US Congressman calls for Wikileaks whistleblower to be executed

The military is no harsher than a civilian justice system. There are things you can't do in the military that would only get you a warning anywhere else. Things like being late, sleeping on the job, not respecting the chain of command. And there are things that would get you an article 15 and mandatory jail time, like drug possession, assault, or drunk driving. This is offset by the fact that you get the best lawyers the military has to offer. JAGs work your case, your defense counsel could be the prosecuting counsel on another case, unlike the real world you get the full resources and full effort of the military and not an overworked public defender. The civilian criminal courts? who knows you could go from probation to life over a simple possession charge.

Soldiers take an oath to defend the constitution first and foremost. If the commander-in-chief is at odds with that then they default to the later. They'll take orders from the president as long as the end game is the preservation of the union. There are treaties and conventions in place that dictate how a soldier is supposed to behave ask one of your family members if they memorized the geneva conventions, I can guarantee all of mine have. Killing on orders hasn't been a valid defense since the Nazis lost.

Uniform in Uniform Code of Military Justice is just that. It applies equally to everyone in the military. This senator can scream death penalty until he's blue in the face but he's not military so his opinion is only that. Spc. Manning is not a prosecutors special case, he is not to be made an example of, he he will be tried under the terms of the UCMJ by his peers (ie. not a senator, not the public, but other guys in uniform) and if found guilty will be given a punishment commensurate to the charges. Nothing greater and nothing less than that.

>"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

In which we clearly see that his obligation to protect the constitution is listed before his obligation to obey the president. As such his highest duty is to the constitution, and if he leaked the papers to defend it he should get a medal, not a bullet.

In addition, I seem to recall that the constitution requires an act of war to be made by congress for it to be acceptable to send the army. No such act has ever been made, so isn't going to war in Afghanistan unconstitutional?

So while I understand Military Justice might look harsh to civilians you have to understand that it’s absolutely necessary. The guys with guns who have the legal right to kill people have to be held to the highest standard possible.

In sane places, ordinary individuals are also allowed to own guns and to kill people (mostly limited to self-defense). Some states have the death penalty; that power rests with a judge or set of judges (with approval from twelve semi-random people).

I think it has more to do with the need to act together and be reliable. Given the top-down decision structure and time/resource constraints involved in going to war, soldiers not following orders can be rather like your brakes malfunctioning or one of your tires falling off while driving down the Interstate. Probably there's also a bit of historical artifact in not distinguishing sufficiently (I believe there are some recognized distinctions) between whether or not a particular incident could actually have that extreme of an effect.

As do the paper pushers who deal with confidential data since they too can cause a person’s death through their actions.

So can people designing or building bridges and skyscrapers.

As such you have to understand the highest value in a soldier’s life must be “to follow orders”. Because if that soldier substitutes his own judgment for that of his commander than our whole society falls apart (this is how we get military coups). Which is why we force soldiers to sign over their life to the military for their term of duty and why we take away many of their rights as citizens. You, as a private citizen, can tell off your boss without any fear of legal repercussions but a soldier will go to jail for the same act because the highest military value is “obey your commander”.

This is why the Nuremberg trials were a complete farce.

Well, in the past there were quite a long chain of military coups supported by the US, specially here in Latin America in the 60s and 70s, and generally this was supported (and orchestrated) by the high-ranking military officers of these countries, to summarize I think that your thinking is flawed, just because you have a couple of soldiers following orders does not mean that the military will necessarily defend the government in the case of a coup, even in these days the powerful (secular supporting) military of Turkey is feared by the (religious inspired) ruling party.

For me, a coups generally occurs when there are so much partisanship in a country that even the high-ranking officials are supporting one side.

PS: O:"Go there" P:"I think I BLEEP ing see an IED." vs P:BOOM.

1) if the WikiLeaks war logs contain "nothing new" (according to the White House), then why is that it's a problem of national security?

2) yes, guys with guns must be held to the highest standard possible; unfortunately, the civilians who have the power to send the "guys with guns" to invade sovereign nations and kill people are held to no standard at all. We didn't lower the bar, we removed the bar. Zero accountability for the decision-makers, death penalty to the pawns in uniform? Isn't a rogue executive branch potentially more dangerous than a rogue Army private?

3) did Congress authorize the war in Afghanistan? I don't remember any declaration of war. If we're not officially at war, then what Rogers claims to be "treason" does not call for capital punishment.

4) if we are at war and Manning should be executed for treason, then why not execute Cheney too? Didn't he reveal classified information and endangered Americans when he exposed Valerie Plame?