Bradley Manning may face death penalty

[Eleas]

Because the military can break its own rules and agreements as it sees fit but still retains the right to enforce them?

There is a world of difference between going to a sympathetic congressional critter(for example, Peter Defazio) with the material and handing it over to fucking wikileaks.

Possibly. I fail to see which one would be the most likely to be corrupt. Don't forget, Obama was a sympathetic face too.

And by the by, if you are an E3 4 years into the army, you are a huge shitbag to start with.

Meaning... nothing. Serving in a war of aggression he's a war criminal, yes, and probably with a conduct to match. But that doesn't magically turn him into a "bad guy" whose motivations for choosing Wikileaks over the supposedly liberal US media must be rooted in darkness.

If during the course of the trial it comes out that he ran around trying to give the info to congresscritters and what have you...okay fine. I have more sympathy for him. As it is he is an E3 4 years into the Army(a dog whistle for being a shitbag if there ever was one) who just decided to turn over information to a foreign national.

For better or worse, Lonestar, you have to realize that when they did their first release, wikileaks managed to actually get the message out in spades, in a way that made everyone sit up and notice. That's not a trivial thing. Maybe the guy didn't want the information carefully doled out and softened "for the sake of the Country" but actually disseminated.

[Lonestar]

Possibly. I fail to see which one would be the most likely to be corrupt. Don't forget, Obama was a sympathetic face too.

In other words "I can't be arsed to do some research, so the guy breaking all kinds of regulations shouldn't have to be either."

Meaning... nothing. Serving in a war of aggression he's a war criminal, yes, and probably with a conduct to match. But that doesn't magically turn him into a "bad guy" whose motivations for choosing Wikileaks over the supposedly liberal US media must be rooted in darkness.

Sure it does. It establishes a baseline that we know this guy is a shitbird to begin with, so lots stop pretending that he did this out of some kind of "moral fortitude" on his part.

And oh yeah, thanks for implying I'm a war criminal. Fuckstick.

For better or worse, Lonestar, you have to realize that when they did their first release, wikileaks managed to actually get the message out in spades, in a way that made everyone sit up and notice. That's not a trivial thing. Maybe the guy didn't want the information carefully doled out and softened "for the sake of the Country" but actually disseminated.

As I said, we already know he was a complete fuckup by dint of being an E3 4 years in, so he wasn't do this out of some kind of moral fortitude, it was because he was a disgruntled employee.

[Lonestar]

Given that the NYT is quite willing to go along with concealing such data from the public when asked to, of course the US Military would be.....ah hell, I am convinced this is exactly the same thing that would be happening, given how whistleblowers are treated by this Government. The Precedent is there.

Yeah, it's called the Pentagon Papers. Good thing I didn't limit it to the NYT, did I? I also included Mother Jones or other legitimate media, not fucking wikileaks.

It has never been proven that he turned over information to a foreign national. We do not know who his contact was, for one. Second, this is not just the charge of giving information to a foreign national. This is aiding the enemy. Would you say that media organizations are enemies of the USA?

Are you seriously going to make the argument that he did not know he was placing the material into the hands of foreign nationals when he handed the info over to wikileaks?

EDIT:

Let me quote Greenwald for you:

In light of the implicit allegation that Manning transmitted this material to WikiLeaks, it is quite possible that WikiLeaks is the "enemy" referenced by Article 104, i.e., that the U.S. military now openly decrees (as opposed to secretly declaring) that the whistle-blowing group is an "enemy" of the U.S. More likely, the Army will contend that by transmitting classified documents to WikiLeaks for intended publication, Manning "indirectly" furnished those documents to Al Qaeda and the Taliban by enabling those groups to learn their contents. That would mean that it is a capital offense not only to furnish intelligence specifically and intentionally to actual enemies -- the way that, say, Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen were convicted of passing intelligence to the Soviet Union -- but also to act as a whistle-blower by leaking classified information to a newspaper with the intent that it be published to the world. Logically, if one can "aid the enemy" even by leaking to WikiLeaks, then one can also be guilty of this crime by leaking to The New York Times.

The dangers of such a theory are obvious. Indeed, even the military itself recognizes those dangers, as the Military Judges' Handbook specifically requires that if this theory is used -- that one has "aided the enemy" through "indirect" transmission via leaks to a newspaper -- then it must be proven that the "communication was intended to reach the enemy." None of the other ways of violating this provision contain an intent element; recognizing how extreme it is to prosecute someone for "aiding the enemy" who does nothing more than leak to a media outlet, this is the only means of violating Article 104 that imposes an intent requirement.

