Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts The Military United States

WikiLeaks Gives $15k To Bradley Manning Defense 321

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the gonna-be-brutal dept.
wiredmikey writes "The Web site supporting Bradley Manning, the Army soldier charged with leaking a massive number of US classified information to WikiLeaks, posted an announcement on its site today, saying that WikiLeaks had transferred $15,100 to the legal trust account of Manning's attorney. WikiLeaks has been publicly soliciting donations specifically for the expenses of Manning's legal defense following his arrest in May 2010. The contribution by WikiLeaks brings the total funds raised and transferred to Bradley's civilian legal defense team, led by attorney David Coombs, to over $100,000. Supporters say that a 'vigorous defense' for Manning is estimated to cost $115,000."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WikiLeaks Gives $15k To Bradley Manning Defense

Comments Filter:
  • by Amorymeltzer (1213818) on Thursday January 13, 2011 @12:45PM (#34863566)

    Now that they are giving him money for legal defense, a good lawyer can say that it shows that they were in fact working together. IANAL btw

    Not at all. Whenever the ACLU or the EFF defends someone pro bono, they are not thrown into the lawsuit with the defendant. It's certainly not criminal to donate money to defend a cause you believe in and, thanks to the SCOTUS, these donations by WikiLeaks and others are actually just an expression of free speech.

  • by hedwards (940851) on Thursday January 13, 2011 @01:10PM (#34863970)
    He will face a court martial, but this isn't a capital offense. Individuals that have been caught and convicted of providing information like that in the past have faced long prison terms. There's a spy still in prison since the mid 80s for spying on the US for Israel.

    Sure he'll likely spend decades behind bars, but he's not facing any capital charges here.
  • by hedwards (940851) on Thursday January 13, 2011 @01:11PM (#34863990)
    What money? The money that Paypal is sitting on or the money that Mastercard won't allow to be donated?
  • Re:Due Process (Score:3, Informative)

    by hedwards (940851) on Thursday January 13, 2011 @01:15PM (#34864068)
    That's standard practice, and it's for his own good. Just because he's being held pre-trial doesn't mean that the other inmates aren't going to stab him to death before the trial. Surprisingly enough not all crimes are equal in terms of inmate treatment.

    Of course he's depressed, whether he's innocent or not, the prospect of facing a long prison term is inherently depressing. Being innocent does not ensure that you won't end up doing time.

    Also, speedy trial, doesn't preclude a thorough investigation, the provision was there to ensure that the government didn't endlessly delay a trial while doing a superficial investigation. Seeing as this is a complicated case and they're still doing legitimate investigation that provision shouldn't come into play.
  • Re:Due Process (Score:2, Informative)

    by twidarkling (1537077) on Thursday January 13, 2011 @01:17PM (#34864106)

    Probably solitary is for his own protection, and keeping him alive is the responsibility of the justice system, so if he's on suicide watch, that means being deprived of things he can use to KILL HIMSELF WITH. There's nothing in there that violates constitutional rights. In fact, if they were remiss in removing those items, it could be seen as complicit agreement with his suicidal intentions, and then they're meting out capital punishment without due process, which WOULD be in violation of constitutional rights. And "right to a speedy trial" isn't for military law, and needs to be requested by the defendant in either case.

    The only thing troubling here is that this guy's so upset with his circumstances that he's trying to kill himself. Anything else stems from that fact.

  • Re:Due Process (Score:4, Informative)

    by couchslug (175151) on Thursday January 13, 2011 @01:21PM (#34864186)

    He has different processes due, not "no right to due process". See the UCMJ and MCM for reference.

  • Re:Due Process (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 13, 2011 @01:41PM (#34864518)
    You've obviously not done the slightest bit of work to answer your own question.

    Let's see, the 10-second Google search reveals the July 2010 charges:

    "The first charge, under Article 92 of the UCMJ, is for violating a lawful Army regulation by transferring classified data onto his personal computer and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system.

