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.'"
That "enemy" being the American people.
but he gave the info to wikileaks which is cool, so they should just like let him go and tell him not to do it again
It'll be interesting to watch the prosecution try to weasel out of this simple question.
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
Yeah, because US people are way more important and deserve to be alive. The rest of us are less important and our lives are disposable.
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.
And his disclosures to wikileaks are arguably responsible for triggering the revolution in Tunisia, which set off Egypt and Libya. Maybe he should get a peace prize before you go and kill him.
Pretty sure that the GUY WHO SET HIMSELF ON FIRE was the catalyst for the revolution in Tunisia.
The law also forced Rosa Parks to sit in the back of the bus because of her skin color. Some laws are immoral and need to be broken for the greater good.
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.
He did the crime, and he's going to do the time.
What, no presumption of innocence? No due process? We've made so much progress!
Also in this case, since it was a capital crime, "doing the time" could very well mean he would be executed. The punishment seems very much disproportionate to what he actually did. All he did was expose corruption and for that he should get the firing squad?
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE THRUTH
Maybe not. But I can handle the 'truth'.
A camel is a horse created by a committee
The supreme law of the land is not the whim of the commander-in-chief or the doings of his underlings, or even that of the legislature. It is the Constitution. When those in power break that law, as they have done routinely since Lincoln, it is the DUTY of all citizens and service members to disobey their orders.
Jesus, get out of my country. (Briton here)
People like you are what gives retards in power the power they have.
Not only will he not get his arse kicked, he is likely going to be killed because America are embarrassed that such secrets got out to "the enemy" and want to make an example of him.
I bet you'd probably cover for cops abusive powers as well.
You are one sad example of a human. I hope you aren't in a position of power.
2) disagreeing with a law morally entitles somebody to break it.
That is ridiculous. Ever read "Civil Disobedience"? Few would argue the American revolution wasnt a moral case of breaking laws, or that the civil rights movement wasnt a moral case of breaking the laws. I can think of several laws off the top of my head that should be broken regularly if it suites a person. Marijuana use, prostitution, and buying alcohol on Sundays.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
The People.
Ask an Egyptian
Ask a Tunisian.
Ask someone who marched in Selma.
The Digital Sorceress
Really? Even the feds admitted there were no tactical threats from his release, and that it consisted largely of embarrassing diplomatic emails. If you make this claim, you should back it up, because when even the feds admit there was no threat. Innocent until proven guilty, so you need to provide proof.
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.
Country, or government? The government started an illegal war with Iraq based on faked "evidence" and the testimony of an Iraqi dissident. Even the Bush administration admitted there were no WMDs, and changed it to a "war of liberation". That's illegal, wrong, and violates the Constitution, and is the real treason here (along with Bush II and Obama's continuing war on civil rights). You place more importance on orders than right or wrong, which is just plain wrong, and EXACTLY the thing that led the Germans to atrocities. Are you kidding? What world do you live in where it's OK for my government to order killings of people who have never threatened me on my behalf in secret?
In the absolute, I would agree. The world would be a nightmare if everything was public. Big governmental agencies needs privacy.
The problem is all the wrongdoing that has been shielded this way. When someone is the witness of so much abuse, it is a civic behaviour to violate secrecy agreement and divulgate all the wrong doing.
This is a risky behaviour, but in this case, it was heroic. Governmental agencies shall be warned that secrecy shall not be used for hiding wrongdoing. They shall have ethic and behave well, otherwise they will lose all secrecy.
Bradley E. Manning deserves a reward for his good action.
Rules are made for a reason.
Yes - but the fact that a rule exists doesn't make it a good rule or correct to use in every situation. How would you like a rule that had a dealth penalty for posting dumb comments?
Failing to name "the enemy" is standard military procedure. Referring to them by a name would humanize them more than a generic noun like "the enemy" would.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
"We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents," Morrell told the Washington Post on Aug 11. Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/28/104404/officials-may-be-overstating-the.html#ixzz1FXksZKgb
1) Manning signs up with the military... in doing so he specifically agrees to be held accountable for pesky little things like treason.
2) Manning commits treason.
Why shouldn't he be held accountable?
Your analogy is missing a big element... Rosa Parks was being discriminated against for no reason. Manning willingly agreed to those rules, so it's not enough to say "he did good by breaking the rules". He still broke something he agreed to uphold and the punishment is warranted on that grounds alone.
In a perfect world he would have gotten many people in the US military/government tried for war crimes, but he still leaked military secrets to the public and no matter the content that is treason. Just because other people did really bad stuff doesn't give him card blanche to do it too (unless you believe it does, in which case it's a different though equally interesting conversation).
I invite you to change my mind on this, but you'll have to do a lot better than racism for your analogy.
Wow, a lot of dumb posts for this article. I'm not a lawyer of military justice, but releasing sensitive classified documents onto the internet is certainly, in layman's vernacular, "aiding the enemy". We are currently fighting two actual declared hot wars, and we have enemies in each of those, and in each of those the enemies gained operable knowledge they otherwise wouldn't have. How is that NOT aiding the enemy?
