Bradley Manning faces 52 years in jail

All employees of the DoD and the US military must sign a SF312 CLASSIFIED INFORMATION NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT when they are employed.

Here is a copy of it:
http://www.er.doe.gov/sc-80/security/SF312.pdf


Basically just by taking the documents the federal government could charge him for violating this nondisclosure agreement for each individual document and he could be looking at multiple life sentences if he is lucky.

If they link him with giving the documents to wiki-leaks then that is espionage and he is looking at the death penalty.


He is fucked beyond fucked.

 

may i just remind everybody who loves bradley manning that he is half welsh (better half, obviously)

what a little fucker

 

That won't stop them from their continued pursuit of a smear campaign and otherwise finding or inventing something to try him for- if not through the court system then through the court of public opinion through the press/propaganda mill.

 

The Whistleblower statutes only protect a member of the military if they disclose information relating to illegality, waste, fraud, abuse or public health or safety threats directly to Congress. If he had called the Whistleblower hotline or used the whistleblower email address to set up a case file then he would at least would have been able to show his intents for his actions. But he did not do this so he can not say he is protected under the whistleblower statutes.


And the fact that he was hording classified documents outside of his "need to know" puts him in direct violation with the SF312 and about a dozen federal laws and statues.

Between the violations and the fact he has made an enemy of the entire Federal Government....there is no help for him at this point. They are going to bury him under Quantico prison.

 

odon,

i'm not trying to be rude or attack you, but your argument seems to consist very little of your actual thoughts, ideas, and sources... instead it seems based around dissecting other peoples comments to find one questionable statement and somehow using that as grounds for invalidating the entire post; the rest of which is usually well written with many valid points which you do not even attempt to discuss or debate.

shaky arguments and a tad bit of pretentiousness is mostly all i have seen from your contributions thus far..

yes

dont get me wrong im not trying to argue or instigate something because you have a different opinion than me on this subject.. i simply want to hear how/why you've arrived at the conclusions you've drawn, as opposed to just attempting to invalidate everyone else's because of one broad blanket statement, or one questionable assumption. we tend to all make generalizations or unspecific remarks in debates, but it doesnt render everything else that has been said invalid.

edit: if you can't already tell by now i'm in support of Manning. i think what he did was very brave.. just because he broke a law doesnt mean he is a criminal or deserves jail time, especially in this case when he broke the law to uncover and publicize war crimes and human rights violations. the very bottom line here is that in a democratic society like ours, information like this belongs in the public domain.. the lack of transparency in government/military is a serious issue in this country, and i think that perhaps one of the first steps toward improving this country is getting information like this (about how the government and military branches REALLY operate and how they are REALLY controlled) out there in the hands, eyes and ears of everyone in this country..

a big problem is that many people are oblivious to what is really happening behind the scenes in this country... how things are really being done and by which means said things are achieved... if people are confronted with information detailing how exactly these things operate and who is behind the influential curtain, then i think we are bound to make better and more informed decisions as a voting public.

 

chadcr01, I have responded with my own opinion to this issue earlier in the thread and in other threads regarding this guy and the situation.

I did ask a valid question, imho.
I tend not to ignore: "one broad blanket statement, or one questionable assumption" ...and don't mind if people pull me up on something I have said that they think is a questionable assumption etc.
I chose to ask Stinkfoot about what he had said because he isn't the only person to think that way or say it as if it is a fact.
In the end he admitted it was just an an opinion and not a fact, so I let it go.
I do post in different ways it just depends on how I feel. Sorry.

I'll respond to your edit when I have more time.

 

As far as I am aware he had no authorisation to submit classified documents to an outside source. So as far as I am aware he broke the law. People are suggesting it was his constitutional duty to bring this information to a wider audience and hasn't done anything against the law.
I'm not 100% sure who is right (I suspect Grainpsil is right) but I think he was wrong to do what he did. I did say: " He is welcome to his opinions, but he had no right to leak all of these documents, of which he would have no control over the consequences of releasing them.
I guess people do what their conscious' dictate, and everybody else has to deal with it in one way or another.
52 years, though? Bit harsh. 10 will do."

