The Wikileaks collection

[JMA]

Yes, he has been charged. The documents are online in fact. They also give some rough time lines, as well as specific acts he's accused of. You may want to compare those, the chat logs, and Julian's BS.

He's being treated entirely fairly, it's fairly standard conditions he's in, and compared to prisons where there is a lot of overcrowding they're pretty good. The witless shrieking from the extreme left is exactly that, witless shrieking.

There is *a lot* of deceptive behavior going on with the Wikileaks crowd. Lost in the media & political hysteria has been some of the common sense that should have noticed this more than it has.

Charged is one this, appearing before the courts is another. Has he appeared in court yet even for a remand?

Of course if he did it he is in trouble. The distribution of secret material is a serious issue. (I recall that there was about 15,000 secret docs as part of the 240,000 lesser classified bundle).

My point is that he has been incarcerated for 7 months already and the Salon article is already setting him up to be a martyr. Find a reason to legitimately put him away so he can't be portrayed as a victim anymore.

[JMA]

JMA,
According to this DD Form 458, Manning has far more serious problems besides becoming a martyr

I sure hope he doesn't have issues with being around large furry males with low morals.

Sorry, couldn't help meself

The left will build him up to be a hero/martyr/whatever. They would love it if he hurt himself or more whilst in confinement. They don't care about Bradley Manning they care about milking the situation for all the propaganda value they can.

Put him away on the video count right now and deal with the rest later, is what I say.

Let me share with you something about the large furry males bit.

You don't want to be placed in a communal cell in a South Africa jail (and probably those of a number of countries). We had a rather loud community member who went on and on about throwing all those who break the law into jail and let them do what they like to each other (you know what I mean) just get them off the streets.

Fast forward a year or so to late one Saturday night when his 18 year old son gets stopped DUI (driving under the influence) and is so far over the limit that he gets put in jail for the night.

The kid gets passed around the cell that night and seriously gang raped. He has an immediate mental breakdown and commits suicide 3 months later. Father is now a broken man and is seriously bitter about the lack of control in prisons where such things are allowed to happen.

[Stan]

The left will build him up to be a hero/martyr/whatever. They would love it if he hurt himself or more whilst in confinement. They don't care about Bradley Manning they care about milking the situation for all the propaganda value they can.

Concur, which is exactly why he's in solitary with very little to do but be monitored.

Let me share with you something about the large furry males bit.

You don't want to be placed in a communal cell in a South Africa jail (and probably those of a number of countries). We had a rather loud community member who went on and on about throwing all those who break the law into jail and let them do what they like to each other (you know what I mean) just get them off the streets.

Fast forward a year or so to late one Saturday night when his 18 year old son gets stopped DUI (driving under the influence) and is so far over the limit that he gets put in jail for the night.

The kid gets passed around the cell that night and seriously gang raped. He has an immediate mental breakdown and commits suicide 3 months later. Father is now a broken man and is seriously bitter about the lack of control in prisons where such things are allowed to happen.

Yep, again I concur. Remember I spent over a decade in Sub-Sahara and I assure you that getting Americans out of jail was easy, but what happened to them overnight will hardly be forgotten.

I said sorry, it was just a joke (well, sort of)

I have no remorse for what may happen to him by furry large males in the general population. He betrayed the uniform, Army and us.

I did my 23 years without having doubts about the oath I took despite the fact others meandered around aimlessly not thinking about the potential consequences the rest of us would endure.

Sorry JMA, I don't wish him well even if it's nearly Christmas.

Regards, Stan

[Stan]

Here's a good article from the folks at CSIS regarding this and more. I most enjoyed reading about why people like Amazon and Twitter pulled the plug. Too easy to simply say they were pressured which I think most of us doubted.

Some comments supportive of the WikiLeaks activities have drawn a distinction between actually hacking into private information and receiving it from someone else who has taken it, noting that Assange did the latter.2 That distinction might well be less meaningful to the commentators if the data being disseminated so broadly and indiscriminately included their own bank account numbers, Social Security or other identifying numbers, or personal e-mail content.

The particularly salient observations were these:
…our terms of service state that “you [the customer] represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content… that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and will not cause injury to any person or entity.” It’s clear that WikiLeaks doesn’t own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that they weren’t putting innocent people in jeopardy.

Much more at the link...