To me it is a plain case of treason and capital punishment seems reasonable, but a life sentence could also be reasonable if the prosecution is feeling generous.
A mere forty years ago a great whistleblower did his work and risked all, but did not get placed in brutal imprisonment and danger of death for putting his country's moral character to a test, and even a corrupt President would voluntarily resign upon the revelation of his lawbreaking. I speak of course of Danny Ellsberg and President Nixon.
Anyone who could become privy to what Pvt. Manning did, that is that the USA conducts thinly veiled torture with electric shock, waterboarding, psychological torture, and that it renditions prisoners to regimes like the recently deposed one in Egypt which engage in blatant torture including drills,
anyone who could see that this is a blatant exercise of power meant to subdue the disadvantaged of the world and mold the economics to the advantage of America's elite to the detriment of everyone else, including future generations,
anyone who could see the brutality of willful shoot-ups of civilians and journalists by snickering, racist Apache gunship crews,
anyone who could see the contravention of international law and agreements we are assigned to and to which our national honor is affixed by deliberate scheming,
anyone who could see that the nature of our government's policies is hidden, distorted, or misrepresented to its constituents
and hold their peace, working in silent assent to atrocities, and not speak out, would have been convicted at Nuremberg, would have made themselves directly share responsibility for monstrous crimes, and would be no guardian of liberty or law, but a tool to those who corrupt both. If the letter of the law is all that is right and Bradley Manning is a criminal for blowing the whistle on the corrupt exercise of power, then everyone who signed the American Declaration of Independence ought to have hung too, and apologies are due for this nation's existence altogether with its rights and wrongs, and a ridiculous and futile exercise - thus the powers that would have Manning punished are discredited.
They who would sacrifice essential freedom for a little security will gain neither, and lose both, quoth Ben Franklin.
They who would sacrifice basic humanity and law for obedience to tyrants are heirs to tyranny and the stain that brings, and none of the things that have ever made this country worth fighting for. We'll need more people like Manning to get our country back from the plutocrats and propaganda that have already plundered its wealth for their wars.
If you have clear evidence of a crime there a myriad of ways to take action that do not involve knowing disclosing classified information.
unless your smoking the same stuff which Krugman of the NYT is because he claims its because Obama is President and our audacity and courage to elect him empowered the people of the Middle East to revolt.
As for aiding the enemy, well, pick one. I am sure we can make one up if we need it. There were certainly documents and such that put the lives of many soldiers and civilians in danger but I understand how quickly many here dismiss them. Its far better to portray it as Us vs The Man even though half the place is willing to hand over all rights and money provided they think someone else gets the shaft.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The real defenders of a society are the people who are not afraid to stand against the ones that stain, lie, cheat and ultimately disgrace said society. Especially when their actions run against the will of the powerful or the law (which defends first and foremost the powerful).
Look into your own history - you greatest heroes were "terrorists". Jesus was terrorist too (to the Jewish priests). In the history of my people our greatest heroes were rebels and "terrorists". Hanged for treason and helping the enemy....
What if the country breaks faith with it's citizens? Huh? What then? Who gets punished?
Oh, that's right, it's the government. Those people "in charge" obviously know what's best for the lot of us. Right? You can't punish people who are blatantly doing good things for everyone else in the world, right? They're thinking of everyone else before themselves, right? *snicker*
Piece of advice....... THINK FOR YOURSELF. Don't let someone else in a suit and tie live your life for you.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) supersedes civilian law when dealing with members of the Armed Forces: Army, Air Force, Navy (Marines included here, even though they hate being told that they're in the Navy :P ) & Coast Guard.
When enlisting or accepting a commission, you swear an oath to uphold all of these laws and much, much more. You forgo your Constitutional rights -- this is one of the reasons that military service is considered making a sacrifice. You accept a new set of rights which are outlined in the UCMJ. What a Private First Class thinks is of no concern -- Privates are for doing, Sergeants are for making sure things are done, and Officers are for thinking (in a nutshell). His only obligation is to follow the lawful orders given to him by his seniors.
Whenever something is done by a Soldier, it is often covered by multiple Articles of the UCMJ. For example, mouthing off to a senior NonCommissioned Officer may violate the following:
Article 91. Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer.
Article 92. Failure to obey order or regulation.
Article 117. Provoking speeches or gestures.
An interaction as simple as "Private Smith, take out the trash." -- "Fuck you Sergeant Jones!" is clearly more complex than one guideline, and is that NCO or Officer's duty to interpret and punish accordingly.
The same laws which protect the United States and its allies also protect each service member. He will receive a fair trial through Courts Martial, and may be found guilty or not. If he has been found to (intentionally or unintentionally) disclose sensitive or classified information, he will pay accordingly. Each charge will be looked at both individually and collectively as to its intent and results. The military takes care of its own.
What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
Yes because Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Or was it Eurasia? So many enemies...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
'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.
