Slashdot Mirror
WikiLeaks Gives $15k To Bradley Manning Defense
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."
The reason i say that is they may be able to use this in their espionage attempts. Meaning if he was given the info without asking for it, its one thing, but if he asked for it, than he can be tried under the espionage act (assange)
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
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
... since he was arguably the source that gave the materials that put Wikileaks on the map. I also wonder how much money of that $100,000 will go to defend Julian Assange.
Is $15k a significant chunk of change for WL or is it less than a day's allocation of the hookers and blow funds? How much of what has been donated to WL specifically for this cause is $15k?
That my nation has deprived PFC Bradly Manning of due process is something I worry about greatly.
If I was on any sort of stage I would be repeating the words 'due process' every day until Manning is given his rights.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
Manning is fucked no matter what basically. The UCMJ doesn't have a "Because I though it should be released," exception to the rules on classified materials. Also, as implied by the UCMJ thing, he'll be court-marshaled which means tried by a military court. Trying for nullification by a sympathetic jury is more or less impossible.
His case is pretty open and shut when you get down to it. I can't see what an expensive defense will do for him.
Technically, WikiLeaks did nothing wrong (according to what you can find publically). Now that they are assisting him, as another person stated, it shows that they are working together. That is very bad for WikiLeaks. Unfortunately, Manning did commit a crime whether we like it or not. Whether it was for the good or not, it is still a crime. WikiLeaks needs to slow their roll before they get themselves in some trouble (and rest assured, there are lawyers waiting for WikiLeaks to slip up on something). WikiLeaks is a pretty cool place to get some information, but if they keep slipping by donating to people like Manning, they may be giving places reasons to take them down, which sucks.
The world is how you make it
Wikileaks should operate like a newspaper and Not be involved with defending the informants. Now they can be accused of colluding with the guy who stole US documents. Wikileaks should just be REPORTING the documents, and nothing else.
They just shot themselves in the foot.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
but he can pretty much expect to have to live in solitary confinement if he wants to survive in prison. People who are perceived as traitors are right up there with child molesters to many convicts. The fact that he is a homosexual and it's come out that he was motivated to leak the data by DADT will only make it worse for him.
If I were his attorney, plan A would be some form of insanity defense based on his mental state over DADT and plan B would be violation of civil liberties for imprisoning him so long in such harsh conditions without a trial.
Like?
It's not illegal to donate money and just donating money doesn't mean you know the person.
We don't live in a nation with Napoleonic Law you dickwads! One is innocent until proven guilty.
Go back to Fox News and eat your pablum like a good village idiot.
For one thing, the complete lack of any mention of Area 51 or the JFK assassination shows that the US Military Industrial complex is even more secretive than we thought!</sarcasm>
new papers that are going to be released has ufo information revealed by u.s. officials in transcripts. another reason why they are trying to suppress it so frantically, is this.
Read radical news here
im not even going to go into the fact that he has helped americans to discover that their government was betraying their trust, their funds and their rights.
The U.S. Constitution emphasizes that Americans should never trust the government outright.
You must be new here.
im not even going to go into the fact that he has helped americans to discover that their government was betraying their trust, their funds and their rights.
You mean they didn't know already after the war and the PATRIOT act? Wow, people are dumb.
which is totally what she said
Though what the laws against spying are really talking about is paying someone to give you information, it could potentially be shore horned in this case and the US government sure as hell wants Assanage. They could potentially argue that this constitutes a payment for the information they received which makes them not a passive party, but an actor and thus guilty of a crime.
As you say, big mistake when you are under the gun anyhow. Plus, as I mentioned in another post, I can't see how this'll really help. I can't see Manning winning his case. He very clearly broke the law under the UCMJ and being that it'll be a military trial, the jury is not going to be sympathetic. Right or wrong, he's going to jail.
If Wikileaks is helping to fund his defense, doesn't that put a couple of nails in the coffin for the defense??
I do agree with most of this however, this guy's life is over and he'll spend the rest of his life in maximum security at Club Fed. While I can't argue the merits of what he did, I can say
that if he is found guilty, then he's forfit his future. I honestly think based on what we know or have been told by the press and the military is only part of the story. Considering this will also be handled by the Military we probably won't know all of the details as to "why?"
