Breaking Story

[WelshBloke]

Military has their own rules.

Civilians need to understand that and realize that what they are used to outside the base is not the same as on the base.
Privileges/courtesy's are granted and can be revoked without explanation.
This goes for both military and civilian personnel.

Maybe this trial should be conducted in a civilian court.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

From your link:



Why is solitary confinement required to insure his presence?

More like to secure his safety. I'm sure the officers in charge have a good reason.

Have they taken immediate steps to try him?

Could it be that the government is allowing the lawyer of the accused to build their case before taking the case to court martial?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Maybe this trial should be conducted in a civilian court.

He's in the military and will be tried by a court martial.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

In the military, if you don't want to do the time don't get accused of the crime.

Long confinements prior to/during the trial never occurs in civilian courts?

 

[Scotteq]

Maybe this trial should be conducted in a civilian court.

For a uniformed member of the military?


In Wartime?


Maybe we can consult the UK Armed Forces Act, instead? After all, UK military members get tried by the UK military under separate rules. If you think I'm somehow being false, please follow the link to the United Kingdom's version of the UCMJ, and point out where a uniformed member of Her Majesty's Military Services would be tried in a civilian court.

But one would presume a citizen of the United Kingdon would be aware of how his own country treat it's own military members and accord members of other countrys the same. But then again..

 

[nobodyknows]

The guard says the orders come from "on high"?? WTF does that mean? From his immediate superior in the chain of command or from the POTUS? Or was he smoking dope and talking to God?

 

[etrigan420]

Or was he smoking dope and talking to God?

I'm going to go with this.

For the most part, MP's and Base Security are fucking clowns.

...having said that, if this couple had been on the base prior to the incident, (which apparently they had, on several occasions) then they know what the required paperwork is.

So the *real* question is...

Did she have the required paperwork when she was allowed access to the base previously, but forgot it this time? Or did she not have the required paperwork previously and been granted access anyway?

There's more to this than a missing insurance card.

 

[WelshBloke]

For a uniformed member of the military?

Yes

In Wartime?

Yes

Maybe we can consult the UK Armed Forces Act, instead? After all, UK military members get tried by the UK military under separate rules. If you think I'm somehow being false, please follow the link to the United Kingdom's version of the UCMJ, and point out where a uniformed member of Her Majesty's Military Services would be tried in a civilian court.

But one would presume a citizen of the United Kingdon would be aware of how his own country treat it's own military members and accord members of other countrys the same. But then again..

I'm not sure what UK military law has to do with this unless you think that somehow we have jurisdiction over him?

 

[Scotteq]

I'm not sure what UK military law has to do with this unless you think that somehow we have jurisdiction over him?

You really are dense...

The point is that OUR military member is being tried by OUR military under the rules established for uniformed military members. This is exactly the same treatment a UK military member would receive under the UK's own rules.

So basically: I'm telling you to piss off and have a wank elsewhere for your opinions regarding how we handle our military members, since your own military would do exactly the same to one of theirs.

I trust that statement is not obtuse.

Apparently the term 'Welsh Windbag' exists for good reason.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Military has their own rules.

Civilians need to understand that and realize that what they are used to outside the base is not the same as on the base.
Privileges/courtesy's are granted and can be revoked without explanation.
This goes for both military and civilian personnel.

Maybe this trial should be conducted in a civilian court.

He broke military regs - the military gets him first.

Civilian courts can have him after the military if they desire.

After all the Federal government has no problem going after a person if they do not like the end result the first time.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The guard says the orders come from "on high"?? WTF does that mean? From his immediate superior in the chain of command or from the POTUS? Or was he smoking dope and talking to God?

The order came from some officer up the chain of command.

Whetherfrom a O1/O6/O10 or the civilian chain, it matters not. The guard received a legal order and is obeying it.

 

[WelshBloke]

You really are dense...

The point is that OUR military member is being tried by OUR military under the rules established for uniformed military members. This is exactly the same treatment a UK military member would receive under the UK's own rules.

So basically: I'm telling you to piss off and have a wank elsewhere for your opinions regarding how we handle our military members, since your own military would do exactly the same to one of theirs.

I trust that statement is not obtuse.

Apparently the term 'Welsh Windbag' exists for good reason.

So I guess you wont be giving any opinions about issues that dont happen in the US then?

Its an international news story, get used to other people having opinions on it.

 

[WelshBloke]

He broke military regs - the military gets him first.

Civilian courts can have him after the military if they desire.

After all the Federal government has no problem going after a person if they do not like the end result the first time.

Its a big issue that effects your nation and involves not just the defendant but the system the military uses to protect the national secrets. I think that military tribunals are too open to abuse for this.

 

[Scotteq]

So I guess you wont be giving any opinions about issues that dont happen in the US then?

Its an international news story, get used to other people having opinions on it.