    The second charge includes eight specifications under Article 134 of the UCMJ, incorporating violations of the United States Criminal Code. Those eight specifications consist of the following:

    One specification of violating United States Code Title 18, Section 793, for communicating, transmitting and delivering national defense information to an unauthorized source;
    Three specifications of violating United States Code Title 18, Section 1030(a)(1), for disclosing classified information concerning the national defense with reason to believe that the information could cause injury to the United States; and
    Four specifications of violating United States Code Title 18, Section 1030(a)(2), for exceeding authorized computer access to obtain classified information from a United States department or agency."

  • by timeOday (582209) on Thursday January 13, 2011 @01:57PM (#34864820)
    That's a silly claim. Insider threats are impossible to defend against completely. After all, if nobody has access to the information, it is useless. Even the banking industry runs on the principle that you cannot stop employees from stealing, but you can usually make their actions auditable so you can catch them afterwards. Yes the DoD can be faulted for not following the principle of least privilege, on the other hand the US security apparatus was criticized after 911 for being too compartmentalized and thus failing to put all the pieces together. They can do better, but ultimately it is a difficult problem.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 13, 2011 @01:59PM (#34864850)

    Exactly where has PFC Manning been denied due process as defined under the UCMJ? Please cite the specific section instead of trying for sensational statements.

    He has been denied a speedy trial and has suffered punitive treatment in pre-trial detention. This violates Article 10 UCMJ and R.C.M. 707 [armycourtm...fense.info].

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 13, 2011 @02:03PM (#34864930)

    How, pray tell, has he been deprived of due process?

    Maybe you haven't heard the reports of the condition of his detention. It was written about quite extensively in December. Here's an article with a number of links [salon.com].

  • Re:Due Process (Score:5, Informative)

    by Wannabe Code Monkey (638617) on Thursday January 13, 2011 @02:07PM (#34864986)

    Due Process? How, pray tell, has he been deprived of due process? He's in pre-trial confinement, awaiting his GCM.

    From: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning [salon.com]

    From the beginning of his detention, Manning has been held in intensive solitary confinement. For 23 out of 24 hours every day -- for seven straight months and counting -- he sits completely alone in his cell. Even inside his cell, his activities are heavily restricted; he's barred even from exercising and is under constant surveillance to enforce those restrictions. For reasons that appear completely punitive, he's being denied many of the most basic attributes of civilized imprisonment, including even a pillow or sheets for his bed (he is not and never has been on suicide watch). For the one hour per day when he is freed from this isolation, he is barred from accessing any news or current events programs. Lt. Villiard protested that the conditions are not "like jail movies where someone gets thrown into the hole," but confirmed that he is in solitary confinement, entirely alone in his cell except for the one hour per day he is taken out.

  • Re:Due Process (Score:5, Informative)

    by gambino21 (809810) on Thursday January 13, 2011 @02:10PM (#34865058)

    Probably solitary is for his own protection, and keeping him alive is the responsibility of the justice system, so if he's on suicide watch, that means being deprived of things he can use to KILL HIMSELF WITH.

    That would be fine, except he's not on suicide watch. He hasn't been since the first 2 weeks or so of his confinement. The officers in charge of his detention said that he was a model prisoner.

    The only thing troubling here is that this guy's so upset with his circumstances that he's trying to kill himself. Anything else stems from that fact.

    I find the fact that he is not allowed to exercise in his cell "troubling". How does that help keep him alive? He also must respond every five minutes that he is ok. Have you ever tried reading a book or watching tv with someone asking you every 5 minutes if you are ok?

    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/23/manning/index.html [salon.com]

  • by Registered Coward v2 (447531) on Thursday January 13, 2011 @03:12PM (#34866196)

    The military and intelligence communities didn't seem to mind the recent release of Russian agents [wikipedia.org]. Maybe they didn't transfer any valuable secrets, but they were working for Russia.

    It's quite normal to do that; often in exchange for our spies there, which is what happened in this case. Spying for your own country is not treason; and there are accepted norms for how to treat foreign agents. Pollard, Walker, et.al. were Americans entrusted with our secrets and sold themselves out. That is very different than a foreign agent coming to the US to spy.

Air is water with holes in it.

Working...