December court date for Manning in WikiLeaks case

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ahtman**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:People talk about traitors, but Jefferson and Lee were traitors to the Union, but these guys have high schools named after them...

Again, you seem to be equating two different actions as if they are the same. Julius Rosenberg was also a traitor but there are no streets named after him and he was executed, so are you saying we should execute Manning since essentially anyone with the label is the same? Or perhaps each should situation should be considered on its own merits instead of creating tenuous links that are thin at best.

**Jihadin**

Its a gut check for any NCO's on the panel. Protect the soldier as much as you can. Hence its easier on the panel to vote life imprisonment then to the death penalty.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Certain individuals broke their oaths to the British Crown, in some parts of thw orld, they're national heroes.

Point is, all these oaths and allegiances are important, but they're not the be all and end all. There is more to life than the rule of law.

**Sasori**

AustonT wrote:Its called a panel in a court martial. From the Manual for Courts Martial it says:
In cases where the accused is an enlisted member, the accused may request that enlisted service members be appointed to the panel.

There is no jury of peers. Just like we don't let privates make strategic decisions, we don't generally let them decide the guilt or innocence of other privates. One would hope that any NCO worth his/her salt sees the situation beyond it's face and STARTS on the side of the accused and forces the prosecution to leverage them away.

Thank you. I used quotes around the Peers part, because I remembered it being different. The Panel part clears this up.

**Mr Hyena**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Certain individuals broke their oaths to the British Crown, in some parts of thw orld, they're national heroes.

Point is, all these oaths and allegiances are important, but they're not the be all and end all. There is more to life than the rule of law.

Are you supporting anarchy?

**Jihadin**

Once you take the oath and wear the uniform you fall under UCMJ.

here's a link to UCMJ

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm.htm

Article 92 covers most of his charges
Article 104 is one

**Mr Hyena**

BrassScorpion wrote:A former hacker and convicted felon explains why he turned Manning into authorities:

Adrian Lamo, Bradley Manning Informant, Defends Role in Turning in Alleged WikiLeaks Whistleblower

We speak with Adrian Lamo, the former hacker who last year informed the U.S. military authorities of his conversations with Army Private Bradley Manning, in which Manning claimed to have leaked a large body of classified documents. In internet chats with Lamo using a pseudonym, Manning allegedly disclosed he was providing materials to WikiLeaks founder and editor-in-chief Julian Assange. Lamo is now a witness in Manning’s trial. "I very much regret the situation that his actions have put him in. He is on my mind every day. I remember what it was to be that young and that idealistic. And when he came to me, he created a situation where there was no right decision. There were simply choices that were between greater and lesser harm. I had to go with the one that resulted in the lesser harm, but still resulted in harm," says Lamo. "The leaks have real potential to do harm or hazard. And then, additionally, they still do long-term damage to U.S. diplomacy with other countries, which in turn weakens our international position."

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/12/19/adrian_lamo_bradley_manning_informant_defends

This guy is the real hero.

**AustonT**

Jihadin wrote:Once you take the oath and wear the uniform you fall under UCMJ.

And give up your constitutional rights, some are returned in the UCMJ like your Article 31 prohibition against self incrimination (5A). Most are not, it's the way the cookie crumbles.

**Sasori**

AustonT wrote:
Jihadin wrote:Once you take the oath and wear the uniform you fall under UCMJ.

And give up your constitutional rights, some are returned in the UCMJ like your Article 31 prohibition against self incrimination (5A). Most are not, it's the way the cookie crumbles.

Quite true. An old saying when I was in "We Protect the Constitution, We don't practice it"

**Jihadin**

Same right as two witness that prosecution called up that pleaded Article 31 since they already been hammered by Manning action. One was a Master SGT now SFC.

**Sgt_Scruffy**

Manning dumped tens or hundreds of thousands on documents classified secret or above on the internet. There is NO way he knew the contents of and reprecussions of releasing those documents. Therefore, any "activism" he may have been taking part in was, at best, inadvertent and, at worst, merely an excuse to cover his actions ex post facto.

My opinion is that he was a loser looking for a little fame in the anonymous, wikileaks, and 4chan circles; but that's why I'm not on the panel.

**dogma**

AustonT wrote:As a matter of fact few people are tried for treason, that doesn't absolve them of being labeled traitors any more than a plea bargain for 3rd degree sexual assault makes the offender any less a rapist .

If we're setting aside laws against defamation, sure; you can call anyone, anything you want.

AustonT wrote:
I as an American can not be Treasonous in Ghana I hold no allegiance to them.

The last time I swore allegiance to the US was when I was ~10.

Can I be considered a traitor if I sell intelligence to interested parties?

**Sgt_Scruffy**

dogma wrote:
AustonT wrote:As a matter of fact few people are tried for treason, that doesn't absolve them of being labeled traitors any more than a plea bargain for 3rd degree sexual assault makes the offender any less a rapist .

If we're setting aside laws against defamation, sure; you can call anyone, anything you want.

AustonT wrote:
I as an American can not be Treasonous in Ghana I hold no allegiance to them.

The last time I swore allegiance to the US was when I was ~10.

