Bradley Manning | News

Bradley Manning, Looking Ghostly After Three Years of Confinement: PHOTO

Manning

Via Reuters executive editor Jim Roberts, who tweets: "Is Bradley #Manning getting any sunlight?"

Manning's former supervisor is set to be called to the witness stand today:

Jihrleah Showman has already appeared before the court at Fort Meade, Maryland, having attended the first pre-trial hearing that was held in December 2011. On that occasion, she related how Manning had punched her during a violent outburst that led to him being demoted to the rank of private.

Showman also recounted other erratic behaviour from Manning, including an incident in which she feared that he had reached for a gun, and went as far as to say that in her opinion he should never have been allowed to deploy to Iraq because he was a "threat to himself and to others".

Showman will be called by government lawyers as they seek to drive home their case: that Manning was fully aware that what he was doing, in carrying out the largest leak of state secrets in US history, could put the nation in harm's way and benefit foreign adversaries.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Gomez: I'm with you as one of the few. It's weird how he seems to be getting propped up as an idealized hero for some and the ultimate villain for others.

    Jon (and the other guys who are supposedly veterans): I didn't even know he was gay (or trans, or whatever else he might be). When I've heard gay friends discuss the case their opinion has been the result of their political persuasion, not allegiance to Manning as a "community" member.

    Posted by: Edward | Jun 5, 2013 2:52:20 PM


  2. @ Ben:
    You might want to do a bit more research on the case since each of your comments reveal how little you actually know about it. Manning did, in fact, try to go to his superiors and other officers outside his particular unit. However, this wasn't my intention in citing Title 10, U.S.C Section 1034. My intention was to show that you are wrong in your assumption that whistleblower laws do not apply to the military.

    Posted by: gwynethcornrow | Jun 5, 2013 2:59:49 PM


  3. When it comes to a dictatorial and authoritarian personality, we really haven't seen anything quite like Obama in the White House for almost a century. Woodrow Wilson was the last president who, like Obama, believed he could use the United States Constituion as toilet paper to wipe his ass with.

    Obama, just like the Houston DA who drug out Texas' "Homosexual Conduct" law that hadn't been used for decades in order to prosecute John Lawrence and Tyron Garner in 1998 for "engaging in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex", dug out laws promulgated by Wilson a century earlier so he could prosecute Bradley Manning. Wilson, in his zeal to sell a skeptical American public on WWI, used the laws to persecute any dissenting voices opposed to WWI. The laws laid dormant on the books for almost 100 years until Obama came along.

    For a short video of the history of how and why the laws Obama is using to persecute Manning came about, there's this outstanding film by Scott Noble:

    http://vimeo.com/14772678#t=1597

    Posted by: from Mexico | Jun 5, 2013 3:08:11 PM


  4. Is that the guy from "Powder?"

    Posted by: Garst | Jun 5, 2013 3:15:23 PM


  5. To illustrate the extent to which Obama is willing to carry his war on visible government, the Christian Science Monitor has a new story up: “Bradley Manning’s Wikileaks trial shrouded in secrecy”

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0604/Bradley-Manning-s-Wikileaks-trial-shrouded-in-secrecy

    And it is no wonder the military judge in Manning’s court martial trial, Army Col. Denise Lind, wants her rulings to remain shrouded behind a veil of secrecy. As Truthout reported:

    "In a telling sign of just how fair of a trial Manning will get, the military judge already ruled that almost all questions and evidence the defense can raise about Manning’s intentions for acting are irrelevant to the trial."

    http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/16774-when-truth-becomes-an-enemy-of-the-state-bradley-manning-on-trial

    This ruling firmly places Lind in the Richard Nixon and Adolf Eichmann camp. For these faithful adherents of legalism, the law is all about mala prohibita, or wrongful only because it is illegal, and nothing about mens rea, or an “evil-meaning mind.” For them the law is all about the letter of the law, and nothing about the spirit of the law. It’s an unbelievably one-eyed view of criminal jurisprudence, and is “inconsistent with our philosophy of criminal law.” (quotes from the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in Morissette v. United States)

    Posted by: from Mexico | Jun 5, 2013 4:08:27 PM


  6. After Adrian Lamo's testimony before the court martial yesterday, it becomes very clear why judge Lind ruled:

    1) Not to allow the court reporter into the courtroom who the press had hired to make a transcript of the trial, and

    2) That almost all questions and evidence the defense can raise about Manning’s intentions for acting are irrelevant to the trial.

