Posted on | January 8, 2013 | 47 Comments
There was a time when a traitor in the ranks of the U.S. Army would have been in front of a firing squad within 48 hours of his apprehension.
I happened to be at Fort Meade today on other business, which included a lecture about concerns for “operational security.” When it was time to get lunch, I was advised not to leave the base, but rather to eat at the on-base Burger King, as there might be hassles getting back through the main gate because of the Bradley Manning trial:
The US soldier accused of being behind the massive WikiLeaks publication of state secrets has been awarded a 112-day reduction in any eventual sentence on the grounds that he was subjected to excessively harsh treatment in military detention.
(If that worm were locked up in Leavenworth for life, that would be excecessively mild treatment, as far as I’m concerned.)
Colonel Denise Lind, the judge presiding over Bradley Manning’s court martial, granted him the dispensation as a form of recompense for the unduly long period in which he was held on suicide watch and prevention of injury status while at the brig at Quantico marine base in Virginia where he was detained from 29 July 2010 to 20 April 2011.
(Why “suicide watch”? Spare us the expense of hanging him.)
During that time he was held under constant surveillance, had his possessions removed from his cell and at times even his clothes, often in contravention to the professional medical [advice] of psychiatrists.
(If the Army had sought the advice of any competent psychiatrist, Bradley Manning never would have been in the Army in the first place.)
Lind’s ruling was made under Article 13 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice that protects prisoners awaiting trial from punishment on grounds that they are innocent until proven guilty. The recognition that some degree of pre-trial punishment did occur during the nine months that the soldier was held in Quantico marks a legal victory for the defence in that it supports Manning’s long-held complaint that he was singled out by the US government for excessively harsh treatment.
How the hell can the Army enforce discipline when a traitor like Bradley Manning is permitted to bring in a commie lawyer to claim that his “rights” were violated by “excessively harsh treatment”? And speaking of commie lawyers:
David Coombs, Manning’s civilian lawyer, revealed at a hearing at Fort Meade military base in Maryland what is likely to be a central pillar of the defence case at the soldier’s court martial. A full trial is scheduled to start on 6 March.
Coombs said that the defence would be calling as a witness Adrian Lamo, the hacker who alerted military authorities to Manning’s WikiLeaks activities, to give evidence about the web chat he had with Manning shortly before the soldier’s arrest in Iraq in March 2010. The content of the web chat, Coombs suggested, would be used by the defence to show that Manning selected information to leak that “could not be used to harm the US or advantage any foreign nation”.
Yeah. Let’s just take the word of a traitor who disobeyed orders, because someone who violates his oath of service can be trusted to tell the truth.
UPDATE: In case you didn’t know:
Coombs is best known for defending Army Sgt. Hasan Akbar, who was convicted and sentenced to death for a deadly 2003 attack on fellow U.S. military members in Kuwait.
Some people will probably protest: “How can you call him a ‘commie’? Coombs is a retired officer!” And your point would be?
I mean, John Kerry used to be an officer, didn’t he?