Government Adds 22 Charges Against Bradley Manning

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Wed Mar 02, 2011 at 06:32:01 PM EST
Tags: Bradley Manning, Wikileaks (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Private Bradley Manning's criminal case just got a lot more difficult. The Government has added 22 new charges, including one, aiding the enemy, that provides for a life sentence (Actually, it also could result in a death sentence, but the Government has said it won't seek the death penalty. How gracious of them.)

He was charged in May with 12 counts of illegally downloading and sharing classified material, including a secret video and military and diplomatic documents.

The new charges include allegations he used "unauthorized software on government computers to download classified information and to make intelligence available to "the enemy". [More...]

Here's what he's accused of leaking, according to the BBC:

More than 380,000 records from a database of military records from the Iraq war
*90,000 records from a database of Afghan war files
250,000 records from a US state department diplomatic database
75 classified US state department cables, including one titled "Reykjavik-13"
A video file named "12 JUL 07 CZ ENGAGEMENT ZONE 30 GC"

Here's the military press release on the charges:

These charges allege that as a Military Intelligence Analyst, Manning introduced unauthorized software onto government computers to extract classified information, unlawfully downloaded it, improperly stored it, and transmitted the data for public release and use by the enemy.

The press release lists the charges as:

Aiding the enemy in violation of Article 104, Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)

16 Specifications under Article 134, UCMJ:

Wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the internet knowing that it will be accessed by the enemy (One Specification)

Theft of Public Property or Records, in violation of 18 United States Code (U.S.C.) 641 (Five Specifications)

Transmitting Defense Information, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 793(e) (Eight Specifications)

Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Computers in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(1) (Two Specifications)

Five specifications in violation of Article 92, UCMJ, for violating Army Regulations 25-2 “Information Assurance” and 380-5 “Department of the Army Information Security Program.”

As to the penalties:

If convicted of all charges, Pvt. 1st Class Manning would face a maximum punishment of reduction to the lowest enlisted pay grade, E-1; total forfeiture of all pay and allowances; confinement for life; and a dishonorable discharge.

The actual charge sheet is here.

Who is the "enemy" they are referring to? The Guardian reports that according to Manning's lawyer:

"Enemy" is defined as including "any other hostile body that our forces may be opposing," such as a rebellious mob or a band of renegades, and includes civilians as well as members of military organisations.

MSNBC reports:

Pentagon and military officials say some of the classified information released by WikiLeaks contained the names of informants and others who had cooperated with U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, endangering their lives.

According to the officials, the U.S. military rounded up many of those named and brought them into their bases for protection. But, according to one military official, "We didn't get them all." Military officials tell NBC News a small number of them still have not been found.

Manning's lawyer says he remains in solitary and under an "injury watch." The government has not yet responded to the Article 138 Complaint he filed in January.

< Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread: On the Cover of the Rolling Stone | FL Supreme Court To Hear Arguments Today On Compelling Rick Scott To Take The Money >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Government Adds 22 Charges Against Bradley Manning | 56 comments (56 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Ah yes.... (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by Dadler on Wed Mar 02, 2011 at 07:50:03 PM EST

...the military says he released names of people who worked with us and whose security was compromised. Every military brass who parrots this cowardly bullsh*t oughtta have his balls shave then rubbed with paint thinner. YOU AS*HOLES WAGED THESE WRETCHED ACTS OF MASS MURDER! And you don't have the nad, the manhood, the basic humanity to stand up and say "Gimme a break, we own this war, those informants are in trouble because we've been motherf*cking idiots for the last decade."

This country is dying faster than I thought it would. I beg my brother every chance I get to get himself outta that piece of sh*t, lies-and-abuses-its-employees-every-hour-of-every-day organization.

Disgusting. Hell, this nation is so far gone I have no doubt the government of Barack Obama, of all American ironies, would be on the wrong side of Martin Luther King on virtually EVERY issue.

: heh (none / 0) (#7)
by Wile ECoyote on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 05:33:36 AM EST

Every military brass who parrots this cowardly bullsh*t oughtta have his balls shave then rubbed with paint thinner.
Lemme guess, you learned that at a Common Cause meeting.
Oh, the fuax outrage that you would have had had someone said that with which you disagreed.

