LAST declared war the US has been engaged in — all subsequent military engagements have bee done without the necessary Congressional declaration, and hence are prima facia unconstitutional.  Absent such declaration, the claim that those being engaged against being “enemies” lacks foundation.

As for the right to know, this is paramount to having an informed electorate.  Without this knowledge, elections can be and are manipulated through a mix of selected truths and outright falsehoods.

As for Manning’s release of information, had it been targeted only to inform other governments of the information, that would have arguably been an act of treason; however, Manning’s intent was clearly to inform the public (and primarily the American public) of what was occurring.  He did this only after having been rebuffed through internal channels for reporting the issues he discovered.  This is not the actions of a traitor — the treason being engaged in by those who endeavored to keep the information hidden — but rather one of true heroism.

You gotta problem with free speech?
Move to Red China.
You’ve obviously been brainwashed,probably at school by some Anti-American Teachers, I feel sorry for you Census,
You are a selfless robot repeating old left-wing hate speech.
Why don’t you pinkos just admit you use Hate, to combat what you see as Hate, so you are a Capital H hypocrite.

@BlackFormerDemocratForRonPaul:disqus ………my neighbor’s half-sister makes $67/hour on the laptop. She has been out of work for 8 months but last month her paycheck was $8990 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site http://nutshellurl.com/22i5

Like? They’re massive, right? So what are they?

You should probably just end your life right now, because things aren’t going to get better for people of your unhealthy mindset.

.
computer virus alert.

Don’t Go There.

Go jump in the lake…FREAK!
Times up for you weirdo’s…and I’m guessing you know it.
That’s why you knickers are in a knot.

The Court has consistently found that the free speech rights of military personnel are not as absolute as those of the civilian population. Free speech is part of the constitution but so is Congress’s authority to regulate the armed forces: “The Congress shall have Power . . . To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces.” The Supreme Court tries to strike a balance between the two interests using the military necessity doctrine.

“While the members of the military are not excluded from the protection
granted by the First Amendment, the different character of the military
community and of the military mission requires a different application
of those protections. The fundamental necessity for obedience, and the
consequent necessity for imposition of discipline, may render
permissible within the military that which would be constitutionally
impermissible outside it.” PARKER V. LEVY, 417 U. S. 733

They cited an appellate opinion as an example:

“Disrespectful and contemptuous speech, even advocacy of
violent change, is tolerable in the civilian community, for it does
not directly affect the capacity of the Government to discharge
its responsibilities unless it both is directed to inciting imminent
lawless action and is likely to produce such action. Brandenburg
‘u. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). In military life, however, other
considerations must be weighed. The armed forces depend on
a command structure that at all times must commit men to
combat, not only hazarding their lives but ultimately involving
the security of the Nation itself. Speech that is protected in the
civil population may nonetheless undermine the effectiveness of
response to command. If it does, it is constitutionally unprotected.”
United States v. Gray, 20 C.M.A. 63, 42 C.M.R. 255
(1970) cited in PARKER V. LEVY, 417 U. S. 733

So, according to Dan Abrams, if you are sad and troubled, you cannot be a hero. And the severity of his crime, also according to Dan Abrams, is irrelevant. The fact that the army has no proof of anything is sad and troubling. So, the army is no hero either. And as to the characterization of loathsome and/or pathetic, Dan Abrams is the only one who makes those characterizations — not anyone inside of the courtroom.

The judges cited were wrong.  They didn’t read the Constitution, rather they found some rationalization for what they wanted.  “No law” means NO LAW.  Period.

Also, the judges opinions are no more important than any other citizen’s opinions.  The Constitution does not give judges the power to authoritatively interpret the Constitution; that power was grabbed by the US Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison.  Rather, that power, as provided in the Tenth Amendment, goes to the States, or to the People.

Read the Constitution, not what others SAY about the Constitution. 

“ the defense called only two witnesses knowing that there was no good reason to pull out all the stops at this point in the legal process (some of the defense’s proposed psychological witnesses were also not permitted to testify).”  Do your homework before you write.  All but 2 witnesses not shared with the prosecution were denied by the IO (“judge”).  Funny thing that. 

If this article lacked credibility as objective investigative journalism, I think the fact that it is currrently being used by Adrian Lamo, as part of his self justification for HIS actions, says it all!

Ahh, nothing says “libertarianism” like advocating the death penalty for someone who brought war crimes to light.  

He didn’t “sell” anything to anybody.  He exposed wrongdoing.  Idiot bootlicking cowards like yourself are the reason this country is in such shit shape; you’re too stupid to know what’s going on, too chickenshit to question authority.

For most of the charges, the prosecution has the burden of proof to show intent. Assuming that Bradley gave the documents to wiki-leaks, What was the intent? He did not direct give anything to an enemy, he gave it to an editorial board. While this was a violation of the rules of handling secret material, the decision to make information available to our enemies was not his.

The murder of civilians for fun is a war crime, the obligation to report a war crime supersedes the obligation to to respect a secret classification. The “I was only following orders” defense. Keeping a war crime secret is aiding and abetting that crime.

Most of the diplomatic was old and unclassified. The only thing he is guilty of is circumventing the Freedom of information act.

no he’s going to change his first name to Breanna… idiot

I would like to applaud this argument. This is possibly the most intelligent series of opposing opinions I have seen in the days of entertainment providing commentary. While I tend to agree with one over the other, thank you for providing an example that should be used by all.

Breanna I like, but I think it would be a mistake to change his/her last name to Idiot.