http://www.salon.com/news/wikileaks/?story=/opinion/greenwald/2011/04/23/manning

Greenwald said it better than I can and verbosely.

Whether or not Manning Broke the law or not shows that this president has neither the capacity nor the forethought to even state himself a Constitutional Lawyer.

While the presumption of innocence is not in the constitution it, has been, a long standing fundamental right of all people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

If the POTUS is passing his judgment so quickly then he is, as I have always suspected, a walking suit who cares not for the rights of the people.

If the President's pre-trial verdict had any real meaning, which it might given that Manning is under the UCMJ, the United States would be in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence#The_fundamental_right

It matters not what crime was committed everyone has the presumption of innocence, even the most egregious criminals. To say otherwise is to betray one's true moral standing, that of a fascist and a hypocrite.

All right, I can see why some would be upset I called His Earness "The Obamateur."

However, my comment is based on historical precedent. Nixon almost caused Charles Manson to get a mistrial by stating off the cuff that Manson was guilty.

Punka$$ Manning is either guilty and deserves death for treason, or he's a fking fool who--much like Michael Jackson--willingly placed himself in a situation where the perception is he's guilty.

Also, for those completely in the dark, Manning is subject to the UCMJ and has only some of the protections of civilians.

I'm not so sure if you are considered "innocent until proven guilty" when it's a military "crime". They use the UCMJ code which is different than the civilian rule book. Not positive though. Regardless, the situation is clearly cruel and inhumane if the reports are true.

IDK, could be real only because if the guy being snatched is a soldier, which the haircut would suggest, he could be in violation of some UCMJ rule. In which case it seems reasonable that the MPs would snatch him so they could throw him in the brig. I don't think they would have any legal requirement to stand in the street to identify themselves and read him miranda rights.

So, maybe fake, maybe not.

look up:
"the three mistakes of paul bremer"
then think for a second that blackwater is not under the UCMJ.
they are paid for by tax dollars.
ran by a fundamentalist christian,or so purported.
whose executives read like a who's-who from the PNAC.
who believes he is on a mission from god.
to kill muslims.
the list goes on..but yeah..its pretty sickening.

So many front line soldiers faced court martial and prosecution, while Bush and other higher ups get off scott free. What a disgrace.



The UCMJ is a different situation. Soldiers are held to different standards by military courts. "I was only following orders" is not a viable defense in the military.

I'm not sure about working under faulty legal advice though. If a high-ranking JAG told someone that they could do something that they were later court marshaled for then that could possibly be used in their defense.

I don't think they soldiers were working under direction from the justice department though. It really depends on the specific situations for specific soldiers.

>> ^Constitutional_Patriot:
You might get "lucky" and get stationed stateside for domestic terrorism duty now that martial law army and marine units are preparing to potentally "protecting" the the people in the event of a "national emergency". It'd would suck being prepared to kill fellow countrymen even though it's a violation of the constitution and UCMJ but hey at least you'd be stateside.


future truth ftw

You might get "lucky" and get stationed stateside for domestic terrorism duty now that martial law army and marine units are preparing to potentally "protect" the people in the event of a "national emergency". It'd suck being prepared to kill fellow countrymen even though it's a violation of the constitution and UCMJ but hey at least you'd be stateside.

We can only hope that they will ultimately honor their oath to the Constitution instead of a corrupt administration that could easily abuse their power of the military.

It would be a horrible irony to see our trusted military (which took an oath to defend the law of the land) execute unconstitutional anti-citizen/citizen suppression in such a manner as to harm their fellow countrymen.
Hopefully there will be enough commanders that follow the UCMJ which clearly dictates that it is not only a member of the military's right but however is their duty to not follow illegal orders.

"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 the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.

During the Iran-Contra hearings of 1987, Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, a decorated World War II veteran and hero, told Lt. Col. Oliver North that North was breaking his oath when he blindly followed the commands of Ronald Reagan. As Inouye stated, "The uniform code makes it abundantly clear that it must be the Lawful orders of a superior officer. In fact it says, 'Members of the military have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders.' This principle was considered so important that we-we, the government of the United States, proposed that it be internationally applied in the Nuremberg trials." (Bill Moyers, "The Secret Government", Seven Locks Press; also in the PBS 1987 documentary, "The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis")

I remember having to study this when I was in boot camp in the USAF so I thought to look this up.

