PFC Manning to face charge of aiding the enemy

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You're joking, aren't you?

Whether he's joking or not, it's literally the truth.

A nation has authority where it can enforce that authority. To grab julie Assmunch out of the hands of the Brits and/or swedes would require significant force, the expenditure of a great deal of diplomatic capital or a combination thereof.

But if any nation could do this, if they chose to (and I highly doubt that they will make that choice) it would be America.

 

[Newtons Bit]

You're joking, aren't you?

Why did we invade Afghanistan again?

 

[Darth Rotor]

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

Depends on the time and place, so it can in fact be aiding the enemy. Or it might be a simple case of sabotage. It would probably be up to the prosecution to connect the timing of the event and the proximity to combat.

You might want to dump your confirmation bias on this one, Joe.

Similarly, one could argue that since manslaughter and murder have the same effect they are the same crime, but they're not.

They are different degrees of the same kind of crime, the general case being homicide.

 

[fuelair]

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.

Jurisdiction is not critical to termination. Presence, money, supporters, location all are much more important than jurisdiction. And they are not the only things that are - jurisdiction is way, way down the list.

 

[PogoPedant]

We have jurisdiction anywhere we like, thank you.

When the loony left accuses the US of empire building, this is what they refer to.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Depends on the time and place, so it can in fact be aiding the enemy. Or it might be a simple case of sabotage. It would probably be up to the prosecution to connect the timing of the event and the proximity to combat.

You might want to dump your confirmation bias on this one, Joe.

See above where I cited the definition of the crime from the U.S. Code.

What confirmation bias are you talking about? (That refers to reaching a conclusion without considering what evidence would be necessary to reach that conclusion--ignoring or failing to consider some of the evidence.)

I stand by my position: the case for the charge of aiding the enemy against Manning is a very weak one.

They are different degrees of the same kind of crime, the general case being homicide.

You're wrong. Murder and manslaughter are two different crimes. Within each there are different types (the term "degree" is usually only used with murder; for manslaughter there are several different types in two broad categories: voluntary/involuntary). Yes, they are both homicides, but homicide is not a specific charge. (And some homicides aren't even crimes.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Whether he's joking or not, it's literally the truth.

A nation has authority where it can enforce that authority. To grab julie Assmunch out of the hands of the Brits and/or swedes would require significant force, the expenditure of a great deal of diplomatic capital or a combination thereof.

But if any nation could do this, if they chose to (and I highly doubt that they will make that choice) it would be America.

Jurisdiction is a legal concept--about the legal authority to enforce laws. If you want to ignore the rule of law and just say might makes right, then you don't need to bother with the concept of jurisdiction.

And jurisdiction doesn't overlap completely with the concept of taking someone into custody. That has more to do with extradition agreements than jurisdiction. (Though jurisdiction, as someone just pointed out, can depend on presence.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why did we invade Afghanistan again?

I don't understand you your question is relevant. Making war isn't the same as legal jurisdiction for enforcing laws.

ETA: To answer your question, though, apparently the U.S. government treated the 9/11 attacks as a causus belli. (The decision to invade wasn't one I agreed with, but that's really not on topic for this thread.) Right now our legal jurisdiction there is based on the current SOFA agreement with the Afghan government.

 

[AlBell]

We have jurisdiction anywhere we like, thank you.

When the loony left accuses the US of empire building, this is what they refer to.

Sfaict, you quoted a member of same.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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.

The government alleged it, you read it in the papers, that's good enough for you? I think currently the weight of evidence posted here is distinctly against the proposition that Manning's leak caused any harm to informants in Afghanistan.

The fact is that regardless of the letter of the law, Manning's real crime was informing the public of what was going on. Any foreign government that cared to know almost certainly already knew, including the Taliban. It's not like he leaked top secret military information, just regular "secret" diplomatic junk.

As such, chickenhawk posturing from keyboard commandos about the death penalty is somewhat silly and clearly disproportionate. He's not a traitor, he's a public-spirited leaker who did the US community and the global community a favour.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I stand by my position: the case for the charge of aiding the enemy against Manning is a very weak one.

That is slightly different from what you said. It may be hard to prove, and it may not be worth the Prosecution's time to go there.

You're wrong. ...
Yes, they are both homicides

Thanks for agreeing with me.

DR

 

[Cylinder]

The government alleged it, you read it in the papers, that's good enough for you?

