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.'"
Competition (Score:5, Interesting)
If there's one thing the business of government will not tolerate, it's competition -- especially when that competition exposes government as the incompetent, self-serving elite which they are. The plain fact is that Manning and Wikileaks did what government could not -- and in the process exposed their corrupt objectives -- and now the elite at the top of the pyramid are absolutely fuming.
I don't know if there's anything I enjoy more than watching the power pyramid squirm with jealousy and embarrassment.
Re:Good! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good! (Score:2, Interesting)
What if the country breaks faith with it's citizens? Huh? What then? Who gets punished?
Oh, that's right, it's the government. Those people "in charge" obviously know what's best for the lot of us. Right? You can't punish people who are blatantly doing good things for everyone else in the world, right? They're thinking of everyone else before themselves, right? *snicker*
Piece of advice....... THINK FOR YOURSELF. Don't let someone else in a suit and tie live your life for you.
Re:Sorry, the cables aren't the reason for revolut (Score:2, Interesting)
I was wondering the same thing.
If anyone has any information to substantiate the claim of "It's beyond ironic that leaked US State Department cables have contributed to revolution and revolt in the Middle East" I'd like to see it.
Purely curious here. I feel like I missed something huge.
Re:No sympathy here, sorry (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sorry, the cables aren't the reason for revolut (Score:2, Interesting)
This has been asked-for many, many times on /.
Nobody here ever makes the effort to substantiate this claim.
However, lots and lots of people here repeat it, nonetheless.
Re:And who, exactly, is the enemy? (Score:5, Interesting)
The 'legal world', in this case, would be a declaration of war. You can't commit treason in time of war if there's no war, just some sort of nebulous police action. That is, you can't if the constitution, that pesky piece of paper, is followed. If the US now ignores the requirement for a specific enemy to try someone for Treason as a death penalty offense, that's just the sort of thing that has so many here arguing the gap between moral and legal.
Declared wars? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's news to me. Please enlighten us: exactly when did congress formally declare war as the constitution requires? Oh, that's right -- they haven't actually declared a war since WW2. Stop spouting bullshit.
Re:Competition (Score:3, Interesting)
"in the process exposed their corrupt objectives", Oh, to date, the leaks have pretty much underscored that what the U.S. government says in private is pretty much what the U.S. government says in public. Care to spill the beans on what corrupt objectives the U.S. government is pursuing which is contained in the wikileaks docs?
Re:Good. He's a fucking traitor and a disgrace (Score:3, Interesting)
We (I'm from the U.S.) aren't officially at war with anyone. How could he be aiding an enemy that doesn't exist?
Re:And who, exactly, is the enemy? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Indoctrination (Score:5, Interesting)
It's amazing that even after so much corruption in government has been exposed, the common man simply brushes it off and reverts to blindly trusting authority. If that doesn't illustrate the power of indoctrination, I don't know what does.
Right, because it's that much of a black and white issue. Either release everything, or release nothing. What was done, was irresponsible. Is there not a difference between releasing SOME information, and dumping so much stuff that people are put in harms way? The NY Times Magazine did a long , including talks about things they refused to do, including some interesting tidbits, such as: [nytimes.com]
The article (fascinating, really) goes on to talk about the Times eventually being in touch with the government, and agreeing to withhold certain documents that were mentioning too many specific details of ongoing operations, and disagreeing and publishing others that they felt were not endangering any lives. But throughout it all, the Obama administration was apparently not trying to strong arm the Times, and the article specifically cites: "The Obama White House, while strongly condemning WikiLeaks for making the documents public, did not seek an injunction to halt publication. There was no Oval Office lecture. On the contrary, in our discussions before publication of our articles, White House officials, while challenging some of the conclusions we drew from the material, thanked us for handling the documents with care. The secretaries of state and defense and the attorney general resisted the opportunity for a crowd-pleasing orgy of press bashing. There has been no serious official talk — unless you count an ambiguous hint by Senator Joseph Lieberman — of pursuing news organizations in the courts. Though the release of these documents was certainly embarrassing, the relevant government agencies actually engaged with us in an attempt to prevent the release of material genuinely damaging to innocent individuals or to the national interest."
So yeah, I think one soldier releasing hundreds of thousands of documents without any care to do so solely with a moral purpose, and taking care not to release things that are flat out dangerous, and giving them to a guy who just wanted to bulk publish EVERYTHING regardless of content is not only illegal, but also not morally defensible.
