
Manning not guilty of aiding the enemy, but convicted of multiple other counts - mikegreenspan
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/30/bradley-manning-trial-verdict-live
======
falk
I thought this was an interesting tidbit from the Center for Constitutional
Rights.

"While the "aiding the enemy" charges (on which Manning was rightly acquitted)
received the most attention from the mainstream media, the Espionage Act
itself is a discredited relic of the WWI era, created as a tool to suppress
political dissent and antiwar activism, and it is outrageous that the
government chose to invoke it in the first place against Manning. Government
employees who blow the whistle on war crimes, other abuses and government
incompetence should be protected under the First Amendment.

We now live in a country where someone who exposes war crimes can be sentenced
to life even if not found guilty of aiding the enemy, while those responsible
for the war crimes remain free. If the government equates being a
whistleblower with espionage or aiding the enemy, what is the future of
journalism in this country? What is the future of the First Amendment?

Manning’s treatment, prosecution, and sentencing have one purpose: to silence
potential whistleblowers and the media as well. One of the main targets has
been our clients, WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, for publishing the leaks.
Given the U.S. government’s treatment of Manning, Assange should be granted
asylum in his home country of Australia and given the protections all
journalists and publishers deserve.

We stand in solidarity with Bradley Manning and call for the government to
take heed and end its assault on the First Amendment."

[http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/ccr-
condemns-m...](http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/ccr-condemns-
manning-verdict%2C-questions-future-of-first-amendment)

~~~
bwaldrep
By volunteering to join the military and obtain security clearance, Manning
waived his First Amendment right to disclose anything he saw fit. If he only
broke the law to reveal evidence of government wrongdoing, then there might be
a case that he was just a whistleblower. However, leaking hundreds of
thousands of additional classified documents that demonstrate no government
wrongdoing is indefensible.

While some may believe that the incriminating leaks were excusable, the rest
of his behavior should not be forgotten. Honing in on one aspect of Manning's
actions does not justify making him a martyr or painting this trial as purely
an assault on the First Amendment.

~~~
djcapelis
> By volunteering to join the military and obtain security clearance, Manning
> waived his First Amendment right to disclose anything he saw fit.

Yes. And how soon is it that our government locks everyone into a similar
deal? Over 3 million people have security clearances. (And many more who don't
have active ones, but are still bound by many of the rules around clearances.)
How soon until you need clearance to do serious work in any number of areas?

How soon until giving up those rights is part of doing business? And is
standard practice?

It already is in some areas of my field. I know of other subfields where the
same is true.

Maybe it is time that we start protecting the rights of all and not pretending
like those who have security clearances are an extremely rare exception whose
rights can be waived without issue.

I'm not saying the rules should be that anyone can disclose whatever
classified information they like, because obviously that doesn't work. But I
don't think because someone made a choice at some point in their lives to get
a clearance means we shouldn't discuss what circumstances and latitude they
should get to speak their minds.

~~~
rayiner
> I'm not saying the rules should be that anyone can disclose whatever
> classified information they like

But that's exactly what Manning did. If he were being prosecuted for
discretely releasing specific information about specific crimes, we'd be
talking about a different case.

~~~
djcapelis
> we'd be talking about a different case.

Yet people say the same thing about Snowden, who seems to have "discretely
released specific information about specific crimes" to a larger extent than
Manning did.

