Bin Laden Raid Member To Be WikiLeaks Witness

the simurgh writes in with the latest in the court-martial of Bradley Manning. "A military judge cleared the way Wednesday for a member of the team that raided Osama bin Laden's compound to testify at the trial of Pfc. Bradley Manning charged in the WikiLeaks massive classified document leak. Col. Denise Lind ruled for the prosecution during a court-martial pretrial hearing. Prosecutors say the witness, presumably a Navy SEAL, collected digital evidence showing that the al-Qaida leader requested and received from an associate some of the documents Manning has acknowledged leaking. Defense attorneys had argued that proof of receipt wasn't relevant to whether Manning aided the enemy, the most serious charge he faces, punishable by life imprisonment. 'The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the intelligence is given to and received by the enemy,' Lind said. The judge disagreed."

Comments

Surveillance

[drinkydoh]

The mass surveillance and mass interception that is occurring to all of us now who use the internet is also a mass transfer of power from individuals into extremely sophisticated state and private intelligence organizations and their cronies like Google. The Pentagon is maintaining a line that WikiLeaks inherently, as an institution that tells military and government whistleblowers to step forward with information, is a crime. They allege we are criminal, moving forward. Now, the new interpretation of the Espionage Act that the Pentagon is trying to hammer in to the legal system, and which the Department of Justice is complicit in, would mean the end of national security journalism in the United States.

Re:Surveillance

[captainpanic]

True. And it is happening right under all your noses, and the press is still able to report on it, so it's not like you are all caught by surprise... and despite the fact that you can all vote in a democratic system, this has been going on for well over a decade now.

Americans, you've got nobody to blame but yourselves.

Re:Surveillance

[game kid]

and the press is still able to report on it

...for now.

Re:Surveillance

[abigsmurf]

There's a big difference between 'whistleblowing on a crime' and 'leaking every single thing you have access to in the hope that some of it may be criminal'.

Re:Surveillance

[elloGov]

This is far-fetched and paranoia until it happens to you. :) Truth is that we live under a totalitarian regime with some privileges. Our ongoing maltreatment of foreign people should have been a warning, now they are coming for us. No conspiracy here, man's self-perpetuating thirst for power has brought us here. My advice is to never grab the attention of your government and it's long-reaching arms. Stick to the masses and stay low.

Re:Surveillance

[firecode]

The amount of surveillance that is happening in internet is probably massive. All information in internet that passes through USA borders is captured by NSA to begin with and this is probably just the tip of the iceberg (echelon..).

It is likely that many big governments are doing large scale surveillance in internet and collecting data about individual's actions and the global state of the mind through internet (analysing forums, conversations, maybe emails in order to follow patterns in mental state of the population). It is interesting that most of the data traffic in internet is still unencrypted - probably because people in power want it that way.

Re:Surveillance

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a big difference between 'whistleblowing on a crime' and 'leaking every single thing you have access to in the hope that some of it may be criminal'.

If you want private information, fund it yourself.
If you use taxpayers money the taxpayers have a right to know everything, including when you take your coffee breaks.

Re:Surveillance

[Anonymous Coward]

The world economy is going through the internet now. It's naive to think the world's governments wouldn't play a huge part in the control of it. Stay an Anonymous Coward as long as possible.

Re:Surveillance

[bhcompy]

Where does it say that in the Constitution?

Re:Surveillance

[Anonymous Coward]

In the hope? Well, some certainly there is well proven criminal secrets.

But who cares while you get your beer and pizza delivered and the football leage keep playing.

Re:Surveillance

[abigsmurf]

Your point? Those weren't from Manning, nor were they published alongside thousands of other documents.

Re:Surveillance

[__aaltlg1547]

Now, the new interpretation of the Espionage Act that the Pentagon is trying to hammer in to the legal system, and which the Department of Justice is complicit in, would mean the end of national security journalism in the United States.

No such thing. If information is published, it will be foreseeably received by the enemy, whoever the enemy might be. Besides, it's still a crime and has been for many years to disclose classified information to any person not authorized to receive it. Just because the press got a pass in the past in some high-profile cases does not mean that law has been struck off the books.

Re:Surveillance

[sl4shd0rk]

There's a big difference between 'whistleblowing on a crime' and 'leaking every single thing you have

Unless "everything you have" is so illegally outrageous that the story needs to be told.

Furthermore, If Manning is going to be held accountable for information Al-Queda obtained, then the Pentagon and CIA should be held accountable in the same fashion when an unencrypted laptop with sensitive dat is lost, or a website database is compromised* due to gross negiligence. Right now, the only consequences are "whooops, lol sorry bro. have a free 6-month credit inquiry"

* http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/nasa-inspector-gen-says-stolen-laptop-contained-space-station-control-codes.php
http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/02/8821/
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2007/02/hundreds_of_fbi/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/01/malware_pentagon_usb_ban/

Re:Surveillance

[Anonymous Coward]

Where does it prevent that? This can go both ways you know, being snarky never makes a good argument.

Re:Surveillance

[digitalchinky]

As a former secret 3 letter agency drone I'd like to point out that the internet is the metaphorical iceberg. Time to loosen the tinfoil I think : ) Your 'probably' may (or may not) scale more appropriately as the tip of the tip of the iceberg. Some perspective; A single satellite can relay several thousand unique transmissions. A single piece of fiber can convey orders of magnitude more data again. How much data do we push around daily, not just via the internet, but all networks combined? The NSA has a finite budget, a finite number of people, finite capability, finite everything.

Re:Surveillance

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but if you're one of the unlucky people the government decides to harass, you're out of luck. The government harassing other people than myself doesn't give me even a bit of comfort.

Re:Surveillance

[Reschekle]

The problem though is that the NSA has been caught red-handed on multiple occasions. Then we hear about NSA's massive new data center that is under construction. So we want to know what they're up to and what they're doing. They won't tell us. The courts refuse to do their jobs when we try to sue and discover the information. Even NSA's budget is a state secret. So maybe what the NSA is doing is totally above board (or maybe not) but they refuse to have any level of accountability so as far as I am concerned, and many other people are concerned, they are guilty until they can prove their innocence.

Given the history of our government misusing its powers, I don't think it is unreasonable at all to assume that the NSA is up to no good.

Re:Surveillance

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans, you've got nobody to blame but yourselves.

No, there is a bit more to it than that.

Rigged elections, for one.

The average person doesn't have the power to stop this machine even if
he or she were perfectly willing to sacrifice his or her life. And frankly, since
most of the people who live in the US are pieces of shit, why should anyone
even care. I am an American and I am disgusted by most Americans and their
selfishness and idiocy. The show will go on, and no one will stop it.

Here's the REAL bottom line : the world is changing, and no civilized country
will in reality offer significantly better government or living conditions for
a middle class person than the US does. The whole world is a cesspool now,
so you may as well get used to the smell.

Re:Surveillance

[bhcompy]

It wasn't snark. The fact that it doesn't say it means that it could be the case if a law were drafted so. The Freedom of Information Act was drafted to accomplish this desire, yet it is limited in what is considered "free information". The data leaked definitely was not covered by FOIA. To say we have the right to know everything is false

Re:Surveillance

[captainpanic]

It is not about sacrificing... it's just casting your vote. There are already 3rd party options... just vote for them.

As for the cesspool... I am pretty pleased with my west-European country and my government. It isn't perfect, but it's pretty good. You're welcome to have a look, and we don't even ask you get a visa for that. Just hop on a plane.

Re:Surveillance

[jkflying]

Those that were actually classified for a good reason were just "collateral damage", they were entirely unintentional. All in the name of democracy. That's the justification the military gives, right?

Re:Surveillance

[Anonymous Coward]

How about Ron Paul supporters? Are we to blame for not leaving a sinking ship like rats?
And where exactly are we expected to leave to anyway? Is there some rat utopia for ex-pats just over the rainbow?

We took over 10% of the republican party and represent 5% of the population. Collateral damage?

After a decade of watching people like Aaron Swartz get hit with the ban-hammer, it takes a learning disability to not get the message: this is the way the wind is blowing and woe unto anyone who believes they can change that. It's every man for himself.

Re:Surveillance

[s.petry]

It does not need to state it in the Constitution. The US Government was founded as a Republic. If a citizen can not determine what the Government is doing, there is no Republic. The Government becomes some other form of Government.

If you are not clear about my statement, I'd recommend you go study what a Republic is. Why not go to the source and study Plato's Republic!

Re:Surveillance

[feynmanfan1]

Also see Jane Harman, U.S. congresswoman, who was taped making a deal with the Israel lobby to influence the "Justice" department on the Lawrence Franklin espionage case. Franklin was found guilty of passing top secret classified documents about U.S. policy on Iran to Israel and sentenced to over 12 years in prison. His sentence was later reduced to only 10 months house arrest. Bradley Manning on the other hand is only accused of handing over secret documents, no top secret ones, to wikileaks and yet is facing far more severe punishment and his motives are arguably to expose illegal acts rather than to aid a foreign power. A clear example of double standards in the U.S. "justice" system.

Re:Surveillance

[Anonymous Coward]

" The NSA has a finite budget, a finite number of people, finite capability, finite everything."

The total amount of data in the world is finite. What was your point?

Re:Surveillance

[bhcompy]

It's easy to determine, actually. Fighting a war. There is no requirement for "open government" in a Republic.

Re:Surveillance

[gmuslera]

They don't need to monitor "the internet", few local points have good portion of all communications, if the private companies that handle that traffic do a lot more with it than just plain storing, then those 3-letter agencies can do it, and better . And they don't need to have people to watch all over it, pattern matching could do both online and offline searches to pick "interesting" traffic, and then focus on people (is not that there are'nt examples that they are actually doing it)

Probably they don't monitor/store "noise" (i.e. images, video and other binary formats that adds most of the traffic, and probably they don't focus in encrypted communications like https or vpns unless something calls their attention), but they surely have the resources to monitor all the rest.

Re:Surveillance

[phantomfive]

Unless "everything you have" is so illegally outrageous that the story needs to be told.

Except it wasn't.

Re:Surveillance

[Atrox666]

Corporate press has an obligation to corporate profit not public service.

This is why it's useless as a fourth branch of government.

Re:Surveillance

[dryeo]

Where does it say in the American Constitution that Congress can pass laws limiting speech? I'm aware of the 1st amendment which is pretty simple and bans Congress from limiting speech and I don't know of any later amendments that create exceptions.

Re:Surveillance

[Isaac Remuant]

May I ask where do you reside?

Re:Surveillance

[wiredlogic]

Unless "everything you have" is so illegally outrageous that the story needs to be told.

It wasn't. Manning just copied everything indiscriminately. There's no way he was even capable of sifting through what he had taken to know what the juicy bits were. There's no way to justify what he did as being "for the greater good".

There is an often ignored matter of why Army security procedures were so lax that it was possible to use writable media on what should have been a locked down network. If this has happened at a DOD contractor site there would be massive fines handed down and the possibility of prosecution for those who left the holes in place but somehow when these lapses happen in the military itself they can just be swept away lest anyone's career path be jeopardized. The lapdog press has conveniently ignored bringing that to public light.

Re:Surveillance

[Anonymous Coward]

yep but what about aborshun. Think of the unborn children. Or gun control, take your pick.

Re:Surveillance

[Anonymous Coward]

When you obtain access, you sign papers giving away your right to ever release information without specific approvals. You don't have freedom of speech on this...ever. It's voluntary to give up that right, nobody forces you to sign that. Just like when you are given your Miranda rights, and you wave the right to an attorney

Re:Surveillance

[s.petry]

Absolutely incorrect. The only lie allowed in the Republic is "The Noble Lie". By Socrates' definition, this was extremely small and only intended to put people on the right path to performing civic duties as guardians of the Republic. Since the guardians were supposed to be the highest educated in society, it is safe to assume that they learn over time about the Noble Lie.

As stated previously, a Government that keeps their citizens in the Dark is at best an Oligarchy and at worst tyranny. The keeping people in the Dark is addressed by the Allegory of the Cave from the same book! Please do yourself a favor and go read and study that book.

Re:Surveillance

[davester666]

It's no longer borders for the NSA, as they just happen to have installations next to all major ISP interconnects, and all traffic just happens to flow through them.

Re:Surveillance

[Anonymous Coward]

Finite. Really?

a href="https://www.google.no/search?q=nsa+data+center&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a">https://www.google.no/search?q=nsa+data+center&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

I don't think most people (99.9%) really can comprehend "finite" in such a context.

Captcha: dogmas

Re:Surveillance

[xevioso]

The rights enabled in the Constitution have never been viewed as being absolute; thus the "fire in a crowded theater" exception.

Re:Surveillance

[MaWeiTao]

Coming from a west European country myself I can tell you that I am not happy with that government.

In fact, the universal attitude amongst family living in various western European nations is that the government is going to do whatever it damn well pleases. At least in the US people still hold the hope that the government will listen to them. All they do is lament about how much better things once were and how previously generous social programs have been stripped away but they're still stuck with unbearably high taxes.

Re:Surveillance

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally agree. On a less important (but highly cringeworthy note), is it really necessary to say "moving forward"? It adds nothing and makes one sound like a corporate douchebag.

Re:Surveillance

[Anonymous Coward]

The Pentagon is maintaining a line that WikiLeaks inherently, as an institution that tells military and government whistleblowers to step forward with information, is a crime. They allege we are criminal, moving forward.

Without commenting on whether or not that is the Pentagon's allegation, Wikileaks has been caught giving leaked secrets to "the bad guys" while they were, at the time, withholding the same secrets from the public. Wikileaks has also been shown to deliberately lie about the information it releases in such a way as to wrongly disparage the United States, as in the "Collateral Murder" hoax.

Actions such as these raise the question of whether it is the intent of Wikileaks to leak US secrets to the enemies of the US rather than to simply publish the information for the world to know. Such an intent would make the actions of Wikileaks criminal in the US jurisdiction. They would be enemy spies.

We also have Bradley Manning's talk about wanting to get back at the army he believed was oppressing him. This raises the question of whether Manning's intent was to release information to the public, which would make him an innocent man, or if his intent was to hinder the operations of the US army, which would make him a traitor.

Proving intent is difficult, but this gets to the core of whether the actions of Wikileaks are within the law or whether the US has a case against it. Is Wikileaks only telling military and government whistleblowers to step forward with information, or are they trying to deliver US military secrets to the the enemy during a war?

Re:Surveillance

[bhcompy]

I have, and while templates are nice, reality is different. There may be perfect systems in philosophy, but none of those perfect systems have ever successfully been implemented because it is impossible to do so with so many inputs with different motivations. Compromises must be made. There is no perfect system of governance and there is no perfect economic system, despite volumes upon volumes of work from philosophers for thousands of years. Reality dictates that there must be secrets and that they must be kept. The fact that ugly things are hidden on occasion doesn't change the fact that there are secrets that must be kept secret for the benefit of the nation.

Re:Surveillance

[phayes]

If Manning is going to be held accountable for information Al-Queda obtained, then the Pentagon and CIA should be held accountable in the same fashion when an unencrypted laptop with sensitive dat is lost, ...

Oh yeah sure, because intent has nothing to do with culpability in your fantasy world. Meanwhile, back in the real world, it does.

Re:Surveillance

[snadrus]

So one of the best encryption methods to avoid snooping is turning a message into a large captcha? That's easy enough.

Re:Surveillance

[s.petry]

Your claim that the system was "perfect" is false. The point is not that Socrates defined a template either. The point should be what a Republic is and how it is defined. A Republic is a Government of the people and by the people. Your insistence that this does not require an open Government simply does not fit. If citizens are kept ignorant, then the citizens can not make decisions. This means that the citizens are not ruling the Government, and makes that form of Government something other than a Republic.

You can try to claim that blue is red all you want, reality does not match your claim.

So I'm not sure you ever actually studied "The Republic" or even read the book. If you did, you clearly have no understanding of what a Republic is!

Re:Surveillance

[Anonymous Coward]

At least in the US, our third parties are obsessed with marijuana and letting prisoners out of jail. Many of their ideas are completely unworkable and are based on fantasies. So we don't have any credible options.

That's why we've always had two parties, because the smaller parties rally behind insane things like letting every man, woman, and child get high on heroin legally. It's no surprise that they don't get a majority of votes.

Re:Surveillance

[vux984]

Oh yeah sure, because intent has nothing to do with culpability in your fantasy world. Meanwhile, back in the real world, it does.

Good. So show intent that Manning's intent was to deliberately aid American enemie. Hell show it was anything other than "let the people know what its own government was doing so that what he perceived as great wrongs and crimes could be revealed and addressed".

If you want to talk about intent then lets talk about intent... what was Manning's INTENT?

Oh... suddenly its not about intent, right? Its just what he did and that his actions inadvertently may have theoretically placed American operatives at risk... its not about intent at all. Its just about what might have happened with the information?

So...Like when some one misplaces an unecrypted laptop with sensitive data. Er... no, completely different... its about intent...

I'm not saying YOU are the one participating in this circular argument, but there are a lot of people who seem to be.

Bottom line: If its about intent, then Manning was full of good intentions and guilty of bad judgement and that's about it. Dishonorable discharge, some house arrest or token jail time is all that's warranted here.

Re:Surveillance

[Anonymous Coward]

because the smaller parties rally behind insane things like letting every man, woman, and child get high on heroin legally.

ah yes, the Junkie Party! Offer clean needles with every vote and you'll have unprecedented turnout.

Re:Surveillance

[HornWumpus]

The US government was founded as a 'constitutional Republic'.

The majority is limited by the constitution in what it can do via government. The majority can modify the constitution, but that is a deliberately slow process.

Between when Plato wrote the Republic and when the United States was founded Plato's philosophizing was tested in the real world and found wanting. Two wolves and a sheep etc.

Re:Surveillance

[Alex Belits]

In fact, the universal attitude amongst family living in various western European nations is that the government is going to do whatever it damn well pleases.

What is still infinitely better than government doing whatever big businesses ask.

At least in the US people still hold the hope that the government will listen to them.

When they will be multi-billionaires. This is a part of American ideology -- that if they are worthy, they will be rich, and everyone who is not, is either guilty of some inexcusable sin, or on the way to become rich. In other words, Catholicism with market and money instead of god.

Re:Surveillance

[dryeo]

Wasn't the "fire in a crowded theater" used to stop people from protesting the draft during WW I?
They could have added some weasel words if they didn't mean it to be absolute which is what my country did when someone pointed out that having an absolute right to freedom of expression enshrined in our constitution would allow child porn. Note also that the restriction originally was on Congress, not the States or other lesser governments such as cities who were free to pass a law against "fire in a crowded theatre"
It just gets me that it is the same people who go on about obeying the Constitution as want to execute Manning.

Re:Surveillance

[__aaltlg1547]

Whether the law is Constitutional is an entirely separate issue than whether the law has been the law for some time.

Re:Surveillance

[bhiestand]

Good. So show intent that Manning's intent was to deliberately aid American enemie. Hell show it was anything other than "let the people know what its own government was doing so that what he perceived as great wrongs and crimes could be revealed and addressed".

I think you have a very misguided view of "intent". He intended to publicly release the documents. He knew their classification level and its definition (that the information would harm the US and help its adversaries). Any reasonable person with an IQ over 70 would understand that publicly releasing documents would mean that everyone, including the US's adversaries, could get a hold of them.

Thus, he deliberately released documents that he knew or should have known would aid the enemy. By your logic, murder isn't murder if the perpetrator says they just wanted to shoot someone in the face but didn't really want to kill them.

"I was just whistleblowing!" is only a viable defense in these situations when the person is exposing serious criminal wrongdoing committed by the government. If Manning had read these documents, perhaps he would have known that he wouldn't accomplish this goal...

Re:Surveillance

[vux984]

I think you have a very misguided view of "intent".

In that I recognize that he had no intention of damaging America?

He intended to publicly release the documents.

And he made a point of releasing to what he believed was a trustworthy organization that shared his desire to ensure no was was put in danger by the release. An organization that would take the time to sift through the information, organize it, and redact anything that would put an individual at risk.

And wikileaks did in fact do all of this. The un-redacted data was even encrypted to prevent accidental disclosure. The information was only released un-redacted to the public as a result a journalist from another organization (The Gaurdian) publishing the decryption key by mistake.

Are you really going to try and pin intent for that on Manning?

Any reasonable person with an IQ over 70 would understand that publicly releasing documents would mean that everyone, including the US's adversaries, could get a hold of them.

He didn't want anything untoward to happen to the US as a result, and took multiple affirmative steps to safegaurd the data. He didn't just dump the unredacted torrent online unecnrypted for the world to see. Not even wikileaks did that.

If Manning had read these documents,

He read several hundred, probably several thousand. He perceived a pattern of lying and corruption and actions he couldn't morally accept and took the step of whistle blowing to clear his conscious. That you or I might have seen the pattern of lying and corruption etc that he saw as "ok" and he didn't realize that is how it would be viewed is evidence of poor judgment, nothing more sinister than that.

