FWIS3

Most particularly, not guilty of aiding the enemy

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/30/justice/manning-court-martial/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

A military judge has found Pfc. Bradley Manning, accused of the largest leak of classified information in U.S. history, not guilty of aiding the enemy -- a charge that would have carried a maximum sentence of life in prison.

Manning was also found not guilty of unauthorized possession of information relating to national defense.

He was found guilty of most of the remaining charges against him, with the judge accepting some of the guilty pleas he made previously to lesser charges.

The sentencing phase of the court-martial is expected to begin Wednesday.

He could be sentenced to up to 20 years behind bars on some of the other charges.

...

"The judge rejected the government's argument that Manning, by virtue of his training as an intelligence officer, must have known that the information he disclosed was likely to reach al Qaeda," Goitein said in a written statement. "But she also ruled that Manning had reason to believe his disclosures could harm the U.S., even if that was not his goal."

I'm not very familiar with all the details of the case, but I'm comfortable with that decision.

Yeah, I'm good with it. Aiding the enemy was a stretch given, I think, they had to prove actual harm done.

Agreed. The conviction is fine, though I still find it funny that the charge was espionage - what he did was the opposite of clandestine, really. I assume there's no charge similar to "communicating safeguarded information," which would have been the charge in Canada. I guess espionage in the US covers the same ground. Still sounds funny to me, though.

I'm not sure what the elements of an espionage charge are. Perhaps merely passing on secrets is enough. Doesn't have to be clandestine.

No, I get that - it's just that there's no offence of "espionage" in Canada, so it sounds funny to me.

geonuc wrote:Yeah, I'm good with it. Aiding the enemy was a stretch given, I think, they had to prove actual harm done.

Apparently there were other implications if he was convicted of aiding Al Qaida via leaking information. It seems that a shit ton of government officials and anyone else who leaked information to reporters would have been in a very caparious situation if Manning had been convicted. Essentially, anyone who leaked information that subsequently fell into enemy hands would have been subject to the same charge.

On the other hand, while I'm content with his conviction based on the fact that the law in question has been violated, I don't want to see him in jail. Why? He revealed some very disturbing things as a matter of conscience. He's a whistleblower, not a spy for Al-Qaeda. Sometimes breaking the law is the right thing to do.

So, yes. I'm fine with a conviction because he clearly broke a law... but I want him to be handed a suspended sentence.

The Supreme Canuck wrote:On the other hand, while I'm content with his conviction based on the fact that the law in question has been violated, I don't want to see him in jail. Why? He revealed some very disturbing things as a matter of conscience. He's a whistleblower, not a spy for Al-Qaeda. Sometimes breaking the law is the right thing to do.

So, yes. I'm fine with a conviction because he clearly broke a law... but I want him to be handed a suspended sentence.

But there were also some very bad consequence stuff that was released as part of the Wikileaks revelations (I'm not sure if this was part of the data that was received from Manning, or they had other sources).

For example, some of the information leaked were the names of people in Afghanistan who had worked with the US, as information sources, translators, etc. These people are now targets for revenge killings by the Taliban.

So Manning's actions could potentially lead to the deaths of people that were trying to help the US and their country. That doesn't seem to be "the right thing to do".

The consequences of releasing information have nothing to do with the charge of espionage - they relate to the charge of aiding the enemy. Which he was found not guilty of. As geonuc says, they needed to prove that Manning did actual harm; they failed to do so. There's no evidence his release of information harmed anyone.

Pretty sure if it did cause harm to an undercover operative then no one would claim that the operative was harmed.
One of those funny things about covert operations is they pretty much remain covert in good or bad situations.

Too bad, frankly. If you don't want to present evidence, you don't get to convict someone.

The Supreme Canuck wrote:The consequences of releasing information have nothing to do with the charge of espionage - they relate to the charge of aiding the enemy. Which he was found not guilty of. As geonuc says, they needed to prove that Manning did actual harm; they failed to do so. There's no evidence his release of information harmed anyone.

You may be correct as far as the law, you two are the experts.

But I thought the charge of aiding the enemy had to prove that he did actual harm to the US; harm to Afghan citizens is another issue.

I also suspect that there is no matter of conscience/whistleblower exception to what he was found guilty of.

But I was not reacting to the legal question, but the moral question. I thought you were advocating that he should be given a suspended sentence because he did what he did for some moral greater good. I'm countering that by saying that his choice was not so cleanly for the greater good.

I have no idea, but I strongly suspect he had no intention of harming Afghan nationals. But I also have the suspicion that he did not think through all the consequence of what he was doing, and he should be punished for that lack.

As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Swift wrote:I have no idea, but I strongly suspect he had no intention of harming Afghan nationals. But I also have the suspicion that he did not think through all the consequence of what he was doing, and he should be punished for that lack.

He was in the business deep enough to realise the damage he could do.

