Mixed Verdict For The Traitor Manning....

[Lord Jim]

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.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi- ... 2878.story

While it is of course unfortunate that he was not found guilty of the top charge, the 19 he was convicted of, including the 5 espionage charges, should give him a considerable amount of time to contemplate the wisdom of his actions.

[Gob]

Can he serve his sentence in Wales?

[Scooter]

I was going to start a thread expecting that there were those who would insist on calling Manning a traitor even though a military court ruled against such a characterization.

I really should play the ponies.

[Gob]

"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]

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]

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.

[dales]

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.

Sprechen Sie Deutsch?

[oldr_n_wsr]

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.

No, I'm saying with the internetbloggoforumtwitterfacebookmypagewificellphonetextingipadandroidblutooth (not to mention good old fashioned tv news and printed newspapers) that we have now, keeping the lid on when/where a military action the size of D-Day would be impossible.

[dgs49]

Of course we all know that punishment does not act as a deterrent to crime, so...

[rubato]

Did he do anything as bad as selling advanced weapons to the Iranian mullahs, selling bio- weapons to Saddam Hussein, or supporting mass killers like Savimbi or Pinochet?

THAT would be treason.

Yrs,
rubato

[dales]

Since you fired up the wayback machine, let's discuss Benedict Arnold.

[Econoline]

Jim: I think you--and others here--might appreciate Jim Wright's (of Stonekettle Station) blog post on this...especially since you may have gotten the impression, from the last time I linked to that site, that Wright is some kinda lefty liberal pinko. (He makes it clear on the site that he really, really doesn't want people reposting whole blog posts of his or excerpts longer than a paragraph, so you'll have to make do with this link and a short excerpt.) Enjoy.

Heroes and Traitors, The Bradley Manning Verdict

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.

[Lord Jim]

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...

Econo:

Yes Econo, I did get the impression earlier the guy was a lefty pinko. From that article it appears he's more of an iconoclast; his view of Manning as a “shitbag traitor” certainly mirrors my own.

As for The Traitor Manning's sentence:

My understanding is that he has neither expressed contrition for his crimes nor co-operated with authorities to explain exactly everything he did. If this is correct, then is seems obvious to me that he should receive the full 136 years he is eligible for and croak in Leavenworth.

If he were fully apologetic and cooperative, I might be willing to see him get a parole date in 30 years or so....

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."

Well, Mr. Wizner is certainly entitled to his opinions, (and even his gross mischaracterizations) but the fact of the matter is that given the huge scope and extent of his crimes, The Traitor Manning was charged very appropriately.

And if his convictions and sentencing helps to dissuade others from betraying their country and endangering their fellow citizens, unlike Mr. Wizner, I see that as a big plus.

[Scooter]

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?

The part where they found him not guilty of aiding the enemy.

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

If espionage and treason were the same thing, we wouldn't need two different words to describe them.

But once again, thanks for giving me additional evidence that I should be playing the ponies.

[Joe Guy]

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

From Webster online for the definition impaired....

Definition of TRAITOR

1: one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty

2: one who commits treason

Examples of TRAITOR

She has been called a traitor to the liberal party's cause.

He was a traitor who betrayed his country by selling military secrets to the enemy.

[Lord Jim]

Beat me too it Joe...

The Traitor Manning betrayed his country; that makes him a traitor. The undisputed facts of what he did that are in the public record alone, make it accurate to characterize him as such.

Julius Rosenberg was convicted under the espionage act; he was certainly a traitor.

Alger Hiss (who flew to Moscow to receive The Order Of Lenin after the Yalta Conference) was only convicted of perjury; but he was a traitor of the first order.

[Scooter]

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.

Your Founding Fathers defined treason in a very precise way, and they did so because in the UK its meaning had become stretched at times to the point where it meant doing pretty much anything seen to question the authority of the king and/or his agents. They didn't want to see the word "traitor" misused in the same way in order to punish anyone who would merely challenge authority. It's of the greatest disrespect to them and to the ideals they were trying to uphold , as well as a complete disregard for the lessons of your own history, to throw the term around as loosely as has again become fashionable in the last decade or so.

[Joe Guy]

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.

What part of Manning betraying another's trust or being false to an obligation or duty do you not understand?

You don't understand the definition of traitor or you wouldn't make those comparisons.

Or maybe you didn't read it.

Or understand it.

Whatever it takes to make your point, I guess.

[Scooter]

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

The part where such a definition is so loose as to be completely meaningless, particularly with a word that carries as much power as "traitor" does. My employer catches me sleeping on the job. He can rightly say that I "betrayed his trust" that I would be working the hours he was paying me for. That makes me a traitor? I sign my name to a loan agreement, having no intention of paying it back, thus "being false to an obligation or duty". That makes me a traitor?

The fact that a usage has become commonplace enough to merit mention in a dictionary doesn't make it appropriate. I gave my reasons against throwing around the word "traitor" casually. 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.

But apparently not. Carry on then.

[Lord Jim]

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.

I see a world of difference between disagreeing with a President's policy and stealing and releasing 735,000 classified documents, many of which revealed sources and methods of on going operations putting numerous military and civilian lives at risk.

I don't see the use of the word traitor in a case like that to be at all "casual". It fits like a glove. (Just as it does in the the case of The Traitor Snowden.)