Ot Bradley Manning

Page 1 of 2  
Been in jail for one thousand days now. Still no trial?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:47:37 -0800 (PST), harry

It is probably better for him. If he was tried 1000 days ago, he might have been executed or sentenced to life without parole. The longer they wait, the less his crime will matter.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday 19 February 2013 17:19 snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote in alt.home.repair:

He could get pardoned like Nixon...
--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 8:47:37 AM UTC-8, harry wrote:

If I hire some jackleg from in front of Home Depot. Take him to work with me to my client’s residence and he f’s-up big time, guess who the owner is going to blame? If a military officer puts a soldier with the rank of a private first class where he has access to top secret documents the officer doesn’t get blame d for any of it. Maybe I should work for the military.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:46:27 -0800 (PST), snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

I'd say from your postings here you're way too big a pussy to work for the military. I was an E-3 when I got my top secret clearance- but as an E-5 supervised [drafted!] privates with top secrets-- and access to nuclear warheads.
A private in the military has more power & responsibility than most small business owners. and they're willing to pay the price for their fuck-ups.
Jim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 11:58:56 AM UTC-8, elbrecht wrote:

Don't put words into my writing that I never wrote. I NEVER said Bradley Manning wasn't responsible for what he did. I only said that the officers in charge of him should be even more responsible for his actions just as I would be responsible for people whom I hire.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Feb 19, 3:23 pm, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Oh please. If you hire someone and they commit murder, arson, espionage, or steal from the company are you responsible? You going to jail? If those superiors didn't run the proper security clearance checks, had reasons to know he was stealing classified information, etc, which they ignored, then they are responsible. Same as in a business.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 3:44:38 PM UTC-8, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

It seems that for your little mind to comprehend I have to give you a very specific example. How about if they go into my clients file cabinet while l eft alone inside the house and steal and cause their personal information t o be compromised.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

d.

Or the ones they know about at least.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Feb 19, 7:29 pm, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

left alone inside the house and steal and cause their personal information to be compromised.- Hide quoted text -

Then your client would have a civil suit against you. You would not be criminally responsible. You would not, as you claimed, have MORE responsibility for what happened than your employee, which is what you claimed. Maybe they would win, depending on the circumstances. They would definitely win the case if they proved what ocurred was due to your negligence.
Let's suppose you were the manager in a large company providing that service where this theft ocurred and the person reported to you. Would you typically be fired, as you claim, because you were MORE responsible? Not in my experience. Yes, you would be fired if you didn't do the necessary background checks or you didn't follow company procedure in some way. But if you did everything according to normal procedures and there was no sign the guy was a crook, then you would not be fired or disciplined.
You have any evidence that the military officers that Manning reported to, didn't screen him properly? Or that they violated their orders or military procedures in effect?
You seem to think that because someone is a private, that means they should not have a security clearance. In the real world, even janitors, , maintenance people and yes even privates have security clearances.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


It's funny how when you look at the *actual* EEOC notice they reference, they don't say "conviction" they say "arrest" and rightfully point out than an arrest is NOT a conviction:
<<Since an arrest alone does not necessarily mean that an applicant has committed a crime the employer should not assume that the applicant committed the offense. Instead, the employer should allow him or her the opportunity to explain the circumstances of the arrest(s) and should make a reasonable effort to determine whether the explanation is reliable.>> source: (the one quoted in the nationalcenter piece):
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/inquiries_arrest_conviction.cfm
That sounds like they are just reminding employers to be fair.
The actual EEOC site goes on to state that <<Several state laws limit the use of arrest and conviction records by prospective employers. These range from laws and rules prohibiting the employer from asking the applicant any questions about arrest records to those restricting the employer's use of conviction data in making an employment decision.>>
So now it's not so much the Obama administration, but "some states." Hmm.
Leave it to a partisan "news" organization to get enough wrong to change the entire meaning of what was written. As for "thanking your administration policies" it would be helpful to find out what they really are instead of relying on secondhand, partisan distortions of fact because if not, the next thing you know people like Dufas will go ballistic claiming that the sky is falling and Obama is personally forcing employers to hire felons like these:
http://www.republicanoffenders.com/Felonies3.html
and convicts like former Republican House Majority Leader, Tom Delay. You wouldn't want Tom not to have a fair shake at a new job, would you? (-;
I'd also like to know where in the EEOC document referred to it was ever said that "This is, the EEOC says, because blacks and Hispanics are over-represented among felons." Maybe I missed it, but maybe the National Center made it up with regards to what the EEOC actually said. Is the statement true? Yes. Did the EEOC say it? Not in the document nationalcenter referenced, at least according to my brief search. More likely it's typical shoddy partisan reporting that becomes self-evident when you actually go look at the source material. It's probably not a good idea to trust someone like natcen with an axe to grind to interpret government press releases for you.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NCPPRHist.html
Check the above URL for their admitted biases at the above site. The more I read the more convinced I am that I wouldn't trust them with a burned-out match. The same goes for sites on the far left. The bigger the axe to grind, the more distorted the basic facts become.
Plenty of people are arrested by mistake, yet if they don't mention that arrest to their future employers, they can be fired for that omission. The EEOC is about fairness. It protects not only minorities but anyone who's been treated unfairly, and unfortunately that now includes a lot of middle-aged white Americans who are being shoved aside to make way for younger, cheaper workers.
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As exemplified by Obama.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

There's lots of people in the US armed forces need to be in jail for war crimes. Thanks to BM we now know this for sure.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/20/2013 1:53 AM, harry wrote:

You have a one track mind, Harry. BM broke the law and needs suffer the consequences. It is the anti-gun culture, sic Obamites, that is holding up prosecution because they will not benefit from it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
all disclosure is beneficial for us all [they do work for us, don't they?]
pick and choose your traitors [reagan and company nixon and company obama and company etc
more
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/19/2013 11:47 AM, harry wrote:

You can say the same for the Fort Hood shooter and the terrorists in Gitmo.
None of these trials would make Obama look good so they are dragging their feet to delay them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

KSM can beat that: 2 March 2013 (eleven days hence) will mark ten years since his capture.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Could be that Manning's living in luxury in private quarters somewhere after helping the CIA achieve the cheapest set of revolutions ever fomented. The Wikileaks cables served to ignite revolutions in the Middle East that are still underway and barely cost us a dime. AFAIK, there was no real damage done to any American interests as a result of the leaks. That tells me they were carefully prepared to achieve a specific goal.
http://www.google.com/search?q=what+harm+did+wikileaks+do%3F
Could also be that Manning was an Oswald-like patsy in the whole scheme, and given things to leak knowing that he would leak them.
Many of the cables showed foreign leaders in a very bad light. This trick has been used by DA's for decades - make people think you've been talking to the cops (or the US) and your buddies will take care of you. Sounds like that's what's happened in the Middle East.
--
Bobby G.





Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well interesting theory. We'll never know.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.