I don't know military law in general and I don't know this one in particular, but yes, I think the harm must be to the US or to US interests.

That said, he needs to go to jail. He is a member of the US military and as such, you don't get to be a whistleblower. It just doesn't work that way. Changing US foreign policy must be done from outside the military.

Swift: I see. Ignore what I said, then. I'll counter with this, instead: he released the information based upon a desire to air out wrongdoings known to him. The trade-off was potential further harm in the future. This situation leads to a number of things to consider:

A) Manning would have been aware of the harm caused by the wrongdoings he wanted to make public; he would also have been aware of the probable potential further harm that might be the result of releasing the information. Presumably he made the cost/benefit analysis and found that greater good would be done by releasing the information than by not doing so.
B) No harm to civilians as a result of the information being released has been found by anyone. This suggests that Manning's cost/benefit analysis was right: more good was done by leaking than bad.
C) No harm to US interests has been found by anyone, which is why he was found not guilty of aiding the enemy. I'm not sure, but I suspect that this does include harm to Afghan civilians. And even if it didn't, had there been such harm to civilians, I'm certain that the prosecution would have argued that any such incidents did harm US interests. We would have heard about them. That we didn't means that even the people who would try their damnedest to pin harm on Manning failed to do so.
D) The fact remains that there were wrongdoings which should have been outed. When does the threat of potential harm trump the existence of actual, ongoing harm? Should a potential whistleblower remain silent in the face of large amounts of harm being done if there is the slightest chance of any small level of harm being done as a result of blowing the whistle? That seems like an unreasonable moral standard to me. Shouldn't the moral course be to leak the information in any case where it is likely that the harm of leaking would be less, by any amount, than the harm of not doing so? And given that there has been no evidence of harm caused by this leak, isn't that what has happened here?
E) Given that actual wrongdoing has been uncovered, regardless of Manning's fate or any harm that he inadvertently caused, shouldn't the perpetrator's of those wrongdoings be held to account? Why aren't they? Why are we focusing on what Manning did rather than on the information that he released? What he did is done; the thing to do is to look at what he revealed.

geonuc wrote:I don't know military law in general and I don't know this one in particular, but yes, I think the harm must be to the US or to US interests.

Seems reasonable. But how one defines "US interests" matters. I suspect it includes the safety of allied civilians, and even if it doesn't the prosecutor would have been arguing that it did and trying to get any incidents of harm to such civilians caused by the leak entered as evidence against Manning. That didn't happen. It certainly didn't stick.

That said, he needs to go to jail. He is a member of the US military and as such, you don't get to be a whistleblower. It just doesn't work that way. Changing US foreign policy must be done from outside the military.

Really? No active service member of the military can be a whistleblower? What if war crimes are being committed by either the military or the civilian authority? I'm pretty sure that service members are required by law to be whistleblowers in that case.

Also, Manning has already spent time in jail. Sentence him to time served. Hell, sentence him to five further years. But 136? Come, now...

Let me refine my statement. I don't think service members can be 'whistleblowers' in an attempt to change or expose US foreign or military policy. War crimes or other acts contrary to the UCMJ are a different matter.

He has served time and that should, and I believe will, count against his sentence. But he needs to do considerably more time.

geonuc wrote:Let me refine my statement. I don't think service members can be 'whistleblowers' in an attempt to change or expose US foreign or military policy. War crimes or other acts contrary to the UCMJ are a different matter.

He has served time and that should, and I believe will, count against his sentence. But he needs to do considerably more time.

I pretty much agree with geonuc FWIW. Not sure if its for the same reasons but who the hell knows.
So I'll just write what I think for you all to read and shoot me down in flames.

When you join the military you are owned by the military.
Its a duty above and beyond civil duty and needs to be treated accordingly.
Attempting to put civil rules/laws/morals in a military environment will only guarantee you'll have the most useless military on the planet.
Judging military personnel according to civilian rules by default implies they are not military.

Manning was military. He had clearance above what most have. He had responsibility to the military and to the civilians of his country.
The problem came when he decided that his opinion was worth more than the chain of command.
Right there it has to be stopped.
Maybe he was right.
It makes no difference.
He broke the chain of command and took personal responsibility in deciding what should be classified and what should not.
That is not his decision to make.
End of story.

If history shows he did the right thing then let it also reflect the sacrifices a soldier must make.
If you're willing to die for your country then you should also be willing to serve time for doing something that cannot by any stretch of the imagination become an easy simple thing to do without much repercussion. It would spell the end of the military otherwise.

It sucks. It really does if he did what he should have done and still has to pay for it for the greater good but that is exactly what the military requires of their personnel. Sacrifice for the greater good. If he doesn't get that then he didn't have the brains to make a call on what should be made public and what should not.
Nor should anyone mistake him for a good soldier if he can't understand the concept of self sacrifice.

