Bradley Manning Offers Partial Guilty Plea To Military Court

concealment writes "During a pre-trial hearing in military court today, [alleged Wikileaks source Bradley] Manning's attorney, David Coombs, proposed a partial guilty plea covering a subset of the slew of criminal charges that the U.S. Army has lodged against him. "Manning is attempting to accept responsibility for offenses that are encapsulated within, or are a subset of, the charged offenses," Coombs wrote on his blog this evening. "The court will consider whether this is a permissible plea.""

Comments

So does this include

[santax]

him finally coming out how he started WO2 and the Spanish inquisition? By the way they have treated him I am sure he is ready to confess those too.

Re:So does this include

[1s44c]

him finally coming out how he started WO2 and the Spanish inquisition? By the way they have treated him I am sure he is ready to confess those too.

I didn't expect some kind of Spanish inquisition.

Re:So does this include

[Dave Whiteside]

must not post
must not post ...

awe heck

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition"

Re:So does this include

[ledow]

http://xkcd.com/16/

(Although, to be honest, using that as humour to stop you posting 30-year-old Python quotes is almost beginning to suffer the same problem).

Re:So does this include

[splatter]

The Inquisition.... What a show... wait, shit wrong movie.

Fascist bloodlust

[GameboyRMH]

All the hardcore authoritarian fascists want him dead, I wonder if they'll get their wish. If so, I wonder if Adrian Lamo will feel any guilt at all for ending this guy's life for no fucking reason (attention? "Remember me? I'm still around, everyone!")

Re:Fascist bloodlust

[Corbets]

All the hardcore authoritarian fascists want him dead, I wonder if they'll get their wish. If so, I wonder if Adrian Lamo will feel any guilt at all for ending this guy's life for no fucking reason (attention? "Remember me? I'm still around, everyone!")

Right. Because it's Adrian's fault that Manning chose to distribute documents which he was clearly not authorized to distribute. Whether you think it's right or wrong for him to have distributed them, it's not like anyone can be under the illusion that Manning's actions would have been considered legal. He alone is responsible for what happens to him.

Re:Fascist bloodlust

[h4rr4r]

I think to some degree what he revealed should be taken into consideration. The military not having to deal with whistleblower laws is a bad idea.

If what he revealed was worth it than a BCD is probably all he should get.

Re:Fascist bloodlust

[HaZardman27]

Allowing actions like this, even in the spirit of whistleblowing, would severely undermine the necessary order and discipline an effective military needs. It is certainly not the business of a private to determine what type of classified information should or should not be distributed.

Re:Fascist bloodlust

[Anonymous Coward]

He alone is responsible for what happens to him.

So he is also responsible for the cruel and inhumane treatment during his 900+ days incarceration. Also responsible for what people might call torture? And he is responsible for not getting the right to a speedy trial?

Re:Fascist bloodlust

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, corruption, incompetence and sheer lawlessness due to lack of oversight also severely undermine the necessary order and discipline an effective military needs. It is certainly not the business of the military to withhold information of that nature from their political masters.

Re:Fascist bloodlust

[h4rr4r]

So if some horrible atrocity occurs we should never find out because the few generals decided so?

I would rather the military suffer some disturbance of order than there be no check at on them.

Re:Fascist bloodlust

[Anonymous Coward]

I dare say you would have a different opinion if he'd exposed rapes or murders perpetrated by soldiers but covered up. Or war crimes.

I'd say that the release of the cables played a significant part in initiating the Arab Spring. Even if it was a "straw that broke the camel's back" situation. Unless we want to condemn the popular uprisings against corrupt and/or authoritation regimes then we have to take this into account.

If other crimes have been exposed by the cables then again that should be taken into account.

If it's a private's business to refuse an illegal order then it's a private's business to expose illegal acts being covered up by the military. To argue otherwise is to argue that the military is above the law.

Re:Fascist bloodlust

[cmdr_tofu]

What if he was exposing great illegality (which he probably was)? Let's say for instance Manning found hard evidence that George Bush planned 9/11? That's an extreme example of course, but would you say his duty to step in line as a soldier outweighed his duties as a US citizen and a human being to expose these hypothetical extreme crimes? If you believe a private should be an unthinking robot and allow his superiors to bury evidence of crimes they are commiting, I believe that you are taking an unreasonable stance.

Re:Fascist bloodlust

[liquidweaver]

What other feedback mechanism is in place to prevent secrecy being used to just cover up rather than protect legitimately secret documents?

I'm of the opinion that if you give anyone the power to declare information secret if will be abused to some degree X. What can be done to keep X as small as possible while still protecting real secrets?

I don't think there is a simple answer. While Bradley Manning's alleged actions are illegal and there should be punishment, the secrecy system has no practical safeguards right now - so in general I have a hard time saying that those actions had an overall negative effect for my country.

Re:Fascist bloodlust

[cdrguru]

Clearly the military isn't withholding much, if anything, if State department diplomatic cables are discussing things.

Why would you ever believe that the military is taking things upon itself when there is ample evidence that the government is aware and directing things?

Now, in the new spirit of there not being any more terrorism in the world, at least there isn't if we do not call it terrorism, I suspect the military may have some views on the matter of being told to leave people unsupported in battle. The repercussions of this can certainly lead to the military simply ignoring the civilian government which hasn't really happened since the founding of the country. Having an administration that believes they can direct the military to "stand down" in the face of an armed enemy can certainly bring that about. Now who's fault might that be?

Bradley Manning's "revelations" might have surprised some people, but clearly it did not surprise most people in governments around the world. Had it really been a surprise there would have been diplomatic consequences at the very least. So while it got some people incensed about what they didn't know their government was doing, it did no good and did not lead to anything changing. Except the rest of Bradley's life.

Re:Fascist bloodlust

[h4rr4r]

It is the business of every soldier to protect this nation from threats foreign and domestic. It is in the oath of enlistment.

How would congress even know about this? Do you think they would report such actions? Do you think congress knows about the renditions being performed? Do they know what secret prisons are used for torture?

Re:Fascist bloodlust

[interkin3tic]

It is certainly not the business of a private to determine what type of classified information should or should not be distributed.

Not sure what the word is in the military, but no matter what they say, it is everyone's responsibility to follow their own morals regardless of what their orders are. If Manning felt that this was something the public must know, then it was absolutely his business to decide that, ethically speaking.

Obviously that's not a valid reason to suspend his punishment, you're right that discipline must be upheld in the military. Just pointing out that discipline and personal morals have a balance that must be considered. If you don't want a private to leak information that he feels the public should be aware of, either don't give it to the private or don't do things he's likely to consider immoral.

Re:Fascist bloodlust

[Okian Warrior]

Allowing actions like this, even in the spirit of whistleblowing, would severely undermine the necessary order and discipline an effective military needs. It is certainly not the business of a private to determine what type of classified information should or should not be distributed.

That's certainly true.

Now consider the relative values. You can have a well-disciplined and effective military, but is fascism more important than discipline?

Several recent armies were well disciplined and private, and yet committed numerous and long-term monstrous acts against humanity. At the time of the second world war, there were "rumors" (reports? whatever) of concentration camps and mass executions, but no actual proof.

Without checks and balances - without placing an armies actions in front of it's people - there's nothing to stop them from becoming a directed mob of savages. I'd certainly like to know what our military is doing, it speaks to our ethics as an American people. Our military represents us to the world.

And for the record, officers swear an oath to the constitution. Manning was bound by oath to obey a higher power than the military command. You might argue before the act whether something should be made public or not, but recent events has validated his decision.

Yes, he's a war hero. That he didn't act in the way you would have, or in a manner that you would have liked, is immaterial.

Re:Fascist bloodlust

[Nadaka]

And congress failed in its duty.

It is the business of a true patriot to expose the corruption within the system when the system fails to deal with it.

Re:Fascist bloodlust

[Nadaka]

THe collateral murder video and its coverup.

There was also the little part of a us contractor paying for boy sex slaves as bribe to a afghanistan warlord.

The majority of it wasn't particularly offensive, but there were a few malignant little gems in there.

