Bin Laden Raid Member To Be WikiLeaks Witness 212
the simurgh writes in with the latest in the court-martial of Bradley Manning. "A military judge cleared the way Wednesday for a member of the team that raided Osama bin Laden's compound to testify at the trial of Pfc. Bradley Manning charged in the WikiLeaks massive classified document leak. Col. Denise Lind ruled for the prosecution during a court-martial pretrial hearing. Prosecutors say the witness, presumably a Navy SEAL, collected digital evidence showing that the al-Qaida leader requested and received from an associate some of the documents Manning has acknowledged leaking. Defense attorneys had argued that proof of receipt wasn't relevant to whether Manning aided the enemy, the most serious charge he faces, punishable by life imprisonment. 'The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the intelligence is given to and received by the enemy,' Lind said. The judge disagreed."
Surveillance (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Surveillance (Score:5, Insightful)
True. And it is happening right under all your noses, and the press is still able to report on it, so it's not like you are all caught by surprise... and despite the fact that you can all vote in a democratic system, this has been going on for well over a decade now.
Americans, you've got nobody to blame but yourselves.
Re:Surveillance (Score:5, Insightful)
...for now.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporate press has an obligation to corporate profit not public service.
This is why it's useless as a fourth branch of government.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Surveillance (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem though is that the NSA has been caught red-handed on multiple occasions. Then we hear about NSA's massive new data center that is under construction. So we want to know what they're up to and what they're doing. They won't tell us. The courts refuse to do their jobs when we try to sue and discover the information. Even NSA's budget is a state secret. So maybe what the NSA is doing is totally above board (or maybe not) but they refuse to have any level of accountability so as far as I am concerned, and many other people are concerned, they are guilty until they can prove their innocence.
Given the history of our government misusing its powers, I don't think it is unreasonable at all to assume that the NSA is up to no good.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't need to monitor "the internet", few local points have good portion of all communications, if the private companies that handle that traffic do a lot more with it than just plain storing, then those 3-letter agencies can do it, and better . And they don't need to have people to watch all over it, pattern matching could do both online and offline searches to pick "interesting" traffic, and then focus on people (is not that there are'nt examples [theblaze.com] that they are actually doing it)
Probably they don't m
Re: (Score:2)
So one of the best encryption methods to avoid snooping is turning a message into a large captcha? That's easy enough.
Whack the most visible moles (Score:3)
That's why they and the rest of the security organs take great pains to prosecute / persecute the most well-known 'criminals' like Aaron Swartz beyond any semblance of justice in high-profile show trials, in order to keep the 'rabble' compliant.
What a free country we have.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Americans, you've got nobody to blame but yourselves.
No, there is a bit more to it than that.
Rigged elections, for one.
The average person doesn't have the power to stop this machine even if
he or she were perfectly willing to sacrifice his or her life. And frankly, since
most of the people who live in the US are pieces of shit, why should anyone
even care. I am an American and I am disgusted by most Americans and their
selfishness and idiocy. The show will go on, and no one will stop it.
Here's the REAL bottom line : the world is changing, and no civilized country
Re:Surveillance (Score:5, Informative)
It is not about sacrificing... it's just casting your vote. There are already 3rd party options... just vote for them.
As for the cesspool... I am pretty pleased with my west-European country and my government. It isn't perfect, but it's pretty good. You're welcome to have a look, and we don't even ask you get a visa for that. Just hop on a plane.
Re: (Score:2)
May I ask where do you reside?
Re: (Score:2)
Coming from a west European country myself I can tell you that I am not happy with that government.
In fact, the universal attitude amongst family living in various western European nations is that the government is going to do whatever it damn well pleases. At least in the US people still hold the hope that the government will listen to them. All they do is lament about how much better things once were and how previously generous social programs have been stripped away but they're still stuck with unbearabl
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There's a big difference (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a big difference between classified documents that are meant to be secret and classifying every single thing in case something embarrasing is in them.
