Bradley Manning verdict

[Don Vito Corleone]

Thanks to DominionSeraph for updated info.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/30/bradley-manning-guilty_n_3677096.html

FORT MEADE, Md. -- Bradley Manning, the Army intelligence analyst who laid bare America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by covertly transmitting a massive trove of sensitive government documents to WikiLeaks, has been convicted on 19 of 22 charges, including 5 counts of espionage. He was found not guilty of aiding the enemy, the most serious and controversial charge laid against him.

In the military, the sentencing proceeding immediately follows the verdict, so the sentencing case will most likely start today.

 

[DominionSeraph]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/30/bradley-manning-guilty_n_3677096.html

FORT MEADE, Md. -- Bradley Manning, the Army intelligence analyst who laid bare America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by covertly transmitting a massive trove of sensitive government documents to WikiLeaks, has been convicted on 19 of 22 charges, including 5 counts of espionage. He was found not guilty of aiding the enemy, the most serious and controversial charge laid against him.

 

[xBiffx]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/bradley-manning-trial-verdict-94923.html

Acquitted of aiding the enemy.

Still going to spending many years in jail, as he should. When you are trusted and expected to not speak about the information you know as a requirement of your job and you leak information like this, you should be reprimanded for doing so.

 

[MaxPayne63]

How can he not be guilty of aiding the enemy?

He leaked massive amounts of information to the public, which is, undoubtedly, the enemy of the MIC and the most transparent administration in history.

 

[xBiffx]

How can he not be guilty of aiding the enemy?

He leaked massive amounts of information to the public, which is, undoubtedly, the enemy of the MIC and the most transparent administration in history.

Probably because he wasn't doing it for a specific enemy. He wasn't conspiring directly with any enemy. His intent didn't seem to be to help anyone, an enemy that is. That would be my guess.

 

[Jaskalas]

Releasing classified information regarding active theaters of war... is not aiding the enemy? :hmm:

Don't think I agree with that. I'm under the assumption that our allies were named, and thus targeted.

 

[xBiffx]

Releasing classified information regarding active theaters of war... is not aiding the enemy? :hmm:

Don't think I agree with that.

I think that charge required more specificity than that. There has a known enemy that he was working for, IMO. This didn't seem to be the case.

 

[halik]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/bradley-manning-trial-verdict-94923.html

Acquitted of aiding the enemy.

Still going to spending many years in jail, as he should. When you are trusted and expected to not speak about the information you know as a requirement of your job and you leak information like this, you should be reprimanded for doing so.

About this. His argument that statements strictly off the record somehow belong to public domain is rather weak. Unlike Snowden, he didn't strike me as very bright in that regard.

 

[gevorg]

Note to all future whistleblowers: This is what you get for revealing US war crimes.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I gather the verdict represents the judge's finding that merely posting information on the Internet, where it might be viewed by al Qaeda among others, is not the same as providing it directly to the enemy. I don't know what the case law says on this but the elements of Article 104 (Aiding the Enemy) do seem to contemplate that the defendant actually gave the assistance to a particular enemy.

 

[xBiffx]

Note to all future whistleblowers: This is what you get for revealing US war crimes.

Sorry, he doesn't deserve to be called a whisleblower. That is only reserved for those who didn't agree to not release secret information as a part of their specifications for employment. Doesn't matter what he released. This isn't a case of the ends justify the means.

 

[bshole]

He should be let out with credit for time served. He didn't hurt anybody. He embarassed some politicians and bureaucrats who like to hide their dirty laundry. Our government is way too secretive about what it does and far too invasive in monitoring what we do.

 

[Jaskalas]

I think that charge required more specificity than that. There has a known enemy that he was working for, IMO. This didn't seem to be the case.

I gather the verdict represents the judge's finding that merely posting information on the Internet, where it might be viewed by al Qaeda among others, is not the same as providing it directly to the enemy. I don't know what the case law says on this but the elements of Article 104 (Aiding the Enemy) do seem to contemplate that the defendant actually gave the assistance to a particular enemy.

Your arguments do make sense.

Though we may need to update the laws and concepts surrounding sensitive information in active theaters of war to properly address the modern internet era concept of readily accessible public information. That such information is readily available for enemies to utilize.

Not like you have to physically hand them documents these days.

 

[blankslate]

Releasing classified information regarding active theaters of war... is not aiding the enemy?

Don't think I agree with that. I'm under the assumption that our allies were named, and thus targeted.

Some of the information wouldn't have given the enemy any tactical or strategic knowledge.

