Defense attorney: Bradley Manning a whistleblower

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.

**Jihadin**

FORT MEADE, Md. – U.S. Army Pfc. Bradley Manning is a whistleblower who wanted to inform the American public about the troubling things he saw in the war zone, and the soldier is willing to pay the price for giving secrets to WikiLeaks, his defense attorney said Friday.

During closing arguments, attorney David Coombs disputed what prosecutors said a day earlier, that Manning was a traitor whose only mission as an intelligence analyst was to give classified information to the anti-secrecy website and bask in the attention.

"He's not seeking attention. He saying he's willing to accept the price" for what he has done, Coombs said.

Manning, 25, is charged with 21 offenses, but the most serious is aiding the enemy. A conviction on that could land him in prison for the rest of his life.

Coombs said the prosecution cherry-picked Manning's chats with convicted computer hacker Adrian Lamo to make their case. He urged the judge to read the entire chat log to put things in context.

For example, he said the prosecution cited a line Manning wrote to Lamo: "If you had unprecedented access to classified networks, 14 hours a day, seven days a week, for eight-plus months, what would you do?"

Coombs pointed out Manning also wrote, "Hypothetical question: If you had free reign over classified networks over a long period of time, if you saw incredible things, awful things, things that belonged in the public domain and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington, D.C., what would you do?"

Lamo turned the soldier in to authorities in May 2010.

Coombs also said Manning's chat with Lamo about Hillary Clinton and other diplomats around the world having a heart attack over what was leaked was taken out of context.

A military judge, not a jury, is hearing the case at Manning's request. Army Col. Denise Lind will deliberate after closing arguments, but it's not clear when she will rule.

Speaking for more than five hours Thursday, Maj. Ashden Fein told the judge Manning gave secrets to a group of anarchists, knowing the material would be seen by the terrorist group al-Qaida.

"WikiLeaks was merely the platform which Pfc. Manning used to ensure all the information was available for the world, including enemies of the United States," Fein said.

Coombs has said Manning was troubled by what he saw in the war -- and at the same time was struggling as a gay man in the era of "don't ask don't tell." Those struggles made him want to do something to make a difference and he hoped revealing what was going on in Iraq and Afghanistan and U.S. diplomacy would inspire debate and reform in American foreign and military policy.

A native of Crescent, Okla., Manning has acknowledged giving WikiLeaks some 700,000 battlefield reports, diplomatic cables and videos. But he says he didn't believe the information would harm troops in Afghanistan and Iraq or threaten national security.

"The amount of the documents in this case, actually is the best evidence that he was discreet in what he chose because if he was indiscriminate, if he was systematically harvesting, we wouldn't be talking about a few hundred thousand documents -- we'd be talking about millions of documents," Coombs said.

Coombs showed three snippets of video from a 2007 U.S. Apache helicopter attack Manning leaked, showing troops firing on a small crowd of men on a Baghdad sidewalk, killing at least nine men, including a Reuters news photographer and his driver. Coombs said the loss of civilian lives shocked and horrified the young soldier.

"You have to look at that from the point of view of a guy who cared about human life," Coombs said.

Prosecutors argued Manning only cared about himself. The government and Manning's attorneys also disagree on when the soldier started giving material to WikiLeaks. Prosecutors believe it was in late 2009, shortly after his deployment in Iraq began. Manning has said it started in February the following year.

The verdict and any sentence will be reviewed, and could be reduced, by the commander of the Military District of Washington, currently Maj. Gen. Jeffery S. Buchanan.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/26/defense-to-give-closing-in-manning-wikileaks-case/#ixzz2aOvLGJNy

I would love to see his counseling packet....

SGT Daniel Padgett worked in the SCIF with PFC Manning. He was tasked to be the Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge (NCIOC), even though he had no formal training and was not an NCO at the time.

SGT Padgett testified about an incident involving PFC Manning in which he flipped over a table which had computers on it. SGT Padgett said he was counseling PFC Manning after he had been late for duty and that PFC Manning stared blankly ahead and then flipped over the table. Contrary to the testimony of CPT Lim and CPT Fulton, SGT Padgett said PFC Manning did not reach for a gun from the gun rack, and was restrained by soldiers to keep him from getting anything that could harm himself. SGT Padgett said he could not recall talking to MSG Adkins or any commanding officers about the incident. There was also no disciplinary action against PFC Manning.