By your logic, murder isn't murder if the perpetrator says they just wanted to shoot someone in the face but didn't really want to kill them.

Really? Is that what you think happened? All the attempt he took to release to a credible american news organization first, the steps he took to release it to an international organization second, the steps that were taken along the way to secure the data so that it could be properly curated before the public saw it.

That's the same as a guy trying to shoot you in the face?

Bradley Manning's innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

Bradley Manning's only fault was exposing American war crimes to the whole world during a time when American government was desperately trying to push the liberators angle.

Re:Bradley Manning's innocent

[jimbolauski]

Manning motivation for "exposing" classified documents was not some noble cause, his motivations were simple he wanted people to think he was a super hacker which is how he was caught bragging about his conquests. I have not read any claims or evidence that he knew what was contained in the classified documents he leaked, he was not noble he was just looking for adjuration.

Re:Bradley Manning's innocent

[moeinvt]

BS.
His conversations with that douchebag LAME-O were mainly a discussion about his personal moral dilemma. He wasn't bragging about his "hacking skills" one bit. He had access to the information so there was no technical prowess required.
He recently made a statement in court (which of course the government didn't want the public to hear) that was surreptitiously recorded. You should listen to it.

Re:Bradley Manning's innocent

[peppepz]

Who cares about his motivation? He's done a right thing and now he risks his life, as if he lived in Iran.

Re:Bradley Manning's innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll? Or elaborate way to point out that TPTB have both in their sights?

Re:Bradley Manning's innocent

[peppepz]

Truth?

Re:Bradley Manning's innocent

[RicktheBrick]

I have read the Bradley Manning was an E2 in rank. I was in the military and it took only a couple of months to reach E2 in rank. So the army has so little amount of people with rank of E6 and above or an officer that they have to entrust that much power to an E2. To me that is the same as a bank manager giving someone in the bank who was hired just a couple of months ago with the responsibility of closing the safe, locking all the doors and setting the alarm. I once had access to top secret information but the rule was that the information was never accessed without someone else being present. So there is no way Manning should have had access or at the least have had access without someone else being there. The officer in charge should bear more responsibility than Manning. To me it is the same as someone leaving their money in a bag on their front lawn and wondering why it was stolen.

Re:Bradley Manning's innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

That does not mean it's right to steal the bag of money, even if the person stolen from totally had it coming.

Manning must have known the consequences of his actions unless he was extremely thick. He knew this was coming if he got caught, and he took the gamble anyway. It didn't pay off, and now he has to accept the consequences. Should it be harder for someone to do what he did? Most certainly, but that does not exempt him and he only has himself to blame for the situation he's in.

Re:Bradley Manning's innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny. The man sheds light on the atrocities of our government and all you can do is launch personal attacks on him. What's your agenda? Why are you so desperately trying to discredit an American hero? Are you related to those savages who gunned down civilians, reporters and children?

Re:Bradley Manning's innocent

[Isaac Remuant]

Cite your source or shut the fuck up. Seriously.

The alleged chat logs between him and Lamo are pretty clear as to the intent of the leaks. The public need to know of the atrocities that his government was engaging in.

Re:Bradley Manning's innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

You must not have had access for long if you believe what you wrote. I had access as an E2 back in the 70s, and easily alone.

Re:Bradley Manning's innocent

[ThatsNotPudding]

I hope there is a great Karmic reckoning for Adrian Lamo and right soon. Even he doesn't believe his BS reasoning for backstabbing a person exposing Imperial evil.

Dangerous

[betterunixthanunix]

This would basically mean that nobody could report on wars, because anyone doing so could be accused of aiding the enemy. Imagine a version of this where Bin Laden said, "Get me a copy of the New York Times!" and the government accused reporters of aiding the enemy.

Re:Dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

Most reporters aren't members of the military subject to court-martial.

Re:Dangerous

[runeghost]

Ah, but as long as the New York Times makes sure to jump whenever the government says, "frog" they'll be left alone. What could possibly be wrong with that arrangement?

Re:Dangerous

[Sparticus789]

There's a difference between public knowledge and classified information. He is not being prosecuted for releasing weather reports, stock values, or a crossword puzzle. Manning is on trial for leaking classified information. Big difference.

Re:Dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

No but aiding the enemy is treason regardless of being a civilian or a military man. Either way you look at it there is a potential grey area that needs to be better defined. This isn't to say that what was requested is in that grey area. I honestly don't know.
 
Either way, they're going to lock that kid in a cell with Medusa until he rots dead.

Re:Dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference between public knowledge and classified information. He is not being prosecuted for releasing weather reports, stock values, or a crossword puzzle. Manning is on trial for leaking classified information. Big difference.

And a the point is that the information should not have been classified to begin with.

Re:Dangerous

[jimbolauski]

There is a big difference between a person signing documents swearing they will not disseminate classified information under penality of jail, fines, or death, then dissemination classified information anyway, and a reporter who has not sworn to protect classified information, publishing information. A good example of this is Robert Novak of the Washington Post published the name of cia operative Valerie Plame which was classified information, neither Novak, nor the Post were ever charged. There is a big difference between the press and a person entrusted with classified information dissemination that information.

Re:Dangerous

[Rich0]

Here is my problem with this kind of reasoning.

If you want to make disclosure of classified information illegal, fine. Make it illegal, and assign to it an appropriate penalty. Then when somebody does it, charge them with that crime.

The problem here is that the charge is aiding the enemy, and the argument is that the enemy obtained the classified info and thus it aided them. I'm not sure that really should be allowed to stick. The problem with this is that it forces you to basically assign the same punishment to accidentally leaving your briefcase with some HR info on the bus and sneaking into the command tent, taking photos of the next day's plans, and transmitting them to enemy HQ.

When people commit a crime they should be charged with the crime they actually committed. I'm not suggesting that leaking classified info should be legal. However, the general trend of piling as many charges on as possible is bad for justice. There is a reason that we don't put people in prison for life for jaywalking or speeding.

If you're going to charge somebody with aiding the enemy you should have to show that:
1. The aid would have actually had some significant benefit to the enemy. We're not talking about exposing scandals that lose hearts and minds - I'm talking about improving their ability to achieve military objectives in military operations. So, pictures of tortured prisoners don't count, but plans leaked to an enemy agent or sabotage coordinated with an enemy attack counts just fine. I'm not sure I'd even include sabotage in general in this unless the intent was actually to aid the enemy.

2. There was intent to aid the enemy - it wasn't just accidental or incidental (unless it was just so obvious that the aid would have resulted that it could be considered criminal negligence).

Otherwise, just charge them with mishandling classified material.

Re:Dangerous

[LordVader717]

Possibly, but thats just a red herring. The issue was whether releasing unspecific information to the public can reasonably be considered passing information to the enemy.

Re:Dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

On your point (1), it's pretty clear that Manning/Wikileaks loses on that count. He didn't filter the info, he did a massive info dump to the public that included operationally-sensitive details of ongoing military/CIA operatives and operations.

On your point (2), I think you're painting a false dichotomy between the "lost briefcase" scenario and intentionally aiding the enemy. There are many shades between the two. I don't think you could prove Manning's primary intent was to get the data to Al-Queda, but he certainly went far beyond "accidentally losing a briefcase" on the intent level. He clearly knew there were items that rise to the level of your first point in his collection of data, he knew he was under oath to protect that data from dissemination as a member of the military entrusted with access to classified information in general, and he chose to make that sensitive information completely public (if you post something on the public internet that's operationally interesting to the enemy, it's a sure bet the enemy will read it).

Re:Dangerous

[fustakrakich]

We have a nice place in tropical paradise just for them. No silly trials needed at all.

Re:Dangerous

[s.petry]

Not that long ago, namely beginning in Gulf 1 this is exactly what happened. Media agencies were told not to report on live battle scenes or they would be aiding the enemy. What footage you saw of Gulf 1 and beyond was approved by the military after review. There were no live battle scenes, and there are no live scenes from Iraq or Afghanistan currently. It was leaked that the "Live from Iraq" guys at CNN during Gulf 1 were filming from a roof top in South Carolina. Back stage footage shows them laughing at the ignorance of the American people (which they were helping to keep ignorant).

Propaganda is a bitch, and it's been riding you for longer than you may know.

Re:Dangerous

[betterunixthanunix]

They are, however, subject to the US Code, which outlaws treason, defined as it is in the constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort

If a military court allows publishing classified documents to be considered evidence that a soldier aided the enemy, it is not a stretch to think that a criminal court might accept such an argument.

Re:Dangerous

[s.petry]

On point 1, Manning never gave anything to the enemy. Manning gave the information to a media agency who is bound by their journalistic duty to ensure the safety of the data released from them. You are wrong to claim Manning gave anything to the enemy. If the media agency dumps everything given to them, that's a different topic and a much longer discussion. Before that discussion occurs, I'd suggest you read and/or listen to a great man's words regarding the responsibilities of both the Government and Journalists.

Since you are absolutely wrong regarding point 1, you can not possibly be correct with point 2. If manning actually gave something to the enemy we could discuss his intent when providing data to the enemy. If he did not do something, intent discussions are idiocy.

Re:Dangerous

[TheCarp]

Oaths are just words people use to make you do their bidding even after you realize what they want is wrong. He made that Oath before he saw what he was really working for, so it doesn't really represent an informed consent.

Also, no oath, no oath at all, absolves a person of their responsibility to oppose and expose corruption and abuse. Not ever.

Re:Dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

A good example of this is Robert Novak of the Washington Post published the name of cia operative Valerie Plame which was classified information, neither Novak, nor the Post were ever charged.

I see your point, but you could not have picked a worse example. In Novak's case you have one of the most politically powerful people in DC employed by the most politically powerful newspaper in the US publishing the name of a politically unpopular CIA whisteblower's wife on the orders of the US President. Now if Joe Schmoe of the Barnyard Gazette had intentionally published the real name of a deep-cover CIA agent, he would have a difficult time staying out of jail with all legal principles being the same.

Re:Dangerous

[tftp]

On point 1, Manning never gave anything to the enemy. Manning gave the information to a media agency who is bound by their journalistic duty to ensure the safety of the data released from them.

The very fact that the information got out indicates that whoever received the information was not a suitable handler of secrets. The US government established a simple rule of thumb, so that even a lowly intelligence analyst can figure it out:

(a) you must have clearance high enough to read the document, and (b) you have to have a need to know.

Journalists can be argued to meet (b), however they are clearly not meeting the requirement (a). Their "journalistic duty" is not to ensure safety of the data; it's to publish the data as fast as they can.

You are wrong to claim Manning gave anything to the enemy

He intentionally gave the information to people who, as he knew, had no obligations to keep it secret - and who had their own motives to publish it. Once published, any reasonable person will conclude that the enemy will want to have a look.

Imagine that you climb onto a roof of a building, take a brick, and fling it over the edge. You do not see where it falls; you even avoid thinking about it. If the brick kills someone you are clearly guilty. But will you be guilty of something if the brick just scares some people, but doesn't do any obvious damage this time around? If yes, then Manning is also guilty of the same crime.

In addition, Manning, when the clearance was issued to him, gave his word that he will keep the secret. He broke that word.

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society

True, but what has it to do with any of the societies on Earth? They are neither free nor open. The last free society on Earth was probably formed by Neanderthals.

Re:Dangerous

[dcw3]

You're claiming that CNN broadcast from S.C., and claimed that it was Iraq? Evidence?...my Google search turned up nothing.

Re:Dangerous

[coalrestall]

The problem here is that the charge is aiding the enemy, and the argument is that the enemy obtained the classified info and thus it aided them.

And if that is the argument, then the defence should really be asking the prosecution to demonstrate how exactly it aided the currently dead Bin Laden.

Re:Dangerous

[Rich0]

On your point (1), it's pretty clear that Manning/Wikileaks loses on that count. He didn't filter the info, he did a massive info dump to the public that included operationally-sensitive details of ongoing military/CIA operatives and operations.

I'm certainly open to citations (that point to specific details that were leaked which actually provided military aid to the enemy), but most of what was dumped was merely embarrassing, and there was effort made to redact materials that were more sensitive.

I'm not aware of any publicly-released data which most people would consider operationally sensitive. Again, I'm open to examples, but the mere fact that they were classified does not mean that their release aided the enemy.

Smart

[Sparticus789]

The prosecution is alleging that the document leak perpetrated by Bradley Manning directly aided the enemy (al-Qaeda) in their operations against the United States. So what's the problem with including testimony that documents leaked by Bradley Manning were present during the Bin-Laden raid? It's common sense.

You can harp on for days about how "the documents revealed war crimes" or "it was the right thing to do." Ultimately, the documents were classified, Bradley Manning signed a document stating that he would not reveal classified information when he enlisted in the Army, and did it anyways. He did not release the information the the DOD Inspector General, to a member of the House or Senate intelligence committee, or even to a legitimate member of the press corp. He released it to some foreign website with no press credentials. That makes it a crime. He's not a protected whistle-blower because he did not send the information to any of the above whistleblower channels. Even the NSA warrantless wiretapping whistle-blower had enough common sense to go through the New York Times, which meant he was protected as a whistle-blower.

Re:Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

That makes it a crime

Covering up war crimes is or should be a much bigger crime.

Just wait for the veterans to come along and tell us (like they usually do in this discussion), that as a soldier you swear to uphold the constitution, not support cover-ups, that you pledge allegiance to the country, not to the general or even president, and even that you salute the uniform of your superior, not the person wearing it.

Your suggestions that war crimes should be reported to the people trying to cover up said war crimes and not to anyone else is plain and simple support for covering up war crimes.

Re:Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no such thing as a registered, official press that the nyt is part of that makes leaking there OK. This has been made clear in several court opinions and the law itself.

Where do you people keep coming up with this fascist boot licker idiocy?

Re:Smart

[Joce640k]

Covering up war crimes is or should be a much bigger crime.

Should be...

The people behind Abu Ghraib go free, Bradley gets screwed for ratting on his leaders. So it goes.

Re:Smart

[elloGov]

The prosecution is alleging that the document leak perpetrated by Bradley Manning directly aided the enemy (al-Qaeda) in their operations against the United States. So what's the problem with including testimony that documents leaked by Bradley Manning were present during the Bin-Laden raid? It's common sense.

It is common sense that information in the PUBLIC DOMAIN is available to well everyone, including "the enemy". Calling the witness to state that Bin Laden seeeked public domain knowledge is just tugging on strings of nationalist emotions. The goal is to smear Manning to Al-Qaeda/Bin Laden (evil, bad, them, enemy) and

Re:Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

Something to consider - every document is classified. And in the age where everything is classified then nothing is classified. Think of it this way - look at documents that were released that are officially "classified" compared to classified documents from the Vietnam war. Now compare those to classified documents from WWII. Then compare that to classified documents from the Civil war. Are you saying that the content of the documents has truly the same level of critical security information that requires them to be classified? I doubt it. If it was, then how the heck would some private get his hands on it. He had access to the documents! Imagine a private in the US Army before the D-Day landing releasing information.

I hear people saying "he broke the law, he broke the law" but you know what? Everything is a crime. Everyone is a criminal. Did you ever jaywalk? Speed? Give false information on a website? The bottom line is - everyone breaks laws all the time. You can't live without breaking some law here and there. But you live based on some sort of a common sense moral code. That code tells me - and I'm not a military guy - that if you read documents about Abu Ghraib abuse coverup vs. troop locations, I won't have the same moral feeling about keeping the former a secret. If I was then I'd be just as complicit as... well, it's Godwin's law.

Re:Smart

[Sparticus789]

Show me, with citation, what war crimes were committed that were revealed through the Bradley Manning document dump.

Re:Smart

[Confusedent]

The idea of "approved whistleblower channels" kind of negates the idea of whistleblowing. The mainstream media was complicit in the propaganda run-up to the Iraq war, which of course doesn't necessarily mean they couldn't be trusted to expose important information in the leaked documents, but it shows a conflict of interest between the powers that be and the entire goal of whistleblowing. If you can't release documents to the public, but only to approved whistleblower channels who can then decide unilaterally whether the rest of us should be informed, it isn't whistleblowing.

Re:Smart

[Sparticus789]

legitimate member of the press corp

There is no such thing as a registered, official press

You are right, there is no such thing as registered, official press. I never said there was. Where do you people come up with crazy terms that I never used?

Re:Smart

[ZouPrime]

Covering up war crimes is or should be a much bigger crime.

Is or should? Which one? Do you know what you are talking about, or are you just giving us your opinion?

And which war crimes are you talking about? Real ones (you know the actual definition of war crimes, right?) or what "should" be considered war crimes if it was up to you?

Re:Smart

[Sparticus789]

Thank you for making my point. Classified information was put into the PUBLIC DOMAIN by Bradley Manning. Therefore, he is on trial for that.

Re:Smart

[ZouPrime]

No, the goal is to show that information disclosed by Manning ended up helping "the enemy". That this information was "in the public domain" at one point isn't important, since it's the unauthorized disclosure that is being prosecuted.

Re:Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

1. You sign a contract stating you will not tell anyone what I'm about to tell you next.
2. I show you my latest assault rifle and say you have one week left and then I'm going to shoot you with it.

What do you do now?

Surely you wouldn't break your contract just because you learnt some morally distasteful information. Classified is classified, right?

Re:Smart

[abigsmurf]

The helicoptor was in an active combat zone. There were reports of RPG fire. The press were not wearing identifying uniforms that press in an active warzone are expected to wear. The children in the van were only visible when looking carefully at the footage and freeze framing, not in a combat situation (wtf were they doing driving children to the site of a bombing) and the van appeared to be insurgents recovering the weapons and preventing wounded combatants being captured.. There was an RPG launcher and an AK-47 clone visible in the footage (in addition to the pilots mistaking the camera for another RPG). The pilots waited for authorisation before firing.

As tragic as it was, procedure was followed and there a combination of circumstances contributed to the mistake. It was not a war crime.

Re:Smart

[LordVader717]

Whether the website was foreign or not is in no way meaningful as the material was intended to be made public. It's just bullshit loaded language.
A whistleblower should use the the most secure channel possible and that happened to be wikileaks. As we have seen it has been traditional media who have screwed up the most.

Re:Smart

[Sparticus789]

War crimes, I do not think that word means what you think it means.

I didn't see anything that was against the rules of engagement in Iraq in 2007. So how were two white dots supposed to be identified as children from 2+ miles away? Plus, what kind of irresponsible parents drives their kids to the site of an Apache attack 2 minutes later?

Re: Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's not whistleblowing because Wikikeaks isn't part of the mythical "legitimate" Press Corps?

If the NY Times is a part of the "legitimate" Press Corps, and the NY Times used and reprinted data contained in the Wikileaks dump (using Wilileaks as a source), wouldn't that validate Wikileaks and thus legitimize them?

Furthermore, it's been established that "following orders" is not a legitimate defense/excuse when committing war crimes since the Nuremberg trials. As Thomas Jefferson stated "When injustice becomes law then resistance becomes duty".

The duty of the US military is not to protect the military institution, but instead to protect the citizens of the US and defend the US Constitution.

PFC Bradley Manning allegedly leaked the documents to stop the US Government from systematically breaking its own laws as well as international laws/treaties/rules of war/etc. For this he should not only not be on trial, but should instead be receiving the Medal of Honor.

Junior
www.TheBulldogRadioShow.com

Re:Smart

[BrokenHalo]

Look it up for yourself, you lazy sod. The Wikileaks search engine (unlike Slashdot's) isn't bad. And if you are too indolent even to do that, Google has already indexed many such examples.

Re:Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

It's common sense that they connect the dots from Manning to WIkileaks to OBL to something that caused harm to the USA.
        The Seal is one of those dots, but at this point, the last dot is the interesting one.
            Without the last one, the Seal is just there to obsucate things.

I think the government should have no trouble proving that the last dot actually caused harm,
      But if the Constitution wins here,
          I'd like to think that it's common sense that harm means
              something other than just embarasment to an administrtion doing something outside the BIg C.

BTW, Wasn't there a story about Manning actually going through newspapers who by accident released the private key which let this stuff out?
    It's kind of a hard job to the defence, but if he did go through legitimate news organizations, and the harm was embarasment, then the whistle blower laws maight trump his secrecy contract.
    That would be unfortunate, because as long as there are bad guys out there, you can't practically run even a govt of Boy Scouts without working secrecy.
      The trick is to have secrecty so our good guys can get their bad guys without providing an umbrella to permit unlimited bad things on our side.

Re: Smart

[Sparticus789]

You are just an idiot. He's no Gary Gordon, Randy Shughart, Audie Murphy, or Daniel Inouye. Criteria for the Medal of Honor:
"distinguished himself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty."

While engaged in action against an enemy of the United States
While engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force.
While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.[73][74]

Re:Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, considering our government is controlled by batshit insane warmongers, it's probably more of an opinion than anything else. We seem to have a lot of anti-freedom government cheerleaders here, though...