But does anyone actually believe that Manning's intent was to ensure receipt of this material by the Taliban, as opposed to exposing for the public what he believed to be serious American wrongdoing and to trigger reforms? Indeed, in the purported chat logs between Manning and government informant Adrian Lamo, Lamo asked Manning why he didn't sell this information to a foreign government and get rich off it, and this is how Manning replied:

"because it's public data. . . . it belongs in the public domain -information should be free - it belongs in the public domain - because another state would just take advantage of the information… try and get some edge - if its out in the open . . . it should be a public good"

This prosecution theory would convert acts of whistle-blowing into a hanging offense.

(bolding mine)
Really? See, this is in complete contravention to my own experience in the US Military, and even as a contractor afterwards. Obviously Greenwald is privy to some form of unique intel that he doesn't elaborate on. He sure as shit didn't get that info working in an intel shop in the military.

[Alyeska]

Does that include seizing laptops and phones and not returning them? I'd love to see the law for that.

They took advantage of existing case law regarding National Security and Searches and Seizures. Entirely legal, but extremely dubious because they violate the spirit of the case law.

To my knowledge every seizing happened at border crossings or airports. If such seizures have happened within the US itself, then I am in agreement that something even more serious is happening here.

[Morilore]

Lonestar, what exactly makes Wikileaks not "legitimate" media?

[Lonestar]

Lonestar, what exactly makes Wikileaks not "legitimate" media?

Besides it being the internet version of a real life The Long Gunmen newspaper?

But as Thomas Ricks point out, this is typically how legitimate media operates:

I am a bit surprised to find myself thinking that if this soldier really did what he is accused of doing-just throwing classified information onto the internet randomly-than he should go off and do time.

Why surprised? Because I was the recipient of tons of leaks over the years as a reporter. Most were not potentially dangerous, and a much of it was way overclassified. And when I did have stuff that could endanger troops and other people, my editors had a procedure in place to discuss it with officialdom before going to press. They didn't give the government the power to censor, but they did give them a serious chance to make their case.

I believe in the First Amendment, close to absolutely. Newspapers should be allowed to pretty much publish whatever they want. I believe that does our country far more good than harm. Yet I also believe in military discipline. People should do their jobs and keep their words-reporters and soldiers alike. Yes, that sometimes puts people at odds, but the founding fathers, in their wisdom, gave us an adversarial system, designed to check and balance power.

Wikileaks just releases info willy-nilly. Well-known government apologist Thomas Ricks thinks that that isn't true media.

[Thanas]

Wikileaks just releases info willy-nilly. Well-known government apologist Thomas Ricks thinks that that isn't true media.

BS. Wikileaks actually went to the US Government, showed them the info then had then asked what they wanted to comment on or not have released. They received no reply. Wikileaks also gave the data to several newspapers (including the NYT, Spiegel and the Guardian) who checked it with 40+ reporters and edited out damaging stuff like personal data etc before releasing it in small doses.

Their behavior was the same as any other news agency, the claim that they release stuff willy-nilly is just untrue.

[Lonestar]

BS. Wikileaks actually went to the US Government, showed them the info then had then asked what they wanted to comment on or not have released. They received no reply. Wikileaks also gave the data to several newspapers (including the NYT, Spiegel and the Guardian) who checked it with 40+ reporters and edited out damaging stuff like personal data etc before releasing it in small doses.


Their behavior was the same as any other news agency, the claim that they release stuff willy-nilly is just untrue.

Haven't we, on this very board, had people quoting an Icelandic volunteer(who is a parliamentarian for her day job) who stated that Assange was specifically not interested in concealing information that would adversely affect informants?

And by the by, I find it to be an incredible statement that the US Government would have no response or express no desire to not release certain files after being showed a quarter of a million cables. In light of wikileaks crowing that they are going to release info prior to doing so, I'd say that at most wikileaks is about as legitimate as British tabloids.

[Lonestar]

Haven't we, on this very board, had people quoting an Icelandic volunteer(who is a parliamentarian for her day job) who stated that Assange was specifically not interested in concealing information that would adversely affect informants?

And here it is

Now it is not just governments that denounce him: some of his own comrades are abandoning him for what they see as erratic and imperious behavior, and a nearly delusional grandeur unmatched by an awareness that the digital secrets he reveals can have a price in flesh and blood.

