WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

Similarly, the woman that murders her rapist has violated the law and must suffer the consequences. Society cannot abide vigilantes. Manning was a vigilante.

Confusing the issue with all sorts of competing moral considerations and personal empathy with the defendant is in conflict with The Rule of Law.

Manning is guilty of violating a law, and he must suffer the consequences.

Similarly, the woman that murders her rapist has violated the law and must suffer the consequences.

We seek objective interpretations of The Law and its violations. When subjectivity is inserted in the equation, the Rule of Law is weakened.

It is not so much that the "moral issues" "competed" with the fact that he handed over the cables to Wikileaks. He did it. But there is the real possibility that his mental state contributed to what he did. And the army establishment took no responsibility what-so-ever for his mental state, when obviously he should have been removed from his post (especially with access to such "sensitive material!) & should have received proper treatment.

Confusing the issue with all sorts of competing moral considerations and personal empathy with the defendant is in conflict with The Rule of Law.

Military refers all charges against Bradley Manning to court martial

Despite Clear Evidence of Bias, ‘Show Trial’ of Accused WikiLeaks Whistle-blower Set to Proceed

WASHINGTON, DC — Military officers orchestrating proceedings against PFC Bradley Manning have referred all charges that were considered during last month’s Article 32 proceedings to a general court martial. Investigating officer Lt. Col. Paul Almanza rejected a request from lead defense counsel David Coombs to consolidate the 22 charges into three charges, expressing concerns that the military is over-charging PFC Manning.

“We’re disappointed but by no means surprised,” said Jeff Paterson, a lead organizer for the Bradley Manning Support Network. “The investigating officer showed no concern for the conflict of interest caused by his dual employment with the Justice Department, or the taint of bias arising from his commander-in-chief, President Obama, who publicly declared Manning to be guilty long before he ever had his day in court.”

Lt. Col. Paul Alamanza, the investigating officer who referred the charges to court martial, refused to recuse himself on the grounds that his employer — the Justice Department — is pursuing a separate investigation into WikiLeaks. He was also criticized for allowing all of the military’s witnesses and evidence to be presented, while prohibiting all but two of the defense’s witnesses from testifying, as well as evidence that could exonerate the accused WikiLeaks whistle-blower.

The recommendations, which now go before the Special Court Martial Convening Authority, include the most serious charge of “aiding the enemy.” Legal observers who followed the Article 32 proceedings noted that military prosecutors never provided evidence of how these materials supposedly harmed national security.

“These charges contradict the administration’s own impact assessments which showed that these WikiLeaks revelations posed no threat to our national security” said Kevin Zeese, a legal adviser to the Bradley Manning Support Network. “But since the Obama administration appears dead set on railroading Bradley Manning through their show trial, we can’t expect them to allow such critical evidence or testimony to be considered. This evidence could have shown that these materials were improperly classified.”

The new convening authority Maj. Gen. Linnington is expected to make a final recommendation on these charges in about a week, with the court martial anticipated to resume in three to five months.

Hundreds of supporters marched and demonstrated in support of Bradley Manning outside the Article 32 proceedings at Fort Meade last month. Organizers say that the Obama administration can expect even larger numbers at the court martial.

“But since the Obama administration appears dead set on railroading Bradley Manning through their show trial, we can’t expect them to allow such critical evidence or testimony to be considered. This evidence could have shown that these materials were improperly classified

It was not a crime if he was nuts at the time

The defense strategy seems aimed at minimizing any punishment of Manning, conceding that he technically violated laws.

Perhaps if you fill out the correct application forms Bill the authorities which you dote on so lovingly will let you watch him being tortured in a quarry by brutal guards for 60 years or so.

Lawyer in WikiLeaks case wants to depose Clinton
(The Associated Press, January 16, 2012)

WASHINGTON (AP) — A lawyer for an intelligence analyst charged with leaking classified information to the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks wants to question Secretary of State Hillary Clinton before his client is tried.

David Coombs, a lawyer for Pfc. Bradley Manning, included a request to question Clinton as part of a redacted document posted Monday on his website and also sent to Army officials. Clinton's name is obscured in the document, but it is clear from context that she is the person he wants to question.

Coombs failed in his attempt to call Clinton as a witness at Manning's preliminary hearing last month. The Army is still deciding whether the 24-year-old Manning, who is accused of causing the biggest leak of classified information in U.S. history, should stand trial.

Whatever the defense uses for Manning, they need to point out that banks and investment companies security are the responsibility of the institution's CEO's and Presidents. Same with the Department of Defense, the IRS, and a whole slew of government departments that must ensure its security. If hackers get into their system to take out money from their ATM's, they can't end up blaming the peon who works there.

If hackers get into their system to take out money from
their ATM's, they can't end up blaming the peon who works there.

Do you cried for other criminals or just for US traitors?