Re:Fascist bloodlust

[pgdave]

I believe very strongly that Manning should be facing the death penalty simply to send a message to the military that if you do this and get caught, you may die for it.

Ah, the smell of fascist blood lust in the morning...Don't like what someone did? Just kill them. It makes you feel manly.

Re:Fascist bloodlust

[Afty0r]

It is certainly not the business of a private to determine what type of classified information should or should not be distributed.

A long time ago, it was expected that all military personnel should follow orders, rules and regulations, and that they would not be held accountable for their actions while doing so.

Then, as a species, we grew up a little, and a number of events including Nuremberg helped us to realise that this was not a healthy attitude.

Now, in 2012 many people still believe it is "right" to lie about and cover up the killing of innocent people. I hope, as a species, we will continue to grow and to understand that this is unacceptable. When it comes to the murder of non-military personnel, being part of such a cover-up should be regarded as an abuse of human rights (it is, after all, a conspiracy to hide a crime against humanity) and military personnel *should* have whistleblower rights, in a limited range of circumstances.

Russ

Re:Fascist bloodlust

[breech1]

My feeling is that the US government by consistently refusing to ask for the death penalty in spying cases [...] has encouraged people to continue to try to get away with this.

The US gov't could seek the death penalty for spying cases, but chooses not to. The reason is that a caught spy will eventually talk about why they did it, and who they were working with, if the death penalty isn't an option. That information is far more valuable than naively "trying to send a message". (Whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent is a separate argument. The intelligence officers only care about determining why the spying occurred and who the handlers were.)

Re:Fascist bloodlust

[swillden]

Having worked as a civilian employee of the US military right after graduating college I can assure everyone that there is no way Manning could have failed to realize his actions were at best illegal and at worse treasonous.

Having been a member of the US armed forces (SSgt USAFRES) I can assure everyone that Manning may well have believed that he had a duty to disclose information he thought the military was illegally concealing from the public, and there are circumstances in which he'd have been absolutely right. Every member of the armed forces is taught that they have a duty to disobey illegal orders. However, I think his decision to give it to Wikileaks rather than to take it to some element of the government who would play a watchdog role (e.g. a congressman opposed to the war) does cast doubt on the purity of his intentions -- or at least on his judgment.

Re:Fascist bloodlust

[Hatta]

I said it's not the business of a private to determine when and when not to disseminate classified information. If the generals and staff officers are withholding information, then it's congress's job to remove them from their post and punish them as is fit.

It's not the business of a private. But when the generals and congress have both failed, we should be thankful that a mere private decided to put his life on the line and do the right thing.

Re:Fascist bloodlust

[dkleinsc]

I said it's not the business of a private to determine when and when not to disseminate classified information.

If I'm not mistaken, it is the business of anyone in the military to refuse to follow illegal orders, report those orders to superior officers, and go around superior officers to report the misconduct to another authority (e.g. the Inspector General) if the superior officers refuse to do something about it. Not everything Manning released falls under this, but a lot of it was classified not because it would compromise national security (which is supposed to be the standard) but because it is embarrassing and/or incriminating to those who decided to classify it. Which means it was illegally classified. Which means that a private is not supposed to respect that classification.

And yes, by this argument, there's probably huge amounts of material that are routinely illegally classified within the US military and intelligence agencies. A lot of the US military (particularly officers) firmly believe that the only reason the US lost in Vietnam is that the public got wind of what was going on over there and "stabbed them in the back". Their solution to this problem is attempting to hide almost everything US troops are doing from the US public, only sending back clips that make good PR, and helpfully guiding reporters around so they see only what they're supposed to see.

Re:Fascist bloodlust

[darkstar949]

How would congress even know about this? Do you think they would report such actions? Do you think congress knows about the renditions being performed? Do they know what secret prisons are used for torture?

There is a reason that the various branches of the US military have inspector generals and a part of their job is to ensure that such things do not happen. So the US militiary effectively uses the same system that polices forces (i.e. internal affairs) as the check to ensure that gross abuses don't occur. Also, there is a whisleblowing program that is fairly well documented that should also be used to filter such abuses back to those who are in a position to do something about it.

