That’s why I say the Guardian piece is trash. One former peer who gives his name tells one story. And then you have the Guardian piece which looks and reads like trash and focuses on personality to the exclusion of the work Manning and his peers in intel did. And according to this peer, it caused suicide.

Thanks harpie, that’s a valuable link.Seems its pretty important to Manning’s case to recognize bad publicity from the Guardian, NYT and Frontine from military sources, if they want to show hostile command environment, non? i hope I’m no rambling too much ;)
Thanks for that link again. That’s a good one.

No I was answering you. Just because you have a one-track mind doesn’t mean I’m wild and all over the road. You’re completley drawing lines in the sand like a kid who’s bent on defending his turf. It’s tyrannical. Stop with the “ramblings”, “pet fiction”, the derogatory statements about everything I’ve linked and said that are completely relevant in defense of your hurling “pet fiction.” And the “wild and all over the road.” It’s the kind of language that suggests “crazy woman.” really disdainful.

Thank you harpie, you say barrage *against Manning*? Because that’s what it looks like to me. But then again, I’m just “rambling” and throwing around “pet fictions” although I do like to question. And the Guardian had anonymous and military sources. Again its mypoic to sit around and second-guess the defense team when we don’t have much knowledge of military tribunal law and whether these “leaked military” sources are valid. It’s a mickey mouse defense to claim these are fact when in truth they could be fiction and fall apart in five seconds. But that’s just my honest opinion.
No Manning and is fellow intel analysts apparently witnesses some pretty serious war crimes and took part in them. Apparently that was what drove them crazy, some to suicide. Here’s some more “ramblings” and “pet fictions” on that from a fellow intel analyst:
http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2011/04/18/us-intelligence-veteran-defends-bradley-manning-and-wikileaks/
“Well, I have a couple connections to Bradley.. . .
They have [Manning’s] chat logs . . .

I was involved in torture in Iraq. Part of an intel analyst’s job is “targeting.” . . .

The thing that gets me about that is I don’t think anybody who’s aware of what’s going on can do that work for very long without having a major problem come up. Most of the guys I went through intel school with, who went to Iraq with me, are either dead, killed themselves, are in a long-term care institution or completely disabled. I’m actually 50 percent disabled via PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder), mostly because of the stuff that happened.”

Again, Do you know what military tribunals are like? Are you assuming that Manning will get a decent civilian style trial and the a civilian style defense is appropriate? Why are you assuming you know about his defense? See bmaz, when a person hurls words like baloney and pet fiction, its just invective. You never seem to be answer directly those questions I asked. Like: what do you know about military tribunals? And :why do you assume this particular leaked document should be swallowed whole, when there are tons of leaked documents that should be taken with a grain of salt, and read criticlaly?
And I asked you what my pet fictions are? (Which is why I put all those links or “rambling” call it up there, because I couldn’t figure out which “pet fictions” you were referring too) You couldn’t answer. And yes, war crimes are 100% relevant to his case, since he was an intel specialist and saw quite a bit, as did his peers. There is every reason to believe that that caused PTSD, suicide and that happened while in the military. And there is the treatment he received in prison.
ust read bmaz article I post, its an interview with one of his fellow intel peers. No forget it. If you can hurl invective so can I. You’re being myopic, probably clinging to your own little fictions and a little pompous to boot. It’s hopeless.

Oh and here’s another one of my “pet fictions” in case you need visuals. If I remember from the ACLU autopsies at least one of the prisoners got shot, point black in the head. It wasn’t an accident. It was murder.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/174186.html

And if you still think these are my “pet fictions” then here are some links in case you didn’t realize the bottom line in this case was war, torture and war crimes:
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/deaths-detainees-us-custody-documents-released-january-14-2011
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1681676/
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,752310,00.html
And then pls tell me how this anon sourced article will actually help Manning during a military tribunal.

And if you think my pet fiction is that our govt. covers up torture, I suggest you read Jane Mayer again, google the wikipedia entry for Manadel al Jamadi, read Andy Worthington, and so on.

Because if you think that the leaked govt documents on Gitmo prisoners aren’t partly BS, that should be read carefully, –then you disagree with the lawyers of those prisoners, and many others.
If you think my pet fiction is re: murder in camps in Cuba, Afghanistan and Iraq. Then you disagree with Dr. Stephen Miles, prof. of Bioethics, Jane Mayer and many many others, including those who call for an investigation (ACLU re: Gitmo for ex.)
If you think my pet fiction is regarding Uighurs in Gitmo and Chinese propaganda, you disagree with congress even.

And the last. What makes you think you would be qualified to defend Manning and not over your head?

bmaz,
-please list the pet fictions you think I have.
-Again what do you know about military tribunals?
-Again what makes you think that this article is not fiction, it’s anonymously sourced after all?

“First off, there is scant, if any, evidence that what is described in the article is not true and/or honest opinion and evaluation. Secondly, it all meshes perfect with what will almost certainly be a key core part of his defense theory. That is not a “smear”, it is a gift from heaven.”
Seriously?!? I mean seriously? Do you honestly think so? I don’t Do you have experience of military tribunals?!?
What evidence is there that this anonymously sourced article is for real and not straight from our govt for a little memorial day special? Again, at least one of Manning’s peers was interviewed. He gave a name. He told a different story.

And if this comes from Manning’s *defense team*, he needs new lawyers, because this is the kind of stuff that looks like it came from Gitmo prosecution.
It’s naive to think a “leaked military document” should not be read without a very very critical mind.

Look bmaz. I have been reading volumes of “leaked military” documents on prisoners. They cover up. They are fiction. They read like BS. Pls wake up. read Wikileaks and Andy worthington’s coverage of the military documents leaked on GTMO prisoners. They even assert Chinese propoganda as the reason for holding Uighur prisoners, for god’s sake. Or when I finish a project, you can read my analysis on the autopsies from Bagram, Camp Cropper, Camp Remembrance, Abu Ghraib, BIAP. etc. Our govt writes serious fiction. Or maybe you might want to check out Dr. Steven Miles’ book on homicides in the camps. They create unbelievable fiction to cover up torture. Reams of it.
I guarantee you if you read all those documents on prisoners, you will question this and see the Guardian article as the utter bogus harmful bullshit it is.

I agree with yellowsnapdragon. The last sentence that is. This isn’t a defense. It reads like a marketing piece, e.g. how many different ways to say China: Middle Kingdom, etc. etc. Keep mentioning and it will sink in. Here: how many ways to say unsteady “homo” (the stereotype), “wet his pants”, etc. etc. etc. It’s homophobic. And it reads like an attack piece to deflect from the actual crimes that were committed (by our govt, war crimes).
Then the anon sources. There are better articles. Those provide real defenses.

That Guardian article– that goes with the video and calls Manning a “mess” and tells us he “wet his pants’ and comes from an anon soldier, anon officer and anon timely “leaked” government document –is disgusting graffiti. Basically they’re saying he was a sissy who wasn’t fit to target for kill and coverup, *because he was a messed up *sissy*. An interview with Manning’s fellow intel analyst (who actually *gives* his name) tells a different story. According to that interview many of the Manning’s peers went crazy, went on disability, committed suicide etc. In other words noone is fit to target and kill civilians and coverup war crimes. Nice of Obama to “leak” that disgusting graffiti around memorial day, and try to deflect from the war crimes that were committed and still being committed, and get the media to focus on “personality” of the whistleblower. What Manning allegedly did was a public service, whistleblowing on war crimes. Nice of