PFC Manning to face charge of aiding the enemy

JoeTheJuggler said:
Speaking of consequences of Wikileaks--are we to assume the "enemy" that Manning aided are the people of Tunisia? The opposition to Qaddaffi in Libya? The Egyptians who ousted Mubarek?
Click to expand...

No. The leaks included the identities of informants cooperating with the US in Afghanistan.
 
Kestrel said:
Please point out a leaked document that disclosed an informant.
Click to expand...

I recall reading that Wikileaks asked the U.S. government to help with redactions, but they refused (because, I suppose, that would seem like condoning the leaks). The NY Times and The Guardian did most of the redacting (which is partly why it's taken so long for the documents to be published--and why, I believe, they still haven't all been published yet).

But I suppose the U.S. still has a case against Manning, since he leaked the entire documents and not redacted versions of them even if he had the understanding that such information that might endanger people would not be made public.

At any rate, I think the government's case on this charge is extremely thin. I don't think there is a charge of "intention to aid the enemy" when no actual aiding of an enemy has happened.

And, as I was trying to point out, it will be easy to spin the net effect of the leaks as being to inspire massive popular protests that led to the ouster of several enemies of democracy.
 
Cylinder said:
No. The leaks included the identities of informants cooperating with the US in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

That's why it's illegal to leak classified documents, but it isn't evidence that any enemy was aided. (Even if it happened as a matter of fact. I'm not so sure anything was ever published with names of people who might be endangered should our enemy learn their identity.)
 
I think this is the part of the U.S. Code (in Title X) that defines Aiding the Enemy:

§ 904. Art. 104. Aiding the enemy
Any person who—
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to, or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;​
shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct. This section does not apply to a military commission established under chapter 47A of this title.
Click to expand...

Linky.

Obviously only point 2 would apply. I'm not sure how this is read--but it seems like a pretty broad definition that could be applied to anyone who communicates anything at all (even indirectly) to our enemy without proper authority.

Manning could easily argue that he only communicated to Wikileaks (Assange) who is not reasonably defined (at the time of said communication) as an enemy.
 
Last edited:
Kestrel said:
Please point out a leaked document that disclosed an informant.
Click to expand...

My assertion is based on multiple press reports as well as government claims. It would be irresponsible to post links, IMHO here and I'm not going anywhere near any Wikileaks site given my past qualifications.
 
Last edited:
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Also a good reason. One does not charge a man with "aiding the enemy" and then dump him into a group of prisoners who likely have friends still in active service in harms way.
Click to expand...


But he wasn't charged with that until recently, so that, too, is a rather weak reason.
 
Last edited:
Geoff Morrell presents the Pentagon's a-hole on the matter:



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Cylinder said:
My assertion is based on multiple press reports as well as government claims.
Click to expand...

gul·li·ble /ˈgələbəl/

Adjective: Easily persuaded to believe something; credulous.
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
They took the death penalty off the table too fast.

I think they should have used that to get a confession and get him to roll on Assange.
Click to expand...

And do what with that? You can't do anything to Assange, he's an Australian whose operation is based in Europe, you don't have any jurisdiction there.
 
WildCat said:
"In just two hours of searching the WikiLeaks archive, The Times found the names of dozens of Afghans credited with handing intelligence to US forces. Their villages are given for identification and, in many cases, their fathers' names."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-lives-in-danger/story-e6frg6so-1225898206990
Click to expand...

I have two responses: 1) is there any evidence that this possibly identifying information endangered people? and 2) if so, is endangering spies that help us the same thing as aiding the enemy?

Remember, this charge (aiding the enemy) is in addition to the other charges of leaking classified information.

And again, Manning could defend himself by saying that he only leaked it to an organization that he trusted to redact sensitive names. (He might even claim he assumed the U.S. government would help with those redactions.)

Again, while I think charges of leaking classified documents is a slam dunk, I think there's a very weak case for the aiding the enemy charge.

ETA: Also, are the documents mentioned in this article the ones Manning provided to Wikileaks? (I thought they got documents from multiple sources, but I could be wrong on that.) I'm sure the U.S. would be able to prove which ones came from Manning. At any rate in the article you cite, the Pentagon says the leaks provided no immediate danger to U.S. forces.
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
I have two responses: 1) is there any evidence that this possibly identifying information endangered people? and 2) if so, is endangering spies that help us the same thing as aiding the enemy?
Click to expand...
Doesn't have to. Aiding the enemy by making intelligence sources non-functional has the same effect as spiking his own country's guns.
 
rwguinn said:
Doesn't have to. Aiding the enemy by making intelligence sources non-functional has the same effect as spiking his own country's guns.
Click to expand...

It's done more than make intelligence sources non-functional. The Taliban has stated that they will find the informers named in the leaks and "punish them".

What's more, is that now that the US can't keep the people it helps from being identified, fewer people will come forward in Afghanistan to help the US forces bring peace. That's directly aiding the enemy.
 
rwguinn said:
Doesn't have to. Aiding the enemy by making intelligence sources non-functional has the same effect as spiking his own country's guns.
Click to expand...

Sabotaging our own guns isn't the same thing as aiding the enemy, though--at least not as I read the law.

Similarly, one could argue that since manslaughter and murder have the same effect they are the same crime, but they're not.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Sabotaging our own guns isn't the same thing as aiding the enemy, though--at least not as I read the law.
Click to expand...

If it is done for the purpose of preventing those weapons from being used on the enemy it is definitely "aiding the enemy".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom