Bradley Manning Found Not Guilty Of Aiding The Enemy But Convicted On Other Charges
from the a-bit-of-good-news dept
So, the details aren’t out yet, but the headline message is: Bradley Manning has been found “not guilty” of “aiding the enemy” but has been convicted on other charges, including violating the Espionage Act — which seems a bit crazy, because what he was doing wasn’t espionage in any sense of the word. The conviction on those charges is unfortunate, but not a huge surprise. All told, he was found guilty on 19 counts, including four that he’d already pled guilty to. The big question had really been all about the aiding the enemy claim. Either way, he’s still facing a potential sentence of about 100 years in jail, though the next stage of this process will be over his sentencing. We’ll have more later as the details come out.
Filed Under: aiding the enemy, bradley manning, convicted, espionage act
Comments on “Bradley Manning Found Not Guilty Of Aiding The Enemy But Convicted On Other Charges”
So...
If he had been found guilty of aiding the enemy…
Would it have been the death penalty?
Re: So...
As far as I know, it’s pretty much guaranteed you get at least life in prison if not the death penalty… it was a possibility
Re: So...
“The charge of aiding the enemy under the Uniform Code of Military Justice is a capital offense, but the Army’s prosecution team has notified the Manning defense team that it will not recommend the death penalty to the two-star general who is in charge of proceeding with legal action.”
Re: So...
I just read that he was acquitted of espionage for the release of the initial video showing the killing of civilians. The espionage charges only applied to the other information he released. That’s a major part of this ruling that’s being overlooked by many.
The judge convicted Manning on nearly all of the lesser charges against him, opening up a sentencing phase of the trail that begins Wednesday that could still put the 25-year-old in a military prison for the rest of his life. She also acquitted him of one count under the espionage act that stemmed from his release of a video that showed a fatal military airstrike in Afghanistan.
Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/07/30/bradley-manning-acquitted-of-aiding-the-enemy-guilty-of-espionage/#ixzz2aYvwolxd
Re: Re: So...
the aiding the enemy charge was a red herring: she kept that on the table knowing she ain’t gonna convict on it, then when you not-guilty it, you are so-o-o-o humane…
and -as i just read, i think it was norman solomon- she then makes the charges of ‘giving inconvenient truths to the amerikan people and practicing actual journalism’ a crime against The State, seem almost reasonable…
all in all, a travesty of justice, and the fears and insecurities of Empire being visited upon a lone truth-teller, too honest and stubborn and heroic to let a monstrous, murderous, mutated system imprison his mind, heart, and soul…
Bradley Manning has my utmost respect for his self-sacrifice against the might of Empire.
He can only be repaid by taking our democracy to heel.
A sad, horrific day for The Grand Experiment which has born a Frankenstein… i weep for amerika, Bradley gets my admiration and respect…
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
Treason can get you the death penalty. I think Aiding The Enemy is a lesser charge that is not eligible for capital punishment.
Re: Re:
In my mind espionage is nearly synonomous with, or a subset of, aiding the enemy. Basically something along the lines of ‘having access to secret governmental information and giving it to a foreign power’. If that foreign power (government or not) is an enemy, then you’re aiding them.
Is this another case where the government is using different definitions of words than what ordinary language would imply?
Re: Re: Re:
These are definitely distinctly different charges, and for good reason, which certainly can both be committed by one act, but don’t necessarily have to be. Espionage is basically spying. You can commit espionage even if you aren’t successful at gaining anything useful and to aid an enemy, a person would have to actually provide something useful to the enemy.
Aiding the enemy could be charged even when it doesn’t have anything to do with giving secret information to the enemy. Providing funding out of your own pocket, for instance, could be aiding the enemy but would have nothing to do with espionage.
Whistle Blowers Take Cover
In China we have Tiananmen Square Man stops Military Tank.
In Obama’s Amerika we have Military Tank stops Square Man.
I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
I suspect bad counsel: if you’re innocent, never listen to lawyers, especially not when has to be all or nothing.
There’s still some hope of appeal for overturn and dismissal on grounds of being tortured prior to trial.
But we should take the lesson here, not to be afraid of the gov’t, but to acknowledge how evil it is. There’s no compromise that can be made with evil. (As Ayn Rand said.)
Those of you who believe that Manning shouldn’t have released all those docs when supposedly endangered the lives of US informants — known in Afghanistan and Iraq as collaborators with foreign invaders — have simply fallen for the essential lie that the wars were in any degree necessary or just. Getting the truth out is never traitorous.
Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
I wholeheartedly agree. Especially with the guilty plea part. I see the way the attorneys try to induce the ones prosecuted into some plea bargain as something akin to extracting the truth via torture. Except that it’s some psychological torture where you face a world of justice hammer pain if you don’t plead guilty. It’s an absurd.
Re: Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
From all of the statements I’ve read that he’s made to the court concerning this, I don’t think that it’s a matter of being coerced into pleading guilty. I think he’s doing it on purpose to make a point. He’s basically saying that all the little shit that they want to hang him on he takes full responsibility for doing. But he HAD to do it to inform the public about the abuses of power by the government which is a much bigger and more important issue than anything else they are throwing at him. He’s contrasting himself with them with his actions. He’s not trying to weasel word his way out of it like they are doing. He has said, point blank that if they want to put him in jail for the rest of his life or even execute him over this they can do that. What he did is more important than him. It’s a direct contrast to their words and actions and it’s on purpose.
Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
As far as I know, the ‘Pleading guilty’ thing is tied to the plea deals system, where they promise the accused that if they plead guilty for one thing, the prosecutors won’t go after them as hard on another charge, or won’t ‘find’ a few more charges to hit them with just to up the potential jail time.
This is of course a massive injustice, as someone should only ever be convicted of a crime that can be proven by the prosecution, but at least as things are now that is the reasoning behind someone ‘pleading guilty’.
Here’s hoping for an appeal or overturning of the sentencing too later on, the fact that he was kept imprisoned for three years before sentencing should damn well have more of an impact than ‘oh, well we’ll just make that count against the time you’re sentence to’.
Re: Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
Some countries force prosecutors to prove their case even in a plea deal. I think Italy is one of them, but don’t quote me, I’m an engineer not a lawyer.
But I agree, plea deals are broken, especially when weighed against overzealous prison sentences. What you essentially have is a prosecutor saying, I think your crime deserves 6 months in prison, but if you exercise your right to a fair trial, I think your crime deserves 6 years in prison. You have now made the prosecutor judge and jury.
And let’s not forget that something like 97% of all federal cases that are resolved are plea deals…
Re: Re: Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
Are there gag orders attached to plea bargains which are offered, but rejected?
I’m wondering if the defense can’t bring them up in a trial as a way to illustrate that the prosecution is just trying to punish the defendant for not accepting the plea bargain. Maybe call the prosecutor as a witness and ask them flat-out, why if they thought the defendant deserved such heavy punishment, were they willing to let them off with a much lighter sentence if they took the deal.
Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
Hutchins was freed after being convicted of murdering an innocent man, because he was in solitary for seven days without a lawyer. http://nation.time.com/2013/07/19/military-court-denies-navy-appeal-in-iraq-war-case/
If justice is truly blind, Manning’s conviction will be overturned for violation of his rights, as well. I wouldn’t hold my breath, though.
Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
Do people read ootb’s comments before reporting it? This time it’s been undeserved (shocking I know), and even been flagged as Insightful.
Re: Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
Unfortunately his reputation seems to cause some people to auto-report his comments, even the ones that shouldn’t be reported, like the one he made here.
Re: Re: Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
I rarely even click to show them anymore, but the topic in the replies made me show the comment. It has an insightful flag even though it was reported. I added an insightful because I completely agree. Doesn’t happen often with OotB, if its the same one.
Re: Re: Re:2 I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
I rarely even click to show them anymore…
Unfortunately, I can’t even do that without altering my browser settings. I normally have Javascript disabled for any site that doesn’t absolutely require it, and because of that, all I see is a note that the comment is hidden, but with no way to view it unless I turn on JS.
It used to just show me the post, but it hasn’t done that since they started showing only partial stories on the main page.
Re: Re: Re:3 I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
I also have Javascript disabled, but I can see it just fine without having to click on anything. Maybe there are other factors that play into this, such as other settings, proxy used, etc..
Re: Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
ootb so often repeats the same comments in multiple threads with almost no variation that it’s not surprising in the least that a number of people stop reading at the tag. There’s a pretty simple solution though: stop reposting the same shit everywhere. Or don’t sign with the name ootb. Neither is employed, however, in spite of their obviousness which leads me to believe that this is what anyone signing the name ootb wants.
Re: Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
I usually read the first sentence or so. Just to check.
Re: Re: Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
“I usually read the first sentence or so. Just to check.”
Before you engage censorship mode..
“oh, I don’t agree with that !!!! Time to CENSOR…
Re: Re: Re:2 I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
AJ if you stop spamming the threads with “stop censoring me” and actually make a valid comment that is on topic maybe, just maybe, people would stop flagging your posts.
Until then you will see the backlash from the users.
Just look above, your OOTB buddy has actually had some praise for his previous comment, people are actually defending him.
Re: Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
I must admit I reported it out of habit at first. Then I saw the lightbulb, so I unreported and started reading it out of morbid curiosity.
Then I got to the Ayn Rand bit, and immediately closed my browser. Shortly thereafter I lost the will to live on this planet anymore. I am posting from the Twisting Nether, a realm of eternal despair for lost souls who wish to never have been born into this senseless world.
The rest of the post was surprisingly non-out_of_the_blue-ish. I almost enjoyed it.
—
Have a nice day. 🙂
Re: Re: Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
you report it “out of habit ” ???
So you report things you don’t agree with, out of habit, you don’t even have to think about it anymore, it is just that NATURAL for you to censor first… then don’t bother asking questions..
Nice CENSORSHIP… what else are you going to censor today,, out of habit…????
Re: Re: Re:2 I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
No, it is just that OOTB is just like you. Full of lies and ad-hominem attacks. Also very lacking in any substance.
Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
Wow this is reported? I don’t say this often but that’s tragic.
I have to ask though if you’re the real OOTB. Given how often the phrase ‘teh rich’ is used in the reposts plastered everywhere and the constant call for more money to be given to the government by the usual blue I have a hard time believing they would reference Ayn Rand in such a positive light or suggest the government was anything but great.
Re: Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
Click to reveal, read, move on with your life. Hardly tragic.
Re: Re: Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
It’s tragic because insightful comments are flagged out of habit, thanks to the sheer amount of trolling going on.