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Here's what they can do to get Assange, and part of the reason his organization is paying some of Manning's legal bills :
After giving Manning 'protective solitary confinment' (aka coercive torture) for enough time, they'll get Manning to claim that Assange and him worked together to get those government documents. Manning will be offered a deal for a limited amount of prison time if he serves as a 'government witness' against Assange. Given the last 7 months have been hell on earth for Manning, turning such an offer down would be incredibly difficult. Even if there is no actual communication logs showing this, the mere testimony of Manning (under duress) is a "witness statement" that a grand jury can use.
Once they get Assange dragged into U.S. custody, they can lock him up in jail for years while federal prosecutors file motions for extensions and things. Then, finally, they can give him a show trial where the jury is stacked with people who hate sex criminals. (even though Assange would not be accused of such crime, the jurors would think of him as a rapist).
Even if he were acquitted (the case as I outlined it is very weak) he would be out hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal defense fees and years off his natural lifespan. The Federal government cannot be sued to reclaim either of these things unless Assange were able to show that the government KNEW he was innocent. (which if they have a coerced statement from Manning, above, the government doesn't have to pay)
So in a nutshell : they can punish Assange severely for his actions even if they are never able to convict him of a crime. And imagine the mental anguish : Assange won't know for months or years during this process if he is going to be convicted and made to rot in prison for decades.
This kind of thing happens day in and day out in the U.S. We make more people rot in confinement than the worst despotic regimes in history. And there are many effective ways to get around the protections offered by your 'rights', making them nearly meaningless in practice.
Why does it cost a hundred grand to defend yourself in court in the US?
In the military system, legal counsel is free of charge whether or not you can afford it. And with a high profile case like this, I'm sure they'll appoint someone very senior. If you want to pay for a civilian lawyer, usually they are former military lawyers, or they're not well suited for military court. I wouldn't donate to this even if you want to defend Bradley Manning.
mod down whenever someone supports wikileaks ...
Read radical news here
I would appreciate at least one example of what you consider some real, real shit.
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.--Mark Twain
Wow, several months late in their less than timely follow through. Wikileaks has gone on the record as saying they were going to donate $50,000 to Manning's defense. Does it surprise anyone that when it came time to follow through they fell through? All told they've raised at least $150,000 just from the heavily edited helicopter video alone. Of which they can only be bothered to spend $15,000 on his behalf. Take the $150,000 from the video and $50,000 pledge and you get a $185,000 profit for Wikileaks on those two items alone, not counting everything they raised from the cables.
Look, I know that fifteen thousand and fifty thousand both start with 'fift', but that doesn't mean they are anywhere near the same amount. I don't know about in Europe, but in America raising money for a cause and refusing to use it for a cause is considered a pretty serious felony fraud. This of it this way, less than 1 dollar in 3 that was pointedly raised for his defense was actually donated. Consider all the other money wikileaks has gotten from the rest of Manning's contributions and you'll see just how badly Wikileaks hung Manning out to dry. On a personal level, considering his treasonous actions could result in anywhere from 52 years in prison up to the death penalty, it's nice too see wikileaks living up to it's potential and hanging him out to dry.
You must be new here. Slashdot has moderation. If you're lost and looking for the "like" buttons, here's what you do: head over that way, take the second on the right, push your way through the crowds of teenagers, past the drunk party photos and lonely people clamoring for attention. There you will find facebook.
Let the ACLU or some other such organization defend Manning if they think it is right. But Wikileaks is supposed to be for publishing anonymous whistle blower information. Manning is not anonymous, nor is he a whistle blower, nor does their mission involve defending people from lawsuits.
I'm glad I didn't give any money to Wikileaks.
so, youre on this website, and you are asking that question ? what are you ? a joke ?
.... well, i wont spend too much effort to explain. youre either a shill, or you actually dont read the website youre participating, or, you are a zealot. there can be no other explanation for expressing strong opinion in a subject you dont know shit about.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/not-so-gentle-persuasion-us-bullies-spain-proposed
http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/ryle-dwyer/the-us-is-using-terror-tactics-and-attempting-to-bully-europeans-26838.html
we have discussed a lot of things like these on this very website. the fact that you are asking that question
Read radical news here
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.