Re:Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

We have many legitimate press outlets in the US, and not all of them share complicity. The MSM is not a single organization under a single moral code. However, if one did believe that the entire MSM was complicit and therefore unacceptable for blowing a particular whistle, and thus decided to publicize the data directly oneself, one then takes on a *responsibility* to do so in a responsible manner (i.e. filtering the data the way a responsible journalist should: prove your point without interfering with ongoing military/intelligence operations or endangering the lives of other troops).

Re:Smart

[aeortiz]

He did go to the press, but the press was too scared of the government, and ignored him.

Re:Smart

[jkflying]

Surely there is some sort of contradiction with charging him with aiding the enemy while not being officially at war? If they want to be able to use war-time charges, they should man up and declare it as a war, dammit!

Re:Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it was more that the presence of the documents does not indicate they were used. It is circumstantial at best since most terrorists would collect the information just to check if it was useful. They probably read the news as well just in case it helps. The prosecution should have to demonstrate actual effect to their operations.

Re:Smart

[Confusedent]

Imo, there's a big difference between having an ethical responsibility to try to avoid collateral damage when whistleblowing, and having the judicial system destroy your entire life with charges punishable by life imprisonment or the death penalty for the simple act of whistleblowing itself. Plus, iirc, Wikileaks actually gave the Pentagon the chance to help redact the documents before releasing them, but for obvious reasons they wanted no part in facilitating a leak. I just bring it up because that perceived irresponsibility is on the part of the Pentagon as much as Bradley Manning, imo. My comment was meant to debunk the one I replied to about how whistleblowing shouldn't be protected unless it occurs through government-approved channels. It may or may not have been an irresponsible way to leak the information, but he's being charged for leaking the information whatsoever, not for failing to properly redact them and reduce collateral damage.

Re: Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

He's no Gary Gordon, Randy Shughart, Audie Murphy, or Daniel Inouye.

You got that right, buster. Comparing Bradley Manning to Daniel Inouye is just about the worst possible insult you can make to Manning.

Re:Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

Bingo. That's why Jane Fonda was never prosecuted.

Re:Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should he report US government atrocities to US government? That's like reporting rape to a rapist.

Also, he tried to leak it to NY Times who declined.

Re:Smart

[Khyber]

"So how were two white dots supposed to be identified as children from 2+ miles away?"

Considering we've had such technology to allow such things for more than two decades, I think you need to get out of your cave and join the rest of the technologically-advanced world.

Re:Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

The US military gunning down civilians in the chopper said they were children, so obviously they knew.

Also, those "irresponsible parents" are trapped in a warzone created by US. The whole country was turned to rubble. How are they supposed to know it was a "site of an Apache attack 2 minutes later?" In any case, all of this is irrelevant because you're not supposed to shoot civilians in the first place. In fact, you're not even supposed to be in the country to begin with.

Re:Smart

[the eric conspiracy]

I do not believe the statute requires being in a formal state of war. Several previous spies have been convicted of treason in peacetime. Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen, John Walker are examples.

I also think if you had asked Osama Bin Laden he would have admitted to being an enemy of the the US. Most Americans would likewise hold him as an enemy.

I think the case here may hinge more on the 'adhering to the enemy' clause in the Constitution. It may be difficult to prove Bradley did that.

Thankfully the Founders made this a difficult crime to prove.

Re:Smart

[s.petry]

The prosecution is alleging that the document leak perpetrated by Bradley Manning directly aided the enemy (al-Qaeda) in their operations against the United States. So what's the problem with including testimony that documents leaked by Bradley Manning were present during the Bin-Laden raid? It's common sense.

Manning never gave anything to the enemy, he gave information to a media outlet. I think you are missing some of the "common sense" you are touting.

You can harp on for days about how "the documents revealed war crimes" or "it was the right thing to do."

It was the right thing to do if the classification of the documents was intended to prevent knowledge of illegal activities. Search what was dumped, and the reason for the classification is obvious. Perhaps not for everything, but for enough that it did matter.

Ultimately, the documents were classified, Bradley Manning signed a document stating that he would not reveal classified information when he enlisted in the Army, and did it anyways. He did not release the information the the DOD Inspector General, to a member of the House or Senate intelligence committee, or even to a legitimate member of the press corp.

Well, it's obvious that you know jack squat about both the military and just as little about classified work. No such document exists when you enlist in the Army. I'm not going to teach you about either Military or Classified work, I'm only going to tell you that you are absolutely wrong.

To your next point about who he released data too, you are also wrong. If the Military is performing illegal acts, Manning was correct not to release data to the Military. There is no DOD IG so that one is laughable, as is your next. You personally have as much access, and probably more access, to a Congressman or Senator. It's not like as an enlisted person you can just walk into the office, let alone walk into the office and say "guess what?". Manning's duty as a citizen was to ensure that the data was released to someone he felt would handle the data in the best possible manner. You can disagree with how Wikileaks handled the data, but that's a different issue and is not related to Manning or what he's being charged with.

He released it to some foreign website with no press credentials. That makes it a crime.

What? First there is no such thing as a website with press credentials. Even if their was, you think releasing documents showing that the US Government is doing bad things to a website with "Approved Press site for the US Government" will accomplish anything? Not only are you fabricating information, you are doing so very poorly.

He's not a protected whistle-blower because he did not send the information to any of the above whistleblower channels. Even the NSA warrantless wiretapping whistle-blower had enough common sense to go through the New York Times, which meant he was protected as a whistle-blower.

The NYT approves every govt. story through the CIA and Government. The little you know about happenings in our own country is a testament to the strength of the propaganda we currently call "News" and "Journalism". Keep up the good work citizen 2625955.

Re:Smart

[khallow]

He did not release the information the the DOD Inspector General, to a member of the House or Senate intelligence committee, or even to a legitimate member of the press corp.

Wikileaks is just as much a "legitimate member of the press corps" as the New York Times is. Glancing at Wikipedia, the definition of press is:

"every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion."

Wikileaks easily qualifies. So Mann released the information in question to a proper channel.

Re:Smart

[Jiro]

The actual scenario is closer to:
1. I sign a contract stating I will not tell anyone what you're about to tell me next.
2. You show me a few gigabytes of private documents most of which you can legitimately keep secret but one of which describes your plan to shoot me next week.
3. I reveal the entire contents of the documents, including not only the gun threat, but everything else down to your embarrassing medical condition and the fact that you lied to your wife when she asked you if a dress made her look fat. I post them all on the Internet, with the excuse that the information contains a gun threat.

Re:Smart

[xclr8r]

There is no DOD IG so that one is laughable, as is your next

I'm actually with you on most points but the above quote is flagrantly wrong. The office was formed in 1982. http://www.dodig.mil/

Re:Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

Bradly Manning also took an oath to protect the constitution and the people of the United States. He did not take an oath to protect the asses of his superiors for crimes that they committed, in fact it was his obligation to inform the American People of such crimes due to the oaths he took when he became a member of the armed forces. Why do people forget that the government is not immune to prosecution, in fact it is our right and duty to rid the government of corrupt officials who abuse their position.

Re:Smart

[WaffleMonster]

The helicoptor was in an active combat zone. There were reports of RPG fire. The press were not wearing identifying uniforms that press in an active warzone are expected to wear.

The children in the van were only visible when looking carefully at the footage and freeze framing, not in a combat situation (wtf were they doing driving children to the site of a bombing) and the van appeared to be insurgents recovering the weapons and preventing wounded combatants being captured

I have no doubt the drone pilots made an honest mistake in misidentification. The problem occurs when you watch without the sound muted they are all bloodlusted with no respect for human life and nobody in the command structure has any fucking problem with it. The criminal act is in allowing people like this to pilot drones in the first instance.

and the van appeared to be insurgents recovering the weapons and preventing wounded combatants being captured

Quite fasinating how the mind races to fill in the gaps consistant with ones preconcieved notions aint it?

Re:Smart

[s.petry]

This is not an office that any military person uses, this is an internal office. You are correct, as my description was incorrect. Army Soldiers would report to the US Army IG, Marines the Marines IG, etc...

Re:Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

War Crimes were committed by the Commander in Chief of the United States of America, HE lied to congress and the American people about WMDs and created a system to instill fear in the American Public, remember that color alert system. They artificially inflated the levels to ensure that the American public would be complacent with the "war on terror" and allow members of the private military to gain wealth, i'm talking about Black Water and Halliburton. George "Dubyah" should have been impeached for misleading the American public, and Cheney should have been imprisoned for the rest of his life, He shot a man and got away scot-free.

Re:Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikileaks easily qualifies. So Mann released the information in question to a proper channel.

just have to add this to the end, after trying to submit it several other US news agencies

Re:Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

The actual scenario is closer to:
1. I sign a contract stating I will not tell anyone what you're about to tell me next.
2. You show me a few gigabytes of private documents most of which you can legitimately keep secret but one of which describes your plan to shoot me next week.
3. I reveal the entire contents of the documents, including not only the gun threat, but everything else down to your embarrassing medical condition and the fact that you lied to your wife when she asked you if a dress made her look fat. I post them all on a news site who then redact names of people, locations of events, and any other information not important to the gun threat of all those files except the gun report,

FTFY

Re:Smart

[Sparticus789]

You sir, are the one who has absolutely no idea what they are saying.
1. DOD does have an IG office. If you knew anything about the military, you would know that.
2. PFC Manning was a 96B (35F for you recent vets). That position comes with a security clearance. Each time someone is read on to a new unit, they have to get "read-on" to the facility where they work. Reading on is signing the agreement to not release classified information.
3. What's to stop an enlisted person from walking into a legislature's office? Their office buildings are public, anyone can walk into them.
4. The Huffington Post has press credentials. They are in the White House during their press briefings. So tell me more about the fact that websites do not have press credentials?
5. Your tin foil hat needs to be adjusted.

Re:Smart

[xevioso]

It's still not a war crime. The OP is correct.

Re:Smart

[Sparticus789]

That technology is not installed on Apache helicopters. Drones, yes, but watch the video. The "kids" that you see on the tape are tiny white dots and there is no way to tell who/what those white dots were on the video.

Re:Smart

[Sparticus789]

That was not a drone. It was a video feed from an Apache. You are a complete idiot.

Re:Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

So just because we can't tell who it is we should just start shooting?
It's probably a terrorist so just kill it and check later?

Re:Smart

[WaffleMonster]

That was not a drone. It was a video feed from an Apache. You are a complete idiot.