I fully expected the prosecution to throw the book at Manning. Waving the threat of capital punishment serves as a great way to make future Mannings think twice before replicating his actions. (or at least to remain sensibly quiet about doing so)
Big Government agencies shouldn't exist to have privacy.
http://CryoLANparty.com/ A lan I'm staff on!
Specifically, you can be charged as an 'accessory after the fact' if you conceal evidence of a crime. I'm not actually sure if official secrets are a defence against this, so not disclosing an official secret that concealed a crime and disclosing it could both be illegal in some cases.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
charged != convicted.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Ask a KKK member in the 30s.
Oh, wait...
The absolute rule of majority is not democracy. It's tyranny. If popular support was everything needed to break laws you can call most populist South American dictators as heroes.
I'm a Brazilian. Brazil is an interesting country. In the 1700s Brazil had a very fast growth epoch, enough the scare Lisbon. Lisbon decreed a 20% tax on mining profits, a ban on all manufacturing industries and the use of military force to collect taxes, if needed (the derrama). A few bored intellectuals started an independence movement - but the population overall just supported the Portuguese Crown, being Catholics and the divine theory of the right of Kings. When the Portuguese discovered the movement they chose a scape goat, hang him, chopped him in little pieces and scattered him between Rio de Janeiro and Minas Gerais - like between New York to Boston.
The same population that then supported the Crown also supported the Vargas dictatorship in the 30s. The Vagas dictatorship started displaced the democratic (although elitist) government that ruled the country from 1889 to 1930s. After the Vagas dictatorship the country would only live a very troubled democracy between 1945 to 1964 - but with strong military interventions. The democracy has only been restored in the late 80s, after a lot of blood been spilled.
Popular support is a component of democracy but it's not enough to decide the fairness of laws.
But isn't that exactly the point - that the USA should not be stealing credit card numbers from visiting dignitaries in the first place? And this release of information will help prevent this sort of immoral thing from happening in the future.
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
Yeah, this was an ego thing for sure. That's why he submitted it to a secret leaking organization anonymously.
Idiot.
http://CryoLANparty.com/ A lan I'm staff on!
when it comes to publishing information almost everything about the effects is "Arguably".
The leaks about the leaders of the countries in question wouldn't have helped.
The government there was afraid enough of the information in the cables to censor wikileaks and sites which referenced the cables about tunisia.
of course they might not have actually done much to accelerate the revolutions either.
we can't be sure.
it's not falsifiable either way unless you can think of some objective way of deciding beyond your ironclad certainty that wikileaks could have had no effect at all.
There are quite a few articles like this that allege that the cables about the Tunisian government combined with the self-immolation of the grocer to ignite the revolution. Please note that the Tunisian government thought that the cables were important enough that they blocked access to Wikileaks and other sites that were carrying news about the leaked cables, and reportedly imprisoned some people over their dissemination.
From the article:
No one is suggesting WikiLeaks and its editor Julian Assange can take full credit for toppling the corrupt Tunisian regime. But the whistleblower's contribution to Ben Ali's downfall might at least give the US Justice Department, determined to prosecute Assange as a spy, pause for thought.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Contacting JAG
The only traitors here are the lying scumbags in public office that Manning exposed. America's politicians need to be exposed for the corrupt assholes they are. The people in charge of our government are the ones who are selling out the country. The more embarrassment they get the better. Manning is a hero for the people of this great country, and this is an example of no good deed going unpunished.
Manning is accused of creating pretty much all major US military leaks published in 2010. Within months of these leaks which focus on the Middle East to a great part, a cascade of popular revolts sweeps through most Middle Eastern nations.
Naturally, the promotion of actual democracy in these nations threatens the strategic position of the US as the sole bringer of Iraq-style "freedom". It's hard to force a regime change in democratic countries (well, the US did that during the cold war, but that was before the internet). Freedom in the Middle East is the enemy. Manning and Wikileaks aid the enemy.
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.
Rosa Parks was not just a criminal.
Yes, she was. Like it or not, she was.
The thing is however, after much prodding, we realized that she shouldn't be a criminal. She is however, a criminal.
So am I for that matter, as I've broken the law as well, but just because you don't agree with the law doesn't change the fact that it was broken.
Change the law, don't break it. Sometimes it takes breaking it to point out how stupid it is and to get people to take action, but that is NOT YOUR FIRST METHOD TO FIX THE LAW, its the last.
As you'll see in someones sig floating around slashdot comments, there are 4 boxes for the defense of liberty:
Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box. Used in that order, not any other order.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
The State Department called for both to step down. What's your definition for "not caring?" That we have a bigger reaction to Helicopter gunships firing into crowds and fighter jets bombing civilians then we do a country where the military kept violence relatively low? If you think it's economic based do you honestly think losing Libya's oil would cause a greater impact then losing access to the suez canal?
That's the response those in charge of the military want, largely because they know it's not going to change anything and it helps them keep an eye on troublemakers. Whether it's the moral response is another question entirely.
We (I'm from the U.S.) aren't officially at war with anyone. How could he be aiding an enemy that doesn't exist?
Put identity in the browser.
"Lets just hand out free medical care! The Canadians do it! We're letting people die in the street!"
