PFC Manning to face charge of aiding the enemy

JoeTheJuggler said:
Gregg v. Georgia (1976) rejected the death penalty schemes of two states (NC and LA) because those statues didn't allow sufficient discretion in applying the death penalty. (Basically, it came too close to a mandatory death sentence for a specified crime, something the court rejected.) In rejecting the "cruel and unusual" argument, the court said that the death penalty isn't always cruel and unusual if it isn't disproportionate to the crime. (In other words, it is cruel and unusual unless the crime is proportionately heinous and unusual.)
Click to expand...

This ruling has no application to the Manning case. This ruling deals with mandatory sentences, and not specifically with any requirment that some quota of "heinous" be met. Art 104 allows for "death or any other..." sentences. Indeed, so far as I am aware, there is only one punative article that requires a death sentence - spying. The sentencing guidelines for the crime of "aiding" have already passed constitutional muster.

In 1977 Coker v. Georgia found that the death penalty was grossly disproportionate for the crime of rape of an adult.
Click to expand...

Again, not applicable to the Manning case. The death penalty for the charge of "aiding" has already passed constitutional muster.


In 1984, though, Pulley v. Harris rejected the effect of Gregg v Georgia that required a comparative proportionality review, "[a]ssuming that there could be a capital sentencing system so lacking in other checks on arbitrariness that it would not pass constitutional muster without comparative proportionality review". In other words, if there was a proportionality problem, it could still be reviewed, but the review was no longer mandatory in all cases.
Click to expand...

"Review of proportionality" requires only that guilt of a given crime merit the death penalty, not that the commission of the crime, once commited, meet some additional standard. In other words, if Crime X merits the death penatly, then all Crimes X merit the death penalty, but Crime -X may not merit the death penalty.

In 2008, Kennedy v. Louisiana rejected the death penalty (as being disproportionate) for the rape of a child where the victim did not die. It ruled that in crimes against individuals, the death penalty cannot be used unless there was a homicide or attempted homicide.

So, with the "aiding the enemy" charge, the death penalty can still be used without an attempted homicide because it's not a crime against an individual, but there is a clear tendency in the Supreme Court to reject disproportionate application of the death penalty.
Click to expand...

There is no disproportionate application in this case. There is no level of "aiding" - no requirment that some level of damage be inflicted on the US. There will not be a successful challenge to the application of the death penalty so long as there is no problem with either the trial or the conviction.

I've prefaced most of my responses with "if this case stays with the military" for a reason. The SC has long since established that the military is entitled to a seperate set of crimes and punishments. Running from danger is a perfectly normal, even necessary human reaction. It would seldom be "unreasonable" to do so. Yet, in the military, the USSC has ruled that it is perfectly okay to always execute someone that is found guilty of running in the face of the enemy, even if it is virtually certain that to fail to run would result in the death of the accused.

If this case stays with the military, and if Manning were found guilty of "aiding", and if the goverment were to seek and secure a death sentence, then the USSC would not entertain overturning the death sentence as either cruel or disproportionate, provided there were not some other technical issue with the CM process.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
That's precisely the condition I was thinking that could affect the prosecution. If they use any statements Manning made, the defense can probably have it blocked as being coerced. Just from a practical point of view, it's a bad idea to mistreat someone accused of a serious crime.
Click to expand...


If any of the evidence against Manning stems from coerced statements or improperly executed search/seizure, then of course that evidence should not be allowed. That doesn't usually forfeit the prosecutions case, and has no bearing on sentencing.

Mistreatment of prisoners is bad from a practical and procedural point of view. It is also bad from a constitutional and (I believe) moral point of view. It is a crime under the UCMJ (Arts 93, 98, and 134) and carries a potential sentence of 5 years confinement.
 
BenBurch said:
Not nuts enough; He knew what he was doing was illegal and wrong; This is why he was so clever about disguising what he was doing.

He undoubtedly killed people with his actions.

I hope the court overrules the prosecutorial request and executes him.
Click to expand...

I concur.
 
BenBurch said:
And whether or not death was a consequence in the event, it was a predictable consequence, and the magnitude of the capital crime is not changed one iota by how it played out.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about this? I mean, I subscribe to* the motto, "death to traitors, one and all", but I'm pretty sure the law distinguishes quite clearly between "attempted murder" and "murder" (not to mention "involuntary manslaughter").













--
* And, to the best of my knowledge, coined it.
 
BenBurch said:
But I am certain that the prosecutors will.
Click to expand...

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows us that faith proves nothing, as Voltaire said.

And whether or not death was a consequence in the event, it was a predictable consequence, and the magnitude of the capital crime is not changed one iota by how it played out.
Click to expand...

If death was a predictable consequence of that data being leaked, someone screwed up pretty badly by not classifying it more highly, hmm? It's almost as if they knew it wasn't actually important, and the story that "death was a predictable consequence" was made up after the fact to make Manning look bad.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
If death was a predictable consequence of that data being leaked, someone screwed up pretty badly by not classifying it more highly, hmm? It's almost as if they knew it wasn't actually important, and the story that "death was a predictable consequence" was made up after the fact to make Manning look bad.
Click to expand...

No. You can classify something as "Super Duper Extra-Extraordinary Double Top Secret", but if someone steals it, as Manning did, it doesn't matter. But I suspect you already knew that.
 
