Bradley Manning may face death penalty

[Mr. Coffee]

Ok, so PFC Fuckup signed the paperwork for a security clearance, right. Now, I'm pretty sure that when they give those out they give you the "If you ever speak of any of classified shit with people who aren't cleared, or worse, are also foriegn nations, the Federal Government will cornhole you with a hardback edition of the UCMJ and generally ruin your fucking existance, kthx sign ont he dotted line". Turns out they weren't fucking kidding, who knew. Worse, for PFC Fuckstick, is when he signed his contract and swore in the rights he had as a civilian under the US Constitution/Bill of Rights no longer apply and he is now subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Again, they probably explained all of this to PFC Fucknose multiple times during his enlistment and training process. Turns out they weren't kidding, so double who knew.

Also, unless someone can show when this shitbag tried to go to his chain of command, or his congress critter, or even an established media outlet in order to blow the whistle, that whole whistle blower thing is bullshit as well. Every fucking aspect of PFC Fucktard's career just oozes "This guy is an antisocial fuck up with a hard on for disciplinary action and not a goddamned bit of common sense", so really, can some of you knock it the fuck off with trying to paint this douche as some sort of martyr for the Left/RAR FREEDOM/Whatthefuckever?

[Aaron]

Here's the deal, PFC Manning had 4 options when faced with these documents. For the sake of argument let's say he is doing this out of the goodness of his heart, and not because he is a dysfunctional fuckup:

(1)Go either through the chain of command or to a/many Chaplains(preferably a Catholic one rather than a protestant one).

(2)Go to a sympathetic congresscritter, such as Peter DeFazio.

(3)Go to a domestic news organization, such as Mother Jones.

(4)Go directly to a foreign organization that has elected foreign officials in it's leadership, that at the time was posting stuff on the internets willy-nilly.

Of those 4 choices Manning chose the absolute worse for him.

(5)He was deployed in Baghdad, most likely working at a SCIF, when this happened. Another thing he could've done is wait till he got back stateside, in order to more fully vet what he downloaded, and think a bit more carefully and clearheaded about his actions. After all, didn't he put everything on burned CDs labed as Lady Gaga? Even if he was on the fast track to getting discharged, he could've done all of this after he got kicked out, and he would'nt (maybe?) have had to deal with the military justice system.

Again-I agree with the big picture people with what he did, and I'm certainly no fan of...well, a lot of stuff. However, he personally seems to have gone about this in totally the wrong way. He's an emotionally immature, naive young person who, well, simply went about this the wrong way.

And, of course I'll eat my words if it turns out he really did try to do all those other options

If he did then it's time for a look at the class system, whistleblower protections and US military culture as a whole. Because at least two of those would be a failing in this case.

[Aaron]

Ghetto edit: I'm sure the US has something similar to the Official Secrets Act as well, which would make him open to charge by the military for a set number of years depending what he released.

[Simon_Jester]

Again, I don't think this debate should hinge on our assessment of Manning as a man- I just think it's a very bad idea to accuse people of treason for resisting the attempts of their government to place the entire sphere of foreign policy inside an iron curtain.

And yes, "iron curtain" is the right phrase- a barrier that the security services would very much like to make impenetrable, behind which nearly anything can be done safely- people can be tortured for suspicion of maybe being associated with a regional nuisance, the secrets of allies who trust us with vital components of their defenses can be sold off to third parties without their knowledge or consent in exchange for minor benefits to us, and the state can publicly announce that it cares about problems while secretly working to prevent anything from being done about them.

[Cecelia5578]

Again, I don't think this debate should hinge on our assessment of Manning as a man- I just think it's a very bad idea to accuse people of treason for resisting the attempts of their government to place the entire sphere of foreign policy inside an iron curtain.

And yes, "iron curtain" is the right phrase- a barrier that the security services would very much like to make impenetrable, behind which nearly anything can be done safely- people can be tortured for suspicion of maybe being associated with a regional nuisance, the secrets of allies who trust us with vital components of their defenses can be sold off to third parties without their knowledge or consent in exchange for minor benefits to us, and the state can publicly announce that it cares about problems while secretly working to prevent anything from being done about them.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but is it really relevant in this exact case? At the very least, he broke the law by mishandling classified information. He signed all sorta of NDAs to that effect (he had to, in order to get a TS/SCI which is required by his MOS). Sure, the treason is going a bit overboard, but he did break the law, and I think most governments in most places aren't big on people deliberately mishandling classified information.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm not going to argue about him getting punished for the way he handled classified information under the circumstances.