As a Canadian, yes we do, it works very well, and we laugh at your stupidity when you fight against it. Its just one more thing that makes us shake our heads and say "dumb redneck americans have no idea whats good for them"
Talking points straight out of Glenn Beck's ass. I hope you're being sarcastic, because it feels like I'm feeding a troll.
Yes, because corruption and breach of international law was obviously endemic and seen as acceptable throughout the entire US government past and present.
When that's the case, the only option is to release to the world, as it is then only the world that can hold a country with such a thoroughly corrupt government to account.
But it was even better than that, the cables even exposed corruption in other governments at the same time, so releasing them had the effect of exposing corrupt governments across the globe so that all their actions were brought into question.
Who is this mystical overseer of the world you suggest he should release to who has the power to correct things on a global scale?
>>>Contacting JAG
Which means revealing classified information to the JAG ("I found documents that say...."), so Manning would still be in jail. Your solution is a non-solution.
This is the danger Eisenhower warned us about - an industrial-military that is unaccountable for its constitutional violations.
FREE magazine : http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
The problem I have with your argument is the lack of discrimination Pfc Manning displayed on what constitutes "evidence that those ideals are being violated". Had Manning leaked only things that tend to show some sort of wrong doing I might have agreed with you. But a great deal of what was released was secret yet not sensitive information that had no bearing on any ideals. From wikipedia:
The diplomatic cables revealed numerous unguarded comments and revelations: critiques and praises about the host countries of various U.S. embassies, discussion and resolutions towards ending ongoing tension in the Middle East, efforts for and resistance against nuclear disarmament, actions in the War on Terror, assessments of other threats around the world, dealings between various countries, U.S. intelligence and counterintelligence efforts, U.S. support of dictatorship and other diplomatic actions.
The leaked cables expose that British official revealed that diplomats of the U.S. and Britain eavesdropped on Secretary General Kofi Annan in the weeks before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, even though international treaties prohibit spying at the UN.[47] Further, they reveal that U.S. diplomats told an Afghan government official to keep quiet after they learned that a major U.S. government contractor firm was pimping little boys to be auctioned off to be raped by Afghan policemen in parties organized by the contractor
While there was information in the cables that should have been exposed, there was a lot that should not have been like what US ambassadors thought of French President Sarkozy. I don't know why Pfc Manning disclosed the information and I don't know why he didn't limit it to revelations of wrong doing. But I don't share your view of his actions.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
The cables weren't the reason, but they *were* the catalyst.
The unrest started in Tunisia as protests against the ruler's immediate family who were making out like bandits. The corruption had long been known about (it wasnt subtle) but the spark was the wikileaks release which showed a bunch of cables from US embassy in Tunisia that detailed the corruption. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/feb/02/wikileaks-exclusive-book-extract
The government responded by shutting down wikileaks access which resulted in Anonymous group taking action against official Tunisian government sites and defacing them (with the same cables, amongst other things) which also had a pronounced and under reported effect on people's urge to actually protest.
So, Bradley Manning has probably done more to unleash the wave of democratization hitting north Africa than any other single individual. That doesn't make what he did legal but if everyone stuck to what was legal, we would all be living as serfs to feudal barons.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
Sure, random positive side effects may have come from it
Like saving some hundreds Iraqi lives spared because US soldiers or US contractors didn't opened fire so easy after the movie went public.
And where exactly is he unthankful for what the US Army does? Doesn't he have the right to be upset when his government illegally uses the Army to serve their own selfish agenda thereby willingly letting soldiers die for no particular reason at all? And you are upset when someone exposes said corrupt government? I guess you would rather not know that they don't hesitate to send good men to their deaths without any justification but their own greed?
I am sure that the relatives to all those soldiers that lost their lives (and still lose their lives) in a war that was entirely avoidable and entirely inspired by the greed of a few disagree.
Aiding the enemy was a law created to stop soldiers from doing things like giving guns to the Germans during World War 2. The sort of thing that directly will get Americans killed.
In this case "Aiding the enemy" is being broadly interpreted as exposing anything that our military doesn't want exposed. We're not even talking about detailed attack plans or other secret information that provides genuine strategic advantage, and the documents themselves show that the "enemy" already has a good understanding of US patterns.
We've gone from "Aiding the Enemy" as direct action to directly help the enemy kill Americans, to broadly releasing information to everyone in an attempt to expose misinformation. In other words, actual direct intent to help the enemy is no longer a requirement. QED, anything viewed as negative to the US military effort can also be viewed as a capital offence. That should *not* be applied to Manning.
The ______ Agenda
It might be the right thing to not follow order sometimes, at least when you're asked to do something morally wrong such as killing innocent citizens. Was this the nature of Manning's refusal to follow orders? In any case, if you don't follow orders, you should be prepared to suffer the consequences, even if not following orders was the right thing to do.
Manning is suffering consequences.
