Comentários sobre: (English) Charge sheet (HTML) http://bradleymanning.org/pt/3163/charge-sheet-html/ Exposing war crimes is not a crime! Fri, 25 Feb 2011 10:07:57 +0000 hourly 1 Por: Why Bradley Manning Matters http://bradleymanning.org/pt/3163/charge-sheet-html/comment-page-1/#comment-10519 Why Bradley Manning Matters Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:26:37 +0000 http://bradleymanning.org/pt/?p=3163#comment-10519 [...] Manning is charged with violating not only Army regulations but also the Espionage Act of 1917, making him the fifth American to be charged under the act for leaking classified documents to the media. For the Full list of charges see HERE [...] [...] Manning is charged with violating not only Army regulations but also the Espionage Act of 1917, making him the fifth American to be charged under the act for leaking classified documents to the media. For the Full list of charges see HERE [...]

]]>
Por: Why Bradley Manning Is a Patriot, Not a Criminal | Amauta http://bradleymanning.org/pt/3163/charge-sheet-html/comment-page-1/#comment-10274 Why Bradley Manning Is a Patriot, Not a Criminal | Amauta Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:20:50 +0000 http://bradleymanning.org/pt/?p=3163#comment-10274 [...] Pfc. Manning has been treated not as a whistleblower, but as a criminal and a spy.  He is charged with violating not only Army regulations but also the Espionage Act of 1917, making him the fifth [...] [...] Pfc. Manning has been treated not as a whistleblower, but as a criminal and a spy.  He is charged with violating not only Army regulations but also the Espionage Act of 1917, making him the fifth [...]

]]>
Por: Tomgram: Chase Madar, The Trials of Bradley Manning, A Defense – Rethink Afghanistan War Blog http://bradleymanning.org/pt/3163/charge-sheet-html/comment-page-1/#comment-10076 Tomgram: Chase Madar, The Trials of Bradley Manning, A Defense – Rethink Afghanistan War Blog Thu, 10 Feb 2011 16:13:36 +0000 http://bradleymanning.org/pt/?p=3163#comment-10076 [...] Pfc. Manning has been treated not as a whistleblower, but as a criminal and a spy.  He is charged with violating not only Army regulations but also the Espionage Act of 1917, making him the fifth [...] [...] Pfc. Manning has been treated not as a whistleblower, but as a criminal and a spy.  He is charged with violating not only Army regulations but also the Espionage Act of 1917, making him the fifth [...]

]]>
Por: Pierre_I http://bradleymanning.org/pt/3163/charge-sheet-html/comment-page-1/#comment-8560 Pierre_I Mon, 10 Jan 2011 08:30:51 +0000 http://bradleymanning.org/pt/?p=3163#comment-8560 "SPECIFICATION 2: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 19 November 2009 and on or about 5 April 2010, knowingly exceed his authorized access on a Secret Internet Protocol Router network computer and obtain information that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive Order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense, to wit: a classified video of a military operation filmed at or near Baghdad, Iraq, on or about 12 July 2007, and did willfully communicate, deliver and transmit the video, or cause the video to be communicated, delivered and transmitted, to a person not entitled to receive it, with reason to believe that such information could be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of any foreign nation, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 1030(a)(1), such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces." What on earth are they on about???? 1030(a)(1) relates to para Y of Section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, to whit..." y. The term "restricted data" means all data concerning (1) design, manufacture, or utilization of atomic weapons; (2) the production of special nuclear material; or (3) the use of special nuclear material in the production of energy, but shall not include data declassified or removed from the Restricted Data category pursuant to section 142" Is there anyone out in the rest of the world who is not aware that the US elects to use DU in their weapon projectiles? Does the US DoD (JAG...) ever turn on CNN, or even read the glossy brochures of their own weapon systems? How does film showing the unlawful (and covered up, defaming of the victims) killing of innocent people by an advanced weapon system that the US sells to various other nations constitute a breach of para Y? “SPECIFICATION 2: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 19 November 2009 and on or about 5 April 2010, knowingly exceed his authorized access on a Secret Internet Protocol Router network computer and obtain information that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive Order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense, to wit: a classified video of a military operation filmed at or near Baghdad, Iraq, on or about 12 July 2007, and did willfully communicate, deliver and transmit the video, or cause the video to be communicated, delivered and transmitted, to a person not entitled to receive it, with reason to believe that such information could be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of any foreign nation, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 1030(a)(1), such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.”

What on earth are they on about???? 1030(a)(1) relates to para Y of Section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, to whit…” y. The term “restricted data” means all data concerning (1) design, manufacture, or utilization of atomic weapons; (2) the production of special nuclear material; or (3) the use of special nuclear material in the production of energy, but shall not include data declassified or removed from the Restricted Data category pursuant to section 142″

Is there anyone out in the rest of the world who is not aware that the US elects to use DU in their weapon projectiles? Does the US DoD (JAG…) ever turn on CNN, or even read the glossy brochures of their own weapon systems?