Can I be considered a traitor if I sell intelligence to interested parties?

Yup, the law doesn't say that you must have taken an oath to be labelled a traitor. Didn't Johnny Taliban (Forgot his surname) who was captured back in 2002 fighting for the Taliban get charged with treason? The standards of proof for treason are pretty high if I recall correctly, so that may be a reason it is so rarely leveled as a charge against someone. Much easier to get them on mishandling sensitive materials etc...

**Da Boss**

There are worse traitors than Manning around. Perhaps not by the letter of the law, but in terms of ideology I would consider some prominent members of the previous administration to be traitors.
YMMV.

**Easy E**

His name was John Walker Lindh. He was not charged with Treason.

From the wiki:

Conspiracy to murder US citizens or US nationals
Two counts of providing material support and resources to terrorist organizations
One count of supplying services to the Taliban.
Conspiracy to contribute services to Al Qaeda
Contributing services to Al Qaeda
Conspiracy to supply services to the Taliban
Using and carrying firearms and destructive devices during crimes of violence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walker_Lindh#Trial

**dogma**

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Yup, the law doesn't say that you must have taken an oath to be labelled a traitor.

Outside defamation, you can be labelled as anything that anyone wants. I can point at person X and say "Lol, rapist." regardless of his actions insofar as my labeling does not harm him.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Didn't Johnny Taliban (Forgot his surname) who was captured back in 2002 fighting for the Taliban get charged with treason? The standards of proof for treason are pretty high if I recall correctly, so that may be a reason it is so rarely leveled as a charge against someone. Much easier to get them on mishandling sensitive materials etc...

John Walker Lindh, and no, not even he was tried for treason.

To speak to the crime as Constitutionally defined, it would be difficult to prove that Manning gave aid or comfort to enemies of the United States. Firstly because "...enemies of the United States." is incredibly vague, and secondly because the confession to crime would require two witnesses (difficult to secure). Then there's the matter of intentionality; in essence, did Manning intend to give "aid or comfort" to enemies of the United States? And further, what are "enemies of the United States?"

**AustonT**

dogma wrote:
The last time I swore allegiance to the US was when I was ~10.

Can I be considered a traitor if I sell intelligence to interested parties?

I can only guess that Tomoya Kawakita Probably never swore allegiance to the US or if he had at 10 was probably as far away from that statement as you are now for the actions he was convicted of treason for. So, yes. I'm sure given enough evidence you could be charged and tried with treason although since some sort of oath is generally required before receiving intelligence legally you would probably have to also collect it your self which rides it's way into espionage, which is a much easier conviction to obtain...and yet still treasonous at it's core if you commit espionage against your own state.

**dogma**

The ultimate question though is "What constitutes your own state?"

**AustonT**

Based on the summary of the case I read about Kawakita your citizenship binds you.

But I wouldn't be able to say with real certainty.

**dogma**

It does, I'm speaking towards a moralistic (it burns!) position.

**Jihadin**

(a) Nature of offense. Giving intelligence to the enemy is a particular case of corresponding with the enemy made more serious by the fact that the communication contains intelligence that may be useful to the enemy for any of the many reasons that make information valuable to belligerents. This intelligence may be conveyed by direct or indirect means.

portion from Article 104.

**AustonT**

Ahh well then I'd say it's the state for which you have a personal allegiance to before some particular act that would be described as treasonous.

I think it's a pretty well accepted fact that the confederate generals that most people can name were traitors. By constitutional definition no less. But applied morally, most of them felt that their allegiance was to their state as a PART of the union and once that state seceded so did their obligation.
I use that to illustrate that legally speaking one Robert Lee committed treason against the United States by waging war against her, but had he sided wit the Union morally he would have been a traitor to his allegiance to his state.

I hope that convey's my message with a contextual example.

**dogma**

Manning didn't give, in any reasonable sense, intelligence to the enemy. Unless the enemy is "all people not cleared for intelligence access."

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:
I hope that convey's my message with a contextual example.

It does, though I don't agree with it. But then, I lend exactly as much credence to treason as I do to hypocrisy, which is to say: none at all.

**AustonT**

/shrug
Then why get involved.

If you took the nature of the offense absent the last sentence Manning would be innocent of an Art. 104 offense but the last line is so nebulous as to allow him to at least be charged with it.

**Jihadin**

direct or indirect means.

That portion there is what got him on that article

**AustonT**

THIS is what's going to get him.

The intent, content, and method of the communication, correspondence, or intercourse are immaterial. No response or receipt by the enemy is required. The offense is complete the moment the communication, correspondence, or intercourse issues from the accused.

all they have to do is prove an FIS they can label an "enemy" accessed it on Wikileaks and the kid is totally fethed.

**dogma**

Ah, secondary liability.

**AustonT**

Ain't it a bitch, I actually misspoke they don't even have to prove it was accessed, only that it is accessible.

**dogma**

To bring it all to a close:

SOPA is tacit to US espionage laws.

Hooray corporate welfare.

**Jihadin**

talking about accessing the info its recorded on his profile what transpired. Also the fact you need your CAC card to log into a US military computer. The operating system is mirrored