: hmmm (none / 0) (#13)
by jbindc on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 11:12:34 AM EST

Hell, this nation is so far gone I have no doubt the government of Barack Obama, of all American ironies, would be on the wrong side of Martin Luther King on virtually EVERY issue.
Adultery?

We the people are clearly (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by inclusiveheart on Wed Mar 02, 2011 at 08:34:27 PM EST

the so-called "enemy".

It is hard to believe that it has really come to that. Not that we haven't been here before at some level in the history of this country, but it seems bigger and more ominous to me right now. Maybe because I am living though this time rather than reading about it, but what's scary is that there seems to be a level of organizational and technological ability that makes this control over the people less noticeable and therefore more effective than past campaigns against a citizenry.

The Real Charges SHould be... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 08:47:58 AM EST

... embarrassing some really connected people and being made the example.

It would save the governemnt a whole lot of dough trying to prove a bunch on non-sense.

Aiding the enemy... don't I do that every time I fill up the gas tank ? Is there some kind of enemy list and how do they know those enemies are reading WikiLeaks ?

That being said, what did this kid think was going to happen ? I can not imagine a scenario in which this kid sees the light of day, wrong or right, he had to know he was playing with fire.

He's so heartbreakingly young (none / 0) (#10)
by sj on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 09:06:27 AM EST

The reality of the consequences has to be very different from how he envisioned them. Age 22 is adult, but at that age I still felt invincible. I imagine he did, too.


yea... (none / 0) (#14)
by CST on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 11:37:33 AM EST

Aiding the enemy might be a step too far. I don't know... I just hope the trial will be open and fair. Although I'm not sure how possible that is with the deck stacked.

That being said, he wasn't just playing with matches. He was playing with grenades.

This is not the type of law breaking where there is a chance you won't get caught. The whole point is you are making information public. Therefore, you will be caught. And making an enemy of the U.S. state/defense departments doesn't seem like a path to getting off easy.

Being 22, maybe he wasn't thinking about it. Or maybe he was, and decided it was worth it.


Just based on the information (none / 0) (#15)
by jbindc on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 11:44:21 AM EST

in the charge - why is "aiding the enemy" too far a charge? If the government can show that Manning leaked classified documents that contained the names of US operations, and that al-Qaieda (or whomever is not friendly to us) can use that information to kill and torture our informants and military personnel (let alone possibly civilians) - why isn't that "aiding the enemy"?

Remember - this has nothing to do your (or anyone's) personal feelings about where or why our military are deployed. They are where they are for a reason. If he released information that could (or has - you don't know that either) hurt them, then "aiding the enemy" seems like a perfectly reasonable charge.

Now they just have to prove it.


If Bradley Manning "aided the enemy," (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Anne on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 12:37:23 PM EST

by leaking the information, what did the various media outlets do that published it? And how should the government handle that aspect?

Kevin Jon Heller (international law professor):

If Manning has aided the enemy, so has any media organization that published the information he allegedly stole. Nothing in Article 104 requires proof that the defendant illegally acquired the information that aided the enemy. As a result, if the mere act of ensuring that harmful information is published on the internet qualifies either as indirectly "giving intelligence to the enemy" (if the military can prove an enemy actually accessed the information) or as indirectly "communicating with the enemy" (because any reasonable person knows that enemies can access information on the internet), there is no relevant factual difference between Manning and a media organization that published the relevant information.

Glenn Greenwald:

As Heller notes, since the UCMJ applies only to members of the military, newspapers (or WikiLeaks) couldn't actually be charged under Article 104; still, "there is still something profoundly disturbing about the prospect of convicting Manning and sentencing him to life imprisonment [GG: or the death penalty] for doing exactly what media organizations did, as well." It's true that members of the military have legal duties that others do not have -- including the duty not to leak classified information -- but this incredibly expansive interpretation of what it means to "aid the enemy" dangerously encompasses all sorts of legitimate press and speech activities, especially when combined with the Obama administration's escalating war on whistle-blowing and the journalists who expose government secrets. This is yet another step in infecting the law with doctrines of Endless War and its accompanying mentality.

