Wonder how this will go? If this defense is successfull, will it hurt allowing gays future enlistment in the military?

People against Obama's bill to repeal the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, may try to exploit this case, if it is indeed successful.

Would gays who serve with honor, approve of this defense?

Do you care to prove your assertion first? As far as I know the helicopter shooting was not a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice or any other applicable law.

There are two issues that I believe need to be recognized in this case.

1. Manning did not carefully read and select some reports that he truly thought indicated a legal violation and decide to send them to be published. Manning blindly bulk downloaded hundreds of thousands of classified/sensitive documents with no idea, or concern, whether these almost a quarter of a million documents indicated anything legally or morally wrongdoing. Manning even loaded in code to automatically download files with no intervention from Manning. If Manning did not read these documents (and it is taking the military years to read all of them now) the argument that he stole documents that indicate wrongdoing fails. Manning had and still has no idea what those documents contained or whether they indicate any wrongdoing.

2. If Manning truly thought that there was wrongdoing, there are several cleared and appropriate channels he could have lodged his complaint through. The military recognizes conflicts with chains of command. This is why Inspectors General are independent of the local chain of command. Manning could have forwarded his complaint with evidence through his IG.

If Manning did not trust his IG, he could have forwarded it through any other Army IG.

If he distrusted the Army, he could have used a cross service IG.

If he distrusted any of the service IGs, he could have forwarded his complaint through the DoD IG.

If he distrusted the entire DoD IG, he could have forwarded his complaint through his or a cross service ADC office. Hell, he probably could have gone through the Chaplain on this.

If he distrusted the entire DoD establishment, he could have forwarded his complaint to any of the other Executive Branch's IG offices

If he distrusted the entire Executive Branch, he could have forwarded his complaint to a Legislative Branch IG or even to an individual Senator/Congressmember.

If he distrusted the entire Legislative Branch, he could have forwarded it to the Judicial Branch (federal court clerk). He would then have been given a cleared venue to submit his evidence.

OK, the entire federal government is untrustworthy. He could have filed a complaint with his state or any state representative.

The point is there there are many cleared and appropriate venues that Manning should have used. He chose not to use any of them but instead chose to disclose these unread documents to an unauthorized source. There is no indication that Manning attempted to address his concerns through appropriate channels.

There are appropriate channels available both inside and outside Manning's Chain of Command.

He chose not to use any of them. His choice. This is not the actions of a whistleblower. This is the actions of a disgruntled military member who was cultivated by wikileaks just like we cultivate other HUMINT sources.

What his intentions were are only material if other specific charges are levied on him. In no case is the US government obligated to demonstrate actual harm.

It is the act of delivering sensitive documents to an unauthorized person that is the primary crime (Title 18 U.S.C.). No where there or in the NDAs that Manning signed does it say it is OK to give unauthorized access if you feel it is a good idea, or it is OK as long as no one got hurt.

Lets look at SF-312. That is the Non-disclosure Agreement that Manning signed. Depending on his other accesses, he may have signed other NDAs also. It is not uncommon to sign several/many of these.

Here are the juicy parts

Just use The Google and look up SF312 if you want to read the whole document.

Noting in there about Manning agreeing to keep information safe as long as he feels like it.

To me the prosecutors need to focus on this issue and not get distracted on the other charges of aiding the enemy. There is enough evidence to successfully prosecute Manning just for violating this NDA and get Manning in the slam for the rest of his life. It is a simple and straightforward case.

If he ever get's out of jail, there is no statute of limitation for Aiding the Enemy so there is nothing preventing the government from charging him at that time with more crimes.

But let's not pull another Casey Anthony. The Prosecution has a nice tight case. Go for the sure conviction first. There is the rest of Manning's life for working the other charges.

Yes, and if you watched the video they were acting shady, and a few of them were armed.

The hype over this was made because one of them had a camera, and was supposedly a journalist. the rest had ak-47s..

Daniel Pearl was a journalist too, where is his head nowadays?

I see alot of arab sniper videos on live leak, that requires one man with a gun, and another with a camera...

I agree Mr. August. Legal and rightful.:salute:

Yes, avoid the hype and grandstanding and just do the simple job.

Life imprisonment?

What happened to my country, have we all collectively sprouted female genetalia and gotten so sensitive that we don't hang treasonous snakes anymore?

No firing squad, no respectful death for him.

Giving info to a foreign entity.

Pathetic scum.

How can anyone defend him?

How can anyone spout such populist sensationalist nonsense?

Nobody is defending him it's just that Platapus is right. Best to get the life lengthy conviction than try to push for the max and maybe loose it all.

How does he get a "Fair" trial?
If you define fair as what is laid down in the civilian law of the land - aka a "trial by a jury of your peers" with evidence rules that are strict and balanced - the answer is:

He doesn't. He willfully, legally via contract temporarily (for the duration of his enlistment) suspended his civilian rights.

However, there is one very important question that must be asked.....

Why was a soldier of such a low rank (at best an E-3) given such unfettered access? Classified information is supposed to be on a NtK (Need to Know) availability. The fact he was accessing stuff without a clearly defined need to know should have raised red flags from day one.

The guy is guilty as sin (note even his defense attorneys do not claim he did not commit the offenses listed), but there is more than just him at fault.

I have no problem letting him do the hangman's dance (rope being cheaper than the rounds a firing squad would use), but this SHOULD have pointed out a severe failure within the intelligence structure to control classified data......

I think it does point it out. It sounds to me like this kid was the most computer savvy member of his unit. He got away with it because his superiors did not understand what he was doing.

BTW from what I understand he wasn't given unfettered access. He just knew how to get around the system.

Once upon a time, these bad guys flew some airplanes into some buildings....

In the witch-hunt blame-game that ensued, it was discovered that some critical information was not being shared as fast as it should. So, with typical government overreaction, the concept "need to share" was bantered about.

Everyone had to have access to everything all the time. That would solve all our problems. Inundate analysts with a firehose of data. That's the ticket.

So this resulted in E-3's having single access connectivity to many databases. ... to make it easy for analysts to query, retrieve, and download massive amounts of data from a single workstation... all that data in one location. Need to know was presumed and need to share took precedence.

All it needed was an enabled DvD writer and an operator with no morals...

This is the classic paradox with classified information.

1. Keep it compartmentalized and one loser can only steal so much but the good guys also can't get access

2. Keep it un-compartmentalized and the good guys will have an easier time gaining access but one loser can steal 250,000 documents.

Both have risks and benefits. With Manning, we just experienced a big risk of an overreacting "need to share" attitude.

What is needed is a disciplined moderate policy which still establishes need to know but at the same time allows this need to know to be transferred faster than in the past.

We need a system where people who truly have a need to know can get that information faster and easier but at the same time still keep people who don't have a need to know from getting access.

We have been trying to get it right for almost 150 years. It is not an easy problem to solve.

Platapus,

What did you do in the Air Force again? I'm guessing at one time you had security clearance greater then Secret. :O:

Moderate policy? Disciplined? Ain't seen that in awhile. Erg. Personally, I still believe the system that was in place prior to September 11, 2001 was sufficient. It was lax practices within the system that caused failure. Given the technological adnvances since, we have the means to transfer data quickly and efficiently without opening so many doors and windows, allowing an overall increase of eyes on the material. History has proven that the most stringent of background checks can't keep secrets secret when you expotentially increase the number of people allowed access. But then, since all it takes is one ....

Part of the problem is the ability to store whole file cabinets full of classified documents on a tiny thumb drive.

You know, you really changed my mind on this whole issue with that post. Well done, Plat.