If it was me I'd shut the fuck up and take my punishment. Not whine like a little bitch to the media.
If its too much to take being locked up, then take your alternative and move on to the next life.
Because THAT is the cost of doing what he did when you are a soldier.
And it has to be the cost, if its not, you'll have no military.
What you'll have is internet warriors who sign up for something that they are too damned stupid to understand and think war is about, "I pwnd u".

Well Manning, you got, "PWNED".
Deal with it.

geonuc wrote:Let me refine my statement. I don't think service members can be 'whistleblowers' in an attempt to change or expose US foreign or military policy. War crimes or other acts contrary to the UCMJ are a different matter.

He has served time and that should, and I believe will, count against his sentence. But he needs to do considerably more time.

Yes.

Actually, I have no sympathy for Manning. Sorry TSC, but my gut is that he should go to jail for a very long time. This wasn't a leak of a bad incident or two, this was thousands of top secret documents.

I'm not sure why, but Wikileaks, Julian Assange, and Manning make me furious. I despise them. It would not bother me if they were lined up in front a firing squad and shot. Sorry, but that has been my emotional reaction since the start of all this and I am not normally some flag-waving neo-conservative.

Maybe FZ's analysis is the reason for my feeling... I'm not sure. I think FZ is exactly right, I just don't know if those thoughts explain my reaction.

whistleblower - an informant who exposes wrongdoing within an organization in the hope of stopping it.

Disgruntled Employee - displeased and discontented; sulky; peevish. A person who causes harm to a business or enterprise because of a perceived injustice being done to them by the employer.

Bradly Manning had been a troubled teen and should have been discharged before he even graduated from basic training. He had a long history of disciplinary issues. He was reprimanded for discussing sensitive material on social media before he ever deployed. Less than a month before he was arrested for leaking sensitive information he physically assaulted a female analyst in his unit. In fact, he did not start releasing sensitive information until after he started getting into trouble in Iraq. Three days before he was arrested he was demoted in rank. By this time he knew what was coming. He was going to be discharged from the army with a diagnosis of personality disorder and inability to adapt to military life.

He did not leak this information as a whistleblower. He did so as a disgruntled employee intent on harming the people that he perceived as perpetrating an injustice on himself.

Military personnel can be whistleblowers and reveal wrong doing. In fact, many do so. They are not charged with espionage when they do. If you want a perfect example of military whistleblowing look no further than the My Lai massacre. The massacre was reported by several soldiers who could have been accused of being whistleblowers. And this was before there was a law protecting whistleblowers. In fact, it was a soldier (or former soldier) who sparked the investigation that blew the whole thing wide open.

My Lai was a clear violation against military code.

FZR1KG wrote:My Lai was a clear violation against military code.

which is why it is a "textbook" whistleblower example. Unfortunately, most issues involving ethics and morals are not quite as clear. But, the reason I chose it was the fact that many soldiers reported it even though it could have meant their careers and possibly charges brought against them for reporting it. But, they did it anyway because they knew it was wrong. They knew it was wrong to kill civilians indiscriminately. They knew it was wrong to lie about it and cover it up. So, they risked their careers and even their lives to say something.

Manning wants to be a hero. He wants people to think he had noble motivations. all he wanted to do was "get even" with a system that he felt was victimizing him. As for the information he leaked I am not even sure any of it was ever considered illegal IAW the rules of engagement or the laws of war. IOW he released classified information that was important to our national security but was not evidence of any wrong doing by anyone. In order to be a whistleblower you have to be exposing wrong doing. If there wasn't wrong doing then it sort of fizzles the whistleblower defense.

For the record, My lai is yet another example why I disagree with the USA refusing to have its forces be investigated for war crimes by anyone outside the USA.
Hundreds of civilians, women, children and infants killed and only one person got convicted and he got 3 years of house arrest.
Its a disgrace.
That was only the tip of the iceberg too.
Huge problem with the hypocrisy of the US military in its handling of war crimes for other nations and how it handles its own.

FZR1KG wrote:Huge problem with the hypocrisy of the US military in its handling of war crimes for other nations and how it handles its own.

It is "just" a part of the bigger hypocrisy of the US. We (the country as a whole, not you and I) have this "we are better than anyone else and therefore don't have to answer to concerns of mere mortals" attitude that I hate.

Swift wrote:It is "just" a part of the bigger hypocrisy of the US. We (the country as a whole, not you and I) have this "we are better than anyone else and therefore don't have to answer to concerns of mere mortals" attitude that I hate.

Speaking of, this is a news item that recently surfaced:

The US and Canada are exchanging law enforcement personnel at the border to speed up border crossings for semi-trailers. Cool. Regulatory streamlining is good. Here's the problem: the US government is insisting that American law enforcement personnel should not be subject to any Canadian laws while on Canadian soil. I'm sorry... what? No. I'm really, really not okay with that.