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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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.
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....
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.
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
Contacting JAG
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.
We are currently fighting two actual declared hot wars
No, neither of those wars was ever "declared". That is factually incorrect. Congress went to great lengths in the early 2000s to avoid actually "declaring" war because they are spineless and wanted to make sure that any blame if the things turned bad would rest solely with the president.
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:
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.
He will receive a fair trial through Courts Martial, and may be found guilty or not. .
mod this post up +1 funny!
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/
Posts like this, however "insightful" they are deemed to be, are part of the reason the US of A is no longer quite so globally revered as it was in, say, post WWII europe. The "knowledge" the "enemy" gained was knowledge of things that already happened. Not secretive military strategy documents, but evidence of clear breaches of the rules of engagement, the murder of civilians, which the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has said is the right of every American citizen to know.
Its easy to sit in front of your PC munching doritos, calling everybody else dumb, and classifying the potential execution of a person who tried to do what he felt was the right thing as "reasonable" and a potential life sentence "generous", knowing that your oh-so-distant removal from the situation means you can just browse on to the next slashdot article and forget about everything in a few minutes.
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.
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.
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.
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."
>>>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/
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.
The problem is that some of the materials he leaked clearly indicate war crimes committed by our service personnel. I realize that it's popular to pretend like it doesn't happen and that it was just a few people at abu Ghraib that were the problem, but the reality is that it's infected the chain of command, and there was no interest in investigating how it is that these crimes against humanity were committed without any intervention by the CO. In that case they only prosecuted a few low level personnel, but never the people giving the orders. That helicopter incident from a while back is a good example, it was definitely something which should have been investigated as it was quite questionable as to whether or not that was really within the relevant rules of engagement at the time.
In Nuremberg we prosecuted a lot of Nazis for following orders, it is a pox on our nation that we've decided that all of a sudden following orders is a good enough justification for looking the other way or participating in war crimes.
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.