"Anonymous Vows Personal Attacks on U.S. Military Families, "War" on U.S."

[Xanikk999]

In this case I'm glad they're doing it. Can't wait to see what the outcome is, either way.

This country needs a wake up call and I wouldn't shed a single tear if those who are responsible for torturing Bradley Manning are hurt by these terrorists.

The people holding Bradley Manning are just as much terrorists as the guys threatening them.

 

[GoodGame]

How about developing teams and allocating resources so the US government can use similar tactics to disrupt the activities of a political group or a country deemed to be the enemy, or even accused to be operating countrary to the interests of our government? Cowardice?

Or using psychological warfare where you intentionally deceive your enemy, or even your own citizens, in order to accomplish a military or political goal? Cowardice?

Or assassinating political leaders, or those merely suspected of crimes, even when there is no declared war? Cowardice?



So you think a class action lawsuit could stop the US military from persecuting Bradley Manning? On what grounds? Can you even bring a class action lawsuit against the US government?

Actually I was referring to a general strategy for the issues that Anonymous seems to tackle. I find absolutely nothing wrong with US citizen facing trial for violating US laws, especially if they pertained to the job that the US government trained him to do (and he swore an oath of service to the US government to earn the trust to get the job). Seems there is a lot of US in that reasoning.

But obviously any NGO could file a petition to be heard in court (e.g. Amnesty International). No need for Zorro the gay blade to make vague threats behind a black mask.

 

[Formaldehyde]

But obviously any NGO could file a petition to be heard in court (e.g. Amnesty International). No need for Zorro the gay blade to make vague threats behind a black mask.

I don't believe they can. For instance, the ACLU spoke out vehemently against using military tribunals against suspected terrorists even back in 2001, but they never brought any petitions against the US military. That is one of the inherent problems with courts martial and the whole military justice system. They operate almost completely outside the normal legal system.

 

[GoodGame]

I don't believe they can. For instance, the ACLU spoke out vehemently against using military tribunals against suspected terrorists even back in 2001, but they never brought any petitions against the US military. That is one of the inherent problems with courts martial and the whole military justice system. They operate almost completely outside the normal legal system.

And it's 2011. Any NGO can petition the White House to make exceptions. It is all in the executive branch if it's under military law.

 

[Formaldehyde]

They can petition all the want. But there is no way for them to even get a legal injunction in matters such as this, which is what I thought you were claiming. Obama has claimed to have spoken about the military leadership about this at length at a recent press conference, and he was reassured by them that there were good reasons for them to be psychologically abusing Bradley Manning like this.

Of course, he didn't quite put it that way.

 

[MobBoss]

That is one of the inherent problems with courts martial and the whole military justice system. They operate almost completely outside the normal legal system.

No, they dont. Convictions in military courts martials are considered felonies just like in any other court and they even have an appeal process just like any other court.

Also, there is a decided difference in a military tribunal....and a military court martial. They arent the same thing and operate under different rules.

The issue you are referring to is when the crime involved is pertinent to the security of the country, and the information involved is largely classified.

And again, Manning simply isnt being 'psychologically tortured'. This has been proven over and over again in discussion regarding this, so why the need to continue labeling it like that?

 

[aelf]

Frankly, due to the hierarchical structure of the military, I'm not surprised that it follows its own disciplinary code and system of punishment. When you join the military, you're essentially signing away your life as a normal citizen with your full array of rights. This guy's plight is certainly appalling, but it shouldn't be surprising at all that it is allowed to happen even in a developed country. The military is an institution that connects us to the barbarity that underlie civilisation and that exists as a contingency for when civilisation fails and descends into full barbarity, when all that is solid melts into war. All our developed and progressive moral conceptions ultimately do not apply to it.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It is easily solved. Just do away with the military justice system and military tribunals altogether. Everybody deserves the protections afforded by the Constitution, including the right to a trial by jury in serious matters, instead of being at the mercy of military officers with their own obvious agenda.

 

[aelf]

Then you get into issues about degrees of civilian control over the military. I mean, efficiency in waging war is the raison d'être of the military, which essentially means it has to be independent and able to subsume all other concerns under its effective ability to defend the nation and its institutions, which are traditionally seen as the guarantors of citizens' rights in the first place. The democratic compromise is for the military to be controlled at the top by the civilian government, but I think you'd find that in dire war situations, it's often the case that the military either has to be left alone to do as it wishes or quickly assumes total control anyway.

I think the independence of the military stems from there.

 

[MobBoss]

It is easily solved. Just do away with the military justice system and military tribunals altogether. Everybody deserves the protections afforded by the Constitution, including the right to a trial by jury in serious matters, instead of being at the mercy of military officers with their own obvious agenda.

The Judge Advocate Corps is one of the oldest and most respected Corps in the military. I strongly disagree that officers and NCOs that perform jury duty in Courts Martial have some self-serving agenda, anymore than any civilian does in a civilian court. Those officers and NCOs are the accused peers inasmuch jurors are in civilian trials. The process conforms to the rules in the US Consitution and holds those rules as paramount.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I think the independence of the military stems from there.

How is trying soldiers in a court of law for serious crimes such as this affecting the independence of the military in any way? It leads to coverups and scapegoating in many instances. My Lai is an excellent example.

They can go ahead and have summary courts martial for walking on the grass when they shouldn't be and other such infractions. But any serious felony such as this should be investigated and tried by civilian authorities under the full protection of the Constitution and our legal system.

Manning would never be treated like this in a civilian jail awaiting trial no matter what he ostensibly did. If he were, groups like the ACLU and Amnesty International would indeed be all over them for violating his rights.

