Obama smacked in the mouth

[Scooter]

If he did it for himself; it's treason. If he did it for Assange, in any fashion, it's espionage.

Your words, yes? According to you, it's either treason or espionage. According to the military, it's neither (because he hasn't been charged with either. Therefore, you disagree with the military. QED

[loCAtek]

I posted and agreed with the military charges; as I understood them IMHO they amounted to treason, because there was "reason to believe that the information could cause injury to the United States." Following those statements it was pointed out the legal definition of treason was not being met, and I appreciated that education.

Granted, however I still agree with the military charges against Manning.

[loCAtek]

"constitutional elements of treason" not relevant.

That is either a joke or the single stupidest thing about U.S. law that anyone has ever posted here.

Does this:

This Constitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; ....

ring any bells at all? (Hint: U.S. Const., Art. VI.)

Everything about U.S. law -- civilian, military, whatever -- is subordinate to the Constitution. (That's what "supreme" means.)

No, I did not put that well, let me borrow another's explanation;

The most difficult cases arise, however, when the service member claims the protection of a constitutional right. The Constitution itself speaks only once of the rights of members of the armed forces. The Fifth Amendment, which grants the right of a grand jury indictment for serious crimes, makes an exception for courts‐martial. Therefore, all other constitutional claims involve assertions by the individual that members of the armed forces should have the same civil rights accorded other citizens, while the executive branch argues that military requirements warrant disparate treatment. Nineteenth‐century constitutional challenges that claimed that a court‐martial had failed to grant the petitioner the due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment uniformly failed. The Supreme Court ruled that as long as the court‐martial had jurisdiction over the person and the offense, and the power to authority to impose the sentence, civil courts should not interfere.

And ...

In response, Congress created the Uniform Code of Military Justice in 1951 placing divergent laws of the varied services into one law composed of 140 articles. Under the code's authority, the president established evidence rules and courts-martial procedures in a Manual for Courts-Martial. The Manual, which followed civilian federal court procedures and punishments as much as feasible, became the basic source of military justice authority along with the Constitution, the Code, various service regulations, and the U.S. Court of Military Appeals. The Court of Military Appeals, created by Congress, is the highest courtin the military judicial system, and is composed of three civilian judges appointed by the president for 15 year terms.
Reflecting the special needs for order, efficiency, and discipline, three levels of courts-martial were established: summary, special, and general. The summary court-martial is the most limited in scope, applying only to enlisted personnel charged with minor offenses and serves to resolve cases quickly. This form varies significantly from civilian criminal processes, as certain rights do not apply. The intermediate level, special courts-martial, can addressall cases except capital offenses. Composed of three-judge panels, it is limited in the types of punishment it can apply. General courts-martial, the mostpowerful trial court in the military judicial system, can address any violations of the Code and may impose death penalties. The proceedings must includea military judge and no fewer than five panel members. The Military JudicialSystem procedural safeguards protecting the rights of servicemembers becomemore extensive as the severity of the alleged crimes increase. The courts-martial trials primarily apply to servicemembers committing crimes on military posts or while wearing a uniform. When someone violates both military and state criminal codes, they may be tried in either system. Jurisdiction over servicemembers ends when they leave the military. Regarding actual court proceedings, few differences exist between civilian and military trials. However, though the Code extends almost all procedural constitutional protections to the military courtroom, the commanding officer still retains considerable power. In 1968 Congress passed the Military Justice Act granting more power to military judges over court proceedings and limiting the commanders' powers.
Shortly after the creation of the Code, cases addressing the distinction between military and civil criminal systems began to reach the Court. In Orloff v. Willoughby (1953) the Court held that the civilian courts "are not given the task of running the Army." Through the separation of powers doctrine, the Court in Parisi v. Davidson (1972) further recognized the autonomy of the judicial military system. The U.S. Supreme Court holds no authorityto review military cases using writs of certiorari powers. It can accept habeas corpus petitions, however, alleging constitutional rights violations for those being detained and cases challenging military jurisdiction. For example, the Court in Middendorf v. Henry (1976) ruled that summary courts-martial proceedings do not constitute criminal prosecutions and are therefore not held to the same standard of due process. The courts have also refused involvement in a range of national security issues by invoking the"political question" doctrine. The doctrine defers resolution to the two political branches of government.
The Code describes certain punishable offenses very similar to civilian crimes, though it does not distinguish between felonies and misdemeanors. Such crimes include homicide, sex offenses, property and theft offenses, and alcoholand drug-related offenses. Sex offenses include rape, adultery, and indecentassault.
Many other offenses in the Code do not appear in the U.S. justice system. Other offenses treated severely in the military are relatively minor in civilianlaw. Obedience to authority is an essential and unique part of military society. Being "absent without leave," or AWOL, is the most common offense in themilitary. Violations of general orders, disrespect or contempt for officials, and insubordination are other forms of disobedience crimes. Mutiny, which involves efforts to override military authority and the failure to report mutiny, are capital offenses. Desertion, the intent to avoid hazardous duty or important service, is also one of the more serious offenses a servicemember cancommit. The Persian Gulf War led to substantial challenges by members of theall-volunteer military. In United States v. Thun (1993) a servicemanwas convicted of desertion for avoiding a Persian Gulf assignment.
Yet other crimes unique to the military are not so precisely defined in the Code. These crimes are addressed as "conduct unbecoming an officer" under "General Articles." Such offenses give commanders a great deal of flexibility inmaintaining order and discipline, but critics claim they are unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court ruled in Parker v. Levy (1974) that they were neither vague nor overbroad, but rather served a specific function uniqueto the military in maintaining obedience and discipline. As the Court noted,the military was "a society apart from civilian society." Conduct Unbecomingapplies only to commissioned officers while the General Articles applies toboth officers and enlisted personnel. Both address a wide range of conduct that could "bring discredit upon the services." A General Article charge may accompany any other Code violation. Conduct Unbecoming includes making false official statements, uttering defamatory statements about another officer, public drunkenness, disorderly conduct, and adultery. The Court of Military Appeals in United States v. Frazier (1992) upheld a soldier's conviction for maintaining an intimate relationship with another soldier's wife.

