US judge rules not to drop Manning charge

[TheDemSocialist]

A military judge has refused to dismiss the most serious charge against the Army private who gave reams of classified information to the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks.
The charge of aiding the enemy faced by Pfc Bradley Manning is punishable by up to life in prison without parole.

Colonel Denise Lind, the judge in Manning's court-martial, on Thursday denied defence requests to drop that charge and a computer fraud charge, ruling that the government had presented some evidence to support each element of the charges.

Lind is still considering defence motions to acquit Manning of five theft counts.

To convict Manning, the government must prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt; however, they had to meet a less stringent standard in convincing Lind that the charges should stand.

Read more @: US judge rules not to drop Manning charge - Americas - Al Jazeera English

This could seriously cause a very very slippery slope to define what "aiding the enemy is".

 

[clownboy]

I disagree of course. In this case it's a simple and straightforward line he learned and agreed to BEFORE he received his classification.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

I disagree of course. In this case it's a simple and straightforward line he learned and agreed to BEFORE he received his classification.

To prove that he aided the enemy the prosecution would have to prove that Manning had "actual knowledge" that by passing documents to WikiLeaks he was giving information to an enemy of the US.

 

[clownboy]

To prove that he aided the enemy the prosecution would have to prove that Manning had "actual knowledge" that by passing documents to WikiLeaks he was giving information to an enemy of the US.

Yup, so? If you don't want to be charged with aiding the enemy don't give out classified documents - blindingly simple. Now that he has, he's exposed himself to those charges. Whether the prosecution meets the burden to convict him of that charge is superfluous. He did the deed and exposed himself to the charge. No slippery slope and he knew going in that he would face such a charge, among others, when he took the action.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Yup, so?

Thats going to be very hard to prove.

If you don't want to be charged with aiding the enemy don't give out classified documents - blindingly simple. Now that he has, he's exposed himself to those charges. Whether the prosecution meets the burden to convict him of that charge is superfluous. He did the deed and exposed himself to the charge. No slippery slope and he knew going in that he would face such a charge, among others, when he took the action.

By labeling Wikileaks as "an enemy of the US" would pertty much be labeling a journalist institution an enemy of the US and to prove that Manning knowingly handed over documents to an "enemy" would also be hard to prove saying that almost no one knew of Wikileaks when this happened. Also it will be hard to prove because the government didnt train anyone to the source that Wikileaks was an "enemy of the US".

 

[clownboy]

Thats going to be very hard to prove.


By labeling Wikileaks as "an enemy of the US" would pertty much be labeling a journalist institution an enemy of the US and to prove that Manning knowingly handed over documents to an "enemy" would also be hard to prove saying that almost no one knew of Wikileaks when this happened. Also it will be hard to prove because the government didnt train anyone to the source that Wikileaks was an "enemy of the US".

You're over thinking it. Not that difficult to prove or to conceive that he knew the enemy would be aided by the info he revealed to a source he knew was going to release it to the world. Wikileaks has nothing to do with this other than being the conduit. He just used them thinking he could keep his own butt out of the hotseat.

 

[Ray410]

Perhaps a reliable story. At this point, I don't have any interest in accepting Aljazeera as an unimpeachable US news source.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

You're over thinking it. Not that difficult to prove or to conceive that he knew the enemy would be aided by the info he revealed to a source he knew was going to release it to the world. Wikileaks has nothing to do with this other than being the conduit. He just used them thinking he could keep his own butt out of the hotseat.

He didnt directly give it to the enemy thats my whole point. He gave it to Wikileaks. The whole thing has to reveal around is that if he knowingly gave it to the enemy (Wikileaks), then one has to ask is Wikileaks the enemy of the US

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Perhaps a reliable story. At this point, I don't have any interest in accepting Aljazeera as an unimpeachable US news source.

I dont see how this report is at all questionable..

 

[DiAnna]

Manning gave classified material to Wikileaks knowing that it would then be disseminated over the internet. Manning knew that the USA's enemies have access to the internet; therefore, Manning knowingly provided classified material to USA's enemies. That's treason. :shrug:

 

[greyhat]

Read more @: US judge rules not to drop Manning charge - Americas - Al Jazeera English

This could seriously cause a very very slippery slope to define what "aiding the enemy is". [/FONT][/COLOR]

Manning was an Intelligence Analyst, with intimate knowledge of security classifications of data. I realize he was a low ranking soldier (PFC), however he was trained and knows that such leaks would be exploited by the enemy. He can't play the "I didn't know card". Even basically trained soldiers receive training on counter-intel measures, therefore the charge is appropriate.

 

[DVSentinel]

He didnt directly give it to the enemy thats my whole point. He gave it to Wikileaks. The whole thing has to reveal around is that if he knowingly gave it to the enemy (Wikileaks), then one has to ask is Wikileaks the enemy of the US

ART. 104. AIDING THE ENEMY
Any person who--
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) 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.

Note that it says "gives intelligence" and that it applies whether is directly or indirectly.

So the panel has to decide if his release of intelligence could of been an aid to the enemy. Going through Wikileaks or any other agency in no way changes anything.

You will notice also that the judge is not even going for a maximum sentence as the UCMJ clearly allows Death. I personally think that is BS, the panel should simply read the UCMJ and decide appropriate sentence based upon it, not the Judges or anyone else "instructions". Not even the President can arbitrarily suspend any portion of the UCMJ.