Does the military have the right to set rules for what its members can and cannot do with respect to the information in their control? Of course. But how these rules are being used and interpreted is also important, especially given the role the media has played in all of it. Are they getting a pass, or does the action against Manning portend any action against these outlets?

If the government is going to regard Manning as an enemy, what are the chances for investigative reporting to be conducted without fear that the government won't declare reporters to be enemies of the state? Ask James Risen what he thinks about that.

And how does that affect our ability, as citizens, to understand and have a voice in the policies and actions our government is undertaking in our names? Doesn't this increase the power of the government with little or no ability to check that power?


from my understanding (none / 0) (#21)
by CST on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 12:50:50 PM EST

the Uniform Code of Military Justice only applies to people serving in the military, or who are otherwise associated with/involved with military operations.

: oh.. just kidding (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by CST on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 12:52:21 PM EST

I finished reading your post, you mentioned that.

but I do think (none / 0) (#23)
by CST on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 12:54:49 PM EST

it's pretty clear that different standards apply to people once they sign their life away to the U.S. military.

Fair or no. But reporters are not, and should not ever be subject to the same rules. They did not sign on that dotted line relinquishing many of their rights.


How confident are you, in light of how the (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Anne on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 12:58:28 PM EST

Obama administration has been going after whistleblowers, that reporters will not be subject to similar standards?

I mean, what better way to shut down the exposure of the government's actions than to prosecute some reporters under laws with some pretty draconian consequences?

Speaking for myself, I'm not all that confident.


ok... but that's a different bridge (none / 0) (#25)
by CST on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 01:06:54 PM EST

If and when reporters are subject to those standards, that's when we cross it.

But that's not what's happening here. And I'm not convinced this is that "slippery slope". It's pretty clear to me that we hold people in the military to different standards.

And honestly, I don't see them going after reporters. Not after what's been happening in the middleeast. I don't think Obama wants any Mubarak comparisons. Plus, even if they were to try such a thing, I don't see a law like that surviving a supreme court challenge. If there is anything this court seems eager to protect these days it's free speech.


Exactly (none / 0) (#27)
by jbindc on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 01:13:19 PM EST

Manning willingly gave up some of his rights when he enlisted in the military - no one made him do it. Military justice does not work like civilian justice. He also knew that his future actions would be watched when he became an intelligent analyst -anyone with secret or top secret clearance has to watch their actions - it's not like that's kept from them.

And I don't buy the slippery slope argument either. I mean, why stop there? Why not go after the ISP providers that allowed them to post those stories? Why not go after the people that made the technology? How about the people that make the components?


He gave up rights, (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by sj on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 01:58:15 PM EST

but he didn't give up his conscience. That's where the difficulty lies. What a tragic, terrible choice that is to have to make.

Does one honor the spirit of the law when that action is in conflict with the letter of the law? Because it is the letter of the law that will be used to punish you.

Or do you just follow orders and try to ignore your conscience.


Yes (none / 0) (#33)
by jbindc on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 02:02:34 PM EST

But didn't he have other choices? He could have not enlisted, he could have asked to be transferred out of intelligence, he could talked to someone.

If he leaked these cables, this was not the action of first choice, unless of course, there was a different motive that we don't know about yet besides "conscience".


Tell me (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by sj on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 02:45:09 PM EST

how does one "un-enlist". You make it sound like he could go back in time once he finds the corruption and decay in his environment.

What does this:

If he leaked these cables, this was not the action of first choice,

have to do with this?

unless of course, there was a different motive that we don't know about yet besides "conscience".

I know what all those words mean, but as many times as I read it, those words together make no sense.

The so-called "other choices" you offer all involve leaving in place the corrupt status quo.

What he did may be criminal (and the government keeps piling on charges, which appears that they're hoping something will stick) but if we as a society all lay down and accept unjust laws because they're ... you know, the law... then we deserve what we get.

Frankly, I don't know that I have the strength of character to do what he did. Nor the foolhardiness -- that comes with youth I expect. And yes, he could have done other things. But he did what he did. Pre-convicting him without "all" the facts is just as blind as pre-exonerating with "all" the facts.