Its been years since I've looked at this garbage... I confused this with follow on where a building was blown up with a missle. I just remember the yaw warnings flashing on screen and thought it was all the same thing... As far as me being an idiot that should be obvious.

Re:Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

Ultimately, the documents were classified, Bradley Manning signed a document stating that he would not reveal classified information when he enlisted in the Army, and did it anyways.

You might as well say "Since it is a crime punishable by death to sneeze within 30 feet of an off-duty police officer, the fact this kid was killed is perfectly fine because he should have known better about sneezing within 30 feet of that officer!"

It's exactly the same because in both cases the crime you are claiming never happened, nor is that a crime in the first place.

There is a very strict set of guidelines (written in law) on what can and can not be classified.
Just because our government is ignoring those laws and claiming they can classify every last sheet of paper and the pen used to write them, does NOT make those documents classified.

No one in the US government can legally classify any document that is evidence of a crime. Ever. At all. That is what these documents are, so they are NOT classified according to current written law.

The only crimes were the original crimes comitted during wartime, and the crime of labeling the evidence as classified.
Bringing that NOT classified evidence to light is not a crime nor carries any sentence.

The only actual crimes as written in law are being completely ignored here, and this non-crime is being trumped up as if it was law to put Manning away for life for showing said crimes committed by his superiors.

Re:Smart

[s.petry]

1) The DOD IG is intended for companies providing DOD work primarily. Such as General Dynamics, Boeing. US Army persons would report to the Army IG. My original statement was incorrect, the fact that a US Army person would not use it was correct.

2) Again you are wrong. Just because you have a clearance does not mean you sign papers or see any classified data. Classifications and signatures come with projects, not simply having a clearance. I held TS-Special, while in the US Army, and worked in classified areas for decades. Then you make shit up, as if reading the mattress tag is a signature. Poppycock! There are papers you sign, I have had my signature on them. But that does not happen just because you have a clearance or specific MOS.

3) You go ahead and walk from where he was stationed to an office, it works out pretty well. Or are you suggesting that he go AWOL to do so? Maybe you think that he should have hand carried data to the capitol and sat on the steps waiting. You do realize that Soldiers get less vacation than the average American correct? You realize that you don't get sick time right? You also realize that while Manning could have written a letter to a Congressmen, this is exactly the same thing you could do. But you probably make a bit more money than a PFC in the Army, and get more time off where you could go to the Congressman or Senators office. In addition, any time a Soldier writes their Congressman and Senator the Military is flagged. Your commander may start asking you lots of questions and making things uncomfortable for you.

4) You absolutely missed the point. If you are going to leak information that the LAPD is breaking the law, you don't go the the LAPD to launch a complaint. You also don't go to the LAPD public affairs office, or internal memo people with the data. You go to a difference location to release the data. Doing so with something as large as the Government is much more complex.

5) If you believe that it's tinfoil, you should really get out and learn something other than what Fox is telling you. It was leaked that numerous news papers, including NYP and NYT released nothing without Government approval. Fox/NBC/ABC show you nothing but OP/ED pieces which slant stories to a favor that the Govt want's you to believe. At the same time, they don't show you what they don't want you to know. The lack of any coverage of Fast and Furious, The 2011 Defense Authorization act and the Presidents 3 appeals to the courts ruling that indefinite detention of US Citizens without warrant or trial make it very obvious that there is collusion to prevent people from knowledge. Those are easily proven and visible. More evidence is in the Syria conflict, and how they blatantly lied about the US involvement in Libya. There is no need to claim tin-foil anything when you are choosing to ignore facts that are right in front of you!

Re:Smart

[Pecisk]

Maybe he didn't release in "approved whistle blower channels", because frankly except for few really tragic war reports which general public isn't interested in detail anyway there's nothing actually to whistle about? US diplomats actually protecting rights of US and it's corporations? Surprise, it's *official* policy for almost every country I know (Spain consulate danced around us when our deal with their biggest train producer went high wire). US protecting it's interests, maybe ugly and disputable, yet still nothing illegal? Been there, done that. It's interesting read for historians, sociologists, analysts. But in nutshell, there's nothing to cry about. Personally as not US citizen I don't deeply care about this situation. I understand that people can have it's problems and anger, and they sometimes act very foolishly. I get that. However in Manning's situation I would just leave army as soon as possible. If you can't handle yourself, seriously, be honest about it. This is more of personal tragedy than national scandal to me. I don't mean ill to Manning, and see him as victim of Julian's "5 minutes of fame" stunt. However, law is the law. I really hope they give him just 6 or 7 years and be done with this situation. That's enough for him to maybe get his act together and live normal life again.

Re:Smart

[Khyber]

Actually, we have BETTER tech on the Apaches since they can carry a heavier and more complex load.

Better watch you some Faces of Death sometime.

Re:Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

Ergo those white dots were not sufficient intelligence on which to base the order to fire and a crime was committed; human beings killed.

Re:Smart

[Sparticus789]

You were in the Army? Cool story, bro.

Do you think he DIDN'T get a copy of the NYT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or The Guardian?

No.

Hell, OBL probably got some leaks from normal every-day espionage from personnell in the US armed forces. Sometimes even senators (cf Libby) do so for political reasons. Are they aiding the enemy too?

Hell, since there doesn't seem to be a need for this information to have given any actual AID to "the enemy", the reports from the US armed forces to the US public itself can be requested by and given to "the enemy". So the entire US government and the entire armed forces are guilty of this act.

The press department are.

[Anonymous Coward]

And they give out information to the public. Which would have been requested by OBL and recieved by him, ensuring that the entire public relations arm and the command structure who make them do this (all the way up to the CIC) are subject to court matial.

So true

[Anonymous Coward]

So just like the English, we have a "secrets" act which will eliminate the press from finding the next pentagon papers. I still say, this guy is a setup. A honeypot to stop any "terrorist" from finding the information. Proving that the american way of life is a terrorist organization to be hunted down , and droned out of existance. The guy is guilty of having no brains, but wasn't he an intellegence clerk? Here is why I say honeypot, a simple clerk, by the definition of his job, would not have had the security clearance to get to that information, no matter what the system, it had too be declassified, and and placed into his appropiate areas of investigation. Someone above him had to do it. Thats called entrapment.

Re:So true

[SJHillman]

No, that's not called entrapment. Entrapment requires someone getting you to do something you wouldn't have otherwise done in the normal course of things. If an undercover cop sells you cocaine, that's not entrapment. If they coerce you into buying cocaine by threatening to bomb your family, that's a little closer to entrapment.

Re:So true

[bhcompy]

> The guy is guilty of having no brains, but wasn't he an intellegence clerk? Here is why I say honeypot, a simple clerk, by the definition of his job, would not have had the security clearance to get to that information, no matter what the system 1) A friend of mine couldn't get into a college because he had terrible grades and wasn't terribly bright. So what did he do? Enlist out of high school into Army intelligence and became some type of intelligence clerk. 2) Intelligence clerks have security clearances and can get access to that information.

Re:So true

[Anonymous Coward]

by the definition of his job, would not have had the security clearance to get to that information

Absolutely incorrect.

Re:So true

[dwillden]

He was not a simple clerk, he was a trained, qualified and cleared Intelligence analyst. Their very job by description requires rather free access to a wide range of classified information. As part of his qualification process he had to submit to a very in depth background investigation, as the Analyst MOS requires a TOP SECRET clearance to be considered qualified to work in the field. Further the military rank structure has most the actual work being done by the junior enlisted. Manning was a PFC, PFC's and SPC's do most of the actual work, the higher ranks are managerial levels. When it comes to doing the analysis the PFC's and SPC's in the various HQ intel offices as Manning worked in do perform most of the actual work and more senior ranking individuals out in the remote bases can often be found reporting to such Jr. enlisted personnel and meeting requirements for information established by the Jr personnel.

contrary to your claim about your friend the intel fields actually do require a higher level of intelligence to get into. A high ASVAB test score is required to be an Analyst, and the course is not easy for the academically challenged. Now your friend may have just been lazy in HS and actually had the intelligence to get into the field while having grades bad enough to prevent him from getting into college, but that's more on his laziness in HS resulting in bad grades rather than actual abilities.

He swore to uphold the constitution.

[Anonymous Coward]

He swore to uphold the laws of the United States and the international law the government have treaties to uphold.

NO Non-Disclosure agreement or secrecy act can be used to force the concealment of the commission of a crime. And trying to do so makes you an accessory before and after the fact.

Re:He swore to uphold the constitution.

[Anonymous Coward]

But it has yet to be proven that a single criminal act was revealed by his releases. Many have tried to claim the helicopter video was proof of a war crime, but the only criminals on that scene were the supposed "media" (it has always looked like an RPG to me, not a camera) who were criminally stupid enough to wander towards an active military firefight walking with individuals carrying AK's and RPG's. As to the van, again it pulled up to the scene of an active firefight without any medical or aid indicators, for all the pilot knew that van could have held a MANPADs or AA machinegun. The fact that it's occupants were in fact innocent civilians makes it a tragedy but not a war crime by any accepted international definition.

And the State Dept Cables? Diplomats must both be able to always present a friendly persona to those they work with but also to provide factual and professional assessments, and that means those cables will have info that the nations and persons they are dealing with may find objectionable. They also show our intents and plans and even where we may be vulnerable to attack. There was no evidence in crime in those.

Had Pvt Manning only released selectively about the Apache or other suspect events your position may have basis. But where he just culled massive amounts of classified information from the system and network he worked on and then dumped them en-mass to those not cleared or authorized to receive such info is the basis of his criminal charges. Had be been selective, even though there is great doubt to the actual criminality of any thing revealed he would have a greater argument for leniency as a whistle-blower, but he didn't pick and choose, he just released it all in violation to his oath as a soldier, his Non-disclosure statement and the ethos of the intel community.

Oh and contrary to what the summary says, he could still face the death penalty for his crimes. The Prosecution has promised not to ask for capitol punishment, but under the UCMJ the convening authority (the General overseeing the trial) is not bound by the limitations of what the prosecution is seeking. He/she could impose the maximum sentence, death, or he/she could decide that the charges are overblown and even though found guilty impose a very light sentence. It is the Convening authority's choice as to the sentence actually imposed. That said I don't expect a death sentence if convicted, but it is still technically on the table if convicted.

Re:He swore to uphold the constitution.

[Arker]

This is just utter nonsense.

"...criminally stupid enough to wander towards an active military firefight walking with individuals carrying AK's and RPG's."

