PFC Manning to face charge of aiding the enemy

drkitten said:
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.
Click to expand...


Yeah. Anything that diminishes the effectiveness of your side in any way, no matter how insignificant, can easily be categorized as "aiding the enemy". That includes going AWOL.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Yeah. Anything that diminishes the effectiveness of your side in any way, no matter how insignificant, can easily be categorized as "aiding the enemy". That includes going AWOL.
Click to expand...

That's just bull.

See post number 46 of this thread where I quoted the US Code's definition of the crime "aiding the enemy".

And yes, this thread is specifically about the criminal charge of aiding the enemy and not some other usage of the phrase "aiding the enemy".
 
Damien Evans said:
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.
Click to expand...

If Assange paid for the info, he becomes complicit in a crime. As you well know, the US has no problem apprehending those engaged in terrorism against the US. That was part of the education the US gave the world when it invaded Afghanistan after Afghanistan politely declined to turn over Bin Laden and his lieutenants, "or suffer their fate."

Depending on how they decide, jurisdiction may not matter. Of course, there would be no invasion, and probably not a kidnapping, though forcing a plane he may be on down is not out of the question. We've done it before.

Most likely with proof of payment, thus a true, serious crime, they'd twist the thumbscrews for a simple, proper, by-the-book extradition.
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
That's just bull.

See post number 46 of this thread where I quoted the US Code's definition of the crime "aiding the enemy".

And yes, this thread is specifically about the criminal charge of aiding the enemy and not some other usage of the phrase "aiding the enemy".
Click to expand...
Seriously, even Hasan Akbar wasn't charged with Aiding the Enemy when he straight-up murdered two and wounded 14 soldiers.
 
Beerina said:
If Assange paid for the info, he becomes complicit in a crime. As you well know, the US has no problem apprehending those engaged in terrorism against the US. That was part of the education the US gave the world when it invaded Afghanistan after Afghanistan politely declined to turn over Bin Laden and his lieutenants, "or suffer their fate."
Click to expand...

Once again, you're mixing up the concept of legal jurisdiction with justification for making war. They're not the same thing.

The U.S. most definitely does not have world-wide legal jurisdiction. Assange is under no obligation to comply with U.S. laws (unless he enters U.S. jurisdiction).
 
Beerina said:
If Assange paid for the info, he becomes complicit in a crime. As you well know, the US has no problem apprehending those engaged in terrorism against the US. That was part of the education the US gave the world when it invaded Afghanistan after Afghanistan politely declined to turn over Bin Laden and his lieutenants, "or suffer their fate."

Depending on how they decide, jurisdiction may not matter. Of course, there would be no invasion, and probably not a kidnapping, though forcing a plane he may be on down is not out of the question. We've done it before.

Most likely with proof of payment, thus a true, serious crime, they'd twist the thumbscrews for a simple, proper, by-the-book extradition.
Click to expand...

An education in US incompetence!
 
Lemme read that statute and bold the appropriate parts:
§ 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.

Manning obviously gave Assange this information knowing that he was going to post it on the internet (and therefore putting them in a position where the enemy can see them, and therefore obviously giving the enemy the information indirectly). If they can prove he gave the Afghanistan documents to Assange, it's a virtual slam dunk.
 
EvilSmurf said:
Manning obviously gave Assange this information knowing that he was going to post it on the internet (and therefore putting them in a position where the enemy can see them, and therefore obviously giving the enemy the information indirectly). If they can prove he gave the Afghanistan documents to Assange, it's a virtual slam dunk.
Click to expand...

That's not a slam dunk. If anything it's a loooooong stretch.

And I don't see how you can make this case without also bringing the same charges against the NY Times. Manning leaked these documents to Assange with the understanding that all sensitive information (names of people who might be endangered) would be redacted by the NY Times and the UK Guardian before some of the documents would be published in the press and then on the Wikileaks website.

Seriously, do you think publication of any leaked documents is aiding the enemy?

I think the crime of leaking classified documents is a slam dunk, but the case for aiding the enemy is extremely weak one.

Most of these documents were meant to be kept out of the public's view in general, not anything that was especially meant to be kept from the Taliban or Al Qaida (I presume those are the enemies in question).

By your thinking, there is no such crime as leaking classified documents that isn't also always simultaneously aiding the enemy. If that were true, there wouldn't be a need for the separate crime of leaking classified documents.
 
dirtywick said:
NY Times isn't subject to UCMJ.
Click to expand...

The law cited to define the crime of "aiding the enemy" is the U.S. code which applies to "any person".

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000904----000-.html

The UCMJ cites the same text word for word and adds other specifications, including this:

(1) Scope of Article 104. This article denounces offenses by all persons whether or not otherwise subject to military law. Offenders may be tried by court-martial or by military commission.
Click to expand...

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm104.htm
 
BenBurch said:
And they were not the original recipients when you are looking at civil law infractions.
Click to expand...
This is a criminal law case and not a matter of civil law (or did you mean, perhaps civilian criminal law?), and what difference does it make whether or not the NY Times was the original recipient? If the theory is that Manning aided the enemy by leaking the documents to someone who he knew would publish them (thus indirectly engaging in unauthorized communication with the enemy), then the entity that provided that step of publication is at least as culpable.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
That's not a slam dunk. If anything it's a loooooong stretch.
Click to expand...

He leaked documents to someone he knew would post them on the internet. The enemy has internet access. Therefor he indirectly supplied those documents to the enemy.

Remember, this wasn't just a few items, or whistleblowing of a specific incident. He dumped just about the entire network of secret information on Afghanistan to Assange.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
That's not a slam dunk. If anything it's a loooooong stretch.

And I don't see how you can make this case without also bringing the same charges against the NY Times. Manning leaked these documents to Assange with the understanding that all sensitive information (names of people who might be endangered) would be redacted by the NY Times and the UK Guardian before some of the documents would be published in the press and then on the Wikileaks website.

Seriously, do you think publication of any leaked documents is aiding the enemy?

I think the crime of leaking classified documents is a slam dunk, but the case for aiding the enemy is extremely weak one.

Most of these documents were meant to be kept out of the public's view in general, not anything that was especially meant to be kept from the Taliban or Al Qaida (I presume those are the enemies in question).

By your thinking, there is no such crime as leaking classified documents that isn't also always simultaneously aiding the enemy. If that were true, there wouldn't be a need for the separate crime of leaking classified documents.
Click to expand...

Evidence for bolded text please; I have seen nothing written anywhere that indicates Manning thought anything of the sort.
 
Newtons Bit said:
He leaked documents to someone he knew would post them on the internet. The enemy has internet access. Therefor he indirectly supplied those documents to the enemy.
Click to expand...

Again, then isn't any leaking of classified documents (which includes knowledge the documents will be published) always aiding the enemy? So why is there a separate crime?

And doesn't the prosecution have to show that the enemy was in fact aided (or did in fact receive the communications)?
 
Does that mean that the media outlets that revealed the identity of Valerie Plame are guilty of aiding the enemy as well?
 
Sabrina said:
Evidence for bolded text please; I have seen nothing written anywhere that indicates Manning thought anything of the sort.
Click to expand...

Assange has asserted this much. Isn't the burden of evidence on the prosecution?

If you don't accept the connection between Manning and Assange, then I don't think you can assume Manning had the knowledge that leaking the documents would result in them being made available to U.S. enemies. Unless, as I've said, you believe that in every case leaking classified documents is the same thing as aiding the enemy by unauthorized communication.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom