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.'"

22 of 844 comments (clear)

  1. Aiding the enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That "enemy" being the American people.

    1. Re:Aiding the enemy by i_b_don · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As an American, I can say I find it useful when the walls public and private information are torn down briefly so we can see what things the government are spinning, hiding, or just plain lying about. A free and democratic government should be open and transparent. There are of course things that should be hidden and kept secret, the diplomatic cables for example, but our government under bush and obama and the over hyped terror boogieman have pull way too much a cloak of national security. As a participant in the American democratic system, I see plenty of benefit to Manning's actions and I wish this type of thing would happen more often.

      There are of course many many things I don't want to see leaked, such as military secrets, military assets, etc, but so far I haven't seen any harm from Manning's actions and I've seen lots of benefit. Perhaps we will learn of the harm later and I'll change my mind on the whole issue, but right now I only see the benefit. The benefit however is that it allows us to better understand the difference between the face our government shows the public and what it says behind the scenes, it allows us to see the true status of the war in Afghanistan, and it allows us to see better what's really happening in other countries (through the diplomatic cables). Some of that information is just interesting, while some of it is very important if you want a government that is controlled by the people rather than a population that is controlled by the government.

      d

      --
      all language nazi's will burne in heil!
  2. And who, exactly, is the enemy? by Magada · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:And who, exactly, is the enemy? by Haedrian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The public of course.

      The American public are the greatest threat to the rest of the US doing whatever the hell they want.

    2. 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?
  3. 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.

  4. Re:Good. He's a fucking traitor and a disgrace by tomthepom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:No sympathy here, sorry by darjen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    2) disagreeing with a law morally entitles somebody to break it.

    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.

  6. 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.

  7. Re:American Public message: by lightbox32 · · Score: 5, Funny

    YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE THRUTH

    Maybe not. But I can handle the 'truth'.

    --
    A camel is a horse created by a committee
  8. Re:No sympathy here, sorry by digsbo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:No sympathy here, sorry by DigitalSorceress · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And who gets to decide if a law is moral or not?

    The People.

    Ask an Egyptian

    Ask a Tunisian.

    Ask someone who marched in Selma.

    --

    The Digital Sorceress
  10. Re:The right charges by digsbo · · Score: 5, Informative

    "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

  11. A stain on my country's tattered honor by Dasher42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:No sympathy here, sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  13. 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
  14. 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.

  15. Re:This is reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  16. Re:Military Law != Civilian Law by uncanny · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He will receive a fair trial through Courts Martial, and may be found guilty or not. .

    mod this post up +1 funny!

  17. Re:Sorry, the cables aren't the reason for revolut by joss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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/
  18. Re:Observation on moderating this thread by RazorSharp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."
  19. That's right, kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.