Well if NIXON is the benchmark,

I do believe Truman proposed it also.

My hunch is it goes further back, maybe as far as T.R.

because in the mid-late 1800's Bismark instituted

National Health and Dental care for Germans.

It was a topic of discussion back then.

Churchill admired it way back in his youthier time.

I guess lots of us are

Going To Hear It At EA First

Riverwind (imported) wrote: Mon Jul 29, 2013 7:20 pm OK Moi just because you know soooooo much, who was the first president to suggest national health care?

River

We, Moi, nay all EA Nation are waiting.

moi621 (imported) wrote: Tue Feb 19, 2013 6:49 pm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, On The Happy Front. GOOD NEWS.

The Government / Military Railroad has been Derailed .

Bravo !

There is yet hope for the Fourth Amendment.

http://news.yahoo.com/bradley-manning-a ... 53159.html

Bradley Manning acquitted of aiding the enemy

FORT MEADE, Md. (AP) — U.S. Army Pfc. Bradley Manning was acquitted of aiding the enemy — the most serious charge he faced — but was convicted of espionage, theft and other charges Tuesday, more than three years after he spilled secrets to WikiLeaks.

The judge, Army Col. Denise Lind, deliberated for about 16 hours over three days before reaching her decision in a case that drew worldwide attention as supporters hailed Manning as a whistleblower. The U.S. government called him an anarchist computer hacker and attention-seeking traitor.

<edit>

FREE BRADLEY MANNING !

"No oath or contract is valid when instructed to do something illegal", Moi

Wise words that differentiate Americans from Nazis.

Moi

FREEDOM & Liberty above security

Or what are we securing?

So how many years did he get? anything under 20+ is not enough for the little bastard.

River

Update, he still faces over 130 years for the crimes he has already been found guilty of.

River

moi621 (imported) wrote: Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:43 pm We, Moi, nay all EA Nation are waiting.

moi621 (imported) wrote: Tue Feb 19, 2013 6:49 pm -------------------------------------

moi621 (imported) wrote: Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:43 pm --------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, On The Happy Front. GOOD NEWS.

The Government / Military Railroad has been Derailed .

There is yet hope for the Fourth Amendment.

http://news.yahoo.com/bradley-manning-a ... y-17185315

9.html

Bradley Manning acquitted of aiding the enemy

Moi, it was a military trial, they don't use the constitution or the 4th amendment they use the UCMJ, something you have no clue of.

River

The charge of "aiding the enemy" has its origins in the US Code. Manning may have been on trial in a Court Martial and that charge is in the UCMJ but it's origins goes way back into the last century -- 1917 to be precise.

Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 and your have to scroll down to the 21st century. The Act has quite a colorful history. There are some eye-opening cases in the writeup.

That act implies "intent" to harm the United States or its armies, and/or the "intent" to "promote the success of the enemy" and it carries the death penalty.

I think Bradley Manning deserves about 20 years in jail but not the death penalty. The prosecution argument was that since they found some of the leaked cables in Osama Bin Laden's computer in Abbotobad (spelling) that Manning deserves the death penalty. That's not "intent" as the law defines it. Delivering information to the enemy wasn't Bradley Manning's "intent" and couldn't have been with the way it the documents were leaked to Assange and WIKILEAKS.

There's lots of crimes in that indictment and Bradley Manning is guilty of quite a number of them. Dumbest thing he ever did.

But not the one that carries the death penalty.

Wikipedia has a convenient list of charges. It's quite extensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ch ... ey_Manning

i came back to add: THink of the movie "A FEW GOOD MEN" - in the end, the two soldiers are acquitted of the murder charges but they are dishonorably discharged from the army on the basis of bad conduct. That's the difference between using the UCMJ and the Criminal Courts. Some of those charges against Manning are almost no contest to prove.

He THREW himself on the mercy of the Judge.

She was a blonde...

Moi, you can never understand what it is to be in the military, you only make yourself look bad by trying. Bradley broke the code, his oath of office, he let down everybody who has ever served, because he was having a bad hair day. This is not like A Few Good Men, that was a movie based on hype and would never take place, this is real. Hollywood does not and never has based there work on reality and this is why you will never understand.

River

I have no question in my mind that Manning disobeyed orders, didn't follow procedures, broke security rules, lied, and all sorts of additional wrong things that are going to get him about 20 years in prison. My only point above was that the Death Penalty charge was an overreach and I do know that the severity of that charge is at prosecutor's discretion.

Remember that a big difference between Manning and Snowden is that Manning was military and Snowden was a civilian contractor. That's a huge difference in the cases.

No oath or contract is binding when it involves illegal activity.

So sayeth

Moi

Truthspaker

moi621 (imported) wrote: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:42 pm No oath or contract is binding when it involves illegal activity.

So sayeth

Moi

Truthspaker

OK truthspaker, lets try this,

Your a Doctor in a hospital and you decide that the Hippa laws are all wrong and that everybodys information should be public, so you steel them then have them published for everybody to see, (note you don't like the Hippa laws) also you don't like the way charges are made so you expose the high prices hospitals charge, the doctors fees for giving an aspirin etc, but you know it is all wrong so its ok that you tell about every person who has been treated for the last 10 years, and nothing should should be done because the hospital is wrong in that it requires insurance to treat a person no exceptions.

But as a doctor you took an oath not to do harm, when you took employment at the hospital you signed an agreement to keep the patients history private but your special and can do anything you like because you are above the law and because you don't like that law you can ignore it. (kind of like ignoring the law about using pot).

OK Moi, what would happen to such a doctor?

The reason I put this to you is that you have never been in the military and therefor feel justified to judge that origination's standards and practices.

Please now make a case that such a doctor should go free without any consequences, that he should be able to continue to practice in that hospital without recourse and should not be held criminally responsible for his actions of exposing all patients records because he doesn't like secrets.

Don't loose sight of the fact that Bradley Manning took documents away from the workplace like a common thief.

River