How does film showing the unlawful (and covered up, defaming of the victims) killing of innocent people by an advanced weapon system that the US sells to various other nations constitute a breach of para Y?

]]>
Por: spsyed http://bradleymanning.org/pt/3163/charge-sheet-html/comment-page-1/#comment-7431 spsyed Sat, 25 Dec 2010 14:12:46 +0000 http://bradleymanning.org/pt/?p=3163#comment-7431 All tax payers and voters have the right to know. They have the right to their government employees and politicians accountable and transparent. There is no democracy without accountability and transparency. A new landmark documentary film by Swedish TV channel looks at the objectives and motives behind Wikileaks and its founder Julian Assange http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAGTHRV_PJ0 . All tax payers and voters have the right to know. They have the right to their government employees and politicians accountable and transparent. There is no democracy without accountability and transparency. A new landmark documentary film by Swedish TV channel looks at the objectives and motives behind Wikileaks and its founder Julian Assange http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAGTHRV_PJ0 .

]]>
Por: Thomas Leske http://bradleymanning.org/pt/3163/charge-sheet-html/comment-page-1/#comment-7375 Thomas Leske Fri, 24 Dec 2010 23:54:56 +0000 http://bradleymanning.org/pt/?p=3163#comment-7375 I wonder, if the crew of the helicopter had undergone any military investigation immediatly after their combat action, because their war crimes are obvious and documented by camera? And have they been charged for having brought discredit upon the armed forces of America? @ Mindsurge: As a former (medical) officer in the german army I don´t think Bradley should have tried to go through proper channels in order to indicate these war crimes. His effort would have been futile. The only way, that he could be sure, was to expose it openly. In my opinion Bradley is brave young man and he deserves our respect for what he has done. I wonder, if the crew of the helicopter had undergone any military investigation immediatly after their combat action, because their war crimes are obvious and documented by camera? And have they been charged for having brought discredit upon the armed forces of America?

@ Mindsurge: As a former (medical) officer in the german army I don´t think Bradley should have tried to go through proper channels in order to indicate these war crimes. His effort would have been futile. The only way, that he could be sure, was to expose it openly.

In my opinion Bradley is brave young man and he deserves our respect for what he has done.

]]>
Por: Brad Manning Has Rights! | The Liberty Voice http://bradleymanning.org/pt/3163/charge-sheet-html/comment-page-1/#comment-7120 Brad Manning Has Rights! | The Liberty Voice Tue, 21 Dec 2010 22:02:04 +0000 http://bradleymanning.org/pt/?p=3163#comment-7120 [...] is not accused of selling secrets, or profiting from their release. Washington has made charges; it suspects Manning is partly responsible for publicly embarrassing the federal security [...] [...] is not accused of selling secrets, or profiting from their release. Washington has made charges; it suspects Manning is partly responsible for publicly embarrassing the federal security [...]

]]>
Por: spsyed http://bradleymanning.org/pt/3163/charge-sheet-html/comment-page-1/#comment-6366 spsyed Sat, 11 Dec 2010 14:15:45 +0000 http://bradleymanning.org/pt/?p=3163#comment-6366 Defend your rights to know... "The War You Don't See" 2010 film by John Pilger... linked here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HOLfwY17ns . Defend your rights to know… “The War You Don’t See” 2010 film by John Pilger… linked here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HOLfwY17ns .

]]>
Por: Dixie http://bradleymanning.org/pt/3163/charge-sheet-html/comment-page-1/#comment-6338 Dixie Sat, 11 Dec 2010 07:14:53 +0000 http://bradleymanning.org/pt/?p=3163#comment-6338 If the US army continues to employ psychopaths shit like this will continue to happen... If the US army continues to employ psychopaths shit like this will continue to happen…

