Slashdot Mirror


Bradley Manning Pleads Guilty To 10 Charges

Entropy98 sends this quote from the LA Times: "Army Pfc. Bradley Edward Manning pleaded guilty Thursday to 10 charges that he illegally acquired and transferred highly classified U.S. government secrets, agreeing to serve [up to] 20 years in prison for causing a worldwide uproar when WikiLeaks published documents describing the inner workings of U.S. military and diplomatic efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the globe. The 25-year-old soldier, however, pleaded not guilty to 12 more serious charges, including espionage for aiding the enemy, meaning that his criminal case will go forward at a general court-martial in June. If convicted at trial, he risks a sentence of life in prison at Ft. Leavenworth, Kan."

18 of 491 comments (clear)

  1. nice efficiency there by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Only took them ~3 years to get around to scheduling the trial? Seems pretty lethargic even by military-bureaucracy standards.

    1. Re:nice efficiency there by Perl-Pusher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm with you there. In every courts marshal proceeding I ever witnessed about 5 in 20 years. The trials combined came a lot swifter than the it took for Virginia to prosecute a child one molestation case. In every single case even the civilian one, it was the legal maneuvering by the defense attorneys that caused the holdups. In my career, I have served as a balif, juror and was head of a correctional custody facility for a while. I have seen the process, it never been a bureaucracy. They are usually handled very very quickly! Speed is never advantageous to a defendant. Not only does time allow the defense better preparation, witnesses memory lapses and its much easier to poke holes in their credibility. If you just want to hang someone a 10 minute trial is all a prosecutor needs.

    2. Re:nice efficiency there by _xeno_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, I was more referring to the recent stuff with the Obama administration trying to explain why the Second Amendment doesn't exist and why we shouldn't worry about it. I guess I got my quotes mixed up.

      Plus there's the whole "free to assassinate Americans when they're outside the country" thing. Clearly judicial process isn't something the Obama administration is terribly worried about.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    3. Re:nice efficiency there by Uberbah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Refer instead to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

      By all means.

      The UCMJ requires trials within 120 days. Manning past that years ago. The UCMJ also forbids unlawful command influence - which Obama committed when he publicly pronounced Manning guilty, since as CiC is the boss of the prosecution and the judge. Funny how the "but Manning broke the laaaaaaaw" types don't care about that.

    4. Re:nice efficiency there by RoccamOccam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also, the Three-Fifths Compromise was actually was done in opposition to the wishes of the slave-holding states. Those states wanted to be able to fully count slaves as part of their population in order to benefit from their numbers when it came time for apportionment for the House of Representatives and for the distribution of taxes. The non-slave-holding states opposed this idea.

      That so many people think that this was put into the Constitution to dehumanize blacks, when it was actually put in by those in opposition of slavery, is astounding.

  2. Interesting wording by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "agreeing to serve [up to] 20 years in prison for causing a worldwide uproar"

    If anything, he agreed to serve that time for leaking information, certainly not for causing an uproar. The responsibility for that lies entirely elsewhere.

  3. Travesty of Justice by ohnocitizen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The nature of the charges against him, alongside the way he has been treated while in custody, shame the US system of justice. He surely committed a crime in doing what he did, but the punishment needs to fit the crime. Does it?

  4. Re:Well.. he did it. by sureshot007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Probably because the only way to fight the espionage charges would be to claim that you disobeyed standing orders for the greater good of the country, and things like the Geneva Convention for treatment of prisoners. If he wants to claim the high moral ground, he has to plead guilty to what he actually is guilty of.

  5. Re:Chaotic good. by SirGarlon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    if he did what the government accuses him of doing, he deserves [a] medal, not jail time.

    I would argue that he deserves a medal *and* jail time. Sometimes a citizen has a moral obligation to break a law, but to say the military should just overlook his law-breaking sounds an awful lot like "the end justifies the means." And that is the same argument the government is using to violate the Geneva convention and international law.

    Double standards are despicable.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  6. Re:Chaotic good. by Uberbah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sometimes a citizen has a moral obligation to break a law

    It's being a whistleblower.

    but to say the military should just overlook his law-breaking sounds

    And all the law breaking unveiled by Manning's alleged leaks? Where is the Concern for the law in Manning's treatment? Under the UCMJ he's supposed to get a trial within 120 days, AND be free of unlawful command influence. Which Obama committed when he pronounced Manning guilty.