CPT Overgaard of the prosecution cross-examined SGT Padgett about whether or not music was authorized in the SCIF. SGT Padgett said that there were music files on the shared drive, and that soldiers had been allowed to bring CDs in, as long as they were not rewritable. He said there were no movies on the shared drive.

SGT Padgett was also asked about Operation Security and his training thereof. SGT Padgett said he had never signed a non-disclosure agreement reminding him to safeguard classified information, but he also said that soldiers were expected to do so, especially those with security clearances. CPT Overgaard asked SGT Padgett if he had ever burned classified information on a CD for personal use. He answered, “No.”

Defense Witness Testimony: Captain Barclay Keay

CPT Barclay Keay a supervisor of three soldiers on the night shift in the SCIF, including PFC Manning. CPT Keay said there were no non-commissioned officers (NCOs) during the night shift because it was not as active as the daytime.

CPT Keay testified that he saw soldiers watching video clips and listening to music, but had never seen them playing video games on the computers. CPT Keay had given a sworn statement to the Secretary of the Army investigator which said he did not find it appropriate to have any media in the SCIF. He thought having media on the computers would be seen negatively and that the military should not be so liberal about it. Despite believing it to be inappropriate, CPT Keay was told that allowing the soldiers to have music was an “accepted practice” and helped the soldiers to be “more productive.”

CPT Keay also said he believed PFC Manning wanted to be a good soldier, and that he tried to do—and did—good analytical work.

Bear in mind this is UCMJ and not a civilian court system. Little bugger going to get nailed with UCMJ violations regardless.

**cincydooley**

And, IMO, rightly so.

**Seaward**

That's a cute bit of revisionist history, but no.

**Zathras**

Whistleblower? No. Scum sucking traitor that violated his oath and should be executed for treason? Damned straight.

**daedalus**

Zathras wrote:
Whistleblower? No. Scum sucking traitor that violated his oath and should be executed for treason? Damned straight.

Truly a villain for violating his oath by informing the populace of something that could well be unlawful in and of itself. Truly.

Villain like those guys who defected from Germany so many years ago, may they rot in hell.

Godwinned on first page.

Let us talk about that anger you are obviously feeling. Please, what's the root of it? Why do you feel so strongly about this?

**Sasori**

I hope he gets life if Leavenworth, I'm sure he's not going to be executed.

**Jihadin**

He's getting prosecuted under UCMJ. No escaping that. He's going to get charged for violating UCMJ articles. No escaping that. His counseling packet I think blew the "Whistleblower" option out the window. If he wanted "whistleblowing" status then he should have been logging his time spent on calls to "Fraud, Waste, and Abuse" instead he downloaded, I use the term from NSA, megadata on a thumbdrive and dropped it right into Wikileak lap. Life for the critter...I let him take up oxygen for the next 20+ years busting big rocks into little rocks on Thursday

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

I wonder what will happen to those personnel who were shown to be killing civilians and enjoying themselves whilst doing it? Will they be subjected to the same amount of prosecution? Silly question...

**AlexHolker**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I wonder what will happen to those personnel who were shown to be killing civilians and enjoying themselves whilst doing it? Will they be subjected to the same amount of prosecution? Silly question...

No. We already have precedent that Obama doesn't care if you commit war crimes (in this case by deliberately killing non-combatants trying to give first aid to the wounded), as long as nobody gets in the way of the coverup.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Sasori wrote:
I hope he gets life if Leavenworth, I'm sure he's not going to be executed.

The prosecution isn't seeking the death penalty and what Manning has already confessed to will put him away for a long time. Remember sports fans Manning plead guilty to MOST of the charges. This kid's going on a vacation to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas for a long time, the only thing going on in that court room right now is haggling over exactly how long till he sees daylight again.

**LuciusAR**

I don't think he's either a Traitor or Whistleblower.

He dumped too much information to be a whistleblower. He didn’t reveal information of specific wrongdoing, he just grabbed as much as he could. That there was actual dirt in there was pure coincidence.

I also don't think he meant his country harm. I think he was probably motivated by the best of intentions and was manipulated by far more devious minds than his.