What upsets me is almost entirely the part about the charge of "aiding the enemy." Because that comes dangerously close to classifying all political opposition to the current government's policy as (in effect) "enemy" activity: by definition I cannot give the loyal opposition the information they need to respond to your behavior, for fear that this information will leak out to the remote and feeble 'enemies of the state' you are fighting.

Which means the loyal opposition might as well not exist, and you can do whatever you please while refusing to acknowledge that your doing it- or even publicly claiming that you're doing the opposite, while arresting anyone who dares to prove you a liar.

No matter how important securing classified information is supposed to be (and I suspect it's taken on exaggerated importance in the modern US security culture)... that is not an acceptable price to pay.

[Aaron]

At this point it's just a charge, he may not get convicted of it. And this is the military, not civvie law, kind of hard to charge those outside the military with a law their not bound by.

[Simon_Jester]

You can't charge someone with a crime unless the state has a solid argument (or believes it does) that the accused has committed the crime. Even the fact that the prosecution believes Manning could sanely be convicted of "aiding the enemy," implicitly of treason, without this being a frivolous charge... that's not good, I would argue.

There are plenty of reasons to chuck Manning in the brig, I'm sure. The accusation that he aided America's "enemies" in any meaningful sense isn't one of them.

[Aaron]

[quote="Simon_Jester"]You can't charge someone with a crime unless the state has a solid argument (or believes it does) that the accused has committed the crime. Even the fact that the prosecution believes Manning could sanely be convicted of "aiding the enemy," implicitly of treason, without this being a frivolous charge... that's not good, I would argue.

Then perhaps this is a good opportunity to re-examine the list of charges available to the military.

[TheHammer]

You can't charge someone with a crime unless the state has a solid argument (or believes it does) that the accused has committed the crime. Even the fact that the prosecution believes Manning could sanely be convicted of "aiding the enemy," implicitly of treason, without this being a frivolous charge... that's not good, I would argue.

And I happen to believe that the prosecution would be correct in arguing that Manning "aided the enemy". He gave classified information to a foreign entity that he KNEW would post that information openly on the internet.

How useful this information was to the enemy may be debatable, but I don't think anyone is disputing that it was of at least some use to the Taliban, or Iraqi insurgents.

There are plenty of reasons to chuck Manning in the brig, I'm sure. The accusation that he aided America's "enemies" in any meaningful sense isn't one of them.

If the military didn't show how very fucking serious this is then the next private Manning that came along would think he could get away with it too.

[Simon_Jester]

Then perhaps this is a good opportunity to re-examine the list of charges available to the military.

I'm inclined to agree. In this case, I think "aiding the enemy" needs a tightly restricted definition- actions which are indirectly beneficial to an enemy, as an incidental side effect of something else (such as informing the press that the US government has committed a crime)... that's not the same thing as, say, selling weapons blueprints to the Soviets. And shouldn't be treated as such, legally.

How useful this information was to the enemy may be debatable, but I don't think anyone is disputing that it was of at least some use to the Taliban, or Iraqi insurgents.

I am. Where, exactly, did Iraqi or Afghan guerillas use this information against us?

There are plenty of reasons to chuck Manning in the brig, I'm sure. The accusation that he aided America's "enemies" in any meaningful sense isn't one of them.

If the military didn't show how very fucking serious this is then the next private Manning that came along would think he could get away with it too.

If it gives us enough glimpses through the iron curtain drawn around American foreign policy that said curtain starts to rust, I'm not sure that's a bad thing for the country.

Again, we could use a little glasnost. If the government isn't able to recognize this, then I'm not going to complain too hard if it's forced on them.

[Duckie]

You can't charge someone with a crime unless the state has a solid argument (or believes it does) that the accused has committed the crime. Even the fact that the prosecution believes Manning could sanely be convicted of "aiding the enemy," implicitly of treason, without this being a frivolous charge... that's not good, I would argue.

And I happen to believe that the prosecution would be correct in arguing that Manning "aided the enemy". He gave classified information to a foreign entity that he KNEW would post that information openly on the internet.

How useful this information was to the enemy may be debatable, but I don't think anyone is disputing that it was of at least some use to the Taliban, or Iraqi insurgents.

Then you're wrong. I will dispute this.

