US soldier goes on trial over security leaks

In a perfect world Bradley would be dead long ago.

Paschendale said:

Element 2b. It's in your quote. You quoted it. And whistleblowing is not as clearly defined as you seem to think it is.

Click to expand...

What is clearly agreed on is that said individual goes to a figure of authority - actually treating it as a serious matter to be dealt with.

Not just randomly releasing info to the net blindly and aimlessly.

Whistleblowing protection isn't meant to protect hackers and snoops.

Paschendale said:

Those are all components of the same charge. They must all be met. It's an "and", not an "or".

Also, your link is to a procedural manual, it does not delve into the elements of an offense. This link here: Committing Treason, discusses the four essential elements of treason, taken from three supreme court cases. "(1) the defendant's intention to betray the United States, (2) manifested in an overt act, (3) testified to by two witnesses, (4) which gave aid and comfort to the enemy." There is absolutely no evidence to suggest intent to the betray the United States. Manning acted with intent to benefit the country with discussion and transparency of the government. He was not intending to aid any hostile force.

Manning's actions do not constitute treason.

Click to expand...

I don't think you understand or you have been grossly misinformed. PFC Manning is being charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He's being charged with an Article 104-Aiding the Enemy and I believe an Article 92-Disobeying an order. He's not being tried in federal court with treason, he's being tried by a military court-marital.

However, under the UCMJ, each Article contains elements which are separate, more specific violations under the general article. The link I provided is the front to back process for processing crimes under the UCMJ.

Aunt Spiker said:

What is clearly agreed on is that said individual goes to a figure of authority - actually treating it as a serious matter to be dealt with.

Not just randomly releasing info to the net blindly and aimlessly.

Whistleblowing protection isn't meant to protect hackers and snoops.

Click to expand...

No, it most certainly includes going to the press. Which is what Manning did. And "blindly and aimlessly" is an unfounded assertion that is totally contradicted by the evidence. Manning had a specific aim, to expose questionable and illegal activities by the government to the people, and to stimulate discussion about foreign policy.

Fishstyx said:

I don't think you understand or you have been grossly misinformed. PFC Manning is being charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He's being charged with an Article 104-Aiding the Enemy and I believe an Article 92-Disobeying an order. He's not being tried in federal court with treason, he's being tried by a military court-marital.

However, under the UCMJ, each Article contains elements which are separate, more specific violations under the general article. The link I provided is the front to back process for processing crimes under the UCMJ.

Click to expand...

Then that's not treason he's being charged with. Make up your mind. If I have been grossly misinformed, I have been misinformed by you.

Yes, in the UCMJ, which you did not cite in your quote, there are 5 different charges. All of them specifically list intent as a requirement except the first, which certainly does not have any language to suggest strict liability. Intent is an element of nearly every criminal charge, both in the US court system and in military court. There is no evidence to prove this intent. Manning did not aid any enemies. He went to the press.

TheDemSocialist said:

So prosecutors wanna prove that Bin-Laden asked for information from Wikileaks? So by the logic wouldnt any source that Bin-Laden goes to for intelligence and information can be seen as "aiding the enemy"? I still can wrap my head around of someone telling the truth and showing how governments work.

Click to expand...

They wouldn't have to, unless they found evidence supporting that he did. He stole classified information, and had it publicly disseminated, which also put the information in the hands of the enemy. It's a capital offense, regardless of this idiot's intentions, and he knew this.

Sarcogito said:

But how is it whistleblowing if you don't even know what it is you are releasing?

Click to expand...

Exactly so, and that is the crux of the matter for me.

If Manning had released only the video of the helicopter atrocity, then he is a whistleblower. He saw something horrific that was not being dealt with by the chain of command, and he acted. If that was his only "crime", I'd be on his side.

But it wasn't his only crime. He proceded over a period of weeks to download more than 700,000 classified documents and dump them onto the internet without having the slightest clue as to what was contained in those documents. They could have contained spy lists, confidential informant lists, classified military procedures and reports... he didn't know and he didn't care.