1. “not spam” button?
2. do not respond to trolls. (I’m proud of you guys, the “censorbawk” chump below got no reply so far :])
Re: Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
Techdirt CENSORSHIP at it’s best,
It’s what Masnick would have wanted.
You cant have people posting here who disagree with Masnick, what are you thinking..
Masnick would rather CENSOR that to have to deal with people who don’t agree with him…
Nice CENSORSHIP MASNICK…
Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
Look your comment does not agree with the usual trolls on TD, the ones in love with Masnick and who hang off his very words.
Because you don’t agree with masnick, the nice people at TD have chosen to CENSOR YOU..
Congrats
To the TD CENSORS, I hope you are proud of your censorship efforts… I am sure Masnick is proud of you too.
Re: TD CENSORSHIP at it's very best.. grats 'the nick'.
and you got CENSORED for that ??? wow..
The TD censors are working overtime today, I hope Mick the nick is paying them well.
he’s still facing a potential sentence of about 100 years in jail
Virtually a death penalty. Sometimes I hope somebody blow the place he’s kept up and rescue him. It’s unfortunate and I feel for manning.
And Mr Holder is promising not to screw up Snowden royally if he comes back. Riiiight.
Re: Re:
And Mr Holder is promising not to screw up Snowden royally if he comes back. Riiiight.
Yeah, that’s exactly what I was thinking.
No, the “U.S.” won’t torture and kill Snowden. They’ll just railroad him on charges that will guarantee him a life in prison. And turn a blind eye when the other prisoners do the job.
Re: Re: Re:
At least he’s in the US. I’ve heard horror stories from Brazilian prisons that would make George Bush and Guantanamo torturers blush in shame. First hand from an ex-inmate. Correct if I’m wrong but inmates don’t have an internal justice system where the punishment may be as gruesome as beheading and playing soccer with the head of the deceased…
Re: Re: Re: Re:
inmates in the US don’t have an internal justice system*
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
no, but they DO have THE justice system.. like everyone else.
The day that liberty died.
Re: Re:
November 13, 1797… what about it?
On topic, it was a nauseating freakshow watching the tools in charge run this duplicitous sham of a trial.
Re: Re: Re:
July 4, 1861
http://civilwartalk.com/threads/did-lincoln-declare-war-on-the-confederacy.1183/
Re: Re: Re:
sham of a trial,, HE CONFESSED TO 4 of THEM !!!!!
so is he a sham of himself ???
tiny victories
We discuss protecting whistleblowers, but ultimately, any government will always seek to sink the ship of a person who gets their secrets out into the open. In practical terms, whistleblowing is a form of civil disobedience where a crime was committed even where there is none.
I’m not surprised either that Manning was guilty of espionage, the government will always look for something. However I think that the non-guilty verdict for aiding the enemy is important. Governments and administrations cannot simply call every person who leaks information a traitor or accomplice to the enemy just because a potential enemy can see that info by going to a website or watching the news, let alone “secret” enemies which also happen to exist now.
The US does not treat it’s heroes well, and make no mistake about it, Manning is a hero.
Re: Re:
Manning is NO hero. An idiot possibly but not a hero.
Re: Re: Re:
Care to elaborate?
Manning exposed rampant over-classification by US gov, that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were totally unnecessary, and scads of other abuses of power.
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe not a hero, depending on how you define “hero,” but certainly a patriot.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am still trying to figure out just what information Manning discovered regarding crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, which was his stated purpose. What did he expose? How many senate investigations have been started as a result of what he exposed? Other than getting free room and board for the rest of his life, and warning other would-be downloaders of information that it is stupid to copy hundreds of thousands of government documents and post them on the internet, just what benefit did this guy provide?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
This has been explained to death, so here’s just a select summary.
He revealed that the US military was intentionally giving prisoners over to the Iraqi security forces so they could be tortured, then obtaining and acting on the results of the torture.
He revealed the contractors in Afghanistan were having Us officials cover up child abuse the contractors were engaging in.
He revealed that the Guantanamo prisoners were mostly innocent nobodies.
He revealed that the US does actually have a tally of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, and were lying to us about it.
He revealed that the US military was covering up acts of indiscriminate killings of civilians by US forces.
He revealed that the FBI trained the people who were engaging in torture for Egypt.
… and much, much more
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
John Federson:
“He revealed that the US military was intentionally giving prisoners over to the Iraqi security forces so they could be tortured, then obtaining and acting on the results of the torture.”
I searched and searched, and did not find a single reference explaining how the U.S. intentionally turned prisoners over to Iraq so they could be tortured. I would appreciate a reference for this information.
“He revealed the contractors in Afghanistan were having Us officials cover up child abuse the contractors were engaging in.”
The incident was a party at which boys were hired to dance while dressed in girls costumes. The event caused high level issues with the Afghan government and several internal investigations, including a need for additional oversight with respect to the company involved. There were no documented cases of child abuse with respect to the party.
“He revealed that the Guantanamo prisoners were mostly innocent nobodies.”
I need a reference for this “fact.” I did a lot of searching and was unable to find a document that supposedly stated that “most” of Guantanamo’s prisoners were innocent.
As for being a “nobody,” one can be guilty of a crime and still be a nobody.
“He revealed that the US does actually have a tally of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, and were lying to us about it.”
