Don't Forget Bradley Manning

[Oxymoron]

It is nearing the end of Bradley Manning Trial and there seems very little coverage.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/02/us/manning-court-martial

Supporters of Pfc. Bradley Manning, accused in the largest leak of classified documents in U.S. history, have adopted the phrase: "I am Bradley Manning."
But who is Manning? A whistle-blower? Or someone who aided the enemy in the midst of war?
Those and other questions go to trial Monday as Manning's court-martial is scheduled to begin at Maryland's Fort Meade.
Gallery: Key WikiLeaks figures as trial begins
In February, Manning, 25, pleaded guilty to 10 of the 22 charges against him and faces up to two decades in jail.
He did not plead guilty to the most serious charge -- that of aiding the United States' enemies, which carries the potential for a life sentence.

Content from external source

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/10/bardley-manning-defence-rests-wikileaks

Having called just 10 witnesses over the space of three days, the defence phase of the trial was brought to a close far quicker than expected. The defence had indicated in earlier hearings that it intended to call more than 40 witnesses, although many may yet still be presented in court during the post-verdict sentencing stage of the court martial.
By contrast, the prosecution took 14 days to make its case, drawing on 80 witnesses.
On Wednesday, the defence team lead by the civilian lawyer David Coombs, focused its attentions on the most serious charge facing the Army private – that he "aided the enemy" by transmitting information to WikiLeaks knowing that it would be accessible to enemy groups notably al-Qaida. Manning faces a possible sentence of life in military custody with no chance of parole under this single charge.
The final defence witness called, the Harvard law professor Yochai Benkler, delivered blistering testimony in which he portrayed WikiLeaks as a legitimate web-based journalistic organisation. He also warned the judge presiding in the case, Colonel Denise Lind, that if the "aiding the enemy" charge was interpreted broadly to suggest that handing information to a website that could be read by anyone with access to the internet was the equivalent of handing to the enemy, then that serious criminal accusation could be levelled against all media outlets that published on the web.
Benkler, who is co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard, was accepted by the court as an expert on the future of journalism in the digital age, despite prosecution attempts to have him disqualified. Under defence questioning, according to a transcript of the court proceedings provided by the Freedom of the Press Foundation, Benkler roundly dismissed any connection between WikiLeaks and terrorist organisations and damned as "a relatively mediocre effort" a counter-intelligence report titled "Wikileaks.org – An Online Reference to Foreign Intelligence Services, Insurgents, or Terrorist Groups?".

Content from external source

I think this should have been titled Snowden Shouldn't Distract Us From Bradley Manning

 

[Oxymoron]

There is worldwide support for Bradley Manning in his exposure of wrongdoing by the military. Here is a good page which highlights how people can get involved and make a difference in defending his brave actions.

http://www.bradleymanning.org/

One of the links says:

Coombs criticizes prosecutors for attempting to amend and reformulate their theory after they have rested their case on the merits of the charges.

Now, at the 11th hour, after the close of evidence by both parties, the Government seeks to concoct a charge which requires a string of assumptions: when we charged databases, we really meant the records in the databases, and when we meant the records in the databases, we really meant the copies of records in the database, and when we meant the copies of records in the database, we really meant information in the copies of the records in the databases, and when we meant the information in the copies of the records in the databases, we really meant the United State’s [sic] interest in exclusive possession of the information in the records. See Government Motion at p. 16. None of this is even remotely encapsulated in the Charge Sheet, the Bill of Particulars, or in the Government’s Instructions. It is a gargantuan leap to go from “databases” to “the United State’s [sic] interest in exclusive possession of the information in the records.”​

He says that the government charged Manning with stealing the databases instead of the records within to more easily meet the criteria that the information stolen be worth more than $1,000.
The Government took almost one full year to draft the charges in this case. It could have, and should have, conducted research into the 18 U.S.C. §641 offenses. If it had, it would have realized that “records” and “information” are not the same thing in terms of the property allegedly taken

Content from external source

 

[Oxymoron]

Members of the European Parliament open letter raises issues of persecution and torture of Bradley Manning.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/29/bradley-manning-mep-open-letter

Hundreds of US legal scholars have signed an open letter to the Obama administration, arguing that the conditions of confinement endured by Mr Manning at Quantico may have amounted to torture. Following worldwide calls for an end to the abusive treatment, Manning was moved to a facility in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, where his conditions are said to have improved.

As members of the European parliament, who were elected to represent our constituents throughout Europe, we are writing to express our concerns about alleged human rights violations against Bradley Manning, a young soldier who has been accused of releasing classified information pertaining to possible US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are concerned that the US army has charged Bradley Manning with "aiding the enemy," a capital offence that is punishable by death. We have questions about why Mr Manning has been imprisoned for 17 months without yet having had his day in court. We are troubled by reports that Mr Manning has been subjected to prolonged solitary confinement and other abusive treatment tantamount to torture. And we are disappointed that the US government has denied the request of the United Nations special rapporteur on torture to meet privately with Mr Manning in order to conduct an investigation of his treatment by US military authorities.

Content from external source

 

[Cairenn]

Did you know that before any of this happened, his commanding officer had had the bolt removed from his gun, because he was considered a suicide risk? The Army should have sent him home long before this happened, they failed him, in not doing that. He was troubled, and had a bad history of 'problems. I understand that a lot of the 'mistreatment' was linked to him being considered suicidal.

I can hear you and others screaming if he had not been properly kept from committing suicide. It would have been great fuel for the conspiracy folks and it would have been negligence on the part of the Army.

His relationship with his father was apparently good, but there were problems between Manning and his stepmother. In March 2006 he reportedly threatened her with a knife during an argument about his failure to get another job; she called the police and he was asked to leave the house. He drove to Tulsa in a pick-up truck his father had given him, at first sleeping in it, then moving in with a friend from school. ...
Manning went through basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, but six weeks after enlisting was sent to the discharge unit. He was allegedly being bullied, and in the opinion of another soldier was having a breakdown. The soldier told The Guardian: "The kid was barely five foot ... He was a runt, so pick on him. He's crazy, pick on him. He's a faggot, pick on him. The guy took it from every side. He couldn't please anyone." Denver Nicks writes that Manning, who was used to being bullied, fought back – if the drill sergeants screamed at him, he would scream at them – to the point where they started calling him "General Manning."[18]

The decision to discharge him was revoked, and he started basic training again in January 2008. After graduating in April, he moved to Fort Huachuca, Arizona, where he trained as an intelligence analyst, receiving a TS/SCI security clearance (Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information). According to Nicks, this security clearance, combined with the digitization of classified information and the government's policy of sharing it widely, gave Manning access to an unprecedented amount of material. Nicks writes that he was reprimanded while at Fort Huachuca for posting three video messages to friends on YouTube, in which he described the inside of the "Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility" (SCIF) where he worked. ...
Back at Fort Drum, he continued to display emotional problems and, by August 2009, had been referred to an Army mental-health counselor. A friend told Nicks that Manning could be emotionally fraught, describing an evening they had watched two movies together – The Last King of Scotland and Dancer in the Dark – after which Manning cried for hours. By September 2009, his relationship with Watkins was in trouble, and although they reconciled for a short time, it was effectively over. ...
After four weeks at the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) in Fort Polk, Louisiana, he was deployed to Forward Operating Base Hammer, near Baghdad, arriving in October 2009. From his workstation there, he had access to SIPRNet (the Secure Internet Protocol Router Network) and JWICS (the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System). Two of his superiors had discussed not taking him to Iraq – it was felt he was "a risk to himself and possibly others," according to a statement later issued by the army – but again the shortage of intelligence analysts held sway. ...
On December 20, 2009, after being told he would lose his one day off a week for being persistently late, he overturned a table in a conference room and damaging a computer that was sitting on it before his arms were pinned behind his back. Several witnesses to the incident believed his access to sensitive material ought to have been withdrawn at that point. The following month, he began posting on Facebook that he felt alone and hopeless. ...
On April 30, he posted on Facebook that he was utterly lost, and over the next few days that "Bradley Manning is not a piece of equipment," that he was "beyond frustrated," and "livid" after being "lectured by ex-boyfriend despite months of relationship ambiguity ..." On May 7, he seemed to spiral out of control. According to army witnesses, he was found curled into a fetal position in a storage cupboard, with a knife at his feet, and had cut the words "I want" into a vinyl chair. A few hours later he had an altercation with a female intelligence analyst, Specialist Jihrleah Showman, during which he punched her in the face. The brigade psychiatrist recommended a discharge, referring to an "occupational problem and adjustment disorder." His master sergeant removed the bolt from his weapon, and he was sent to work in the supply office, though at this point his security clearance remained in place. He was demoted from Specialist to Private First Class just three days before his arrest on May 27. ...

Content from external source

 

[David Fraser]

I think the verdict itself is a relatively good one for him under the circumstances. Fingers crossed for him with the sentence.

 

[Cairenn]

I do not approve of what he did, but I feel sorry for him. He as used, first, by the Army, when it should have been obvious that he was troubled, then used and abandoned by Assage. I hope that that is taken into account on his sentence, if it can be.

 

[Sticky Fingers]

I do not approve of what he did, but I feel sorry for him. He as used, first, by the Army, when it should have been obvious that he was troubled, then used and abandoned by Assage. I hope that that is taken into account on his sentence, if it can be.

My take is that he was lucky to get off with the verdicts he did.
If this was thirty years ago in the early 80's with Reagan and the Cold War at it's peak he would have been facing the chair.

You can make the arguement that he was young and misguided.
I agree.
I'm sure that after spending 3 years in lock-up he would re-think it.

But is he a "whistle-blower"??

No. He may think he was but he wasn't.
He stole ....................... 700,000 ........................ documents.
This isn't a case of the Pentagon Papers or maybe even Snowden.
The guy downloaded as much stuff as he could and didn't read 99% of it. And that is a kind figure.

I do feel for him. But I also see why the US Government is coming down hard on him.

 

[Oxymoron]

I think the verdict itself is a relatively good one for him under the circumstances. Fingers crossed for him with the sentence.

Yes fingers crossed for him. He has a lot of support from around the world. I hope it counts. I see someone who is a whistleblower on war atrocities. Collateral murder. The public have a right to know what is being done in their name. What is striking is the fact that the whistleblower is prosecuted to the nth degree whilst the crimes he exposes are swept under the carpet.

 

[Sticky Fingers]

Yes fingers crossed for him. He has a lot of support from around the world. I hope it counts. I see someone who is a whistleblower on war atrocities. Collateral murder. The public have a right to know what is being done in their name. What is striking is the fact that the whistleblower is prosecuted to the nth degree whilst the crimes he exposes are swept under the carpet.

A bunch of dirty stuff went down in those Wars. Still does. Agreed.....
Yet.....
Should someone be considered a whistleblower if they copy the US Government server and send it overseas?

 

[Oxymoron]

I do not approve of what he did, but I feel sorry for him. He as used, first, by the Army, when it should have been obvious that he was troubled, then used and abandoned by Assage. I hope that that is taken into account on his sentence, if it can be.

I don't see how you can make such a false accusation. Assange had nothing to do with it apart from providing a platform. You seem to forget that anyone who crosses the U.S government is hunted/persecuted worldwide, whatever their nationality. But if you don't see that as an 'overreach' you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[Oxymoron]

A bunch of dirty stuff went down in those Wars. Still does. Agreed.....
Yet.....
Should someone be considered a whistleblower if they copy the US Government server and send it overseas?

He didn't as far as I know. He selected information and copied the information. No information has been published which 'aids the enemy'. It was about exposing excesses and wrongdoing. He is a whistleblower, not a traitor afaiac and many others too.

 

[Soulfly]

I'll never forget him as the pathetic little man he is. I hope he enjoys military prison!

 

[Oxymoron]

Did you know that before any of this happened, his commanding officer had had the bolt removed from his gun, because he was considered a suicide risk? The Army should have sent him home long before this happened, they failed him, in not doing that. He was troubled, and had a bad history of 'problems. I understand that a lot of the 'mistreatment' was linked to him being considered suicidal.

I can hear you and others screaming if he had not been properly kept from committing suicide. It would have been great fuel for the conspiracy folks and it would have been negligence on the part of the Army.

His relationship with his father was apparently good, but there were problems between Manning and his stepmother. In March 2006 he reportedly threatened her with a knife during an argument about his failure to get another job; she called the police and he was asked to leave the house. He drove to Tulsa in a pick-up truck his father had given him, at first sleeping in it, then moving in with a friend from school. ...
Manning went through basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, but six weeks after enlisting was sent to the discharge unit. He was allegedly being bullied, and in the opinion of another soldier was having a breakdown. The soldier told The Guardian: "The kid was barely five foot ... He was a runt, so pick on him. He's crazy, pick on him. He's a faggot, pick on him. The guy took it from every side. He couldn't please anyone." Denver Nicks writes that Manning, who was used to being bullied, fought back – if the drill sergeants screamed at him, he would scream at them – to the point where they started calling him "General Manning."[18]