[jmm99]

who is easily found by Googling "bradley manning" "legal counsel" - getting The Law Office of David E. Coombs.

At that site (obviously in Manning's favor on all issues) by (LTC) Coombs:

01 September 2010, PFC Manning: Lawyer DOES NOT Question Soldier's Sanity - re: delay for hearing by Rule for Court-Martial 706 Board, comprised of three Army mental health professionals.

25 November 2010, PFC Manning Case Update - Article 32 investigation and hearing required; but first a classification hearing to determine the highest level of data which was (allegedly) compromised.

21 December 2010, Article 13 and PFC Bradley Manning and 18 December 2010, A Typical Day for PFC Bradley Manning

I report; you decide.

Mike

[JMA]

who is easily found by Googling "bradley manning" "legal counsel" - getting The Law Office of David E. Coombs.

At that site (obviously in Manning's favor on all issues) by (LTC) Coombs:

01 September 2010, PFC Manning: Lawyer DOES NOT Question Soldier's Sanity - re: delay for hearing by Rule for Court-Martial 706 Board, comprised of three Army mental health professionals.

25 November 2010, PFC Manning Case Update - Article 32 investigation and hearing required; but first a classification hearing to determine the highest level of data which was (allegedly) compromised.

21 December 2010, Article 13 and PFC Bradley Manning and 18 December 2010, A Typical Day for PFC Bradley Manning

I report; you decide.

Mike

Mike, subject to your interest in this matter and time constraints I would certainly value your presentation what you see as the best options for the prosecution and also the best options for Manning's counsel to proceed with in a form of comparison.

[JMA]

Concur, which is exactly why he's in solitary with very little to do but be monitored.

Yep, again I concur. Remember I spent over a decade in Sub-Sahara and I assure you that getting Americans out of jail was easy, but what happened to them overnight will hardly be forgotten.

We concur.

I just think they must get on with the show... which I'm sure they would do unless... there is a hiccup in their case?

[Old Eagle]

I doubt that there are hiccups. The other thing that is going on is an intelligence community damage assessment (in private, not what you read on the i'net). The severity of the potential damage will drive possible revision of charges and extent to which the gov't is willing to play let's make a deal. My guess is that Manning is also being interrogated to see if others were complicit enough to be charged, or negligent enough, for that matter. There will also be a "gap analysis" but I'm not going there until someone in the gov't says something.

The bad news is that what's really going on is not nearly as interesting or exciting as all the speculation.

[jmm99]

Once the Article 32 is completed, and if Manning is bound over, we'll look at the charges which are referred for court-martial. They may or may not be the same as in the present charge sheet.

An Article 32 does not adjudicate guilt and is not a full-fledged trial. The question at that stage is whether the government's evidence, if credible on its face, establishes that a crime has been committed and that there is probable cause (preponderence of the evidence = 50 yds and a nose) to believe that the defendant committed that crime.

Since the present charges include some 250K+ of documents, the classification determination procedure may take some time - what levels of classification (if any) were leaked as to any particular document. A lot depends on what the prosecution and defense can or are willing to stipulate in this area.

Meanwhile, I posit that lawyers are talking about plea bargains. You all might take a look at this thread, The Estonian Spy Case - Herman Simm, where one really had to wait until the guilty plea to get some of the actual facts and who Simm's co-conspirators really were.

For those not familiar with the UCMJ and courts-martial procedure, you should download The Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), United States (2008 Edition) - which has nearly everything in its 980 pages. It answers most questions that come up.

Regards

Mike

[Stan]

We concur.

I just think they must get on with the show... which I'm sure they would do unless... there is a hiccup in their case?

According to Mike's typical attention to details, this para is at best puzzling

The preliminary classification review is expected to last an additional three to six weeks. Once this review is complete, the government will need to take the necessary steps to ensure everyone associated with the case has the requisite security clearance. This process, depending upon the classification level, can be a lengthy one. Once every member of the government and defense has the requisite security clearance, the government will likely begin the Article 32 hearing.

Having completed a number of DD Form 398s in my 23 years, it still took on average 6 months to return from DIS not to mention the lie detector tests

[JMA]

According to Mike's typical attention to details, this para is at best puzzling

OK, hiccup as in possible "minor setback".

It seems from reports in the media that with respect to the release of the video they (the supporters of Bradley Manning) are talking about whistle blower protection using "Blowing the whistle on war crimes is not a crime" as the rallying cry.