I am not even sure what your statement means. The U.S. routinely keeps a tally of civilian deaths in war zones. The numbers, while interesting, are rarely accurate. There have been several studies and surveys of the number of civilians that have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the high and low numbers vary by 200%. The “official” U.S. tally, which is widely published, is slightly below the midpoint of the range.
“He revealed that the US military was covering up acts of indiscriminate killings of civilians by US forces.”
Really? With all the press coverage of civilian killings, the U.S. military must have to work really hard to cover up “indiscriminate” killing. If the killing was truly “indiscriminate,” the number of deaths in Afghanistan would be in the hundreds of thousands. War sucks, and bombs rarely discriminate between good guys and bad guys. Furthermore, when the enemy dresses like a civilian, how do you know which is Al Queda, Taliban, or civilian? Sometimes hey are all three. We even sometimes kill our own people in error.
“He revealed that the FBI trained the people who were engaging in torture for Egypt.”
We trained the people in Iran who later tortured U.S. civilians after the 1980 takeover. What is your point? It is not like there were any secrets, just people who did not connect the obvious dots.
I am not seeing much in the way of “revelations” from Manning that really show me mass amounts of malfeasance on the part of the U.S. government. Of course, maybe you have yet to present your best evidence.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Another problem with his release, is that if there truly were illegal things (distasteful or despicable is NOT the same thing as illegal, just because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean it’s against the law) in the documents he released, it would have been trumpeted from whatever sphere of the media that typically sits against the party currently in power (e.g. if Bush, MSNBC would have brought it up, if Obama, FoxNews).
Instead, because of the audacity, size, and true irrelevance of what was released, HE became the story instead of whatever he thought he was trying to expose. That alone makes him a martyr for idiocy. He showed a bare semblance of discretion in what was released. If he had specific knowledge of specific illegal actions/acts/orders, he could have been protected under the Military Whistleblowers Protection Act, PROVIDED he followed the law. Properly adhering to that law requires certain things (http://www.ig.navy.mil/complaints/Complaints), which HE DID NOT DO.
Now, obviously IANAL, so maybe I don’t understand some of this stuff, particularly the applicability of the espionage law here. I can’t see particularly how it doesn’t apply, but espionage doesn’t have to include communicating things to enemies at all. We keep secrets from our allies as well. With good reason.
Some of the things we say about them, even in diplomatic cables, are going to be unflattering and potentially disrespectful (as demonstrated by some of what he released). Our diplomats must be able to talk to each other frankly however, without worrying about some functionary in another government being pissed about an email sent describing him as a fat alcoholic with a fondness for expensive dinners. That may be necessary as a way to understand that person. Broadcasting it to the world though, does no one, not our country or the dude being discussed, any good whatsoever.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Exposing that den of vipers does no one good? My ass it does, our so called “diplomats” have been shown to be the duplicitous snakes they are.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Exposing what, exactly? The problem is that all he exposed did not rise to the level of breaking the law. As the previous poster pointed out, if the law was broken, if there was serious malfeasance, then the right wing would have been all over it, with calls for heads to roll. None of that happened. None of the political parties that would have stood to gain from showing that the current government was breaking the law benefited from anything that Manning found.
Re: Re: Re:7 What has breaking the law got to do with anything?
It is not about whether or not they have broken the law. There are many laws written that sanction corruption by government officials as well as sanction bad or harmful treatment of the citizens by government officials.
What should be considered is – whether or not the actions of those who are representing you are actions that you would condone happening to you or by you? If these actions are not acceptable then, even if they are legal, should they not be shown in the light of day for review by the citizens on whose behalf the government is acting?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
so, because you can’t find documentation, it didn’t happen??
It is time for you to face the fact that you are worshipping at the feet of the most corrupt government in the world. A goverment that commits more human rights abuses than any Dictatorship.
Re: Re: Re:
Manning is a hero, but he’s also an idiot as well. He was acquitted for releasing the initial video today. It was ruled as not being espionage. He’s a hero for releasing that one. He’s an idiot for releasing some of the other stuff he released that gave them ammo to put him away for life. I still think he should be freed and he has done this country a great service but I’m not blind to the excess.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wait, so heroism or idiocy is determined by how a judge rules in your case?
Re: Re: Manning is no hero,
watch out, the TD censors will get you.. even if you are correct..
Being correct is no defence on TD for the censors, stating the truth will get you censored here quick smart, especially if someone here does not agree with you.
you’ll be Masnick sanctioned censored quick smart..
Re: Re: Re: Manning is no hero,
FUCK OFF Joe. Go back to sucking on Lowery’s site
so basically, apart from the actual ‘not guilty of aiding the enemy’ charge, he is still going to be imprisoned for life anyway. the only difference being the excuse(s) used to keep him locked up. what this is really is an example of how ‘whistle blowers’ are going to be protected under the Obama administration. i wonder what would have happened to any of them if they weren’t being protected? i hate to think!!
Ayn Rand!
haven’t seen ootb quote the deeply unpleasant ayn rand before. couldn’t you at least have gone for Adam Smith’s ‘the job of government is to protect the rich from the poor’
No Big Surprise
A federal conviction for jaywalking would carry a prison term of 5 years per count with each trip across a street as a separate count.
