PFC Manning says he was held in a cage
It seems that the accused leaker of classified documents to Wikileaks, Army PFC Bradley Manning, was upset he was held in cells after being arrested for violating his oath as well as host of other Army regulations.
WHAT THE YOU KNOW WHAT?
Hello, since when was a jail cell anything but a cage?
Is this guy for real, or is he living in some nether world? I am sorry, but you get yourself arrested – inside the military or out – you are not going to some swank four-star hotel. Nope, you are going to be cooped up in rather uncomfortable surroundings, usually not much worse than the accommodations for the poor line-doggies who are serving out on the front lines.
I am sorry, but his case has dragged on long enough – courtesy of himself and his defense lawyers – and it about time the court martial begins.
If the defense team tries to justify his alleged conduct, then as far as I am concerned the kid should get a swift ticket to the Big House at Fort Leavenworth where he can rot for all I care. If the Army can’t prove that he was the source of the material that Wikileaks put on line, then he can walk … but if the military can prove that he was the source, then the young man can just hang, literally and figuratively.
Unfortunately, this baby-faced baboon is trying to get people’s sympathy in a world where sympathy often gets people killed. It seems to be forgotten that this soldier VOLUNTEERED for his job. He voluntarily agreed and swore oaths that he would protect the information he was privy to from unauthorized release to unauthorized persons. If he has no more integrity than to honor his voluntary obligations, then such a charlatan deserves whatever punishment the service deems fit for the crime.
Please, however, save me from the “but he only was doing what he thought was right” argument. If he was being compelled to serve, I can buy it, but he volunteered.
Showing posts with label Wikileaks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wikileaks. Show all posts
Friday, November 30, 2012
Monday, August 20, 2012
Disturbing defense trends
I am not linked in as well as I once was to things that are happening the Army, but I do try to follow as best I can. I recently was trying to catch up on the case of Pfc. Bradley Manning, the young intelligence specialist who is to stand trial for leaking hundreds of thousands of classified (if nothing other the FOUO/NFD (For Official Use Only/No Foreign Dissemination) but much classified (which is the next step up) and secret) documents from the Department of Defense and the Department of State, and I noticed something that I thought was disturbing about issues that the defense had raised.
Note, I also heard a similar defense argument that Maj. Hassan, the accused killer of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood a while back.
The defense argument in each case is that it is the Army’s fault that the soldier involved did whatever they did which has them facing charges because the Army failed to take preventative actions against the individuals. In other words, the Army should have known these guys were bad eggs, and weeded them out of the basket before they could do any harm. These people are not responsible for their actions, the Army is.
Time out! Does this logic not bother anybody else? It bothers the heck out of me.
You take adults (these people are adults, you know, not little children) who are supposedly responsible individuals, or at least aware what is expected of them, and you are trying to say that they are not because the Army didn’t stop them. Whoa! As the old saying goes, that dog won’t hunt.
Sorry, I don’t care what issues these individuals may have had in their personal lives, it doesn’t excuse conduct contrary to the Universal Code of Military Justice. Unfortunately, in this day and age, few people understand what goes into being a service member and have even far less understanding of the UCMJ. I admit, I am not an expert on the UCMJ, not even enough to be considered a barracks lawyer, but I know enough what usually right and what is wrong in the way of military behavior. I also know that the “well, everybody else does it” defense doesn’t fly, in the military as well as in civilian life.
From what PFC Manning’s attorneys say, it is pretty obvious that a) he downloaded inappropriate material (regardless of whether or not he should have access or not) and b) he gave that information to a foreign national without authorization.
Why he did it really doesn’t matter. I know that will offend some people who think that if you think you are in the right, then there are no laws that cannot be broken. Or those who think that just because you disagree with what somebody else is doing, it is ok to publicize information that will possibly damage the institution, if not those you disagree with. That is a whole bunch of bovine scatology.
What if I think my employer, let’s say a software company that makes games, panders to views or values that I think are wrong. They don’t have to be illegal, necessarily, just things that I think are wrong. Does that give me the right to dump all the source code for all their software out on the internet plus all the bosses’ e-mails that discuss strategy against the competition? Do you not think the company would have the right to fire that me, sue me for everything I have and, if possible, file criminal charges against me for breach of contract and theft of property … basically throw the book at me?
If you don’t think the company has that right … please pull your head out of your derriere.
Essentially, what PFC Manning did is the equivalent or so would any legal bumpkin who had any smarts know that.
So, we plead that it is the company’s fault, because they shouldn’t have let me have access to any of the crap because of my personal problems (I was going through a mid-life – ok a senior-moment – crisis). Just because he allegedly had “gender identity” problems does not absolve him of his culpability for his actions. I am sorry, but that defense doesn’t fly.