    The Obama and army propagandists have spent the last three years in an elaborate, full court press to demonize Manning as a troubled, unstable, and vengeful young gay man who did what he did out of spite. If this were true, the government would have little problem demonstrating the mens rea -- "evil-meaning mind" -- requirement necessary for a criminal conviction. But it looks like all the government propaganda was just that: distortions and half-truths at best, and outright lies at worst.

    It's amazing how, despite all the precautions Lind took to insure the truth didn't become public, that somehow it is managing to slip out. For instance, Scott Galindez reported that yesterday Lamo testified that, in emails and chats, Manning had written to him:

    ~ that Manning did not believe in good guys and bad guys anymore, only a plethora of states acting in self interest.
    ~ that Manning thought maybe he was maybe too idealistic.
    ~ that, based on what Manning had seen, he couldn't let the information stay inside.
    ~ that Manning felt connected to everybody, that we were all distant family, and he said he cared.
    ~ that Manning called himself a humanist and said he had custom dog tags where he had written humanist on the back.
    ~ that we are all human and we are killing ourselves and no one seems to care.
    ~ that Manning was bothered that nobody seemed to care, that apathy was far worse than active participation.
    ~ that Manning preferred the painful truth over blissful fantasy.

    http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/367-wikileaks/17767-bradley-manning-faces-his-accuser

    Those are hardly the thoughts of some little air-headed disco queen that the Obama and army propagandists have spent the last three years creating.

    It also explains why Lind's ruling negating the mens rea requirement was so elemental to convicting Bradley Manning. There is no way the army could demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, the "evil-meaning mind" requirement.

    Posted by: from Mexico | Jun 5, 2013 5:56:03 PM


  7. Mens rea doesn't translate in "evil-meaning mind". It simply means "mental state" as in, what was his state of mind or rather on a more basic level...did he have the necessay intent/willfulness in doing what he did. Evil is not a requirement. You are just wrong.

    Posted by: FakeOutrage | Jun 5, 2013 8:26:22 PM


  8. @Fake Outrage: mens rea does not mean "mental state." It means criminal intent or "a guilty mind." So, actually, Mexico is a bit closer to the correct legal definition.

    Posted by: gwyneth cornrow | Jun 5, 2013 9:02:53 PM


  9. No, it does not. It's a "concept" rather than the narrow definition you want it to be. It goes to the "state of mind". In some cases, criminal in others not. example: If I shoot a gun in the air...with no "criminal state of mind" in the bullet injuring someone..and that bullet falls out of the sky and hits someone...I am criminally liable because I had the specific intent to fire the gun....even if I didn't intend for the consequences that resulted. You both are completely wrong.

    Posted by: FakeOutrage | Jun 5, 2013 9:34:24 PM


  10. from Mexico -
    could you please cite where it says in the UCMJ that conviction for wrongdoing requires the establishment of a certain state of mind in the suspect? Last I checked, it was not written by Richard Nixon OR Adolph Eichmann. It seems you object to the very nature of US military jurisprudence. Fine. Write your congresscritter to get the laws of the US military changed. If someone was well meaning, they simply shouldn't ever be able to be court marshaled. See how far that gets in committee. For now, Manning signed a agreement saying that if he knowing OR unknowingly caused the release of classified information - classified rightly or wrongly - he could face punishment up to and including inprisonment.

    BTW how does a Supreme Court case about a scrap dealer apply to this? Guess what...I have a feeling even if Manning appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, all 9 justices would basically side with the government on the fundamental question of whether he broke the law. It's a tough world out there.