Re: No Big Surprise
I’m always amazed on how harsh the penalty is for what I believe to be a very minor misdemeanor (jaywalking). In Brazil the worst you’ll get is a fine. No really, this shouldn’t be a crime, a civil offense would be much more appropriate.
Re: Re: No Big Surprise
“Tough on crime” is a label most politicians want associated with their name, since that generally appeals to the authoritarian-minded voters without much downside.
It’s a sad day.
Re: Re:
Somewhere one of the organizations that support the freedom to report a crime committed by the government must provide a plan for all future whistleblowers, advise them on how to cover their tracks , on how to protect themselves and even on how to move to another country and assume another identity.
In my mind i would collect all the data over a long period of time and copy it to a usb stick. I would then a few years later resign, move to another country legally and disappear under an assumed ID. It is not impossible to assume another ID, it is done all the time.
Only once i had not worked in the place i got the information from for a few years would i anonymously release it all.
And the government only has themselves to blame they have made sure any whistleblowers will make sure they are protected.
I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
One point that was (properly) made, and was considered significant by the court, is that Manning did not read the 700,000 documents that he released. If his intent was to be a “whistle blower,” he should have been seeking, and releasing, specific documents that supported his position that the government was specifically breaking some sort of law or code.
Yet another problem that Manning had was that he never supported his original supposition of wrong-doing by the U.S. He may have uncovered other issues, but apparently none of the documents he released supported his particular concerns about U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. If such wrong-doing would have been discovered, there are always plenty of people in Congress who would love to make a name for themselves by leveraging that information for their career.
Instead, Manning made copies of information (keeping in mind that Manning calls himself a hacker) that he either had a duty to protect by the contracts that he signed, or information he obtained through illicit means (which many would call hacking, and which Manning described himself on his blog), and without understanding the effect that information might have on U.S. operations, he released it.
What Manning did falls squarely under the U.S. Espionage Act, which is Title 18, Chapter 37, regardless of what you would like to believe. I suspect that the people who do not believe that Manning violated the Title 18, Chapter 37, have never read it.
Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
I agree with this completely. I can understand the anger that many people have over his massive dump of classified information. If he believed he was exposing wrongdoing then he should have clearly identified the information pertaining to said wrongdoing.
I definitely do not support the charge of “aiding the enemy” but I wouldn’t go so far as to call him a national hero either.
Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
Manning didn’t call himself a hacker. And no, the point was not correctly made that Manning should have had to read all 700,000 pages of documentation to be able to say that he was a whistle blower. I will agree though that he should have presented things much better to receive the whistle blower protection.
The legal system, even the military courts, are supposed to take into account intent as much as the letter of the law and I personally don’t believe that he should have been charged with espionage. He did however break the law and should be punished appropriately. I’m not sure that 100 years in a military prison is appropriate.
Re: Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
That. I find it somewhat impossible to go through all that data alone and it’s known that Wikileaks along with other news outfits did a decent share of filtering before releasing the stuff. I’d argue that he already paid for any minor crime with the time he already spent in prison.
Re: Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
Ummm…have you ever read what Manning said about himself? He called himself a “hacktivist,” which is a combination of the two words, “hacker,” and “activist.”
Re: Re: Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
It’s a little bit of a stretch to equate “hacktivist” with “hacker”, but ignoring that — why is calling yourself a “hacker” in some way damning? Hacker and lawbreaker are different things.
Re: Re: Re:2 I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
John Federson:
Manning bragged about his ability to crack passwords. Cracking passwords is, according to all the definitions I have found on the internet, hacking.
In general, gaining access to information that you are not supposed to have is highly illegal, and Manning has now been convicted, at least in part, of that crime. So, in this case, hacker and lawbreaker are exactly the same thing.
Re: Re: Re:3 I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
Then say “lawbreaker”. Because hackers and lawbreakers are not exactly the same thing. Some hackers are lawbreakers, and some lawbreakers are hackers, but they are different groups.
Re: Re: Re:3 I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
hacking and cracking still doesn’t make you a criminal .. there are plenty of sec firms for hire that hack n crack to check a persons or businesses security systems .. the kid is a whistleblower and hacktivist .. you can be 2 or more things at once ..
Re: Re: Re:3 Hacking software and hardware, cracking password, what of it?
I have had over 30 years working with computer systems, investigating, altering and breaking software and in some cases hardware.
I have altered software to get it to work or to find out how it works. These days these kinds of activities are considered by various to be illegal, yet when I started out in the business it was expected and a sign that you were doing your job properly.
Hacking software or cracking passwords in and of itself is just a task. It is neither good nor bad. What your intent is by doing this determines whether the actions you are undertaking are good or bad. It is quite irrelevant whether there are laws that say doing this is bad. Simply because, the law is an ass. Law in and of itself determines nothing about whether or not some action is good or bad. If a law is put on place by corrupt means then even though it is the law it is “bad”.
Just because you gain access to information that someone doesn’t want you to have doesn’t mean you should not have access to it. The law that prevents you from knowing or gaining access to that information may have been simply put in place to provide corrupt control over you.
You are responsible for your own actions and if you have specific standards that say obeying a particular law is wrong and yet you obey it then are you not doing wrong.
There are laws that are for the good of all, there are laws for the good of only a few to the detriment of the many and there are laws that are just plain down right stupid and meaningless.
Each of us has to choose how we live our lives and then live by the consequences.
