• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US judge rules not to drop Manning charge

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
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

DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
26,087
Reaction score
10,860
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
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

DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
26,087
Reaction score
10,860
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
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

DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
26,087
Reaction score
10,860
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2012
Messages
4,838
Reaction score
2,565
Location
Nevada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Perhaps a reliable story. At this point, I don't have any interest in accepting Aljazeera as an unimpeachable US news source.
 

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
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

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
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

Hooter Babe
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 19, 2008
Messages
46,310
Reaction score
24,862
Location
Northern California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
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

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
562
Reaction score
159
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
5,647
Reaction score
1,579
Location
The Republic of Texas.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
5,323
Reaction score
2,180
Location
In a Blue State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
11,659
Reaction score
3,347
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
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

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,639
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
562
Reaction score
159
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,639
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
562
Reaction score
159
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2011
Messages
1,527
Reaction score
765
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
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

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
562
Reaction score
159
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
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

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2011
Messages
7,017
Reaction score
2,980
Location
The greatest planet in the world.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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

proud ammosexual
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2011
Messages
18,168
Reaction score
5,241
Location
kekistan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
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

The Light of Truth
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
6,730
Reaction score
4,184
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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.
 
Top Bottom