Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

The Wizard

(13,709 posts)

24. A court martial

Reply to alp227 (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 09:06 AM

Jan 2012

is a euphemism for a kangaroo court. The prosecution and judge are one in the same. Convictions are a given.
Manning did his duty in accordance with the Geneva Convention. He reported war crimes.
The Nuremberg Accords also address this. Following illegal orders is not acceptable.
If they're smart they'll find a loophole to get the military out of doing something immoral to cover up an immoral act that was exposed by Manning.
Everything changes once the lying starts.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

34 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Bradley Manning moves step closer to full court martial [View all] alp227 Jan 2012 OP

So, the government sustained all 22 charges. msanthrope Jan 2012 #1

I guess they couldn't get him to lie about Assange. sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #2

what she said.... mike_c Jan 2012 #3

Why are you assuming he would lie? msanthrope Jan 2012 #5

Actually I said the exact opposite of what you wrongfully read into my comment. sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #6

You are suggesting that a plea agreement in which Manning testifies against Assnage would be falsely msanthrope Jan 2012 #11

No, I'm not suggesting any such thing, I'm suggesting the opposite. sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #14

No, you aren't being clear. msanthrope Jan 2012 #17

Why do you think he would even be asked to do that? HE is on trial, not Assange, although sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #19

You didn't answer my question. Nor do I think you will. nt msanthrope Jan 2012 #20

You didn't answer my question, although in a way you did. sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #21

"news publishers" aren't immune from "collusion"? joshcryer Jan 2012 #22

Well, I think Manning left a trail of Assange requests for information. And he can testify to the msanthrope Jan 2012 #32

Thanks for providing those hard hitting facts. joshcryer Jan 2012 #33

I think you fundamentally misapprehend a few things. msanthrope Jan 2012 #29

I don't assume anything. I know the facts so far. sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #30

Did he even testify at this preliminary hearing? I don't recal any news reports that he said 24601 Jan 2012 #7

His lawyer declined to put him on. Smart move. msanthrope Jan 2012 #18

After Eric Holder publicly said that he would look for a crime to charge Assange with, EFerrari Jan 2012 #26

About time they sent him to trial Mudoria Jan 2012 #4

Why are the names of Coombs' witnesses he wants redacted on his own website? (nt) Robb Jan 2012 #8

Why was witness 48 completely redacted??? Was it related to this story--- msanthrope Jan 2012 #12

That is crazy, I smell a mole. joshcryer Jan 2012 #23

It's possible the defense attorney redacted the information. msanthrope Jan 2012 #25

I'm intimately familiar with the Green Scare cases, and we know that basically... joshcryer Jan 2012 #34

did he order the murder of civilians using drones or something similar? nt msongs Jan 2012 #9

No, he committed a worse crime, he exposed the murder of civilians. sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #10

Yep, he pulled back the curtain. nt gateley Jan 2012 #15

They should schedule the trial after.... JJW Jan 2012 #13

Oh, God, that would be so JUST. Sigh. nt gateley Jan 2012 #16

A court martial The Wizard Jan 2012 #24

Couldn't agree more! n/t sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #27

False about the C's-M, of course. PavePusher Jan 2012 #28

Good. nt hack89 Jan 2012 #31