However, with an quick and efficient webmaster such as Mike G., who needs to guess?
Author : Rodney (IP: 132.79.9.16 , hcascrmnwc02.ngb.army.mil)
]]>http://www.constitution.org/col/propaganda_army.htm
So, get out your GI Joe and have fun.
]]>Here’s what I take away from the absence of a signatures in Block 11. Whoever distributed this copy of the charge sheet did before preferral and before the trial counsel arranged for service on Manning. Thus someone in the Staff Judge Advocate/Military Justice Office gave this to the media or a source while the charge sheet was still in preparation.
This is not a fraud. It is however, not complete. So, if this is what Manning has been given they haven’t done it right. However, it is not unusual for rough drafts to be circulated. It would be highly unusual for a draft to go to Manning or even his defense counsel.
I’m curious who sent this document out? Doesn’t make it a fraud or illegal, but odd.
Cheers.
Incidentally, my max penalty tallies here to 68 years, while Ltc. Bloom has been quoted as saying 52 years. If the government were not contemplating the greater loss provisions of §1030(a), that would account for the discrepancy since there is a 1-year tier and a 5-year tier.
My impression regarding the fines is that the USC still provides an upper bound upon them, which is applicable to the court martial as well. If you can point me to legal text which shows otherwise, I’d be happy to remove the notations. I know you’re an expert, I’d just like to see the authority.
I forgot to include it here, but I believe all of these charges also carry a dishonorable discharge as a possible penalty.
As regards the notion that the charge sheets aren’t authentic, not only is the beforeitsnews.com “writer” full of baloney, he also DELETED my comment on that article in which I published the full email headers of the communique I received from Ltc. Bloom. Apparently for that site, crying “conspiracy!” is far more important than truth.
]]>