He's a silly boy. Nothing more.

**djones520**

LuciusAR wrote:
I don't think he's either a Traitor or Whistleblower.

He dumped too much information to be a whistleblower. He didn’t reveal information of specific wrongdoing, he just grabbed as much as he could. That there was actual dirt in there was pure coincidence.

I also don't think he meant his country harm. I think he was probably motivated by the best of intentions and was manipulated by far more devious minds than his.

He's a silly boy. Nothing more.

He was an angry little boy who wanted to lash out. He was trying to do harm. He had just been demoted and had been recommended for discharge when he made his "first" leak. He had exhibited violent tendencies at work, and had been actively trying to get himself removed from the military, by openly sharing his sexual orientation, and then trying to pull a Clinger. There was nothing at all about this that was "best intentions". He hated the Army, he wanted out, and he decided that he was going to do as much damage as he could while he did it.

**Alfndrate**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Sasori wrote:
I hope he gets life if Leavenworth, I'm sure he's not going to be executed.

The prosecution isn't seeking the death penalty and what Manning has already confessed to will put him away for a long time. Remember sports fans Manning plead guilty to MOST of the charges. This kid's going on a vacation to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas for a long time, the only thing going on in that court room right now is haggling over exactly how long till he sees daylight again.

I think he'll see daylight every day from roughly sunrise to sunset

. The question remains, how long will he be able to go before he can taste a McDonald's cheeseburger, fries, and a coke?

**Seaward**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I wonder what will happen to those personnel who were shown to be killing civilians and enjoying themselves whilst doing it? Will they be subjected to the same amount of prosecution? Silly question...

Depends on which personnel you're talking about.

Do you know?

I really, really hope you're not talking about the so-called "Collateral Murder" video.

**djones520**

Seaward wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I wonder what will happen to those personnel who were shown to be killing civilians and enjoying themselves whilst doing it? Will they be subjected to the same amount of prosecution? Silly question...

Depends on which personnel you're talking about.

Do you know?

I really, really hope you're not talking about the so-called "Collateral Murder" video.

That's the only release that he made that hit mainstream.

**Jihadin**

Its the one where the Frag 5 HUMVEE ran over a body when they pulled in at night.....can see crap under Nod's and FLIR isn't exactly crystal clear

**pities2004**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I wonder what will happen to those personnel who were shown to be killing civilians and enjoying themselves whilst doing it? Will they be subjected to the same amount of prosecution? Silly question...

It's war, collateral damage happens, it's unfortunate but, it's war.

**LordofHats**

I do sit here an ponder over all these cases of whistleblowers lately, why the 'heroes' are failures in their professional lives. Intriguing.

**Monster Rain**

It's the standard defense for when you are in trouble for being a gakbird at work and lash out in an illegal manner.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I wonder what will happen to those personnel who were shown to be killing civilians and enjoying themselves whilst doing it? Will they be subjected to the same amount of prosecution? Silly question...

I bet if you did even rudimentary research into this you'd find plenty of prosecution on that sort of thing.

AlexHolker wrote:No. We already have precedent that Obama doesn't care if you commit war crimes (in this case by deliberately killing non-combatants trying to give first aid to the wounded), as long as nobody gets in the way of the coverup.

I'm glad to see the irrational Obama hate isn't restricted to the backwaters of the U-S-of-A.

**Rented Tritium**

LuciusAR wrote:

He dumped too much information to be a whistleblower. He didn’t reveal information of specific wrongdoing, he just grabbed as much as he could. That there was actual dirt in there was pure coincidence.

This is the thing for me, it wasn't like he had the pentagon papers, it was an indiscriminate data dump.

When you leak secrets, you need to be sure that the ends justify the means. It needs to be so good that you get pardoned for it by the next president. If it's not the pentagon papers or something, I'm not going to be really happy with you for it.

Like, snowden revealed something that I'm personally pretty glad we know now. Manning just dumped a bunch of secrets for no particular reason.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

pities2004 wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I wonder what will happen to those personnel who were shown to be killing civilians and enjoying themselves whilst doing it? Will they be subjected to the same amount of prosecution? Silly question...

It's war, collateral damage happens, it's unfortunate but, it's war.