Money? (none / 0) (#45)
by jbindc on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 03:23:09 PM EST

oy (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by sj on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 03:37:08 PM EST

: I'll see your "oy" and (none / 0) (#54)
by Anne on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 03:52:17 PM EST

raise you a "seriously?"

sj, I think what it means is (none / 0) (#47)
by Anne on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 03:27:24 PM EST

that if he had these kinds of concerns about the US government, perhaps he should not have decided to enlist in the military in the first place.

But see, that presumes that he had these concerns before he joined up, and I don't know if we can make that assumption. While I am perfectly willing to be proved wrong, I suspect that his concerns developed because the behind-the-curtain look he was getting made a significant dent in what he believed about the government he was serving.

The nature of whistleblowing is that it always involves divulging "insider" information, going against company policies, or laws, so we can always say that the action was illegal in some way. In the case of the government, it is always going to use the law to punish those who are revealing something about its actions that it doesn't want exposed, or raising questions about its policies, and I think it is worth examining what those revelations are, and asking those questions, before throwing the book at the messenger.


It is a difficult decision (none / 0) (#39)
by CST on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 02:39:43 PM EST

Here's the thing - it should be difficult, because the consequences are great, and I'm not just talking about the arm of the law.

I guess where I struggle with all this, is I am unconvinced he actually did the right thing here. I think he was trying to do the right thing, but I don't think he was correct in determining what "the right thing" was.

Now, I don't know how that all plays into legal arguments, I'm guessing not at all. But it certainly affects how I feel about this particular case. What he did was clearly illegal. But the fact is, I think it was also morally wrong.

Had he been more discrimanatory about what information he released, or had he truly attempted to expose some great evil, I might feel differently about it. But it seems like his tactic was to take every piece of information available to him and make it public. I don't consider that productive or morally correct, nevermind legal.

The fact that some of that information might have done good, does not negate the fact that some of that information might have caused serious harm.


but that's a judgment, don't you see? (none / 0) (#41)
by sj on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 03:00:29 PM EST

I think he was trying to do the right thing, but I don't think he was correct in determining what "the right thing" was.

I don't know if he was correct or not. And I don't think it's up to you or me to decide if he was "correct in determining". And speaking for myself, I'm grateful for that.

As for this:

Had he been more discrimanatory about what information he released, or had he truly attempted to expose some great evil...

Are you privy to the entire content of the leaked documents to make such a definitive statement? I'm not, only to what's posted. And frankly I've only personally looked at very, very, very few of those documents. But, viewed in certain light, they seem to be the very manifestation of the banality of evil.


it is a judgement (none / 0) (#42)
by CST on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 03:16:15 PM EST

But as to who it's "up to" - legally, that's the government, which in theory represents the will of the people. Morally, we all come to our own decisions. He came to his, and I came to mine. And mine affects how I view his. It has no effect on the outcome, nor should it, but I am entitled to my own thoughts and opinions on what is "right" vs "wrong".

No, I'm not privy to the entire content. But from what I understand he was hardly discriminatory as to what information he released. And that leads me to the end of my last comment, whatever good might have been done, to me it does not negate the bad. Had he not leaked EVERYthing under the sun, than maybe we would have a greater understanding of whatever evil he was trying to expose. As it is, it gets lost in the noise.

Legally, it probably wouldn't make a difference. But morally, at least in my view, it would.


To be more specific... (none / 0) (#44)
by sj on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 03:23:00 PM EST

you don't know that he "leaked EVERYthing under the sun" and yet you make your judgement based on that.

I don't know if he did or didn't. Since what has been posted appears to be mostly embarrassing, I'm inclined to think he didn't. Your conclusion -- based on the same information -- is that he did. But neither one of us knows.


to be more specific (none / 0) (#51)
by CST on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 03:41:28 PM EST

I take serious issue with the diplomatic cable leaks. Embarrassing people for the sake of embarrassing them is not the same thing as exposing important information.

I think it's critical that people feel they can give candid information without being exposed.

