General Discussion

hack89

(39,181 posts)

136. Bradley Manning's Legal Duty to follow the Military Whistleblower Protection Act

Wed Jun 5, 2013, 07:51 AM

Jun 2013

He would have been protected if he had simply followed the law.

The Military Whistleblower Protection Act, Title 10 U.S.C. 1034, as amended, prohibits interference with a military member’s right to make protected communications to members of Congress; Inspectors General; members of DoD audit, inspection, investigation or law enforcement organizations; and other persons or organizations (including the chain of command) designated by regulation or administrative procedures. A protected communication is any lawful communication to a Member of Congress or an IG, as well as any communication made to a person or organization designated under competent regulations to receive such communications, which a member of the Armed Services reasonably believes reports a violation of law or regulation (including sexual harassment, unlawful discrimination, mismanagement, a gross waste of funds or other resources, abuse of authority, or a substantial or specific danger to public health or safety.

http://www.ig.navy.mil/complaints/Complaints%20%20%28Reprisal%20Military%20Whistleblower%20Protection%29.htm

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

142 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Bradley Manning's Legal Duty to Expose War Crimes [View all] marmar Jun 2013 OP

K&R idwiyo Jun 2013 #1

K&R midnight Jun 2013 #2

I wish Obama would pardon him. tblue Jun 2013 #3

Why should he be pardoned? He had the option of whistleblowing under the law, and he chose a msanthrope Jun 2013 #7

Good answer!! He could have exposed the few bad things 7962 Jun 2013 #18

I think he had personal motivations related to his interpersonal conflicts. Nothing msanthrope Jun 2013 #24

Maybe because the MSM was complicit in the coverup and ignored him? think Jun 2013 #31

Bullshit, premium Jun 2013 #33

Then why isn't Ellsberg in prison? MattBaggins Jun 2013 #108

he was a civilian Recursion Jun 2013 #112

And... Jeff In Milwaukee Jun 2013 #137

It wasn't any more legal for Manning to go to the NY Times than Assange... msanthrope Jun 2013 #52

"MSM" had nothing to do with the options he had to report the few items of wrongdoing. stevenleser Jun 2013 #121

maybe because he essentially pardoned Darth Cheney? G_j Jun 2013 #45

Name a crime Cheney was culpable of... brooklynite Jun 2013 #51

? Aerows Jun 2013 #56

WTF? G_j Jun 2013 #58

I have... brooklynite Jun 2013 #106

Of course investigations are reserved for others G_j Jun 2013 #113

In other words, every single Democrat is complicit in a cover up... brooklynite Jun 2013 #114

you lost me G_j Jun 2013 #117

"It will never happen. We all know that! " brooklynite Jun 2013 #118

if you put it that way, I guess they are G_j Jun 2013 #119

Really? His buddy Libby covered for him in the Valerie Plame affair and took the fall by sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #81

Point me to a law against lying... brooklynite Jun 2013 #105

An elected official is always under oath, or didn't you know that? When one of them sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #125

They are under oath "to protect the Constitution"... brooklynite Jun 2013 #134

^^^THIS AnalystInParadise Jun 2013 #135

You're seriously defending Cheney now? The Constitution is the Statute, the law of the sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #139

Fraud on the people of the United States - nt CharlesInCharge Jun 2013 #122

We don't have enough time! tblue Jun 2013 #126

What crime should Cheney have been charged with? nt msanthrope Jun 2013 #55

Ordering torture perhaps ? G_j Jun 2013 #60

Well, the 'perhaps' part is the problem....while I would love to see Cheney behind msanthrope Jun 2013 #66

facepalm., G_j Jun 2013 #70

Okay---take the report, and tell me what you would charge Cheney with. I don't disagree msanthrope Jun 2013 #72

--- G_j Jun 2013 #76

Yes....that's great. Can you name a charge, though? nt msanthrope Jun 2013 #84

didn't you mean "quaint"? G_j Jun 2013 #85

No...I mean, pontification aside, what would you have charged msanthrope Jun 2013 #88

