PFC Manning to face charge of aiding the enemy

JoeTheJuggler said:
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.
Click to expand...

You clearly have never worked in intelligence.

Without getting into too much detail, everyone who works in the intelligence arena is aware at all times that potential leaks can result in information getting to our enemies. It's part of the training. Heck, we have to undergo yearly training dealing with the fact that we have to be careful what information we provide about ourselves, since it might set us up as a target for foreign intelligence services or terrorists seeking information.

Look up the Threat Awareness and Reduction Program Army Regulation. I brief that on a yearly basis to my unit (used to be SAEDA, or Subversion and Espionage Directed against the Army), and I always stress to them that even the smallest thing can be used by the enemy, whether it's unclassified or no. It is a YEARLY requirement that this training be given Army wide. Trust me. Manning knew EXACTLY what releasing that information could do, and he released it anyway.

As to what Assange has stated; I can't speak to that, but given what I know about Army training, if Manning actually believed that releasing the documents wouldn't give the enemy potentially useful information, then he's an idiot.
 
BenBurch said:
And if they couldn't - I'd be in favor of trying them, too.
Click to expand...
You know, the court never actualy ruled whether the NYT could publish the Pentagon Papers, just that a prior restraint couldn't be placed upon them from publishing.
 
Sabrina said:
You clearly have never worked in intelligence.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. Do you suppose the fact finder in criminal proceedings against Manning will be limited to people who have worked in intelligence?

Without getting into too much detail, everyone who works in the intelligence arena is aware at all times that potential leaks can result in information getting to our enemies. It's part of the training.
Click to expand...
So do you believe there is no such thing as the crime of leaking classified documents that isn't also the crime of aiding the enemy?

Should we do away with the separate charge of leaking classified documents since it requires committing the more serious crime of aiding the enemy?
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Irrelevant. Do you suppose the fact finder in criminal proceedings against Manning will be limited to people who have worked in intelligence?


So do you believe there is no such thing as the crime of leaking classified documents that isn't also the crime of aiding the enemy?

Should we do away with the separate charge of leaking classified documents since it requires committing the more serious crime of aiding the enemy?
Click to expand...

Ignoring the concept of "lessor included offenses" for that moment, do you acknowledge that the case against Manning for aiding the enemy is quite strong?
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Irrelevant. Do you suppose the fact finder in criminal proceedings against Manning will be limited to people who have worked in intelligence?
Click to expand...

No, but they will be fully aware of Army regulations on the matter and as such, will have the knowledge they need to press the correct charges. Perhaps I should have amended my statement to "you've clearly never been in the military" then?


So do you believe there is no such thing as the crime of leaking classified documents that isn't also the crime of aiding the enemy?

Should we do away with the separate charge of leaking classified documents since it requires committing the more serious crime of aiding the enemy?
Click to expand...

No, there is no such thing, and no, we should not.

As sarge said, it is entirely possible to be charged with multiple similar crimes. The military judge is the person who will ultimately decide the sentence for Manning; charging him with all the crimes he is eligible to be charged for merely gives the judge a wider range of possible sentences to carry out.

ETA: Incidentally, the reason I cited being in intelligence above is because that was Manning's MOS; I was pointing out that anyone who has undergone the training in order to be awarded that MOS would know the consequences of releasing classified information to individuals or governments not authorized to receive it.
 
Last edited:
The only thing to be decided is whether he did it or he didn't do it. If he made classified things about an active war zone public, he is guilty as charged no matter his motivation, state of mind, or actual effect of the disclosure.
 
JihadJane said:
State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley:

What’s being done to Bradley Manning by my colleagues at the Department of Defense “is ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid.”

http://philippathomas.wordpress.com...tment-spokesman-and-the-prisoner-in-the-brig/
Click to expand...


Does it seem likely that Crowley was talking about the way that Manning is being treated, or do you believe that he was talking about Manning being charged at all?

I have no idea if Manning is being treated properly while he is in pre-trial confinement. I have no doubt at all that it is appropriate and proper to charge, try, and if convicted, sentence Manning harshly.
 
BenBurch said:
The only thing to be decided is whether he did it or he didn't do it. If he made classified things about an active war zone public, he is guilty as charged no matter his motivation, state of mind, or actual effect of the disclosure.
Click to expand...


If I read Art. 104 correctly, the effect of the disclosure does affect guilt. In other words, he must actually have aided the enemy IOT have violated Art 104 and he must have done so knowingly. For either "communicating" or "giving intel" the accused must have done so knowingly. Simply spilling intel without intent to aid the enemy is not sufficient to sustain a charge of aiding the enemy.
 
sarge said:
Does it seem likely that Crowley was talking about the way that Manning is being treated, or do you believe that he was talking about Manning being charged at all?

I have no idea if Manning is being treated properly while he is in pre-trial confinement. I have no doubt at all that it is appropriate and proper to charge, try, and if convicted, sentence Manning harshly.
Click to expand...

It seems to be about the conditions of Manning's confinement.
 
sarge said:
If I read Art. 104 correctly, the effect of the disclosure does affect guilt. In other words, he must actually have aided the enemy IOT have violated Art 104 and he must have done so knowingly. For either "communicating" or "giving intel" the accused must have done so knowingly. Simply spilling intel without intent to aid the enemy is not sufficient to sustain a charge of aiding the enemy.
Click to expand...

Which makes sense. If it is as several people here have construed it, there would never be the crime of leaking classified documents without it always being aiding the enemy.

I think the prosecution's case for this charge is highly constructive. They have a lot they'd need to prove (that an enemy was aided, for one).

Has anyone heard anything about how Manning's lawyers are approaching the defense?
 
BenBurch said:
The only thing to be decided is whether he did it or he didn't do it. If he made classified things about an active war zone public, he is guilty as charged no matter his motivation, state of mind, or actual effect of the disclosure.
Click to expand...

I think that Manning did it (leaked the documents) is the one thing that isn't likely to be contested or at issue. I don't know what sort of defense he's going to use, but I would imagine he'll try to use some form or another of a whistleblower's argument. At Nuremburg, we developed the principle that "just following orders" is not a defense for complicity in war crimes or crimes against humanity. I have no idea what Manning's motives were, but I would be surprised if he didn't argue it this way somehow or another. (And this is to the main charge of leaking classified documents, not the much weaker charge of aiding the enemy.)
 
sarge said:
If I read Art. 104 correctly, the effect of the disclosure does affect guilt. In other words, he must actually have aided the enemy IOT have violated Art 104 and he must have done so knowingly. For either "communicating" or "giving intel" the accused must have done so knowingly. Simply spilling intel without intent to aid the enemy is not sufficient to sustain a charge of aiding the enemy.
Click to expand...

By the way, I think you're on the right track here.

They have to prove he knowingly did it, and they have to specify the enemy that received the information.

From the Military Judges' Benchbook instruction on the elements of the offense of Article 104:
AIDING THE ENEMY—GIVING INTELLIGENCE TO THE ENEMY (ARTICLE 104)

ELEMENTS:

(1) That (state the time and place alleged), the accused, without proper authority, knowingly gave intelligence information to (a) certain person(s), namely: (state the name or description of the enemy alleged to have received the intelligence information);

(2) That the accused did so by (state the manner alleged);

(3) That (state the name or description of the enemy alleged to have received the intelligence information) was an enemy; and

(4) That this intelligence information was true, at least in part.

d. DEFINITIONS AND OTHER INSTRUCTIONS:

“Intelligence” means any helpful information, given to and received by the enemy, which is true, at least in part.

“Enemy” includes (not only) organized opposing forces in time of war, (but also any other hostile body that our forces may be opposing) (such as a rebellious mob or a band of renegades) (and includes civilians as well as members of military organizations). (“Enemy” is not restricted to the enemy government or its armed forces. All the citizens of one belligerent are enemies of the government and the citizens of the other.)
Click to expand...
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Which makes sense. If it is as several people here have construed it, there would never be the crime of leaking classified documents without it always being aiding the enemy.
Click to expand...

(intentionally) Leaking classified documents will always meet the specifications of "aiding the enemy" if the leak was intentional, the leak was intended to reach the enemy (or it is reasonable to believe that the leak is likely to reach the enemy) and the leak aided the enemy. At least, that seems to be the way Art. 104 is constructed.



I think the prosecution's case for this charge is highly constructive. They have a lot they'd need to prove (that an enemy was aided, for one).
Click to expand...

Because the definition for "the enemy was aided" is so intentionally open-ended, I don't believe the prosecution would have much trouble convincing 9-12 senior enlisted and senior officers that the enemy benefited from the leak. More troublesome is the burden of proving that Manning actually intended for the documents to reach the enemy, or at least that a reasonable person would have believed the contents of the documents would reach the enemy.

Has anyone heard anything about how Manning's lawyers are approaching the defense?
Click to expand...

I haven't, but we'll know relatively soon. Assuming that this case will remain with the military, it'll probably progress relatively rapidly.
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
By the way, I think you're on the right track here.

They have to prove he knowingly did it, and they have to specify the enemy that received the information.

From the Military Judges' Benchbook instruction on the elements of the offense of Article 104:
Click to expand...


Be careful not to read too much into a benchmark for the construction of a formal charge. It is most often just a template to aid non-legal types in preparing charges for disposition at levels lower than general courts.

There may not be a requirment to identify an individual that received the information. Classified documents that reach mass media would almost always meet that particular specification, so long as the prosecution can demonstrate that the enemy has the means to receive the communication. The Al Quaeda umbrella of enemies has demonstrated reasonable competence at using the internet. That something is made widely available to anyone with a computer will probably suffice to convince a military judge that the enemy received the communication.
 
I'd actually like to run this by the JAG officer in my unit and get his take on the interpretation of Article 104 in this case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom