greyseal
08-07-2013, 08:09 AM
The charges and the court proceeding should be overturned for lack of jurisdiction, both personal, and venue (place of trial). Listed below are the charges against Bradley Manning from Wikipedia. All the charges stem from violations of the UCMJ, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which has absolutely nothing to do with a person in the Military.
Wikipedia Contents
[hide]
• 1 Charges
o 1.1 Listed by alleged code violation
o 1.2 Listed by document
o 1.3 Listed in the order given on the charge sheets
1.3.1 First set of charges (2010)
1.3.1.1 Charge 1: Violation of UCMJ Article 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation)
1.3.1.2 Charge 2: Violation of UCMJ Article 134 (General article)
1.3.2 Second set of charges (2011)
1.3.2.1 Additional Charge 1: Violation of UCMJ Article 104 (Aiding the enemy)
1.3.2.2 Additional Charge 2: Violation of UCMJ Article 134 (General article)
1.3.2.3 Additional Charge 3: Violation of UCMJ Article 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation)
___________________________________________
Congress duty bound to regulate the Military, both in war and in peace, wrote the Army Field Manual. In time of declared war, the last being W.W.2.
According to the Army Field Manual a person in the military, in times of war, could be tried in a military court, due to the circumstances, for expediency.
The exception being without a declared war, the defendant was to be tried in a Court of law, with a jury.
The major break from the rigid requirement of the Army Field Manual occurred in 1801-02, to address personnel that were not in the military, but might commit a crime while accompanying the military.
History;
The Army Field Manual and the creation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ and the MCA) for non-military personnel.
Colonel Jonathan Williams
President Adams appointed Williams a major in the Corps of Artillerists and Engineers in February 1801 and President Jefferson made him the Army's Inspector of Fortifications and assigned him to lead the new Military Academy at West Point in December 1801. The following year Jefferson appointed him to command the separate Corps of Engineers established by Congress on March 16, 1802.
(note)
Mr. Jefferson, didn’t dissolve the Army, he created a military appendage. The Army Field Manual was not modified by section 1342 listed below, section 1342, modified the 1802 Act, dated March 16 1802, it eliminated the Military, it was codified on Aug. 29, 1916, c. 18, § 3, 39 Stat. 650.) amended in 1948, by the Elston Act.
___________________________________
(comment) This secretary of war was not the military; this office secured military weapons for the military.
HENRY L. STIMSON, the Secretary of War, to the Military Committee, House of Representatives,
In a letter submitted by HENRY L. STIMSON, the Secretary of War, to the Military Committee, House of Representatives, stated the purpose for the needed change.
WAR DEPARTMENT,
OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL,
Washington, April 12, 1912.
The SECRETARY OF WAR.
SIR: I have the honor to submit herewith a project of revision of
section 1342 of the Revised Statutes-the Articles of War-and to
request that, in the form in which approved by you, it be transmitted
to the Congress with a request for its enactment. The necessity for revision will be best understood by a preliminary reference to the history of the present articles.
1. not reproduced (really long)
2. not reproduced
3. not reproduced
4. Articles 1, 10, 11, 12, 29, 30, 36, 37, 53, 76, 87, and 101 of the
existing code have been omitted. Some of these articles have never
met any real need in our *service, and may for all practical purposes be
regarded as obsolete; others embrace only matters properly within
the field of Army Regulations.
The Military is omitted by section 1342 of the articles of war.
OLD ARTICLES OF WAR OMITTED FROM THE PROPOSED REVISION.
ARTICLE 1. Every officer now in the Army of the United States shall,
within six months from the passing of this act, and every officer hereafter
appointed shall, before he enters upon the duties of his office, subscribe these
rules and articles.
Section 1342 of the Articles of War, eliminated the Military, the Articles were codified Aug. 29, 1916, c. 18, § 3, 39 Stat. 650.) Philippine Islands.
_________________________________________________
IN 1948; the (Elston Act) modified section 1342 by section 47 of said Act
“[… That section 1342 of the Revised Statutes of-the United States be and the same is hereby repealed, and all laws and parts of laws insofar as they are inconsistent with this act are hereby repealed .]
The request for the change came from the “*Bureau of Budget“(*Commodity Credit Corporation).