The Department of Defense has stated they have no confirmed incidents of any informants being harmed by the leaks. They above all else would have motive to trumpet this to everyone and even make up an incident if they needed (who could tell it was fake? Afghanistan's not exactly a very ordered place with a good census and tracking of incidents and people).

I would like you to contact and inform the DoD that they are wrong with whatever vital national security information you have that they don't. Note that rhetoric from the state about "endangering our troops" is not the same as a demonstrable incident.


Further, if Wikileaks is a foreign power, then Der Spiegel is as well. I would ask you to confirm for me that any foreign media organisation is an agent of a foreign state and thus the enemy.

For that matter, Wikileaks didn't just dump CABLES.RAR on a torrent and let people have at it. They worked closely with Der Spiegel, the Guardian, and the New York Times (who are apparently now thus aiding a foreign enemy and as such are domestic enemies of the state?) to verify that the information they were publishing was both accurate and not dangerous to US Soldiers, despite how hard the US Government's rhetoric of "Dumping 5 million trillion cables" has tried to obfuscate this fact. They further published what cables they have published slowly and methodically through legitimate media channels.

[wautd]

Then you're wrong. I will dispute this.

The Department of Defense has stated they have no confirmed incidents of any informants being harmed by the leaks. They above all else would have motive to trumpet this to everyone and even make up an incident if they needed (who could tell it was fake? Afghanistan's not exactly a very ordered place with a good census and tracking of incidents and people).

I would like you to contact and inform the DoD that they are wrong with whatever vital national security information you have that they don't. Note that rhetoric from the state about "endangering our troops" is not the same as a demonstrable incident.
.

Well, it might have aided Al Qaida, because it's a wonderful recruiting tool for them if you got information about americans doing warcrimes. Offcourse, the right course of action would be to punish the ones commiting the atrocities, not the wistleblowers.

[Duckie]

The ever-popular Republican American* theory of "Anything that makes Al-Qaeda more likely to win including indirect consequences" (for example, tolerating the building of mosques by peaceful yet brown american citizens helps al-qaeda not because they directly do but because it makes muslims feel they are winning in the US (?) thus increasing morale)...

It makes me wonder if America should prosecute tax dodgers for treason, because every dollar they don't get is a dozen cents that doesn't go towards buying stuff that will win the war, and also directly harms troops by removing fractional suits of body armour and guns and equipment and whatnot.

*(Now, granted, both sides of America are guilty of this dumb rhetoric to a lesser degree of commonness on the left: while far more demonstrably true when Democrats insisted and still insist that Republicans help Al-Qaeda by enflaming the anger of muslims over the middle east with bad foreign policy, petty racism and invading and occupying a sovereign nation for no apperant reason; that doesn't mean Republicans are thus traitors who support and invite more 9/11s to happen. Some left bloggers have said the latter, though nowhere near as publicly or in power as republicans (whose elected officials wil say stuff like that))

[Broomstick]

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.

Duckie, I have been trying to understand what Manning's sexuality has to do with him releasing secret documents without permission.

Under the assumption that Manning is homosexual (if he is, your post is the first I've heard of it) yes, it sucks to be homosexual in the military. Nonetheless, a LOT of homosexuals have served with distinction in the US military, doing so without chronically getting into trouble, and without feeling a compulsion to release confidential/secret information. I just don't see how the two are connected here.

He isn't being prosecuted for being gay, he's being prosecuted for releasing secrets without permission. Being gay is not justification for passing out classified documents. War crimes might be such a justification, but sexuality is wholly irrelevant to that issue (unless the crimes are targeting a particular sexuality, but so far, I haven't seen evidence of this).

And none of it justifies the apparent maltreatment he is currently suffering while in custody, but again, it's because of what he did, not who he likes to fuck. It's because he pissed off some very powerful and cruel people, but I seriously doubt any of those people give a damn who Manning likes to date.

[Simon_Jester]

The argument would sort of make sense if we were in an apocalyptic struggle against a hostile civilization that sought the end of everything we care about, and which was powerful enough to bring about that goal. But we aren't... which makes it stupid.

That's one of the hallmarks of the post-9/11 era: apocalyptic rhetoric and total-war logic applied to what any previous era would (correctly) identify as minor brushfire conflicts.

Duckie, I have been trying to understand what Manning's sexuality has to do with him releasing secret documents without permission.

