4 ms·

He "signed up" for all this? Really? Can you point me to the document one signs when enlisting which say that they (the military) are allowed to do this? Secon

by ajays 16y ago

He "signed up" for all this? Really? Can you point me to the document one signs when enlisting which say that they (the military) are allowed to do this? Secondly: HE DID NOT CONFESS. Stop making shit up just because you feel like it.

iuguy 16y ago
I appreciate this is an emotional issue but your inflammatory response is unwarranted. Please try to keep debate civil here. To answer your first part about enlisting. US Military Justice is covered by Congress, primarily through the Uniform Code of Military Justice (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm). As I've mentioned before, there will be a process for everything. It will be documented. They will follow it. He's up for two misconduct charges and will face an Article 32 Hearing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_32_hearing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_32_hearing) possibly as a precursor to a courts-martial according to his lawyer. He has been taken off suicide watch according to (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/16/bradley-manning-health-deteriorating http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/16/bradley-manning-...). The standard enlistment/re-enlistment form DD Form 4/1 is used by all branches of the US Military (http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/enlistment.pdf http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/enlistment.pdf). In Section C, Clause 9 there's a whole load of stuff about being subject to military law, laws changing and still being applicable and being potentially up for court-martial. That's where it says they're allowed. On your claim that he did not confess - he has not confessed in court, I do not know whether or not he has confessed to any military staff, but he has confessed to Adrian Lamo through various chat logs, which have since been turned over to wired magazine and partially published (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/wikileaks-chat/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/wikileaks-chat/). I don't have any confirmation that the logs themselves were provided to the military, although there is confirmation in that article that Adrian Lamo tipped off the FBI and Army.
- ajays 16y ago
  When I see lies repeated again and again, without being challenged, it angers me. You say "he did not confess in court". Followed by "I do not know whether he confessed to any military staff". And yet you continue to claim that "he confessed". Chat logs are not a confession! It just boggles the mind that any sane person would consider "chat logs" a confession! Especially on a site like Hacker News. How would you like it if you were locked up in solitary based on what you said on IRC? So tell me, what is more inflammatory: The repeated lies by biased people who want to punish an INNOCENT man (remember "innocent until proven guilty"?) based on some stupid chat logs with a known felon; or calling out such lies?

by ajays 16y ago

iuguy 16y ago

I appreciate this is an emotional issue but your inflammatory response is unwarranted. Please try to keep debate civil here. To answer your first part about enlisting. US Military Justice is covered by Congress, primarily through the Uniform Code of Military Justice (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm). As I've mentioned before, there will be a process for everything. It will be documented. They will follow it. He's up for two misconduct charges and will face an Article 32 Hearing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_32_hearing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_32_hearing) possibly as a precursor to a courts-martial according to his lawyer. He has been taken off suicide watch according to (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/16/bradley-manning-health-deteriorating http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/16/bradley-manning-...). The standard enlistment/re-enlistment form DD Form 4/1 is used by all branches of the US Military (http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/enlistment.pdf http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/enlistment.pdf). In Section C, Clause 9 there's a whole load of stuff about being subject to military law, laws changing and still being applicable and being potentially up for court-martial. That's where it says they're allowed. On your claim that he did not confess - he has not confessed in court, I do not know whether or not he has confessed to any military staff, but he has confessed to Adrian Lamo through various chat logs, which have since been turned over to wired magazine and partially published (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/wikileaks-chat/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/wikileaks-chat/). I don't have any confirmation that the logs themselves were provided to the military, although there is confirmation in that article that Adrian Lamo tipped off the FBI and Army.

ajays 16y ago
When I see lies repeated again and again, without being challenged, it angers me. You say "he did not confess in court". Followed by "I do not know whether he confessed to any military staff". And yet you continue to claim that "he confessed". Chat logs are not a confession! It just boggles the mind that any sane person would consider "chat logs" a confession! Especially on a site like Hacker News. How would you like it if you were locked up in solitary based on what you said on IRC? So tell me, what is more inflammatory: The repeated lies by biased people who want to punish an INNOCENT man (remember "innocent until proven guilty"?) based on some stupid chat logs with a known felon; or calling out such lies?