Read more: Military Issues - Further Readings - Court, Martial, Courts, Civilian, Law, and War http://law.jrank.org/pages/12518/Milita ... z18Ft7Oxvg

Since Manning was on duty, in uniform, when he committed the charges, he will receive a court-marital, not a civilian trail.

[Lord Jim]

Except that mere "understanding" does not explain why you think that holding people indefinitely without charge or trial -- without adducing even the tiniest shred of evidence that they have done anything wrong at all -- is a good thing. Nor does it explain why you think that a prestigious law school's keeping on its faculty a person who tries to justify torture is a good thing. "Affinity," however, explains your policy preferences perfectly.

LOL

Well, since I categorically reject those characterizations of my position...which let me remind you, reflect your opinions...("without adducing even the tiniest shred of evidence that they have done anything wrong at all", "justify torture") not established facts, I have no problem with the morality of my positions.

I would argue that in each of those instances that I cited where I have been proven correct, what happened was that prudence and common sense prevailed over blind ideology, recklessness, and naivete.

And our nation is the safer for it.

[Big RR]

And our nation is the safer for it.

But our way of life and our beliefs upon which this nation was founded and has generally existed have taken an awful beating. Becoming as ruthless and "bad" as "them" doesn't make us safer, it only brings us closer to the result "they" want. Parse what you want, holding without any charge st stll that, and torture is still torture, regardless of the euphemisms some would prefer to use.

[Lord Jim]

Becoming as ruthless and "bad" as "them"

Which, of course, has in no way shape or form happened, so it really can't serve as a basis for discussion.

To attempt to compare anything the US has done in the WOT to folks for whom the deliberate slaughter of innocent people is not only their primary mode of operation but something they celebrate as glorious and heroic, expands moral relativism to the point of parody....

[Big RR]

Sure Jim--keep repeating that we're always right and moral, one day you'll believe it. So now it's OK as long as "they" do worse? Please! We're better than that, or we should be.

[Lord Jim]

According to the military, it's neither (because he hasn't been charged with either.

As I pointed out before, it's entirely premature to reach that conclusion.

They may add additional charges as the investigation proceeds. Another possibility is that they may also believe him guilty of either treason or espionage, and they may even believe they have the evidence to prove it, but they aren't charging him with it as part of a deal based on his cooperation. They may be holding the prospect of additional charges over his head as part of a strategy to obtain his cooperation....

We simply do not have enough information in the public domain to conclude what the military's ultimate disposition of The Traitor Manning will be.

We certainly don't have sufficient information to conclude that the military has definitively decided he isn't guilty of treason or espionage.

[oldr_n_wsr]

We simply do not have enough information in the public domain to conclude what the military's ultimate disposition of The Traitor Manning will be.

We certainly don't have sufficient information to conclude that the military has definitively decided he isn't guilty of treason or espionage.

This is a job for ......... WIKILEAKS...........

[Lord Jim]

Sure Jim--keep repeating that we're always right and moral

Well that would be difficult, Big RR.....

Since in order to "repeat" something, one would have had to have said it at least once....

And since I've never said anything of the sort, it would be impossible for me to "repeat" it.