Re:There's a big difference (Score:4, Insightful)
Well said. The government is now classifying anything that might make the government look bad.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:There's a big difference (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Surveillance (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a big difference between 'whistleblowing on a crime' and 'leaking every single thing you have
Unless "everything you have" is so illegally outrageous that the story needs to be told.
Furthermore, If Manning is going to be held accountable for information Al-Queda obtained, then the Pentagon and CIA should be held accountable in the same fashion when an unencrypted laptop with sensitive dat is lost, or a website database is compromised* due to gross negiligence. Right now, the only consequences are "whooops, lol sorry bro. have a free 6-month credit inquiry"
* http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/nasa-inspector-gen-says-stolen-laptop-contained-space-station-control-codes.php [talkingpointsmemo.com]
http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/02/8821/ [arstechnica.com]
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2007/02/hundreds_of_fbi/ [go.com]
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/01/malware_pentagon_usb_ban/ [theregister.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless "everything you have" is so illegally outrageous that the story needs to be told.
Except it wasn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless "everything you have" is so illegally outrageous that the story needs to be told.
It wasn't. Manning just copied everything indiscriminately. There's no way he was even capable of sifting through what he had taken to know what the juicy bits were. There's no way to justify what he did as being "for the greater good".
There is an often ignored matter of why Army security procedures were so lax that it was possible to use writable media on what should have been a locked down network. If this has happened at a DOD contractor site there would be massive fines handed down and the possibility o
Re: (Score:2)
If Manning is going to be held accountable for information Al-Queda obtained, then the Pentagon and CIA should be held accountable in the same fashion when an unencrypted laptop with sensitive dat is lost, ...
Oh yeah sure, because intent has nothing to do with culpability in your fantasy world. Meanwhile, back in the real world, it does.
Re: (Score:2)
Those that were actually classified for a good reason were just "collateral damage", they were entirely unintentional. All in the name of democracy. That's the justification the military gives, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It does not need to state it in the Constitution. The US Government was founded as a Republic. If a citizen can not determine what the Government is doing, there is no Republic. The Government becomes some other form of Government.
If you are not clear about my statement, I'd recommend you go study what a Republic is. Why not go to the source and study Plato's Republic!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely incorrect. The only lie allowed in the Republic is "The Noble Lie". By Socrates' definition, this was extremely small and only intended to put people on the right path to performing civic duties as guardians of the Republic. Since the guardians were supposed to be the highest educated in society, it is safe to assume that they learn over time about the Noble Lie.
As stated previously, a Government that keeps their citizens in the Dark is at best an Oligarchy and at worst tyranny. The keeping p
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Your claim that the system was "perfect" is false. The point is not that Socrates defined a template either. The point should be what a Republic is and how it is defined. A Republic is a Government of the people and by the people. Your insistence that this does not require an open Government simply does not fit. If citizens are kept ignorant, then the citizens can not make decisions. This means that the citizens are not ruling the Government, and makes that form of Government something other than a Re
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, the new interpretation of the Espionage Act that the Pentagon is trying to hammer in to the legal system, and which the Department of Justice is complicit in, would mean the end of national security journalism in the United States.
No such thing. If information is published, it will be foreseeably received by the enemy, whoever the enemy might be. Besides, it's still a crime and has been for many years to disclose classified information to any person not authorized to receive it. Just because the press got a pass in the past in some high-profile cases does not mean that law has been struck off the books.
Re: (Score:2)
Where does it say in the American Constitution that Congress can pass laws limiting speech? I'm aware of the 1st amendment which is pretty simple and bans Congress from limiting speech and I don't know of any later amendments that create exceptions.
Re: (Score:2)
The rights enabled in the Constitution have never been viewed as being absolute; thus the "fire in a crowded theater" exception.