I think that Manning has made a choice and he is facing the consequences. Those who are prosecuting him are also making choices and will also have to live by the consequences as well.
I don’t know Manning or the reasons he chose to do what he did. I can’t judge whether he is a hero or a villain. What I do see is this appears to be a case of “shoot the messenger” instead of looking at what the message is and fixing the inherent problems in the system.
Yes, he has broken the “law” as it is written. This, in and of itself, determines nothing about whether or not what he has done is wrong. So far the indications are that he has done the citizens of the USA a great service. Whether or not, lasting and good change comes out of it is yet to be seen.
Re: Re: Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
I hack daily. I prefer to develop software in a more efficient manner, but sometimes during the development of our software TPTB just want a quick hack to make things work they way they want them to in an expedient manner. Hacking is not a crime, it’s just shortcut programming.
Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
If he didn’t read them yet is still charged, how is it that the NSA can claim that collecting bulk data without a warrant isn’t in violation of the 4th amendment because it doesn’t look at them. Double standard much?
Re: Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
Really? Do you honestly believe these are even remotely similar? While I am completely against what the NSA is doing, comparing data collection to a massive dump of classified information is asinine.
Re: Re: Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
I was just pointing out that when it’s the government taking information that they are not legally entitled to for an allegedly noble purpose of fighting evil activities, “not looking at it” is supposed to suddenly make it ok, but when it is another person taking the information from the government for the allegedly noble purpose of fighting evil activities within the government it’s suddenly evidence of evil activity itself.
Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
Mr. Manning may not have personally read all of the documents he released, but he DID take due diligence to make sure the documents he released were not harmful. In Mr. Manning’s own words, courtesy of leaked audio that the feds didn’t want you to hear –
“Up to this point, during the deployment, I had issues I struggled with and difficulty at work. Of the documents release, the cables were the only one I was not absolutely certain couldn’t harm the United States. I conducted research on the cables published on the Net Centric Diplomacy, as well as how Department of State cables worked in general.
“In particular, I wanted to know how each cable was published on SIRPnet via the Net Centric Diplomacy. As part of my open source research, I found a document published by the Department of State on its official website.
“The document provided guidance on caption markings for individual cables and handling instructions for their distribution. I quickly learned the caption markings clearly detailed the sensitivity of the Department of State cables. For example, NODIS or No Distribution was used for messages at the highest sensitivity and were only distributed to the authorized recipients.
“The SIPDIS or SIPRnet distribution caption was applied only to recording of other information messages that were deemed appropriate for a release for a wide number of individuals. According to the Department of State guidance for a cable to have the SIPDIS caption, it could not include other captions that were intended to limit distribution.
“The SIPDIS caption was only for information that could only be shared with anyone with access to SIPRnet. I was aware that thousands of military personel, DoD, Department of State, and other civilian agencies had easy access to the tables. The fact that the SIPDIS caption was only for wide distribution made sense to me, given that the vast majority of the Net Centric Diplomacy Cables were not classified.
Re: Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
I’d also like to point out that Daniel Ellsberg actually leaked Top Secret material. Absolutely nothing that Mr. Manning leaked was Top Secret.
As far as particular crimes, sounds like you didn’t even try to look it up. For example, the Reuters journalists who were murdered in the Collateral Murder video. The document dump also shows that the US knew the Iraqis were torturing their detainees, and yet they continued to hand them over – that’s a crime too. Particularly disgusting in my opinion was how DynCorp pimped out young boys to Afghan recruits (key words to look for are “bacha bazi”).
I’m sure there’s more. That is just off the top of my head. Now, why don’t you know these things? Because the mainstream media isn’t talking about what was leaked, they only talk about the leaks in the abstract. I would wager that Mr. Manning has reviewed more of these cables than you have, sir.
Re: Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
“Mr. Manning may not have personally read all of the documents he released, but he DID take due diligence to make sure the documents he released were not harmful. In Mr. Manning’s own words, courtesy of leaked audio that the feds didn’t want you to hear -“
how can you do due dilligence when you don’t what is in the documents?
If the goal is to be a whistle blower, then get the documents together that show the specific case, and release them. What Manning did was basically say “I don’t like the things they do… you figure out what” – and then dumped more documents than anyone could read in years. There is no way in hell that he knew all that he was releasing.
He made a choice that all documents in a given class, without reading them himself, were okay to give away – not because it specifically showed any wrong doing, but because he generally thought they were being bad people. That’s not being a whistleblower, that’s being a shit disturber and putting your own opinion above everyone elses. He put people at risk and harmed relationships between the US and many people, all because he didn’t like they way they worked.
I don’t think anyone can point to any specific comments from Manning that says “I released THIS document, and THIS document to show that THIS SPECIFIC BAD THING was happening”. He just poured it all into someone else’s hands and said “you figure it out”. That doesn’t seem very much like whistleblowing, sort of using a nuclear weapon to kill fleas.
Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
I’ve been pointing this out lately, that as a whistleblower, if he had released 10-12 documents showing the worst atrocities committed by the US instead of 700,000 random documents, public sentiment would be different (as it seems to be for Snowden, who has very tailored leaks). But if it leads to the exact same result (life in prison if captured), then maybe Manning had nothing to lose anyway.
