Skip to main content

Up date on Bradley Manning

Anyone who values open government and access (or at least knowledge of) to what illegal or other nefarious activities Governments are up to, will have welcomed the myriad of revelations via Wikileaks over the last months.     Not so fortunate in the fallout of the Wikilaeaks "saga" is the charging of the American military man, Bradley Manning.    Yahoo! News provides an update on what is not a happy "picture" for Manning.

"A US military judge ruled Thursday that WikiLeaks suspect Bradley Manning can be tried for "aiding the enemy" over allegedly leaking documents to the site -- a charge that carries a potential life sentence.

The decision was another setback for Manning, whose attorneys had argued for the espionage charge to be tossed out unless the government was prepared to prove the US Army private had intended to help Al-Qaeda when he allegedly passed files to WikiLeaks.

The 24-year-old could be jailed for life if convicted of "aiding the enemy," one of 22 criminal charges that judge Colonel Denise Lind let stand at pre-trial hearings this week at Fort Meade in Maryland.

Lind said she would issue instructions on the espionage count to make clear what prosecutors will have to prove against Manning when his trial starts on September 21.

The government will have to show that Manning "knowingly" and without permission passed classified information to the enemy "through indirect means," she said.

Defense lawyers insisted the government's case implies any soldier could be prosecuted for espionage if they inadvertently divulged secrets online or discussed sensitive information with news reporters.

Prosecutors, however, maintained Manning's intent was not at issue and that the government only needed to prove that the intelligence analyst knew Al-Qaeda would see the leaked information on the anti-secrecy WikiLeaks site.

The hearing underlined the legal dilemmas of a digital era as rights groups voiced alarm at the prosecution's tough line over online leaks.

"The implications of the government's argument are breathtaking," said Ben Wizner of the American Civil Liberties Union.

"In its zeal to throw the book at Manning, the government has so overreached that its 'success' would turn thousands of loyal soldiers into criminals," Wizner wrote on ACLU's website.

Manning is accused of leaking hundreds of thousands of military logs from Iraq and Afghanistan and US diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks between November 2009 and May 2010, when he served as a low-ranking intelligence analyst in Iraq.

The judge earlier on Thursday rejected defense motions asking for some of the other counts to be tossed out or combined, after Manning's lawyers alleged the prosecution had "over-charged" their client.

Given the "volume of records" leaked, the counts were reasonable and prosecutors had not "piled on the charges" as the defense argued, the judge said.

The baby-faced Manning, who appeared in court clad in a blue Army dress uniform, has yet to enter a plea in the case.

Lawyers also sparred Thursday over whether the effect of the massive leak was pertinent to the case.

The charges do "not require the United States to prove actual harm" was done but only that secrets were revealed, said prosecutor Major Ashden Fein, who argued for a motion to exclude any discussion of the leak's impact.

Manning was transferred a year ago from a military prison at Quantico, Virginia -- where he had been imprisoned since July 2010 -- to another in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

During Manning's eight months of solitary confinement at Quantico, he was subjected to "cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment," according to a UN special rapporteur."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...