Author Topic: Imprisoned 1000 days without a trial  (Read 7671 times)

(No subject)
« Reply #15 on: February 23, 2013, 03:34:12 PM »
He gave comfort and aid to the enemy while the country is at war and he was serving in the armed forces.

Legally the government can summarily execute his ass if they choose. In times of war we used to put guys like him in front of a firing squad the moment we found out their crimes.

Re:
« Reply #16 on: February 23, 2013, 03:38:15 PM »
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"
He is a traitor because that is a legal term.  The government comes up with the definition, and even though Manning did the right thing he fits the legal definition.  He did what he did - disobey the Government - out of loyalty to Constitution and Country.

This is very true, but doing the right thing ina wrong way is still wrong.

Re:
« Reply #17 on: February 23, 2013, 03:46:41 PM »
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"
The Nobel Prize Committee should take the award they gave to Drone-Strike Obama and give it to Manning for bravely exposing war crimes at great personal risk.

He is a traitor because that is a legal term.  The government comes up with the definition, and even though Manning did the right thing he fits the legal definition.  He did what he did - disobey the Government - out of loyalty to Constitution and Country.

I completely agree.  I couldn't believe when they gave Obama a Nobel for.....getting elected while being black?  Seriously that's all I could come up with.

Offline The Skeletal Atheist

Re: Re:
« Reply #18 on: February 23, 2013, 03:46:41 PM »
Quote from: "Alaric I"
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"
He is a traitor because that is a legal term.  The government comes up with the definition, and even though Manning did the right thing he fits the legal definition.  He did what he did - disobey the Government - out of loyalty to Constitution and Country.

This is very true, but doing the right thing ina wrong way is still wrong.
Is it the wrong way because it's illegal? If so I better tell those Chinese dissidents that they're wrong.

Yeah, he's legally a traitor, but what he did was right. Legally he should be punished, but legally he also has the right to a trial. The way he's being treated is a fucking joke and a miscarriage of justice. Of course, I don't know much about military tribunals, so I'm talking out of my ass here, but I would assume that most soldiers charged with someone get a trial sooner than he has.
Some people need to be beaten with a smart stick.

Kein Mehrheit Fur Die Mitleid!

Kein Mitlied F�r Die Mehrheit!

Re: Re:
« Reply #19 on: February 23, 2013, 04:00:08 PM »
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"
Quote from: "Alaric I"
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"
He is a traitor because that is a legal term.  The government comes up with the definition, and even though Manning did the right thing he fits the legal definition.  He did what he did - disobey the Government - out of loyalty to Constitution and Country.

This is very true, but doing the right thing ina wrong way is still wrong.
Is it the wrong way because it's illegal? If so I better tell those Chinese dissidents that they're wrong.
Yeah, he's legally a traitor, but what he did was right. Legally he should be punished, but legally he also has the right to a trial. The way he's being treated is a fucking joke and a miscarriage of justice. Of course, I don't know much about military tribunals, so I'm talking out of my ass here, but I would assume that most soldiers charged with someone get a trial sooner than he has.

Think about it this way, someone molests and kills my kid. I have the evidence for it but instead of letting the police do their job I take justice into my own hands.  Am I right or wrong?
As you admit to talking out of your ass, I would first learn what the situation is before you comment on it.

Re: Re:
« Reply #20 on: February 23, 2013, 04:11:36 PM »
Quote from: "Alaric I"
Think about it this way, someone molests and kills my kid. I have the evidence for it but instead of letting the police do their job I take justice into my own hands.  Am I right or wrong?
As you admit to talking out of your ass, I would first learn what the situation is before you comment on it.

Those are completely different issues.

(No subject)
« Reply #21 on: February 23, 2013, 04:15:55 PM »
Now now, CommonSense, you know Conservative types need their straw-man arguments.  Without them, the Conservatives have nothing to use.
Kimberly (HSBUH) aka Baroness Sylvia von Zurich (formerly a Goldwater Conservative) endorses the Meadow Party's Bill N' Opus for the 2016 Presidential election!

(No subject)
« Reply #22 on: February 23, 2013, 04:31:38 PM »
Quote from: "Martin Luther King Jr."
One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Offline The Skeletal Atheist

Re: Re:
« Reply #23 on: February 23, 2013, 04:32:12 PM »
Quote from: "Alaric I"
Think about it this way, someone molests and kills my kid. I have the evidence for it but instead of letting the police do their job I take justice into my own hands.  Am I right or wrong?
As Commonsense822 said, you're talking about a completely different issue, but let's discuss it anyways:

In such a situation, if you had 100% concrete evidence (let's say...a unaltered videotape of the incident), and you took justice into your hands you may be right morally, but not legally. Morally right and legally right are not always the same, otherwise there would have been no such thing as slavery or discrimination, which during their time were legally right.

Would I still expect you to get tried and convicted? Yes. Would I have qualms if you were convicted after trial? No, though I would hope they would see your tragedy as a mitigating factor. Would I have issues if they held you for a long ass time without a trial? Yes, I would. Would I object if there were reports that you were being treated in a less than humane manner? Yes.