Dont recall there being any RPGs. Definitely plenty of AKs, because it would have been criminally stupid to be out driving around Baghdad without them. A civilian doesnt magically become something else simply because he is armed, and the US, with our second amendment, should be acutely aware of that.

They had AKs because everyone in that area carried AKs and it would have indeed been "criminally stupid" for them to travel in that area without bodyguards. They took no aggressive actions, and they didnt 'roll up into a firefight' they attempted to render assistance to the wounded AFTER the firefight had come to a conclusive ending.

The video is direct evidence of a war crime on its face. It's not Manning, but everyone else who had access and did NOT leak it, who should be charged for that. The cables reveal many other crimes and misbehaviour by the US government, are essentially all over-classified, and constitute information that the citizens have a right to see, and a NEED to see, in order to do our job in the republic.

The fact that we keep promoting criminals and throwing whistleblowers in the brig instead of the other way around is probably the biggest threat to the national security of this country today.

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Manning is a traitor, aided and abetted the enemies of our country.....

He deserves the firing squad.

Re:Well...

[BrokenHalo]

...Manning is a traitor, aided and abetted the enemies of our country..... He deserves the firing squad.

Hmmm. Perhaps you should visit a pharmacist and ask for something for redness around the neck area.

Re:Well...

[Sique]

... said the Anonymous Coward.

Re:Well...

[Black Parrot]

...Manning is a traitor, aided and abetted the enemies of our country.....

He deserves the firing squad.

One man's traitor is another man's patriot.

Re:Well...

[WaffleMonster]

He deserves the firing squad.

If by he you mean everyone in the government who lied to start a war with Iraq under false pretenses or those who enabled and carried out "collateral murder" I would agree with you.

There's a big difference

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a big difference between classified documents that are meant to be secret and classifying every single thing in case something embarrasing is in them.

Re:There's a big difference

[abigsmurf]

Can I have your birth records? Your school history? Your tax returns? Criminal record? Oh heck, anything you've ever done that has received any sort of government funding or subsidy? You should be fine with that right?

Re:There's a big difference

[abigsmurf]

aaaaand that was a reply to the wrong post.

Re:There's a big difference

[moeinvt]

Well said. The government is now classifying anything that might make the government look bad.

Re:There's a big difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you can. If you get a chance, look yourself up on lexis-nexis.
But then consider all those entities who CAN look this info up on you, whether you want/need them to or not. Background searches. Insurance claim investigators. HR depts.

Re:There's a big difference

[s.petry]

They have been doing that for a long time, the difference is really that now we have easier access to the knowledge. Even programs we know about by pieces being declassified have huge portions of the program remaining classified simply because 1) it's embarrassing and 2) you would want to prosecute people currently in positions of power that were on those programs.

Reminds one of the show trials in the USSR

[Anonymous Coward]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Trials

Hope they ask about News Papers there, as well.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Moby Dick, so we can slander Herman Melville, as well.

They haven't shown that this was any different.

[Anonymous Coward]

"He is not being prosecuted for releasing weather reports, stock values, or a crossword puzzle"

What he HAS released hasn't been shown to be of any more aid to OBL than these would be.

Classified information cannot, repeat CANNOT, be used to hide criminal acts.

Classified information incorrectly classified is NOT validly classified and almost all classified information SHOULD NOT be classified. If the rules for classification AS APPLIED are "Classify everything", then the classification cannot be of any guide as to whether the information SHOULD be classified and kept secret.

Manning is on trial for exposing the criminal acts of his superiors.

Something his superiors predecessors insisted should be done in all cases. cf Nuremberg.

Re:They haven't shown that this was any different.

[Anonymous Coward]

Manning is on trial for exposing the criminal acts of his superiors

If true, this must be proven in a court of law. A better way to phrase it would have been...

"Manning is on trial for exposing what you believe are criminal acts of his superiors"

Re:They haven't shown that this was any different.

[Anonymous Coward]

Manning is on trial for leaking classified information. He leaked so many documents- are you claiming that each and every one of those documents he leaked exposed a criminal act? That is the only way, using your logic, that his actions could possibly be construed as something other than a leak of classified information - it only becomes a question of magnitude.

This is not similar to someone prosecuting the New York Times because once it reaches the NYT, it has already passed into the public. This would be similar to prosecuting the person who released classified information to the NYT.

Re:They haven't shown that this was any different.

[im_thatoneguy]

Criminal acts? Such as?

If Bradley's information was useless to the enemy... I would also argue it was useless to the public.

It was OLD information

[Anonymous Coward]

Manning leaked OLD information, older than 6 months. Using the IRS definition of private, that info was public!

What do you have against the IRS? Sparticus? If that is your *real* name. Sounds like a terrorist name to me!

Re:It was OLD information

[Sparticus789]

Sparticus? If that is your *real* name. Sounds like a terrorist name to me!

I am a terrorist, if you are the Roman Senate circa 72 B.C.

Re:It was OLD information

[Freddybear]

That definition applies to information that they want to access, not to information that they want to keep secret.

Re:It was OLD information

[Endo13]

No, that was Spartacus. Seriously, you tacked a number on the end and didn't even get the spelling right? How sad.

Helicopter gunship.

[Anonymous Coward]

Procuring underage boys for the warlords in Afghanistan.

Now, show me, with citation and evidence for the aid given, what Manning leaked that aided the enemies of the USA?

To consider...

[3seas]

If everyone know teh secrets ... then the secrets are not secrets and as such become null and void of any value in being secret.

So how do you aid an enemy with a secret that is not secret? You don't, but only fool those who believe its a secret.

I do recall that some judge ruled that the US government, though the secrets are no longer secret, can still pretend they are.

So who is fooling who here?

Classified coverups

[Anonymous Coward]

"Thank you for making my point. Classified information was put into the PUBLIC DOMAIN by Bradley Manning. Therefore, he is on trial for that."

In which case they don't need the navy seal. Bringing in the navy seal to prove a point that nobody disputes, that public domain info is public even to terrorists.

He's there for marketing, he'll go in in uniform, be painted as a big hero by the prosecution, and he'll testify he found data on Bin Ladens computer that came from the leak of Bradley Manning and do his marketing pitch.

IMHO, the Navy Seal is a hero for being one of the team that killed Bin Laden. But Manning is the bigger hero of the two. In the 'makes America more free' score table, Manning is right there in the top 10.

Re:Classified coverups

[TheCarp]

> IMHO, the Navy Seal is a hero for being one of the team that killed Bin Laden. But Manning is the
> bigger hero of the two. In the 'makes America more free' score table, Manning is right there in the
> top 10.

I would actually agree if he was on the Seal team that brought Bin Laden in for a fair civilian trial for thousands of civilian murders.

I have little to no respect for anyone involved in extrajudicial killing. I may take a lot of umbrage with our so called "justice system" but, these people are supposed to be its champions and uphold it. It should matter deeply to them that Bin Laden died at their hands: an innocent man, having never been convicted in a court of law. They should hang their heads in shame for that.

Justice is only as good as what we offer the most vile amongst us. The more vile, the more important it is.

Manning is a hero, this man, is just a tool.

Seems to be missing something...

[dirk]

While I think it is the right decision to allow testimony on whether they found the documents at the compound, it seems to be missing a key component. They charge is "aiding the enemy". Shouldn't they also have to prove it actually aided them? What if Bin Laden read through the documents and they were all stuff he didn't care about? Or what if he just was interested in them and wanted to read them (as many people did). Possession of the documents doesn't prove that they aided the enemy anymore than a copy of Twilight would.

Re:Seems to be missing something...

[Anonymous Coward]

Possession of the documents doesn't prove that they aided the enemy anymore than a copy of Twilight would.

No, but if they obtained a copy of Twilight from the U.S. would that be a violation of the Geneva Convention?

Re:Seems to be missing something...

[jkflying]

It's ironic how they charge him with aiding the enemy when the US isn't even at war.

Also, to be aiding the enemy he has to have leaked them with the *intention* of them getting to the enemy. He can just argue that those ones were collateral damage, and use the standard "collateral damage is acceptable if minimized" argument, a la standard military protocol.

Re:Seems to be missing something...

[RivenAleem]

Well, Bin Laden is pretty dead, the documents can't have been of THAT much aid...

Re:Seems to be missing something...

[Black Parrot]

Clearly they didn't do OBL any good.

Re:Seems to be missing something...

[Pecisk]

1) I don't think you need someone declared "enemy" to be with him formally at war. US were never at war with USSR; Would be nice to hear some specialist's opinion on this though;

2) Judge disagreed on that and it seems that law can be read more broadly than you imagine. Is releasing such information by mistake would be aiding an enemy? I don't know. As I read from articles about case judge reads law like "if you release this information in a manner you know it could help an enemy, you can be charged by this point". This contradicts to the letter of the law, however, because it separates willful helping the enemy, and just releasing information to person who are not authorized. Prosecution will have to find a way to prove that Manning knew what WikiLeaks will do with that information.

I really don't think you can get out of this attacking the law. While it's kinda broad, it's logical, however, it will struggle with this real life case, because of actual change in defining what "enemy" is and it's admittedly part of much bigger discussion how we treat military secrets.

"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."

UCMJ Article 104â"Aiding the enemy

Oddly, definition of "enemy" is missing from UCMJ header. What's most important to remember that members of Army have much bigger responsibility of guarding secret information they have than, for example, journalist.

Re:Seems to be missing something...

[Pecisk]

Read actual UCMJ article http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm104.htm, it's actually very clear that releasing any classified information released knowingly it will "leak" to the enemy is enough for "aiding enemy" definition (in eyes of UCMJ, remember Manning isn't civilian in this case). Prosecution will have to prove that Manning truly knew what WikiLeaks will do with them though.

I can agree with judge, this charge can't be dismissed. Will see what will be decision on this case.

Manning: American Hero

[MrKaos]

This is how America treats it's patriots, those who swore to protect the nation against domestic threats. The corruption that eats away at America is almost complete. The fear of the government in America has turned most of the population in to unquestioning slaves that beleive whatever they are told.

Greed and the desire for material gains has turned that beacon of democracy into a parody of it's aspirations. Anyone who tries to fight this corruption and greed will have their unalienable rights trampled.

How long will the average American citizen tolerate this bastardisation of ideals that the rest of the world looked up to and once America sinks into despotism (as Benjiman Franklin said of the constitution) which world power will take it's place?

I don't really like the alternatives.

The point is there needs to be a REASON to classif

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is there needs to be a REASON to classify the documents. Not "Hell, I don't know".

There's this whole "In the public interest" thing that journalism is based on. If it's in the public interest, then the public have a right to know.

Then the government must give a GOOD REASON for refusing.

No Worries

[Anonymous Coward]

Biden says the chance of the U.S. government becoming oppressive is virtually nil.

Why worry? Nobody is coming for your First Amendment Rights, in black helicopters or otherwise.

Re:No Worries

[fazey]

but what about my second amendment? or fourth? I want those too.

Threw his life away for nothing

[Vince6791]

Bradley Manning a complete dumbass. Why risk prison or even death? we all know our government is crooked run by corporate puppet whores. We know the past atrocities this government has committed against other nations in the name of freedom and liberation. Regardless of somebody proving u.s government is a genocidal maniac killing for resources nothing will be done, because the people of this country are too weak and too busy playing with their Nintendo to really do anything to stop them. Where is the financial disaster accountability? Iraq invasion accountability? 17 trillion debt accountability? NONE!

   

Sir Humphrey

[Frankie70]

"The Official Secrets Act is not to protect secrets, it is to protect officials." - Sir Humphrey.

I disagree too.

[Stickerboy]

It doesn't need to proven that Manning personally handed a copy of the release to an al Qaeda agent to make him guilty. This charge should absolutely stick. Let's say John Doe is a disgruntled Armed Forces intel agent working in Afghanistan. He's sick of his job, and takes a huge stack of classified targeting mission profiles and drone photos and scatters them in the air in Kabul's marketplace out of protest. Agents of the Taliban or al Qaeda collect the papers and peruse it. Regardless of the timeliness or utility of the info, he's (unwittingly and stupidly) gone against explicit orders and policy and aided and abetted the enemy efforts. Trying to draw a ridiculous line of causality for "proof" between release and someone getting killed is not needed at that point.

Quit idolizing Manning. Just because Manning exposed some of the seedy underpinnings of international diplomacy doesn't make him a hero. No, there were no explicit war crimes that weren't already being exposed by the MSM (Abu Ghraib being the best example). I've read through the wiki leaks releases, and there is little to nothing within them that couldn't be found in the MSM or inferred through a basic knowledge of international affairs. He's a Kevin Mitnick of this decade.

Re:I disagree too.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, I won't stop idolizing Manning. While the mainstream media would have us believe that the real heroes are those raping, torturing, and slaughtering innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan under the guise of bringing freedom and democracy, it is people like Manning who reveal the true nature of these war criminals.

Manning is the true American hero.

Re:I disagree too.

[jeffclay]

I've read through the wiki leaks releases, and there is little to nothing within them that couldn't be found in the MSM or inferred through a basic knowledge of international affairs.

So, you're saying that he didn't aide the enemy because the information was already published?

Re:I disagree too.

[Pecisk]

It was counterargument for reasoning that leaks were done because of war crimes. They weren't. Guy was angry at everybody and did it because of pure spite. He broke the law because he couldn't just take notice and leave. I usually do then when I'm angry at the work place which I hate.

Re:I disagree too.

[LienRag]

Manning stuck by his conscience when it clearly went against his personal interests and could even come at a tremendous cost for him. It may not make him an idol but it definitely makes him sort of a hero, the usually anonymous ones (alas for him, this time he wasn't). You know what happened when Abraham wasn't able to find 10 just men in Sodom and Gomorrha? Maybe you shouldn't jail the people that prevent your country to go below that threshold...

Read international war statutes.

[Anonymous Coward]

What the helicopter did WAS A WAR CRIME.

If you DO NOT have positive ID of a hostile, shooting anyway IS A CRIME.

Shooting ANYONE, military personnel or not, who are giving aid to the wounded IS A WAR CRIME.

Shooting children (and they KNEW it was children: "Serves them right for bringing their kids to a war zone") IS A WAR CRIME.

Re:Read international war statutes.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't point to a single thing in your post that's correct. Seriously, do the tiniest bit of research instead and you won't end up looking like a complete ass.

Re:Read international war statutes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not in an asynchronous battlefield, your every claim fails. You obviously do not know what constitutes a war crime. The closest valid claim is the someone giving aid to the wounded, except that it was not obvious that such was the purpose, and the vehicle could have just as easily opened it's side doors to reveal weapons designed to take down aircraft.

Prove or at least cite your proof that the pilots knew there were children. Now prove that you can determine that info from grainy combat cameras in the heat of battle.

How do you propose obtaining positive ID in the middle of a live battle when the opposition does not wear uniforms, but instead dresses to blend in with the population. Fact is once bullets start flying anyone not taking cover is suspect and fair target. Notice how few other people were around those city streets. All the smart people knew to stay indoors and out of sight when shooting starts.

As I said, your every claim of war crime fails and falls flat on it's face. That was no war crime, no matter how much you claim and yell that it was.

Prosecutorial immunity.

[Anonymous Coward]

They can no more be found guilty of their crimes than the NSA wiretapping can be: the government and courts refuse to allow the crimes to be pursued.

The wiretap stuff is very pertinent in that you cannot start a claim until you have proof that you're affected. But you can't get that proof because it's hidden. But you can't get at that hidden data "legally" until you've proven you're affected. But you can't prove you've been affected, because it's hidden. Catch 22.

Just like the information for the war crimes being committed were hidden under "classification". And even if, by some miracle, the courts and government decided that they WOULD face up to a jury for their actions, that cannot be started until AFTER the leak. So the leak INHERENTLY has to be before any criminal conclusion has been made.

Your demands are self-serving purient nonsense.

That's not the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

Scope of Manning's guilt is to be determined by the court. PP does not deny that.

BUT... The fact that Manning is the ONLY person on trial indicates that the trail is not about determining guilt - it's just another show in the security theater.
If they were interested in determining guilt, he wouldn't be the only defendant.
He was a mere Specialist at the time.

That means that there is practically an entire chain of command above him.
And being in the army/military, that means that his superiors are also at fault for allowing him to commit the crimes he is accused of.
His crimes may be his own responsibility, but HE is someone else's responsibility.

It doesn't matter even if they determine that he "hacked" his way to that information, as opposed to having free access to it - someone above him fucked up for ALLOWING that to happen.

It's a Star Chamber

[Anonymous Coward]

The outcome (Manning's guilt) is predetermined. The only task remaining is to manage to PR to give a semblance of due process. We have a secret witness giving secret evidence.

Whack the most visible moles

[ThatsNotPudding]

The NSA has a finite budget, a finite number of people, finite capability, finite everything.

That's why they and the rest of the security organs take great pains to prosecute / persecute the most well-known 'criminals' like Aaron Swartz beyond any semblance of justice in high-profile show trials, in order to keep the 'rabble' compliant.

What a free country we have.

Re:Whack the most visible moles

[Pseudonym]

The NSA had nothing, as far as we know, to do with the prosecution of Aaron Swartz.

I think you're over-estimating the amount of collusion between some of these government departments. That, after all, would require co-operation and competence.

Exactly....

[sgt_doom]

...they are inferring guilt on anything AND everything bin Laden downloaded --- so what about all the other sites, vids, TV shows, they are equally guilty by this unholy specious illegal "legal" reasoning by yet another American hack judge/shyster.

And the secrecy doesn't apply to hiding crimes.

[Anonymous Coward]

And you do not have the right via whistleblower statutes to prosecute a whistleblower, even though they have broken a contractual (non criminal) offence.

Will not point to, you mean.

[Anonymous Coward]

These are the Geneva Conventions and you can go look them up yourself, dickwad.

Re:Will not point to, you mean.

[david_thornley]

The laws of war are not that massive or complicated. If you claim a violation, you should be able to hunt through the appropriate treaties and find violations. (Hint: the basis of the modern law of war is the Hague conventions, which have been replaced in certain areas by some Geneva Conventions.

Having been through a good deal of that material, (a) shooting does not require positive ID, (b) shooting random people who are giving aid to the wounded isn't a war crime unless they're showing appropriate uniforms/signs/symbols/whatever, and (c) when legitimate targets and illegitimate ones are mixed, it usually isn't the responsibility of the shooting party to make sure the illegitimate targets aren't hit (there are exceptions, but I don't believe any apply here). If you actually think about what effect your proposed laws of war would have on waging war, you'll realize why you're wrong.

And, yes, anybody who brings children into a war zone is morally responsible for their safety.

Beyond bullcrap....

[sgt_doom]

Beyond the obvious bullcrap ruling by the corrupt, shyster judge (anything and everything downloaded could be placed within the same category), how does anyone really know that this squid dood, the SEAL team member, actually had anything to do with any killing of any terrorist, let alone OBL? Has anyone viewed OBL's dead body? Did anyone actually witness OBL's burial at sea and verify that it was indeed OBL? Too many unproven and unanswered questions to begin with......

why???

[Anonymous Coward]

So what actually did this Seal witness, or is he just going to get up on the stand and provide a bunch of scary what ifs? Because id he does the latter, thatdoesn't really sound like a fair trial, more like a kangaroo court.

If you want us to take this trial seriously maybe the government should too.

This is fucked up

[Anonymous Coward]

What a fucking false flag this is. It's a made-up bullshit attempt to pin extra shit on Manning. This is fucking ridiculous.

I know you get fucked no matter who you vote for, but I really, really hoped Obama wouldn't have been so similar to George Bush. That absolutely has not been the case.

Manning fucked up, but just making up arbitrary bullshit charges to fuck him for life is beyond wrong. Let's not grossly inflate things out of a misguided sense of revenge. I would not ever in my life believe for a second that Bin fucking Laden had one of the documents Manning released.

This is about as real as how we found an intact wallet from a 9/11 hijacker on the ground. Complete and utter fucking bullshit.

God fucking damnit.

I think this:

[Zimluura]

I think this:

or even to a legitimate member of the press corp. He released it to some foreign website with no press credentials.

is the bit in your post that _implies_ a registered, official press.

"'The judge disagreed.' 'The government must prove

[Anonymous Coward]

beyond a reasonable doubt that the intelligence is given to and received by the enemy,' Lind said."

The original article had the quotation of 'The judge disagreed' BEFORE 'The government must prove,' which confuses the meaning, because it sounds like the judge disagreed with that statement, and one might confuse who said that (herself, and thus oneself) and disagreed with what if they don't read the original article.

"Defense attorneys had argued that proof of receipt wasn't relevant to whether Manning aided the enemy, the most serious charge he faces, punishable by life imprisonment.

The judge disagreed.

"The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the intelligence is given to and received by the enemy," Lind [judge] said."

More here (original article): http://news.yahoo.com/bin-laden-raid-member-wikileaks-witness-153255044.html

BULLSHIT

[Anonymous Coward]

How easy is it to make that up?