Under the assumption that Manning is homosexual (if he is, your post is the first I've heard of it) yes, it sucks to be homosexual in the military. Nonetheless, a LOT of homosexuals have served with distinction in the US military, doing so without chronically getting into trouble, and without feeling a compulsion to release confidential/secret information. I just don't see how the two are connected here.

I think Duckie simply finds it easier to sympathize with a soldier who has personal reasons for feeling estranged from the military hierarchy, as opposed to one whose motivations are abstract, vague, and kind of dumb.

[TheHammer]

Then you're wrong. I will dispute this.

The Department of Defense has stated they have no confirmed incidents of any informants being harmed by the leaks. They above all else would have motive to trumpet this to everyone and even make up an incident if they needed (who could tell it was fake? Afghanistan's not exactly a very ordered place with a good census and tracking of incidents and people).

I would like you to contact and inform the DoD that they are wrong with whatever vital national security information you have that they don't. Note that rhetoric from the state about "endangering our troops" is not the same as a demonstrable incident.


Further, if Wikileaks is a foreign power, then Der Spiegel is as well. I would ask you to confirm for me that any foreign media organisation is an agent of a foreign state and thus the enemy.

For that matter, Wikileaks didn't just dump CABLES.RAR on a torrent and let people have at it. They worked closely with Der Spiegel, the Guardian, and the New York Times (who are apparently now thus aiding a foreign enemy and as such are domestic enemies of the state?) to verify that the information they were publishing was both accurate and not dangerous to US Soldiers, despite how hard the US Government's rhetoric of "Dumping 5 million trillion cables" has tried to obfuscate this fact. They further published what cables they have published slowly and methodically through legitimate media channels.

Simon, this is for you too...

Firstly, a couple of sources:
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/02/tali ... leaks.html

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/pentagon-searc ... 565&page=1

Whather you want to argue about comprimised sources actually being harmed or not, what you can't argue is that in the future any such sources would not be so inclined to work with the US for fear that their names weren't properly protected. This is an aid to the enemy. Again, you can argue HOW Much, and a lot of that is speculation but that is the fact at hand.

Secondly, What Wikileaks choose to do or not do with the documents is not at issue here. PFC Manning, once he indiscriminantly handed over the information, had NO CONTROL over what they choose to put on the internet or not. For all he knew, they would absolutely publish everything.

[Simon_Jester]

Whather you want to argue about comprimised sources actually being harmed or not, what you can't argue is that in the future any such sources would not be so inclined to work with the US for fear that their names weren't properly protected. This is an aid to the enemy. Again, you can argue HOW Much, and a lot of that is speculation but that is the fact at hand.

Valerie Plame might say the same of the treatment she got from the Bush administration. Whose heads should roll for that little episode, and how it demonstrated the administration would sell out CIA agents for political advantage?

More generally, we need to draw a very wide line between aiding the enemy, in the sense of providing them with things they can use, and putting our side at a disadvantage. There are many things people in America can do that "undermine the war effort" in some sense which could not be called treason. Such as questioning the wisdom of fighting the war at all. Or enacting bad policies that make victory more difficult.

So the fact that it's at least possible that this will make victory in Afghanistan more difficult... that's not enough to convict someone of "aiding the enemy," not if we're going to call that a serious crime.

Would we call it "aiding the enemy" if someone embezzled funds that were supposed to be used to hire Afghan agents, given that this too would make sources less inclined to work with us? Would we call it "aiding the enemy" if some US military officer on the ground bungled his job in a way that resulted in some of our sources being killed?

In those situations, we might charge the perpetrator with other crimes, but we wouldn't accuse them of providing aid to the enemy. Because they didn't: there is a difference between an act which weakens our ability to wage a war, and an act which provides direct aid to an enemy. It is only direct aid that we can treat as a capital offense, as something closely equivalent to treason. Otherwise, there's no limit on the range of things that can be called "aiding the enemy," and thus the charge becomes dangerously overbroad.

The Constitution was drafted to avoid this- there's a reason that the crime of treason has a narrow, restricted definition in the Constitution, when no other crime is defined in the Constitution at all. It's to make it difficult to convict people of treason-like crimes for committing nebulous acts that in some way undermine the wishes of the state.

[TheHammer]

Whather you want to argue about comprimised sources actually being harmed or not, what you can't argue is that in the future any such sources would not be so inclined to work with the US for fear that their names weren't properly protected. This is an aid to the enemy. Again, you can argue HOW Much, and a lot of that is speculation but that is the fact at hand.