Ok, he didn’t like what the government did, or how it did it … when you wear the uniform, you basically have surrendered your right publically express dissent. Sorry, but that is the way things are. In the polling station’s privacy, you can express your political views, otherwise, sorry, but it is prohibited by law and regulation. I hope all of you see the value in having an apolitical military (even if most members adhere to more conservative values) responsive to civilian authorities, rather than having a politically active military that ignores civilian authorities when it comes to domestic policy.
I think it is sad that the legal system grinds so slowly, but like everything else bureaucratic, it does. And it is unfortunately that PFC Manning is the person that he is, and that those who support him are the way they are.
Sorry, but solitary confinement is not torture. Sorry, but it is not.
When you are considered a suicide risk, yes, certain procedures are taken to make sure you can’t create an opportunity to hurt yourself. Sorry, but that has to be done.
Lastly, while you have many rights, all those rights you think you have as a civilian? Well, when you swear that oath when you enter military service, you basically surrender most of them. You no longer are in a democratic republican society, but a military one. Military society is different. In today’s world, you are not forced to join this society; you volunteer. You are not a child when you volunteer, but an adult and you must assume adult responsibilities. Among those responsibilities is understanding that you probably won’t get to do what you want to do most of the time and, in fact, you probably will dislike what you are asked to do a big part of the time. Get over it, it is part of the job.
Based on the information that is in the public domain, PFC Manning is nobody’s hero. He really isn’t a decent whistleblower as a good part of the information that he dumped out on the internet could be obvious to most rational people, but it didn’t help to throw it in people’s faces. That hurt and possibly cost some people their lives. We will never know.
Still, he acted like he didn’t care what happened to his fellow soldiers, to those who serve the nation. I am sorry, but that attitude, when in uniform, will get you jail, if not shot (and not by the official system).
Mister Assange of WikiLeaks can huff and puff all he wants (because it makes him feel good and powerful), but PFC Manning should face the full measure of the consequences for his breaking faith with those who served with in uniform.
Note, I also heard a similar defense argument that Maj. Hassan, the accused killer of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood a while back.
The defense argument in each case is that it is the Army’s fault that the soldier involved did whatever they did which has them facing charges because the Army failed to take preventative actions against the individuals. In other words, the Army should have known these guys were bad eggs, and weeded them out of the basket before they could do any harm. These people are not responsible for their actions, the Army is.
Time out! Does this logic not bother anybody else? It bothers the heck out of me.
You take adults (these people are adults, you know, not little children) who are supposedly responsible individuals, or at least aware what is expected of them, and you are trying to say that they are not because the Army didn’t stop them. Whoa! As the old saying goes, that dog won’t hunt.
Sorry, I don’t care what issues these individuals may have had in their personal lives, it doesn’t excuse conduct contrary to the Universal Code of Military Justice. Unfortunately, in this day and age, few people understand what goes into being a service member and have even far less understanding of the UCMJ. I admit, I am not an expert on the UCMJ, not even enough to be considered a barracks lawyer, but I know enough what usually right and what is wrong in the way of military behavior. I also know that the “well, everybody else does it” defense doesn’t fly, in the military as well as in civilian life.
From what PFC Manning’s attorneys say, it is pretty obvious that a) he downloaded inappropriate material (regardless of whether or not he should have access or not) and b) he gave that information to a foreign national without authorization.
Why he did it really doesn’t matter. I know that will offend some people who think that if you think you are in the right, then there are no laws that cannot be broken. Or those who think that just because you disagree with what somebody else is doing, it is ok to publicize information that will possibly damage the institution, if not those you disagree with. That is a whole bunch of bovine scatology.
What if I think my employer, let’s say a software company that makes games, panders to views or values that I think are wrong. They don’t have to be illegal, necessarily, just things that I think are wrong. Does that give me the right to dump all the source code for all their software out on the internet plus all the bosses’ e-mails that discuss strategy against the competition? Do you not think the company would have the right to fire that me, sue me for everything I have and, if possible, file criminal charges against me for breach of contract and theft of property … basically throw the book at me?
If you don’t think the company has that right … please pull your head out of your derriere.
Essentially, what PFC Manning did is the equivalent or so would any legal bumpkin who had any smarts know that.
So, we plead that it is the company’s fault, because they shouldn’t have let me have access to any of the crap because of my personal problems (I was going through a mid-life – ok a senior-moment – crisis). Just because he allegedly had “gender identity” problems does not absolve him of his culpability for his actions. I am sorry, but that defense doesn’t fly.
Ok, he didn’t like what the government did, or how it did it … when you wear the uniform, you basically have surrendered your right publically express dissent. Sorry, but that is the way things are. In the polling station’s privacy, you can express your political views, otherwise, sorry, but it is prohibited by law and regulation. I hope all of you see the value in having an apolitical military (even if most members adhere to more conservative values) responsive to civilian authorities, rather than having a politically active military that ignores civilian authorities when it comes to domestic policy.
