Mr Crowley, what went on in your head?

[Andrew D]

There is plenty of evidence that Manning committed numerous crimes. There is plenty of evidence that he committed acts sufficient to satisfy the acts component of the crime of treason. Where is the evidence sufficient to satisfy the intent component of the crime of treason?

Lord Jim pretends not to care about that, because he is afraid.

He will not read the Supreme Court cases explaining the intent component of the crime of treason and explaining that evidence suficient to satisfy the acts component of the crime of treason is not, in itself, sufficient to satisfy the intent component of the crime of treason. Examination of that rule and examination of the evidence thus far available might show that Manning is guilty of treason. But there is some chance that it would not, and that chance is enough to send Lord Jim fleeing in terror.

That is quite typical. Fear dictates Lord Jim's responses to just about everything. He is perfectly happy to leap to conclusions about John Yoo's torture memos, but he is afraid to read them. He is perfectly happy to leap to conclusions about the end of the Cold War, but he is afraid to read what people actually involved in the Soviet decisions which led to the end of the Cold War have to say about those decisions. Etc., etc., etc.

One can readily grasp why Lord Jim is so afraid of critically examining facts and reasoning: They would at least sometimes (and in fact very often) prove him wrong. And that would shatter his fragile psyche.

The ability to turn a clever phrase, which Lord Jim has in abundance, is a happy thing. But it is no substitute for the willingness and ability to engage in honest, careful, critical assessments of evidence and lines of argument.

It is a good thing to have Lord Jim here, though. Every discussion board needs its own Vancome Lady.

[Lord Jim]

the people in a democracy need to know what is being done in their names,

So every PFC should be a law unto himself to determine what the public has a "right" to know? Even if that also means informing the enemy? The Traitor Manning never even read the documents in question before he betrayed his country by making them available to the enemy.

I really wish that the army would hire you and Andrew to defend this piece of filth at his Court Martial....

That way I could rest assured that the last three words he would hear are "ready, aim, fire."

I really hope that his lawyer puts on the "my client had no idea that if the documents were published on the internet the enemy would find out about it" defense.....

[dgs49]

On the subject of intelligent self-governance, this can never happen in a democracy, and I believe - or should I say "in my opinion"? - most serious political scientists recognize this very early on. Certainly, the Founding Fathers knew this, as no important decisions are made by popular vote under our constitution - not even election of the President.

Recently, there has been a move afoot in the U.S. to introduce initiatives in various states to compel the state's electors to cast their presidential votes for the candidate who wins the national (fictitious) "popular" election. Thus, they are attempting move us closer to mob rule.

Can it get any better than this?

[Andrew D]

Lord Jim rule of "debate" number 473: When unable to address what has actually been said, pretend that people said something else.

See Jimmy. See Jimmy run.

[Andrew D]

Recently, there has been a move afoot in the U.S. to introduce initiatives in various states to compel the state's electors to cast their presidential votes for the candidate who wins the national (fictitious) "popular" election. Thus, they are attempting move us closer to mob rule.

As the Supreme Court has reminded us more than once, that would be unconstitutional. The Constitution does not vest the power to choose Electors in the people of the States. It vests that power directly in the State Legislatures:

Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress ....

(U.S. Const., Art. II, Sec. 1.)

[Long Run]

As the Supreme Court has reminded us more than once, that would be unconstitutional. The Constitution does not vest the power to choose Electors in the people of the States. It vests that power directly in the State Legislatures:

Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress ....

(U.S. Const., Art. II, Sec. 1.)

So, the people of a state could not require their legislature to allocate the votes of the state in such a manner? I know the concurrence in Bush v. Gore used broad language to say that it is up to the legislature, and not the state supreme court, to vote the electors. But if there were a law imposed by the people, it would be an interesting question if it would stand up to this provision.

And it does appear that the crime of treason is unique in the way intent must be proven. In the typical crime, intent can be inferred from the action, or the intentional action proves the crime. With treason, there is a higher burden, where the person must actually intend that his action be damaging to the U.S. by assisting an enemy of the state. This leaves plenty of room for Manning to argue, but if the facts are as we understand them, it will be difficult for him to prove he had any other intent.

[Andrew D]

Let's look at some facts -- Incoming, Jimmy! Duck and cover! -- that appear to be undisputed.

Manning did not make the information available to the general public.

Manning did not convey the information to the US's enemies.

The decision of what information would be made available to the US's enemies (in this case, by being made available to everyone with internet access) was made by Wikileaks, not by Manning.

That poses a problem for a treason conviction, because, as pointed out here:

The crime of treason requires a traitorous intent. If a person unwittingly or unintentionally gives aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States during wartime, treason has not occurred. Similarly, a person who pursues a course of action that is intended to benefit the United States but mistakenly helps an enemy is not guilty of treason. Inadvertent disloyalty is never punishable as treason, no matter how much damage the United States suffers.

There is plenty of evidence that Manning is guilty of various crimes which, unlike the crime of treason, do not require proof of the accused's actual intent to betray the US.

Now, prosecutors have a marked tendency to go for slam-dunk convictions. So why would a prosecutor take complicate her or his case against Manning by injecting into it an accusation which, because it requires proof of Maning's actual intent to betray the US, would open the door for a whole bunch of evidence that could muddy the waters considerably? Why not just go for slam-dunk convictions after which Manning would probably never see the light of day again (whether due to incarceration or execution)?

Even Ethel and Julius Rosenberg were not charged with treason, and they conspired to transmit classified information directly to the USSR. Despite not having been convicted of (or even charged with) treason, the Rosenbergs were executed. So why would a prosecutor charge Manning -- who transmitted classified information only to Wikileaks (which, last I heard, was not an enemy of the US) -- with treason?

It is not an accident that treason cases are very rare. According to Wikipedia, only thirteen people have ever been convicted of treason against the US, and the most recent such conviction was almost sixty years ago. Of those, three were pardoned, and one was released and deported. Of the remaining nine, four were convicted of conspiring in the assassination of President Lincoln; one spied for Germany during World War II; one defected to the Waffen SS during World War II; two broadcast Nazi propaganda during World War II; and one was convicted (in a highly dubious proceeding) for tearing down a US flag during the Civil War.

Given the evidence thus far adduced -- and, as I have said many times, additional evidence could change everything -- I very much doubt that Manning is going to be number fourteen.

[Andrew D]

There is another serious problem with trying Manning for treason. The Constitution -- Run, Jimmy, run! More incoming facts! -- requires the government, unless it can get Manning to confess in open court, to produce at least two witnesses to each overt act of treason with which it charges Manning. (See U.S. Const., Art. III, Sec. 3: "No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on confession in open Court.")

Can the government produce two people who actually saw Manning do each of the things that he is accused of having done? Remember, the constitutional requirement is two witnesses to each act; one witness to one act and one witness to another act does not cut it. For that matter, can the government produce anyone who actually saw Manning do any of the things that he is accused of? From what I have read, the government found out what he (allegedly) did by searching the computers he used. Last time I checked, a computer was not a "Witness".

So, again, why would a prosecutor who has slam-dunk convictions readily available for other crimes muddy the waters with a treason allegation?

[Lord Jim]

Manning did not make the information available to the general public.

Manning did not convey the information to the US's enemies.

LOL

Unfuckin' believable....

[Andrew D]

As the Supreme Court has reminded us more than once, that would be unconstitutional. The Constitution does not vest the power to choose Electors in the people of the States. It vests that power directly in the State Legislatures:

Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress ....

(U.S. Const., Art. II, Sec. 1.)

So, the people of a state could not require their legislature to allocate the votes of the state in such a manner? I know the concurrence in Bush v. Gore used broad language to say that it is up to the legislature, and not the state supreme court, to vote the electors. But if there were a law imposed by the people, it would be an interesting question if it would stand up to this provision.

The per curiam (majority) opinion in Bush v. Gore says:

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college. U.S. Const., Art. II, § 1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35, 13 S.Ct. 3, 36 L.Ed. 869 (1892), that the state legislature's power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution.

(531 U.S. at 104.)

In McPherson, a unanimous (I think) Supreme Court said:

‘The appointment of these electors is thus placed absolutely and wholly with the legislatures of the several states. They may be chosen by the legislature, or the legislature may provide that they shall be elected by the people of the state at large, or in districts, as are members of congress, which was the case formerly in many states; and it is not [sic] doubt competent for the legislature to authorize the governor, or the supreme court of the state, or any other agent of its will, to appoint these electors. This power is conferred upon the legislatures of the states by the constitution of the United States, and cannot be taken from them or modified by their state constitutions any more than can their power to elect senators of the United States. Whatever provisions may be made by statute, or by the state constitution, to choose electors by the people, there is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated.’ Senate Rep. 1st Sess. 43d Cong. No. 395.

From this review, in which we have been assisted by the laborious research of counsel, and which might have been greatly expanded, it is seen that from the formation of the government until now the practical construction of the clause has conceded plenary power to the state legislatures in the matter of the appointment of electors.

(146 U.S. 1, 34-35 (emphasis added).)

That seems pretty straightforward to me: The Constitution says that the State Legislatures have the power to choose the Electors, and anything contrary in State law is void.

[Andrew D]

Perhaps Lord Jim will show us where Manning made the information available to anyone other than Wikileaks.

Oh, wait. That would involve his condescending to address facts. And by now, no one seriously expects that to happen.

[Rick]

http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/tran ... iptid=4758

A little old but...

[Andrew D]

As you all know who work in this building, who received the charge sheet back in July, he most certainly has been charged. And he has not only been charged with illegally downloading classified information, but he has been charged with disseminating classified information to people unauthorized to receive it.

So the transcript says nothing about treason or about Manning's being a traitor. The charge sheet -- as we have discussed here before -- alleges that he violated Articles 92 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Neither of those says anything about treason either.

The military has not seen fit even to charge Manning with treason. Lord Jim has already convicted Manning of treason.

Hmmm. Who knows more about the law applicable to military personnel? Lord Jim? Or the military?

Now there's a tough call ....

[Gob]

It's perfectly acceptable to say; "in my opinion Bradley Manning is a traitor, and these are my reasons for thinking him so..." is it not?

[Andrew D]

Lord Jim is, of course, free to hold and express whatever opinions he wants. It would clarify matters if he were to say "In my opinion, Manning is a traitor, even if he has not actually committed the crime of treason ...." But he evidently believes that Manning has actually committed that crime, so I see no reason not to press him on the issues which bear on whether that is true.

[Big RR]

So every PFC should be a law unto himself to determine what the public has a "right" to know? Even if that also means informing the enemy? The Traitor Manning never even read the documents in question before he betrayed his country by making them available to the enemy.

Jim--if not the individual PFC, who should make the decision; those in the government who have an illegal reason they want it kept secret? those who might be embarrassed by the disclosure? those who might be voted out of office if the information becomes public? Those who might have their policies reversed once the pubic knows the truth? You tell me.

[Andrew D]

The whole business of "making [the information] available to the enemy" depends at least in part on whether Wikileaks would disseminate the information indiscriminately. It has been widely reported that Wikileaks took no measures to ensure that information such as the names of informants, etc., would not be released. But according to various sources, that is not true.

In a lengthy Salon article here, Glenn Greenwald demonstrates -- in part by using the Pentagon's own words -- that the Pentagon actually rejected an offer by Wikileaks to help redact the documents to prevent the release of such information. And here, there is a summary of steps Wikileaks took to avoid the release of such information:

Wikileaks has clearly conducted harm minimization on all of its War Log releases. These harm minimization measures included:

1.Inviting the Pentagon to help Wikileaks/Sunshine Press and partner news organizations to redact the documents in their possession prior to release. The Pentagon has refused unilaterally in all cases.
2.Using metadata to identifying documents in the Afghanistan launch as sensitive.
3.Withholding 15,000 of the some 90,000 documents pertaining to Afghanistan for a full redaction and review.
4.A comprehensive redaction process for the Iraq War Logs release, working back from full redaction to disclosure of information of interest the historical record, leaving the names of sensitive sources concealed.
5.A policy of gradual release of the State Department Cables release, inviting media organizations to help with the redaction of those documents relevant to their interests in return for embargo access.