Quote
As you admit to talking out of your ass, I would first learn what the situation is before you comment on it.
Talking out my ass about how long it takes for a soldier imprisoned by the military to go to trial. I know, due my brother, that for civilian cases it may take awhile, but on average it's not more than 6-7 months. If anyone has any info on how long it takes for a soldier to go from arrest to military tribunal then it would be much appreciated.
Some people need to be beaten with a smart stick.

Kein Mehrheit Fur Die Mitleid!

Kein Mitlied F�r Die Mehrheit!

(No subject)
« Reply #24 on: February 23, 2013, 04:36:21 PM »
Ask some of the guys in Guantanamo how long it takes to get a trial. I am going to guess that even they have it better than Manning.
???  ??

Offline Nonsensei

Re: Re:
« Reply #25 on: February 23, 2013, 04:43:18 PM »
The existence of police in your analogy makes it completely invalid.

A better analogy would be if the police raped and killed my daughter. In that case, yeah I would take the law into my own hands as I would have no reliable alternative.
And on the wings of a dream so far beyond reality
All alone in desperation now the time has come
Lost inside you\'ll never find, lost within my own mind
Day after day this misery must go on

Re: Re:
« Reply #26 on: February 23, 2013, 04:55:27 PM »
Quote from: "commonsense822"
Quote from: "Alaric I"
Think about it this way, someone molests and kills my kid. I have the evidence for it but instead of letting the police do their job I take justice into my own hands.  Am I right or wrong?
As you admit to talking out of your ass, I would first learn what the situation is before you comment on it.

Those are completely different issues.

No they aren't.  We are talking about the law and taking it into your own hands.  You assertain that it is correct for him to break the law because of the evidence presented. I assertain that he broke the law and therefore did it wrong.  What he should have done is brought this evidence to the attention of the congress and let them investigate.

Re:
« Reply #27 on: February 23, 2013, 04:56:32 PM »
Quote from: "SvZurich"
Now now, CommonSense, you know Conservative types need their straw-man arguments.  Without them, the Conservatives have nothing to use.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Re: Re:
« Reply #28 on: February 23, 2013, 05:09:55 PM »
Quote from: "Alaric I"
Quote from: "commonsense822"
Quote from: "Alaric I"
Think about it this way, someone molests and kills my kid. I have the evidence for it but instead of letting the police do their job I take justice into my own hands.  Am I right or wrong?
As you admit to talking out of your ass, I would first learn what the situation is before you comment on it.

Those are completely different issues.

No they aren't.  We are talking about the law and taking it into your own hands.  You assertain that it is correct for him to break the law because of the evidence presented. I assertain that he broke the law and therefore did it wrong.  What he should have done is brought this evidence to the attention of the congress and let them investigate.

Bring the evidence of the congress members' own gossip to the attention of those same congress members?  The leaked documents were their documents.  That's like finding emails that prove that your boss is cheating on his wife with his secretary, and then bringing that evidence to him and telling him to fix it.  It's a complete conflict of interest.  

We (the people) do NOT work for congress members.  They work for US.  We voted them in and their work is supposed to reflect our needs.  So when they do fucked up shit, we should be the ones that know because we are the ones giving them the positions.  The American people should not be misinformed about their elected leaders.

Re: Re:
« Reply #29 on: February 23, 2013, 05:22:14 PM »
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"
Quote from: "Alaric I"
Think about it this way, someone molests and kills my kid. I have the evidence for it but instead of letting the police do their job I take justice into my own hands.  Am I right or wrong?
As Commonsense822 said, you're talking about a completely different issue, but let's discuss it anyways:

No it's not.  It addresses taking the law into your own hands and trying to find justice in an incorrect way.

Quote
In such a situation, if you had 100% concrete evidence (let's say...a unaltered videotape of the incident), and you took justice into your hands you may be right morally, but not legally. Morally right and legally right are not always the same, otherwise there would have been no such thing as slavery or discrimination, which during their time were legally right.


My point exactly.  He did the right thing morally, but the wrong thing legally.

Quote
Would I still expect you to get tried and convicted? Yes. Would I have qualms if you were convicted after trial? No, though I would hope they would see your tragedy as a mitigating factor. Would I have issues if they held you for a long ass time without a trial? Yes, I would. Would I object if there were reports that you were being treated in a less than humane manner? Yes.

Nobody is disputing this.

Quote
Quote
As you admit to talking out of your ass, I would first learn what the situation is before you comment on it.
Talking out my ass about how long it takes for a soldier imprisoned by the military to go to trial. I know, due my brother, that for civilian cases it may take awhile, but on average it's not more than 6-7 months. If anyone has any info on how long it takes for a soldier to go from arrest to military tribunal then it would be much appreciated.

First off we are not talking about a tribunal, we are talking about a Courts Martial.  The first step is an article 32 hearing, sort of like a pre-trial hearing, which will determine whether or not they are able to stand trial.  The article 32 hearing started on DEC 16 2011 and lasted until FEB 3 2012.  Since then his legal team has submitted different defenses, which then all evidence must be turned over to the prosecution for them to build a case around.  A judge rejected a dismissal because of this.  Now I'm no lawyer so I am not going to try to say it's wrong or wrong, but it seems to me the defence may have set this up as a tactic seeing how Manning is royaly screwed in this case.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk