PFC Manning to face charge of aiding the enemy

[JihadJane]

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.

Charges of aiding the enemy don't seem to be on Crowley's mind. After all, the low level documents are an embarrassment to the US government more than anything else. Transparency is the threat the government fears.
From the article:

“None the less Bradley Manning is in the right place”. And he went on lengthening his answer, explaining why in Washington’s view, “there is sometimes a need for secrets… for diplomatic progress to be made”.

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.

Are you interested in how he is being treated in pre-trial confinement?

 

[sarge]

Charges of aiding the enemy don't seem to be on Crowley's mind. After all, the low level documents are an embarrassment to the US government more than anything else. Transparency is the threat the government fears.

The State Department isn't the only concerned party. The US Military has a stake in this as well. If the case stays with the military for ajudication, then Manning will be (rightly) subjected to the military's measuring stick for how harmful his disclosures might have been.

It remains to be seen if the release of the documents resulted in only embarrasment (itself certainly enough to meet the "aiding the enemy" test) or if greater harm might have resulted from the public identification of individuals cooperating with the US.

From the article:

“None the less Bradley Manning is in the right place”. And he went on lengthening his answer, explaining why in Washington’s view, “there is sometimes a need for secrets… for diplomatic progress to be made”.



Are you interested in how he is being treated in pre-trial confinement?

In exactly the same way that I am interested in how any detainee is treated when under the jurisdiction of the US and the protection of the constitution. If his isolation and lack of clothing serve to protect him from his fellow prisoners or from himself, then I have no particulr concern. If the treatment is not for a similarly legitimate purpose, then I regret that he is not being treated properly.

 

[sarge]

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.

I manage the barracks on Fort Bragg - all 18,000 of them. Before this job, I was the Garrison Executive Officer (before that, I was enlisted scum). I have surviving contacts from being the "Chief" of the garrison staff, including several civilian and uniformed JAG lawyers. I asked one if I was essentially correct about the specifications of Art. 104. He said "Suprisingly so". Of course, ask a different lawyer, get a different answer. I also asked his opinion of the case for "aiding the enemy". He gave a very lawyerly answer: It's impossible to know without seeing the evidence.

 

[Sabrina]

Very true, sarge.

I'll run it by the JAG in my unit and see if I come up with something substantially different when I get a chance. I'm interested to see if there's any major differences or if the answers are similar now.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

They could also read newspapers, so this isn't anything new. I don't think it's enough to prove leaking classified information to make the case for aiding the enemy. (Again, why have two separate crimes if proving one is enough to prove the other?)

 

[JihadJane]

In exactly the same way that I am interested in how any detainee is treated when under the jurisdiction of the US and the protection of the constitution. If his isolation and lack of clothing serve to protect him from his fellow prisoners or from himself, then I have no particulr concern. If the treatment is not for a similarly legitimate purpose, then I regret that he is not being treated properly.

I see; so you're not interested in finding out how he is actually being treated then.


"It's no coincidence that it's someone from the state department who has gone off-message to speak out about this. When a branch of the US government makes a mockery of our pretensions to honour the rule of law, specifically our obligation not to use torture, the state department bears the brunt of that, as it affects our standing in the world.

The fact that Manning's abusive mistreatment is going on at Quantico – where I spent nine months as a Marine officer in basic school – and that Marines are lying about it, makes me feel ashamed for the Corps. Just three years as an infantry officer was more than enough time for me to know that what is going on there is illegal behaviour that must be stopped and disciplined."

- Daniel Ellsberg

'This shameful abuse of Bradley Manning
The WikiLeaks suspect's mistreatment amounts to torture. Either President Obama knows this or he should make it his business'

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Y.. ou know that's another opinion piece, right?

 

[Quad4_72]

I see; so you're not interested in finding out how he is actually being treated then.


"It's no coincidence that it's someone from the state department who has gone off-message to speak out about this. When a branch of the US government makes a mockery of our pretensions to honour the rule of law, specifically our obligation not to use torture, the state department bears the brunt of that, as it affects our standing in the world.

The fact that Manning's abusive mistreatment is going on at Quantico – where I spent nine months as a Marine officer in basic school – and that Marines are lying about it, makes me feel ashamed for the Corps. Just three years as an infantry officer was more than enough time for me to know that what is going on there is illegal behaviour that must be stopped and disciplined."

- Daniel Ellsberg

'This shameful abuse of Bradley Manning
The WikiLeaks suspect's mistreatment amounts to torture. Either President Obama knows this or he should make it his business'

Torture? You gotta be kidding me. He was in his underwear at night time for 3 days. Big damn deal. If they felt he needed to be put on suicide watch, that is their call. He doesn't have a case . He is desperate and knows he is in a lot of trouble. Is there a reason that you believe his side of the story as opposed to all of the guards and those in charge of the prison?

This reminds me of a soldier I used to have who was sent to jail for murder. He tried to claim that he was being treated unfairly by being put on suicide watch and that the chain of command was not visiting him. This was all a lie, as I was visiting him every week and he was clearly out of his mind and definitely needed to be put on suicide watch. He was basically trying to better his case in court by saying that he was being mistreated and that we were not visiting him. Needless to say, it didn't work out too well for him:
UPDATE: Fort Hood soldier sentenced to 35 years for murder

 

[JihadJane]

Torture? You gotta be kidding me. He was in his underwear at night time for 3 days. Big damn deal. If they felt he needed to be put on suicide watch, that is their call. He doesn't have a case . He is desperate and knows he is in a lot of trouble. Is there a reason that you believe his side of the story as opposed to all of the guards and those in charge of the prison?

This reminds me of a soldier I used to have who was sent to jail for murder. He tried to claim that he was being treated unfairly by being put on suicide watch and that the chain of command was not visiting him. This was all a lie, as I was visiting him every week and he was clearly out of his mind and definitely needed to be put on suicide watch. He was basically trying to better his case in court by saying that he was being mistreated and that we were not visiting him. Needless to say, it didn't work out too well for him:
UPDATE: Fort Hood soldier sentenced to 35 years for murder

Perhaps you could fill yourself in on some of the facts before forming an opinion.

 

[Quad4_72]

Perhaps you could fill yourself in on some of the facts before forming an opinion.

What did I miss?

 

[sarge]

I see; so you're not interested in finding out how he is actually being treated then.

Which is it? Do you understand what I wrote, or do you believe that what I wrote merits your snarky response? If I was not clear enough, simply ask for clarification.

I Manning is being mistreated, then I oppose that mistreatment. If Manning is being held in isolation to protect him from harm, then there is nothing to regret. So far, there has been no definative indication that Manning is being so mistreated as to warrant my concern.

"It's no coincidence that it's someone from the state department who has gone off-message to speak out about this. When a branch of the US government makes a mockery of our pretensions to honour the rule of law, specifically our obligation not to use torture, the state department bears the brunt of that, as it affects our standing in the world.

The fact that Manning's abusive mistreatment is going on at Quantico – where I spent nine months as a Marine officer in basic school – and that Marines are lying about it, makes me feel ashamed for the Corps. Just three years as an infantry officer was more than enough time for me to know that what is going on there is illegal behaviour that must be stopped and disciplined."

- Daniel Ellsberg

'This shameful abuse of Bradley Manning
The WikiLeaks suspect's mistreatment amounts to torture. Either President Obama knows this or he should make it his business'

Of course the reported treatment of Manning does not rise to the level of torture, even if it is not warranted. It would rise to the level of an abridgment of his civil rights, and that is sufficently distressing to not require embellishment.

I save my premature angst for underperforming favorite sports teams and the state of my golf game. I'll spend real angst on Manning when there is something real to be concerned about.

 

[sarge]

They could also read newspapers, so this isn't anything new. I don't think it's enough to prove leaking classified information to make the case for aiding the enemy. (Again, why have two separate crimes if proving one is enough to prove the other?)

It's just my opinion, but a careful reading of the specifications of Art 104 indicates fairly clearly that leaking classified information that the leaker believes will make it's way to the enemy is sufficient to support a charge of aiding.

It is not reasonable for Manning to argue that he did not expect Assnage to publish the information on the internet, and it is not reasonable for Manning to believe the information, once posted on the internet, would not find its way to enemies of the US.

 

[Sabrina]

It's just my opinion, but a careful reading of the specifications of Art 104 indicates fairly clearly that leaking classified information that the leaker believes will make it's way to the enemy is sufficient to support a charge of aiding.

It is not reasonable for Manning to argue that he did not expect Assnage to publish the information on the internet, and it is not reasonable for Manning to believe the information, once posted on the internet, would not find its way to enemies of the US.

^This.

As I stated above, every member of the Military Intelligence collection of MOS's undergoes training on a yearly basis to remind them that if classified information gets out, it can very easily make its way to the enemy. The idea that Manning would have been unaware of this is simply ludicrous on the face of it. It may not have been his INTENTION, but he would have been aware of it. It's probably not sufficient to make a charge of DELIBERATELY aiding the enemy stick, but the indirect charge should stick just fine.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It is not reasonable for Manning to argue that he did not expect Assnage to publish the information on the internet, and it is not reasonable for Manning to believe the information, once posted on the internet, would not find its way to enemies of the US.

I think you've got the burden of proof on the wrong side. And remember, this charge carries with it an automatic death sentence. The SCOTUS has given several big decisions that show that application of the death sentence is to be reserved for only the most heinous of crimes. I don't think constructive evidence of Bradley's mens rea is going to cut it for this charge, nor is constructive evidence that an enemy was aided.

As I stated above, every member of the Military Intelligence collection of MOS's undergoes training on a yearly basis to remind them that if classified information gets out, it can very easily make its way to the enemy. The idea that Manning would have been unaware of this is simply ludicrous on the face of it. It may not have been his INTENTION, but he would have been aware of it. It's probably not sufficient to make a charge of DELIBERATELY aiding the enemy stick, but the indirect charge should stick just fine.

I don't think there are two different charges. The deliberately or "knowingly" part is an element of the crime, though the crime (the unauthorized communication version) can be either direct or indirect communication. [ETA: That is, arguing that the communication was indirect doesn't mean you can leave off the "knowingly" part. I think indirect means that you can't get off because you turned the information over to a middle man or agent acting on your behalf who would bring it to the enemy.]

Again, capital crimes are really big deals. At one point there was a SCOTUS ruling that the death penalty could only be applied to first degree murders (and even then, only when the crime is egregious).

I think it's a stretch to say that proving the crime of leaking classified documents is sufficient to prove a capital crime (and allowing for constructive evidence of what he should have known and whether or not an enemy was indeed aided).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Of course the reported treatment of Manning does not rise to the level of torture, even if it is not warranted. It would rise to the level of an abridgment of his civil rights, and that is sufficently distressing to not require embellishment.

And this mistreatment could hurt the prosecution's case.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

To clarify, by "constructive" I mean that I don't think it's enough for the prosecution to prove that Manning could have known (or even should have known) that leaking the documents that would be published (in some form) means that some unspecified enemy could or might read them. Again, it's a capital crime. I think the court would require them to prove that he knowingly communicated with a specified enemy.

 

[Sabrina]

I think you've got the burden of proof on the wrong side. And remember, this charge carries with it an automatic death sentence. The SCOTUS has given several big decisions that show that application of the death sentence is to be reserved for only the most heinous of crimes. I don't think constructive evidence of Bradley's mens rea is going to cut it for this charge, nor is constructive evidence that an enemy was aided.

Highlighted part is incorrect.

The death sentence is the MAXIMUM penalty that can be applied to this charge, but like the regular court system, the final sentence is ultimately up to the judge. And the prosecution has already said they don't intend to seek the death penalty.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

What did I miss?

Perhaps you could start by finding a report where a psych evaluation recommends that Manning be placed on suicide watch. Surely the brig commander would only put him on suicide watch at the recommendation of a trained professional and not for any other reason.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Highlighted part is incorrect.

The death sentence is the MAXIMUM penalty that can be applied to this charge, but like the regular court system, the final sentence is ultimately up to the judge. And the prosecution has already said they don't intend to seek the death penalty.

I stand corrected. In fact, under SCOTUS precedent, you can't have the same trial to convict and sentence someone to capital punishment, so there can be no automatic death penalty. They have to be separate trials.

But still, the point remains: it's a capital crime. I don't think constructive evidence is good enough.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Perhaps you could start by finding a report where a psych evaluation recommends that Manning be placed on suicide watch. Surely the brig commander would only put him on suicide watch at the recommendation of a trained professional and not for any other reason.

... Why would we have that evidence?