People for whom facts are a trivial concern blithely assert that Manning knew (or must have known) that Wikileaks would make public all the information Manning supplied. But Wikileaks's and the Pentagon's conduct make clear that that is not so.

[Gob]

Watch Obama shit himself now then!

Bradley Manning wins support from Welsh MP and friends


Bradley Manning, who attended secondary school in Pembrokeshire, faces scores of charges over the documents handed to the Wikileaks website.

But there has been mounting concern about the conditions he is being held in at a military prison.

Cynon Valley MO Ann Clwyd tabled a Commons' motion on the issue last week.

"I think it is a serious case," she told BBC Wales.

"He's being held in solitary confinement, he's kept in his cell for 23 hours a day, not allowed to exercise, he's stripped of all his clothes during the night, he is not permitted to sleep during the day.

"Organisations like Amnesty International have already put out several press releases saying that Manning is being subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment."

In her early day motion, Ms Clwyd calls on the UK government to raise the issue with US counterparts, and to ensure the soldier's "detention conditions are humane" at the US Quantico marine base.

She added: "While I consider myself a friend of the Americans, I think it ill becomes them to treat one of their own soldiers in this way before he has been convicted, before he has been tried."

The issue of Pte Manning's treatment has been raised with President Obama

He said he had received assurances that the terms of Pte Manning's confinement were "appropriate".

But rallies highlighting the alleged plight of Pte Manning are now being held across the US, Canada and Europe.

The 23-year-old's mother is Welsh and still lives in Pembrokeshire, where he grew up from 13 and 17.

He went to Tasker Milward school in Haverfordwest, where the now retired deputy head teacher, John Broughton remembers him as "a very pleasant lad".

"A bit of a loner, you might say, computer interested," recalled Mr Broughton.

"He wasn't into sport or anything like that - not academically gifted but very pleasant, and worked reasonably well.

"He was always very talkative to me and other teachers, and he seemed to get on well with people."

Mr Broughton said he was alarmed at the reports of Pt Manning's treatment.

"It's just a shame - it's more than a shame, it's a disgrace really that he is being treated like he is," he said.

"It really is fairly shameful that the British government isn't doing anything about one of its own citizens."

Despite his Welsh mother, it is understood that Pte Manning does not have a British passport, and has not asked for UK assistance.

But his connections have prompted some to organise buses to join a rally in London on Sunday against his detention.

One campaigner, Vicky Moller, from Newport in Pembrokeshire, said: "Whether he is innocent of what he is charged with I don't know, but he is an innocent personality.

"He is young, he is well motivated, and I know that sensory depravation like isolation is one of the cruellest things you can do to a person.

"When I realised there was a Welsh connection, I felt that Wales could do something about it."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-12795170

[Gob]

Wikileaks claims another one

Wikileaks scandal claims US ambassador to Mexico


March 20, 2011 - 1:10PM
.The US ambassador to Mexico has resigned after Mexican President Felipe Calderon said diplomatic cables written by the envoy damaged bilateral ties.

Ambassador Carlos Pascual "has relayed his decision to return to Washington based upon his personal desire to ensure the strong relationship between our two countries and to avert issues raised by President Calderon that could distract from the important business of advancing our bilateral interests," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a statement yesterday.

She praised Pascual as "an architect and advocate for the US-Mexico relationship, effectively advancing the policies of the United States," and for collaborating with his Mexican counterparts to "build a new border strategy to advance trade while staunching illicit flows" of weapons and drugs.

Advertisement: Story continues below Clinton also noted that Pascual "worked with the Mexican government to integrate human rights into our respective policies and engagement," and "partnered to enhance the human and cultural connections" that underpin the US-Mexican friendship.

"It is with great reluctance that President (Barack) Obama and I have acceded to Carlos's request," Clinton said.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/wikileaks-s ... 1c1yp.html

[loCAtek]

So, it's becoming more and more clear that Assange and Wikileaks, are doing more damage than good.