Manning acquitted of most serious charge, convicted of lesser ones
The Bradley Manning verdict just in:
A military judge Tuesday acquitted Pfc. Bradley Manning of aiding the enemy ”” the most serious charge the Army intelligence analyst faced for leaking hundreds of thousands of classified military reports and diplomatic cables.
Manning was convicted on nearly all of the lesser charges considered by the judge, Army Col. Denise Lind, in connection with the largest breach of classified material in U.S. history.
Manning had pled quilty to some charges previously. Now the case goes into the sentencing phase.
I haven’t followed it all that closely, but this verdict doesn’t surprise me. It’s also somewhat different from what Snowden could expect if he ever returns to face justice, because Manning was a member of the armed forces and as such comes under the system of military justice—which is different from the civilian justice system.
I have a feeling—it’s just a hunch, nothing more—that this is a more lenient verdict than would have been handed down in the same fact situation mid-twentieth century or earlier. Of course, the same fact situation could not have occurred without the ubiquity of computers, which make acts such as Manning’s far easier. Who could smuggle out tons of papers? I suppose on microfilm, but that would require a technical middleman to photograph the documents, wouldn’t it? And microfilm would still be relatively bulky (not so very “micro”) compared to a computer stick.
Manning revealed secret content. Snowden revealed secret methods. I wonder who will be seen as having done more harm. In both cases, how is that they had access to such a wide array of secret information? Manning was able to get his hands on diplomatic messages sent by the State Dept. That seems totally inappropriate. Trust the government with my health records? Hell no.
“Who could smuggle out tons of papers?”
Sandy Berger.
Kidding. He didn’t actually steal “tons” of papers. He merely stole the exact dozens of pages which incriminated the Bill Clinton Administration.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/sandy_berger_and_the_clinton_c.html
I am pretty confident that Bradley Manning’s sentence will be deserved. However, I feel a bit like a leftist: when powerful people (Sandy Berger) commit significant crimes against the United States, those powerful people get away with (comparative) slaps on the wrist.
If “leaking hundreds of thousands of classified military reports and diplomatic cables.” isn’t aiding the enemy, what is? Either we have no enemies or the judge is incompetent or the judge yielded to improper and unlawful command influence.
neo – It would depend. Some mid-century spies got off quite lightly, because the government was unwilling to reveal secret evidence in an open court.
For instance, William Weisband, a code clerk who leaked the Venona secret to the Soviets in 1948: “Though he was sentenced to one year in jail for failing to answer a summons to appear before a grand jury, he was never prosecuted for espionage. (p. 374, “KGB”, by Andrew and Gordievsky)
There’s a good discussion of the legal problems in the Wikipedia article on Venona.
Geoffrey – You should check with those who know more about the military legal system than I do, but I believe the prosecution had to prove, not just that he helped our enemies, but that he intended to help them — a much harder thing to do.
JM,
I just heard it reported, though by NBC, that to be the case. In my view, that contradicts common sense, Manning knew that our enemies would gain access to that information. Thus, he knowingly provided it to them, in such a case it’s irrelevant whether he provides aid directly or indirectly to our enemies because he knew that the result of his actions would be to provide aid to our enemies.
Thus, it’s semantic deviousness to claim that he didn’t intend for them to have it.
As insty says, the feds will be much more successful keeping your medical information confidential.
Bush broke down the Gore intel walls. That’s why military peeps could access State Department stuff. The walls went back up, people died in Afghanistan and Iraq as a result, and the FBI/CIA became incompetent once again in 2008-2012.
Shrugs. People die because of leaks. It’s nothing new. What’s new is when those without political connections try to do a good thing, but get punished while those with protections get away free. Interesting dichotomy.
The charge of aiding the enemy sounds like something the prosecution had to prove in terms of intent. An intent Manning didn’t seem to have. Whether it was called delusional, ignorant, or foolish was besides the point.