The decision to discharge him was revoked, and he started basic training again in January 2008. After graduating in April, he moved to Fort Huachuca, Arizona, where he trained as an intelligence analyst, receiving a TS/SCI security clearance (Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information). According to Nicks, this security clearance, combined with the digitization of classified information and the government's policy of sharing it widely, gave Manning access to an unprecedented amount of material. Nicks writes that he was reprimanded while at Fort Huachuca for posting three video messages to friends on YouTube, in which he described the inside of the "Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility" (SCIF) where he worked. ...
Back at Fort Drum, he continued to display emotional problems and, by August 2009, had been referred to an Army mental-health counselor. A friend told Nicks that Manning could be emotionally fraught, describing an evening they had watched two movies together – The Last King of Scotland and Dancer in the Dark – after which Manning cried for hours. By September 2009, his relationship with Watkins was in trouble, and although they reconciled for a short time, it was effectively over. ...
After four weeks at the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) in Fort Polk, Louisiana, he was deployed to Forward Operating Base Hammer, near Baghdad, arriving in October 2009. From his workstation there, he had access to SIPRNet (the Secure Internet Protocol Router Network) and JWICS (the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System). Two of his superiors had discussed not taking him to Iraq – it was felt he was "a risk to himself and possibly others," according to a statement later issued by the army – but again the shortage of intelligence analysts held sway. ...
On December 20, 2009, after being told he would lose his one day off a week for being persistently late, he overturned a table in a conference room and damaging a computer that was sitting on it before his arms were pinned behind his back. Several witnesses to the incident believed his access to sensitive material ought to have been withdrawn at that point. The following month, he began posting on Facebook that he felt alone and hopeless. ...
On April 30, he posted on Facebook that he was utterly lost, and over the next few days that "Bradley Manning is not a piece of equipment," that he was "beyond frustrated," and "livid" after being "lectured by ex-boyfriend despite months of relationship ambiguity ..." On May 7, he seemed to spiral out of control. According to army witnesses, he was found curled into a fetal position in a storage cupboard, with a knife at his feet, and had cut the words "I want" into a vinyl chair. A few hours later he had an altercation with a female intelligence analyst, Specialist Jihrleah Showman, during which he punched her in the face. The brigade psychiatrist recommended a discharge, referring to an "occupational problem and adjustment disorder." His master sergeant removed the bolt from his weapon, and he was sent to work in the supply office, though at this point his security clearance remained in place. He was demoted from Specialist to Private First Class just three days before his arrest on May 27. ...

Content from external source

It is amazing how much 'information' gets published when it backs the government and discredits its detractors. The U.S government is so 'open' and 'informative' and 'friendly'... when it wants. How nice.

Not so forthcoming when it comes to telling the truth about its regime change policies or spying on the general public or its rapacity for warmongering and disinformation though is it?

 

[Sticky Fingers]

He didn't as far as I know. He selected information and copied the information. No information has been published which 'aids the enemy'. It was about exposing excesses and wrongdoing. He is a whistleblower, not a traitor afaiac and many others too.

"He selected information and copied the information".

The question I have is how do you selectively copy 700,000 documents?

 

[Oxymoron]

"He selected information and copied the information".

The question I have is how do you selectively copy 700,000 documents?

In fact much of it was already in the public domain.

Posters on this site should understand. Many theories are put forward and the cry goes up, 'Where is the evidence', 'That is just someone saying something, where is the paperwork etc... the proof'. Like Snowden, he needed the proof otherwise it is just another unsupported allegation. You cannot have it both ways.

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/7/10/testifying_for_bradley_mannings_defense_ex

Defense attorneys for Army Private Bradley Manning are trying this week to show that much of the information he is charged with leaking was already publicly available. At his ongoing court-martial, Manning’s lawyers filed four motions on Tuesday asking for a "not guilty" verdict, arguing the government has not been able to prove he committed espionage or other offenses. The leaked files include assessment briefs for more than 700 prisoners at the Guantánamo Bay prison. On Monday, Manning’s attorneys began by playing the video he leaked of U.S. forces shooting and killing Iraqi civilians from a helicopter in 2007. The prosecution had sought to block the video from airing in court, calling it, quote, "not relevant." Lawyers also submitted a transcript published in the book The Good Soldiers to show that the video had already been circulated before Manning made it public. Manning’s defense also asked the court to drop a number of charges, including aiding the enemy. During his pretrial hearing at Fort Meade in February, Manning acknowledged he gave the classified documents to WikiLeaks and said he wanted people to learn from his revelation.

Content from external source

 

[Sticky Fingers]

In fact much of it was already in the public domain.