Valerie Plame might say the same of the treatment she got from the Bush administration. Whose heads should roll for that little episode, and how it demonstrated the administration would sell out CIA agents for political advantage?

irrelevant to the discussion at hand

More generally, we need to draw a very wide line between aiding the enemy, in the sense of providing them with things they can use, and putting our side at a disadvantage. There are many things people in America can do that "undermine the war effort" in some sense which could not be called treason. Such as questioning the wisdom of fighting the war at all. Or enacting bad policies that make victory more difficult.

So the fact that it's at least possible that this will make victory in Afghanistan more difficult... that's not enough to convict someone of "aiding the enemy," not if we're going to call that a serious crime.

There is a difference between protesting a war effort as a private citizen, and actively providing classified material to unauthorized personnel with the full knowledge that said material will be provided to the enemy in some fashion. And any reasonable human being knows that if the material is posted freely on the internet, it is as good as placed directly into the hands of the enemy.

Would we call it "aiding the enemy" if someone embezzled funds that were supposed to be used to hire Afghan agents, given that this too would make sources less inclined to work with us? Would we call it "aiding the enemy" if some US military officer on the ground bungled his job in a way that resulted in some of our sources being killed?

In those situations, we might charge the perpetrator with other crimes, but we wouldn't accuse them of providing aid to the enemy. Because they didn't: there is a difference between an act which weakens our ability to wage a war, and an act which provides direct aid to an enemy. It is only direct aid that we can treat as a capital offense, as something closely equivalent to treason. Otherwise, there's no limit on the range of things that can be called "aiding the enemy," and thus the charge becomes dangerously overbroad.

You are correct, we might charge the perpetrator with other crimes. Because he did not WILLFULLY provide aid to the enemy as PFC manning did. Manning didn't "accidentally" release this information to wikileaks. He did so intentionally and recklessly, with the full knowledge that much or all of it would be posted on the internet for anyone, including enemies such as Al Qaeda, the Taliban etc to see.

The Constitution was drafted to avoid this- there's a reason that the crime of treason has a narrow, restricted definition in the Constitution, when no other crime is defined in the Constitution at all. It's to make it difficult to convict people of treason-like crimes for committing nebulous acts that in some way undermine the wishes of the state.

Except for the fact that he's not being accused of "treason". The actual charge is as follows:

"THE SPECIFICATION: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army,
did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about
1 November 2009 and on or about 27 May 2010, without proper authority,
knowingly give intelligence to the enemy, through indirect means."

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/p ... anning.pdf

[Aaron]

Duckie, I have been trying to understand what Manning's sexuality has to do with him releasing secret documents without permission.

Under the assumption that Manning is homosexual (if he is, your post is the first I've heard of it) yes, it sucks to be homosexual in the military. Nonetheless, a LOT of homosexuals have served with distinction in the US military, doing so without chronically getting into trouble, and without feeling a compulsion to release confidential/secret information. I just don't see how the two are connected here.

He isn't being prosecuted for being gay, he's being prosecuted for releasing secrets without permission. Being gay is not justification for passing out classified documents. War crimes might be such a justification, but sexuality is wholly irrelevant to that issue (unless the crimes are targeting a particular sexuality, but so far, I haven't seen evidence of this).

And none of it justifies the apparent maltreatment he is currently suffering while in custody, but again, it's because of what he did, not who he likes to fuck. It's because he pissed off some very powerful and cruel people, but I seriously doubt any of those people give a damn who Manning likes to date.

If we assume that he was harassed because he was gay at work and I've heard the odd rumour that he was, he may have taken the opportunity that presented itself to fuck the government right back. I've worked for some truly horrible people in the military and I'm Canadian, so I could see it. Even if it is unlikely. He was apparently receiving some kind of psych discharge as well and he may have felt that to be in error.

tl;dr version; guy might have been harassed at work, seeks revenge.

And no, I don't think this very credible.

[Simon_Jester]

Whather you want to argue about comprimised sources actually being harmed or not, what you can't argue is that in the future any such sources would not be so inclined to work with the US for fear that their names weren't properly protected. This is an aid to the enemy. Again, you can argue HOW Much, and a lot of that is speculation but that is the fact at hand.

Valerie Plame might say the same of the treatment she got from the Bush administration. Whose heads should roll for that little episode, and how it demonstrated the administration would sell out CIA agents for political advantage?

irrelevant to the discussion at hand

I disagree. If we're going to accept the premise that discouraging people from signing up with US military and intelligence organizations for fear their identities will be disclosed by idiots with a grudge is an act of "aiding the enemy," it's very relevant to the discussion at hand.

More generally, we need to draw a very wide line between aiding the enemy, in the sense of providing them with things they can use, and putting our side at a disadvantage. There are many things people in America can do that "undermine the war effort" in some sense which could not be called treason. Such as questioning the wisdom of fighting the war at all. Or enacting bad policies that make victory more difficult.

So the fact that it's at least possible that this will make victory in Afghanistan more difficult... that's not enough to convict someone of "aiding the enemy," not if we're going to call that a serious crime.

There is a difference between protesting a war effort as a private citizen, and actively providing classified material to unauthorized personnel with the full knowledge that said material will be provided to the enemy in some fashion. And any reasonable human being knows that if the material is posted freely on the internet, it is as good as placed directly into the hands of the enemy.

So, to repeat, it is under all conditions an act of "aiding the enemy" for any member of the military to release classified information to the media?

Because otherwise your argument doesn't hold water. Since the material was not posted freely on the Internet, as shown by the fact that the general public still can't access the great mass of it. Wikileaks is, whether you like it or not, a media organization, not "the Internet."

You are correct, we might charge the perpetrator with other crimes. Because he did not WILLFULLY provide aid to the enemy as PFC manning did. Manning didn't "accidentally" release this information to wikileaks. He did so intentionally and recklessly, with the full knowledge that much or all of it would be posted on the internet for anyone, including enemies such as Al Qaeda, the Taliban etc to see.

How is this different from someone who willfully commits other acts which undermine our ability to fight an enemy? Such as US soldiers who take pictures of US soldiers torturing people, which subsequently get released and are used on recruitment posters by the enemy?

Where does the definition of "aiding the enemy" stop?

The Constitution was drafted to avoid this- there's a reason that the crime of treason has a narrow, restricted definition in the Constitution, when no other crime is defined in the Constitution at all. It's to make it difficult to convict people of treason-like crimes for committing nebulous acts that in some way undermine the wishes of the state.

Except for the fact that he's not being accused of "treason". The actual charge is as follows:
"THE SPECIFICATION: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army,
did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about
1 November 2009 and on or about 27 May 2010, without proper authority,
knowingly give intelligence to the enemy, through indirect means."
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/p ... anning.pdf

Ahem. Article Three, Section Three, United States Constitution:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Hence my description of the stated crime of "aiding the enemy" as being 'treason-like.' In American legal language, "aiding the enemy" implies a specific constitutional meaning, even if not everyone convicted of 'aiding the enemy' winds up with treason conviction on their record.

The UCMJ charge of "aiding the enemy" is "treason-like" in that, like treason, it is a capital offense. And in that it references the same language used in the Constitution to describe treason. There is a similarity, which I am sure you can see, and that is the limit of my claims. My use of the term 'treason-like' was purely rhetorical, because I am trying to make the point here that accusations of "aiding and abetting the enemy" should be used very cautiously. Especially when (as with Manning) the harm caused is vague and relies heavily on indirect arguments about "well, if the organization he handed the material to is careless, then potentially the enemy might be aided."

[Kamakazie Sith]

No offense, Eleas. However, your standard seems unreasonable and I can't find it defined in such a manner. Furthermore, the entire German military was not tried as war criminals.

While not being tried, every German citizen was intended to be subjected to a commission ruling on whether he was a possible criminal or not, and every member of the Wehrmacht was. After these screenings proceedings were initiated or the person was cleared. It was far from perfect of course. So at least the assumption was that the entire German military might be war criminals.

And it did lead to over 5000 sentences in the western occupied zones, the soviets were a lot more eager.

It may have been intended but that is a far cry from it actually happening. In short, would it be fair to say that they weren't labeled or tried as war criminals? So, why would anyone expect this to happen to a crew chief on a US air force base?

Sure, individual german soldiers were not tried, they were instead collectively send abroad for slave labor like clearing minefields. Doesn't exactly speak against Eleas' case.

Indeed. The allies aren't innocent in WW2. Thank you for pointing that out. Condemning millions to slave labor without due process seems OK to you? Interesting. I'll remember this in any future discussions involving morality.

Still, they weren't tried as war criminals. The people of other countries wanted revenge. Without a trial that force labor was a crime in of itself under the Nuremberg princibles.