Dangerous (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dangerous (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a difference between public knowledge and classified information. He is not being prosecuted for releasing weather reports, stock values, or a crossword puzzle. Manning is on trial for leaking classified information. Big difference.
They haven't shown that this was any different. (Score:5, Insightful)
"He is not being prosecuted for releasing weather reports, stock values, or a crossword puzzle"
What he HAS released hasn't been shown to be of any more aid to OBL than these would be.
Classified information cannot, repeat CANNOT, be used to hide criminal acts.
Classified information incorrectly classified is NOT validly classified and almost all classified information SHOULD NOT be classified. If the rules for classification AS APPLIED are "Classify everything", then the classification cannot be of any guide as to whether the information SHOULD be classified and kept secret.
Manning is on trial for exposing the criminal acts of his superiors.
Something his superiors predecessors insisted should be done in all cases. cf Nuremberg.
Re:Dangerous (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dangerous (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is my problem with this kind of reasoning.
If you want to make disclosure of classified information illegal, fine. Make it illegal, and assign to it an appropriate penalty. Then when somebody does it, charge them with that crime.
The problem here is that the charge is aiding the enemy, and the argument is that the enemy obtained the classified info and thus it aided them. I'm not sure that really should be allowed to stick. The problem with this is that it forces you to basically assign the same punishment to accidentally leaving your briefcase with some HR info on the bus and sneaking into the command tent, taking photos of the next day's plans, and transmitting them to enemy HQ.
When people commit a crime they should be charged with the crime they actually committed. I'm not suggesting that leaking classified info should be legal. However, the general trend of piling as many charges on as possible is bad for justice. There is a reason that we don't put people in prison for life for jaywalking or speeding.
If you're going to charge somebody with aiding the enemy you should have to show that:
1. The aid would have actually had some significant benefit to the enemy. We're not talking about exposing scandals that lose hearts and minds - I'm talking about improving their ability to achieve military objectives in military operations. So, pictures of tortured prisoners don't count, but plans leaked to an enemy agent or sabotage coordinated with an enemy attack counts just fine. I'm not sure I'd even include sabotage in general in this unless the intent was actually to aid the enemy.
2. There was intent to aid the enemy - it wasn't just accidental or incidental (unless it was just so obvious that the aid would have resulted that it could be considered criminal negligence).
Otherwise, just charge them with mishandling classified material.
Re: (Score:2)
On point 1, Manning never gave anything to the enemy. Manning gave the information to a media agency who is bound by their journalistic duty to ensure the safety of the data released from them. You are wrong to claim Manning gave anything to the enemy. If the media agency dumps everything given to them, that's a different topic and a much longer discussion. Before that discussion occurs, I'd suggest you read and/or listen to a great man's words [wordpress.com] regarding the responsibilities of both the Government and J
Re: (Score:2)
On point 1, Manning never gave anything to the enemy. Manning gave the information to a media agency who is bound by their journalistic duty to ensure the safety of the data released from them.
The very fact that the information got out indicates that whoever received the information was not a suitable handler of secrets. The US government established a simple rule of thumb, so that even a lowly intelligence analyst can figure it out:
(a) you must have clearance high enough to read the document, and (b)
Re: (Score:3)
On your point (1), it's pretty clear that Manning/Wikileaks loses on that count. He didn't filter the info, he did a massive info dump to the public that included operationally-sensitive details of ongoing military/CIA operatives and operations.
I'm certainly open to citations (that point to specific details that were leaked which actually provided military aid to the enemy), but most of what was dumped was merely embarrassing, and there was effort made to redact materials that were more sensitive.
I'm not aware of any publicly-released data which most people would consider operationally sensitive. Again, I'm open to examples, but the mere fact that they were classified does not mean that their release aided the enemy.
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly, but thats just a red herring. The issue was whether releasing unspecific information to the public can reasonably be considered passing information to the enemy.
Re: (Score:2)
Oaths are just words people use to make you do their bidding even after you realize what they want is wrong. He made that Oath before he saw what he was really working for, so it doesn't really represent an informed consent.