Not for a criminal conviction. It is enough to sway my personal opinion, however.

I think currently the weight of evidence posted here is distinctly against the proposition that Manning's leak caused any harm to informants in Afghanistan.

I'm not familiar with that evidence. Call me crazy, but in my thinking identifying informants in the middle of disputed territory of an ongoing armed conflict rises to the level of "harm."

The fact is that regardless of the letter of the law, Manning's real crime was informing the public of what was going on.

Manning should have been well aware of his legal responsibilities in reporting percieved intelligence misconduct. PFC Manning had ample outlets to report any wrongdoing in a legal and secure manner.

Any foreign government that cared to know almost certainly already knew, including the Taliban. It's not like he leaked top secret military information, just regular "secret" diplomatic junk.

Your claim is that Manning did not leak TS?

 

[BenBurch]

You're joking, aren't you?

Nope. We enforce American law world-wide and have for two centuries.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I'm not familiar with that evidence. Call me crazy, but in my thinking identifying informants in the middle of disputed territory of an ongoing armed conflict rises to the level of "harm."

Guesswork's all well and good, but so far nobody has even claimed that they know anyone in particular was harmed, and it's something they'd ballyhoo if they had. I conclude from this that there is no hard evidence of harm whatsoever, just guesswork like yours.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I stand by my position: the case for the charge of aiding the enemy against Manning is a very weak one.

That is slightly different from what you said.

No, it's not:

At any rate, I think the government's case on this charge is extremely thin.

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.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

Did you even read my post? I said you are wrong. Manslaughter and murder are not the same crimes. They are two different crimes. They are both homicides, but homicide itself is not a criminal charge. Some homicides are not crimes.

Do I need to draw you a Venn diagram?

ETA: And to come back to the topic, the charge of aiding the enemy is clearly defined in the part of the US Code I quoted above. It is not the same crime as sabotage. Just as murder and manslaughter are different charges, so are aiding the enemy and sabotaging U.S. military forces. Heck, even a soldier fragging his CO isn't the same crime as aiding the enemy.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

We have jurisdiction anywhere we like, thank you.

You're joking, aren't you?

Nope. We enforce American law world-wide and have for two centuries.

That's not true. U.S. jurisdiction is not worldwide, and never has been.

I can prove that U.S. jurisdiction is not worldwide with one example: Roman Polanksi had been outside U.S. jurisdiction despite being a fugitive from U.S. law for many years. France shielded him from extradition and the U.S. lacked the legal authority to arrest him until he travelled to Switzerland where Swiss authorities arrested him at the request of the U.S. Then Swiss authorities finally rejected U.S. extradition requests and released him from custody. He is still a fugitive from U.S. law, and would face charges if he ever enters U.S. jurisdiction.

 

[drkitten]

Doesn't have to. Aiding the enemy by making intelligence sources non-functional has the same effect as spiking his own country's guns.

Spiking his own country's guns, however, is not "aiding the enemy" (legally speaking); look at the legal definition. Sabotage, yes. Vandalism, yes. Destruction of government property, yes. There are lots of charges that could be brought against a soldier who spiked his own side's guns. But "aiding the enemy" isn't one of them.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It may be hard to prove, and it may not be worth the Prosecution's time to go there.

See the OP of this thread. They already "went there". They have charged Manning with the crime of aiding the enemy.

Or are you suggesting that they filed this charge only as part of some kind of ploy?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Spiking his own country's guns, however, is not "aiding the enemy" (legally speaking); look at the legal definition. Sabotage, yes. Vandalism, yes. Destruction of government property, yes. There are lots of charges that could be brought against a soldier who spiked his own side's guns. But "aiding the enemy" isn't one of them.

Thank you. That's what I've been trying to say. Darth Rotor thinks it's all the same, but he also thinks manslaughter and murder are the same crime.

ETA: I quoted the section of the US Code that defines "aiding the enemy" in post 46 of this thread.

 

[Darth Rotor]

See the OP of this thread. They already "went there". They have charged Manning with the crime of aiding the enemy.

Or are you suggesting that they filed this charge only as part of some kind of ploy?

As I don't know the evidence they have in detail, it is either a tactic, or they have some very tightly connected facts and evidence that allows them to take a series of steps and make the linkage.

Hmmm, not sure how to bet on this one, Manning does not seem to have been at all adept at covering his tracks.

Will await more info.