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.
One question you fail to answer is why, oh why, would the US want to go easy on the guy who actually leaked the docs in exchange for Assange? Even if you buy the "USA is out to get me" line that that Assange has been throwing out (I don't, as I am sure my tone implies), it makes no sense that they would want to fuck Manning any less than Assange.
Please, do explain and earn that +5.
So that goes for almost everyone who has ever suffered through the US "justice" system.
Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
Manning was spying on America for Americans! He felt that the citizens needed to know what was being kept secret from them. The guy was sold a bill of goods about military service, and when he was in the thick of it he realized that he and everyone else had been lied to.
Blar.
Decades behind bars is a horrible sentence. Almost as much as execution.
First Wikipedia begs for money. Then WikiLeaks ask for money. Soon people are going to equate "Wiki" with begging for money. (Or PBS.) :-)
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
The military is pretty big on doing what you are told, following orders. While all orders must be lawful to be followed, there are not provisions for someone to say "Well it was a lawful order, but I thought it wasn't best for the American people."
Like it or no that is how it goes. He broke military law, and is going to go to jail for it. I'm not claiming it is right or wrong, I am claiming that it is what it is going to happen.
Yes I agree. His living conditions are hellish. I hope no one here argues it doesn't amount to torture.
In fact, it is long-term torture, lasting for close to a year now.
The man has yet to be sentenced. He should not be punished, especially not by long-term torture, in the interim.
Minimum security is plenty to hold him.
goddamit, it SHOULD be against the law to be poor!
It would reduce the likelihood of it happening again. No need for defense at that point.
You might as well just light your money on fire. It would be quicker and less emotionally painful.
You'd be better off sending your money to a local group, because I'm pretty sure your leaders act the same as ours. You can believe otherwise if you like.
Tiger Blooded Bi-Winning Machine
It sounds like the only way to defend the constitutional rights you have is making sure it applies for all. And it would be counter-productive to enlist for defending those rights, because that would mean you were undermining your own cause. Logic is fun.
Those aren't UFOs conspiracy noob. Those are craft built by a consortium of conglomerates and elites using stolen technology from aliens, and they will be used to facilitate the world-wide hoax called Project Blue Beam. Although this effort is being thwarted by another powerful group who are using their weather and earthquake weapons in a secret war.
This is common knowledge.
Tiger Blooded Bi-Winning Machine
I don't think WikiLeaks has done anything wrong. They receive information and post it. So what if it pisses off those who allowed their information to leak. But in the case of the soldier who leaked this information he has committed treason against this nation and should be sentenced to death. Sorry to be so brutal but it's the only crime and sentence defined in the constitution and I think we should make frequent use of it against any US citizen leaking or selling information. If that person is leaking information to correct a perceived wrong then they should stand up for what they believe in and be ready to face the consequences of their actions. For those looking to profit... off with their heads! By the way, I love my country but I hate my government so I can't blame those leaking information to stop something wrong they know about, but they need to be aware of the consequences and I suspect more information is leaked for $$$$ than any moral reasons.
well, i wont spend too much effort to explain. youre either a shill, or you actually dont read the website youre participating, or, you are a zealot. there can be no other explanation for expressing strong opinion in a subject you dont know shit about.
You're not being modded down for content, you're being modded down for this confrontational tone. Supporting WL is no wrong in my book, but being rabid about it makes you deserving of -1.
Thanks for sharing the results of your intellectual prowess with the world. We are all duly impressed with your sharp analysis of the situation. Who would have thought that secrets are made to be secret? Truly inspirational.
...is a bigger threat to democracy than terrorism ever was.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
to the prosecution? As a former holder of a TS/SCI clearance who took my oath of secrecy seriously I would like to see this guy get nailed to the wall.
Private Eye (http://www.private-eye.co.uk/) reported in issue #1279:
£60k raised at that point for Manning's defence fund
£240k bail money raised for Assange
£1m value of Assange's autobiography deals
Assuming those relative values are about right, £15k isn't much of a show of support for Manning by WikiLeaks
They should be filing writs and motions.
Military law covers those imprisoning him.
