backtop


Print 83 comment(s) - last by RedemptionAD.. on Mar 7 at 5:23 PM


U.S. Army Specialist Bradley Manning  (Source: AP via Facebook)

A new charge against Mr. Manning could carry the death penalty, though that is unlikely. Mr. Manning is accused of "aiding the enemy". The terrorist group Taliban has thanked Wikileaks and its source for the publication of U.S. war memos, which will be a useful recruiting tool and may offer info on local sources.   (Source: Getty Images)
Private specialist is subject to 22 new charges, including aiding the enemy

At a jail in Quantico, Virginia, Wikileaks confidante Bradley Manning received bad news sometime in the last couple weeks, according to the U.S. Army.  They have filed 22 new charges against the 23-year-old former U.S. Army Private.

I. A Capital Offense

Most notably, Mr. Manning has been charged with aiding the enemy.  According to the Army's Military Law manual (see link) this charge can be applied against someone who directly or indirectly, gives information to "the enemy".  

It is punishable by death or "other punishment", with the decision resting with the court martial committee.

In this case, "the enemy" could be hostile terrorist groups like the Taliban or Al Qaeda that may have benefited from the intelligence info revealed in the published Army field memos.  According to reports, the Taliban officials are aware of the leaks and expressed appreciation to Wikileaks and its sources for their publication, saying they will find them useful.

Or the "enemy" in this charge could also be Wikileaks itself.  Approximately 97 percent of the site's currently published leaked documents pertain to the U.S.  And site leader Julian Assange called on hackers to be anarchists and resist government influence in a seminal 90s book on the hacking scene.

The military manual states that the "enemy" can be a "hostile body" and "civilians as well as members of military organizations".

The Department of Defense was careful to point in a Twitter post out that one of the charges was a capital offense.  It is unlikely, however, that the Army will seek the death penalty, not so much because of Manning's age, but out of the basic fact that the U.S. seldom executes its spies.  
In the modern era the only people to be executed for espionage during the modern era were the Rosenbergs, who met the death penalty in the 1950s at the height of anti-communist fervor.

While Manning's case is exemplary, its unlikely prosecutors will seek death.  In fact, CBS News is reporting that the Army's prosecution team will not recommend execution to the two-star general who is in charge of proceeding with legal action.

II. Other Charges

While the "aiding the enemy" charge obviously carries the most gravity, Mr. Manning also faces a laundry list of other charges.  

The charges are split into sections labeled "Charge X", where 'X' is the roman numeral of the section.  Each Charge has additional sub-charges, dubbed "Specifications".  There are 22 Specifications in the new document (hence 22 "charges" in plain English).

Section I covers the capital offense, Section II covers the leaked documents, and Section III covers Manning's various computer crimes.

Capt. John Haberland, a legal spokesman for the Military District of Washington writes in a statement, "The new charges more accurately reflect the broad scope of the crimes that Pvt. 1st Class Manning is accused of committing."

Section II opens with a general charge in Specification 1 of publishing U.S. Military Intelligence.

Specification 2 accuses him of illegally leaking a video called "12 JUL 07 CZ ENGAGEMENT ZONE 30 GC Anyone.avi", a tape of a chopper attack that killed civilians.  This video became part of Wikileaks' "Collateral Murder" documentary.  Specification 11 covers the release of "a file named 'BE22 PAX.zip' containing a video named 'BE22 PAX.wmv.'"  This likely is the video of the 2009 Afghani airstrike that Wikileaks published.

Specifications 4-7 line up with other significant Wikileaks publications.  For example the charges state that Mr. Manning stands accused of illegally sharing a "Combined Information Data Network Exchange Iraq database containing more than 380,000 records."  This is likely the 392,000 record database of Iraq War memos that Wikileaks published last year.  And other charges pertain to the release of 90,000 Afghanistan War memos.  

In both cases, the release of a small number of classified memos was separated into additional charges.

Similarly the U.S. State Department classified and unclassified cables that Mr. Manning allegedly released comprise Specifications 12 and 13.

Specification 8 refers to the release of "700 records" from the "United States Southern Command".  This likely refers to records of Guatánamo Bay detainees that Wikileaks allegedly currently has possession of and is preparing to release.