Agreed, but there's a big difference between accidently dropping a bomb on somebody's house, and shooting up people just for the fun of it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rented Tritium wrote:
LuciusAR wrote:

He dumped too much information to be a whistleblower. He didn’t reveal information of specific wrongdoing, he just grabbed as much as he could. That there was actual dirt in there was pure coincidence.

This is the thing for me, it wasn't like he had the pentagon papers, it was an indiscriminate data dump.

When you leak secrets, you need to be sure that the ends justify the means. It needs to be so good that you get pardoned for it by the next president. If it's not the pentagon papers or something, I'm not going to be really happy with you for it.

Like, snowden revealed something that I'm personally pretty glad we know now. Manning just dumped a bunch of secrets for no particular reason.

I was going to say exactly the same thing!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:
It's the standard defense for when you are in trouble for being a gakbird at work and lash out in an illegal manner.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I wonder what will happen to those personnel who were shown to be killing civilians and enjoying themselves whilst doing it? Will they be subjected to the same amount of prosecution? Silly question...

I bet if you did even rudimentary research into this you'd find plenty of prosecution on that sort of thing.

AlexHolker wrote:No. We already have precedent that Obama doesn't care if you commit war crimes (in this case by deliberately killing non-combatants trying to give first aid to the wounded), as long as nobody gets in the way of the coverup.

I'm glad to see the irrational Obama hate isn't restricted to the backwaters of the U-S-of-A.

I did some research on previous cases. There was a guy (can't remember his name) who killed a lot of villagers in some south-east Asian country. He was pardoned for his crimes.

**Seaward**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Agreed, but there's a big difference between accidently dropping a bomb on somebody's house, and shooting up people just for the fun of it.

Seriously, what incident are you talking about?

The only one I can think of is the British PMC group's video.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

LordofHats wrote:
I do sit here an ponder over all these cases of whistleblowers lately, why the 'heroes' are failures in their professional lives. Intriguing.

Some historical perspective may give the insight you need!

**Ahtman**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I did some research on previous cases. There was a guy (can't remember his name) who killed a lot of villagers in some south-east Asian country. He was pardoned for his crimes.

You sort of remember something you think happened and have no details to support it. That is some really compelling evidence you have there to back up that the President is indifferent to war crimes.

**djones520**

Ahtman wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I did some research on previous cases. There was a guy (can't remember his name) who killed a lot of villagers in some south-east Asian country. He was pardoned for his crimes.

You sort of remember something you think happened and have no details to support it. That is some really compelling evidence you have there to back up that the President is indifferent to war crimes.

Thank you, you put that a lot more elequently that I was trying to.

**Ensis Ferrae**

LordofHats wrote:
I do sit here an ponder over all these cases of whistleblowers lately, why the 'heroes' are failures in their professional lives. Intriguing.

Because most of them aren't true whistleblowers... There are certain steps that MUST be taken (at least within the army) in order to get that sort of protection.

Manning most definitely is a traitor, it's just too bad he won't get the traitors punishment. He should definitely lose the "whistleblower" defense claim, because he did none of the things that would give you that status. He's just some punk kid who thought being in the army would be like college, or at worst, the national guard.

As for some of the other recent whistle blower cases (like snowden) I admit, I am not very well read up on, and can't really comment too much on whether the govt is right in going after them or not. Well, the F/F guy is getting shafted, IMO, which points to some definite issues and probable need for the whistle blower protection. I do agree also with previous posters in that what snowden leaked to the public is kinda good to know, although I don't really think people have much to worry about ultimately.

**pities2004**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
I do sit here an ponder over all these cases of whistleblowers lately, why the 'heroes' are failures in their professional lives. Intriguing.

Because most of them aren't true whistleblowers... There are certain steps that MUST be taken (at least within the army) in order to get that sort of protection.

Manning most definitely is a traitor, it's just too bad he won't get the traitors punishment. He should definitely lose the "whistleblower" defense claim, because he did none of the things that would give you that status. He's just some punk kid who thought being in the army would be like college, or at worst, the national guard.

As for some of the other recent whistle blower cases (like snowden) I admit, I am not very well read up on, and can't really comment too much on whether the govt is right in going after them or not. Well, the F/F guy is getting shafted, IMO, which points to some definite issues and probable need for the whistle blower protection. I do agree also with previous posters in that what snowden leaked to the public is kinda good to know, although I don't really think people have much to worry about ultimately.

Wait are you saying I don't need to worry about the government listening to my phone calls talking about warhammer, or when I order pizzas? Snowden is a traitor, the monitoring doesn't bother me, as long as you aren't planning terrorist attacks, don't worry about it.

Manning should get 20 plus years for treason against the country he swore to protect. Things happen in war, if you compare the collateral damage now to WWII, there is a big different of loss of civilian life.

Total Dead

'World War II fatality statistics vary, with estimates of total dead ranging from 50 million to more than 80 million.[1] The sources cited in this article document an estimated death toll in World War II that range from approximately 60 to 85 million, making it the deadliest war in world history in absolute terms of total dead but not in terms of deaths relative to the world population. The higher figure of 85 million includes deaths from war-related disease and famine. Civilians killed totaled from 38 to 55 million, including 13 to 20 million from war-related disease and famine. Total military dead: from 22 to 25 million, including deaths in captivity of about 5 million prisoners of war"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Total_dead

War isn't about hugs, collateral damage is the cost of war. The military doesn't high five you to death, crap happens.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Ahtman wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I did some research on previous cases. There was a guy (can't remember his name) who killed a lot of villagers in some south-east Asian country. He was pardoned for his crimes.

You sort of remember something you think happened and have no details to support it. That is some really compelling evidence you have there to back up that the President is indifferent to war crimes.

I was referring to the My Lai massacre where the only guy convicted was given a presidential pardon.

**djones520**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I did some research on previous cases. There was a guy (can't remember his name) who killed a lot of villagers in some south-east Asian country. He was pardoned for his crimes.

You sort of remember something you think happened and have no details to support it. That is some really compelling evidence you have there to back up that the President is indifferent to war crimes.

I was referring to the My Lai massacre where the only guy convicted was given a presidential pardon.

So you said President Obama doesn't care, then when called on it, you reference something from over 40 years ago. That makes no sense.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
I do sit here an ponder over all these cases of whistleblowers lately, why the 'heroes' are failures in their professional lives. Intriguing.

Because most of them aren't true whistleblowers... There are certain steps that MUST be taken (at least within the army) in order to get that sort of protection.

Manning most definitely is a traitor, it's just too bad he won't get the traitors punishment. He should definitely lose the "whistleblower" defense claim, because he did none of the things that would give you that status. He's just some punk kid who thought being in the army would be like college, or at worst, the national guard.

As for some of the other recent whistle blower cases (like snowden) I admit, I am not very well read up on, and can't really comment too much on whether the govt is right in going after them or not. Well, the F/F guy is getting shafted, IMO, which points to some definite issues and probable need for the whistle blower protection. I do agree also with previous posters in that what snowden leaked to the public is kinda good to know, although I don't really think people have much to worry about ultimately.

By your logic, then it's a pity that George Washington didn't receive a traitor's punishment. After all, he did break his oath of allegiance to the British Crown. From the top of my head, nothing much happened to Jefferson Davis or Robert E Lee after the civil war, either.

Sometimes, people break the law for justice. I happen to think that Washington was right in the actions he took. In Manning's case, yeah, he broke the military code, but a life sentence seems to me as somebody's way of getting back at him for the embarrassment he caused. By the way some people reacted, you'd think he's sold atomic secrets to the Soviets. 5 years would suffice for Manning.

Whistleblowers with genuine secrets to expose that are in the public interest, do need protection.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I did some research on previous cases. There was a guy (can't remember his name) who killed a lot of villagers in some south-east Asian country. He was pardoned for his crimes.

You sort of remember something you think happened and have no details to support it. That is some really compelling evidence you have there to back up that the President is indifferent to war crimes.

I was referring to the My Lai massacre where the only guy convicted was given a presidential pardon.

So you said President Obama doesn't care, then when called on it, you reference something from over 40 years ago. That makes no sense.

Historical perspective, historical precedent. Obama has been using the 1917 espionage act to go after whistleblowers. Should that be ignored because it's old?

A lot of people, lately, have been concerned over 4th amendment violations. Should that be ignored because it's 200+ years old?