Re:Fascist bloodlust

[CanHasDIY]

You also swear you will obey the "orders of the officers appointed over me."

Which comes after the oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution, and protect the nation from threats foreign and domestic. Contrary to popular belief, it is an ordered list.

By the oaths he swore, Manning did the right thing here.

Re:Fascist bloodlust

[mr.mctibbs]

If by "diplomatic consequences" you mean being forced to withdraw from Iraq, and starting riots in Egypt and Tunisia (Arab Spring happen that long ago we've already forgotten?), then yes it had some effect.

If it weren't for Manning's revelations, we'd still have troops in Iraq, and the Arab Spring might have been a lot smaller than it turned out to be. If that isn't significant, I don't know what is.

Re:Fascist bloodlust

[h4rr4r]

We know how well that works for police. They never get away with crimes, ever.

Re:Fascist bloodlust

[CanHasDIY]

However, I think his decision to give it to Wikileaks rather than to take it to some element of the government who would play a watchdog role (e.g. a congressman opposed to the war) does cast doubt on the purity of his intentions -- or at least on his judgment.

Considering the federal government's recent track record, I would counter that trusting any Congressperson to come forward and make the info public would be the real folly of judgement.

Re:Fascist bloodlust

[CanHasDIY]

Except that the total amount of proof of anything Manning has done at the moment, is ZERO.

You mean, except for the thing about him pleading guilty to charges? You know, described in that thing at the top of this page we call a summary?

You've never been charged with a crime by the government, have you?

Lemme drop a little free-range wisdom on ya: The justice system is fucked. Often times, accused people are given 2 choices by prosecutors: plead guilty and get a lesser sentence, or fight to prove your innocence (yes, that's right, it's no longer 'innocent until proven guilty') and risk having the book thrown at you. It doesn't matter whether you're actually guilty or not, it's all just a farce to keep the money flowing through.

Don't take my word for it, go steal a candy bar from Walmart* and enjoy the anal-raping courtesy of the US corporate court system.



* Wal-mart always prosecutes. Always.

Re:Fascist bloodlust

[Americano]

Sorry, his only options were "obey orders," or "leak millions of classified documents to Julian Assange"? That's a curiously short list of alternatives. How about... report it to the Inspector General (essentially, "internal affairs" for the military), or up his chain of command, and failing any action from any of them, end with:

"Dear President Obama, Senators Pelosi, Reid, Speaker Boehner, and other honored Senators and Representatives of the Armed Services committee:

My name is PFC Bradley Manning. I am a soldier attached to the 101st Some Unit as an intelligence analyst. In my role as an intel analyst, I see many classified documents, some of which have led me to conclude that a number of illegal actions are being taken by our military personnel during combat patrols and other operations in the Iraq and Afghanistan areas of operation. As you no doubt understand, I cannot provide copies of the documents in this letter, but I would offer some basic descriptions of scenarios I feel are in violation of law, and can provide you with document identifiers for you to request the documents yourselves, or would be happy to meet with you or your qualified representatives and review these documents at that time.

Some example situations:
On date X, location Y, Army personnel did Action Z which I believe violates our rules of engagement and may contravene Geneva Conventions.
On date X, location Y, a joint Marine / Army patrol reported Action Z, which I believe to be illegal. ... List Continues...

I have attempted to bring this issue to my chain of command in the following ways, and it has met with stonewalling and been ignored:
-- Date X, letter to Officer Y, outlining same details.
-- Date X, letter to Officer Y, outlining same details. ... List Continues ...

Mr. President, Senators, Representatives - my oath requires me to uphold the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic - and I believe that some of these actions are against the law, and pose a grave threat to our Constitution. I am writing to you to expose these issues so that you can take appropriate action to correct a terrible wrong and end that threat.
Sincerely,

PFC Bradley Manning."

You think a letter like that would be completely ignored, especially if he "accidentally leaked" a copy of it to a couple major news outlets, even Wikileaks? If they have Dates & locations, how hard is it for a couple journalists to start digging and saying, "whoa whoa whoa, we have some strong evidence that a bunch of Army soldiers kicked in the door, raped all the women, and then executed all the people in this house."