That's treason. And that's why I'm not on his side.

Paschendale said:

Then that's not treason he's being charged with. Make up your mind. If I have been grossly misinformed, I have been misinformed by you.

Yes, in the UCMJ, which you did not cite in your quote, there are 5 different charges. All of them specifically list intent as a requirement except the first, which certainly does not have any language to suggest strict liability. Intent is an element of nearly every criminal charge, both in the US court system and in military court. There is no evidence to prove this intent. Manning did not aid any enemies. He went to the press.

Click to expand...

i never mentioned treason in a single one of my posts. And you should reread Article 104 in my link including the explanations. The only one that mention intent is Attempting to Aid an Enemy. The passing of intelligence specifically states direct and indirect methods. With the training Manning had received and his knowledge of the various terrorist organizations intelligence gathering methods, he was aware that the information he released could be used by them. Sorry man, this isn't and average Joe who stumbled on a memory stick with piles of government secrets, this was a trained intelligence specialist.

And there a plenty of crimes that intent is irrelevant in.

Fishstyx said:

Re-read article 104 and the elements. Intention is not a factor so irrelevant.

And he's not a whistleblower. A whistleblower releases specific information related to a gross violation, he didn't do that. Nothing he released revealed crimes. Some embarrassing and unflattering information but nothing criminal.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ. The deliberate and indiscriminate killing of noncombatant civilians, and those attempting to administer medical attention, is considered a serious crime in any civilised society. That one's military acts, on occasion, like an armed rabble, is not a justification for barbarous behaviour. When those responsible are identified, and charged with at least culpable manslaughter, we can discuss Mannings 'crimes'. Until then, it appears as scapegoating and an exercise in vindictiveness.

Leo said:

I beg to differ. The deliberate and indiscriminate killing of noncombatant civilians, and those attempting to administer medical attention, is considered a serious crime in any civilised society. That one's military acts, on occasion, like an armed rabble, is not a justification for barbarous behaviour. When those responsible are identified, and charged with at least culpable manslaughter, we can discuss Mannings 'crimes'. Until then, it appears as scapegoating and an exercise in vindictiveness.

Click to expand...

Thats your personal interpretation of the events that took place, the two investigations and review after the video was made public disgaree. And this event didn't occur in "civilised society," it occurred in a battle field where things aren't nearly as cut and dry as you seem to think it is.

Fishstyx said:

Thats your personal interpretation of the events that took place, the two investigations and review after the video was made public disgaree. And this event didn't occur in "civilised society," it occurred in a battle field where things aren't nearly as cut and dry as you seem to think it is.

Click to expand...

All matters of opinion are personal interpretations, and the military investigating itself is less than convincing in any society. There is no need to put the term civilised in quotation marks - it is not a debatable concept. Most of the world knows what a civilised society is.

As to the killings, where they occurred is irrelevant. The facts remain that unarmed and noncombatant civilians were deliberately targeted and killed - that constitutes a crime, no matter which inquiry whitewashes it. The fact also remains that had Bradley Manning not passed that information on to someone who published it - no examination would have taken place.

Leo said:

All matters of opinion are personal interpretations, and the military investigating itself is less than convincing in any society. There is no need to put the term civilised in quotation marks - it is not a debatable concept. Most of the world knows what a civilised society is.

As to the killings, where they occurred is irrelevant. The facts remain that unarmed and noncombatant civilians were deliberately targeted and killed - that constitutes a crime, no matter which inquiry whitewashes it. The fact also remains that had Bradley Manning not passed that information on to someone who published it - no examination would have taken place.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I have seen many investigations take place without having to make the national news to prompt them. In my opinion things like this are best handled internally. What if his supposed "whistleblowing" led to a blow back on troops that had absolutely nothing to do with the incident in question? What happens when it enrages the locals and people who traditionally are not combatants take up arms to retaliate, causing an escalation in IEDS, Ambushes, and sniping? The way the media reports stories these days they could be (and frequently are) completely wrong but the damage is done.