Also, no oath, no oath at all, absolves a person of their responsibility to oppose and expose corruption and abuse. Not ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that long ago, namely beginning in Gulf 1 this is exactly what happened. Media agencies were told not to report on live battle scenes or they would be aiding the enemy. What footage you saw of Gulf 1 and beyond was approved by the military after review. There were no live battle scenes, and there are no live scenes from Iraq or Afghanistan currently. It was leaked that the "Live from Iraq" guys at CNN during Gulf 1 were filming from a roof top in South Carolina. Back stage footage shows them laughin
Re: (Score:2)
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort
If a military court allows publishing classified documents to be considered evidence that a soldier aided the enemy, it is not a stretch to think that a criminal court might accept such an argument.
Smart (Score:5, Insightful)
The prosecution is alleging that the document leak perpetrated by Bradley Manning directly aided the enemy (al-Qaeda) in their operations against the United States. So what's the problem with including testimony that documents leaked by Bradley Manning were present during the Bin-Laden raid? It's common sense.
You can harp on for days about how "the documents revealed war crimes" or "it was the right thing to do." Ultimately, the documents were classified, Bradley Manning signed a document stating that he would not reveal classified information when he enlisted in the Army, and did it anyways. He did not release the information the the DOD Inspector General, to a member of the House or Senate intelligence committee, or even to a legitimate member of the press corp. He released it to some foreign website with no press credentials. That makes it a crime. He's not a protected whistle-blower because he did not send the information to any of the above whistleblower channels. Even the NSA warrantless wiretapping whistle-blower had enough common sense to go through the New York Times, which meant he was protected as a whistle-blower.
He swore to uphold the constitution. (Score:3, Insightful)
He swore to uphold the laws of the United States and the international law the government have treaties to uphold.
NO Non-Disclosure agreement or secrecy act can be used to force the concealment of the commission of a crime. And trying to do so makes you an accessory before and after the fact.
Re:He swore to uphold the constitution. (Score:4, Informative)
This is just utter nonsense.
"...criminally stupid enough to wander towards an active military firefight walking with individuals carrying AK's and RPG's."
Dont recall there being any RPGs. Definitely plenty of AKs, because it would have been criminally stupid to be out driving around Baghdad without them. A civilian doesnt magically become something else simply because he is armed, and the US, with our second amendment, should be acutely aware of that.
They had AKs because everyone in that area carried AKs and it would have indeed been "criminally stupid" for them to travel in that area without bodyguards. They took no aggressive actions, and they didnt 'roll up into a firefight' they attempted to render assistance to the wounded AFTER the firefight had come to a conclusive ending.
The video is direct evidence of a war crime on its face. It's not Manning, but everyone else who had access and did NOT leak it, who should be charged for that. The cables reveal many other crimes and misbehaviour by the US government, are essentially all over-classified, and constitute information that the citizens have a right to see, and a NEED to see, in order to do our job in the republic.
The fact that we keep promoting criminals and throwing whistleblowers in the brig instead of the other way around is probably the biggest threat to the national security of this country today.
Re:Smart (Score:5, Interesting)
Covering up war crimes is or should be a much bigger crime.
Just wait for the veterans to come along and tell us (like they usually do in this discussion), that as a soldier you swear to uphold the constitution, not support cover-ups, that you pledge allegiance to the country, not to the general or even president, and even that you salute the uniform of your superior, not the person wearing it.
Your suggestions that war crimes should be reported to the people trying to cover up said war crimes and not to anyone else is plain and simple support for covering up war crimes.
Re:Smart (Score:5, Insightful)
Covering up war crimes is or should be a much bigger crime.
Should be...
The people behind Abu Ghraib go free, Bradley gets screwed for ratting on his leaders. So it goes.