Whether we agree with people in foreign countries or not, we have to work with most of them.

That requires both information and tact.


that's valid (none / 0) (#53)
by sj on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 03:49:00 PM EST

but it isn't what you have have been saying. You have been saying that he wasn't discriminating about what was made available. That he "leaked EVERYthing under the sun" (your actual words).

Your real issue is that he didn't make the same choices you would have.

Those are two completely different arguments.


I'm pretty sure (none / 0) (#55)
by CST on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 03:55:08 PM EST

"Your real issue is that he didn't make the same choices you would have."

That has been my argument from the get go. I don't think that what he did was the right thing because of the nature of the information that was leaked.

He wasn't discriminating in that he leaked the diplomatic cables as well as the other cables.

Yes, EVERYthing was an exaggeration. But I thought that was obvious... In any event, that's why I clarified.


: It may have been your (none / 0) (#56)
by sj on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 04:21:47 PM EST

intended argument, but it wasn't the one you were making. Now that I know that you just meant to opine that's a completely different matter.

If the "government" lies (none / 0) (#58)
by Rojas on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 08:17:54 PM EST

how does that represent the will of the people? Please explain to me how democracy functions in that situation?

I believe you are a young engineer. I don't know what kind of engineer, but in my discipline we have three simple words "show me the data" .

Those simple words can make CEO's knees shake and may send the sales group into damage control, but that's how you solve problems. That's how you make things function.

I assume you would prefer a functional democracy.


"might" (none / 0) (#16)
by CST on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 11:54:51 AM EST

I don't know. Honestly, I don't necessarily disagree with you on this one. But we'll see what happens in court. They still have to prove it. It hasn't been proven yet. Hence the "might".

Do you know if there has to be intent for this? I'm not convinced there was intent to aide the enemy, but that might not be necessary for a conviction.

My personal feelings about where and why our military is deployed is not a strong factor here. I'm sort of conflicted on that anyway. I hated the Iraq invasion, but Afghanistan was different. And in both scenarios I'm a firm believer in "you break it you bought it". What to do with it once you buy it is another issue, but if we learned anything from the soviet invasion of Afghanistan, it's that you can't just abandon people once you give them guns.


UCMJ (none / 0) (#17)
by jbindc on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 12:22:17 PM EST

Article 104 - Aiding the Enemy (the basics)

Any person who -
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to, or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or
indirectly;
shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct. This section does not apply to a military commission established under chapter 47A of this title.

So, yes, it looks like intent is necessary. But I highly doubt he will (successfully) argue that he released documents but had no idea or intent for enemies of the US to look at the information.


Bradley Manning, in the chat logs (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Anne on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 12:44:43 PM EST

between himself and Adrian Lamo, has already spoken to his intent (bold is mine):

But does anyone actually believe that Manning's intent was to ensure receipt of this material to the Taliban, as opposed to exposing for the public what he believed to be serious American wrongdoing and to trigger reforms? This new charge would do nothing less than convert whistle-blowing by members of the military into a hanging offense. Indeed, in the purported chat logs between Manning and government informant Adrian Lamo, Lamo asked Manning why he didn't sell this information to a foreign government and get rich off it, and this is what Manning replied:

because it's public data. . . . it belongs in the public domain -information should be free - it belongs in the public domain - because another state would just take advantage of the information... try and get some edge - if its out in the open . . . it should be a public good
This prosecution theory would convert acts of whistle-blowing into a capital offense.

And:

Critically, if one believes the authenticity of the purported Manning/Lamo chat log snippets selectively released by Wired, then Manning was very clear about why he decided to leak these materials: he sought to trigger worldwide reforms of government wrongdoing exposed by these documents:

Lamo: what's your endgame plan, then?. . .
Manning: well, it was forwarded to [WikiLeaks] - and god knows what happens now - hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms - if not, than [sic] we're doomed - as a species - i will officially give up on the society we have if nothing happens - the reaction to the video gave me immense hope; CNN's iReport was overwhelmed; Twitter exploded - people who saw, knew there was something wrong . . . Washington Post sat on the video... David Finkel acquired a copy while embedded out here. . . . - i want people to see the truth . . . regardless of who they are . . . because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.
This leaves little doubt about Manning's motives. And there is also little doubt that Manning has achieved those ambitious and noble goals on multiple levels. Although the extent is reasonably in dispute, even WikiLeaks' most embittered antagonists -- such as New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller -- acknowledge that the release of the diplomatic cables played some role in the uprising in Tunisia, which in turn sparked similar uprisings of historic significance throughout the Middle East.

