Manning verdict is in

[Martok]

Link

FORT MEADE, Md. – U.S. Army Pfc. Bradley Manning has been acquitted of aiding the enemy for giving classified secrets to WikiLeaks, but convicted of a variety of other charges, including espionage.

The military judge hearing the case, Army Col. Denise Lind, announced the verdict Tuesday. Manning was convicted of six espionage counts, five theft charges, a computer fraud charge and other military infractions. He faces 136 years in prison for those convictions. Aiding the enemy was the most serious charge, and carried a possible life sentence.

His sentencing hearing is set to begin Wednesday.

The 25-year-old Crescent, Okla., native acknowledged giving the anti-secrecy website hundreds of thousands of battlefield reports, diplomatic cables and videos in early 2010.

On Twitter, WikiLeaks called the verdict "A very serious new precedent for supplying information [to] the press" and "dangerous national security extremism from the Obama administration."

Hours before the verdict, about two dozen Manning supporters had gathered at Fort Meade, outside Baltimore, where the court-martial was being held. They wore "truth" T-shirts and waved signs, proclaiming their admiration for the former intelligence analyst who sent reams of classified information to the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks.

Barbara Bridges, 43, of Baltimore dismissed the government's charges that Manning aided the enemy.

"He wasn't trying to aid the enemy. He was trying to give people the information they need so they can hold their government accountable," she said.

Prosecutors tried to prove Manning had "a general evil intent" and knew the classified material would be seen by the terrorist group al-Qaida. Legal experts said an aiding-the- enemy conviction could set a precedent because Manning did not directly give the classified material to al-Qaida.

"Most of the aiding-the-enemy charges historically have had to do with POWs who gave information to the Japanese during World War II, or to Chinese communists during Korea, or during the Vietnam War," Duke law school professor and former Air Force judge advocate Scott Silliman said.

The verdict follows about two months of conflicting testimony and evidence. Manning has admitted to sending more than 470,000 Iraq and Afghanistan battlefield reports, 250,000 State Department diplomatic cables and other material, including several battlefield video clips, to WikiLeaks while in Iraq in early 2010. WikiLeaks published most of the material online.

The video included footage of a 2007 U.S. Apache helicopter attack in Baghdad that killed at least nine men, including a Reuters news photographer and his driver.

Manning did not testify during the trial, but has said he sent the material to expose war crimes and deceitful diplomacy. In closing arguments last week, defense attorney David Coombs portrayed Manning as a naive whistleblower who never intended for the material to be seen by the enemy. Manning claims he selected material that wouldn't harm troops or national security.

Prosecutors called him an anarchist hacker and traitor who indiscriminately leaked classified information he had sworn to protect. They said al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden obtained copies of some of the documents WikiLeaks published before he was killed by U.S. Navy Seals in 2011.

[Anguille]

Poor guy...

[Jarhead0331]

^You mean, poor traitor?

[Martok]

Yeah, I have zero sympathy for him. 

[LongBlade]

The difference between Manning and Snowden is that Manning did it just to be an idiot. There were no American principles on the line.

As far as I'm concerned they can lock Manning up and throw away the key.

[Anguille]

Yeah, I have zero sympathy for him.

Too bad you don't play your turns in Armada 2526 as fast as you reply here  ::)

[GDS_Starfury]

to be fair he plays his turns faster then I write reviews.  ;)

[Anguille]

to be fair he plays his turns faster then I write reviews.  ;)

Not sure if this is really a compliment  ;)

[Martok]

Yeah, I have zero sympathy for him.

Too bad you don't play your turns in Armada 2526 as fast as you reply here  ::)

Well if I could get them to actually show up, I would!  (The turns appear in my Gmail inbox, but not the game itself.)  :-[  Since I've continued to have issues, I felt it best to just let the rest of you guys play without me. 

[Steelgrave]

 
Snowden, I'm actually torn over. I lean towards whistleblower, absent any evidence that he passed (or passes) information directly to a foreign government. Manning, Manning violated his oath and disgraced his uniform. Leavenworth is going to be home for a very long time.

[bayonetbrant]

to be fair he plays his turns faster then I write reviews.  ;)

we got a review of the last ice age from a glacier faster than you're getting yours turned around ;)

[GDS_Starfury]

That's only because Windy was there.

[Anguille]

Yeah, I have zero sympathy for him.

Too bad you don't play your turns in Armada 2526 as fast as you reply here  ::)

Well if I could get them to actually show up, I would!  (The turns appear in my Gmail inbox, but not the game itself.)  :-[  Since I've continued to have issues, I felt it best to just let the rest of you guys play without me.