Several WikiLeaks colleagues say he alone decided to release the Afghan documents without removing the names of Afghan intelligence sources for NATO troops. “We were very, very upset with that, and with the way he spoke about it afterwards,” said Birgitta Jonsdottir, a core WikiLeaks volunteer and a member of Iceland’s Parliament. “If he could just focus on the important things he does, it would be better.”

[Thanas]

Haven't we, on this very board, had people quoting an Icelandic volunteer(who is a parliamentarian for her day job) who stated that Assange was specifically not interested in concealing information that would adversely affect informants?

I haven't read such a statement. However, I have read statements by the US military that they did not think anybody came to harm because of their previous releases, as well as Wikileaks statement and the obvious fact that they did decide to heavily filter down the stuff. To date they have released less than 1% of the cables they received. I can get you links if you do not want to take my word for it.

And by the by, I find it to be an incredible statement that the US Government would have no response or express no desire to not release certain files after being showed a quarter of a million cables. In light of wikileaks crowing that they are going to release info prior to doing so, I'd say that at most wikileaks is about as legitimate as British tabloids.

Will you trust the AP saying so?

- Regarding the Afghanistan war documents.
Or do you want to read the letter in which the DoD refused to cooperate yourself?


BTW, how many % of the cables has wikileaks release in your opinion? The answer is about 1%.

And here is the same situation again (the Government refusing to comment) for the diplomatic cables:

[T]he group is releasing only a trickle of documents at a time from a trove of a quarter-million, and only after considering advice from five news organizations with which it chose to share all of the material.

"They are releasing the documents we selected," Le Monde's managing editor, Sylvie Kauffmann, said in an interview at the newspaper's Paris headquarters. . . .

"The cables we have release correspond to stories released by our main stream media partners and ourselves. They have been redacted by the journalists working on the stories, as these people must know the material well in order to write about it," WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said in a question-and-answer session on The Guardian's website Friday.

Just as they did prior to releasing the Afghanistan war documents, WikiLeaks -- according to AP -- "appealed to the U.S. ambassador in London, asking the U.S. government to confidentially help him determine what needed to be redacted from the cables before they were publicly released." Although the U.S. -- again -- refused to give such guidance, WikiLeaks worked closely with these media outlets to ensure that any material which has no valid public interest value and could harm innocent people was withheld. And Assange's frequent commitments to engage in "harm minimization" when releasing documents gives the lie to Gitlin's assertion that he is "fighting for a world of total transparency."

[Lonestar]

I haven't read such a statement. However, I have read statements by the US military that they did not think anybody came to harm because of their previous releases, as well as Wikileaks statement and the obvious fact that they did decide to heavily filter down the stuff. To date they have released less than 1% of the cables they received. I can get you links if you do not want to take my word for it.

Good thing I linked to it in the previous post, where you did acknowledge the post occurring but chose not to respond to the content on the basis of it originating from Hitchens?

Will you trust the AP saying so?

- Regarding the Afghanistan war documents.
Or do you want to read the letter in which the DoD refused to cooperate yourself?

Pretty fascinating stuff. Would you mind reading for me the first paragraph where the DoD attorney notes that the Wikileaks attorney was dodging his phone calls, or paragraph 4 which seems to imply that Wikileaks released several tens of thousand documents prior to coming to the US Government?

BTW, how many % of the cables has wikileaks release in your opinion? The answer is about 1%.

And here is the same situation again (the Government refusing to comment) for the diplomatic cables:

[T]he group is releasing only a trickle of documents at a time from a trove of a quarter-million, and only after considering advice from five news organizations with which it chose to share all of the material.

"They are releasing the documents we selected," Le Monde's managing editor, Sylvie Kauffmann, said in an interview at the newspaper's Paris headquarters. . . .

"The cables we have release correspond to stories released by our main stream media partners and ourselves. They have been redacted by the journalists working on the stories, as these people must know the material well in order to write about it," WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said in a question-and-answer session on The Guardian's website Friday.

Just as they did prior to releasing the Afghanistan war documents, WikiLeaks -- according to AP -- "appealed to the U.S. ambassador in London, asking the U.S. government to confidentially help him determine what needed to be redacted from the cables before they were publicly released." Although the U.S. -- again -- refused to give such guidance, WikiLeaks worked closely with these media outlets to ensure that any material which has no valid public interest value and could harm innocent people was withheld. And Assange's frequent commitments to engage in "harm minimization" when releasing documents gives the lie to Gitlin's assertion that he is "fighting for a world of total transparency."