He wasn't stuck with a binary option - steal & release millions of classified documents to make his point, or just shut up and go along with what he considered to be war crimes. Even if his *motiviation* was correct, his actions were not. There are ways to whistleblow which would make it impossible for the government to ignore the issue, without actually copying the entire database of classified materials and releasing it unedited to Wikileaks.

Any argument that there were only 2 options available to him is completely false, and to suggest that he was right to disregard the numerous measured responses he could have pursued and go straight to the "nuclear" option is a little ridiculous.

Re:Fascist bloodlust

[Dan93]

He didn't even try to work within the system, he went completely around it, which something that you just don't do in the military. He didn't even try to go up the chain of command. The inspector generals exist for a reason. And failing that, he could have gone all the way to the President if need be. Instead, he gave the documents to someone else - documents that he knew were classified, but had no idea just what was on them. He knew that they could contain information that put american lives at risk, as well as the lives of anyone working with the military.

Re:Fascist bloodlust

[Penguinisto]

Some problems with your post (setting aside the Godwin bit). I doubt that you had ever been in the military in any actual capacity, so I'll explain a few things here:

* Unlike the Wehrmacht (to which you refer), the US military UCMJ requires soldiers, sailors, airmen, etc to disobey any unlawful order, and to report the order-giver to his or her superior officers. This means you are not required to perform clearly illegal actions, even if you are ordered to do so.

* Distribution of classified information to the public which (potentially or actually) puts lives at deliberate risk is not legally or morally defensible.

* The typical grunt has no full comprehension of the complexities and politics behind the classification of a given bit of information. Even most low-level officers have no complete picture as to why a given bit of information they have access to is classified. This is by design, and is called 'compartmentalization'.

* There is already a mechanism in place for whistleblowing, usually referred to in most branches as the Inspector General. For whistleblowing actual crimes, you have JAG(Navy), AFOSI(Air Force), and similar. There is no indication I'm aware of that Manning tried to take these or any other in-place routes.

* Manning had a lot of other options open to him if this was such a big, ugly moral dilemma. Some of these options include a formal request for transfer to another unit, discussion of his concerns with his first sergeant, and other similar actions. Given that the data is classified, if he wants out, the military will damned well make sure he gets out, if only to separate him from the classified data and processes. A perfect example? The transfer of USAF personnel away from nuclear weapons duty/work if they have a clearly stated moral objection to working with or around them. No military branch wants an individual around sensitive data and equipment if the guy has problems with being around it.

Long story short, Manning screwed up all by himself, and has no one to blame but himself.

Re:Fascist bloodlust

[HeckRuler]

Clearly the military isn't withholding much, if anything

Clearly the military HAS WITHELD information. Damning information. Information that would have made the war less popular, removed support, and ultimately caused us pull out and end the occupation. Oh look. That happened. We even voted in a guy with that platform and didn't vote for the guy who wanted us to stick around getting shot at.
But hey, I think I get what you're saying. The military isn't withholding information from the government. Yeah, that's probably more or less true. But the people would still like to know. You know, since this is a democracy, we're supposed to be the ultimate political masters here.

I suspect the military may have some views on the matter of being told to leave people unsupported in battle.

Depends on who and what sort of battle. I don't think our ground pounders cared two bits about keeping neighbors from killing each other in Iraq during the rampant sectarian violence. Maybe the generals did, but they weren't the ones catching lead. None of them probably care enough about women's rights to keep the Taliban from being popular though.

lead to the military simply ignoring the civilian government... Having an administration that believes they can direct the military to "stand down" in the face of an armed enemy can certainly bring that about.

Well they didn't in Vietnam. We left and stopped a horrible clusterfuck of death and violence. Sadly, the north killed a whole hell of a lot of people when they invaded. That sectarian violence is a bitch isn't it? But after that the place largely got their shit in order. In short, the west propping up a regime that had no other support was a really bad idea. And stopping it was largely a success story of the peacenick hippies. Peace out dude.

in the new spirit of there not being any more terrorism in the world, at least there isn't if we do not call it terrorism

Dude, for a while there EVERYTHING was terrorism. Donating money to someone who knew someone who talked like a terrorist was terrorism. Suggesting that we should stop killing random people in the desert was terrorism. Trying to have a discussion about the definition of terrorism would get you suspected of terrorism. If that's swinging back to the region of sanity, it's a good thing.