WildCat said:
I predict you will be wrong, because Manning's leaks did not reveal any wrongdoing or coverups, it was just a dump of classified information that has caused actual damage to diplomacy.
Click to expand...
Manning's leak revealed the habit of intelligence community to slap "classified" or "secret" label on anything and everything. From my own time in USAF, I recall following definitions (correct me if my memory is failing):

Classified: Information such that its release would cause some harm to US national security.

Secret: Information such that its release would cause serious harm to US national security.

Top Secret: Information such that its release would cause grave harm to US national security.

Please tell me, what serious harm came to US national security from world learning that Ghaddafi kept Ukranian mistresses? That particular tidbit was labeled "secret", and had Manning or someone else released just that, they would be subject to prosecution. My guess why it was labeled so is that one's status in intelligence community depends on the importance of information one uncovers. If you uncover something and it is not worth classifying, you did not do anything worthwhile.

I am not saying everything Manning gave to Wikileaks was that sort of garbage, but an awful lot of it was.
 
Aoidoi said:
As far as I'm aware receiving classified documents is not a crime.
Click to expand...
Broadcasting them is an act of war.
Aoidoi said:
Were it, the government could send them to anyone and arrest them as soon as the package arrived. In any case it would be difficult to prosecute a non-American for not following whatever American laws cover the dissemination of classified material.

So even if he hand delivered the files to Assange and recorded the whole thing (which seems is unlikely), I don't think that his testimony and evidence would be worth anything. Rolling on the big fish only works when what they're up to is illegal.
Click to expand...
Modern technology has blurred the distinction between peace and war. In peacetime, unidentified, non-uniformed bystanders in a free society enjoy a presumption of innocence. In wartime, in any society, suspicious, unidentified parties are often, justifiably if mistakenly, presumed guilty. "Presumption" is a continuous variable, and the legal regime which determines the behavior of State agents will depend on cost/benefit considerations (or the regime will die).

Welcome to life on the slippery slope.
 
Mark6 said:
...Please tell me, what serious harm came to US national security from world learning that Ghaddafi kept Ukranian mistresses? That particular tidbit was labeled "secret", and had Manning or someone else released just that, they would be subject to prosecution. My guess why it was labeled so is that one's status in intelligence community depends on the importance of information one uncovers. If you uncover something and it is not worth classifying, you did not do anything worthwhile.
Click to expand...
Often, reveal the information and you reveal the source. And the source gets fed into the wood chipper feet first, slowly.
 
Mark6 said:
Manning's leak revealed the habit of intelligence community to slap "classified" or "secret" label on anything and everything. From my own time in USAF, I recall following definitions (correct me if my memory is failing):

Confidential: Information such that its release would cause some harm to US national security.

Secret: Information such that its release would cause serious harm to US national security.

Top Secret: Information such that its release would cause grave harm to US national security.

Please tell me, what serious harm came to US national security from world learning that Ghaddafi kept Ukranian mistresses? That particular tidbit was labeled "secret", and had Manning or someone else released just that, they would be subject to prosecution. My guess why it was labeled so is that one's status in intelligence community depends on the importance of information one uncovers. If you uncover something and it is not worth classifying, you did not do anything worthwhile.

I am not saying everything Manning gave to Wikileaks was that sort of garbage, but an awful lot of it was.
Click to expand...

Corrected your terminology up there.

As to the argument; I won't deny that the US vastly over-classifies things, but there is little alternative if we want to maintain diplomacy with other countries. In the case of the diplomatic cables, it's not a matter of "uncovering" something and it not being worthwhile so much as it is the US wanting to maintain friendly relations with the countries in question, while still ensuring that information that is of potential use is provided appropriately.

The diplomatic cables had nothing to do with the intelligence community; they were classified by the State Department, which is not a part of the intel community. Their JOB is to be diplomatic at all times, but it only makes sense to gather information on the people you're interacting with and keep it appropriately under wraps; no sense in embarrassing the highly touchy Middle Eastern country you're currently negotiating with by letting it get out that you know the country's leader wears Spongebob underwear and dresses up in a French maid outfit when off duty, or something similar. So, in order to maintain that diplomatic relationship, you classify what you inadvertently or deliberately find out about the country. And they do the same, recognizing that it would be pretty darn stupid of them to let it get out that Hillary dominates Bill in bed* because we'd be less inclined to do business with them to help shore up their faltering economy.

In the long run, the release of the diplomatic cables allowed a lot of countries (ours most of all) to wind up with egg on their faces, but people will soon forget about the embarrassing stuff, so most countries have wisely let the subject drop in order to get that to happen sooner, I think. So to speak to your argument above; ultimately, the release of the diplomatic cables probably won't cause severe harm to our national security, but it's either classify the cables or run the ultimate risk of sparking another war because we failed to keep something appropriately under wraps. In that context, I'm perfectly content with the State department classifying its memos.
 
Thank you Sabrina for a comprehensive answer!

Love your new avatar, BTW.
 
Manning? Hmm.. wasn't he the one that released the video of Americans shooting children in Iraq?

IIRC there is much controversy about the legality of American attack on Iraq. For many it was a criminal act of aggression, undeclared war excused with fabricated premises.
Manning may be a traitor of the war criminals and their case, yet for the general community he made a good deed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom