Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bin Laden Raid Member To Be WikiLeaks Witness

Posted by samzenpus on from the surprise-witness dept.

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."

7 of 212 comments (clear)

  1. Dangerous by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Dangerous by Sparticus789 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    2. Re:Dangerous by jimbolauski · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
  2. There's a big difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:Smart by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    No sig today...
  4. They haven't shown that this was any different. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

  5. Re:Surveillance by Reschekle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.