Bradley Manning Charged With Aiding the Enemy

Hugh Pickens writes writes "The Washington Post reports that the army has brought twenty-two new charges — including the Article 104 offence of 'aiding the enemy' that carries a potential death sentence — against Pfc. Bradley E. Manning, a former intelligence analyst accused of leaking hundreds of thousands of classified military and diplomatic documents to the anti-secrecy Web site WikiLeaks. The new charges, filed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, include wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the Internet, knowing that it will be accessed by the enemy, that US officials have asserted could put soldiers and civilians at risk. However the prosecution has notified Manning's attorneys that it will not recommend the death penalty and the charge sheet, like the original set of accusations, contains no mention by name of the enemy to which the US military is referring. Manning's supporters reacted to the new charges with dismay. 'I'm shocked that the military opted to charge Pfc. Bradley Manning today with the capital offense of 'aiding the enemy,' says Jeff Paterson, project director of Courage to Resist, which has raised money for Manning's defense. 'It's beyond ironic that leaked US State Department cables have contributed to revolution and revolt in the Middle East, yet an American may be executed, or at best face life in prison, for being the primary whistleblower.'"

Comments

Competition

[Anonymous Coward]

If there's one thing the business of government will not tolerate, it's competition -- especially when that competition exposes government as the incompetent, self-serving elite which they are. The plain fact is that Manning and Wikileaks did what government could not -- and in the process exposed their corrupt objectives -- and now the elite at the top of the pyramid are absolutely fuming.

I don't know if there's anything I enjoy more than watching the power pyramid squirm with jealousy and embarrassment.

Re:Good!

[santax]

Befehl ist Befehl! You know the problem with the US? They haven't had a war on their own soil for too long. It's about time they get one. It will teach them that war is a bit less 'fun' when it's your kids that are being shot at from an apache. BTW: not following orders (or: befehl is befehl) was the nr. 1 argument that SS-soldiers had to say for themselves on the Nuremberg-trials.

Re:No sympathy here, sorry

[TheRaven64]

He also swore an oath to uphold the ideals and the constitution of the USA. When he finds evidence that those ideals are being violated by those further up the chain of command, what is the correct response?

Re:And who, exactly, is the enemy?

[Artifakt]

The 'legal world', in this case, would be a declaration of war. You can't commit treason in time of war if there's no war, just some sort of nebulous police action. That is, you can't if the constitution, that pesky piece of paper, is followed. If the US now ignores the requirement for a specific enemy to try someone for Treason as a death penalty offense, that's just the sort of thing that has so many here arguing the gap between moral and legal.

Declared wars?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's news to me. Please enlighten us: exactly when did congress formally declare war as the constitution requires? Oh, that's right -- they haven't actually declared a war since WW2. Stop spouting bullshit.

Re:Indoctrination

[sglewis100]

It's amazing that even after so much corruption in government has been exposed, the common man simply brushes it off and reverts to blindly trusting authority. If that doesn't illustrate the power of indoctrination, I don't know what does.

Right, because it's that much of a black and white issue. Either release everything, or release nothing. What was done, was irresponsible. Is there not a difference between releasing SOME information, and dumping so much stuff that people are put in harms way? The NY Times Magazine did a long , including talks about things they refused to do, including some interesting tidbits, such as:

• Prior to the current release, WikiLeaks was most famous for footage of US helicopters firing on a crowd in Baghdad in 2007. All for a release like that, until you hear this: "But in its zeal to make the video a work of antiwar propaganda, WikiLeaks also released a version that didn’t call attention to an Iraqi who was toting a rocket-propelled grenade and packaged the manipulated version under the tendentious rubric “Collateral Murder.”"
• The Times also "Guided by reporters with extensive experience in the field, we redacted the names of ordinary citizens, local officials, activists, academics and others who had spoken to American soldiers or diplomats. We edited out any details that might reveal ongoing intelligence-gathering operations, military tactics or locations of material that could be used to fashion terrorist weapons."
• That the Times ended up with a poor relationship with WikiLeaks, ultimately losing access to early release of data, after Assange was made that "we declined to link our online coverage of the War Logs to the WikiLeaks Web site, a decision we made because we feared — rightly, as it turned out — that its trove would contain the names of low-level informants and make them Taliban targets."

• The article (fascinating, really) goes on to talk about the Times eventually being in touch with the government, and agreeing to withhold certain documents that were mentioning too many specific details of ongoing operations, and disagreeing and publishing others that they felt were not endangering any lives. But throughout it all, the Obama administration was apparently not trying to strong arm the Times, and the article specifically cites: "The Obama White House, while strongly condemning WikiLeaks for making the documents public, did not seek an injunction to halt publication. There was no Oval Office lecture. On the contrary, in our discussions before publication of our articles, White House officials, while challenging some of the conclusions we drew from the material, thanked us for handling the documents with care. The secretaries of state and defense and the attorney general resisted the opportunity for a crowd-pleasing orgy of press bashing. There has been no serious official talk — unless you count an ambiguous hint by Senator Joseph Lieberman — of pursuing news organizations in the courts. Though the release of these documents was certainly embarrassing, the relevant government agencies actually engaged with us in an attempt to prevent the release of material genuinely damaging to innocent individuals or to the national interest."
  
  So yeah, I think one soldier releasing hundreds of thousands of documents without any care to do so solely with a moral purpose, and taking care not to release things that are flat out dangerous, and giving them to a guy who just wanted to bulk publish EVERYTHING regardless of content is not only illegal, but also not morally defensible.

Divisive issue

[tekrat]

Some here feel that Manning is a traitor and hanging's too good for him. Some here feel that the guy is a hero, and should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

There are many arguments for and against. Regardless, Manning is only so far CHARGED with various "crimes". I haven't seen that the prosecution has any actual evidence to convict.

Consider the financial meltdown for a moment. Do you realize that NO ONE has gone to jail for that? Nobody. Nada (don't reply about Madoff, that's not related).Sure, there were some guys from Bear Stearns that were charged, but the convictions didn't happen because the prosecution couldn't convince a jury, because they just didn't have enough evidence.

Lately, prosecutors haven't even been pursuing charges unless they are sure they can make it stick. Of course, the military is different in that they think they can railroad anyone they like, to make an example and keep the rest of us in line. But the truth is, when Manning comes to trial, the prosecution may have a hard time making the case stick.

In the meantime, put the noose away and give the dude a little more breathing room. After all, we are supposedly living in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty. Unless you guys with the noose in your hands want to change that about the "land of the free" as well.. Yeah America. You're number one.

Re:And who, exactly, is the enemy?

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

I don't understand why we need to have a pledge of allegiance at all. That's the sort of thing that a dictatorship would have.

Re:No sympathy here, sorry

[C_amiga_fan]

>>>But that doesn't mean there aren't secrets being kept right now that aren't necessary

Like the slaughter or journalists, cameramen, and children by US Soldiers. That *definitely* has to be kept secret, or else the american public might decide that "war sucks" and demand the killing be ended immediately. "Lock up that video damnit!!!" George Duh Bush (stamps Top Secret on tape). "Gotta keep fighting and killing!"