US judge raises bar in Bradley Manning case

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Aljazeera

US judge raises bar in Bradley Manning case

Government asked to prove army private knowingly helped al-Qaeda by leaking secrets to convict him of aiding the enemy.

Last Modified: 10 Apr 2013 20:43

A judge has ruled that the US government must prove that Bradley Manning knowingly helped al-Qaeda by leaking secret documents to the whistle-blower website WikiLeaks to convict him of aiding the enemy.

Judge Denise Lind's ruling at a preliminary hearing in a Baltimore, Maryland, court on Wednesday raises the bar for convicting Manning, a US army private, of the most serious charge he faces.

Manning, 25, has admitted leaking the documents but denies aiding the enemy.

Colonel Lind said the prosecution in the military tribunal must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Manning had "reason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the US", by an armed group like al-Qaeda or another nation.

The judge also ruled that the government could call as a witness one of the commandos who took part in the 2011 raid that killed Osama bin Laden.


Read more: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2013/04/2013410183858785108.html

[librechik]

1. ha ha--that's the Wall Street Standard!

let them prove intent!

The prosecution will stall, just like trying to prosecute the banksters.

[laserhaas]

3. I know all too well, the "feign" of prosecuting WS and the reasons why the are making a case up

in this particular instance.

Cute Simpson pick

[librechik]

6. simpson's thing is a movie, it goes on and on....

[tblue]

24. I don't see no Simpson pic.

I feel left out! WAAAAAAHHHH!

I hate this persecution of Bradley Manning. Maybe if we went after BP, AND the war profiteers, AND the white-collar criminals who brought our economy to its knees, AND, FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE, those whose guilt is plain to see in the leaked materials, with equal zeal, it would at least seem fair. But nooooo.

[jeff47]

2. Really not that hard to prove.

The information was classified secret - meaning it was labeled that it would cause serious damage if it was not protected. And Manning did not sift through the information himself before leaking it.

So a reasonable person would believe that at least some information in the dump would be damaging to the US. Even if you think the government over-classifies, there's going to be something justifiably classified in such a large trove of documents. Only way around that would be for Manning to have gone through every document and come up for a reason it was not damaging. But he didn't.

Second, a reasonable person would believe that information leaked to the public would reach "the enemy" - we no longer live in an era where news only travels by word-of-mouth.

So while the bar is higher, I don't see it as a difficult bar to get over.

[frylock]

5. then i BELIEVE it should be real easy for the prosecution to prove all that

[maindawg]

9. he did not give the info to al queda

he gave it to wiki leaks. His intent is the argument.

[jeff47]

20. Except he knew that wikileaks would publish it

After all, publishing it was the entire point of leaking it to wikileaks.

And releasing it to the public means "the enemy" would see it too.

[Pointy_n_sharp]

23. Exactly...

[Hassin Bin Sober]

16. Careful what you say. Something you say might reach the enemy. That would make you a terrorist.

[jeff47]

19. I'm not saying anything that is classified. (nt)

[Hassin Bin Sober]

22. That's not the standard the government thinks they need to hurdle.

The government's contention is you can be guilty of giving aid to the enemy without the intention of doing so.

This is the most serious of the charges. The difference between life and 20 years.

In other words, the government has enough to put the kid away for 20 years but is pilling on with a rather chilling theory you can inadvertently give aide to a third party (enemy).

He leaked classified information. There are laws against that. No need to bend other laws to make them fit.

[jeff47]

25. No, that's your position.

The government's contention is you can be guilty of giving aid to the enemy without the intention of doing so.

And my entire point is you'd have to be incredibly dumb to believe that releasing classified information to the public would not result in "the enemy" getting the information.

Since Manning is not so mentally deficient as to be mentally incompetent, he is presumed to understand that releasing information to the public means ALL of the public, not just "friendly" public.

In your mind, how exactly did Manning intend to give the information to only part of the public? What mechanism was he going to use to prevent "the enemy" from getting the information once it was published?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

26. Well I hope they don't go after the F-35 wistleblowers becuase the Chinese are ....

.... probably licking their chops at the news the plane is a joke.