Furthermore, where do you draw the distinction between murder, killing, and letting others die? The leaked information, especially the helicopter video, has led to increased scrutiny concerning how the U.S. is conducting itself in these military operations. I would argue that this has saved innocent lives. If one has the opportunity to save innocent lives and does not, how is that different from killing? If someone is drowning and you, a capable swimmer, doesn't attempt to rescue them because you don't want to get wet, have you not just killed them? Or, worse, have you not just murdered them?
Another example: If you're driving drunk (and to keep you, in this example, on morally safe ground, you're only a tad bit over the legal limit after consuming three beers) on a lone country road and come across a car wrecked into a pole. The driver is seriously injured and dying. Staying will result in a drunk driving charge, fleeing will result in the other driver's death. You could just call 911 and leave, but the victim needs immediate first aid services which you can provide. Sometimes doing the right thing has consequences.
As a person, when morality conflicts with legality, morality always wins. The severity of the legal/moral issue doesn't matter. You can't just say, "Well, legality trumps morality until they tell you to start rounding up Jews and systematically killing them." When you say legality trumps morality up to a certain point at which morality takes precedence, then you open the door for that certain point to be arbitrary, debatable, and ultimately meaningless. Ethics always trump the legal system.
I think Manning was ready to face the consequences and is facing them now. But just because he should be ready to face the consequences doesn't mean he should actually be punished. Is China right in their punishment of Liu Xiaobo? He broke the law, after all. Or does he deserve his punishment because he knew the risks he was taking by voicing dissent?
It's just sad that Obama hasn't pardoned Manning. I give Obama a free pass on that one until he gets reelected. It could be political suicide. But once the second term comes around he will have no excuse.
I'll tell you who deserves to be punished: that filthy rat Adrian Lamo. Why Anonymous hasn't gone after his head is beyond me.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
I don't care if he is a emo kid, narcissist, angry teenager, terrorist, or freedom fighter. He exercised his constitutional duty to reveal criminal behavior and expose the duplicitous and potentially illegal actions of the state department, department of justice, department of defense, military leaders, congressional representatives, executive branch, foreign ambassadors, foreign leaders, low-level diplomats, and corporate executives to name a few. That the state is so corrupt that their are no investigations into (documented) war crimes, child prostitution, bribery, extortion, constitutional violations, international treaty violations is totally irrelevant to Bradley Manning. Opponents of Bradley Manning are opponents of the principles of our constitutional democracy.
Stealing classified documents and leaking them isn't necessarily treason. And unless the prosecution can show what enemies were specifically aided by the release, I can't see that charge sticking, even in a military court.
That said, I don't expect the revolutions in the Middle East that started from all of this to play much role, if any. The ends do not justify the means, and it's unlikely than Manning knew his actions would lead to democratic revolutions in other countries. It also remains to be seen whether or not those revolution serve to help or hinder the United States.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
2) disagreeing with a law morally entitles somebody to break it.
Not only entitles, but in some cases obligates.
Ref: Nuremburg trials, where it was firmly established that following the laws and orders of superiors is not a valid excuse.
The crime Manning committed, except stupidity in trusting Lamo, was embarrassing those in power. That's a capital crime anywhere.
The real crime was committed by those who (a) logged all information in one place (placing all their eggs in one basket), and (b) let sensitive documentation be accessible by single individuals, without even logging the access.
And, of course, the crimes that the disclosure uncovered, but that's a different kettle of fish altogether.
And the founders of the US were all traitors to the crown of England. What are you saying?
Even in the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) the notion of conscience is recognized in the course of the execution of one's duty. If a service member is witness to criminal actions by his superiors, he is compelled by duty, honor and conscience to report it.
Are the actions of the US Military and Department of State criminal? Some would say so. And do you think it is "appropriate" for diplomats to also serve as spies? Not only is this simply "wrong" it is quite probably also illegal under international rules and law.
What Manning did was most likely driven by a sense of righteousness and justice. Would I have the courage to act similarly in the same situation? I can say that I would be tempted to but I doubt I would have the balls to carry it out. Manning deserves our admiration for his courage and conviction. He knew he was laying his life on the line and that it would create international news and awareness. He did it anyway. Think on that. This is no "ego trip." This goes way beyond ego.
You are aware that there were military secrets during the civil war, and you would probably be shot for treason for disclosing them to the enemy during that war?
"throw a lot of stuff against the wall and see what sticks". It's a common tactic when one side has limitless funding and resources. Also called "Steamrollering". The Army's first set of charges were too weak and full of holes. As the wiki leaks story progressed (and stories of Manning's torture), the Army realized that they would lose if they went to court with what they had - none of their accusations held water. So they came up with as many charges as they could, and "re-charged" Manning. Trouble is, like the first set of charges, these are weak, too, but the Army is banking on "prosecution fatigue" where the court will get tired of wading through the prosecution's BS and pick SOMETHING that they can get a guilty verdict on. Let's hope Manning has good representation who sees through this and will stop this tactic in its tracks.
Republican leadership = Idiocracy
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.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
... what is the correct response?
Just blindly do what you're told and if the brown and slippery hits the rapidly rotating you can always use the "I was following orders" defence!
