Bradley Manning Convicted of Espionage, Acquitted of 'Aiding the Enemy'

crashcy sends word that a verdict has been handed down in the case of Bradley Manning. Quoting: "A military judge on Tuesday found Pfc. Bradley Manning not guilty of aiding the enemy, but convicted him of multiple counts of violating the Espionage Act. Private Manning had already confessed to being WikiLeaks’ source for a huge cache of government documents, which included videos of airstrikes in which civilians were killed, hundreds of thousands of front-line incident reports from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, dossiers on men being held without trial at the Guantánamo Bay prison, and about 250,000 diplomatic cables. But while Private Manning had pleaded guilty to a lesser version of the charges he was facing, which could expose him to up to 20 years in prison, the government decided to press forward with a trial on a more serious version of the charges, including 'aiding the enemy' and violations of the Espionage Act. Beyond the fate of Private Manning as an individual, the 'aiding the enemy' charge — unprecedented in a leak case — could have significant long-term ramifications for investigative journalism in the Internet era."

Comments

NSA doesn't like the system it created???

[unique_parrot]

he should be given a medal (in my opinion).

Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created???

[Anonymous Coward]

With fighting corruption landing you serious jail time, I am in no hurry to volunteer. Especially when I have a family to worry about. Much safer to leave, which is what I am planning on in the next few years.

But when you agree to join the military and have a security clearance you make promises to protect that information. With your life, if necessary.

Tell that to international war crimes courts and see how far it gets you. Of course, Manning was a private with no serious decision making authority, so he would be safe from that. But this attitude you mentioned doesn't stand up to even recent historical precedent. You have a moral human duty, as determined by international courts even , to not be complicit in the slaughter of civilians.

Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created???

[Atzanteol]

You also swear an oath to defend the constitution from all enemies. If you feel that your oath to protect papers violates your oath to defend the constitution which do you go with?

Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created???

[Jane Q. Public]

"As an ex-military member who held a security clearance, I'm glad he'll likely get prison time. Yes the system is corrupt. Yes he had other avenues that may not have been productive at stopping the corruption. But when you agree to join the military and have a security clearance you make promises to protect that information. With your life, if necessary. He not only went against that promise, he blatantly gave away that information!"

But this ignores the larger question: which "promise" is paramount? His promise to protect that information, or his oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States?

Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created???

[Anonymous Coward]

This is bullcrap.

But when you agree to join the military and have a security clearance you make promises to protect that information. With your life, if necessary.

You would die protecting the US government from having its citizens realize that the military is murdering civilians for fun and profit? You really are an idiot and the US is lucky to have folks like you with security clearance.

Take action, go to your congressmen, get out there and vote, explain to others where the corruption is and convince them not to continue to vote for those people that are corrupt.

The American people did vote. They voted for a candidate that explicitly promised the closing of Guantanamo and an end to an unjust war. Instead what they got was more murder and a president that defends the massive spying aparatus. So who are we supposed to vote for? Manning is on the side of the US citizen. Neither party is, and the military certainly is not. You're on the wrong side of history.

Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created???

[Anonymous Coward]

But when you agree to join the military and have a security clearance you make promises to protect that information. With your life, if necessary. He not only went against that promise, he blatantly gave away that information!

So you're saying he should haveJust Followed Orders, right?

May I remind you of something?

Oaths of Enlistment

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Oath for Commissioned Officers
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created???

[KiloByte]

Ok, but they are working for the US government.

How is that different from fine folks at Nuremberg?

Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created???

[anagama]

You are confusing a moral judgment with a legal one. Neither did "bad" things, they both did illegal things. We should as a society ask ourselves, when doing the legal thing is bad, and the illegal thing good, should we not indict the law and pardon the lawbreaker? How you answer that question tells a lot about whether you are an authoritarian minded person, or a person with high moral standards.

Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created???

[Anonymous Coward]

Your question is only valid if you honestly believe that Manning read and determined ALL of the 250,000+ documents he released to be proof of a Constitutional violation of some sort. His mass dump of documents shows his motive was less about any duty to the Constitution than it was a blatant FU to the Military & Government that entrusted him with his clearance.

Many here are also making it seem as though he had physical possession of these documents, and failed to protect them. The fact is that he actively mined the data and then dumped it without bothering to know the full scope of what he had released.

For the apparently numerous people here who bear a grudge against the USA of one kind or another and think that this is great due to the embarrassment to the military and Government in general, give it a rest I'm sure we'll still bail your ass out again sometime in the future without expecting any thanks from you. You can call us ignorant for that if you want, it's just in our nature.

Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created???

[Archangel Michael]

So, you're for "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" then? I mean, if "ends justify the means" then what prevents us from going down that slippery slope?

IMHO the ends do not justify the means. We should always evaluate HOW we do things, and never cross certain lines, regardless of the benefits of crossing those lines.