Posters on this site should understand. Many theories are put forward and the cry goes up, 'Where is the evidence', 'That is just someone saying something, where is the paperwork etc... the proof'. Like Snowden, he needed the proof otherwise it is just another unsupported allegation. You cannot have it both ways.

Ultimately that is irrelevant. The US Government does some crazy and illegal stuff. Agreed.

So we are going to now redefine whistleblower status to say that anyone who steals/copies close to a million Government documents
and throws them out there- in the hopes that something sticks - is now a whistleblower????????

Snowden actually has much more of a case to be made.
And I will reserve judgement on it because it is early and we don't know everything.

Manning? I'm sure he wishes he had that one back.............

 

[Alchemist]

 

[Sticky Fingers]

theeAlchemist....

"The public has been very misled about Manning, I would say," Ellsberg says. "They talk about his being indiscriminate. That's simply false. Like me and like Snowden, he had access to communications intelligence higher than top secret. He gave none of that out."
Since The Guardian's exposés, based on information obtained from Snowden, first broke in June, "the whole focus has been on the risks of truth telling, the risks of openness, which are the risks of democracy, of separation of powers," Ellsberg says.
"I've really heard nothing at all about the risks of a closed society, of silence, of lies," he says.

Content from external source

Ellsberg was from a completely different generation.
Where you had to do things the old fashioned way.
Not just copy a disc or stick in a flashdrive.

Manning had access probably to alot of stuff.
And it doesn't appear this 'plan' was really thought out too well.
Ellsberg is commenting as a horse and buggy man in a Jet Age.
He never stole close to a million documents.
Back then you would have probably needed a truck.

Soooo.........................
I respect what he did.

But...............

An opinion based on principle that needs to be reconciled to the 21st Century.
And instant data transfer.
God doesn't love dinosaurs......................................... hehehlolol

 

[David Fraser]

@Oxymoron Just testing this tagging lark but what did you think of the sentence of 35 years? That always sounds harsh but real terms just over 7. I could not see him getting the full whack but given his age he has not done to bad.

 

[Oxymoron]

@Oxymoron Just testing this tagging lark but what did you think of the sentence of 35 years? That always sounds harsh but real terms just over 7. I could not see him getting the full whack but given his age he has not done to bad.

Tagging works perfectly. Is it in real terms a 7 year sentence? Does the time he has spent in custody count as part of the sentence?

 

[David Fraser]

Tagging works perfectly. Is it in real terms a 7 year sentence? Does the time he has spent in custody count as part of the sentence?

Yes. He got a little extra added to time served as well. The US system seems a little more complex than the UK but he should be out in 7 (maybe 8 dependant on news source).

 

[Oxymoron]

Yes. He got a little extra added to time served as well. The US system seems a little more complex than the UK but he should be out in 7 (maybe 8 dependant on news source).

Thanks. I think that is good news. I thought when they said 35 years they meant 35 years. I don't understand their system of sentencing... all this 650 years or even 150 years etc seems a nonsense to me.

I still think it excessive but nowhere near as draconian as I thought. It is a difficult case because of the wide ranging implications.

 

[pseacraft]

I think you will find that he will do the full term of 35 years and rightfully so. No one to my knowledge who has committed espionage as ever been released early with the exception of the Soviet spies in the Cold War Spy vs Spy trades ala Check Point Charlie. Personally, he only got his little pee pee slapped, he deserves a bullet but so do a lot of other misguided individuals who leaked materials they swore an oath to protect and/or sold out.

 

[Oxymoron]

I think you will find that he will do the full term of 35 years and rightfully so. No one to my knowledge who has committed espionage as ever been released early with the exception of the Soviet spies in the Cold War Spy vs Spy trades ala Check Point Charlie. Personally, he only got his little pee pee slapped, he deserves a bullet but so do a lot of other misguided individuals who leaked materials they swore an oath to protect and/or sold out.

It is good to know where people are coming from so thanks for your honesty in posting your view. I get the impression that many debunkers, (not all), hold similar types of view but prefer to hold them close to their chest and their views/motivations can only perceived by examining their debunking strategy.

Is there any substantive indication as to how long he will serve, (i.e. sentencing recommendations)?

Of course if there is sufficient unrest and political change as many hope for, Manning could become another cause célèbre like Nelson Mandela.

 

[pseacraft]

I think he will be quickly and quietly forgotten by the masses. There are several folks in a similar boat as him that have had governments of alleged allies lobby on their behalf all for not. This will remain the status quo. Many want to believe Manning is a hero but those whose lives he put at risk, on both sides of the coin he is far from it. A man is nothing when he breaks an oath because all we are in the end is what our word/honor is, where as Mandela was a true political prisonner who never wavered for his cause nor offered excuses.

