Bradley Manning must face aiding-enemy charge, military judge rules

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: The Los Angeles Times

FT. MEADE, Md. — The judge in the court martial of Army Pfc. Bradley Manning on Thursday turned down a defense request to dismiss the most serious charge against him -- aiding the enemy -- setting in motion closing arguments in the first of a pair of high-profile cases against government leakers.

The decision by Col. Denise Lind means that Manning, 25, who provided the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks with more than 700,000 classified war documents, State Department cables, combat videos and other items, could ultimately be sentenced to life in a military brig with no possibility of parole if the judge finds him guilty of aiding the enemy.

The judge said the government had provided evidence that established Manning “actually knew he was dealing with the enemy” by providing WikiLeaks with material that he knew would be posted on the Internet and thus made available to Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

“He was knowingly providing information to the enemy,” Lind said.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-bradley-manning-aiding-enemy-charge-judge-20130718,0,6133185.story

[frontier00]

1. Can Snowden face the same charge

can snowjob get this also

please...please

[cascadiance]

2. I guess that they can equally hate the 4th amendment as well as the 1st amendment in their quest...

... in also going after Snowden to destroy the American system of government and throw out the words of Ben Franklin in their quest for centralized power to be prioritized over any sense of American civil liberties, which they must feel is just a privilege of the few rather than for the 99% of us...

[cstanleytech]

11. The 1st and 4th arent shields from breaking the law though.

Which in Mannings and Snowdens case is the law over revealing classified intelligence to omeone who isnt cleared for it though oddly enough if Manning had just provided the information he believed was a *crime* to a member of congress or to the Inspector Generals office to report it the military couldnt have touched him as there is actually a law in place I believe that shields him for doing that.
Where he screwed up was providing that information as well as hundreds of thousands of other unrelated but still classified documents to wikileaks so technically by doing that Manning broke the law once wikileaks published it for all to see.
Not sure if I agree with the court that he should actually face the charges of aiding the enemy though but then me and the government do not always agree.

[cascadiance]

15. Yeah... The only ones who are "shielded" from breaking the law are the 1%

Last edited Thu Jul 18, 2013, 03:15 PM - Edit history (3)

... that in effect WRITE the laws that their BOUGHT AND PAID for government put in to effect to put a two tier justice system where they aren't held accountable for their actions and they just point fingers at those like Snowden and Manning as "lawbreakers" because BY DESIGN, just about every whistleblower law has made exceptions for national security jobs and NOT protected them from prosecution, when that kind of whistleblowing arguably is the most important for the 99% of this country from getting screwed. Ask Congressman Jerrold Nadler. Over the many years and many whistleblower bills that have come up, he's always been one of the isolated voices saying that security whistleblowers need more protection and has had too many of these efforts fall to deaf ears.

Yes, perhaps those in the NSA themselves didn't break the law as prescribed by the arguably UNCONSTITUTIONAL Patriot Act, that made their arguably unconstitutional actions violating our 4th amendment rights "legal". And of course the way our government works today, it seems like it relies on the corporatist SCOTUS to call laws constitutional and unconstitutional, and of course they are also controlled by a 1% agenda with Roberts in charge of it and in effect also the one that creates the FISA Court too and is not going to declare the Patriot Act unconstitutional as long as they are in the protected part of the two tier justice system.

So, do you now want to put Daniel Ellsberg in prison for also breaking the law in the same way? You have to be if you want to evenly apply the law. Oh... That was from a different era when our government had factions that wanted to protect us from the excesses of the likes of Cointelpro, etc. then, that today those in power want to institutionalize as part of our infrastructure to control us the masses.

Sibel Edmonds also tried to go through the "appropriate" channels and was unable to get most of the abuses she witnessed corrected either. When a government gets messed up enough, you have to examine whether the government rules and infrastructure are themselves damaged goods, and you really just can't say "well he committed illegal acts" as a sole reason to dismiss those that are convinced (along with a sizable amount of the American populace) that something is broken enough for them to feel they have to go outside of it to get it fixed.

If elected officials don't take it upon themselves to step back and say that new laws are needed that respect the constitutional frameworks we were given aren't put in place to protect most Americans, that we run the risk of more drastic and violent change happening in our society if their efforts to use the system to try to fix it fail.

[cstanleytech]

18. The 1% (aka the rich) have almost always been above the law.

They shouldnt be of course but they often are as they are often well connected politically thus you probably will never see people like Bush or Cheney in jail for any crimes be it lying about WMDs or being drunk and shooting someone in the face while hunting.

[forestpath]

19. +1000

[24601]

36. Members of Congress, cleared Inspectors General & General Counsels may receive classified

information. Getting it to them, however, requires that the individual making the complaint uses secure communications and ensures that it does not fall into the hands of anyone without the prerequisite clearance or the need to know. Congressional personal staff usually do not have clearances and classified material is handled via the committees, such as Intel, Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, Appropriations.