We have to trust our men and women in Uniform - there is little other choice really.

I always get around to these videos far after the heated arguements begin. Once again, I'm putting in my delayed two cents to back up MG's original post. Legality arguements aside, since Doc_M did an excellent job, this man is a disgrace to the uniform. If he has such a problem with this particular deployment, he should resign his commission. After that he's free to say whatever he wants, but while still in uniform he's subject to UCMJ. This man should be dishonorably discharged just for the things he said in this video while still a commissioned officer, nevermind the stack of other laws he's broken. The correct course of action is to resign your commission, not to blatantly break military law. He has expressed full knowledge of the consequences of his actions. I hope he receives the maximum penalty.

**EDIT**
johnald128, "thinking that the war is wrong and acting on it is all that really matters, regardless of the law."

What? So because he feels it's wrong, instead of taking the legal course of resigning he should just break the law? Would you want to apply that in other areas of life? Do what you feel is right, to hell with laws. Even better, lets protest doing something we *think* is illegal by racking up our own set of crimes.

Yes, you are wrong. Inactive reservists are very much like regular civilians. They are not subject to the UCMJ. He's not collecting any kind of pension or stipend, I'm sure, so he's just a regular guy who used to be in the military.

To clarify, are you characterizing him as the same as a suicide-bomber, because he disagrees with our government? That's what the last paragraph of your post appears to be saying.

"What exactly is the threat, there? Anyone knows how old that clause is?"

The UCMJ dates back to the '50s but I'm sure provisions against homosexuals in the military date back even further. The UCMJ is stricter and harsher legal code than that applied to the civilian populace; the idea is that lawful bearers of arms must adhere to a higher standard of moral and ethical behavior if they are to be entrusted with a military responsibility. As such, behavior that is perfectly legal in the civilian world (such as adultery) can result in prison time for military personnel. The provisions in the UCMJ against homosexual conduct are a throw back to a time when homosexuality and sodomy were widely considered morally degenerate. These days I think the general US populace is still uncomfortable with seeing two men kissing, for example, but the only people who seem to believe that homosexuality is truly degenerate and immoral is the Christian Right.

Bottom Line: the UCMJ is meant to enforce good moral and ethical conduct on US military personnel. The provisions against homosexuality date back to when society considered homosexuality immoral, but society has since moved on. The UCMJ however has not been revised by Congress to reflect the new moral standard of society.

"What other rational reason could there be for firing the ~50th Arabic linguist for nothing more than being gay?"

Because homosexual conduct is a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the military is therefore legally obligated to discharge or relieve any soldier that is openly gay. The UCMJ can only be revised by Congress; the "Don't Ask-Don't Tell" Policy is often characterized as the military being retarded, but the military does not have the power to change it.

I am not an animal LadyBug. I am perfectly aware that it's cruel. I said so in my post on my site. What do you see, funny joke or inhumane act?.....

Written by Bill Larson in : Military, Rants, The World - trackback

I feel that the video below shows intentional cruelty by an officer and brings dishonor on the army, and every soldier fighting in Iraq. The man holding the bottle was a officer as indicated by the person doing the filming repeatedly referring to him as sir. The officer should be charged under the UCMJ with Conduct unbecoming of an officer, the enlisted man who was filming should be ashamed.

How are our soldiers susposed to win a war in a hostile country, when they do things like this which will prevent them from ever winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi population. This quite likely will end up being used by the insurgency as a very effective recruiting video. The video is below the fold.

[video here]

It's time to bring our troops home now.

In response to your response. Only animals would vote against this video. I posted this video with that title simply to encourage people to think. Nothing more. I wanted them to judge the video for themselves. I strongly encourage both LadyBug and farhad2000 to reconsider their votes against this video. It's said that when you assume something you make a ASS out of yoU and ME.