Re:Whatever he is, it isn't a whistleblower (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:No sympathy here, sorry (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem I have with your argument is the lack of discrimination Pfc Manning displayed on what constitutes "evidence that those ideals are being violated". Had Manning leaked only things that tend to show some sort of wrong doing I might have agreed with you. But a great deal of what was released was secret yet not sensitive information that had no bearing on any ideals. From wikipedia:
The diplomatic cables revealed numerous unguarded comments and revelations: critiques and praises about the host countries of various U.S. embassies, discussion and resolutions towards ending ongoing tension in the Middle East, efforts for and resistance against nuclear disarmament, actions in the War on Terror, assessments of other threats around the world, dealings between various countries, U.S. intelligence and counterintelligence efforts, U.S. support of dictatorship and other diplomatic actions.
The leaked cables expose that British official revealed that diplomats of the U.S. and Britain eavesdropped on Secretary General Kofi Annan in the weeks before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, even though international treaties prohibit spying at the UN.[47] Further, they reveal that U.S. diplomats told an Afghan government official to keep quiet after they learned that a major U.S. government contractor firm was pimping little boys to be auctioned off to be raped by Afghan policemen in parties organized by the contractor
While there was information in the cables that should have been exposed, there was a lot that should not have been like what US ambassadors thought of French President Sarkozy. I don't know why Pfc Manning disclosed the information and I don't know why he didn't limit it to revelations of wrong doing. But I don't share your view of his actions.
Divisive issue (Score:5, Interesting)
Some here feel that Manning is a traitor and hanging's too good for him. Some here feel that the guy is a hero, and should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
There are many arguments for and against. Regardless, Manning is only so far CHARGED with various "crimes". I haven't seen that the prosecution has any actual evidence to convict.
Consider the financial meltdown for a moment. Do you realize that NO ONE has gone to jail for that? Nobody. Nada (don't reply about Madoff, that's not related).Sure, there were some guys from Bear Stearns that were charged, but the convictions didn't happen because the prosecution couldn't convince a jury, because they just didn't have enough evidence.
Lately, prosecutors haven't even been pursuing charges unless they are sure they can make it stick. Of course, the military is different in that they think they can railroad anyone they like, to make an example and keep the rest of us in line. But the truth is, when Manning comes to trial, the prosecution may have a hard time making the case stick.
In the meantime, put the noose away and give the dude a little more breathing room. After all, we are supposedly living in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty. Unless you guys with the noose in your hands want to change that about the "land of the free" as well.. Yeah America. You're number one.
Re:And who, exactly, is the enemy? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't understand why we need to have a pledge of allegiance at all. That's the sort of thing that a dictatorship would have.
Re:No sympathy here, sorry (Score:4, Interesting)
>>>But that doesn't mean there aren't secrets being kept right now that aren't necessary
Like the slaughter or journalists, cameramen, and children by US Soldiers. That *definitely* has to be kept secret, or else the american public might decide that "war sucks" and demand the killing be ended immediately. "Lock up that video damnit!!!" George Duh Bush (stamps Top Secret on tape). "Gotta keep fighting and killing!"
Re:Military Law != Civilian Law (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow, you only managed to bubble four idiots to the surface with that thoughtful post? That's what you get for posting late. There is no end to the frustration I feel when people rant on about the military and all of its evil, particularly this gem of a response:
Which pretty much sums up what's so fundamentally dangerous about the military - it's constructed, from the bottom up, to coerce large groups of people into taking actions that result in others being killed or seriously injured without considering the morality of their actions.
The military is made of people, and people - though generally not evil - can easily be led astray by the few who are evil. But the UCMJ covers that, too. For example, the r-tards at Abu Graib could have not followed the orders they were allegedly given. And if PFC Manning didn't like the situation he was in personally he could have dealt with it through appropriate channels, eventually even getting some meathead senator on his side. But he didn't. In fact, he probably did enough to get some time in Leavenworth by merely collecting that information off various secured networks.
People will always protest the military and war. In Monterey, California in 1990 we would see a couple people at the gate to the presidio with their placards about war crimes, and all we did was kick a dictator out of a country he invaded. Such is life.
Re:And who, exactly, is the enemy? (Score:4, Interesting)
You might want to reread the Constitution. There is no requirement that a State of War exist in the definition of Treason: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
Note that "or". It's important.
Re:Competition (Score:2, Interesting)
Can you explain what "corrupt objectives" these exposed? There have been very few bombshells that have come out of the leaks that I'm aware of and nothing I'm aware of that indicates corruption... at least of the US government... there were plenty of talking about foreign governments...
Do you know what you're talking about or are you just repeating lines you heard in a movie?
d
Re:And who, exactly, is the enemy? (Score:4, Interesting)
Real patriots should skip this part of the pledge, because it violates the Constitution.
The whole idea of pledging allegiance to a piece of fabric, even a Republic, should irritate any real patriots. Patriots have allegiance to ideals, nationalists have allegiance to governments.
So long as the government is in harmony with those ideals, the point is moot.
The Founders were not jingoists.