 

[Blue_State]

I feel he will not get aiding the enemy. The kids life is over. They won't kill him, but he is going to be jailed for the rest of his life.

 

[washunut]

Read more @: US judge rules not to drop Manning charge - Americas - Al Jazeera English

This could seriously cause a very very slippery slope to define what "aiding the enemy is". [/FONT][/COLOR]

If find it interesting when compared to how the country handled the person who leaked the Pentagon papers. That was a really terrible war with over 60K kids killed. The leaker was never put in jail versus what is happening to this kid.

I find it ironic that people are so willing to give away their liberties, in the name of suppressing terrorism. Being cowards we will allowed OBL to win.

 

[Thoreau72]

The judge is a female enabler of the gross injustice perpetrated against Manning.

Funny in a perverse way that 6 women would not deliver justice in the Zimmerman case, and 1 woman will not deliver justice in the Manning case. A dark time for women of conscience.

 

[greyhat]

The judge is a female enabler of the gross injustice perpetrated against Manning.

Funny in a perverse way that 6 women would not deliver justice in the Zimmerman case, and 1 woman will not deliver justice in the Manning case. A dark time for women of conscience.

F that! He's lucky he didn't get the Death Penalty!

 

[Thoreau72]

F that! He's lucky he didn't get the Death Penalty!

Ya reckon he ought to be drawn and quartered? Or just a daily waterboarding?

 

[greyhat]

Ya reckon he ought to be drawn and quartered? Or just a daily waterboarding?

No, he should and will be tried under the UCMJ as he is a soldier. The applicable punishment will be adjudicated accordingly; he should be glad that the Death Penalty, was not brought against him.

 

[Fishstyx]

Manning gave classified material to Wikileaks knowing that it would then be disseminated over the internet. Manning knew that the USA's enemies have access to the internet; therefore, Manning knowingly provided classified material to USA's enemies. That's treason. :shrug:

I prefer to stick with the charge language (aiding the enemy) in lieu treason but your posts pretty much sums it up. Manning was an Intel Specialist which would make him privy to various briefings of the enemy's internet habits and what not. This isn't some civilian that stubbled up on this information and released it who gets to shrug their shoulders and say "I didn't know." This was a trained Intelligence Specialist given top secret access.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

ART. 104. AIDING THE ENEMY
Any person who--
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) 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.


Note that it says "gives intelligence" and that it applies whether is directly or indirectly.

This all comes back down to does this make Wikileaks a "enemy of the US"?

So the panel has to decide if his release of intelligence could of been an aid to the enemy. Going through Wikileaks or any other agency in no way changes anything.

Yes it does because, they have to prove that Manning had "actual knowledge" that by passing documents to WikiLeaks he was giving information to an enemy of the US.

You will notice also that the judge is not even going for a maximum sentence as the UCMJ clearly allows Death. I personally think that is BS, the panel should simply read the UCMJ and decide appropriate sentence based upon it, not the Judges or anyone else "instructions". Not even the President can arbitrarily suspend any portion of the UCMJ.

But a legal judge can. Thats why they are called judges.

 

[greyhat]

This all comes back down to does this make Wikileaks a "enemy of the US"?
Yes it does because, they have to prove that Manning had "actual knowledge" that by passing documents to WikiLeaks he was giving information to an enemy of the US.

Manning is an intelligence specialist with knowledge of infosec and so he has no out- he knew this info would get to the enemy if leaked- that's why it was classified at the highest level- Top Secret!

 

[MaggieD]

To prove that he aided the enemy the prosecution would have to prove that Manning had "actual knowledge" that by passing documents to WikiLeaks he was giving information to an enemy of the US.

So you say. I, on the other hand, say you're wrong. No jury in their right minds is going to buy that argument. They will buy the argument that a reasonable man would foresee Wiki publishing the information; and, for that reason, he will be found guilty. You're splitting hairs.

 

[Surtr]

To prove that he aided the enemy the prosecution would have to prove that Manning had "actual knowledge" that by passing documents to WikiLeaks he was giving information to an enemy of the US.

It doesn't matter if he knew the enemy would see it or not (which he did). He stole classified military documents and disseminated them to the public. It's a capital offense.

 

[beerftw]

Perhaps a reliable story. At this point, I don't have any interest in accepting Aljazeera as an unimpeachable US news source.

al jazeera is currently the most unbiased mainstream news sourse,they litterally tell all news,no mztter who it hurts or who it offends.hence why the us has tried to block it,everything you only hear blips about on the internet in the us,is mainstream stories for al jazeera,and since al jazeera is foreign owned,the us has no control over what it reports.

 

[Northern Light]

I don't care what the technicalities and semantics are. Manning did the right thing. He exposed many of the realities of the war that the government has been hiding from us, details that would be evident if they would give the press free access to war zones like they used to.

Manning gave classified material to Wikileaks knowing that it would then be disseminated over the internet. Manning knew that the USA's enemies have access to the internet; therefore, Manning knowingly provided classified material to USA's enemies. That's treason. :shrug:

This is inaccurate. Wikileaks sorts through data and releases details which are high profile yet low risk. They don't just summarily take data and give it out to the world. Assange himself has said in many interviews that Wikileaks routinely withholds certain information from release because it could pose a danger to a lot of people.

Assange is right about one thing though, our free press is coming to an end. Western governments are cracking down on information exchange at an alarming rate. The fact that they could cut financial access to Wikileaks through all banking institutions and credit companies just goes to show that freedom of speech no longer exists.