I think it is sad that the legal system grinds so slowly, but like everything else bureaucratic, it does. And it is unfortunately that PFC Manning is the person that he is, and that those who support him are the way they are.
Sorry, but solitary confinement is not torture. Sorry, but it is not.
When you are considered a suicide risk, yes, certain procedures are taken to make sure you can’t create an opportunity to hurt yourself. Sorry, but that has to be done.
Lastly, while you have many rights, all those rights you think you have as a civilian? Well, when you swear that oath when you enter military service, you basically surrender most of them. You no longer are in a democratic republican society, but a military one. Military society is different. In today’s world, you are not forced to join this society; you volunteer. You are not a child when you volunteer, but an adult and you must assume adult responsibilities. Among those responsibilities is understanding that you probably won’t get to do what you want to do most of the time and, in fact, you probably will dislike what you are asked to do a big part of the time. Get over it, it is part of the job.
Based on the information that is in the public domain, PFC Manning is nobody’s hero. He really isn’t a decent whistleblower as a good part of the information that he dumped out on the internet could be obvious to most rational people, but it didn’t help to throw it in people’s faces. That hurt and possibly cost some people their lives. We will never know.
Still, he acted like he didn’t care what happened to his fellow soldiers, to those who serve the nation. I am sorry, but that attitude, when in uniform, will get you jail, if not shot (and not by the official system).
Mister Assange of WikiLeaks can huff and puff all he wants (because it makes him feel good and powerful), but PFC Manning should face the full measure of the consequences for his breaking faith with those who served with in uniform.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Diplomatic immunity?
British threaten to enter Ecuadoran Embassy to arrest Julian Assange
Wikileaks leader Julian Assange probably has been granted political asylum by Ecuador by the time you read this, but I doubt he has been arrested. (As my progressive friend out west posted on his Facebook site about 10 p.m. EDT Wednesday (8/15/2012))
Granted, the British can, if they want to invoke one of their own laws, march in to the Ecuadoran embassy in London to arrest Mister Assange. However hardball at this juncture the Brits want to play this, I do think that they will think twice about going into the Ecuadoran embassy.
To me, the whole issue a tempest in the proverbial teapot, but apparently the Swedish authorities think they have reason to bring rather serious charges against Mister Assange (unless you want to dismiss claims of rape, which seems to be the European bent these days when people in influential positions who have allegedly consensual sex with women, that the women claim later was not so consensual).
It seems that the biggest fear Assange has is that somehow he is going to be extradited to the US and then put on trial for espionage and then executed. That would be a circus.
Unlike some people, I don’t view the US government or its plethora of intelligence and security agencies as being all that capable. Sorry, guys, but we ain’t that good and never have been.
Assuming that Assange was extradited from Sweden or even Britian to the US, I don’t think he would be “disappeared.” Sorry, he is too high profile for that to happen. So, that means he would wind up in a US court – not a military one at that – with all the fun and games that means. Nope, I don’t see him being strapped to a gurney to get his lethal dose happening.
So, what else? Well, it is going to be a trick to get him out of the Ecuadoran embassy to anywhere, and I don’t think his chances of that happening are very good. Of course, he could spend the next several years enjoying the freedom of said embassy, but I don’t think he is going to like that much.
Whatever he may think of the charges pending against him in Sweden, which led to the European arrest warrant, he also faces problems with violation of his bail in Britain. However sympathetic to the man you may be for the things that Wikileaks has done, if you are supporter of the rule of law, then his behavior makes him in the wrong.
Those people who think the World Court, or the European Court of Human Rights, is going to step in better think twice about what they wish for. Sweden, regardless of what you may think of the charges, does have a valid warrant outstanding for Assange. If you want to invalidate that warrant, then you really are striking a blow at the entire international legal system and elevating one man above the law. I am not sure even progressives like my friend out west want to do that, but I may be wrong.
No, I don’t think that the British should march in and seize Mister Assange. That action would set a very bad precedent for all nations. By the same token, I think it would be wrong for Ecuador to grant him political asylum to prevent his return to Sweden.
Embassies are not to be refuges for basically common criminals, but I know the US has protected its share of “refugees” over the years. It also has surrendered its share, including a Chinese dissident earlier this year (of course, a deal was cut and he was allowed to leave China).
Still, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to hear a person calling others to the barricades for someone who has the morals of an alley cat. But then, if you don’t like the US, or its government, or respect that sometimes communications are better left under seal, then be ready for the backflash … I am sorry but the US constitution, and the European declaration of human rights, really doesn’t apply very many places and you have to get used to that fact. It is not pretty and it does not make a lot of people happy … especially those in the US who are fat, happy and sassy and take those rights as a given. They aren’t.
