Hero or Villain?Follow

Am I the only one this bugs? I just don't see how a fair trial is possible in that case.

It would be one thing for the judge to order that motive was barred from being discussed due to its irrelevance to the charges at hand. But my understanding of the charge against him is that they must prove he released information with the intent of it reaching the enemy, which would lead to the maximum sentence.

But I haven't done any research to try and find out what he's actually being charged with, other than what I've heard on the news, so maybe that isn't the case.

Now, this right here? This right here, folk. Yes, all you folks that love to derail a thread. This right here is how you properly derail a thread into absolutely nothing, yet somehow an endless discussion.

Nitpick an irrelevant comment of gbaji's.

/derail off



I think it's two different types of intent. Determining that you intended to commit the crime is one thing and is relevant in terms of charge and potential sentence. Determining *why* you committed the crime may be something else entirely, and may have no relevance to the case itself (but provide a distraction). For example: Determining if I intended to shoot and kill my brother or I thought he was an intruder makes a huge difference in terms of charge and sentence. But if I did intend to shoot and kill my brother, whether I did so because he borrowed my tools without asking or because I wanted to make some broad statement about some cause isn't relevant to the trying of the case itself. But allowing me to use the case as a platform for said cause might be something a judge would want to avoid.

That's just my initial thought. I also haven't been doing any research, so I don't suppose we can rule out some evil conspiracy by the judge to prevent the public from "learning the truth".

It's possible that those are two different things, absolutely.

But I do not like the precedent of barring someone from proving otherwise. She seems to have restricted the trial to, on the prosecution's side, proving he had the intention of feeding information to the enemy (and not just the knowledge that it would occur). Disproving that, without being able to argue what his true intentions were, is far more difficult.

I mean, what can you say? "No they weren't?"

Logic doesn't work this way. The only way to prove something false with Logic is to pair it with other assumptions and prove that they aren't compatible (so that you prove it false relative to the truth of the other statement). In this case, if I was the defense, I would aim to prove that my client's intent was to expose war crimes to the American people, for the sake of a more transparent government and military, and address the ongoing issue of over-classification, in order to strengthen our nation and military effectiveness as a whole.

By proving that to be true, you would invalidate the position that you had the intent to feed information to enemy's of the US, as that would be at odds with your goal of making the construct more powerful and reliable. You'd likely accept that you understood it to be a risk you were taking, but that's not intent.

Intent isn't just the understanding that it could, or likely would, happen. It's the desire that it happens - it's a motivator for your action.

How can you possibly defend yourself against that accusation if you can't offer any evidence to disprove it?

Wasn't he on his fourth tour?

Or am I confusing that detail with the guy who massacred those villagers?

It's getting hard to keep all these military scandals straight.

Ironically.

What kind of warning signs were there, exactly? Failed psych reviews and that sort of thing?

Does everyone in the army have this kind of access to classified information, or did they just give it to him?

Yeah. I would hope that this incident would prompt the Army to seriously reviewing their vetting procedures for granting access to classified info.

I feel so safe.

Idk, those showers sound really enticing.

Being in the Navy would have depressed her even more.



Nah.



Is it? Seems more of a trite observation, really; if an organisation's rife with corruption, one might presume its procedures for preventing corruption are defective as a cause and a result.



Sure, it's obvious why the military would want him on trial. Leaks of sensitive and damaging information serve as an irritant to the system. I doubt anyone much would disagree.



Well, you can't expect too much from them, they're in the military.

What was the "dirty laundry" and what legal ways did he attempt to go about disclosing it?