Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by Soulskill on from the win-some-lose-some dept.

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."

32 of 529 comments (clear)

  1. NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by unique_parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Informative

      NSA wasn't Manning. NSA was Snowden. Manning released diplomatic cables to wikileaks.

    2. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Informative

      Only in the vaguest sense? Manning was a soldier, Snowden a civilian. Manning leaked a huge swath of cables regardless of content. Snowden leaked details on a program he thought was abusive. The government involved is the same, but the "system" Snowden would face would be a standard civilian jury. Manning stood in front of a military tribunal without a jury of his peers.

    3. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by Atzanteol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    5. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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?

    6. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by C0R1D4N · · Score: 5, Interesting

      " 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!"

      " I, (NAME), 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."

      What happens when the first half is at odds with the second?

    8. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.)

    9. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by KiloByte · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ok, but they are working for the US government.

      How is that different from fine folks at Nuremberg?

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    10. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by hawguy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      ...for the crimes that he's convicted of.

      When leaks like this one happen, a lot of attention and effort is spent on punishing the leaker, but we seldom hear about punishment for those that should have protected the data. Why did Manning not only have access to this sensitive data, but was able to download it and walk it out of the office?

      In my company, the receptionist isn't supposed to tell anyone what's in our sensitive financial documents and really has no reason to read them. So he can't - his login doesn't have access to those files and if he persists in trying to get access, his username will come up in IPS alerts.

      While I suppose it's publicly comforting to go after the leakers once they are caught, what about the spies that steal the data and hand it over quietly to their keepers? If the data is so easy to access that an Army Private can walk in and download thousands of documents, does anyone really think that spies from other nations aren't doing the same thing? The Army should thank Manning for exposing their security flaws.

      The same applies to Snowden - he shouldn't have been able to download thousands of pages of classified documents and walk out with them unnoticed.

      So who's getting fired over lax security?

    11. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by anagama · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    12. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The American people did vote. They voted for a candidate that explicitly promised the closing of Guantanamo and an end to an unjust war.

      Don't forget he also promised to protect whistleblowers.

    13. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    14. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Funny

      Brilliant idea for a Gedankenexperiment, in the Classical Einsteinian sense of the word! Let's see if we can cast this, not in the pointer sense of the word, as a current TV reality show:

      1. Der Führer: Barack Obama
      2. Heinrich Himmler: Eric Holder
      3. Adolf Eichmann: Carmen Ortiz
      4. Josef Goebbels: Hillary Clinton
      5. Rudolf Hess (the wacky one of the boys): Anthony Weiner

      Herman Göring is up for grabs . . . your suggestions are requested!

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    15. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    16. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    17. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by kilfarsnar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    18. Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? by scot4875 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
  2. I guess Snowden saved Manning's life then. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Aiding the enemy carries the death penalty, but they can't really murder Manning if they want Snowden extradited, can they?

    1. Re:I guess Snowden saved Manning's life then. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >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.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  3. Same system as the Mafia... by gweihir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  4. Befehl ist Befehl by marcovje · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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......

  5. Re:He'll still die in Jail by crashcy · · Score: 5, Funny

    I hate consequitively run sentences. It's unethiquical.

  6. Punitive justice by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    1. Re:Punitive justice by csumpi · · Score: 5, Funny

      Which ones? Like killing people with drones? You don't go to trial for stuff like that, you get the Nobel Prize for Peace.

  7. Great infographic by barlevg · · Score: 5, Informative

    Breaking down the verdict by charge, plea and ruling: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/manning-verdict/

  8. Incredible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Incredible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You haven't reviewed any of the material, have you.

      You probably haven't even looked at the video they deliberately mislabeled "collateral murder". (which, by the way, is almost certainly clearer for you on your computer than the pilot had on their little 4" screen in the apache)

      When that video came out I contacted a guy I know who happens to be an Apache pilot (but who wasn't in Iraq at that time). He quickly pointed out that it was missing a bunch of context because at that time the insurgents had been trying to score an apache kill, so the army was holding apaches back unless there was confirmed need for them (i.e. the ground troops were already engaged with the enemy). So the BS story that there weren't any insurgents around doesn't fly. And for the reporter whose died because his lens looked like an RPG, and he moved like a guy carrying an RPG, he agreeed that it's unfortunate but said with knowledge of what was happening and what the screen showed, he'd have pulled the trigger too.

  9. Re:Should have been convicted on all counts by TWiTfan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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).

    --
    The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
  10. Re:ramifications by intermodal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  11. This all sounds slightly familiar... by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Funny

    In 2013 a crack intelligence operative was sent to prison by a military court for a crime he didn't commit. This man promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, he survives as a soldier of fortune. If you have something you need leaked, if no one else can help, and if you can find him, maybe you can hire: THE B-TEAM.

    I'm sure Julian Assange could do double duty as 'Face' and 'Howling mad Murdoch' ;-)