When I was in the military, one of my jobs including reviewing the committee mark-ups and final legislation.
Classified Appropriations & Authorizations laws are voted on and passed most years* and every member may read them before (and after) the votes - but few actually did because they have to do so only in appropriately-cleared spaces. Most members in both Houses instead rely on the recommendations that come out of committee.

In recent years, many appropriations haven't been voted on other than continuing resolutions; however, the Authorizations bills have been passed and that's where members exert the most influence since directing how the money is spent allows them to keep it flowing to their states and/or districts.

[karynnj]

17. No - Manning is being tried in military court because he was in the service

[Fantastic Anarchist]

22. Please say you're joking.

[wtmusic]

3. Our war crimes aren't a big secret anywhere but in the U.S.

I guess that makes the American public the enemy of the military.

[frontier00]

4. No Snowjob is the enemy

I'm so excited that this aiding the enemy charge can be applied to Snowden...DU...XD

[Gregorian]

8. Cheers for fascism!

[azureblue]

10. they can charge

but they can't prove. Snowden exposed a lot of US wrong doing, like spying and war crimes. This is why the Us is going after him so hard. for exposing the truth..

[frylock]

14. did you get an erection when you read this fabulous news?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

23. He probably can't get erections without blue pills.

Or, perhaps, news like this.

Meh, a guy's gotta get off, eh?

[frylock]

33. lotsa people around here are eating the blue pill these days..

[AZ Progressive]

5. “He was knowingly providing information to the enemy,” Lind said.

What bullshit.

[azureblue]

9. and here in lies the rub

the government has to prove a direct chain: Bradley - data - "enemy". But they cannot. They can prove he made it public, but they cannot prove that the enemy got any information direct from Bradley. Further, the government also has to proves that any of that information aided and abetted, and did damage to the US. They can't do that, either, and simply claiming damage without proof is not evidence. The case against Bradley was flimsy to begin with, even the government said there was no evidence that anything Bradley released did any damage, and much of what he released was already out there, and it boiled down to making an example of him.

The whole reason why the government came down on Bradley was because he found stark proof of covered up US war crimes. Bradley upheld his oath, and exposed the crimes.

[JustAnotherGen]

20. This

Bradley - data - "enemy". But they cannot. They can prove he made it public, but they cannot prove that the enemy got any information direct from Bradley.

Agree - it's not a direct pass . . . but this is a Military Court/Venue. Punished - yes. Rest of his life? No. I don't see it.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

24. If I recall correctly ...

... it was the government's own enthusiasm with prosecuting Manning that alerted Bin-Laden to the leaks.

I'll see if I can find the source on that.

[msanthrope]

26. The government doesn't have to prove a direct chain. Merely that the enemy received it. Nor do

they have to prove 'damage.'

[frontier00]

6. Thanyou Holder

Yes, it's is, sry for posting so much, but I really hate Snowden, Edward

[cascadiance]

16. You work for the NSA?

You seem to be taking this *hate* for Snowden far more personally than others do!

[heaven05]

7. oooohhhhh!!!!!!

big surprise there.

[frontier00]

12. Crime

We don't live in a one world government, citizens can't just release secret info, that's why there is a level of Secret, and Top Secret,
and classified info, people who release that info to serve their political goals are horroble

[Fantastic Anarchist]

25. Spoken like a true reactionary.

So, what "political goals" did Manning serve?

[Ash_F]

13. Americans are the enemy.

Why did we ever put these right wingers in charge of our military? It is costing us our democracy.

[Cleita]

27. Past tense. It has already cost us our democracy.

Our kings and other aristocracy don't care about what the people want. They blatantly ignore us and if we get in their faces about issues, they arrest us.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

21. Well, it seems the judge already made up his mind.

Why the pretense of a trial?

[msanthrope]

28. Her mind. nt

[Fantastic Anarchist]

35. Well, it seems the judge made up her mind. nt

[potone]

30. Indeed it does.

We are living in a scary time in regard to civil liberties.

[Cleita]

29. And people wonder why Snowden doesn't want

To come home.

[Zorro]

31. Any Manning-sourced Wikileaks document that showed up on UBL's computer

is probably all that's needed as proof of aiding the enemy.

[kelliekat44]

32. Facing charges does not mean being found guilty. Commit the crime, face the consequences...

this goes for both Manning and Snowden in my book. If you make the decision to knowingly break the law, for whatever reason, at least be noble enough to face the consequences of your actions. Maybe like Ali did? Or are your motives really less than pure?

[TheKentuckian]

34. Seems pretty clear the enemy is We The People.

They are the real traitors along with those that wipe and dangle for them like "good Germans".

Judge/Colonel Lind is an enemy of the people and the truth.