Plan B Forum

Bradley Manning acquitted of aiding enemy, still may face long jail term

FORT MEADE, Maryland —

A military judge on Tuesday found U.S. soldier Bradley Manning not guilty of aiding the enemy, the most serious charge he faced for handing over documents to WikiLeaks, but he still likely faces a long jail term after being found guilty of all 19 other counts.

Colonel Denise Lind ruled the 25-year-old Army private first class was guilty of five espionage charges, among many others, for the largest unauthorized release of classified U.S. data in the nation's history.

The trove of documents, including battlefield videos and diplomatic cables, was a huge boost to the profile of the WikiLeaks anti-secrecy website and its founder Julian Assange. Tuesday's verdict could be a blow to his efforts to encourage people with access to secret information to release it publicly.[One can only hope.]

Supporters of Manning were heartened by the not guilty ruling on the most serious charge, though WikiLeaks said the conviction represented "a very serious new precedent."

Manning, who was working as a low-level intelligence analyst in Baghdad when he was arrested three years ago, could face up to 136 years in military prison. Lind will take up the question of his sentence on Wednesday.

The outcome of the sentencing phase will be crucial for Manning and, more broadly, other future government leakers.

"This is a historic verdict," said Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. “Manning is one of very few people ever charged under the Espionage Act for leaks to the media. The only other person who was convicted was pardoned after trial.

“Despite the lack of any evidence that he intended any harm to the United States, Manning faces decades in prison. That’s a very scary precedent.”

The U.S. government was pushing for a life sentence without parole, which would have come if Manning had been convicted of aiding the enemy by leaking of information that included battlefield reports from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

It viewed the action as a serious breach of national security, while anti-secrecy activists praised it as shining a light on shadowy U.S. operations abroad.

"While we're relieved that Mr. Manning was acquitted of the most dangerous charge, the ACLU has long held the view that leaks to the press in the public interest should not be prosecuted under the Espionage Act," said Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. "Since Manning already plead guilty to charges of leaking information – which carry significant punishment – it seems clear that the government was seeking to intimidate anyone who might consider revealing valuable information in the future.""While we're relieved that Mr. Manning was acquitted of the most dangerous charge, the ACLU has long held the view that leaks to the press in the public interest should not be prosecuted under the Espionage Act," said Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. "Since Manning already plead guilty to charges of leaking information – which carry significant punishment – it seems clear that the government was seeking to intimidate anyone who might consider revealing valuable information in the future."

oldr_n_wsr wrote:I've said it before, if the D-Day invasion were to be planned/take place now-a-days, the Germans would know about it weeks (if not months) ahead of time.

Big RR wrote:oldr--are you really equating the information he released to detailed military plans for an invasion in a declared war? I don't see the connection.

But first, a disclaimer: while I’ll attempt to be as dispassionate as possible, I admit right up front that my opinion is strongly influenced by my experience as a US military intelligence officer.

Of course it is, and I won’t try to blow smoke up your ass by attempting to pretend otherwise.

I spent nearly my entire adult life in the field of classified military intelligence at levels far above anything Manning ever had access to. I have extensive experience in this field. I have detailed knowledge of the kind of material Manning compromised and the networks he got it from and, in fact, some of that material might have been things I was involved in and information that I helped acquire and produce. For more than twenty years it was my sworn duty to protect the military secrets of the United States of America and her allies. This was an obligation I accepted of my own free will and I took my oath very, very seriously indeed. And like everybody else who has retired from my former profession, I am still under certain restrictions regarding the protection of classified information, not just the information, but also the methodology surrounding its collection and processing and use – an obligation that I also take seriously and will not violate.

even though a military court ruled against such a characterization.

said Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. "Since Manning already plead guilty to charges of leaking information – which carry significant punishment – it seems clear that the government was seeking to intimidate anyone who might consider revealing valuable information in the future."

Lord Jim wrote:

even though a military court ruled against such a characterization.

That's interesting...

Which part of the decision specifically ruled against characterizing The Traitor Manning as a traitor?

Personally I don't see conviction on five counts of espionage as absolving him of the title...

A person doesn't have to commit treason in order to be called a traitor.

Scooter wrote:

A person doesn't have to commit treason in order to be called a traitor.

By that logic, one can be a murderer without committing murder. Or an adulterer without committing adultery. Or a thief without committing theft.

Joe Guy wrote:What part of...betraying another's trust or being false to an obligation or duty do you not understand?

I would have thought there had been enough of that going around in the Bush era, when every time someone disagreed with the administration they were accused of being "with the terrorists", that it might give people pause against being so careless in using it.