Quantcast

Bradley Manning Will Walk And Win Double Jeopardy

TheR 2013/06/07 03:02:21
Double Jeopardy:

Five policy considerations underpin the double jeopardy doctrine: (1) preventing the government from employing its superior resources to wear down and erroneously convict innocent persons; (2) protecting individuals from the financial, emotional, and social consequences of successive prosecutions; (3) preserving the finality and integrity of criminal proceedings, which would be compromised were the state allowed to arbitrarily ignore unsatisfactory outcomes; (4) restricting prosecutorial discretion over the charging process; and (5) eliminating judicial discretion to impose cumulative punishments that the legislature has not authorized.

Double jeopardy is one of the oldest legal concepts in Western civilization. In 355 b.c., Athenian statesman Demosthenes said, "[T]he law also forbids the same man to be tried twice on the same issue." The Romans codified this principle in the Digest of Justinian I in a.d. 533. The principle also survived the Dark Ages (a.d. 400–1066), notwithstanding the deterioration of other Greco-Roman legal traditions, through Canon Law and the teachings of early Christian writers.
Daniel Ellsberg Wins Supreme Court Decision.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/double+jeopardy

This is all boiling down to a witch hunt, and waste of tax-payer money. We have already gone through this during the Nixon Administration. It is called Double Jeopardy in which Daniel Ellsberg released Pentagon Papers that were of a more sensitive nature than Bradley Manning. The difference is he was a High Level Official in Washington and Rand Corporation:

Daniel Ellsberg Wins Supreme Court Decision

Manning pleaded guilty to releasing the information, just as Ellsberg surrendered to authorities in Boston and admitted that he had given the papers to the press. He was later indicted on charges of stealing and holding secret documents by a grand jury in Los Angeles.[12] Federal District Judge William Matthew Byrne, Jr. declared a mistrial and dismissed all charges against Ellsberg [and Russo] on May 11, 1973 that was more sensitive in nature than Bradley Mannings Wikileaks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg

And we know what happened. The charges were dropped against Ellsberg, as they will have to be dropped by the Government in concern to Bradley Manning.

The Prosecution of Manning, they are claiming they found documents in BinLadin's hideout, but I would say that is not real evidence. The Evidence could be found online, regardless if in a Binladin Hideout or not. We the people do not know really if BinLadin was really in that hideout. Because the Government claims they dumped his body at Sea.

So the question is to be asked: If the President is so concerned about protecting Soldiers lives, why didn't he just drone the hideout in Pakistan, instead of risking the lives of a Seal Team, on such a high risk operation? And why didn't they bring the body back, as evidence?

I will tell you why, is because the phoney Binladin raid, was a ploy in concern to the Bradley Manning Case, and Wikileaks. Obviously if they droned the place, it could be said that his body disintegrated in the explosion. Also If they droned the place they could not say they had evidence found in the hideout from Wikileaks that Manning provided. It was also an attempt to discredit Wikileaks, and keep the pressure on to extradite Julian Assaange to the US for revealing information.

So instead of Droning BinLadin, they planned a phoney raid, for the sake of the Manning Trial.

Making up the story to find this evidence via the so called Binladin hit, kept the Government protected in it's quest to prosecute Manning, which if successful they can eventually shut down Wikileaks and go in an arrest Assange.

Let's be clear: Manning was arrested on May 10, 2010, and the Binladin Raid was staged on May 2, 2011. This is nearly one year. Plenty of time for them to plan and execute the Phoney Binladin Hit, all for the sake in taking down Manning, and Assange.

Obama and the Governments mistake is they know nothing about US Law. In which we have already had the trial of the Century with Daniel Ellsberg, and how his trial, preserved the Freedom of the Press.

Believe me, they are going to have to let Manning Walk, because they are not going to overturn a Supreme Court Decision that found it's favor with Dr. Daniel Ellsberg.

If the Government continues on this Witch Hunt, be assured that God will have Judges gnash in their each others teeth with their own gavels.

President Nixon's first reaction to the publication was that since the study embarrassed the Johnson and Kennedy administrations, not his, he should do nothing. However, Kissinger convinced the president that not opposing publication set a negative precedent for future secrets.[5] The administration argued Ellsberg and Russo were guilty of a felony under the Espionage Act of 1917, because they had no authority to publish classified documents.[17] After failing to persuade the Times to voluntarily cease publication on June 14,[5] Attorney General John N. Mitchell and Nixon obtained a federal court injunction forcing the Times to cease publication after three articles.[5] Times publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger said:

Newspapers, as our editorial said this morning, we're really a part of history that should have been made available, considerably longer ago. I just didn't feel there was any breach of national security, in the sense that we were giving secrets to the enemy.[18]

The newspaper appealed the injunction, and the case New York Times Co. v. United States (403 U.S. 713) quickly rose through the U.S. legal system to the Supreme Court.[19]