(Bolding mine)

Now, looking to that letter you linked to, it mentions that Wikileaks released 76,000 classified documents. Now, if we're including the quarter million diplomatic cables 76,000 is much more than 1%. If we're not, we're still talking about about wikileaks releasing a substantial amount of classified documents and the letter you linked to implies that they did so WITHOUT going to the government first.

[Thanas]

Good thing I linked to it in the previous post, where you did acknowledge the post occurring but chose not to respond to the content on the basis of it originating from Hitchens?

Yeah, read it. But still no evidence of wikileaks working and rather bad evidence compared to the world's best reporters.

Pretty fascinating stuff. Would you mind reading for me the first paragraph where the DoD attorney notes that the Wikileaks attorney was dodging his phone calls, or paragraph 4 which seems to imply that Wikileaks released several tens of thousand documents prior to coming to the US Government?

Yes. He also stated that the US will not negotiate any sanitized version or so, a clear refusal to work with wikileaks. The prior release I do not know what he refers to - it may very well be the first afghanistan war leaks that happened before they decided to talk to the US. So even if the claim is true, they have changed their stance since then.

Now, looking to that letter you linked to, it mentions that Wikileaks released 76,000 classified documents. Now, if we're including the quarter million diplomatic cables 76,000 is much more than 1%.

These are obviously different cases. Don't believe me? Go to the wikileaks website yourself. Look at the numbers. Currently they released about 5000 of 250.000 cables, so more than the 1% I thought, but still only about 2% of all cables.

If we're not, we're still talking about about wikileaks releasing a substantial amount of classified documents and the letter you linked to implies that they did so WITHOUT going to the government first.

[/quote]

And that is in no way related to the documents we are talking about, or the modus operandi of wikileaks as it stands or did stand during the cablegate releases.

[Lonestar]

Yeah, read it. But still no evidence of wikileaks working and rather bad evidence compared to the world's best reporters.

Why get in the way of a good story, huh? No reason for Thanas to address the content of that post.

Yes. He also stated that the US will not negotiate any sanitized version or so, a clear refusal to work with wikileaks. The prior release I do not know what he refers to - it may very well be the first afghanistan war leaks that happened before they decided to talk to the US. So even if the claim is true, they have changed their stance since then.

Yeah, I can't fathom AT ALL why the US Government would not want to work with folks who crow about how they are about to release US government material, especially when they had already done so without having gone to the government. It's almost as if the US Government would think that Assange & Co are not making their offer in good faith!

These are obviously different cases. Don't believe me? Go to the wikileaks website yourself. Look at the numbers. Currently they released about 5000 of 250.000 cables, so more than the 1% I thought, but still only about 2% of all cables.

Yeah, that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Did you forget who I work for?

And that is in no way related to the documents we are talking about, or the modus operandi of wikileaks as it stands or did stand during the cablegate releases.

Hold on, your argument is that wikileaks releasing documents they got from Manning isn't at all related to wikileaks releasing other documents they got from Manning?

[Thanas]

Why get in the way of a good story, huh? No reason for Thanas to address the content of that post.

Why should I? It quotes a volunteer, with no confirmation etc.

OTOH, we do have the word of Spiegel, Guardian, Le Monde and AP that wikileaks apparently contacted the Government.

Yeah, I can't fathom AT ALL why the US Government would not want to work with folks who crow about how they are about to release US government material, especially when they had already done so without having gone to the government. It's almost as if the US Government would think that Assange & Co are not making their offer in good faith!

How does this also apply to the newspapers? Does the USA also believe they are not acting in good faith?

Yeah, that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Did you forget who I work for?

Then you just have to trust the AP or salon.com and me on the numbers released. Really, it is a bit hard to debate you when you are unable to read the evidence by yourself.

Hold on, your argument is that wikileaks releasing documents they got from Manning isn't at all related to wikileaks releasing other documents they got from Manning?

If the release method is different? Yes. Also, note that in the second Afghanistan release, (the one where the USA refused to cooperate in) they still went to the News organizatons and had them take over. Get this - it is not wikileaks releasing the material anymore. It is the five newspapers, working in concert.

[Lonestar]

Why should I? It quotes a volunteer, with no confirmation etc.

OTOH, we do have the word of Spiegel, Guardian, Le Monde and AP that wikileaks apparently contacted the Government.