I think this is where we fundementally disagree with each other.
If you think he broke the law then he must be a criminal.
If he is convicted and sentenced I hope it isn't for 52 years.

I too think the majority of the information that was released should be in the public domain.
But not through wikileaks (who have an agenda of their own)...
How much spin they and those they have given the information to is ridiculous.
There has been no balance in reporting.

The sad fact is even if our governments released every detail other governments would not.
So you would end up not knowing the full picture anyway.

 

Imho, it boils down to Bradley Mannings intentions.
If he wanted to highlight what he deemed criminal activity then there seems to be path-ways to do this.
He chose not to go down that route.

What are the other - that you deem criminal - laws that have been passed?

There has to be some restrictions/procedures in place or it becomes ridiculous.
Anybody with access could download any classified information and pass it to whom ever they wish.
In this case it was passed to the media and they decided to filter/censor themselves.
It could have been a very different scenario.
If you think there should be no law restricting classified information from being put in the public domain then please let me know.

 

Ohh Bradass87 why didnt you use a different nickname

 

It all depends on how Manning distributed the information. He is not subject to civilian law, but rather the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The UCMJ does recognize whistleblowers, but only if they have followed established procedures when calling attention to, or disseminating their information. Given the fact that Manning secretly copied and distributed classified documents in an unlawful manner, and he did so to a foreign national (or someone representing that foreign national) he is certainly guilty of something. While they may not try him for espionage, given the current political storm brewing around him, he will probably be found guilty of some lesser charges.

 

Boy, if this doesn't send the message of "Don't fuck with us" I'm not sure what will.

 

I watched the apache helicopter video for the first time a couple of days ago. I had avoided seeing it because I have no interest in seeing people die, quite frankly, but I was appearantly off in a daze the other day and clicked the link without even thinking about it. I didn't really start thinking about what I was watching until gun shots broke me out of my reverie, then I had an immediate and very visceral reaction. What a fucking disturbing video. That video made me ashamed that my tax dollars pay for shit like that to happen.

Before seeing the video, I thought Manning was a patriot but didn't feel a lot of sympathy for him as far as jail time because I felt he knew what he was getting himself into. After seeing the video, i think Manning will be a personal hero of mine for the rest of my life and I've drafted a letter to send several congressmen on his behalf. I've also written Manning a letter but I doubt he will ever see it.

This man possibly sacrificed the rest of his free life to ensure that the contents of that video would not remain a shameful secret. I feel indebted to him in profound ways.

 

"what if they leaked it to the soviets?" (Substitute any handy country for "soviets" if you are under 30).

It would have been no big deal. The Soviets, Chinese, and North Vietnamese knew all about what the US was doing in SE Asia in the first Vietnam war. It was the American people who didn't know or didn't want to know.

Now, in the second Vietnam War (being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan), again, the American people are in the dark and a lot of them are happy that way. The "enemies" already believe the worst about us and really don't need to know any of the stuff in the leaks to cause us embarrassment or harm.

The truth will set you free?

How about "Every decision you make will be public" will set all the rest of us free?

 

He should get some time but 52 years is a bit too harsh.

 

Truth, "factual knowledge", can only set you free when it motivates enough of us to act on it. Something I learned from our opposition during the Viet Nam war was "We don't hate Americans, we hate your government.", and they were not talking about the type of government, but the actions of our government. I gained much respect for Ronald Reagan based on one sentence he uttered, "Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem."

Mannings biggest problem is the fact that by releasing 250,000 or more? documents, he likely did not have full knowledge of what was contained in each and every document that he released. He should, and probably will be found guilty and serve some time, but probably much less than 52 years. A larger question is, what criminal actions has he exposed, and will they be acted upon?

 

I think i have a man crush