Interestingly, he also apparently illegally shared a massive database of U.S. Military personnel emails.  According to Specification 16 he obtained "the United States Forces -Iraq Microsoft Outlook / SharePoint Exchange Server global address list", which he passed along.

Charge III contains the most "pedestrian" accusations, language pertaining to computer crimes.  He stands accused of "attempting to bypass network or information system security mechanisms", "adding unauthorized software to a Secret Internet Protocol Router Network computer" (SIPRNET), "using an information system in a manner other than its intended purpose", "wrongfully storing classified information".

These charges, for the most part, seem straightforward.

III.  What's Next for Bradley Manning and Wikileaks

Our sources close to the investigation indicate that the chat logs in which Bradley Manning confessed to convicted ex-hacker Adrian Lamo were authenticated by the U.S. Military, dispelling conspiracy theories by the likes of Salon's Glenn Greenwald.  The Military was careful to verify the logs before it pressed forward with additional charges.

The logs were verified by forensic comparison of Mr. Lamo's hard drive with machine that Mr. Manning was chatting from.

Adrian Lamo says he will cooperate fully with the government investigation and says that history would indicate that the death penalty is unlikely for Mr. Manning.  He comments:

It's important that the charges be commensurate in penalty with the offense. This is a unique case, and right or not, will be seen as a test case for deterring others. The prosecutors are surely aware of the complexities of the matter. The length of time that has passed prior to bringing these charges shows the care and fairness that has gone into ensuring due process in this matter reflects the seriousness with which the government is treating the bifurcated issues of Manning's rights and the need to justly prosecute this case.

A trial date has not been set yet for Mr. Manning, as the Military continues its investigation.

Mr. Manning's attorney apparently expected the charges, commenting in a blog, "The defense has been preparing for the possibility of additional charges in this case."

In January he filed a complaint on behalf of Mr. Manning, accusing the Military of holding Mr. Manning in unpleasant conditions.  Mr. Manning comments in the complaint:
"I sit in my cell for 24 hours a day. I am stripped of all clothing with the exception of my underwear. My prescription eyeglasses are taken away from me. I am forced to sit in essential blindness...Additionally, there is a guard sitting outside of my cell watching me at all times."

Wikileaks was noticeably not named or discussed in the additional charges.  That's because the Justice Department is pursuing a separate case against Wikileaks and its founder Julian Assange and it will deal with those charges separately.

Mr. Assange recently publicly claimed his site need $31M USD a year in donations to survive -- more than twice the budget of Wikipedia.  According to past reports, the site maintains less than five full time employees and enjoys free hosting.  It also maintains a small legal team.  It is unclear where the remainder of the requested donations would be applied.

Wikileaks responded to the charges with a Twitter post, remarking:

Capital charge 'aiding the enemy' is a vindictive attack on Manning for exercising his right to silence. No evidence of any such thing.

Mr. Assange faces charges of his own.  Recently bailed out of English prison by U.S. film director Michael Moore, he is awaiting extradition to Sweden for a sex crimes charge.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Big problems
By MrBlastman on 3/3/2011 11:02:08 AM , Rating: 4
I bet you are wrong. If we did go to war again with a draft, I guarantee you there will be plenty of American Men and Women that will volunteer to serve without any complaint given the cause is right. You really underestimate the makeup of our great nation. Here's a hint: You don't have the freedom to type how you feel on the internet without repercussion due to a nation full of wimps.

Now, whether our war on terror has created more or less--where are the catostrophic attacks on American soil? Last I checked, we haven't had any since we began the war on terror.

The _reason_ 9/11 occured in the first place was due to the LACK of care by our Government to fight against terrorism and their attempts to IGNORE it. That methodology failed. You are now suggesting we revert back to failed methodology?


RE: Big problems
By nolisi on 3/3/2011 12:17:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now, whether our war on terror has created more or less--where are the catostrophic attacks on American soil? Last I checked, we haven't had any since we began the war on terror.