Metahive already answered the rest, but... while I don't take offense, why do my standards seem so unreasonable? The US assaulted two countries, one because it dared to respond to a demand about extradition of a person without proof with 'hey, wait a minute...', the other as a naked grab for resources and wealth. Partaking in the Afghanistan war is bad, but serving in Iraq is frankly beyond excuse.

Yes, the United States assaulted two countries at the command of their leaders. The leaders are the ones that should face the charge of starting a war of aggression. Individual soldiers should be prosecuted for crimes that they engaged in, such as targeting civilians.

This broad sweeping idea of the law that you have is unreasonable because you're charging someone with a crime that they did not have access to the required information to make an informed decision and are bound by local law to obey the orders of their commander and chief. The US government lied and misled its people. It'd be like me arresting a person just for being a gang member...I can see why the idea appeals to you but I also recognize it is wrong.

Try as I might, I don't see why wishing that the people responsible pay the piper is so unreasonable.

I agree. Go after people actually responsible for the listed charges. You would not be doing that for going after a mechanic who was under the impression that the planes he was fixing were being used to fight terrorists determined to kill his people.

[TheHammer]

I disagree. If we're going to accept the premise that discouraging people from signing up with US military and intelligence organizations for fear their identities will be disclosed by idiots with a grudge is an act of "aiding the enemy," it's very relevant to the discussion at hand.

No, its completely irrelevant to what charges should be levied against Manning. You are apparently assuming that I don't think charges should have been levied in the Plame case, where in fact I think they should have.

So, to repeat, it is under all conditions an act of "aiding the enemy" for any member of the military to release classified information to the media?

Because otherwise your argument doesn't hold water. Since the material was not posted freely on the Internet, as shown by the fact that the general public still can't access the great mass of it. Wikileaks is, whether you like it or not, a media organization, not "the Internet."

In the event that the "media" then "broadcasts" the information that you handed over to it, in such a way the enemy is able to readily retreive it, such as on the "internet" then yes you have as the charge states, willfully provided aid to the enemy through indirect means. The only purpose you would have in giving said material to the "media" is in the hope that they WOULD in fact broadcast it.

How is this different from someone who willfully commits other acts which undermine our ability to fight an enemy? Such as US soldiers who take pictures of US soldiers torturing people, which subsequently get released and are used on recruitment posters by the enemy?

Where does the definition of "aiding the enemy" stop?

The difference is the scope and the intent. Manning handed over thousands of documents, whether they contained evidence of abuse, or whether they were combat operations or the names of operatives in the field. The example you cited is very specific and very clearly a "whistle blowing" action.

Hence my description of the stated crime of "aiding the enemy" as being 'treason-like.' In American legal language, "aiding the enemy" implies a specific constitutional meaning, even if not everyone convicted of 'aiding the enemy' winds up with treason conviction on their record.

The UCMJ charge of "aiding the enemy" is "treason-like" in that, like treason, it is a capital offense. And in that it references the same language used in the Constitution to describe treason. There is a similarity, which I am sure you can see, and that is the limit of my claims. My use of the term 'treason-like' was purely rhetorical, because I am trying to make the point here that accusations of "aiding and abetting the enemy" should be used very cautiously. Especially when (as with Manning) the harm caused is vague and relies heavily on indirect arguments about "well, if the organization he handed the material to is careless, then potentially the enemy might be aided."

I'll agree that it is "treason like". And I still think it applies in the case of PFC Manning.

[Winston Blake]

This point isn't actually correct. Two posts before you entered this thread (that is, before all of your posts in this thread), Vympel posted a link here.

Quotes from IM chat logs between Manning and Adrian Lamo, prior to the leaks:

Yeah, I had read those logs before. Honestly, it sounds like he's reaching out to a "fellow hacker", whilst boasting about weak security(true enough), talking about how he is going to get a "I'm crazy" discharge, and then say that the information deserves to be free.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm..............Obviously the chat logs of a squared away individual.

You had read the logs before, but you said there was no evidence about his motives?

There is NOTHING to indicate that Manning was interesting in whistleblowing so much as to stick it to the big mean army that made him empty the trashcans in the office.

All you have are vague and emotive suppositions about his motives. On the other hand we have transcripts in which he directly describes his motives as "worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms" and "without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public." Which do you expect people to believe right now? From your tone throughout this thread I doubt you will either admit you were mistaken about this, or knew about the logs already and lied.