On June 18, 1971, The Washington Post began publishing its own series of articles based upon the Pentagon Papers;[5] Ellsberg gave portions to editor Ben Bradlee. That day, Assistant U.S. Attorney General William Rehnquist asked the Post to cease publication. After the paper refused, Rehnquist sought an injunction in U.S. district court. Judge Murray Gurfein declined to issue such an injunction, writing that "[t]he security of the Nation is not at the ramparts alone. Security also lies in the value of our free institutions. A cantankerous press, an obstinate press, an ubiquitous press must be suffered by those in authority in order to preserve the even greater values of freedom of expression and the right of the people to know.".[20] The government appealed that decision, and on June 26 the Supreme Court agreed to hear it jointly with the New York Times case.[19] Fifteen other newspapers received copies of the study and began publishing it.[5]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1971-Press-Photo-Federal-Judge-Murray...Judge Murray Gurfein

Judge Murray Gurfein

On June 30, 1971, the Supreme Court decided, 6–3, that the government failed to meet the heavy burden of proof required for prior restraint injunction. The nine justices wrote nine opinions disagreeing on significant, substantive matters.

Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.
—Justice Black[21]
Justice Black


In late 1969—with the assistance of his former RAND Corporation colleague Anthony Russo and the staff of Senator Edward Kennedy—Ellsberg secretly made several sets of photocopies of the classified documents to which he had access; these later became known as the Pentagon Papers. They revealed that the government had knowledge, early on, that the war could most likely not be won, and that continuing the war would lead to many times more casualties than was ever admitted publicly. Further, as an editor of the New York Times was to write much later, these documents "demonstrated, among other things, that the Johnson Administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance".[9]

On Sunday, June 13, 1971, the Times published the first of nine excerpts and commentaries on the 7,000 page collection. For 15 days, the Times was prevented from publishing its articles by court order requested by the Nixon administration. Meanwhile, Ellsberg leaked the documents to The Washington Post and 17 other newspapers.[13][14] On June 30, the Supreme Court ordered publication of the Times to resume freely (New York Times Co. v. United States). Although the Times did not reveal Ellsberg as their source, he went into hiding for 13 days afterwards, suspecting that the evidence would point to him as the source of the unauthorized release of the study.[15]

On June 29, 1971, U.S. Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska entered 4,100 pages of the Papers into the record of his Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds—pages which he had received from Ellsberg via Ben Bagdikian—then an editor at the Washington Post. These portions of the Papers were subsequently published by Beacon Press.

The release of these papers was politically embarrassing not only to those involved in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations but also to the incumbent Nixon administration. Nixon's Oval Office tape from June 14, 1972, shows H. R. Haldeman describing the situation to Nixon:

Rumsfeld was making this point this morning... To the ordinary guy, all this is a bunch of gobbledygook. But out of the gobbledygook comes a very clear thing.... It shows that people do things the president wants to do even though it's wrong, and the president can be wrong.[17]

John Mitchell, Nixon's Attorney General, almost immediately issued a telegram to the Times ordering that it halt publication. The Times refused, and the government brought suit against it.

Although the Times eventually won the trial before the Supreme Court, prior to that, an appellate court ordered that the Times temporarily halt further publication. This was the first time the federal government was able to restrain the publication of a major newspaper since the presidency of Abraham Lincoln during the U.S. Civil War. Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers to seventeen other newspapers in rapid succession.[18] The right of the press to publish the papers was upheld in New York Times Co. v. United States. The Supreme Court ruling has been called one of the "modern pillars" of First Amendment rights with respect to freedom of the press.[19]

As a response to the leaks, the Nixon administration began a campaign against further leaks and against Ellsberg personally.[20] Aides Egil Krogh and David Young, under the supervision of John Ehrlichman, created the "White House Plumbers", which would later lead to the Watergate burglaries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... District Judge William Matthew Byrne Jr
District Judge William Matthew Byrne Jr

Nixon Resigns


Now we have Edward Snowden who is said to have leaked information about NSA, PRISM Project.

Edward Snowden

I fail to see it was a Secret. Everyone knows that wiretapping has been going on for many many years. This includes the old days when people shared telephone party lines, and we had to wait for them to hang up in order to make a call. Everyone knows that Congress and IBM have been trying to put controls on the internet to stop leaks. It has been an on going campaign, to find threats to the American people. Also since we have already gone through similar Court Cases during the Nixon Administration, with Dr. Daniel Ellsberg, it makes the Court impotent to proceed against similar whistle blowing. Double Jeopardy is a US Constitutional Law, which forbids new trials based upon essentially the same case. Different names, or different programs, still does not change the end result. The issue that our Scholars refuse to face in Government and the Private sector is defining the true subject of what is Treason, and who can be tried, since the Pentagon Papers. People like to say that Nixon resigned because he was facing impeachment if he refused to turn over taped recordings. But that is not the case. Nixon resigned, knowing Ford would pardon him. Nixon is a disgrace because he pardoned Lt. Cally and that act essentially reinforced that the President himself was involved in the Mai Lai Massacre Coverup. So the idea that we think wire tapping is illegal because of Nixon is essentially untrue.

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/why-you-should-support-...
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Opinions

Leave a comment and start the discussion!

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/23 09:17:18

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals