Bradley Manning judge warns military prosecutors in WikiLeaks case

[alp227]

Source: The Guardian

The military judge in the court-martial of the US soldier accused of handing WikiLeaks the biggest trove of unauthorised state secrets in American history has put army prosecutors on notice that they must prove Bradley Manning knew he was helping the enemy or face the possibility that the most serious charge against him be dismissed.

Colonel Denise Lind refused to throw out the charge – "aiding the enemy" – as had been requested by Manning's defence lawyers. But she told the military prosecution that during the trial, now scheduled for the end of September, that they would have to prove that the intelligence analyst was fully aware that he was helping the enemy when he allegedly handed hundreds of thousands of secret US documents to WikiLeaks.

Aiding the enemy is the most serious in the list of 22 charges that have been brought against Manning. It carries a maximum penalty of life in prison.

The trial will start on 21 September and is expected to last three weeks. It is certain to be closely followed in America and around the world, both by those who see Manning as a traitor to his country and military superiors, and by those who believe he was a hero who is being punished for being a whistleblower.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/26/bradley-manning-judge-warns-prosecutors

[Scuba]

1. Manning should be given the goddamn medal of honor.

[duhneece]

4. Yup. Revealing crimes against humanity deserved no less. nt

[axollot]

17. Medal of honor and...His motives show that if he did give information than

his motives were he believed he was doing his duty; not aiding the enemy. Unless the enemy within the country is the one being protected.
Time served for any other charges.

cheers
Sandy

[cstanleytech]

20. A medal for what? Has he confessed that he did anything?

That aside there are a few facts your not considering which are that (assuming for the moment he has confessed) there were memos and information that had nothing to do with a crime being hidden that was part of what was released as well as the simple fact that he had a legal way to reveal the coverup by telling someone in congress or the inspector generals office as the law would have been on his side then but (again assuming he confessed) he choose instead to violate his oath.
It sucks, but those are the cold hard facts assuming of course he suddenly confessed.

[greiner3]

23. WTF;

Does your post mean?

No, seriously, what are you saying? I can't make heads or tails out of this mess. Are you for or against Prohibition; the Bill of Rights; a Democracy?

On a lighter note, PLEASE put me on your ignore list.

[cstanleytech]

25. I'll try to explain then.

The poster I was replying to was advocating for a medal for him right?
But if hes innocent under our law until proven guilty how can he deserve a medal for an action that he didnt do? Unless of course he suddenly confessed to revealing the intel which would be a really poor defense strategy imo because of the fact that so much of the stuff sent to wikileaks were memos and messages to and from the embassies so it would shoot to shit a defense that it was done for the noble reason of revealing a coverup.
The other thing that would shot the claim that it was done for a noble reason down in flames (assuming of course that he did it) is the fact that there are a set of laws on our books that would have made it legal for him or for anyone to reveal the classified intel to a member of congress and or to the inspector general so that they could investigate it and he would have been pretty much in the clear for the most part, he might have gotten assigned to the Antarctic as his next posting of course but legally he would have been protected.

[Alexander]

2. I don't think they can prove that. Manning will probably get a lesser charge.

A couple of years, maybe. Definitely not life.

[bahrbearian]

3. Time Served

[BadtotheboneBob]

11. Not gonna happen...

10-15 years in Leavenworth. Out in 8, maybe, with a dishonorable discharge for certain. It's the massive theft of classified diplomatic cables unrelated to the war that'll do him in. The prosecution will say he did it on a lark i.e. he did for no other reason than he could. If he would stuck with files related to possible war crimes, he might have stood a decent chance. That's how I see it going down.

[msanthrope]

13. No..the prosecution won't say he did it on a lark...it was his being a malcontent, and for revenge.

He was demoted for his behavior in Iraq.

[Big_Mike]

19. Frankly, he should get about 25, and serve about 16, Dishonorable Discharge, and be out in 12

Taking the diplo stuff and then communicating one word raises to conspiracy. If he wanted just to protest by releasing the video or ground scene evidence, that's one thing.

What I want to see is broken careers of his Squad Leader, Platoon Sergeant, Platoon Leader, First Sergeant, and Company Commander for taking this time bomb overseas and then keeping him following repeated actions that clearly identify him as unfit for duty.