Not a Law...Geneva Convention is a treaty between nations... brooklynite Jun 2013 #115

He was VP. He had no authority to order torture. jeff47 Jun 2013 #93

he isn't a whistleblower TorchTheWitch Jun 2013 #74

I ask the Manning defenders how 74k email addresses and personal info of msanthrope Jun 2013 #86

Isn't the NY Times a commercial enterprise? MattBaggins Jun 2013 #107

Yes. nt msanthrope Jun 2013 #109

Because Obama said he stood with whistleblowers. tblue Jun 2013 #123

So do I. Nt newfie11 Jun 2013 #8

He indiscriminately dumped every State Department cable for the last 50 yrs jmowreader Jun 2013 #63

We should have had that material made available to us right here in the US for the past 60 sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #87

Allow me to introduce a diplomatic term here... jmowreader Jun 2013 #92

Since the foundation of this nation and every one before that... Pelican Jun 2013 #128

I don't believe anyone said that diplomats shouldn't be able to speak to each in confidence sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #138

Just to clarify... Pelican Jun 2013 #140

Well how about FDR and the Manhattan Project AnalystInParadise Jun 2013 #129

Every criminal torturer in the CIA, DOJ's OLC and war criminals Bush & Cheney Dragonfli Jun 2013 #120

He should have utilized the Army IG or written to his Congressman. He did neither. His SlimJimmy Jun 2013 #4

Any Congressperson would have sufficed, under the law. nt msanthrope Jun 2013 #6

That's true, I just presumed he would use his local representative to do that. SlimJimmy Jun 2013 #11

No--any Congressperson will do. That way, if Ted Cruz is your Senator, you can still msanthrope Jun 2013 #12

I agreed with you. I just presumed he would have written to his local representative, SlimJimmy Jun 2013 #35

There's also a thrill-seeking aspect to espionage jmowreader Jun 2013 #68

One of the stupider articles published at Truthout--and that's really saying a lot. msanthrope Jun 2013 #5

+1 nt Chan790 Jun 2013 #13

Ouch! 7962 Jun 2013 #19

Are they secrets or are they embarassments? kentuck Jun 2013 #9

Yes-- of particular concern is names and details of people msanthrope Jun 2013 #14

Whistleblowers and libdude Jun 2013 #10

There's proper procedure to report warcrimes, as well as a proper chain� MrScorpio Jun 2013 #15

How has that been working for us so far? bvar22 Jun 2013 #104

Of course, the system is broken MrScorpio Jun 2013 #110

My post in the Guardian UK's comment section last night. go west young man Jun 2013 #16

Revealing war crimes is the act of a hero. duhneece Jun 2013 #17

Rachel Maddow pointed out last night that Manning's document dump included... randome Jun 2013 #21

What war crime would that be exactly? cstanleytech Jun 2013 #26

We don't have to pretend it was a war crime duhneece Jun 2013 #49

You can keep saying it... Pelican Jun 2013 #71

Actually pretending is as close you are going to get cstanleytech Jun 2013 #111

Before we go tossing out medals, 7962 Jun 2013 #22

This message was self-deleted by its author HangOnKids Jun 2013 #132

Good Read....Thanks. KoKo Jun 2013 #40

What 'unlawful orders' was he given? randome Jun 2013 #20

There is no way this is espionage. LuvNewcastle Jun 2013 #23

He isn't being charged with espionage. nt msanthrope Jun 2013 #25

The article says he's being charged with violation of LuvNewcastle Jun 2013 #28

No--he's UCMJ, so he isn't charged under the 'Espionage Act.' He's msanthrope Jun 2013 #34

So the article is wrong. LuvNewcastle Jun 2013 #38

The writer of the article is sloppy. I think that's worse than being wrong in the case of msanthrope Jun 2013 #41