Re:Smart (Score:4, Interesting)
Show me, with citation, what war crimes were committed that were revealed through the Bradley Manning document dump.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The helicoptor was in an active combat zone. There were reports of RPG fire. The press were not wearing identifying uniforms that press in an active warzone are expected to wear.
The children in the van were only visible when looking carefully at the footage and freeze framing, not in a combat situation (wtf were they doing driving children to the site of a bombing) and the van appeared to be insurgents recovering the weapons and preventing wounded combatants being captured
I have no doubt the drone pilots made an honest mistake in misidentification. The problem occurs when you watch without the sound muted they are all bloodlusted with no respect for human life and nobody in the command structure has any fucking problem with it. The criminal act is in allowing people like this to pilot drones in the first instance.
and the van appeared to be insurgents recovering the weapons and preventing wounded combatants being captured
Quite fasinating how the mind races to fill in the gaps consistant with ones preconcieved notions aint it?
Re: (Score:2)
It's still not a war crime. The OP is correct.
Re: (Score:2)
That was not a drone. It was a video feed from an Apache. You are a complete idiot.
Its been years since I've looked at this garbage... I confused this with follow on where a building was blown up with a missle. I just remember the yaw warnings flashing on screen and thought it was all the same thing... As far as me being an idiot that should be obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
"So how were two white dots supposed to be identified as children from 2+ miles away?"
Considering we've had such technology to allow such things for more than two decades, I think you need to get out of your cave and join the rest of the technologically-advanced world.
Re: (Score:2)
That technology is not installed on Apache helicopters. Drones, yes, but watch the video. The "kids" that you see on the tape are tiny white dots and there is no way to tell who/what those white dots were on the video.
Re: (Score:2)
Covering up war crimes is or should be a much bigger crime.
Is or should? Which one? Do you know what you are talking about, or are you just giving us your opinion?
And which war crimes are you talking about? Real ones (you know the actual definition of war crimes, right?) or what "should" be considered war crimes if it was up to you?
Re:Smart (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Whether the website was foreign or not is in no way meaningful as the material was intended to be made public. It's just bullshit loaded language.
A whistleblower should use the the most secure channel possible and that happened to be wikileaks. As we have seen it has been traditional media who have screwed up the most.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely there is some sort of contradiction with charging him with aiding the enemy while not being officially at war? If they want to be able to use war-time charges, they should man up and declare it as a war, dammit!
Re: (Score:2)
I do not believe the statute requires being in a formal state of war. Several previous spies have been convicted of treason in peacetime. Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen, John Walker are examples.
I also think if you had asked Osama Bin Laden he would have admitted to being an enemy of the the US. Most Americans would likewise hold him as an enemy.
I think the case here may hinge more on the 'adhering to the enemy' clause in the Constitution. It may be difficult to prove Bradley did that.
Thankfully the Founders
Re: (Score:3)
The prosecution is alleging that the document leak perpetrated by Bradley Manning directly aided the enemy (al-Qaeda) in their operations against the United States. So what's the problem with including testimony that documents leaked by Bradley Manning were present during the Bin-Laden raid? It's common sense.
Manning never gave anything to the enemy, he gave information to a media outlet. I think you are missing some of the "common sense" you are touting.
You can harp on for days about how "the documents revealed war crimes" or "it was the right thing to do."
It was the right thing to do if the classification of the documents was intended to prevent knowledge of illegal activities. Search what was dumped, and the reason for the classification is obvious. Perhaps not for everything, but for enough that it did matter.
Ultimately, the documents were classified, Bradley Manning signed a document stating that he would not reveal classified information when he enlisted in the Army, and did it anyways. He did not release the information the the DOD Inspector General, to a member of the House or Senate intelligence committee, or even to a legitimate member of the press corp.