Wikileaks leader Julian Assange probably has been granted political asylum by Ecuador by the time you read this, but I doubt he has been arrested. (As my progressive friend out west posted on his Facebook site about 10 p.m. EDT Wednesday (8/15/2012))
Granted, the British can, if they want to invoke one of their own laws, march in to the Ecuadoran embassy in London to arrest Mister Assange. However hardball at this juncture the Brits want to play this, I do think that they will think twice about going into the Ecuadoran embassy.
To me, the whole issue a tempest in the proverbial teapot, but apparently the Swedish authorities think they have reason to bring rather serious charges against Mister Assange (unless you want to dismiss claims of rape, which seems to be the European bent these days when people in influential positions who have allegedly consensual sex with women, that the women claim later was not so consensual).
It seems that the biggest fear Assange has is that somehow he is going to be extradited to the US and then put on trial for espionage and then executed. That would be a circus.
Unlike some people, I don’t view the US government or its plethora of intelligence and security agencies as being all that capable. Sorry, guys, but we ain’t that good and never have been.
Assuming that Assange was extradited from Sweden or even Britian to the US, I don’t think he would be “disappeared.” Sorry, he is too high profile for that to happen. So, that means he would wind up in a US court – not a military one at that – with all the fun and games that means. Nope, I don’t see him being strapped to a gurney to get his lethal dose happening.
So, what else? Well, it is going to be a trick to get him out of the Ecuadoran embassy to anywhere, and I don’t think his chances of that happening are very good. Of course, he could spend the next several years enjoying the freedom of said embassy, but I don’t think he is going to like that much.
Whatever he may think of the charges pending against him in Sweden, which led to the European arrest warrant, he also faces problems with violation of his bail in Britain. However sympathetic to the man you may be for the things that Wikileaks has done, if you are supporter of the rule of law, then his behavior makes him in the wrong.
Those people who think the World Court, or the European Court of Human Rights, is going to step in better think twice about what they wish for. Sweden, regardless of what you may think of the charges, does have a valid warrant outstanding for Assange. If you want to invalidate that warrant, then you really are striking a blow at the entire international legal system and elevating one man above the law. I am not sure even progressives like my friend out west want to do that, but I may be wrong.
No, I don’t think that the British should march in and seize Mister Assange. That action would set a very bad precedent for all nations. By the same token, I think it would be wrong for Ecuador to grant him political asylum to prevent his return to Sweden.
Embassies are not to be refuges for basically common criminals, but I know the US has protected its share of “refugees” over the years. It also has surrendered its share, including a Chinese dissident earlier this year (of course, a deal was cut and he was allowed to leave China).
Still, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to hear a person calling others to the barricades for someone who has the morals of an alley cat. But then, if you don’t like the US, or its government, or respect that sometimes communications are better left under seal, then be ready for the backflash … I am sorry but the US constitution, and the European declaration of human rights, really doesn’t apply very many places and you have to get used to that fact. It is not pretty and it does not make a lot of people happy … especially those in the US who are fat, happy and sassy and take those rights as a given. They aren’t.
Friday, July 6, 2012
Wikileaks v. Syria
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/05/world/meast/uk-syria-wikileaks/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2
Julian Assange and his Wikileaks is back in the news. It seems that his group has posted a couple of million e-mails hacked from the Syrian government to expose how really nasty the Assad regime is/was and probably will be. It also exposes all those bad people who are dealing with Assad and his cronies.
And this guy is hiding out in the Paraguayan Embassy seeking asylum from the Brits and Swedes because he is afraid the Swedes MIGHT turn him over for prosecution in the US for dumping the raft of secret diplomatic communications and military documents from the US Government.
What is this guy drinking?
I mean, first he busts all the conditions he agreed to when he made bail in Britain after he was arrested on an international warrant from Sweden on alleged sexual misconduct. There is not warrant for his arrest in the US. In fact, at last check, the grand jury was still out on whether or not their would be any charges in that case. The military probably will symbolically “hang” the young idiot trooper who thought it would be cool to violate his oath and the UCMJ to dump a bunch of files to Wikileaks. But Mr. Assange probably doesn’t have all that much to fear from the US.
Now, let’s see: The Brits are pissed because this Australian jerk (although I think most Australians want to disown the fellow) is now definitely a law-breaker in the UK.
But the folks who really now will want his head on a Pike (HBO already did that with George W. Bush) will be the Syrians and all those business people in Europe who were fudging the books to deal with the Assad Regime despite sanctions. If you think the CIA is bad, they ain’t got nothing on these folks. It isn’t even a close race. In fact, they probably have taught the CIA a few tricks or so.
I hope the Paraguayan Embassy has a good security team … or Mister Assange does, if he ever opts to leave it in the future. I really would not be surprised if some pissed of person (non-US and non-CIA) ices him rather messily. This guy really is living in his own little nether world … and has no clue how really ugly and mean the big, bad world is out there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)