Ot Bradley Manning

[harry]

Been in jail for one thousand days now. Still no trial?

[gfretwell]

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.

[Tim Watts]

On Tuesday 19 February 2013 17:19 [e-mail] wrote in alt.home.repair:

He could get pardoned like Nixon...

[recyclebinned]

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.

[Frank]

You can put the blame on the shoulders of the Obama administration. 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.

[Jim Elbrecht]

any of it.

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 f*ck-ups.

Jim

[recyclebinned]

for any of it.

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.

[Neill Massello]

KSM can beat that: 2 March 2013 (eleven days hence) will mark ten years since his capture.

[trader4]

amed for any of it.

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.

[recyclebinned]

blamed for any of it.

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.

[harry]

blamed for any of it.

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.

[harry]

e the house and steal and cause their personal information to be compromise d.

Or the ones they know about at least.

[trader4]

e:

t blamed for any of it.

y specific example. How about if they go into my clients file cabinet while 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.

[Frank]

for any of it.

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.

[21blackswan]

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

[harry]

[Robert Green]

the house and steal and cause their personal information to be compromised.

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:

source: (the one quoted in the nationalcenter piece):

That sounds like they are just reminding employers to be fair.

The actual EEOC site goes on to state that

[Robert Green]

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.

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.

[harry]

Well interesting theory. We'll never know.

[gfretwell]

What goal? A war over Israel? Those tin pot dictators all were in our pocket and had non aggression pacts with Israel. (the reason we treated them so nice).

Now those countries are run by the Muslim Brotherhood and those peace treaties are all gone. Will we go to war with all of them like we did Iraq? (and like we are threatening with Iran)