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."
Only took them ~3 years to get around to scheduling the trial? Seems pretty lethargic even by military-bureaucracy standards.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The big revelation is that he also gave the documents over to US agencies first. Aiding the enemy my ass, he went to Wikileaks after the New York Times (which Daniel Ellsberg used for the Pentagon leak) and other news agencies that didn't follow through.
"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.
http://www.salon.com/2011/07/07/bradley_manning_american_hero/
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
But even if you did it, why would you plead guilty to 10 charges when they are still going to prosecute for the other 12? Wouldn't you negotiate a bargain where they'd drop 12 to get a guilty plea on 10? Otherwise, you have nothing to fear from a trial on the 10 you plead guilty to. The worst case is that they'd find you guilty of what you would plead guilty to in the first place.
Learn to love Alaska
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?
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.
Which is bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, and bullshit. Respectively. No top secret documents were leaked, nor names of spies.
Repeating Big Lies doesn't make them true. It just makes you a bigger liar.
Someone volunteering to join the military (e.g. Pfc. Manning) also agrees to be bound by the UCMJ. It's not hipocracy, it's simple reality. If you want members of the military to have the same rights as civilians, you don't want to have a military or the protections it provides. In order for the military to function, it's members must be held to higher standards and have fewer freedoms; otherwise, the whole thing would just fall apart.
Pfc. Manning is in a hell of his own creation for not only did he volunteer to join the military of his own free will, he was granted access to sensitive information and that sets the bar even higher.
If you keep reading UCMJ 104:
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.
While I believe he has a strong argument that his actions were not an attempt to aid the enemy, and a pretty good argument that his actions did not significantly aid the enemy in fact, he is going to have a hard time arguing against section 2. He did knowingly and without authorization give intelligence indirectly to the enemy.
TL;DR: I don't think he actually aided the enemy, but I do think he is in violation of the letter of the law concerning aiding the enemy.
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.
I think he's already suffered prompt and drastic punishment -- before trial. This, in violation of the UCMJ. He got the prompt punishment, just not the swift trial.
If found guilty, he will face further punishment. However, there's at least one rule he broke that should be able to get him life in prison: he used military intel for political gain and bypassed the systems already in place for highlighting these issues first to his superiors and then to the government systems in place outside the military set up to watch it. Since the contents weren't really of immediate military value (but were of a sensitive political nature), there could be some leniency, but he left absolutely no trail of CYA or indications that he first attempted to do the right thing through legal and accepted channels (before leaking to US papers; the whole WikiLeaks issue is really overblown, as it's not so much about HIS actions as it is about Wikileaks actually doing something with the data). In short, he took informatin gained in a military setting, while employed by the military, and treated it as if he were still a civilian.
That's no excuse for the response he got; he SHOULD have had a speedy court martial -- but because he got international politics involved, those same people who are supposed to keep tabs on the military are the ones who he really attacked with his actions.
Summary: he goofed, has admitted it, and will face the consequences. Meanwhile, those whose failings he exposed are out for blood (or at least shutting him up permanently as an example), and so he gets to suffer through extended incarceration and a trial for more severe charges that may stick, legitimate or not.
I think that about sums it all up.
Is English not your first language? You do realise "to try him" means to bring him to trial. And that the "immediate steps" part also relates to that.
The guy is apparently rather unstable, but he made better use of his deployment in Iraq than any of the other soldiers who brutalized random people and often came back homeless, crippled, or dead for following the rules.
If this was something that truly disturbed him, there are many legal avenues that he could have taken to expose this without releasing classified documents, which he has a duty to protect.
For example, congressmen and senators are allowed (in most cases) to see the goings on of the military. He could have contacted one of them, who usually do listen to even lower ranking military members, and said something to the effect of I've noticed unlawful military activity that you should look at.
Even if you're an E-1 buck private, you're not only allowed but expected to disobey unlawful orders of even a five star general if you have to, and report what they're doing to somebody who is authorized to do something about it. That can often include the local Adjutant General Corps members, which can include e.g. an E-6 who can in the case of unlawful activity can stick it in the face of a full bird colonel and there's nothing he can do about it. They routinely piss off the local chain of command because they're supposed to advocate for those within the ranks of the military who are being mistreated. If you've ever watched star trek, think about how the lowly doctor has authority over the captain when it comes to medical fitness. The AG can do exactly that when it comes to criminal matters.
I know this because I've been through the process when I was a soldier. In my opinion, Bradley Manning really asked for what he is receiving. There are so many other ways he could have dealt with this, and he chose the sensationalist method, which is unlawful from nearly every perspective you can examine it from.
And by the way, if you obey an unlawful order, you're held every bit as responsible as if you acted alone, but so is the officer who gave you that order.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
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.
I'm a Technical Sergeant(E-6) in the USAF. I'm a 'non-commissioned officer', or NCO. I did not accept a commission, I enlisted. At a very vague level, commissioned officers are all approved/commissioned by congress(it's a massive list buried somewhere). My rank is not dependent upon that.
Article 133 is completely irrelevant to me. My boss, a 1st Lt. (O-2), can be court-martialed under that clause, I cannot be. Articles 92&134 are generally the catchall of choice for enlisted personnel.
I don't read AC A human right
Manning set the bar even higher than you think -- a high moral bar that most US foreign policy can't hold a candle to. Manning did the right thing in becoming a whistleblower and showing the public what our 'representatives' are scheming. We have a right to know about US support for the coup in Honduras, etc.
What is hypocritical about this situation is that Manning is being tried for upholding his oath in a meaningful way, while the prosecutors and persecutors are using the letter of the law to contradict its spirit.
"or the whole thing would just fall apart" is actually a pretty lame justification.
Though I completely agree that Manning did screw himself over royally, pretty much. I'm generally not into victim blaming, but when one signs an SF-312, one really ought to read and adhere to what one's signing. If you don't agree with what's going on, you're obligated to report that to the FSO, and get your clearance revoked and work a non-cleared job. Period. Just because someone else is dishonoring their agreements doesn't mean you get to dishonor yours.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.