Bradley Manning's "revelations" might have surprised some people, but clearly it did not surprise most people in governments around the world.

Oh, when you air their dirty laundry they are most certainly surprised. They never really expect to have to answer for their crimes.

Re:Fascist bloodlust

[ifiwereasculptor]

Says the rational American who realizes that the military may do a lot of really disgusting shit, so does every military. If we can't keep secrets, we will simply fail to be effective on the world stage.

Why would you want to be effective in doing really disgusting shit on the world stage, though? Whistleblowing leeway exists exactly to prevent revolting things from happening covertly. Since most military organizations can be so prone to enacting terrible deeds, even more freedom should be given for whistleblowing. I understand they might need secrecy for some of their shit, but if their own agents are morally averted by what's going on, then it's a good idea to bring the debate to the public.

Re:When do the General's get charged?

[Anonymous Coward]

> You know, the ones who approved of the illegal activities by the military personal who Manning *PROPERLY* released information about?

Releasing classified documents to an uncleared foreign national is NOT "properly released", it's illegal and punishable by imprisonment and in some cases death. The illegality of his actions and the resulting punishment were VERY well known to him, as it is to every single soldier that holds his clearance level. There were proper ways for him to handle himself, which he was retrained on every single year, but he made very specific decisions to break serious laws. He knew what he was getting into.

Re:Good: he's guilty and so is Assange

[Anonymous Coward]

They weren't secrets, it was evidence. Evidence of the crimes committed by military personnel. Anyone else who knew of the evidence, that didn't speak up, that didn't bring it forward, was aiding and abetting criminals. Period.

So you and your "unpopular view" can go fuck yourself. He did the right and legal thing.

Everyone else who knew about should be charged (And convicted and sentenced) with the crimes listed in the evidence, period!

Re:When do the General's get charged?

[MightyYar]

*PROPERLY* released information about?

Properly? Wow. He released EVERYTHING, not just data that pertained to alleged abuses. It's roughly analogous to an IRS employee leaking everyone's tax returns because he suspects his boss is cheating on his taxes.

Re:Good: he's guilty and so is Assange

[L4t3r4lu5]

We don't know what government does and a lot of it we'd rather not know.

Speak for yourself.

Re:Good: he's guilty and so is Assange

[h4rr4r]

What is Julian Assange guilty of?
What crime is it to publish documents your receive?
He is not a US citizen so he cannot have any responsibility to the US government.

I sure as hell would rather know what our government is doing. You might not, but I sure as hell would.

Re:Good: he's guilty and so is Assange

[dkleinsc]

Did Julian Assange then publish these secrets, knowing that he has zero way of predicting the consequences? Yes: he's guilty.

There are 2 big reasons why what Assange did is not a crime:
1. Given that Julian Assange is not and has never been a US citizen or resident of the US, why is US law applicable to any action he takes? For example, if a Iranian spy working in Afghanistan uncovers classified information about the US military, the US can't demand that spy's extradition and expect to get anything out of that.

2. Pentagon Papers case. The US Supreme Court has stated quite clearly that First Amendment protections apply to those who publish classified information, provided they weren't the ones leaking the information. And as you've stated, Manning was the one who provided the information to Assange, just like Ellsberg provided the information to the New York Times.

So (a) US law doesn't have jurisdiction, and (b) even if it did, it's still not illegal.

Re:Good: he's guilty and so is Assange

[Anonymous Coward]

This was covered before, and you were proven wrong then too.
Espionage is an internationally recognized crime.
His citizenship is irrelevant.

Which is why during the cold war the USA and USSR regularly approved extradition of their respective spies.

Re:Good: he's guilty and so is Assange

[L3370]

A little over ten years ago it would have been called journalism...