Re: Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
People keep saying random, indiscriminate document dump. Did you people not listen to Mr. Manning himself? His document dump was anything but indiscriminate – notice that there was a grand total of ZERO Top Secret documents leaked. He intentionally chose documents that were already “deemed appropriate for release for a wide number of individuals.”
Re: Re: Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
DCX2:
If all these documents were supposedly “deemed appropriate for release for a wide number of individuals,” then why was he not found innocent of all charges?
Regardless of how you like to characterize what he did, few people, myself included, could ever see 700,000 documents as being evidence of wrong-doing, unless the U.S.
government was engaged in such egregious wrong-doing that the entire government should be tried in court. I agree with the person who said earlier that it would have been more palatable had he released a smaller number of targeted documents that supported his contention. Then he would likely have been universally hailed as a hero rather than a self-aggrandizing loser looking for his 15 minutes of fame.
Re: Re: Re:2 I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
What we have here is a failure to actually think. The answer is, obviously, because that’s technically legal and that’s what the people who control both the law and what labels are put on things have decided they want. I love how you keep mistaking this set of circular arguments for something that’s actually germane though.
Re: Re: Re:3 I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
Your statement is all cool then, because he will be able to point out the issue in his appeal and will then be found innocent.
You should be on Manning’s defense team.
Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
I suspect people that post shit like this think the shadows on the wall of the cave are reality.
Re: Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
And how does your comment add to the comments? If you have a factual point to make, please do so. Merely calling something “shit” is not furthering the discussion.
Re: Re: Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
I did make a point you just missed it completely which is unsurprising.
Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
well said, and accurate…
Manning is still largely fucked. He will probably die in prison, acquittal on the most serious charge notwithstanding. Worse yet for him is that he will be in the military prison at Ft. Leavenworth (KS). In the military, you are generally sentenced to “hard labor”. So unlike civilian prison where inmates lounge around watching tv, playing pool and basketball or working out- Manning will be digging ditches (then filling them back in), or turning boulders into gravel. Being gay will really be tough for him as well. They don’t do well in prison in general and the military culture (both guards and inmates) is not very tolerant.
Government injustice
For all of those who want to wade through it, here’s the link to the Uniform Military Code of Justice:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm
Manning does have appeal rights, but I’d say that just one upheld conviction will keep him in prison for the rest of his life.
As for Manning himself, I’m afraid that I don’t have much sympathy for him-mostly because he knew the rules thoroughly, and the punishment as well.
Here’s the Wikipedia article about him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning#Notes
That he took it upon himself to do this does not, though, give the government full options to punish him as an ‘example’ to others.
Manning, I rather believe, was pretty screwed up to begin with and this whole affair was probably one of the ways he thought he could get out of the military scot free. Sad to say, it wasn’t.
He’ll be in the military (not in uniform, though) for the rest of his life.
Edward Snowden should stay as far away as possible from the US-and for the rest of his life, as well.
We’re in ‘witchhunt’ mode now.
Re: Government injustice
The rules – protect your country from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
When you find out that your leaders are systematically lying to the public about what is happening in the war, and that they are complicit in the torture of innocent people, you have a choice; either “just follow orders”, or abide by the pledge to protect the country from domestic enemies, up to and including POTUS.
Mr. Manning did the right thing. Let no good deed go unpunished.
Re: Re: Government injustice
DCX2:
Lots of whistle blowers have been found innocent of all crimes. Why? Because they went through lengthy soul-searching, provided detailed support for their approach and how they kept their whistle blowing to evidence of the crime. In most cases, these people did not want any publicity, they just wanted the crimes to stop.
On the other hand, Manning frequently bragged about what he was doing in his blog and he talked to others about it. Did he really perform “due diligence” on 700,000 documents, or was he just interested in a “Guinness Book of World Records” release of sensitive information? While Manning sets himself up as a white knight on his charger, his behavior is that of a cocky hacker (he calls himself a hacktivist) putting one over on everybody.
Whistleblower? Not based on his behavior.
Re: Re: Re: Government injustice
On the other hand, Manning frequently bragged about what he was doing in his blog and he talked to others about it.
Wait. What blog? He had no blog. He did not brag about it. The only person he spoke to was Adrian Lamo who turned him in. If you read the chats, Manning points out that he reached out to Lamo because he had no one else to talk about it with.
Where did you get your facts because they seem… well, not factual.
Re: Re: Re:2 Government injustice
Yes, that is correct. Manning described himself as a hactivist in online chats, not in his own personal blog.
Re: Re: Re:3 Government injustice
Yes, that is correct. Manning described himself as a hactivist in online chats, not in his own personal blog.
You claimed he “frequently bragged about what he was doing in his blog” yet he had no blog. Describing himself as a hactivist in a single private online chat is entirely different from “frequently bragged about what he was doing in his blog.”
Re: Re: Re:4 Government injustice
does not change what he is..
Re: Re: Re:4 Government injustice
I agree about the blog, and I was wrong. He frequently bragged to others at cocktail parties, at work, and to a former hacker. I was correct about the frequent bragging, and I was correct about it being in public (by the way, I only picked three examples out of others that were public). So we can stop now.