Seems to me that you've done something wrong in your mp settings, email password?...it is caps sensitive as well, so make sure your email is written exactely the same. Check it again, Sam. ;)

[Boggit]

Snowden, I'm actually torn over. I lean towards whistleblower, absent any evidence that he passed (or passes) information directly to a foreign government. Manning, Manning violated his oath and disgraced his uniform. Leavenworth is going to be home for a very long time.

Recalling the clip that I recently saw on Channel 4 news posted by Manning of the Helicopter pilot killing unarmed civilians and gloating about it (below clip @3:06), I'm not that sure that Manning is as bad as he's being made out to be. 
http://www.channel4.com/news/bradley-manning-wikileaks-verdict-us-whistle-blower-iraq

I'd suggest that there are a lot of people out there furious with Manning because he exposed their potentially criminal behaviour and they want to discredit and shut him up.

I see much the same with Snowden's case. I'm annoyed that from Snowden's disclosures that as a UK citizen, I am being spied on by the US Govt - not that I represent the slightest threat to the USA.

I used to think of the US as the good guys, but a lot of what has come out has exposed the fact that the US behaves very much like the bad guys, and for that Manning and Snowden are being targeted as the cause. The question is really is what will the US Govt do to bring to book those Manning and Snowden have exposed for disgracing the USA by their actions before the world? We've seen recent politically motivated trials in Russia, but this is the USA in 2013. Still perhaps the politicians will feel safer if they intimidate whistle blowers into silence? I'm no great fan of Assange, but I think he makes a valid point - http://www.channel4.com/news/bradley-manning-julian-assange-wikileaks-conviction-video

Does it remind you in a parallel way a little of the film Enemy of the State, where an NSA Director, using the power of the state goes to extreme lengths to cover up a murder?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_State_(film)

[LongBlade]

I'd suggest that there are a lot of people out there furious with Manning because he exposed their potentially criminal behaviour and they want to discredit and shut him up.

I see much the same with Snowden's case. I'm annoyed that from Snowden's disclosures that as a UK citizen, I am being spied on by the US Govt - not that I represent the slightest threat to the USA.

I used to think of the US as the good guys, but a lot of what has come out has exposed the fact that the US behaves very much like the bad guys, and for that Manning and Snowden are being targeted as the cause. The question is really is what will the US Govt do to bring to book those Manning and Snowden have exposed for disgracing the USA by their actions before the world? We've seen recent politically motivated trials in Russia, but this is the USA in 2013. Still perhaps the politicians will feel safer if they intimidate whistle blowers into silence?

You've posted several interesting thoughts.

Let's deal with the last first. So far, that we know of, none of these civil liberties intrusions has resulted in death in the US. There was the case a few years back of a Brazilian drug dealer who was killed in the UK. And there is still a question mark as to what happened with Michael Hastings, who died under curious circumstances. You may recall he was the journalist who wrote that unflattering article about Gen McCrystal.

In the hours before his death, which was ruled an accident by the Los Angeles Police Department, Hastings emailed Wikileaks' lawyer Jennifer Robinson that he was being investigated by the federal government.

Staff Sgt. Joseph Biggs — who knew Hastings when he was embedded with Bigg's unit in Afghanistan — told KTLA Hastings had blind copied him on an email sent 15 hours before his death, notifying colleagues that federal officials were interviewing his "close friends and associates."

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/29/lawsuit-launched-against-doj-for-fbi-records-on-michael-hastings/#ixzz2acw1R3OC

I haven't seen any evidence other than allegations emerge to make me think his death was anything other than an accident, but it is a rather convenient coincidence. And you know what I like to say about these things: there are no coincidences in this business - except for all the coincidences.

------

The second issue I'd like to discuss is the malfeasance of people in government who are hidden by bureaucracy and secrecy. Opinions differ on the subject but to my eyes our government has grown far too large to be held properly accountable for actions or spending. It's as simple as that.

------

The third issue you raise is the most troubling. As a US citizen I find it deeply disturbing that one of the clearest statutes in our Bill of Rights has just be casually cast aside. I recognize that as a UK citizen you do not enjoy those rights. And therein lies the rub. If the US wants to spy on all of its citizens and is prohibited from doing so, who is to to prevent the UK from spying on all of us and passing along whatever conspiracy theories they wish to us? Multiply that a few times amongst our allies, with the UK, Germans, French, et al all spying on the US, and us returning the favor to them.

And then there is the case of the real problem: the Russians and Chinese and every other bad guy out there doing it, too. The picture emerges that our electronic lives are being panty raided by any and all. That no one has yet managed to bungle it all up in the light of day is a small miracle. That nothing more serious than the hopeful two exceptions noted above has taken place should not give us hope that further abuses will not be forthcoming. On the contrary it should be deeply disturbing that so many abuses go unchecked and outside the light of day.

The problem at its heart is that the good guys aren't behaving much like good guys right now. When the entire population of a democratic republic is treated as potential threat to the government then it's time to rethink who the good guys and bad guys might be.