However, that being said, the MEANS in this case are just, because there was no other possible way to effect change. YOU can effect change using Just Means, you have to understand and accept the consequences. Snowden didn't harm anyone in particular, and the case can be made that he didn't harm anyone in general, except the powers that were abusing the system. THAT is what makes it just, IMHO.

Do not give the nutjobs permission to do "whatever it takes" to accomplish their goals.

Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created???

[Anonymous Coward]

How is that different from fine folks at Nuremberg?

The defendants at Nuremberg (they weren't "fine folks") had committed crimes against humanity.

More importantly, they were on the losing side.

Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created???

[kilfarsnar]

What crimes were those? Oh that's right, even though thousands of documents have been circling the internet for years now, not a single one implicates the government of wrongdoing, just business-as-usual borderline "unethical" stuff that they do so we can sleep in warm beds and work in cushy offices. Corruption charges?! Corruption is our protection. Corruption keeps us safe and warm. Corruption is why you and I are prancing around in here instead of fighting over scraps of meat out in the streets. Corruption is why we win.

Actually, corruption is why our economy and governmental systems are going into the toilet. I understand that the American empire and my material excess is made possible by corrupt practices. But really, it's a deal with the Devil.

As we are seeing, the instruments and methods used to enforce American wishes abroad are slowly being brought home for use in the US. The people doing terrible things around the world in order to bring us cheap oil and pliant foreign governments don't actually care about you or me. They care about the large businesses whose interests they advance. They work for the Elite. They only care about us as far as we can be exploited to buy things and vote for the right people.

Personally, I think they can put their "deal" where the sun don't shine. If my prosperity is bought with the blood of the poor and deluded, I don't want it. But I don't make the rules and I have seen what happens to those who push back too hard. But I also know that those who spend too long between a rock and a hard place get crushed.

Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created???

[scot4875]

So, you're for "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" then?

Nice strawman, but I'll respond anyway. (Also, are you aware that "slippery slope" is the name of a fallacy? Not an argument?)

No, "ends justifies the means" doesn't justify torture and here's why.

1) It doesn't work.
2) Torturing their soldiers/"enemy combatants" loses us any sort of moral standing on the issue. We can't use their reprehensible behavior to garner sympathy from neutral parties when we do the same thing.

So in this case, the "ends" aren't desirable. Therefore they can't be used to justify the means.

It's nice that you feel so strongly about government corruption, but then get so fucking defensive when corruption is exposed. It's almost like double-think. Oh wait, no, it is double-think.

Now I'm sure that you'll equate my nuanced view to double-think, but here's the difference: I'm actually thinking. I look at each situation and try to evaluate them individually and see what outcomes I can expect from them, and may well come to the conclusion that something is bad in one situation and not bad in another situation. YOU, on the other hand, take event A, try to find something else that you can compare it to (event B), and then use your judgement of event B to decide whether event A is good or bad. One of us is thinking; the other is doing pattern matching.

As far as I can tell, there has been absolutely nothing bad that has resulted from Manning's leaks. From where I sit, life has gone on pretty much unchanged. I fail to see how terrible his actions are when, predictably, none of the doomsday scenarios envisioned by folks like yourself came to pass.

--Jeremy

Same system as the Mafia...

[gweihir]

Talk to anybody outside, get tortured and killed. They have not quite figured out how to implement that time-tested approach fully, but torture they already do. If "by their methods you shall recognize them" has any truth to it, this makes the nature of the current US administration quite clear.

Seriously, if what you do is to horrible and repulsive that people inside your organization are willing to risk considerable punishment to leak them, then maybe the things you are doing are wrong and you need to stop?

Befehl ist Befehl

[marcovje]

If I look at this case, it returns to the old Prussian adage "Befehl ist Befehl".

If you break the rules, you will be severely punished, and there is no excuse. No own responsibility, no greater good, just do what you are told, no matter what.

I don't think I have to explain you what that can lead to......

Punitive justice

[sl4shd0rk]

When does the US military go on trial for the exposed war crimes?

Incredible

[Anonymous Coward]

A man alerts you to how you're being ripped off by the people who claim to be working for you, and you take the side of the people ripping you off.

It's amazing how powerful the appeal to coercive authority can be. Nobody would ever knowingly accept being ripped off by a private party. In the private sector, breach of contract results in serious conseqences. Yet somehow, coercive authority gets a free pass. This is a perfect example of how indoctrination works.

Re:Should have been convicted on all counts

[TWiTfan]

If the reporters for the Washington Post and New York Times whom he initially approached had done their fucking jobs, he would never have went to WikiLeaks. The reason he had to release the whole cache is because no journalist gatekeeper would take him seriously (the way Glenn Greenwald did with Snowden).

Re:I guess Snowden saved Manning's life then.

[TechyImmigrant]

>Do we really want a military full of people who think it's okay to give away millions of pieces of data whenever and for whatever?

Yes, when the military is committing illegals acts and violating the constitution. In those cases it is other people who should go to jail.

Re:ramifications

[intermodal]

He gave information that could help the American people make better informed decisions regarding their governance. I think that counts as aiding an enemy of the state at this point.