]]>
Por: Hollow http://bradleymanning.org/pt/3163/charge-sheet-html/comment-page-1/#comment-6215 Hollow Fri, 10 Dec 2010 00:24:48 +0000 http://bradleymanning.org/pt/?p=3163#comment-6215 <cite>..... delivered and transmitted, to a person not entitled to receive it .....</cite> Last I knew, these videos were made mandatory for the purpose of reviewing army soldiers actions, to prevent criminal activity and to aid in the prosecution of war crimes committed by US Army personnel? Surely that would mean anyone and everyone was entitled to receive this video would it not? What on earth would be the point in having video evidence of conduct during a combat situation, if it were not for public scrutiny and for the courts to decide whether or not an offence was committed? Bringing discredit on the US Army is pointless these days, with friendly fire, civilian casualties in most altercations, and claiming evidence of WMDs that must have been vaporised by Captain Kirk on one of his time-warping away missions, because they were never found, the US Army has discredited itself more than enough for the for-seeable future. If an Army cannot be held accountable for it's actions, it is not an Army, it is simply a gathering of heathens with guns and helicopters. IF they can PROVE Bradley did ANYTHING, then the charge sheet should contain nothing more than first time offences, relating directly to computer crime, which are punishable mostly by a slap on the wrist. I doubt they can even prove he actually committed a computer related crime (Such as hacking, circumventing encryption or other security measures) the log (IF real) suggests that the document(s) were sat on a virtually open server, that he had access to, therefore he committed no electronic crime at all, since he had full authorative access and clearance for the material he was dealing with, he has done nothing more than report a crime through unconventional methods, because it had already been made clear to him, that the conventional ones were closed and not open to such a report! He mentioned AES256 in the alleged logs, if indeed he cracked it, he does not belong in prison, he belongs in the CIA or the NSA! I agree that pilots and soldiers have to make snap decisions, but my snap decision, whilst in an armoured, very heavily armed helicopter, would have been to simply follow the normal rules of engagement, thus, not requesting permission to engage someone who has not engaged you, but if engaged, returning fire. The assault on the van is nothing more than a disgusting want for target practice and utter destruction. Someone about to fire an RPG, who is in clear view, is warrant enough to return fire, and the intention would be very clear, no such event occurred, hence the repeated requests for permission to engage, rather than just engaging, it was pure panic and paranoia that prompted this attack to begin, nothing more. Under no circumstances should the van have been fired upon, they were clearly doing nothing more than trying to rescue the man who was clearly badly injured, not holding a weapon, and no one, I repeat, NO ONE was firing on the helicopter or ground troops in that vicinity, at that time, who cares if he was in fact an insurgent getting away? He did not fire on the helicopter or ground troops at any time, and the only thing the ground troops would do when they arrived would be transport him to a hospital, the troops on the helicopter clearly just wanted to make sure their "kill" was actually dead, like shooting a deer between the eyes when you have only wounded it on your first attempt. ….. delivered and transmitted, to a person not entitled to receive it …..

Last I knew, these videos were made mandatory for the purpose of reviewing army soldiers actions, to prevent criminal activity and to aid in the prosecution of war crimes committed by US Army personnel? Surely that would mean anyone and everyone was entitled to receive this video would it not?

What on earth would be the point in having video evidence of conduct during a combat situation, if it were not for public scrutiny and for the courts to decide whether or not an offence was committed?

Bringing discredit on the US Army is pointless these days, with friendly fire, civilian casualties in most altercations, and claiming evidence of WMDs that must have been vaporised by Captain Kirk on one of his time-warping away missions, because they were never found, the US Army has discredited itself more than enough for the for-seeable future. If an Army cannot be held accountable for it’s actions, it is not an Army, it is simply a gathering of heathens with guns and helicopters.

IF they can PROVE Bradley did ANYTHING, then the charge sheet should contain nothing more than first time offences, relating directly to computer crime, which are punishable mostly by a slap on the wrist. I doubt they can even prove he actually committed a computer related crime (Such as hacking, circumventing encryption or other security measures) the log (IF real) suggests that the document(s) were sat on a virtually open server, that he had access to, therefore he committed no electronic crime at all, since he had full authorative access and clearance for the material he was dealing with, he has done nothing more than report a crime through unconventional methods, because it had already been made clear to him, that the conventional ones were closed and not open to such a report! He mentioned AES256 in the alleged logs, if indeed he cracked it, he does not belong in prison, he belongs in the CIA or the NSA!

I agree that pilots and soldiers have to make snap decisions, but my snap decision, whilst in an armoured, very heavily armed helicopter, would have been to simply follow the normal rules of engagement, thus, not requesting permission to engage someone who has not engaged you, but if engaged, returning fire. The assault on the van is nothing more than a disgusting want for target practice and utter destruction.

Someone about to fire an RPG, who is in clear view, is warrant enough to return fire, and the intention would be very clear, no such event occurred, hence the repeated requests for permission to engage, rather than just engaging, it was pure panic and paranoia that prompted this attack to begin, nothing more. Under no circumstances should the van have been fired upon, they were clearly doing nothing more than trying to rescue the man who was clearly badly injured, not holding a weapon, and no one, I repeat, NO ONE was firing on the helicopter or ground troops in that vicinity, at that time, who cares if he was in fact an insurgent getting away? He did not fire on the helicopter or ground troops at any time, and the only thing the ground troops would do when they arrived would be transport him to a hospital, the troops on the helicopter clearly just wanted to make sure their “kill” was actually dead, like shooting a deer between the eyes when you have only wounded it on your first attempt.

]]>