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
Because that clearly would have accomplished oh so much. They didn't prosecute that helicopter crew even when the entire world saw a video of them opening fire on an unarmed, civilian vehicle attempting to collect dead and wounded after their first attack...you really think they would have done something if only they saw it? You can argue all day long about whether the first attack was "justified," but there's no getting around those pesky Geneva Conventions when it comes to engaging medics and wounded enemies.
"Treason" my ass
He has grossly mishandled huge numbers of documents classified "secret". A "secret" classification is one of the lowest (least sensitive) defined.
There is a crime here, but it is far less than treason.
It is in fact far less than the crime involved in outing Valerie Plame, for which no individual was punished, even though it compromised a covert CIA front
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
Maybe PFC Manning is guilty of a crime, maybe he isn't. Either way, this is obviously a big deal to the DoD, among others. Why is no going after the policy-and-decision makers that created an environment such that a lowly PFC could take and leak so much sensitive data?
I note that opinions expressed in support of the charge are marked as trolls, while opinions expressed in opposition to the charge are modded up.
Good.
Perhaps if there were actually some good arguments for punishing Manning, they wouldn't be marked as troll. "Hang the bastard" and "he got what he deserves" aren't arguments, they're ignorant and inflammatory claims.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
The Civil War? The one before which Lincoln suspended habeas corpus? The one where "the enemy" was anyone who believed in states' rights? Yes, I am aware the Constitution was repeatedly violated by the Federal government during that war. Just because it's the government doing it doesn't mean it's not illegal.
Also in this case, since it was a capital crime, "doing the time" could very well mean he would be executed. The punishment seems very much disproportionate to what he actually did. All he did was expose corruption and for that he should get the firing squad?
Actually, what he did, right or wrong, is disseminated classified military documents to foreign nationals (wikileaks) during a time of war. The penalty for that can be death. The courts will have to decide whether the information disseminated warrants that penalty or not (most likely not).
Secret murder. The US government killed people in Yemen and paid off the Yemeni government to take the blame for it. No declaration of war by Congress, just some drone attacks with the usual undisclosed "collateral damage" via a high-pressure freedom dispersal unit (some call them missiles). That's one really obvious one. Need more examples? I'll say it again: It's not legal just because the government is doing it.
I'm sorry, I thought that soldiers took an oath to defend the Constitution of the US against all enemies, foreign or domestic. So when the Executive Branch continuously violates the Constitution, it is their duty to refuse to help to do so, and in fact actively prevent such crimes. One such way is to use political speech, such as pointing out repeated unconstitutional acts by the government. Or am I wrong here? Are you saying US troops do not have a responsibility to defend the supreme law of the land? Is it OK for them to follow orders, even when those orders are unconstitutional?
>>>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!"
FREE magazine : http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
Yea, if only the military had thought of giving TS SCI clearances to some members of JAG so that they too could deal with such things.....
Simply put, the claim that Manning exposed corruption can't save him. If he had only exposed corruption, he'd be golden. Whistle-blower laws would have protected him. Probably would have had his life turned upside down for a while, but come out the other side.
But he didn't just expose corruption. He also chose to release unrelated documents that he shouldn't have. He left himself wide open for prosecution doing that. The law doesn't look at two acts and balance them. You can be a saint of a person, helping the poor for decades, etc etc. Kick one of them in the nuts and you still go to jail for assault. The law doesn't go "Hey, you've been a good guy, we'll look the other way on this one."
Now he can hope that the judge(s) will take the sum of his deeds into account and have mercy, but that's unlikely. The judges can rationalize it as "You discounted the harmful side-effects of your actions. Therefore we will discount the helpful effects."
As for "aiding the enemy", it will be an easy argument for the prosecution to argue. There doesn't have to be any actual aid or enemy. They just have to show he had reason to believe it could aid the enemy. Not "believe", "reason to believe". His reason to believe? He would have been told releasing documents could aid the enemy. Doesn't matter if he accepted that reason or not, he was given that reason. He just had to be told divulging the documents could aid the enemy.
Even if not told, he was releasing secret documents which by definition are not released so as to not aid the enemy. What enemy? Doesn't matter. Doesn't even matter if the enemy was real or hypothetical.
He's screwed.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Yeah, that worked out real well for Lynndie England, didn't it.
Half of Congress are millionaires, the rest is in the pocket of billionaires to become millionaires.
They don't give a shit about poverty.
If you engage in an illegal war, invade a couple of countries, kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people, break US law, violate the constitution, and completely ignore international law, including the Geneva convention treaties put in place after the atrocities of WWII, and you THEN proceed to cover it all up, there's nothing wrong with what you're doing, and you are even considered heroic and patriotic, and nothing happens to you except maybe getting more funding.
However, if you BLAB about it and release documents that PROVE it, THEN you're a horrible, horrible person who needs to die.
God, the people in this country are fucking stupid.