Well, it's obvious that you know jack squat about both the military and just as little about classif
Re: (Score:2)
There is no DOD IG so that one is laughable, as is your next
I'm actually with you on most points but the above quote is flagrantly wrong. The office was formed in 1982. http://www.dodig.mil/ [dodig.mil]
Re: (Score:2)
This is not an office that any military person uses, this is an internal office. You are correct, as my description was incorrect. Army Soldiers would report to the US Army IG, Marines the Marines IG, etc...
Re: (Score:2)
You sir, are the one who has absolutely no idea what they are saying.
1. DOD does have an IG office. If you knew anything about the military, you would know that.
2. PFC Manning was a 96B (35F for you recent vets). That position comes with a security clearance. Each time someone is read on to a new unit, they have to get "read-on" to the facility where they work. Reading on is signing the agreement to not release classified information.
3. What's to stop an enlisted person from walking into a legislatur
Re: (Score:2)
He did not release the information the the DOD Inspector General, to a member of the House or Senate intelligence committee, or even to a legitimate member of the press corp.
Wikileaks is just as much a "legitimate member of the press corps" as the New York Times is. Glancing at Wikipedia, the definition of press [wikipedia.org] is:
"every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion."
Wikileaks easily qualifies. So Mann released the information in question to a proper channel.
Re: (Score:2)
legitimate member of the press corp
There is no such thing as a registered, official press
You are right, there is no such thing as registered, official press. I never said there was. Where do you people come up with crazy terms that I never used?
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for making my point. Classified information was put into the PUBLIC DOMAIN by Bradley Manning. Therefore, he is on trial for that.
Re: (Score:2)
> IMHO, the Navy Seal is a hero for being one of the team that killed Bin Laden. But Manning is the
> bigger hero of the two. In the 'makes America more free' score table, Manning is right there in the
> top 10.
I would actually agree if he was on the Seal team that brought Bin Laden in for a fair civilian trial for thousands of civilian murders.
I have little to no respect for anyone involved in extrajudicial killing. I may take a lot of umbrage with our so called "justice system" but, these people ar
Re: (Score:2)
No, the goal is to show that information disclosed by Manning ended up helping "the enemy". That this information was "in the public domain" at one point isn't important, since it's the unauthorized disclosure that is being prosecuted.
Re: (Score:2)
Sparticus? If that is your *real* name. Sounds like a terrorist name to me!
I am a terrorist, if you are the Roman Senate circa 72 B.C.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that was Spartacus. Seriously, you tacked a number on the end and didn't even get the spelling right? How sad.
Re: (Score:2)
That definition applies to information that they want to access, not to information that they want to keep secret.
Re: (Score:2)
You are just an idiot. He's no Gary Gordon, Randy Shughart, Audie Murphy, or Daniel Inouye. Criteria for the Medal of Honor: [wikipedia.org]
"distinguished himself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty."
While engaged in action against an enemy of the United States
While engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force.
While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which
Re: (Score:2)
The actual scenario is closer to:
1. I sign a contract stating I will not tell anyone what you're about to tell me next.
2. You show me a few gigabytes of private documents most of which you can legitimately keep secret but one of which describes your plan to shoot me next week.
3. I reveal the entire contents of the documents, including not only the gun threat, but everything else down to your embarrassing medical condition and the fact that you lied to your wife when she asked you if a dress made her look fa
To consider... (Score:2)
If everyone know teh secrets ... then the secrets are not secrets and as such become null and void of any value in being secret.
So how do you aid an enemy with a secret that is not secret? You don't, but only fool those who believe its a secret.
I do recall that some judge ruled that the US government, though the secrets are no longer secret, can still pretend they are.
So who is fooling who here?
Seems to be missing something... (Score:3)
While I think it is the right decision to allow testimony on whether they found the documents at the compound, it seems to be missing a key component. They charge is "aiding the enemy". Shouldn't they also have to prove it actually aided them? What if Bin Laden read through the documents and they were all stuff he didn't care about? Or what if he just was interested in them and wanted to read them (as many people did). Possession of the documents doesn't prove that they aided the enemy anymore than a copy of Twilight would.