And while we're talking about it. It wasn't like the Pentagon Papers were all
that specific. Ellsberg leaked the 47 volumes wholesale.

~~~
saraid216
I'm too unfamiliar with the specifics to respond with precision, but I will
point out that "47 volumes" is not necessarily unspecific. Nor does it
necessitate quantity of specific crimes.

All it really says is that it was useful, for some reason or another, to
divide the information into 47 parts.

------
nikcub
I was prepared to be outraged at the verdict after the defense appeal to
vacate the 'aiding enemy' charge was thrown out by the judge the other day[0],
but being found not guilty is very important in terms of both his sentence and
precedent for future military whistleblowers.

It also vindicates the defense decision to stick with a military hearing
rather than a ~~civil~~ jury[1], which almost certainly could have been
stacked to find a guilty verdict on the aiding the enemy charge (especially in
Virginia - the preferred jurisdiction for fed government prosecution because
of the slanted jury pool of ex-military and ex-gov types).

This is probably the best Manning could have hoped for, the evidence was
stacked heavily against him on the other charges and he had already pleaded
guilty to most.

[0] [http://www.thenation.com/blog/175355/judge-refuses-throw-
out...](http://www.thenation.com/blog/175355/judge-refuses-throw-out-key-
aiding-enemy-charge-against-pfc-bradley-manning)

[1] Thanks mpayne, you're right - military jury

~~~
mpyne
Manning was never under threat of being judged by a civilian jury. It would
have been a _military_ jury, who even if pulled from Ft. Meade would have come
from all walks of life before joining the military.

Likewise I don't think this means what you think it means for future
whistleblowers. He could still very well be sentenced effectively to
confinement for life, after all, and the thing that saved his bacon regarding
'aiding the enemy' is that the judge added another element to the charge,
which the prosecution then failed to prove.

With that said, I don't think it could have gone better for Manning under a
jury trial, so it certainly looks prudent from his end.

------
breckinloggins
This is a pretty balanced verdict, in my opinion. It upholds the law without
further perpetuating the reputation of the US government as a body that will
cry "enemy combatant!" and "terrorism!" at every political opportunity.

Not that that still doesn't happen, of course.

~~~
mtgx
But doesn't the Espionage charge achieve kind of the same thing? Was he really
spying for anyone? He wasn't. So I still don't see this as a fair verdict.

~~~
phaus
It's pretty much impossible for any judge or jury to find him not guilty of
all charges when he leaked over 700000 documents that had absolutely nothing
to do with anything illegal that the government was doing. If he had only
stolen and leaked incriminating information, his case would have been much
stronger.

~~~
foobarqux
> If he had only stolen and leaked incriminating information, his case would
> have been much stronger.

I don't think that's true under USC and even less likely to be true under UCMJ

~~~
phaus
Well, this judge acquitted him for leaking the video of American troops
killing civilians. That's one of the key things that I'm basing my opinion on.

~~~
foobarqux
He was found guilty on every charge except aiding the enemy. Why do you think
he was acquitted?

------
ferdo
Manning is far more heroic than any other serving member of the Military-
Industrial-Surveillance Complex.

Shoot, this "war" isn't even declared so I'm unsure how he could even be
accused of aiding an undeclared enemy.

~~~
lolwutf
Whoa, whoa, whoa, hombre.

To broadly estimate the heroism of _every other serving member_ in any
singular statement is foolhardy, at best.

There are lots of good people doing good, heroic, insanely patriotic,
admirable, and honorable things in that Military-Industrial-Surveillance
Complex you describe.

Don't let the mistakes and abuses of the top give you some feeling that the
system and everyone in it is corrupt. That system is literally putting
themselves in front of bullets right now to defend your right to have such
misguided ideas. What are you doing today?

~~~
toomuchtodo
_Don 't let the mistakes and abuses of the top give you some feeling that the
system and everyone in it is corrupt. That system is literally putting
themselves in front of bullets right now to defend your right to have such
misguided ideas. What are you doing today?_

Careful there chief. I'm not sitting in a swank control room in Vegas killing
innocent men and women via drone strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

No one is putting themselves in front of bullets for _my_ rights. They're
putting themselves in front of bullets for their own reasons, but not for me.

~~~
bwaldrep
Again with the sweeping characterizations. Why do you assume that every single
person in the armed forces is corrupt?