Re: Re: Re:2 Government injustice
Bradley Manning did not brag? Really? Most likely Manning’s reason for only bragging about that particular exploit (as opposed to the other things he liked to brag about) is the lack of an appreciative audience. Based on the information we have, Manning liked to brag to whomever would listen.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/05/bradley-manning-trial-jihrleah-showman_n_3391327.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57345394/witness-manning-bragged-of-changing-history/
Re: Re: Re:3 Government injustice
Bradley Manning did not brag? Really? Most likely Manning’s reason for only bragging about that particular exploit (as opposed to the other things he liked to brag about) is the lack of an appreciative audience. Based on the information we have, Manning liked to brag to whomever would listen.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/05/bradley-manning-trial-jihrleah-showman_n_3391327 .html
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57345394/witness-manning-bragged-of-changing-history/
Um. Two situations: one about statements made at cocktail parties having nothing to do with the release of the documents, and the other not so much a brag as a defense of why he was doing what he was doing. You’ve never made small talk “bragging” about something you’re good at? Taking it entirely out of context is pretty ridiculous and shameful.
You falsely claimed that he bragged publicly “on his blog” about the leaks in an effort to claim he was a publicity hound. The truth appears to be completely different. He did not brag publicly. He had no blog.
You can admit that you were wrong.
Re: Re: Re:4 Government injustice
“You can admit that you were wrong.”
can you ?
Re: Re: Re:5 Government injustice
Don’t you hat it when you are proven to be a liar.
Re: Re: Re:4 Government injustice
Yeah yeah. He bragged at a cocktail party. He bragged to his supervisors. He bragged to a former hacker. Fundamentally, he was bragging to anybody who would listen about his ability to crack passwords, and to gain access to information that he was not supposed to have. Sure, bragging at a cocktail party is not public. I guess the former hacker was not public either, since it was one person and he signed a confidentiality agreement. Oh, and it was an online chat, and that is certainly never public.
I did say I was wrong about the “blog.” I guess you missed that.
Have I EVER bragged about something I am supposedly good at? Perhaps. Of course, I am not good at cracking passwords and dumping files I was contractually bound not to disclose to Wikileaks. Certainly, if I violated the conditions of my employment I sure as hell would not have been bragging about it. It would take a total moron to brag about that to anyone.
Re: Re: Re: Government injustice
Pride = not a whistleblower? Really?
Re: Manning does have appeal rights
yes, he does, but he wont use them, if he has any brains, because if he seeks an appeal the charge of aid the enemy will also be considered AGAIN, this time he might not be so lucky.
Spend the rest of his life in prison, we’ll I guess he could of worked that one out as he was stealing the documents.
Unless he’s a total idiot (might be).
I wonder how much the Snowden situation had an effect on the court’s decision. Wouldn’t want Russia and the rest of the world to think we’re too cruel on whistle blowers.
And all this because Adian Lamo is a rat.
Re: Re:
Adrian Lamo* (name corrected because it’s important to remember the traitor)
Re: Re: Re:
Traitor? That’s spelled: M-A-N-N-I-N-G
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, you just spelt Hero.. The way to spell traitor is O-B-A-M-A
It’s been said that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. So whoever this “enemy” is…how may I aid them?
But he was aiding the greatest enemy the US goverment has ever faced: the american people
Re: Re:
Apparently not, because the American people appear as though they absolutely do not care about Manning.
Living in a Society of Fear
Manning is a hero and a patriot in my book. We live in an age where the civil liberties our forefathers fought so hard for are being eroded by the day. Freedom of Press, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly are mere ghostly images of their original intent. We?ve woken up to an Orwellian Society of Fear where anyone is at the mercy of being labeled a terrorist for standing up for rights we took for granted just over a decade ago. Read about how we?re waging war against ourselves at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2011/09/living-in-society-of-fear-ten-years.html
Censors working overtime Masnick ??
I notice your ‘held for moderations’.. nothing like some active intervention LOL…. ..
Desperate much, or just don’t like dissenting comments ?
Or you trying to keep TD “pure” ?
Not corrupted by truth and opinion,, !!!! LOL
Masnick is SO desperate now
To control the conversation here on TD that he is ramping up his censorship efforts..
Now he’s ‘moderating’ posts, from specific people, not allowing them to be posted at all.
I guess he has lost trust in his team of CENSORS to do that job for him. Way to abuse censorship Masncik.. I am sure you are proud of your efforts..
It would be a shame if the issues were actually debated here, free from censorship that is..
Re: Masnick is SO desperate now
when are you going to stop your lying Less-Than-Average-Joe.
You are a dispicalble lying piece of Shit wanna-be Lawyer scum.
You make most other Lawyers look like paragons of truth.
Re: How would you know this?
How would you know this? Your post is here for all to see. Do you have a specific example of a post that has not appeared.
I know that there is no delay between posting and then doing a refresh and seeing all of my posts. In that process, there is no opportunity for anyone to moderate the post.
I haven’t even seen any disappear.
So, again what is your proof that this is happening?
I actually think, given the shit-storm of rules and laws that the judges were made to interpret, they actually were extremely fair to him. I’m actually quite shocked about this ruling. I was expecting him to be drawn and quartered at this point.
I think one thing to remember about his time in prison is that most of his charges are concurrent, so at most he would serve maybe 60-80 years assuming his sentence wasn’t reduced. Which I could easily see it being reduced in about ten or so years.
I think there’s a big difference between treason and aiding the enemy, as there should be.
All have God in them
All have God in them no one would see anyone as an enemy. Satan is the originator of the word enemy.