Something to consider, anyway, before passing judgment.


Of course (none / 0) (#26)
by jbindc on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 01:08:35 PM EST

Here's the important factor:

without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to, or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;

I'm no military justice expert, but it seems to me that that all the prosecution has to prove is that the information he (allegedly) leaked could potentially aid an enemy. I don't think they have to prove it actually DID aid an enemy or that that leaking of document A led to event B.

Also to consider is that as a solider who swore

"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."

and who worked as intelligence analyst, he had to know (or should have known) what releasing the information could potentially do to his fellow soliders, our country's informants, or innocent civilians. (He's also been charged with disobeying orders - also against his oath). My guess is that he will (and should,IMO) be held to a higher standard than just some average joe who may have pushed the wrong button on a computer.

I don't see how anyone who thinks about it for more than 2 seconds can possibly successfully argue that he was some fresh-faced naive kid who had absolutely no idea what he was doing, or that he didn't understant the ramifications of his actions. I especially don't think a jury of his (military) peers will buy that particular argument.


That's not the argument, jb, but (3.50 / 2) (#28)
by Anne on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 01:22:11 PM EST

I should know better than to get into this with you.

We have Manning's words via the chat logs, explaining what his intent was - he's never claimed he didn't know what he was doing. That you think naivete would be his defense reveals that in spite of considerable information being available, you haven't taken advantage of it.

Further, if Manning is to be held accountable under the "directly or indirectly" standard (which, in this case, is being grossly broadened, in my opinion), can you explain how the media cannot, via the civilian judicial system, also be held accountable, since it was the media that was responsible for publishing the information by which "the enemy" may have been "indirectly" exposed to classified information?

In my opinion, anyone who thinks about this entire matter for more than 2 seconds is likely to begin to see how complex it is, the issues that are involved and what is at stake.

It's only all simple and black-and-white if you don't think about it for more than 2 seconds.


I think you misunderstand (none / 0) (#30)
by jbindc on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 01:36:51 PM EST

I'm not making any claim as to guilit or innocence here, although you would like to pin it on me. I was stating where I think the charges come from, and how I think, based on what we know now, it could be argued. I never said it wasn't a complex situtation either, but there you go again, putting words in my mouth. You obviously are looking for a fight on this, and I'm not going to appease you, because while there is the legal presumption of innocence, you seem to be in the camp that thinks there's NO WAY he did anything wrong and HE'S BEING FRAMED. In other words, you would be ineligible to sit on a jury because you already made up your mind about this without knowing all the facts.

Off the top of my head - because there is no civil charge that I know of that is "aiding the enemy."


I have NEVER claimed that (3.50 / 2) (#34)
by Anne on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 02:09:18 PM EST

Manning "didn't do anything wrong," jb, and it's dishonest of you to state otherwise.

I would like the guy to be treated fairly, and whether you like it or not, when I see comment after comment from you that always tries to make the case for why he's guilty even before he's had a chance to be heard, I am going to speak up - not so much in defense of him, but in support of what is supposed to be a democratic process.

And when you make comments that show that you aren't keeping up with the information that's out there, I am going to show them to you, because I get tired of you throwing out these blanket interpretations in spite of facts that dispute them.

And, for what it's worth, Glenn Greenwald didn't write the Manning-Lamo chat logs, so that's not information that's coming from him. He didn't write Professor Heller's comments, he just provided them to demonstrate the issues that are in play here.

Further, I used the word "civilian" with regard to the justice system to distinguish it from the "military" system; I am well aware that the two are separate and that civilians are not prosecuted under the UCMJ. I was not referring to "civil" charges.

