Obama smacked in the mouth

[loCAtek]

Add one monkey wrench: Manning was not a civilian.

He was a military intelligence member who's job it was to handle and guard classified information.

The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Manning decidedly disobeyed orders; and betrayed his allegiance; hence treason.

[Big RR]

Jim--perhaps a case could be made that he betrayed his oath to the military by, e.g., not obeying orders, but such is not treason as Andrew has pointed out. People disobey orders every day, and few are charged with treason.

[Andrew D]

Add one monkey wrench: Manning was not a civilian.

He was a military intelligence member who's job it was to handle and guard classified information.

The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Manning decidedly disobeyed orders; and betrayed his allegiance; hence treason.

Have you been paying even the slightest attention?

The fact that Manning is not a civilian has been obvious to everyone since he was first mentioned in this thread -- when he was identified as "Army Pfc. Bradley Manning". Telling us what we already knew does not add anything.

The fact remains: Treason requires proof of giving aid and comfort to the enemy and proof of intent to betray one's country. The oath requires personnel to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, not true faith and allegiance to their superiors.

The lack of evidence (thus far) that Manning intended to betray the U.S. may well explain why Manning has not been charged with treason. He has been charged with violating UCMJ Art. 92:

Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

And he has been charged with violating UCMJ Art. 134:

Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

One might imagine that if the prosecuting authority believed that it had the evidence necessary to prove Manning guilty of treason, he would be charged with treason. Or one can go on blithely ignoring the Constitution.

[loCAtek]

AndrewD, military justice is different from civilian justice. A military trial is different from a civilian trial.

Civilians are judged by the constitution, military members are judged by The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).


Punitive Articles of the UCMJ
Article 106a—Espionage


(a)

“(1) Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any entity described in paragraph (2), either directly or indirectly, anything described in paragraph (3) shall be punished as a court-martial may direct, except that if the accused is found guilty of an offense that directly concerns (A) nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large scale attack, (B) war plans, (C) communications intelligence or cryptographic information, or (D) any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy, the accused shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

...


Elements.

(1) Espionage.

(a) That the accused communicated, delivered, or transmitted any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense;

(b) That this matter was communicated, delivered, or transmitted to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly; and

(c) That the accused did so with intent or reason to believe that such matter would be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation.

(2) Attempted espionage.

(a) That the accused did a certain overt act;

(b) That the act was done with the intent to commit the offense of espionage;

(c) That the act amounted to more than mere preparation; and

(d) That the act apparently tended to bring about the offense of espionage.



MORE

...

[rubato]

Depriving the electorate in a democracy of adequate information to make good decisions is direct treason. Revealing that information is not.

Lying to the country about what foreign policy is being pursued is treason; practiced by Reagan in selling TOW missiles to Iranian Mullahs who had just killed several hundred US marines in Lebanon and using the money to support Somosa's terrorist army who were murdering peasants and journalists in Nicaragua.

yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

Jim--perhaps a case could be made that he betrayed his oath to the military by, e.g., not obeying orders, but such is not treason as Andrew has pointed out. People disobey orders every day, and few are charged with treason.

Jim--dorgive me, I should have directed it to the the real author, lo.

And Lo, to make the espionage (which is different from treason) charge stick, it is incumbent on the government to show that it was transmitted to a foreign government or faction (here it was widely disseminated nd it would be difficult to show that) with intent or reason to believe that such matter would be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation (even tougher to prove). It's hardly a slam dunk.

Rubato--can't argue with that.

[Scooter]

AndrewD, military justice is different from civilian justice. A military trial is different from a civilian trial.

Civilians are judged by the constitution, military members are judged by The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).


Punitive Articles of the UCMJ
Article 106a—Espionage

Except that Manning was not charged under Article 106a. I guess not even the military believes they can make a charge of espionage stick.

[Scooter]

Interesting that you chose not to highlight the third element necessary to make an espionage charge stick:

(c) That the accused did so with intent or reason to believe that such matter would be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation.

[loCAtek]

Granted;

Manning was charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with violations of UCMJ Articles 92 and 134, for "transferring classified data onto his personal computer and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system," and "communicating, transmitting and delivering national defense information to an unauthorized source".[2][7] Manning is currently awaiting an Article 32 hearing.

...however should it be revealed that Assange requested or assisted Manning in doing this, as Lord Jim suggested, then the charge will be espionage. I'm of the opinion that LJ is correct.

[Scooter]

How would Assange's request or assistance imply that Manning intended either injury to the U.S. or advantage to a foreign nation?

[loCAtek]

Also found his charges;

Three specifications of violating United States Code Title 18, Section 1030(a)(1), for disclosing classified information concerning the national defense with reason to believe that the information could cause injury to the United States

Preferral-of-Charges

[Scooter]

Which does not change the fact that the military does not believe him to be guilty of espionage; otherwise, he would have been charged accordingly.

[loCAtek]

Should it be revealed that Assange requested or assisted Manning in doing this, as Lord Jim suggested, then the charge will be espionage. I'm of the opinion that LJ is correct.

[Scooter]

How would Assange's request or assistance imply that Manning intended either injury to the U.S. or advantage to a foreign nation?

You ducked this question the first time I asked it. Wanna try for two out of three?

[Lord Jim]

I think we should not make too much of what The Traitor Manning has been charged with publicly to date...

What he is ultimately charged with will relate to his level of cooperation....

Just as I asserted some months ago that Bybee and Yoo would never face any charges...(Correctly)

I now predict that Asswipeange and The Traitor Manning will spend some considerable time in a prison cell...

[loCAtek]

How would Assange's request or assistance imply that Manning intended either injury to the U.S. or advantage to a foreign nation?

You ducked this question the first time I asked it. Wanna try for two out of three?

Premeditation implies maliciousness. Manning's profile indicates he was disgruntle, frustrated and more than a bit narcissistic. He was showing a pattern of feeling entitled to act out. The disciplining he received only served to increase his anger and desire for revenge.

If in his attempts at 'getting back' at the system, he was encouraged by or requested advice from Assange, that shows an escalation of deliberate injury.
.

[Scooter]

So your answer is that Assange's request or assistance would not imply that Manning intended either injury to the U.S. or advantage to a foreign nation. Thanks.

[loCAtek]

No my answer is that Assange's request or assistance would imply that Manning intended either injury to the U.S. or advantage to a foreign nation. Your Welcome.

...the investigation will reveal which answer is correct.

[Scooter]

Having presented nothing but gibberish in defence of such a claim, it therefore remains unfounded.

Thanks again.

[loCAtek]

It's called Deductive Criminal Profiling. What was his motivation? What his prior pattern of behavior? What other acts did he commit?

Of course, you don't have to believe me, the investigation will reveal the facts.