Skip to main content

Two thoughts (and only two) on the Bradley Manning conviction

1.  The judge had little or no choice in this verdict.  It was quite predictable.  "Jury nullification" is not an option for trial officers under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  In fact, I'd argue that the judge has been, so far, as lenient as it was possible to be, and sent a significant message in declining to find Manning guilty of providing aid to the enemy.

2. I can't figure out how to triangulate the public reaction to this verdict against the public reaction to the Zimmermann verdict.  In its own way the Manning trial outcome has the potential to be just as divisive as the Florida shooting, but the lines seem to fall much differently.  I've seen people who think Zimmermann was a hero both condemn and praise Manning; likewise with people who believe Zimmermann got away with murder.  Strangely, I find it a hopeful sign that we don't always divide along the same lines.

Comments

tom said…
When every issue divides a society along the same lines, you tend to get explosive situations like the middle east, northern Ireland, or the U.S Civil War.
Thomas L. Knapp said…
"In fact, I'd argue that the judge has been, so far, as lenient as it was possible to be"

Then you are batshit insane.

In her role as judge, Lind openly and flagrantly violated Articles 92, 98 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, multiple times.

According to the law -- you know, that thing she was supposed to apply as judge -- the prosecution itself was illegal, as the Army detained Manning for FOUR TIMES the absolute, non-negotiable maximum time before arraignment.

According to the law, the prosecution doesn't get to call new non-rebuttal witnesses and present new evidence after both it and the defense have rested their cases.

According to the law, the prosecution doesn't get to change the charges (!) after closing arguments.

Stalin's pet judges would have blushed at the shit Lind pulled.

Her future career should start with disbarment, proceed to indictment, and end in Club Fed.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...