As someone with a brother and several close friends in the military, this
attitude is disheartening. You are free to believe that the leadership or even
large swaths of the military is corrupt, but you cannot honestly state that no
one is putting themselves in front of bullets for your rights. I have
personally met several who repeatedly face bullets and IEDs because of their
belief that they are protecting the rights and safety of civilians back home.
You may believe their actions are naive or misguided, but that doesn't mean
that they are all mindless drones motivated by purely selfish reasons.

~~~
toomuchtodo
As arjie stated, I don't think they're corrupt. I'm saying they're not serving
my interests as a US citizen. My liberty isn't in peril, and if it were, I'd
be the first to sign up with BDUs and rifle in hand (my brother served as a
Marine).

As I said, no one is standing in front of bullets for my rights. I'll stand in
front of bullets for my own rights thank you, when the time actually arrives
that my rights are threatened.

~~~
lolwutf
Well, _technically speaking_ if there isn't _anyone_ signed up with BDUs and a
rifle in hand, then your liberty _would_ be in peril. I mean, if the US
government and her lands were just up for whoever wanted to call dibs, _I 'd_
take it.

That said, it stands to reason that the reason why your liberty isn't
_imminently_ in peril is because someone is already signed up and out there
defending it.

To restate everything in broad terms: there's lots of people out in the world
that don't like us. Your liberty is _always_ in peril.

Do you want a totally anarchistic society, perhaps? I, for one, don't.

~~~
lolwutf
scott_karana - What you're describing is true, but is closer to anarchy (which
I'm not quite an advocate for).

Do I think the military forces have grown to an excessive level? Yes.

~~~
cobrausn
No, it's not. It's advocating what the founders originally intended, which was
a well-armed militia that obviates the need for an Army. In time of war (on
American soil) they would organize like an army to fight off invaders. They
did advocate for a Navy, however, because it was (and I suppose still is)
necessary for the establishment of free trade routes between nations.

I am former military, as an aside, and once found the notion of not having an
Army pretty silly, but the notion has grown on me slightly.

------
guelo
Too bad Manning wasn't illegally torturing people, Obama would have let him
destroy any evidence and blocked any investigation.

------
guelo
Manning is probably facing life in prison on the espionage charges. The
acquittal on aiding the enemy is interesting, but practically not that
important.

~~~
SwellJoe
It is important for future whistleblowers. It is possibly not important for
Manning's sentence...though, the willingness of future presidents (maybe we'll
get an honest one eventually) to pardon Manning would be greatly diminished
had he been convicted of aiding the enemy.

It's also the only sane result. Even people within the various branches have
said they knew of no harm that had come from the released information.

------
guelo
Here is a useful chart explaining the charges and verdict,
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/special/national/mannin...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/special/national/manning-verdict)

------
falk
He faces up to 130 years in prison. Wow.

~~~
adestefan
And once again someone takes a bunch of numbers and blindly adds them up. Same
thing happened when that guy in San Diego was looking at 100+ years for spray
painting the Bank of America.

It's really up to the judge to sentence him. In the end he'll probably get
10-20 years.

------
jayferd
Yeah but they all boil down to the central charge of "embarrassing the
government".

------
short_circut
So I read (on wikipedia so not the best source) the key tenants of the
espionage act which he was found guilty under. I find it to be written
generally enough to be ambiguous in a similar vein to recent laws such as the
NDAA not really defining hostilites and enemies. I wonder what are the
limitations on it? Was the constitutional definition of treason not enough.
Again I feel like overly broad language in a law used to convict people that
politicians deem need to be convicted.

edit: I think this further proves my point/adds to its ambiguousness
[http://rt.com/usa/court-ruling-whistleblowers-
prosecution-76...](http://rt.com/usa/court-ruling-whistleblowers-
prosecution-768/)

------
nawitus
Military judge? Military lawyer? Military jail? Seems pretty.. well.. fascist
(in the original meaning of the word).

~~~
comrade_ogilvy
As a volunteer member of the armed services, he is expected to be held
accountable by standards that do not necessarily apply to civilians. That can
cut both ways. In this case, it is likely to the defendants disadvantage, but
that was always part of the context of his possible actions before they
happened.

------
pvnick
Yes! I'm at work but started cheering in my chair when I read the verdict of
Not Guilty on aiding the enemy. Was truly expecting the worse with that, but
to hear a "not guilty" charge on this was very reassuring.