Once all have been slammed, then maybe this can be closed out

[cstanleytech]

21. And I want Bush and Cheney in prison for life but thats as likely to happen as those you listed are

at being held accountable imo.

[Big_Mike]

26. Yeah. Sad, but probably true

But we CAN dream, can't we?

[cstanleytech]

27. True, heck I dream of hitting the powerball and moving to a dream estate overlooking a beach in

New Zealand and that has even worse odds lol

[iandhr]

5. F. Lee Bailey...

... said he would rather be tried by a court martial then in the civilian system.



http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/l/aa31rights.htm

[Demeter]

6. Those Foaming at the Mouth Fascists Whould Be Prosecuted Instead

for destroying the nation and its constitution.

[Canuckistanian]

7. That seems like common sense

If you accuse the prisoner of seeking to "aid the enemy", you MIGHT want to be able to prove that charge.

Did the prosecution not think of that possibility?

[rtracey]

8. I see it differently

I'm for justice for all, but I disagree in the statement that Bradley Manning should be set free, or given the medal of honor. He passed United States Secret files to an unauthorized person or place, and to me that is treason, and should be punished accordingly. My hope is that none of the passed files caused harm to any american soldiers or citizen, (unlike the ridiculous wars we are fighting now).

[avebury]

9. One of the complaints stemming from WWII

is that people did not speak up about all of the mass murders occurring in the concentration camps (amongst other crimes against humanity being perpetrated).

I think that if someone becomes aware of criminal behavior (whether they are in the military or a civilian) the person has a duty to speak out (otherwise the person becomes complicit in the crime after the fact). If 1) the criminal activity related to actions against a local in a foreign country and 2) the citizens of that country become enraged upon learning that an American committed a crime against their citizen and harm comes to a US soldier, the 3) responsibility for any harm against said soldier actually lies at the feet of whatever American who committed the original crime not the whistle blower. It is absurd to blame a whistle blower for reactions that stem from the illegal deeds of others. What is to stop illegal actions if no one dares to speak up?

A quote generally attributed to Edmund Burke is "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

[cstanleytech]

22. Actually at this time I think Burke has been proven wrong.

It not a case of good men doing nothing that causes problems but rather it is when good men give into fear because when they give into it they end doing plenty but its often the wrong thing like passing laws without giving them the careful consideration that they need.

[JonLP24]

24. I think treason is a stretch

Was Ellsberg committing treason when he gave classified documents to the NY Times?

[msanthrope]

10. This is very bad news for the defense. Not a single charge thrown...and knowledge will be proven.

Essentially, all the prosecution has to prove is that Bradley Manning knew that AlQaeda would see it...

(02:28:10 AM) bradass87: i want people to see the truth… regardless of who they are… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/manning-lamo-logs/

[Poll_Blind]

12. I don't think they can prove that. The bar might be lower than it seems, though.

I had read in another article that all they "had" to prove was that Manning, if he had released the information, knew that US enemies would see it.

That's kind of an interpretational thing, I think. It's probably going to come down on the judge to make the call, given whatever the prosecution coughs up.

PB

[msanthrope]

14. Yeah--my post above indicates that Manning's statements would provide proof. The jury would decide

if the offered proof is sufficient to sustain the charge--i.e. they accept it as a matter of fact. If the jury finds that it does, the defense can appeal to the judge that the evidence offered could not reasonably sustain the charge as a matter of law.

This means Manning is going to have to take the stand to refute his own statements, unless his defense can shake Adrian Lamo. Lamo didn't shake at the Article 32, however.

[Poll_Blind]

15. If Lamo is still coming across as being, for lack of a better term, "drugged" in interviews...

...getting him on the stand and challenging his testimony and the evidence he produced is going to be a weak spot in the government's argument.

I don't know if you've seen Lamo's interviews, but at the time he was heavily medicated and looked it.

PB

[msanthrope]

16. Actually, Lamo did a great job testifying at the Article 32.

and the chat logs are the chat logs....Lamo isn't going to have to recall conversations, but merely authenticate that he did this chat with Manning.

He held up pretty well at the Article 32--to the point where he got the defense lawyer to lose his cool.

[arely staircase]

18. i don't know jack about military law but it would seem

there is a specific mens rea necessary for this charge and im guessing it will be close to impossible to prove.