    Posted by: EchtKultig | Jun 5, 2013 9:56:19 PM


  11. I'm not a lawyer and certainly not an expert on military law, nevertheless I did a bit of tedious googling on "mens rea" and "strict liability". I simply don't see how that issue applies here at all, it seems a complete canard. He had far more "knowledge" of the "wrongness" of his actions than many criminals. Why did he re-write his Lady Gaga CDRW? Why didn't he just bring in blank CD in a new case and, heck, why not say to his supervisor, "hey I'm just going to download some classified information to give to some friends of mine on the internet." I mean, it's completely rediculous. He knew he was "guilty" of breaking the law and the rules of the SCIF he was working in. (Nothing digital is supposed to come in or out except what is authorized and logged.) Fine, he had noble intentions of exposing US military wrongdoing. If I kill a man I know beyond a shadow of a doubt to be a serial murderer, I will still be prosecuted for this "act of goodness."

    Posted by: EchtKultig | Jun 5, 2013 10:09:52 PM


  12. A TRAITOR? You people make me sick. What government did he betray? the government that betrays it's own citizens daily?!?!! Who forced their people into a fake war for oil? Yea a traitor to traitors really doesn't work its kinda like stealing from a thief. Dumbasses.

    Posted by: James | Jun 5, 2013 11:19:23 PM


  13. Regardless of the legalities, "mens rea" is Latin.

    "mens" means "mind"
    "rea" is the the feminine word for "defendent"
    or accused, probably due to "mens" being feminine,
    and the ending for "rea" could be in the nominative, vocative, or ablative case (in the ablative, it would be pronounced using a long vowel). To have a chance of making sense gramatically, "rea" is most likely ablative. There's a lot of overloading in terms how the ablative is used. In this case, it probably denotes a restriction to the defendant at the time the crime occurred.

    Posted by: Bill | Jun 5, 2013 11:32:53 PM


  14. @ FakeOutrage

    "Evil meaning mind" is the exact wording the United States Supreme Court gave "mens rea" requirement in its Morissette v. United States decision.

    That is called precedent.

    For a greater explanation there's this:

    http://www.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/backissues/v102/n3/1023_537.Smith.pdf

    Posted by: from Mexico | Jun 6, 2013 8:06:56 AM


  15. @ EchtKultig

    Every time you tickle that keyboard, you place yourself farther and farther into the Richard Nixon and Adolf Eichmann camp.

    And no one is arguing that Manning is going to get what most Americans would consider fairness or justice out of the military court. It's already become clarion that he will not, because the judge has already made that clear when she disregarded long-standing precedent in American jurisprudence.

    Demonstrating criminal intent in order to convict someone of a criminal offense is part of our Western moral tradition. The United States Supreme Court made that point quite clear in Morissette v. United States when it ruled that negating the mens rea requirment, or demonstration of an “evil-meaning mind,” is “inconsistent with our philosophy of criminal law.” (quotes from the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in Morissette v. United States)

    The very intention of my argument is to demonstrate that the Manning court martial is a show trial, and is an affront to what most Americans as well as legal precedent hold to be morally just and fair.

    Posted by: from Mexico | Jun 6, 2013 8:31:03 AM


  16. @from Mexico: Sorry, but the term mens rea refers to the state of mind of a defendant (when an alleged crime was committed). The Supreme Court ruling you cited was about how that state of mind should be used in legal proceedings.

    The article you cited said that 'In our
    system, crime is understood as a “compound concept,” requiring both an “evil-doing hand” and an “evil-meaning mind.”'. but that does not define "mens rea". Rather, it specifies the mens rea that must exist for a crime to have been committed. Shortly after that quote, the article states, "It is mens rea, for example, that guarantees that the harsher penalties for intentional homicides will not be applied to accidental homicides." Killing someone due to being careless with a gun is not treated the same as killing that person intentionally even though the person ended up being shot the same way - the "mens rea" are different in the two cases.

    Posted by: Bill | Jun 7, 2013 1:57:26 AM


  17. « 1 2

Post a comment







Trending


« «Macklemore Demands End to Discrimination Against Gay Families in New Video: WATCH« «