@BillRM,
Bill, it is very interesting to observe your rigid acceptance of military "rules" when it applies to the Bradley Manning case (I assume due to patriotism) , while at the same time constantly arguing the law is an ass (in regard to your pet "causes") on other A2K threads. So, from your perspective, military rules are set in cement, and never to be questioned, while civil laws can be?
There are quite a few real concerns about the conduct of the Bradley Manning hearing, not least that the prosecution lawyer (a state department employee whose employer is pursuing a separate investigation into Wikileaks ) allowed
only two witnesses for the defence, while allowing
all military witnesses.
Of most concern to me is the charge with holds the most serious consequences .....that of
"aiding the enemy".
Nowhere in the state department's previous public statement's has any evidence of this been been provided, in fact the state department's earlier assessment declared that Bradley Manning's actions were not a threat to national security at all! How can it possibly be considered reasonable that he should stand trial for an offense that the prosecution cannot (or is not even required to?) provide evidence for?
Quote:....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.”
http://www.bradleymanning.org/news/military-refers-all-charges-against-bradley-manning-to-court-martial
So far I have seen no information in the media (nor in this discussion) about
how Bradley Manning's actions actually aided the enemy. In fact it is not even clear who this "enemy", exactly!
Who or what
is this "enemy" and how exactly was it aided by the the Wikileaks? Surely the prosecution should be required make that clear?
(Nor, btw, has there been any evidence provided of the resultant harm/deaths of those who confided in US ambassadors abroad as a result of Wikileaks, despite constant claims to the contrary on this thread & elsewhere. Severe embarrassment of the US administration at its failure to protect their sources with appropriate security of the cables seems much closer to the mark to me.)
-