The people that leaked those memos - are they giving aid to the enemy?

Lock 'em up for life, eh?

[jeff47]

27. Again, that's not classified information being leaked.

So how exactly did Manning intend to only leak to some of the public?

[laserhaas]

4. Manning did his country a service good.

Maybe he should have tried other routes;
and maybe they would have put him up as a hood orny on the next mine field run.

[pacalo]

7. GOOD!

[Wednesdays]

8. K & R

[msanthrope]

10. Good. 'Knowingly' is a standard easily proved. nt

[DeSwiss]

11. Aided the enemy?

- Oh.



K&R

[4Q2u2]

12. Toast

A decorated Navy SEAL that helped kill Bin laden is going to stroll into court and tell them how that the laptop he secured from the sight had the info Manning leaked on it. The judge is going to look at Manning, then back to highly respected Operator. You do the math. Manning the IT pro is going to claim ignorance on how the Internet works? Then try to say that he did not know the cyberspace sophistication of our enemy, when he was directly trained in that. He is toast.

[rug]

13. Mere possession of the leaked documents does not equal aid.

Even if it was on Osama's computer, the Army must show how it aided him.

If that conclusion requires speculation, there is reasonable doubt.

[4Q2u2]

14. Linkage

They will be able to link his info to either an OP that took place or one on the laptop. You have to remember, just because the average Joe looks at video and deems it of no military value does not mean a trained expert will not find a weakness and exploit it. That is not speculation and maybe his linchpin to a guilty finding.

[azureblue]

15. But the key word

is "Knowingly". The Judge said: "prove army private (Manning) knowingly helped al-Qaeda". This link Manning>Wiki>AQ, has to be proven with evidence and intent to aid. By giving the info to wiki leaks, and -- note this part well --, AFTER Manning tried to give it to major newspapers, Proves the intent was simply to make the information public, not help AQ. The prosecution is now faced with the task of proving that wiki and AQ are in cahoots, if they are to link Manning to AQ. IOW at best, the prosecution can try to prove Manning unknowingly helps AQ, BUT the info that is alleged to be on the laptop, will, and again, -- note this part well, -- HAS to have come from ONLY wiki. If the defense tracks back that alleged info to any other source besides wiki, the case collapses.

[4Q2u2]

17. OPSEC

An IT professional can not plead ignorance to how information transmission takes place over the internet. A professional Soldier can not plead ignorance that breaking OPSEC could aid the enemy. Posters are plastered everywhere from day one in the service that lives are on the line and breaking OPSEC could jeopardize them. Lastly, as an IT MOS with his level of security clearance, he will not be able to state in open court that he did not know AQ would or could get that info. He was trained from day 1 in the Army that what he did could aid the enemy. You and I know that he has a certain level of intelligence just to be in the field that he was, it is disingenuous to suggest that he did not grasp the concept of OPSEC. The prosecution will question him about his knowledge and understanding of OPSEC. Then they will role out his training record showing his mandatory OPSEC training completion. Proving that he had prior knowledge that breaking OPSEC could aid the enemy. They already have the info off the laptop that was leaked to Wiki.

From SkyNews:"Defense lawyers had argued that proof of receipt is not relevant to whether Manning aided the enemy.

The judge disagreed, saying the government "must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that intelligence was both given to and received by the enemy". "



?zz=1



Ignorance of the Law is not a defense.

[Larrylarry]

21. "Knowingly"

I guess you're implying that Pvt. Manning didn't know the Internet was available to everybody

"Whoops my bad, I didn't realize that The Internet was available to other people besides me"

Really ?

[Larrylarry]

18. "Helped Al Qaeda"

As if the USA only has one enemy and their name is Al Qaeda

Proving the information helped our enemies should be easiest pattycake

Manning is not a whistleblower because he had no idea what he was leaking or blowing the whistle on

He is a traitor who should be in jail

[Hassin Bin Sober]

28. If he didn't know what he was leaking then how did he knowingly help our enemies?

[Pterodactyl]

29. He sent documents he hadn't even read to who knows where.

Either he was stupid and didn't understand what he was doing or he was taking an awful risk with the responsibility that was entrusted to him.