 

[Luckymoose]

No one should ever overlook this generation of hackers.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Just look at how they have threatened society in general so far. It just isn't safe to visit many porn sites without first installing free anti-virus sofware.

 

[MobBoss]

How is trying soldiers in a court of law for serious crimes such as this affecting the independence of the military in any way? It leads to coverups and scapegoating in many instances. My Lai is an excellent example.

They can go ahead and have summary courts martial for walking on the grass when they shouldn't be and other such infractions. But any serious felony such as this should be investigated and tried by civilian authorities under the full protection of the Constitution and our legal system.

Manning would never be treated like this in a civilian jail awaiting trial no matter what he ostensibly did. If he were, groups like the ACLU and Amnesty International would indeed be all over them for violating his rights.

My Lai was an exception, not the rule, and things simply arent the same as they were 50 years ago.

And a court martial for walking on the grass would be hugely excessive and not allowed. The point being, the consitution protects the process be it civilian or military, both are part of our legal system, and have been for a very, very long time.

As to your allegation that Manning wouldnt be treated like this in a civilian Jail, I agree - its likely he would be treated worse. http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2004/05/13/prisoner-abuse-how-different-are-us-prisons

 

[JollyRoger]

As to your allegation that Manning wouldnt be treated like this in a civilian Jail, I agree - its likely he would be treated worse. http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2004/05/13/prisoner-abuse-how-different-are-us-prisons

In the civilian system, he could be out on bail.

 

[MobBoss]

In the civilian system, he could be out on bail.

If he was given bail at all. Considering the nature of his crime, him being a huge flight risk is almost certain.

 

[JollyRoger]

If he was given bail at all. Considering the nature of his crime, him being a huge flight risk is almost certain.

I don't think they initially indicted him on a life-sentence charges and there are methods of assuring his appearance that would have allowed him to prevail at a bail hearing in a civilian court. If he had made all of his court appearances prior to the government charging more serious offenses, it is doubtful that a civilin court would detain him unless he had some point violated the conditions of bail previously set up.

 

[Formaldehyde]

My Lai was an exception, not the rule, and things simply arent the same as they were 50 years ago.

Of course they aren't. That's why so many slaps on the wrists were handed out and so much scapegoating occurred at Abu Ghraib, Baghram and Gitmo. It's so much better now that the military no longer tries to cover everthing up.

As to your allegation that Manning wouldnt be treated like this in a civilian Jail, I agree - its likely he would be treated worse. http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2004/05/13/prisoner-abuse-how-different-are-us-prisons

You do know the difference between a jail and prison, right? Remember, Manning hasn't even been found guilty yet. But I seriously doubt that abuse at prisons is much different than Leavenworth. After all, it is just another federal prison.

And even at the worst prisons, I can't remember prisoners having to strip for 7 hours per day and stand at attention naked in front of female guards. Have you? At least the human pyramids appear to be an optional activity now.

 

[MobBoss]

I don't think they initially indicted him on a life-sentence charges and there are methods of assuring his appearance that would have allowed him to prevail at a bail hearing in a civilian court. If he had made all of his court appearances prior to the government charging more serious offenses, it is doubtful that a civilin court would detain him unless he had some point violated the conditions of bail previously set up.

I think the initial set of charges carried a sentence upwards of 50+ years. The additional ones push it to life in prison.

Of course they aren't. That's why so many slaps on the wrists were handed out and so much scapegoating occurred at Abu Ghraib, Baghram and Gitmo. It's so much better now that the military no longer tries to cover everthing up.

You do know the difference between a jail and prison, right? Remember, Manning hasn't even been found guilty yet. But I seriously doubt that abuse at prisons is much different than Leavenworth. After all, it is just another federal prison.

And even at the worst prisons, I can't remember prisoners having to strip for 7 hours per day and stand at attention naked in front of female guards. Have you? At least the human pyramids appear to be an optional activity now.

Those responsible at Abu Graib were arrested, tried, convicted and sent to jail. There was no cover-up. That is simply the historical fact of the matter.

As to Leavenworth, there is no abuse reported there because it is a military discipline barrack. Only soldiers are sent there, and as such, they understand (or at least comprehend) military discipline, whereas those criminals in civilian prisons dont. Its run as a military institution, and expects its inmates to conduct themselves in a military manner. Because of this Leavenworth has never reportedly had the same kinds of problems other federal prisons have.

Because of its unique characteristics, its simply not 'just another' federal prison.

Also, where did it ever say that Manning had female prison guards and was forced to stand in front of them? I dont remember seeing that.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Those responsible at Abu Graib were arrested, tried, convicted and sent to jail. There was no cover-up. That is simply the historical fact of the matter.

Of course it was, just like all the other torture and murder of innocent civilians. It has all been extensively assessed in a completely impartial manner, and all the people who were even slightly involved have been identitifed and punished.

Abu Ghraib Investigator Details Pentagon Cover-Up: ‘I Thought I Was In The Mafia’

Intel Staffer Cites Abu Ghraib Cover-Up

Rumsfeld's Abu Ghraib Cover-Up Revealed

Cover-Up of Abu Ghraib Torture Puts Troops at Risk

As to Leavenworth, there is no abuse reported there because it is a military discipline barrack.

Of course there is no abuse reported there. Just like Pvt. Manning...

Also, where did it ever say that Manning had female prison guards and was forced to stand in front of them? I dont remember seeing that.

You do realize who is overseeing his stay, right? Do you think she is the only female likely there?