Slashdot Mirror


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.'"

5 of 844 comments (clear)

  1. Competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  2. Re:Good! by santax · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  3. Re:No sympathy here, sorry by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  4. Re:And who, exactly, is the enemy? by Artifakt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Who is John Cabal?
  5. Declared wars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.