Paratrooper said:

I disagree. I have seen many investigations take place without having to make the national news to prompt them. In my opinion things like this are best handled internally. What if his supposed "whistleblowing" led to a blow back on troops that had absolutely nothing to do with the incident in question? What happens when it enrages the locals and people who traditionally are not combatants take up arms to retaliate, causing an escalation in IEDS, Ambushes, and sniping? The way the media reports stories these days they could be (and frequently are) completely wrong but the damage is done.

Click to expand...

I think perhaps we must agree to disagree. You are entitled to your opinion, and I have made mine quite clear.

Lets look at it from a non military perspective. Lets say a man is accused of being a child molestor and in retribution someone beats him to death. Afterwords it is found that he was completely innocent, is the accuser not at least partly responsible?

People tend to be more open to "whistle blowers" in the military for several reasons:
It could be that they don't support the mission and support any effort to undermine it.

Or it could just be a symptom of this era where arm chair generals think there should be 100% transparency. That they have a right to know every detail regardless of classification/ sensitive nature of the job/mission.

You should be well aware that a simple video (particularly if it has been edited by the media) does not give the entire perspective of an event.

You might see a video of police beating a dude down that was conveniently edited to remove the previous event of the dude assaulting the officers (those are critical details that entirely change things).

In the case of this particular video you make some assumptions as many do because you don't have all the details.
Firstly your looking at a FLIR footage which is not exactly crystal clear. What's to say a guy didn't fire of a rocket and then toss it a side? What's to say he wasn't setting up an IED, or running to a weapons cache?

I have seen personally how the news can and consistently do get it wrong in reporting events on the battlefield.

Either because of their bias or in their zeal to be the first one to get the story out, they often go with rumors and rarely recant when their version of events proves wrong.

As far as Manning is concerned I believe his actions were
Premeditated. If he was simply concerned about this one event, it does not justify the largest security leak in US history.

Moon said:

I hope I'm not expected to defend this cookie cutter stereotype you've created.

It's the duty of the press to ask the tough questions, and that duty is correctly protected by the Constitution.

It's the duty of those entrusted with classified information to not divulge that information to anyone not cleared for it.

It shouldn't be a criminal offense to ask a question. The whole notion is absurd.

Click to expand...

You think I created this stereotype? Did a black man create the stereotype that white men can't jump? The thing about stereotypes is that they are usually true to life and they are only branded racist or ignorant because the people that fit into them find the truth uncomfortable.

You are playing into the stereotype yourself. Was it the duty of liberals to ask questions and seek out "truth" under the Bush administration? Of course it was, however, conservatives weren't singing the tune you are singing here in this post. If it is the job of the media to seek out "truth" (and then twist it into bias commentary), then it is their duty no matter the administration. I don't like the media, politicians, or their many sheep that contradict who they are according to the story they like at the time.

MSgt said:

You think I created this stereotype? Did a black man create the stereotype that white men can't jump? The thing about stereotypes is that they are usually true to life and they are only branded racist or ignorant because the people that fit into them find the truth uncomfortable.

You are playing into the stereotype yourself. Was it the duty of liberals to ask questions and seek out "truth" under the Bush administration? Of course it was, however, conservatives weren't singing the tune you are singing here in this post. If it is the job of the media to seek out "truth" (and then twist it into bias commentary), then it is their duty no matter the administration. I don't like the media, politicians, or their many sheep that contradict who they are according to the story they like at the time.

Click to expand...

It's not uncomfortable, because it's utter nonsense. If you have to rely on that foolish notion to support your own opinion, then you probably need to reassess that opinion. Considering I don't watch the commentary shows on Fox, your stereotype completely fails with me. Maybe it's time to find a new narrative you can spout off at random intervals?

Since you don't seem to get it, allow me to repeat:

It's the duty of the press to ask the tough questions, and that duty is correctly protected by the Constitution.

There is no party affiliation in that comment. If you can find otherwise in any of my posts, please post it.