The Elston Act, modifying section 1342, became the UCMJ.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice, was reenacted by Congress in 1950,
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 47 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 801
Source (Statutes at Large)
801 50:551 (less (9)). May 5, 1950, ch. 169, § 1 (Art. 1 (less (9))), 64 Stat. 108.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice of 1950, 64 Stat. 107, as amended by the Military Justice Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 1335, 10 U.S.C. Sec. 801 et seq. For prior acts, see 12 Stat. 736 (1863); 39 Stat. 650 (1916).
May 5 1950 chapter . 169, 64 Stat. 108, later codified by Act of Aug. 10, 1956,
effective in 1951, , later codified by Act of Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 1, 36, and now, as amended, 10 U.S.C. $5 801-940 .
Jurisdiction of the MCA
Section 38, act June 15, 1917, ch. 30, title I, § 7, 40 Stat. 219, related to jurisdiction of courts-martial and military commissions.
50 USC § 195. ‘‘United States’’ defined
The term ‘‘United States’’ as used in this Act includes all territory and waters, continental or
insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. (June 15, 1917, ch. 30, title XIII, § 1, 40 Stat. 231; Pub. L. 96–70, title III, § 3302(b), Sept. 27, 1979, 93 Stat. 498.)
(question) Is this all archaic history, lost to a bygone era? Hardly, here’s a recent law that makes the distinction. The Department of Defense is the former War Department, still not the military.
Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title XIV, §§ 1402, 1405, 1406, Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3475, 3476, 3479, provided that:
“SEC. 1402. UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR THE INTERROGATION OF PERSONS UNDER THE DETENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
“(a) In General.—No person in the custody or under the effective control of the *Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.
“(b) Applicability.—Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to any person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense pursuant to a criminal law or immigration law of the United States.
“(c) Construction.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the rights under the United States Constitution of any person in the custody or under the physical jurisdiction of the United States.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The only conclusion that can be drawn from the above Public Law is that the Department of Defense does not have to abide by the Army Field Manual, because the Department of Defense is not the military. Bradley Manning is being charged by the Department of Defense, in clear violation of the law. The UCMJ has no jurisdiction in the several states, much less against a person in the military. He’s entitled to a trial in a court of law, with a jury.
Wikipedia Contents
[hide]
• 1 Charges
o 1.1 Listed by alleged code violation
o 1.2 Listed by document
o 1.3 Listed in the order given on the charge sheets
1.3.1 First set of charges (2010)
1.3.1.1 Charge 1: Violation of UCMJ Article 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation)
1.3.1.2 Charge 2: Violation of UCMJ Article 134 (General article)
1.3.2 Second set of charges (2011)
1.3.2.1 Additional Charge 1: Violation of UCMJ Article 104 (Aiding the enemy)
1.3.2.2 Additional Charge 2: Violation of UCMJ Article 134 (General article)
1.3.2.3 Additional Charge 3: Violation of UCMJ Article 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation)
___________________________________________
Congress duty bound to regulate the Military, both in war and in peace, wrote the Army Field Manual. In time of declared war, the last being W.W.2.
According to the Army Field Manual a person in the military, in times of war, could be tried in a military court, due to the circumstances, for expediency.
The exception being without a declared war, the defendant was to be tried in a Court of law, with a jury.
The major break from the rigid requirement of the Army Field Manual occurred in 1801-02, to address personnel that were not in the military, but might commit a crime while accompanying the military.
History;
The Army Field Manual and the creation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ and the MCA) for non-military personnel.
Colonel Jonathan Williams
President Adams appointed Williams a major in the Corps of Artillerists and Engineers in February 1801 and President Jefferson made him the Army's Inspector of Fortifications and assigned him to lead the new Military Academy at West Point in December 1801. The following year Jefferson appointed him to command the separate Corps of Engineers established by Congress on March 16, 1802.
(note)
Mr. Jefferson, didn’t dissolve the Army, he created a military appendage. The Army Field Manual was not modified by section 1342 listed below, section 1342, modified the 1802 Act, dated March 16 1802, it eliminated the Military, it was codified on Aug. 29, 1916, c. 18, § 3, 39 Stat. 650.) amended in 1948, by the Elston Act.