Apples and oranges, there was no compelling reason for Valerie Plame's identity to be leaked, even today I am not aware of any interest other than revenge or incompetence for that being leaked. OTOH some of those materials that have been released by wikileaks, presumably from PFC Manning, have been quite informative about things of real significance. And quite frankly, the man is clearly a patriot. Unlike all those folks that are looking the other way and or commiting war crimes because they were ordered to, he's provided the materials necessary to question whether or not the DoD has really been honest about various crimes committed by our service personnel at the bequest of higher ups.
Whether you'd want the death penalty or not, up until recently there were consequences for committing war crimes, and without a few people with a spine to leak materials to the press, we can't assume that the military still cares about that. And quite frankly, the military has to obey the US constitution just like other branches of the government, it's been pretty clear that all the sheeple have been willing to torture and murder innocent civilians just so that they can think they're safe.
I have a hard time being sympathetic. If there were some particular issue of malfeasance addressed by these documents then that's one thing. "Entity X has done something wrong and here are the docs to prove it." No problems. However I just can't believe anyone actually read 300000 documents before casting them into the wind. That goes for Manning and Wikileaks. They seem to think that every secret is something evil that needs to be exposed, which is just not true. All tech companies have proprietary info that they keep under wraps etc. If all secrets are bad, then I want Assange's personal info: credit cards, phone numbers, bank accounts and physical location tracking every 5 minutes. What is he trying to hide? He must be doing something bad!!!
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
Their duty in that regard is to refuse specific orders that are clearly illegal.
That's a good answer, and I see what you mean now. However, it's also a very convenient answer for the people who run a system that's engaged in widespread criminal behavior. It's easy to point at any single order or duty and say clearly how it's not illegal, and so failure to obey is punishable. It should be apparent, though, to someone insightful, that this is an easy way to spread the responsibility for criminality in such a way to make everyone part of a criminal gang feel innocent. Surely you wouldn't say that preparing an MRE is unconstitutional? Yet that preparation of the MRE, along with the development of missile technology, along with the conveyance of fuel, along with relaying information and much more all make military action possible. That the action itself is illegal is never apparent along the way at all the small steps. That's why I think it's important to defend acts such as Manning's.
Its easy to say things in hindsight, especially when you aren't familiar with how such sitituations work. There was an investigation and it was found to be an accident. And really, when you think about it clinically its easy to see why it happened:
1.) Unknown vehicle comes in during an engagement. The enemy is known to use civilian equipment.
2.) The helicopter crew isn't able to stare closely into their cameras for an extended period of time like you are post facto; the images aren't all that clear especially if you watch it through in full the first time.
3.) With adrenalin flowing and their training kicking in they respond to a potential threat to their lives accordingly.
Accidents happen in war. Tensions are high, everyone is scared, and with guerrilla/insurgency warfare you don't KNOW who the enemy is since they look like everyone else. After you lose a few friends to "civilians" who were really guerrillas, its easy to either A) start hating the civilians (see some of the atrocities in Vietnam) or B) be jumpy/trigger happy when its you and your buddy's life on the line.
It is really easy to sit safe in your home, watch a video clip over and over 50 times, and then make commentary of how "wrong" someone's behavior was. You weren't there. You weren't feeling the fear, anxiety, excitement... You don't know what its like to have your days filled with boredom, just wishing you could go back to the World, when suddenly you are pulled into an incredibly tense and frightening situation. You don't know how you'll react after you've been trained so that when your mind shuts down you will hopefully still do what needs to be done.
This is Slashdot. There are comments every day about people making emotional judgements about situations, and how that is wrong. How people should use logic, and try to figure out every possible factor and then work out what the best solution is. Maybe you should try that, the old "put your self in their shoes" method, before rushing to conclusions like the "sheeple" you so profess to hate.
There were certainly documents and such that put the lives of many soldiers and civilians in danger but I understand how quickly many here dismiss them
Got a decent fer'instance? Even one single solitary document containing even one fact that you can demonstrate might have even theoretically endangered a single life?
Seems nobody else has managed that challenge yet. There were one or 2 half hearted attempts months ago, but the best they could do was documents showing where troops were many months before the release. They couldn't seem to find any cases where the troops were still where the documents said they were.
So there it is, show us here a single solitary instance where even one life might reasonably be believed to be endangered and we'll all quit dismissing the endangerment argument so easily.
>>>Contacting JAG
Which means revealing classified information to the JAG ("I found documents that say...."), so Manning would still be in jail.
You've never been in the military or you would know that your answer is incorrect. If indeed Manning had felt there was some moral issue involved, a violation of law or orders, the proper place to take that complaint would be the local offices of the Judge Advocate General (JAG) or the Inspector General (IG). They are expected to deal with evidence which may be classified in nature. WikiLeaks is not part of that solution.
And for those who are eager to elevate Manning as responsible for rebellion around the globe, while I strongly debate whether he had anything to do with that, you have to be prepared to also lay at his feet partial responsibility for the deaths of civilians caught in the crossfire between factions.
>>>Iraq and Afghanistan?
The best way to prevent death is to (back in 2002) keep the US soldiers at home. You could have saved nearly one million deaths.
FREE magazine : http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
How is that sanity if it would result in no action being taken?