Re: (Score:2)
It's ironic how they charge him with aiding the enemy when the US isn't even at war.
Also, to be aiding the enemy he has to have leaked them with the *intention* of them getting to the enemy. He can just argue that those ones were collateral damage, and use the standard "collateral damage is acceptable if minimized" argument, a la standard military protocol.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Bin Laden is pretty dead, the documents can't have been of THAT much aid...
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly they didn't do OBL any good.
Re: (Score:3)
Read actual UCMJ article http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm104.htm [about.com], it's actually very clear that releasing any classified information released knowingly it will "leak" to the enemy is enough for "aiding enemy" definition (in eyes of UCMJ, remember Manning isn't civilian in this case). Prosecution will have to prove that Manning truly knew what WikiLeaks will do with them though.
I can agree with judge, this charge can't be dismissed. Will see what will be decision on this case.
Manning: American Hero (Score:3)
This is how America treats it's patriots, those who swore to protect the nation against domestic threats. The corruption that eats away at America is almost complete. The fear of the government in America has turned most of the population in to unquestioning slaves that beleive whatever they are told.
Greed and the desire for material gains has turned that beacon of democracy into a parody of it's aspirations. Anyone who tries to fight this corruption and greed will have their unalienable rights trampled.
How long will the average American citizen tolerate this bastardisation of ideals that the rest of the world looked up to and once America sinks into despotism (as Benjiman Franklin said of the constitution) which world power will take it's place?
I don't really like the alternatives.
Sir Humphrey (Score:3)
"The Official Secrets Act is not to protect secrets, it is to protect officials." - Sir Humphrey.
I disagree too. (Score:3)
It doesn't need to proven that Manning personally handed a copy of the release to an al Qaeda agent to make him guilty. This charge should absolutely stick. Let's say John Doe is a disgruntled Armed Forces intel agent working in Afghanistan. He's sick of his job, and takes a huge stack of classified targeting mission profiles and drone photos and scatters them in the air in Kabul's marketplace out of protest. Agents of the Taliban or al Qaeda collect the papers and peruse it. Regardless of the timeliness or utility of the info, he's (unwittingly and stupidly) gone against explicit orders and policy and aided and abetted the enemy efforts. Trying to draw a ridiculous line of causality for "proof" between release and someone getting killed is not needed at that point.
Quit idolizing Manning. Just because Manning exposed some of the seedy underpinnings of international diplomacy doesn't make him a hero. No, there were no explicit war crimes that weren't already being exposed by the MSM (Abu Ghraib being the best example). I've read through the wiki leaks releases, and there is little to nothing within them that couldn't be found in the MSM or inferred through a basic knowledge of international affairs. He's a Kevin Mitnick of this decade.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's not called entrapment. Entrapment requires someone getting you to do something you wouldn't have otherwise done in the normal course of things. If an undercover cop sells you cocaine, that's not entrapment. If they coerce you into buying cocaine by threatening to bomb your family, that's a little closer to entrapment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bradley Manning's innocent (Score:5, Interesting)
BS.
His conversations with that douchebag LAME-O were mainly a discussion about his personal moral dilemma. He wasn't bragging about his "hacking skills" one bit. He had access to the information so there was no technical prowess required.
He recently made a statement in court (which of course the government didn't want the public to hear) that was surreptitiously recorded. You should listen to it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bradley Manning's innocent (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Cite your source or shut the fuck up. Seriously.
The alleged chat logs between him and Lamo are pretty clear as to the intent of the leaks. The public need to know of the atrocities that his government was engaging in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...Manning is a traitor, aided and abetted the enemies of our country.....
He deserves the firing squad.
One man's traitor is another man's patriot.
Re: (Score:2)
He deserves the firing squad.
If by he you mean everyone in the government who lied to start a war with Iraq under false pretenses or those who enabled and carried out "collateral murder" I would agree with you.