Did you hear about the Brit whistle blower Katharine Gun who exposed a US request (in breach the Vienna Conventions) for the Brits to help spy on UN staff. She was charged under the official secrets act and her defence "were expected to argue that trying to stop an illegal act (that of an illegal war of aggression) trumped Gun's obligations under the Official Secrets Act". The case was dropped.

Now sitting on the other side of the world and viewing the release of the video in isolation where those shot were clearly not armed and the attempts of the military to duck and dive on the matter and refuse to release the video makes this an acceptable whistle blowing act IMHO.

Speed is of the essence in this case I believe as we already are seeing armies massing on the horizon. See: UN to investigate treatment of jailed leaks suspect Bradley Manning

[jmm99]

but all in the government and defense teams (e.g., Coombs, an LTC when he last had a paid vacation in the Sandbox), and court personnel assigned, most probably already have top secret clearances. I'd expect no newbies in this case.

I could be wrong, of course - all valid corrections will be gracefully accepted.

My thought was that cataloging the documents would take the most time - 3 to 6 wks is somewhere in the ballpark for time expended in clearing Gitmo habeas documents. That depends on how many beavers you assign to count and grade the trees in this forest.

My thoughts only - scarcely a legal opinion.

For JMA, a DD Form 398 is a Department of Defense Personnel Security Questionnaire (16 pages).

The Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF-86) is similar, but is more inclusive. Love this section (of SF-86):

19. Foreign contacts

Do you have or have you had close and/or continuing contact with foreign nationals within the last 7 years with whom you, your spouse, or your cohabitant are bound by affection, influence, and/or obligation? Include associates, as well as relatives, not already listed in Question 18. (A foreign national is defined as any person who is not a citizen or national of the U.S.) ... Type of contact (check all that apply) .... Electronic correspondence ...

"Electronic correspondence" is not defined in the SF-86 form or instructions. Certainly email and PMs. What of posting to blogs, forums, etc. ? To whom are you "bound by affection, influence, and/or obligation".

Regards

Mike

[Rex Brynen]

Did you hear about the Brit whistle blower Katharine Gun who exposed a US request (in breach the Vienna Conventions) for the Brits to help spy on UN staff. She was charged under the official secrets act and her defence "were expected to argue that trying to stop an illegal act (that of an illegal war of aggression) trumped Gun's obligations under the Official Secrets Act". The case was dropped.

Although I don't know (and we may never), I suspect in this case the Crown's concern was that a court case would involve a high risk of disclosing sources and methods, which in turn could imperil ongoing collection efforts.

[selil]

What of posting to blogs, forums, etc. ? To whom are you "bound by affection, influence, and/or obligation".

I've been recently wondering how to answer that. Though not affection there are people who are foreign nationals that have a good point or two

[Stan]

It seems from reports in the media that with respect to the release of the video they (the supporters of Bradley Manning) are talking about whistle blower protection using "Blowing the whistle on war crimes is not a crime" as the rallying cry.

Did you hear about the Brit whistle blower Katharine Gun who exposed a US request (in breach the Vienna Conventions) for the Brits to help spy on UN staff.

JMA, I see your point and to some extent (albeit for different reasons) I agree with you.

OK, so the PFC dumps the video because he feels a war crime was committed. There are actually avenues for this reporting and given the fact he was running around with a weapon sans bolt, nobody was going to listen to him anyway and he felt compelled to do it himself. Not sure why he was even allowed to work at that point ? I really don't like thinking he was a fruitcake and will simply be discharged and remanded to the nut house.

But, he then copies files and dumps some 250,000 on the net ? Where do we now draw the line ? Had this only be an issue of blowing the whistle on the helo attack he would have a reasonable defense.

Regards, Stan

[Stan]

For JMA, a DD Form 398 is a Department of Defense Personnel Security Questionnaire (16 pages).

The Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF-86) is similar, but is more inclusive. Love this section (of SF-86):

"Electronic correspondence" is not defined in the SF-86 form or instructions. Certainly email and PMs. What of posting to blogs, forums, etc. ? To whom are you "bound by affection, influence, and/or obligation".

Regards

Mike

Hey Mike,
Thanks for the memories and reminiscing

Bonds of Affection DIA & DIS called it. Got to love the 80s where we had to type that form beginning with your birth all over again (as if it had changed over the last 4 or 5 years ).