Not annoyed that an opinion exists. But rather that the opinion would hold us to standards that your nation does not accord your own people.

I find that highly hypocritical, and therefore fully worthy of being shot down.

 

[WelshBloke]

Not annoyed that an opinion exists. But rather that the opinion would hold us to standards that your nation does not accord your own people.

I find that highly hypocritical, and therefore fully worthy of being shot down.

It would only be hypocritical if I was in charge of making those standards in the UK or didn't ever criticise the UK, as neither of those things are correct then you are wrong.

The standards of military justice in the UK have nothing to do with this case.

 

[Scotteq]

It would only be hypocritical if I was in charge of making those standards in the UK or didn't ever criticise the UK, as neither of those things are correct then you are wrong.

The standards of military justice in the UK have nothing to do with this case.

Thank you for admitting that UK standards do not have anything to do with a US case: Therefore US Law aplies, the right to bar the reporter and filmmaker is fully established under precedent, and the US military member gets tried under US military law.

Amazing how that works, innit?

 

[actuarial]

More like to secure his safety. I'm sure the officers in charge have a good reason.

Ensure his safety from what? Why isn't he being allowed to exercise? Why isn't he allowed visitors? Do you seriously believe this is not punishment before trial?

Could it be that the government is allowing the lawyer of the accused to build their case before taking the case to court martial?

It's certainly possible. From some reading it appears to be a government requested delay though, and Manning's lawyer did file a request for a speedy trial earlier this month.

Really though, my point was the the military code of justice link you posted had basically the exact same wording as the parts of the constitution that you claimed didn't apply here.

 

[WelshBloke]

Thank you for admitting that UK standards do not have anything to do with a US case: Therefore US Law aplies, the right to bar the reporter and filmmaker is fully established under precedent, and the US military member gets tried under US military law.

Amazing how that works, innit?

I haven't argued any of those points? Are you reading the same thread as me.

You're the one that brought up UK law.
You're the one that brought up the reporter and filmmaker.
I know the defendant is subject to military law.

I just suggested that a lot of what was being done was being done out of vindictiveness.

Just because the military can do something doesn't mean they should.

 

[Scotteq]

I haven't argued any of those points? Are you reading the same thread as me.

You're the one that brought up UK law.
You're the one that brought up the reporter and filmmaker.
I know the defendant is subject to military law.

I just suggested that a lot of what was being done was being done out of vindictiveness.

Just because the military can do something doesn't mean they should.

Actually - YOU were the one to be so arrogant as to opine that the USA be held to standards which don't exist in the UK.

You were trying to say the military shouldn't be able to bar the filmmaker and reporter: I showed you US law that says we damned well can bar them.

You said our military member should be tried in a civilian court. I brought up UK law to point out that our military member is being treated no differently than a Brit would be under the same circumstances.

Back to my original point: If you want to argue that this guy shouldn't be in Solitary, then you would be on stronger ground.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Ensure his safety from what? Why isn't he being allowed to exercise? Why isn't he allowed visitors? Do you seriously believe this is not punishment before trial?

I don't see where he's being treated any differently than any other person that's been accused of betraying the country. He's in a military brig, I'm sure the Marines/US Government doesn't want reporters and film producers access to any of the prisoners.

It's certainly possible. From some reading it appears to be a government requested delay though, and Manning's lawyer did file a request for a speedy trial earlier this month.

Really though, my point was the the military code of justice link you posted had basically the exact same wording as the parts of the constitution that you claimed didn't apply here.

I don't see where his rights under the UCMJ or Constitution has been violated. He will receive his court martial as directed by the UCMJ.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Its a big issue that effects your nation and involves not just the defendant but the system the military uses to protect the national secrets. I think that military tribunals are too open to abuse for this.

You join the military and accept the fact that there is a seperate legal line that involves the military that the civilians do not have.

One can not pick/choose which rules they want to follow; it is an al/none package.

Ironically, such practice for the US comes from the English Military law.

Few countries allow their mititary to pick/choose what rules/laws they want to follow.

 

[BoberFett]

I fully support Manning and Wikileaks, but this thread is beyond stupid.

 

[Zebo]

See what I mean. Most people do not understand the difference between the two. Military Justice is not the same as Civilian. They don't have to abide by the same rules. This is what he signed up for Voluntarily when he joined the service.

I was reading the online discussion between Manning and Lamo here:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/wikileaks-chat/

As far as I'm concerned it is a full confession and the little prick deserves everything he is getting.

Hearsay and bullshit. Soldiers have rights too under UCMJ which are not being shown ATM.

 

[Zebo]

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), get to know it.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/l/blucmj.htm

Maybe you should get to know it. It's provides the same restrictions as 6th and 8th provide.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Maybe you should get to know it. It's provides the same restrictions as 6th and 8th provide.

I'm very familiar with the UCMJ, I served within it's boundaries for 12 years.