    We can talk about prosecuting Manning after Bush and Obama are in the Hague for war crimes. Anything else is garbage.

  7. Re:Aiding the enemy by fredprado · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Where "The Enemy" is US general population.

  8. Re:Aiding the enemy by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You are the one who needs to conclusively prove that he wasn't attempting to aid the enemy by releasing volumes of military secrets in time of war.

    No. The burden of proof relies on you to conclusively prove that he was attempting to aid the enemy. Innocent until proven guilty... remember?

    And its absurd on its face to argue that he was "attempting to aid the enemy", based on his actions. If he was attempting to aid the enemy he would have leaked them straight to the enemy. Its bloody obvious that by attempting to leak to news agencies, and then after that failed to a whistleblower site that he was attempting to alert the public what its own government was doing. "Attempting to aid the enemy" just isn't on the table.

    Now you could try and argue that his actions incidentally aided the enemy... but then you run up against the conclusive analysis that it had no practical effect.

    So that leaves you with... he wasn't trying to aid the enemy with the leaks, and he didn't incidentally aid them either.

    So now your strategy is to make inapplicable analogies to worthless diamond thefts? Is that some sort of prosecution variation of the Chewbacca defense?

  9. Re:Aiding the enemy by jkauzlar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    right... A lot of people here are curiously disgusted by supporters of Bradley Manning, but there wasn't a single prosecution of anyone responsible for the war crimes Manning exposed. What do these people say to that? Do they support the double-standard?

  10. Please, u.s not a saint by Vince6791 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This government is no different from any other government past and present including those labeled communist, they are all run by the rich, the oligarchy or what we call the capitalist. The hypocrisy "All man are created equal" and yet our government oppressed and mistreated pretty much everybody in the u.s and overseas. Has anybody in our government ever been held responsible for the atrocities they have caused overseas for the past 60 years? NO!. What about the bullshit Iraq invasion which lead to hundreds of thousands dead, in poverty, sold into sex trade, etc... We were the aggressors, we had no right to invade. Do you really think u.s did it to liberate the people from saddam especially when this country did not give a shit about the 1990's iraq sanctions which left nearly 1 million Iraqi people dead mostly children. What happens if the whole world sanctioned us, no more imports? u.s threatens everybody with nukes? probably.

    Look at the way the u.s treats it's citizens here, why was it so shocking to hear how the cia tortured the prisoners? cops can beat the crap out of you, shoot you if you run away even if you are not armed, prison is completely hell and it does not rehabilitate anyone, overzealous prosecutors. U.S is a failed ideology.

  11. Re:Chaotic good. by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What war crimes?

    Dick Cheney is by far the easiest to go after: Torture of prisoners, specifically waterboarding, which the US declared a crime against humanity when the Japanese did it to our soldiers. Evidence: He announced that he'd done so on national television.

    George W Bush: Probably torture as well. Aggression (attacking a country without reason to believe that country is attempting to attack you), which we killed several Germans for doing at Nuremberg. Ordering the bombing of civilian targets in Iraq.

    Barack Obama: Ordering "double-tap" drone strikes, where a strike occurs, and 15-20 minutes later a second strike occurs that kills anyone who tried to save the wounded from the first strike. Ordering drone strikes on funerals, which is specifically prohibited.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  12. Re:Aiding the enemy by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But the US gets a free pass for all the healthcare workers that are getting killed in Pakistan now, since a CIA operative disguised as a health care worker is what caught Bin Laden. Yes they are shooting doctors and nurses. And you don't give a fuck.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  13. Re:Aiding the enemy by Kielistic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    this is war.

    Yes, which is why they're called war crimes.

  14. Bradley Manning by DaMattster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Bradley Manning is the victim of scapegoating and political posturing. I should think that one of the highest forms of patriotism and love for one's own country is to blow the whistle when bad things are happening. Manning cared so much for his country and was obviously so troubled by what it was doing that he felt the need to speak out. Manning is one brave soldier because he fought the enemy within.