Here's the difference between us, jb: you take the government's case as something that has to be refuted, rather than proved, and I don't. And I don't because (1) I still think it has to prove guilt, and (2) I don't have much reason to trust the government anymore.


No (none / 0) (#43)
by jbindc on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 03:22:01 PM EST

Here's the difference bewtween us, and I say this as someone who usually enjoys reading your comments:

You always seem to be outraged about something. I'm not. I just don't have the energy to be outraged at every little thing - especially before we know all the facts.

Again - you don't have all the facts. I don't think even the prosecution and the defense have all the facts at this point, so if you claim to have them based on the writings of a few bloggers that you agree with, well, then, what can I say? You are apparently omniscient. We should skip discovery and the trial because obviously all the questions have been answered by Professor Heller, Glenn Greenwald, and Jane Hamsher.

I want the guy treated fairly too - but what proof do you have that he's not being treated fairly? Because his lawyer says so?

Then let me rephrase - there is no such thing as "aiding the enemy" for civilians. I apologize -I'm working and was typing quickly. But you knew what I meant.

The fact that no one is allowed to question whether someone may actually be guilty of doing something they are accused of - on a blog - is silly. I know there are some who'd like this to be an echo chamber and cheerleading pep rally, but there's not much discussion to take place if everyone agrees all the time. It's not like I'm going to be sitting on the jury, so I think we just all need to take it down a few notches. No need to get so worked up because I have a different interpretation of what's going on.


: Holy moly...that I don't know all the (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by Anne on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 03:48:19 PM EST

facts does not excuse you for failing to educate yourself on the information that IS out there.
I would also suggest you take a look at Section 3, Article III of the US Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

And also maybe explore the Espionage Act.
No one here - that I am aware of - is saying, definitively, that Manning is not guilty, but you do seem to be trying to make the case that he is.
You are certainly entitled to believe what you want about Manning. but you might want to do that with the benefit of as many of the facts as are available; much of the pushback you are getting is not because you are making a case for guilt, but because you keep getting the facts wrong.

: Again (none / 0) (#48)
by sj on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 03:28:05 PM EST

"all the facts" is not the same thing as keeping up with the information as it becomes available. You seem to use the "all the facts" hammer as a way to avoid taking in addtional information.
I really wish people would stop thinking there is such a thing as "all the facts" as if there is a such a thing as a finite set of facts which stand alone. No lens need be applied.

You don't want words put in your mouth (none / 0) (#38)
by sj on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 02:19:05 PM EST

and yet you don't mind doing that to others.


ok actually (none / 0) (#35)
by CST on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 02:09:19 PM EST

I stand corrected. They are attempting to do exactly what you are worried they would do.

Leading the charge is good ol' Joe Lieberman, Scott Brown, and John Ensign. They recently introduced a bill called the SHIELD act.

"Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government or transnational threat to the detriment of the United States any classified information . . . concerning the human intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government [or] concerning the identity of a classified source or informant of an element of the intelligence community of the United States . . . [s]hall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

Link 1
Link 2

This I have a serious problem with.

That being said, I think the fact that they are attempting to pass a bill means that they will not be able to do this under the current law.


: And given the climate of fear and (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by Anne on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 02:17:42 PM EST

intimidation, this belief in the supreme power and authority of the government over the people, how confident should we be that the proposed legislation won't be passed? I mean, the very fact that we have members of Congress who think this is a good idea should scare the bejeebers out of everyone.
If I had been keeping a list of "things that could never happen here," my hair would probably burst into flames at the realization of how many of them have. And make me pretty worried about those that haven't - yet.

i think this might be (none / 0) (#18)
by CST on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 12:29:31 PM EST

the nail in the preverbial coffin.

I guess where I was going with this, is that I don't think that his ultimate goal was to aide the enemy - otherwise he would have given the information to them directly, without giving anyone a chance to help, etc... But I do think he had to know it might happen.


JB (none / 0) (#29)
by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 01:26:59 PM EST

Butit didn't. I can't remember the highest level of the leaks, but on the lower end. There wasn't any top secret or secret information which is what I expect missions and operatives to be filed under.