He simply dumped a lot of documents treestar Jun 2013 #27

700k records, and people pretend he read them. The more I find out about him, msanthrope Jun 2013 #29

I've already shown in another thread that it would have taken him approximately ten years SlimJimmy Jun 2013 #37

The farthest left, donation cup in hand, have a reason for pushing that meme--it makes msanthrope Jun 2013 #39

Manning is going down bluedeathray Jun 2013 #30

It's a sad day when Manning is the enemy and war crimes are ignored think Jun 2013 #32

Name the war crime. nt msanthrope Jun 2013 #36

Any moment now... Pelican Jun 2013 #43

Oh now we have a new meme here? G_j Jun 2013 #46

So all 195,000 troops that invaded Iraq are guilty, then? randome Jun 2013 #59

The point... Pelican Jun 2013 #61

that was not the point of your post G_j Jun 2013 #65

In the context of the conversation and thread... Pelican Jun 2013 #67

Does the killing of civillians & reporters caught on tape count? think Jun 2013 #90

Oh.. you mean this guy with an RPG? Pelican Jun 2013 #91

Quoting from Marjorie Cohn's article on Truthout today: CharlesInCharge Jun 2013 #124

Please define *exactly* what the "war crime" was. Ikonoklast Jun 2013 #42

Aside from little insignificant things like torture, G_j Jun 2013 #48

Which one of the over 700k documents he released detailed a war crime? The answer is SlimJimmy Jun 2013 #54

This is not proof. Sorry. Ikonoklast Jun 2013 #64

It's ok to be fooled... Pelican Jun 2013 #53

In both the edited and unedited video think Jun 2013 #99

Bloody fucking Christ AnalystInParadise Jun 2013 #130

I'll respect the opinion of the soldier who rescued the wounded children think Jun 2013 #141

du rec. xchrom Jun 2013 #44

I posted this in Good Reads William769 Jun 2013 #47

I cannot fucking believe G_j Jun 2013 #50

The last five years have proven that some will defend anything...... marmar Jun 2013 #62

I know-It's like an alternate universe duhneece Jun 2013 #82

That article is wrong on basic facts AnalystInParadise Jun 2013 #131

No one did that. nt stevenleser Jun 2013 #83

Kindly show us one person here premium Jun 2013 #89

More accurately, defending the legality G_j Jun 2013 #94

That's much different from what you initially said. premium Jun 2013 #95

ok, so it was legal? G_j Jun 2013 #96

IMO? premium Jun 2013 #97

sorry G_j Jun 2013 #98

The result of looking forward. It's all fine now that the blue jerseys are the perpetrators. n/t Egalitarian Thug Jun 2013 #101

If only he had exposed some. That would help his case. Recursion Jun 2013 #57

I call bullshit on the OP Recursion Jun 2013 #69

It blames Obama for a "war crime" in the last paragraph and that's all the law it needs: ucrdem Jun 2013 #73

Name me one document Manning released related to torture Recursion Jun 2013 #75

The Kenyan despot isn't torturing Bradley? ucrdem Jun 2013 #77

wow, that mask fell off with a clang... (nt) Recursion Jun 2013 #78

and right on my big toe! ucrdem Jun 2013 #79

The guys who murdered the civilians walk free while the guy who exposed them is on trial. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #80

K&R Solly Mack Jun 2013 #100

Three separate wars crimes associated with one attack: wonder if there were others? indepat Jun 2013 #102

What are the three war crimes? AnalystInParadise Jun 2013 #133

A war of aggression is a war crime under international law. All that follows in commission of a war indepat Jun 2013 #142

Lying for political reasons is bad. jeff47 Jun 2013 #103

I agree that it's "wrong" brooklynite Jun 2013 #116

NOT A WHISTLEBLOWER railsback Jun 2013 #127

Bradley Manning's Legal Duty to follow the Military Whistleblower Protection Act hack89 Jun 2013 #136