Back to what you and Sam are onto... I was questioned about a purported love letter sent to a secretary in the Swedish Embassy. Not that Swedes were off limits, but that I could have failed to note that relationship on the 398. How in creation information about my "note" to her ended up with DIS puzzles me to this day.

DIA would later relax things by saying one night stands do not fall under the Bonds of Affection category. Hence, one could now at gay abandon hump like rabbits, so long as you did it only once (with the same partner)

Regards, Stan

[JMA]

JMA, I see your point and to some extent (albeit for different reasons) I agree with you.

OK, so the PFC dumps the video because he feels a war crime was committed. There are actually avenues for this reporting and given the fact he was running around with a weapon sans bolt, nobody was going to listen to him anyway and he felt compelled to do it himself. Not sure why he was even allowed to work at that point ? I really don't like thinking he was a fruitcake and will simply be discharged and remanded to the nut house.

But, he then copies files and dumps some 250,000 on the net ? Where do we now draw the line ? Had this only be an issue of blowing the whistle on the helo attack he would have a reasonable defense.

Regards, Stan

Well like any good thief he got away with it once so he kept going (I say this without knowing the exact timeline) and in so doing put his head well and truly in the noose (so to speak).

What I am essentially saying is that they should select charges that will stick and get a move on. The aim (IMHO) is to sort Bradley Manning out and not try to use him to get to Assange. As the Brits will tell you... a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

[JMA]

DIA would later relax things by saying one night stands do not fall under the Bonds of Affection category. Hence, one could now at gay abandon hump like rabbits, so long as you did it only once (with the same partner)

Regards, Stan

It all well and good for these guys to require date, time and place... but how does one even remember all the names

[Stan]

It all well and good for these guys to require date, time and place... but how does one even remember all the names

Business cards JMA The Diplomatic Corps... you gotta love 'em !

[jmm99]

from JMA
Now sitting on the other side of the world and viewing the release of the video in isolation where those shot were clearly not armed and the attempts of the military to duck and dive on the matter and refuse to release the video makes this an acceptable whistle blowing act IMHO.

These matters cannot be simplistically viewed "in isolation" (that is, without considering all material evidence). An argument so limited lacks credence and is very likely to be demolished in court.

The 2007 Apache video was discussed very fully in another Whole News thread, 2007 Apache Engagement on Video: Appears Incriminating (10 pages) (in which, you first appear here, Rules of Engagement?).

In considering that event from a legal standpoint, I took the time to look at the complete videos (not just the cherry-picked snips), the written US Army reports and ROEs, and the various media accounts. I also looked at maps of the neighborhood and its history (primarily from 2003 on). In short, I looked at all of the evidence available online that I considered material to the matter (and yes, without a judge deciding it, "materiality" is a subjective decision).

My legal opinion as to all the shoots (there are three shown in the complete vids): Good shoots all; no UCMJ violations; no "war crimes" were committed (e.g., my posts #103, #125, #133, #155, and #163).

A more succinct comment on the Apache Shoot was offered by Polarbear1605 in this post, Monday Morning Quarterbacks?:

I am a little surprised by the general comments on this one. I think most of you should go back and read the Rules of War (FM27-10) and then the ROEs. (You might also want to get jmm99 involved in this one.) If I am a civilian and pickup a weapon on the battle field I become a combatant and btw, if I drop the weapon, I do not become a non-combatant again. This group of Iraqi "civilians" engaged our troops with AK-47s and RPGs. They were then treated like insurgents. They were tracked down and they were killed. If they are not tracked down and killed, they will return to kill you (or Iraqi civilians, usually the ones on our side) later. The war crime was not US soldiers killing civilians but the war crime was insurgents using civilians as shields.

I stand with the Great Bear in his summary.

Now, I'm not going to launch into a discussion of the "Whistleblower Defense" (if one exists in this case) because it's too early. I may or may not chime in if there is a court-martial and if that defense is asserted.

You all (if you want) can get educated about the Pentagon Papers and Ellsberg complex of cases - here is a start, Daniel Ellsberg; please remember that the Pentagon Papers case was a prior restraint on publication case, not a prosecution for what you take or pass on (the later Ellsberg trial). Speculate all you want.

Regards

Mike