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."

Comments

Aiding the enemy

[detritus.]

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.

Re:Aiding the enemy

[Anonymous Coward]

He most certainly was aiding the enemy, and I don't see how going to NYT first changes that? Manning indiscriminately leaked an enormous amount of classified materials including details of our military tactics, names of our Iraqi and Afghan allies and spies, classified diplomatic cables revealing our diplomatic strategies.

Could you please provide conclusive proof that the release of this information did in fact provide any meaningful aid to the enemy? Because even analysts who support the government's case against Manning have said there was little practical fallout from the leak.

Re:Aiding the enemy

[fredprado]

Where "The Enemy" is US general population.

Re:Aiding the enemy

[vux984]

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?

Re:Aiding the enemy

[jkauzlar]

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?

Re:Aiding the enemy

[Kielistic]

this is war.

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

Re:Aiding the enemy

[jkauzlar]

We already knew about the waterboarding which our best intelligence indicates will get people to admit to anything we want them to admit (such as erroneous links between Iraq and 9/11 in one famous case). Manning did leak the video (search for 'Collateral murder Iraq video') of u.s. soldiers firing on a truck of civialians as well as people coming to help them in the aftermath, including killing two AP reporters. There were also leaked cables that confirmed thousands of accidental civilian casualties as well as standard modes of torture that were previously only hearsay or not considered widespread (involving sexual abuse, power drills and/or hanging people from the ceiling, forcing them in stress positions for long durations, etc). Additionally there was evidence of specific shady dealings with foreign gov'ts.

Re:nice efficiency there

[dkleinsc]

"Lethargic"? Try "unconstitutional" or "illegal", per the Sixth Amendment:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial ..."

Re:nice efficiency there

[_xeno_]

Oh please, we all know the Constitution is "just a piece of paper" and "isn't a suicide pact."

You expect our government to follow the rules that they're bound by? What do you think we are, civilized? We're Americans, fuck yeah!

Re:nice efficiency there

[Anonymous Coward]

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial ..."

The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the military's right to maintain different standards of justice for its members than the civilian justice that the wording of the Constituion describes.

Re:Chaotic good.

[SirGarlon]

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.

Re:nice efficiency there

[dkleinsc]

The "different standards" in this case are UCMJ Article 10, which states:
"When any person subject to this chapter is placed in arrest or confinement prior to trial, immediate steps shall be taken to inform him of the specific wrong of which he is accused and to try him or to dismiss the charges and release him."

The military justice system actually has a more stringent speedy trial standard than civilian law.

Re:nice efficiency there

[CanHasDIY]

It also has things like blacks being 3/5ths of a person

For the record, the Constitution says no such thing. It does (or did) state that, for voting and taxation purposes, slaves will (would) be counted as 3/5ths of a person, but at no point does the document specify the race of the slaves in question.

Re:nice efficiency there

[_xeno_]

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.

Re:nice efficiency there

[Uberbah]

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.

Re:nice efficiency there

[Spy Handler]

Constitution doesn't mention slaves. The 3/5th refers to "all other persons".

Slavery was a hot potato even back in 1787, so the Framers decided to avoid the topic altogether and ship a product rather than argue endlessly and come up with nothing. Many of the founding fathers were opposed to slavery, but the southern slaveholding states would've never ratified the Constitution if slavery was banned.

They excluded the word "slave" on purpose. If the clause had read "slaves shall be counted as 3/5th", that would've be an implicit legitimization of slavery. So they basically just kicked the can down the road and the issue didn't get addressed until 1860.

Re:Chaotic good.

[Uberbah]

There was no wrong, there where no lies, and , as it turns out, the US was being totally honest about their activities.

Are you snarking, trolling, or willfully ignorant?

U.S. officials were told to cover up evidence of child abuse by contractors in Afghanistan.

Guantanamo prison has held mostly innocent people and low-level operatives.

U.S. Military officials withheld information about the indiscriminate killing of Reuters journalists and innocent Iraqi civilians.

Known Egyptian torturers received training from the FBI in Quantico, Virginia.

The State Department authorized the theft of the UN Secretary General's DNA.

Re:Chaotic good.

[dkleinsc]

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.

Re:Get new glasses.

[BasilBrush]

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.

Military here

[Firethorn]

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.