___________________________________
(comment) This secretary of war was not the military; this office secured military weapons for the military.
HENRY L. STIMSON, the Secretary of War, to the Military Committee, House of Representatives,
In a letter submitted by HENRY L. STIMSON, the Secretary of War, to the Military Committee, House of Representatives, stated the purpose for the needed change.
WAR DEPARTMENT,
OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL,
Washington, April 12, 1912.
The SECRETARY OF WAR.
SIR: I have the honor to submit herewith a project of revision of
section 1342 of the Revised Statutes-the Articles of War-and to
request that, in the form in which approved by you, it be transmitted
to the Congress with a request for its enactment. The necessity for revision will be best understood by a preliminary reference to the history of the present articles.
1. not reproduced (really long)
2. not reproduced
3. not reproduced
4. Articles 1, 10, 11, 12, 29, 30, 36, 37, 53, 76, 87, and 101 of the
existing code have been omitted. Some of these articles have never
met any real need in our *service, and may for all practical purposes be
regarded as obsolete; others embrace only matters properly within
the field of Army Regulations.
The Military is omitted by section 1342 of the articles of war.
OLD ARTICLES OF WAR OMITTED FROM THE PROPOSED REVISION.
ARTICLE 1. Every officer now in the Army of the United States shall,
within six months from the passing of this act, and every officer hereafter
appointed shall, before he enters upon the duties of his office, subscribe these
rules and articles.
Section 1342 of the Articles of War, eliminated the Military, the Articles were codified Aug. 29, 1916, c. 18, § 3, 39 Stat. 650.) Philippine Islands.
_________________________________________________
IN 1948; the (Elston Act) modified section 1342 by section 47 of said Act
“[… That section 1342 of the Revised Statutes of-the United States be and the same is hereby repealed, and all laws and parts of laws insofar as they are inconsistent with this act are hereby repealed .]
The request for the change came from the “*Bureau of Budget“(*Commodity Credit Corporation).
The Elston Act, modifying section 1342, became the UCMJ.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice, was reenacted by Congress in 1950,
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 47 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 801
Source (Statutes at Large)
801 50:551 (less (9)). May 5, 1950, ch. 169, § 1 (Art. 1 (less (9))), 64 Stat. 108.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice of 1950, 64 Stat. 107, as amended by the Military Justice Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 1335, 10 U.S.C. Sec. 801 et seq. For prior acts, see 12 Stat. 736 (1863); 39 Stat. 650 (1916).
May 5 1950 chapter . 169, 64 Stat. 108, later codified by Act of Aug. 10, 1956,
effective in 1951, , later codified by Act of Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 1, 36, and now, as amended, 10 U.S.C. $5 801-940 .
Jurisdiction of the MCA
Section 38, act June 15, 1917, ch. 30, title I, § 7, 40 Stat. 219, related to jurisdiction of courts-martial and military commissions.
50 USC § 195. ‘‘United States’’ defined
The term ‘‘United States’’ as used in this Act includes all territory and waters, continental or
insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. (June 15, 1917, ch. 30, title XIII, § 1, 40 Stat. 231; Pub. L. 96–70, title III, § 3302(b), Sept. 27, 1979, 93 Stat. 498.)
(question) Is this all archaic history, lost to a bygone era? Hardly, here’s a recent law that makes the distinction. The Department of Defense is the former War Department, still not the military.
Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title XIV, §§ 1402, 1405, 1406, Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3475, 3476, 3479, provided that:
“SEC. 1402. UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR THE INTERROGATION OF PERSONS UNDER THE DETENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
“(a) In General.—No person in the custody or under the effective control of the *Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.
“(b) Applicability.—Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to any person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense pursuant to a criminal law or immigration law of the United States.
“(c) Construction.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the rights under the United States Constitution of any person in the custody or under the physical jurisdiction of the United States.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The only conclusion that can be drawn from the above Public Law is that the Department of Defense does not have to abide by the Army Field Manual, because the Department of Defense is not the military. Bradley Manning is being charged by the Department of Defense, in clear violation of the law. The UCMJ has no jurisdiction in the several states, much less against a person in the military. He’s entitled to a trial in a court of law, with a jury.