 

[Oxymoron]

I think he will be quickly and quietly forgotten by the masses. There are several folks in a similar boat as him that have had governments of alleged allies lobby on their behalf all for not. This will remain the status quo. Many want to believe Manning is a hero but those whose lives he put at risk, on both sides of the coin he is far from it. A man is nothing when he breaks an oath because all we are in the end is what our word/honor is, where as Mandela was a true political prisonner who never wavered for his cause nor offered excuses.

So which bits of leaked info do you think most put lives at risk? Top 2 or 3 would be good.

And I am interested to know when in your opinion it is ok, if at all, to break official secrets oaths?

Perhaps a couple of examples:

If you witness state sanctioned murder or torture? Yes/No
If you had evidence of a false flag op? Yes/No
If you had evidence that a war/wars was/were being being planned on false allegations/evidence? Yes/No

 

[pseacraft]

Which bits? no comment

When is it 'ok' to betray your country? Never period, that is the point of it.

 

[Oxymoron]

Which bits? no comment

When is it 'ok' to betray your country? Never period, that is the point of it.

So you don't know which parts of the leaked info "put peoples lives in danger"?

And anything your government does is ok with you is it? Even illegal wars, nuking people, murdering civilians, chemical/biological weapons, torture, police state, the works?

I suggest (and so does the Constitution), that not to stand up against corruption and abuse of power from 'without or within' is the real treason.

What Manning exposed was torture and murder and corruption. That makes him a whistleblower, a hero and worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize, (if it had any value after being desecrated by being awarded to the likes of Kissinger and Obama).

http://tvnewslies.org/html/all_enemies__foreign_and_domes.html

All Enemies, Foreign and DomesticPrinted without permission - November, 2004 - TvNewsLIES.org
This article was written by Sean T Lewis for Buzzflash.com. You can view the original here.

• 
  Therefore, I stand today opposed to my President, and the anti-American, un-Constitutional, unpatriotic Administration for which he serves as figurehead. I will do my part to voice my opposition, educate the populace, diligently support my political causes, and work with others to restore American freedoms to their former glory.

Veterans Day 2004: All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic

"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."

Millions have spoken these or similar words upon enlistment in the Armed Forces of the United States. Most were US citizens, but many were not. Many were volunteers, while others were draftees. Most were men, but many were women. Since the founding of the Continental Army in 1775, the United States military has drawn on people of every race, cultural heritage, religion, and sex to serve the nation in providing for the "common defense". I am one of these millions, and although it has been sixteen years since I first spoke the words of the oath of enlistment, they have stayed with me.

Content from external source

 

[pseacraft]

No comment because I am not as stupid as you would like me to be. I will neither confirm nor deny anything what so ever of the materials that individual or another of his ilk has or will distribute unlawfully.

You may 'suggest' but then you are wrong in so doing, as the US's Armed Forces "oath of enlistment" is not the same as what you termed "official secrets oath". It is called a "Non-Disclosure Agreement" and it clearly outlines the implications of violation of said signed agreement.

 

[Oxymoron]

No comment because I am not as stupid as you would like me to be. I will neither confirm nor deny anything what so ever of the materials that individual or another of his ilk has or will distribute unlawfully.

You may 'suggest' but then you are wrong in so doing, as the US's Armed Forces "oath of enlistment" is not the same as what you termed "official secrets oath". It is called a "Non-Disclosure Agreement" and it clearly outlines the implications of violation of said signed agreement.

Yep, they call it the Official Secrets Act in the U.K... amounts to the same thing.

(a) Enlistment Oath.— Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:
"I, XXXXXXXXXX, 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."
(b) Who May Administer.— The oath may be taken before the President, the Vice-President, the Secretary of Defense, any commissioned officer, or any other person designated under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.

Content from external source

Like I said, once you make that oath... anything goes then, even though it clearly states "against all enemies, foreign and domestic"? Thought you would have had that seared into your brain as it appears to mean so much to you... if you had been enlisted and therefore compelled to take the oath.

 

[David Fraser]

Yep, they call it the Official Secrets Act in the U.K... amounts to the same thing.

Like I said, once you make that oath... anything goes then?

Sorry to be pedantic but the Official Secrets Act applies to the whole population. If you work in a government department you may be required sign a reminder of your obligations.