[Big RR]

Well then, maybe we at least agree on one thing, we are NOT always right and moral.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Well then, maybe we at least agree on one thing, we are NOT always right and moral.

It's been my experience than no one nor any government has ever been always moral and right.

except me of course

[Andrew D]

Facts are still facts.

It is still a fact that Lord Jim has pronounced the Guantanamo detainees terrrorists. And it is still a fact that he has not adduced evidence to support, except in a few high-profile cases, that pronouncement.

Except in a few high-profile cases, we do not even know the names of the detainees. We do not even know what they are accused of having done, let alone what evidence might support those accusations.

To most people, the total lack of available evidence counsels that we should reserve judgment as to whether the detainees are terrorists; and most people recognize that whether a person is or is not a terrorist is an individual matter: One Guantanamo detainee might be a terrorist, and another might not be.

But reserving judgment pending the adducement of evidence is not the Lord Jim way. For him, the conclusion -- they are terrorists -- comes first. If some evidence to support that conclusion comes along, dandy; but if it does not, that is of no significance.

It is still a fact that Lord Jim has pronounced Manning a traitor. And it is still a fact that he has not adduced evidence to support that pronouncement. It is still a fact that according to Lord Jim, Manning's motivation is irrelevant to whether he has committed treason. And it is still a fact that according to the Supreme Court, a person's motivation is essential to whether that person has committed treason.

To most people, the lack of available evidence counsels that we should reserve judgment as to whether Manning is guilty of treason. But reserving judgment is not the Lord Jim way. The conclusion that Manning is a traitor comes first, and whether any evidence ever comes along to support that conclusion is irrelevant.

The Guantanamo detainees must be terrorists, because Lord Jim says that they are terrorists. Manning must be a traitor, because Lord Jim says that he is a traitor. And beyond naked pronouncements, Lord Jim has nothing to offer.

[Big RR]

And IMHO, terrorists or not, they should not be jailed by the US without charge for 9 months, let alone 9 years.

[loCAtek]

Except in a few high-profile cases, we do not even know the names of the detainees.

Quick correction, the detainees

Since October 7, 2001, when the current war in Afghanistan began, 775 detainees have been brought to Guantánamo. Of these, most have been released without charge or transferred to facilities in their home countries. As of November 2010, 174 detainees remain at Guantanamo.[12]

[Scooter]

You do realize that you have just admitted that most Guantanamo detainees were unjustifiably detained.

[Andrew D]

Gee whiz. Why am I not persuaded that the list is accurate?

This list of Guantánamo detainees is compiled from various sources. It lists the known identities of detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp in Cuba. In official documents, the Department of Defense (DoD) continues to make intermittent efforts to redact detainee's names, and has not published an official list of detainees (As of September 2005[update]). On April 19, 2006, the DoD released a list with 558 names in what appears to be a fax or other scanned image.[1] Associated Press published the list in more accessible text form.[2] Not all of these names have been copied to this page yet. Since there is no further commentary from the DoD, it is unclear whether this list is official. It is called official by the Associated Press.

The Washington Post maintains a list of the detainees known or suspected to have been held in Guantánamo Bay.[3]

The United States has long maintained camps at Guantánamo Bay for attempted illegal immigrants captured while trying to get to the United States, usually from Cuba, Haiti, or the Dominican Republic.

On March 3, 2006 the DoD partially complied with a court order to release the names of the remaining Guantánamo detainees. The court order required the DoD to release the names of all the detainees.[4] Initially, the DoD only released 317 names. On April 19, 2006, the DoD released a list with 558 names.

Although justice Jed Rakoff had already dismissed this argument, Pentagon spokesmen Bryan Whitman justified withholding the names out of a concern for the detainees' privacy.

On April 20, 2006 the DoD released a portable document format file that listed 558 names. [1] The 558 individuals on the list were those whose detention had been reviewed by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT). The list gave the detainee's ID number, their name, and their home country.

The names of several hundred detainees who had been released prior to the commencement of the CSRT were not released. The list didn't specify whether the detainees were still in detention at Guantanamo; whether they had been determined to be "enemy combatants"; whether they were released, or repatriated to the custody of their home country.

On May 15, 2006, the United States Department of Defense released what they called a complete list of all 759 former and current inmates who had been held in military custody in the detainment camps after a Freedom of Information Act action was filed by the Associated Press.[5][6]

[loCAtek]

You do realize that you have just admitted that most Guantanamo detainees were unjustifiably detained.

Vast over-generalization; first you claim no knowledge, then you claim more knowledge than the system.

[Scooter]

I claim enough knowledge to know that being detaining someone for months or even years before conceding that you have no reason to charge them means that the detention was unjustified.

[loCAtek]

Very well , as per your knowledge, which detainees have been detained for years unjustifiably?