Nice...:p
so, youre on this website, and you are asking that question ? what are you ? a joke ? ...links in parent...
we have discussed a lot of things like these on this very website. the fact that you are asking that question .... well, i wont spend too much effort to explain. youre either a shill, or you actually dont read the website youre participating, or, you are a zealot. there can be no other explanation for expressing strong opinion in a subject you dont know shit about.
So I actually am asking because in my visits here and else were I have honestly not come across a compelling item of import large enough to warrant much of the claims being made that this was so important an action (the leaks). Hey, perhaps that's my own fault for missing them. Perhaps they are to come. Thus I actually DO accept with interest your offers. I really DO want to see what people are so worked up about.
A zeolot?...no, if I were a zeolot, I would not be asking for your point of view I would think. I'd be calling you names and giving my best spin, right....oh, wait
Not that I'm above that, but that was certainly not the case here. About the only thing I can cop to is feeding the parents own words back with an implied question-mark, which I think was warranted. One of the reasons is, if I choose the phrase, I'm perhaps building a strawman. The claim is of "real, real, shit. Subjective indeed, but can someone make a case for it?
I have strong opinions on the subject, but my interest is in looking at the other side of things,...ALways! That's why I asked sir. Not that I am wholey against a little whistleblowing and am hoping for openleaks success frankly.
Have I read everything on this or ANY site discussing this? Um, no actually I'm a pretty busy dude and I have my hands full. But I do try to stay informed and am asking for help doing so from those I disagree with. And I look forward to some condensed and skimable education here. Hell, that's what the site is BUILT to provide, isn't it?
As to your offerings, frankly those two links don't really change my opinion. Sorry. But let me make sure I've got this right. They are:
Link 1)A bit of bullying in a push for more stringent copyright and patent laws in an apparent attempt to riegn in internet piracy. Many sides to that one, but news? Magnitude?
2) The CIA kidnapped a guy that among other things they believed was planning to attack the US embassy in Rome and is apparently agreed to be a bad dude. Not particularly pretty, but the artical seems most upset with the WSJ. And more importantly I don't even see where this info is part of the leaking discussion. Seems completely off the point. Perhaps I'm just being a zeolot?
bottom line.
I remain interested in hearing from anyone who can educate me. But, how about toning it down with the belligerence.
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.--Mark Twain
Ok I'm relieved. I was a lot more worried about Manning than Assange as the latter has 'media protection'.
Btw - if you want to donate to Wikileaks use Money Transfer. I am assuming (naively) that as a result of their respective actions, Amazon are going to go out of business, and PayPal, VISA and MasterCard are going to suddenly find themselves in a small, deep, ocean of competitors with a pre-built customer base.
Anonymous Coward likes this comment.
http://www.couragetoresist.org/
He is guilty of Espionage - the facts speak for themselves.
Here is the relevant section of United States Code TITLE 10, Subtitle A, PART II, CHAPTER 47, SUB-CHAPTER 906a Article 106a. Espionage aka the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
There are no exceptions, excuses or extenuating circumstances for what he did. This kid was just plain stupid and he is more then likely going to spend the rest ( or a very large portion ) of his life in a very small box in Kansas or if he is lucky he will just get the needle.
Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
And becoming even more common, thanks (?) to the mass wildlife deaths.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
He has been denied a speedy trial and has suffered punitive treatment in pre-trial detention.
Allegedly. Isn't that for the courts to decide? I very much doubt they would take any risks with his treatment that could be used to his favor legally.
FYI - It was two years almost to the day from the arrest of Timothy McVeigh (April 19, 1995) till his trial started (April 24, 1997). He was arrested the same day as the bombing, and was identified as the likely bomber in two days. That case would seem far more straightforward than some of the case against Manning.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Does anyone else here think he should be giving more...
You're offended that he stole the information? Uh yeah, that's what leakers do. That's how information gets out when the government doesn't want you to know what it is doing.
And who exactly was "put in danger". You know, more danger than what one must expect when forcibly occupying a nation, or conniving with the occupiers of your homeland?
His country lied to him about what it was doing, and he felt we deserved to see how secrecy was being abused.
He's a hero. More of a hero than anyone in Iraq or Afghanistan could ever be.
Blar.