Bradley Manning Charged With Aiding the Enemy 844
Hugh Pickens writes writes "The Washington Post reports that the army has brought twenty-two new charges — including the Article 104 offence of 'aiding the enemy' that carries a potential death sentence — against Pfc. Bradley E. Manning, a former intelligence analyst accused of leaking hundreds of thousands of classified military and diplomatic documents to the anti-secrecy Web site WikiLeaks. The new charges, filed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, include wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the Internet, knowing that it will be accessed by the enemy, that US officials have asserted could put soldiers and civilians at risk. However the prosecution has notified Manning's attorneys that it will not recommend the death penalty and the charge sheet, like the original set of accusations, contains no mention by name of the enemy to which the US military is referring. Manning's supporters reacted to the new charges with dismay. 'I'm shocked that the military opted to charge Pfc. Bradley Manning today with the capital offense of 'aiding the enemy,' says Jeff Paterson, project director of Courage to Resist, which has raised money for Manning's defense. 'It's beyond ironic that leaked US State Department cables have contributed to revolution and revolt in the Middle East, yet an American may be executed, or at best face life in prison, for being the primary whistleblower.'"
The Enemy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The right charges (Score:5, Informative)
Military Law != Civilian Law (Score:3, Informative)
When enlisting or accepting a commission, you swear an oath to uphold all of these laws and much, much more. You forgo your Constitutional rights -- this is one of the reasons that military service is considered making a sacrifice. You accept a new set of rights which are outlined in the UCMJ. What a Private First Class thinks is of no concern -- Privates are for doing, Sergeants are for making sure things are done, and Officers are for thinking (in a nutshell). His only obligation is to follow the lawful orders given to him by his seniors.
Whenever something is done by a Soldier, it is often covered by multiple Articles of the UCMJ. For example, mouthing off to a senior NonCommissioned Officer may violate the following:
Article 91. Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer.
Article 92. Failure to obey order or regulation.
Article 117. Provoking speeches or gestures.
An interaction as simple as "Private Smith, take out the trash." -- "Fuck you Sergeant Jones!" is clearly more complex than one guideline, and is that NCO or Officer's duty to interpret and punish accordingly.
The same laws which protect the United States and its allies also protect each service member. He will receive a fair trial through Courts Martial, and may be found guilty or not. If he has been found to (intentionally or unintentionally) disclose sensitive or classified information, he will pay accordingly. Each charge will be looked at both individually and collectively as to its intent and results. The military takes care of its own.
Re:Indoctrination (Score:3, Informative)
Bread and games [wikipedia.org].
Keep people entertained (the more braindead the entertainment the better) and keep them fed and they won't give a damn about what you do. And they won't give a damn when you make those that do give a damn disappear in plain sight. Worked wonders for the Roman empire...
Re:This is reasonable (Score:5, Informative)
We are currently fighting two actual declared hot wars
No, neither of those wars was ever "declared". That is factually incorrect. Congress went to great lengths in the early 2000s to avoid actually "declaring" war because they are spineless and wanted to make sure that any blame if the things turned bad would rest solely with the president.
Re:No sympathy here, sorry (Score:4, Informative)
Aiding the enemy was a law created to stop soldiers from doing things like giving guns to the Germans during World War 2. The sort of thing that directly will get Americans killed.
In this case "Aiding the enemy" is being broadly interpreted as exposing anything that our military doesn't want exposed. We're not even talking about detailed attack plans or other secret information that provides genuine strategic advantage, and the documents themselves show that the "enemy" already has a good understanding of US patterns.
We've gone from "Aiding the Enemy" as direct action to directly help the enemy kill Americans, to broadly releasing information to everyone in an attempt to expose misinformation. In other words, actual direct intent to help the enemy is no longer a requirement. QED, anything viewed as negative to the US military effort can also be viewed as a capital offence. That should *not* be applied to Manning.
Re:Whatever he is, it isn't a whistleblower (Score:2, Informative)
It is legal to violate Geneva convention (rendition, various "torture" techniques)?
Is it legal to violate UN charter and spy on diplomats (using techniques that constitute identity fraud in our own country)?
Is it legal to prostitute children in Afghanistan?
Is it legal to cover up civilian casualties of war? Misrepresent civilian deaths? Cover-up friendly fire casualties?
Is it legal to bribe/extort foreign officials?
Is it legal for US companies to perpetrate fraud on developing nations?
Is it legal to bypass UN&US sanctions on "enemy nations"?
Is it legal for the US government to threaten foreign nations wishing to take action against illegal/unethical behavior of US corporations?
Is it legal for the US government to retaliate economically against foreign nations who impose legislation in their countries opposing dangerous or untested products?
Is it legal to test drugs on Nigerian children without their knowledge or consent and blackmail prosecutors suing you for said actions?
You are blithering idiot for choosing willful ignorance in the face of the revelations in these cables. At the absolute bare minimum, there is evidence to support additional investigation to determine what laws were broken.
Re:No sympathy here, sorry (Score:4, Informative)
Re:A stain on my country's tattered honor (Score:4, Informative)
They were FAR beyond the effective firing range of AK-47s and shoulder fired RPGs. Everyone, including the military itself, knows that the Apache crew was under absolutely no threat.