The AH-64 gun camera footage comes to mind...
That video could be argued to have shown gross disregard for civilian lives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-NHfLTJ4Gc

If he had limited his document release to items like that he'd have been more likely, imo, to have been found not guilty of more charges or in other words would have been found guilty of fewer than 19 counts.

 

[gevorg]

Sorry, he doesn't deserve to be called a whisleblower. That is only reserved for those who didn't agree to not release secret information as a part of their specifications for employment. Doesn't matter what he released. This isn't a case of the ends justify the means.

Wrong, he is a whistleblower and it is natural for most whistleblowers to act agaist their former agreement/contract/etc. Since he revealed very inconvinient information that plays against US war propaganda, obviously he would be painted as a criminal/traitor/etc. "The history of liberty is a history of civil disobedience to unjust laws or practices. As Edmund Burke sermonized, All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

 

[Londo_Jowo]

has been convicted on 19 of 21 charges, including 5 counts of espionage

I suspect he will be a very old man when he's released from Leavenworth.

 

[Blackjack200]

The AH-64 gun camera footage comes to mind...
That video could be argued to have shown gross disregard for civilian lives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-NHfLTJ4Gc

If he had limited his document release to items like that he'd have been more likely, imo, to have been found not guilty of more charges or in other words would have been found guilty of fewer than 19 counts.

This.

I'm less of a Bradley Manning sympathizer than I used to be. He released 250k diplomatic cables. He had no clue what was in those cables. If he had just released the AH-64 video, or a few documents with the intention of bringing attention to some kind of wrongdoing, I would be completely on his side.

Do I think he deserves life or even 20 years? No. I don't think he acted out of malice, I just think he was misguided. But I do think what he did was wrong, and he should be punished for it.

 

[berzerker60]

My take-aways from the whole episode:

-Releasing the civilian killing via the gunship was a good deed and indeed counts as whistleblowing

-Releasing all the other documents really didn't do anyone any good and was irresponsible and should be prosecuted

-Putting him in solitary for months was insane and cruel, it's not like he was ever physically dangerous to anyone and it's not like he was some genius computer hacker, just a kid with too much account access at one point. That's just pure spite and torture to teach a lesson to future whistleblowers/leakers that you'll be tortured too regardless of the verdict.

 

[mistercrabby]

I hope the runty, pencil-neck douchebag spends the next 30 years ass raped by psychopaths. He and his American-hating kindred spirit douchebag, Snowden, can take turns as comfort women in the federal penitentiary system. Whistle-blowers?? Nope, not hardly. But they'll be blowin' a lot of something else!!

 

[Pr0d1gy]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/bradley-manning-trial-verdict-94923.html

Acquitted of aiding the enemy.

Still going to spending many years in jail, as he should. When you are trusted and expected to not speak about the information you know as a requirement of your job and you leak information like this, you should be reprimanded for doing so.

Yeah, because nobody should know that our money is being wasted to do things like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

 

[Brainonska511]

If he had limited his document release to items like that he'd have been more likely, imo, to have been found not guilty of more charges or in other words would have been found guilty of fewer than 19 counts.

My feelings exactly. If he had a limited release of specific things, then I'd have a lot more sympathy for the guy. Instead, it seems like he just took a bunch of shit and dumped it on the internet with no regard for what was in the documents.

 

[moonbogg]

Leave the kid alone and put him on probation. People go to war for money, killing hundreds of thousands and then they string this kid up for spilling a few beans? What a load of crap.

 

[EagleKeeper]

He should be let out with credit for time served. He didn't hurt anybody. He embarassed some politicians and bureaucrats who like to hide their dirty laundry. Our government is way too secretive about what it does and far too invasive in monitoring what we do.

I am sure that people were injured/killed based on information that was released.

The problem is finding an enemy that will be able to corroborate such.


those cables caused serious issues among our allies.

 

[bshole]

Eagle,

Nobody was killed/injured because of his information. If you contend differently, please provide documentation to back it up.

I consider what he did as trivially minor when compared to the crimes that Bush committed to get us into Iraq. If an American politician LIES to the American people in order to get them into a war, THEN that politician should be held legally responsible for each and every American soldier that dies because of his lies.

 

[xBiffx]

Wrong, he is a whistleblower and it is natural for most whistleblowers to act agaist their former agreement/contract/etc. Since he revealed very inconvinient information that plays against US war propaganda, obviously he would be painted as a criminal/traitor/etc. "The history of liberty is a history of civil disobedience to unjust laws or practices. As Edmund Burke sermonized, All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Derp. He is painted as a criminal because he broke conditions of his employment and in doing so also broke the law.

Its seems rather stupid to argue for the release of information of unjust acts of the government through illegal means.