And classified... my personal Naval record is classified, it's fairly general term. You see the docs at WikiLeaks, nothing above 'really embarrassing' was posted.

Send me a link to something you feel is worthy of this sort of non-sense, you won't find it, but at least look and understand the mundane-ness of the leaked stuff, embarrassing for sure, but then again, our State Department shouldn't be hiding their gossip and name-calling under the premise of critical information and making this kid pay the price of their own bad judgment.

JB, I am with you 100%, if the stuff he leaked was information that could truly aid our enemies or endanger American's, he should be held to fire, no doubt.

It's going to be one of these government says so trials, and even though the information is public, the trial won't be, and that is non-sense. He might as well be at GITMO for all the fairness he is going to receive.


Since we don't know all the facts (none / 0) (#31)
by jbindc on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 01:40:02 PM EST

(and no one here does, even if they faithfully read Glenn Greenwald daily)

But if this is true:

Then it sounds like that might be stuff that is secret or top secret.


Frankly (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by sj on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 02:14:57 PM EST

you could know a few more facts if you wanted to.

Is there even such a thing as knowing all the facts? That's a ridiculous objective. Some people find themselves almost pathologically unable to even see a fact that conflicts with their world view. It's as if their brains cannot process it.

It should be a fairly familiar phenomenon to most of us. I expect we've all been on both sides of that experience.


It's pretty obvious here (none / 0) (#46)
by jbindc on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 03:25:18 PM EST

: I assume (none / 0) (#49)
by sj on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 03:29:34 PM EST

your irony was unintended.

And WMD's are Guaranteed to Exist... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 05:47:04 PM EST

... sorry, but I have looked, and it's piles of he/she said. Informants, like curve ball, sure... embassies cabling informant secrets. That's believable.

Any statement, quote, or news broadcast starting with, "Pentagon and military officials say.... " is suspect in my book.

Not to toss out an old cliche', but who you going to believe, the perpetual liars, or your lying eyes. It's out there for anyone put their eyes on.

http://213.251.145.96/cablegate.html

Wikileaks began on Sunday November 28th publishing 251,287 leaked United States embassy cables, the largest set of confidential documents ever to be released into the public domain. The documents will give people around the world an unprecedented insight into US Government foreign activities.


If Manning aided the enemy... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by kdog on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 08:57:23 AM EST

what the hell do we call the bankrolling of tyrants such as Mubarek and the faux-"royalty" in Bahrain? If they're our buddies, that defines us...and makes you wonder if our "enemies" are anything & everything but.

I wonder if the government would (none / 0) (#5)
by republicratitarian on Wed Mar 02, 2011 at 08:57:31 PM EST

have to prove the information released actually aided the enemy in some. Would they have to name specific enemy and state how the released information aided them?

: of course they won't (none / 0) (#6)
by themomcat on Wed Mar 02, 2011 at 10:37:48 PM EST

they'll make the charge in a military court and claim "national security"

: That was my question too (none / 0) (#12)
by ruffian on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 10:48:43 AM EST

Also, do they have to provide evidence that informers were injured? It is disturbing that the organization making the charges is also the keeper of all the information. We (and probably Manning's defense team and jury) can't do an independent assessment of anything.

WikiLeaks Movie Plans (none / 0) (#11)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 09:39:08 AM EST

Now DreamWorks is getting into the WikiLeaks game

Here are the WikiLeaks/Assange movies we've already talked about:

* A documentary to be directed by Alex Gibney (Universal)
* An film based on Raffi Khatchadourian`s June 7, 2010 New Yorker article called No Secrets: Julian Assange's Mission for Total Transparency (HBO/BBC co-production)
* A possible film based on Andrew Fowler`s forthcoming biography of Mr. Assange, called The Most Dangerous Man in the World.
* A doc called WikiLeaks: War, Lies and Videotape (Zodiak)
* A film based on The Boy Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest, by Bill Keller, with Mark Boal producing and possibly writing, and Megan Ellison backing.
* A film based on Julian Assange's own memoirs, rights to which are being shopped, and for which Paul Greengrass has been mentioned. (He probably won't make that, now that he's doing Memphis.)