- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- 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.
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.
Thats going to be very hard to prove.Yup, so?
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".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.
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.
Perhaps a reliable story. At this point, I don't have any interest in accepting Aljazeera as an unimpeachable US news source.
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]
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
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]
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!
Ya reckon he ought to be drawn and quartered? Or just a daily waterboarding?
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:
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.
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.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.
But a legal judge can. Thats why they are called judges.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.
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.
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.
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.
Perhaps a reliable story. At this point, I don't have any interest in accepting Aljazeera as an unimpeachable US news source.
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:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?