Manning is active duty and was active duty at the time the act occurred, Manning falls under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Not civilian Law.

Under UCMJ, the President is right: Manning broke the law. Theft of classified data is a crime under UCMJ and can be punished severely. If the command chooses to do so and can prove it, he can be charged with treason, which, in a time of war, is punishable by death. Basic UCMJ, including what treason is and the punishment for it, is taught in basic – or was when I went through.

Under civilian law, habeas corpus would apply, as would several other protections soldiers do not have while serving (including the entire Bill of Rights, which doesn’t apply while in uniform).

In short, this may lead to lots of papers being filed, but that’s about it.

Funny how the “rule of law” your defending isn’t even followed by our president, government officials and their corporate crook friends.

Isn’t it time for a post about monkeys in space or the science behind cramming so many clowns into those tiny cars? (Do they all shout “shotgun!” upon entering?)

“(The Supreme Court of the United States) has long recognized that the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society…(t)he rights of men in the armed forces must perforce be conditioned to meet certain overriding demands of discipline and duty.” – Parker v. Levy, 1974

But I am curious if Manning’s detention (and presumed trial?) is adhering to the laws established by the Military Commissions Act & the legal rights of military members. Any lawyers out there know if Obama’s statement overlooks certain violations of military law wrt Manning’s detainment & lack of trial? Eg “Government must bring the case to trial within 120 days from the date of formal
charges, or 90 days from the date the accused is placed in pre-trial confinement.” – from Rights of Military Members http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/rights_of_military_mbrs.pdf

The problem with the Bradley Manning situation is that it awkwardly intersects the realms of whistleblowing and military intelligence. There are no cut and dry answers here, and the U.S. would be committing intelligence suicide by making an exception in Manning’s case.

Unfortunate, but hardly surprising.

It would help a lot of all the minor parties united into a single “Third Party”, with as its only goals: fighting government corruption and changing the electoral system. After that it can fall apart into Greens, Libertarians, Socialists and whatever else.

It’s either that or marching on Washington with guns in hand. I’d suggest the peaceful solution.

He’s not directly asserting Manning’s guilt, it’s incidental. I certainly don’t think he’s handled Manning’s detainment well, but criticizing him for omitting “suspected of” or “accused of” from his sentence in an interview is rather petty.

The logical conclusion is the party in question found evidence of crimes, so they grabbed that evidence along with other data that may have contained further information, and perhaps, additional crimes.

What crimes you ask? Again, read. There’s tons of it out there, I don’t need to give links. Just because our government hasn’t/won’t charge anyone, dosn’t mean they arn’t crimes and sever wrongdoings.

I guess to some of you only hard line law matters, not morals, or decency, not right or wrong.

“Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process. “

We can now replace that predicate with, “watch John Stewart and pretend to be informed,” or, “vote for either party.”

Manning’s treatment by Obama is making good men afraid to act and bad men want to join him in politics.

(…And don’t forget, it’s now only $39 to cut in line at TSA checkpoints when you fly American!)

Y’all need to watch _The Most Dangerous Man in America_. Ellsberg (a Marine) was Manning + Assange in the deadtree/meatspace world. Very inspiring.
I was a first grader when the Watergate hit the fan.

First of all, I want to say that, yes, the president was imprudent to discuss an ongoing criminal investigation/trial in such a matter, but I doubt that it would bias a jury anywhere near as much as turning on the 6 o’clock news. Hell, reading BoingBoing would REALLY bias them.

Second, I’m talking about in general. Do people talk about Osama bin Laden as the “alleged mastermind behind 9/11″ or OJ Simpson, the “alleged murderer of his wife?” I’m not saying that Osama bin Laden necessarily had anything to do with 9/11 (because, after all, he hasn’t been convicted of anything!) or that OJ Simpson killed anyone; I am merely saying that, in common English usage, people often say “killer” when they should say “alleged killer” and that, when the president said, “He committed a crime,” he was making a point about the rule of law and what he said would have had the same effect if he had said, “He is alleged to have committed a crime.” The latter just isn’t how people talk and wasn’t the point he was trying to make in the first place. (Also, district attorneys usually don’t say, “This man allegedly…” in court.)

No, Ellsberg’s material was classified WAY ABOVE
what BM leaked. BM’s material was available to
hundreds of thousands of mercs.

Activists and whistleblowers usually break the law to promote a change in ideology. I thought the debate was whether what he did was immoral, and whether his actions should be commended or not. And then all of the facts about his treatment during imprisonment. I think he should definitely be on trial for what he did, it was illegal, but I would have hoped his trial had started by now, and that the outcome of his trial would be reparation.

I don’t agree with the conditions of his imprisonment, but did anyone expect them to just ignore what he did and not have a trial?