~~~
llamataboot
Still probably multiple decades in prison, but not guilty on the most
egregious charge is certainly a tiny breath of fresh air

~~~
pvnick
I agree. The problem with that charge in particular, however, is that it would
have had extremely far-reaching implications for all investigative journalism

~~~
rayiner
Given that it was a military trial under the UCMJ, no it wouldn't have.

~~~
pvnick
I realize you're very knowledgable in legal matters and enjoy playing the
nitpicking contrarian in these cases, shining the light of truth on all us
hopeless ignoramuses, but regardless of under whose jurisdiction the trial
actually took place, yes, the US government equating leaks with the definition
of treason would absolutely set a precedent that would spill over both into
civilian courts as well as into the minds of potential leakers and
journalists.

~~~
rayiner
This isn't a nitpick, it cuts down the premise of your whole argument.
Military tribunals decide lots of different things--when was the last time you
heard a court or a regular person contemplate what would've been the result
under military law? This isn't a question of legal experience--I'm asking
based on your experience as a civilian person out in the world. Our culture
draws an extremely deep distinction between military and civilian law.

~~~
pvnick
Hey, I wanted to apologize for my personal attack earlier. I've been having a
bad day and took some of that frustration out on you.

But as for your question, I'm speaking less about legal precedent (of course
there's a difference between military and civilian court) and more about
perception to would-be whistleblowers and government officials that this is
what happens now to people that leak secrets, especially for such a publicized
case.

------
dil8
Its a sad day for truth... and a sad day from democracy

------
mempko
His leak stopped the Iraq war.

~~~
rz2k
Do a lot of people actually believe that it contributed to it in any
significant way?

~~~
mpyne
Apparently there's one more than I thought before.

On the other hand Manning's leak _has_ lead to the Arab Spring, if other
reports are to be believed. As Egypt continues its horrible unrest and
thousands continue to die in Syria (with absolutely no certainty they'll ever
overthrow Assad) I wonder if we will decide it was all worth it in the end?

~~~
jessaustin
Careful. That same argument undermines the sole remaining justification for
the entire USA campaign in Iraq, that we were somehow "improving" their
society.

~~~
mpyne
I know. I've said as much (in reverse) to people pointing out that the USA
shouldn't have been in Iraq but still somehow claiming that what Manning did
is worth it if it leads to democracy in Arab countries.

But the USA never should have gone into Iraq based on what the leaders knew at
the time. Why do you assume I think otherwise?

~~~
jessaustin
I assume nothing!!1!

------
joering2
interesting read i submitted an hour ago:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6127558](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6127558)

Edit: IMHO interesting.

~~~
untog
That's not an interesting read, it is an out of date article from CNN.

------
jgalt212
I commend Manning for sticking around to face the music and not going AWOL. As
such, in my eyes, he's way more of a genuine activist than Snowden.

There can be no Letter from Birmingham Jail without the jail.

~~~
mcantelon
The strategy one employs to deal with being punished for revealing wrongdoing
has nothing to do with how "genuine" the activism is. To suggest that Snowden,
who has given up his life to alert humanity to the worst surveillance program
in the world's history, isn't a "genuine" activist is, frankly, ridiculous.

~~~
tome
> the worst surveillance program in the world's history

"worst" in scale, certainly. What other criteria is it "worst" on?

~~~
mcantelon
It's worst in breadth and likely quite bad in terms of depth given their
resources (and the ability, IIRC, to listen through landlines and cell
phones). Surveillance depth will likely get much worse in the future, however,
as they strongarm more companies into baking surveillance capabilities into
mass-market devices (although they'll be competing, in this regard, with
foreign manufacturers who will be/are also doing the same thing).

[http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/petraeus-tv-
remote/](http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/petraeus-tv-remote/)