I'm not doubting that wikileaks contacted the government, you provided the letter itself, but that same letter seemed to imply that wikileaks contacted the government after it had already released several tens of thousand files to the public.

How does this also apply to the newspapers? Does the USA also believe they are not acting in good faith?

Do newspapers put out press releases to the effect "we got some really badass damaging stuff, and we're going to release it, stay tuned!"? The "Big Newspapers" also have a history of taking the requests of the government into account, such as the WaPos "Top Secret America" series which was vetted by DSS and tweaked a bit before being published.

Then you just have to trust the AP or salon.com and me on the numbers released. Really, it is a bit hard to debate you when you are unable to read the evidence by yourself.


If the release method is different? Yes. Also, note that in the second Afghanistan release, (the one where the USA refused to cooperate in) they still went to the News organizatons and had them take over. Get this - it is not wikileaks releasing the material anymore. It is the five newspapers, working in concert.

Fine. Doesn't change that Manning deserves to have the book thrown at him, as that he turned over material to foreign nationals(or that he turned over material that a reasonable person could expect to end up in the hands of foreign nationals, if you're going to get pedantic and say "well hwo do you know his contact wasn't an American???").

[Thanas]

Why should I? It quotes a volunteer, with no confirmation etc.

OTOH, we do have the word of Spiegel, Guardian, Le Monde and AP that wikileaks apparently contacted the Government.

I'm not doubting that wikileaks contacted the government, you provided the letter itself, but that same letter seemed to imply that wikileaks contacted the government after it had already released several tens of thousand files to the public.

I apologize if this was unclear. But these were different incidents. Wikileaks caught a lot of flack over the previous releases where they did not talk to the Government or newspapers. Then, when the next batch came in, they decided to contact the Government. In other words, they were taking steps to minimize the damage. Now, the Government could obviously have chosen to take the "we do not trust you" route, but what could they have lost in such a scenario?

Do newspapers put out press releases to the effect "we got some really badass damaging stuff, and we're going to release it, stay tuned!"? The "Big Newspapers" also have a history of taking the requests of the government into account, such as the WaPos "Top Secret America" series which was vetted by DSS and tweaked a bit before being published.

wikileaks offered the Government to edit things. The Government refused. I hardly see how this in any way is different than a newspaper contacting the government.

Fine. Doesn't change that Manning deserves to have the book thrown at him, as that he turned over material to foreign nationals(or that he turned over material that a reasonable person could expect to end up in the hands of foreign nationals, if you're going to get pedantic and say "well hwo do you know his contact wasn't an American???").

Maybe. How does that prove that he was aiding the enemy? Are foreign newspapers or foreign nationals the enemy of the United States? Are Australian citizens the enemies of the United States? European?

[Lonestar]

I apologize if this was unclear. But these were different incidents. Wikileaks caught a lot of flack over the previous releases where they did not talk to the Government or newspapers. Then, when the next batch came in, they decided to contact the Government. In other words, they were taking steps to minimize the damage. Now, the Government could obviously have chosen to take the "we do not trust you" route, but what could they have lost in such a scenario?

wikileaks offered the Government to edit things. The Government refused. I hardly see how this in any way is different than a newspaper contacting the government.

Again, the Big Newspapers don't go "Oh yeah we got some badass damaging info and we're gonna release it! Stay tuned!". This is not something that engenders good faith with the US Government.

Maybe. How does that prove that he was aiding the enemy? Are foreign newspapers or foreign nationals the enemy of the United States? Are Australian citizens the enemies of the United States? European?

I said this in the PM, but are you seriously making the argument that diplomatic cables in the hands of an organization whose leadership includes foreign members of parliament could not be used to the advantage of other countries to the detriment of the US? As you've commented, aorund 2% of the cables have been released and Wikileaks is sitting on the rest.

Ironically, we would need to know what the rest says in order to determine whether or not they are potentially being used to undermine US activities overseas.

[Vympel]

I said this in the PM, but are you seriously making the argument that diplomatic cables in the hands of an organization whose leadership includes foreign members of parliament could not be used to the advantage of other countries to the detriment of the US? As you've commented, aorund 2% of the cables have been released and Wikileaks is sitting on the rest.

Ironically, we would need to know what the rest says in order to determine whether or not they are potentially being used to undermine US activities overseas.

Aiding the enemy in this context requires intent, doesn't it? The prospects of any (sane) finders of fact determining that Bradley Manning intended to aid a nebulously defined 'enemy' of the US are virtually zero.

