Wikileaks: Bradley Manning military hearing bias row

[August]

Since his guilt is not an issue in this case Mannings lawyers are desperately casting about for something, anything to possibly mitigate the crime.

But let's not make this an excuse to bash gay people.

[Factor]

Originally Posted by August

Since his guilt is not an issue in this case Mannings lawyers are desperately casting about for something, anything to possibly mitigate the crime.

But let's not make this an excuse to bash gay people.

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?

[Platapus]

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

I hereby agree that I will never divulge classified information to anyone unless:

(a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to receive it; or

(b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization from the United States Government Department or Agency (hereinafter Department or Agency) responsible for the classification of the information or last granting me a security clearance that such disclosure is permitted.

I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it, except to a person as provided in (a) or (b), above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, Title 18, United States Code, * the provisions of Section 783(b), Title 50, United States Code, and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.

Unless and until I am released in writing by an authorized representative of the United States Government, I understand that all conditions and obligations imposed upon me by this Agreement apply during the time I am granted access to classified information, and at all times thereafter.

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.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Platapus

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

[SNIP]

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.

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

[August]

Originally Posted by Factor

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

I read this article today and thought of your question. Here's the reaction of at least one of them:

http://www.stripes.com/manning-s-def...y-gis-1.164136

By Capt. R. Clarke Cooper
Published: December 21, 2011

If he did what he’s accused of doing, Pfc. Bradley Manning is a traitor to the United States of America, and his choice to use “don’t ask, don’t tell” as a defense for treason is a betrayal of all gay and lesbian servicemembers past and present. Whatever his reasons or excuses, Manning does not deserve sympathy from anyone.