I've never served in the military. Is it possible, at least in theory, that Manning was promoted and demoted an unknown number of times? Possibly for going against the military establishment in ways that don't imply all the accusations at the start of this post? If so, then this 'airtight' evidence of yours which you have repeated strenuously and ad nauseam isn't exactly strong.

He got demoted once for getting into fistfights with his coworkers. In fact, that is exactly WHY I've been saying "getting into fistfights with his coworkers".

OK. You didn't actually provide (or even mention) any sources for that, so it wasn't easy to distinguish it from your emotion-filled fantasies about him 'being made to empty the trashcans in the office'. Note that getting demoted for fighting doesn't necessarily mean he started it. In the current hazy absence of good information, it's entirely possible that he got promoted, then got jumped by guys who had their story all set up, and then got demoted. So it isn't true that being an E3 after 4 years necessarily implies he's a fuck-up, which you've claimed ad nauseam.

The fact of the matter is that, like so much in this case, we just don't know what the hell the truth is right now. 99% of this thead rests on baseless speculation.

[Simon_Jester]

I disagree. If we're going to accept the premise that discouraging people from signing up with US military and intelligence organizations for fear their identities will be disclosed by idiots with a grudge is an act of "aiding the enemy," it's very relevant to the discussion at hand.

No, its completely irrelevant to what charges should be levied against Manning. You are apparently assuming that I don't think charges should have been levied in the Plame case, where in fact I think they should have.

All right. Where do you draw the line? When shouldn't charges of aiding the enemy be levied against someone who intentionally commits an act which results in an enemy's situation improving?

So, to repeat, it is under all conditions an act of "aiding the enemy" for any member of the military to release classified information to the media?

Because otherwise your argument doesn't hold water. Since the material was not posted freely on the Internet, as shown by the fact that the general public still can't access the great mass of it. Wikileaks is, whether you like it or not, a media organization, not "the Internet."

In the event that the "media" then "broadcasts" the information that you handed over to it, in such a way the enemy is able to readily retreive it, such as on the "internet" then yes you have as the charge states, willfully provided aid to the enemy through indirect means. The only purpose you would have in giving said material to the "media" is in the hope that they WOULD in fact broadcast it.

So it is, under all conditions, an act of "aiding the enemy" for a member of the military to release classified information to the media, and therefore potentially a capital offense.

Very well.

Of course, this leads to the practical consequences I'm talking about: a further tightening of the iron curtain around American foreign policy and the activities of the US military in colonial wars. While I understand that the military and espionage organization has a collective interest in keeping that barrier in place, I don't think it's in the public interest that they do so.

How is this different from someone who willfully commits other acts which undermine our ability to fight an enemy? Such as US soldiers who take pictures of US soldiers torturing people, which subsequently get released and are used on recruitment posters by the enemy?

Where does the definition of "aiding the enemy" stop?

The difference is the scope and the intent. Manning handed over thousands of documents, whether they contained evidence of abuse, or whether they were combat operations or the names of operatives in the field. The example you cited is very specific and very clearly a "whistle blowing" action.

Could you expand on what you consider to be the critical issue that draws a line based on scope and intent?

Manning's avowed intent was to release information about US dealings (including air attacks on civilians) which he perceived as atrocious or unethical, and which he believed the media needed to know about. I do not understand how you can call his intent criminal without criminalizing all intent to alert the public to the conduct of the military or security agencies.

The scope of Manning's actions may well have created a risk, fine. Out of curiousity, what if (hypothetically), he had gone over all the files himself and deleted any that he thought contained sensitive information that could be directly used by the enemy? If, for example, he had only released gun camera footage of helicopter gunships shooting journalists, diplomatic cables revealing the Americans' cooperation with China on quashing the Copenhagen agreements, and the like? Would he then not be vulnerable to charges of 'aiding the enemy'?

...My use of the term 'treason-like' was purely rhetorical, because I am trying to make the point here that accusations of "aiding and abetting the enemy" should be used very cautiously. Especially when (as with Manning) the harm caused is vague and relies heavily on indirect arguments about "well, if the organization he handed the material to is careless, then potentially the enemy might be aided."

I'll agree that it is "treason like". And I still think it applies in the case of PFC Manning.

And I repeat that we should be very cautious about charging people with a treason-like offense when the argument for their having aided the enemy is indirect. That kind of precedent spreads far and fast; if all I need to do to convict you of treason (or similar offenses) is to make the argument that what you did might have made an enemy's life easier, there is virtually no limit to the number of activities I can turn into a treason charge.