You have to love the /. attitude: If I don't look at this an immediately understand this, it must be really stupid.
If you want to understand it, try to this about running a government for the people. Attempt to describe the programs you would setup for dealing with foreign countries. It would be easy now to say, "I don't know what those would look like, but they certainly don't involve this..." but the idea is to think a little, not just react.
War is hell.
Which is exactly WHY you shouldn't enter it without just cause - which is exactly what we did. I have never seen a good reason as to WHY the US invaded Iraq.
Yes, we've been there a long time and some may say that is irrelevant now. But NONE of this would have happened if we a) weren't there or b) had any kind of how/when we were going to leave.
Amazing how that one horrible decision has led to so many others. It has cost this country, and others (among other things) loss of money, credibility, and lives.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
First, have you listened to the audio in that video? The crew was practically begging for permission to shoot, bantering back and forth like they were playing a video game. As far as I'm concerned, when you approach a situation that could involve taking life with that kind of attitude, nothing that follows is an "accident." As for "your buddy's life on the line," whose life, exactly, was on the line? The only "engagement" going on was the helicopter gunning down a bunch of men who didn't even know anything was coming. That helicopter was far enough away that the "enemy" probably couldn't even see them, let alone hit them with anything, even if they had presented a weapon, which that vehicle didn't.
And most importantly, if it truly was an accident, they should still be in jail. I guarantee you that if a civilian "accidentally" killed multiple individuals, none of whom had given any indication of danger, we would lock them up for a long time on manslaughter charges...but if a soldier does it, they're off scott free? You're right, being a soldier does mean making difficult decisions with little time, but they all knew that when they signed up and accepted that responsibility. Stress, fear, excitement...none of it is an excuse for making a mistake that takes innocent life.
In what fantasy world do you think that JAG would respond favorably to someone presenting them with evidence of war crimes committed by the commander-in-chief?
First, have you listened to the audio in that video? The crew was practically begging for permission to shoot, bantering back and forth like they were playing a video game. As far as I'm concerned, when you approach a situation that could involve taking life with that kind of attitude, nothing that follows is an "accident."
Ummm, it's radio chatter chief. You don't get emotional on the comms, or at all if you can avoid it. That's how artillery gets dropped on your own guys or civilians. When you're flying a multi-million dollar killing machine providing top-cover for countless boots on the ground, well, golly gee Sally, you just don't have time to take a personal moment and cry a little while second guessing yourself over the radio for the entire AO to hear. If you're the 19 year old kid on the ground taking RPG fire do you want to hear you're top-cover which is supposed to be protecting you crying "Oh God I just killed someone. Was it the right person? I hope it was the right person! I'm scared up here!!"
And most importantly, if it truly was an accident, they should still be in jail. I guarantee you that if a civilian "accidentally" killed multiple individuals, none of whom had given any indication of danger, we would lock them up for a long time on manslaughter charges
It's almost as if different rules exist for soldiers in warzones then civilians in peacetime in recognition of the differences in environment and expectation....
I think if you're talking about legal repercussions for actions then you certainly do need to talk like a lawyer. Saying that you're not a lawyer and you don't need to "talk like a lawyer" when discussing legal matters is about as absurd as coming to an engineering conference and saying that you don't know mathematics and expecting none to be discussed around you.
For instance, you are, as you have clearly demonstrated, a wanker. You're also exhibiting it in public. Should you be arrested for public fornication, which is illegal in a lot of jurisdictions? No, because "wanker" means different things in different contexts.
There have been very, very few prosecutions for treason in US history, leading one to the conclusion that the definition of "aid and comfort to the enemy" is constructed in a rather narrow sense. Note that Daniel Ellsberg was not charged with treason for leaking the Pentagon Papers.
There's a concept in law that you're only guilty of a crime if you had some level of "guilty mind" (Latin: mens rea) to commit that crime. You cannot be charged with murder unless you intended, with a guilty mind, to kill someone. (This is why the crime of manslaughter exists.) I know you're not a lawyer and don't want to consider points of law, but you brought up the law by saying that this fellow needs to be punished for treason.
Even if Manning's release of the documents resulted in some boogeyman "enemy of the US" receiving "aid and comfort" (which has not been shown), he is still not guilty of treason because he did not leak the documents with the intent that enemies of the US should benefit militarily from them. Is he guilty of violating the conditions of his security clearance? Sure. But this is not treason.
He's not a Traitor until proven so.
Do not use the word there to define him unless it meets this:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." ...or this...
"Any person who--
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;
shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct."
Lots of people bandy about the word without honestly understanding the term in question and that it's a SPECIFIC act- which, so far, hasn't been proven. WikiLeaks wasn't going directly to the "enemy" with the information. That's the only way you're going to get to the item #2 with the UMCJ charge of Treason- and the official one that applies to ALL including those in the Military doesn't apply at all.
Calling someone that doesn't hold your opinion (which isn't based in fact, mind...) that he's a traitor as "retarded" as you did in your caption is in fine /. style, but one wonders who's the 'tard in that transaction...
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Actually, that's the backup solution for the national debt.