[Vympel]

Update, Lt. Col Coombs, Manning's legal counsel, just reported the following:-

Last night, PFC Manning was inexplicably stripped of all clothing by the Quantico Brig. He remained in his cell, naked, for the next seven hours. At 5:00 a.m., the Brig sounded the wake-up call for the detainees. At this point, PFC Manning was forced to stand naked at the front of his cell.

The Duty Brig Supervisor (DBS) arrived shortly after 5:00 a.m. When he arrived, PFC Manning was called to attention. The DBS walked through the facility to conduct his detainee count. Afterwards, PFC Manning was told to sit on his bed. About ten minutes later, a guard came to his cell to return his clothing.

This type of degrading treatment is inexcusable and without justification. It is an embarrassment to our military justice system and should not be tolerated. PFC Manning has been told that the same thing will happen to him again tonight. No other detainee at the Brig is forced to endure this type of isolation and humiliation.

[Lonestar]

Aiding the enemy in this context requires intent, doesn't it? The prospects of any (sane) finders of fact determining that Bradley Manning intended to aid a nebulously defined 'enemy' of the US are virtually zero.

I'm actually mgoing to make the prediction, and you all can read it now, that if and when PFC Manning testifies about the matter it'll include him bitchin' about how much it sucks being the low man on the totem pole and while he would never admit to having freely dissiminated information to those not cleared for it, it should be noted that the US Army are big meanies and deserve some payback for being big meanies.

[Anguirus]

^ Yeah, I'll believe that when I hear it/read it. Anything in the UCMJ about stripping down prisoners for no apparent reason? (Vympel just beat me to posting that). That's not even in the "suicide watch" procedure that he has been sometimes subjected to.

[Lonestar]

^ Yeah, I'll believe that when I hear it/read it.

Fine, then I'll also add that his list of charges here throw the phrase "with reason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation," around a lot, and that the "I didn't know handing diplomatic cables over to an organization with a lot of foreign nationals in it's leadership to include foreign elected officals could potentially be used to the advantage of any foreign nation" defense is unlikely to sway the court.

[Duckie]

A man betrayed by his country gives secrets to the media? Shock!

Maybe if America and the military hadn't shat all over people of his sexuality we wouldn't know about the dirty laundry of America.

(and there was important shit, if you buy the US government disinformation angle of 'dumping 2 bajillion cables and murdering afghani informants but also there was nothing important in it just celebrity gossip' then I have no clue what to say)

[Lonestar]

A man betrayed by his country gives secrets to the media? Shock!

Maybe if America and the military hadn't shat all over people of his sexuality we wouldn't know about the dirty laundry of America.

It's pretty amazing that this is something his friends are saying after the fact, when there has been no paper trail. DADT notwithstanding if true it was harrassment, and I have seen someone successfully taken to captains mast for the same thing. And yet rather than trying to execute his grievences to the full accordence of the rules he decided to get into fist fights with his coworkers, bitch and moan when he had to do all the shit details because he was the low man on the totem pole, hand over classified material to foreign nationals, and then brag about it on the internet with the handle "Bradass86".


Yessir PFC Manning is...



A HERO OF THE LEFT

[Vympel]

^ Yeah, I'll believe that when I hear it/read it.

Fine, then I'll also add that his list of charges here throw the phrase "with reason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation," around a lot, and that the "I didn't know handing diplomatic cables over to an organization with a lot of foreign nationals in it's leadership to include foreign elected officals could potentially be used to the advantage of any foreign nation" defense is unlikely to sway the court.

The charge sheet can say whatever bullshit it wants. "reason to believe such information could be used" is not the same thing as intent.

Again:-

the Military Judges' Handbook specifically requires that if this theory is used -- that one has "aided the enemy" through "indirect" transmission via leaks to a newspaper -- then it must be proven that the "communication was intended to reach the enemy."

As for "hero of the left" - not really. He's a hero of everyone, really. Or should be. Same as the guy who leaked the Pentagon Papers. Of course, he did that 40 years ago so its ok to lionize him now, given that all the powerful people who were inconvenienced by it are long out of power.

I - and everyone else on the side of Wikileaks - don't really give a shit that he broke some Army rules, dude. It means absolutely fuck all. His actions were an objective good. They can charge him with whatever, and if he's found guilty, so be it. But trying to invoke Article 104 is patently obscene.