You're making an assumption which is kind of fallacious- the idea that we only *just* started the War on Terror. Truth is, we've been fighting terror since at least the Regan administration. We only gave it the moniker "War on Terror" with the last Bush administration.

As for the cause of the lack of attacks- I think you might be jumping to conlcusions a bit as well as limiting your perspective. Technically, we've had terrorist activity/attacks on American soil over the course of at least 30 years, these "attacks" range in severity and purpose. From this perspective, we haven't won the "War on Terror", and there's no certainty that the attacks have stopped. Terrorists tend to act on a longer term basis than organised Government and Politics. And when they do initiate an attack, it's can be extreme and devastating, such as 9/11. Really, we haven't dealt any kind of fatal blow to Al Qaeda. They're probably watching how we react to the financial crisis we're still mired in, and figuring out the most costly, vulnerable place to strike again with these situational variables in mind.


RE: Big problems
By MrBlastman on 3/3/2011 1:25:53 PM , Rating: 2
There is a big difference between numbers and speculation. I was basing my reply off of numbers--data, results that can be measured.

You were basing your reply off of speculation. As far as I'm concerned, I can see measurable results of terrorists killed, terrorist leaders and officers killed and most importantly, a lack of civilian casualties on our own soil. When that changes, then your speculation will have validity.

What I can say is this... when the terrorists tried to blow up the WTC the first time, I can definitively say that there were very few in numbers that felt any pain from American special forces, and likewise, again when an Embassy was bombed and the USS Cole was bombed. Clinton was "light" on terrorism, you can not deny this. He only once launced warheads to divert attention away from his own problems in Washington. These are all facts. If you go soft on them, they will sense it and then they will retaliate.


RE: Big problems
By nolisi on 3/3/2011 6:27:53 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I was basing my reply off of numbers--data, results that can be measured. ...You were basing your reply off of speculation.


Let's see:
Fact- The War on Terror is not over
Fact- We've been fighting Terrorism since Regan
Fact- Al Qaeda still exists and bin Laden is still at large
Fact- Al Qaeda has proven that in the War on Terror numbers are irrelevant: they've still carried attacks abroad and continue to engage the U.S. military with fewer resources
Fact- Terrorist activity has been going on for at least 30 years with the latest major attack on American soil happening roughly 10 years ago, and attacks still being carried out on American interests abroad.

So where's the speculation? The preceding statements are the current results on the War on Terror. This is what I based my opinion on. Until those results change, I think my opinion is valid.

Again- they don't fight a conventional war, and their goals are different from a political body/military. Numbers of dead bodies are meaningless to them. They have larger political goals they're trying to satisfy and any body count on any side (and believe it or not, there are more than two sides in this) is satisfactory.

quote:
Clinton was "light" on terrorism, you can not deny this. He only once launced warheads to divert attention away from his own problems in Washington.


I don't care about Clinton or how light/hard he was. Why are you focusing on Clinton? 9/11 happened while Bush was on the watch- why not focus on the biggest terrorist attack on American soil and claim that Bush was light on Terrorism- I smell conservative leaning afoot.


RE: Big problems
By MrBlastman on 3/4/2011 10:46:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't care about Clinton or how light/hard he was. Why are you focusing on Clinton? 9/11 happened while Bush was on the watch- why not focus on the biggest terrorist attack on American soil and claim that Bush was light on Terrorism- I smell conservative leaning afoot.


I'm a moderate, FYI. I've voted for many independents, just look up my voting record. :P

Why talk about Clinton? It's simple. Bush was fresh into his term and was still running off of Clinton's policies within the CIA and FBI. Those same policies that have been shown to have totally screwed up the communications channels and information sharing between them. In addition, Clinton's historical policy of being light against terror further infused them with confidence. It completely has to do with Clinton's policies and very little to do with what Bush's were that early into his term. You're really missing the point of what I said.

You also are negligent to accept that Bush's changed policies perhaps had a positive impact on how this "War on Terror" is progressing. I'm not happy with everything he did, however. I loathe the Patriot Act and likewise, I also am extremely upset with his new data and wiretapping policies. The icing on the cake is the TSA and Homeland Security and their absolute intrusiveness and continued harassment of the general public when they try to travel via airlines.

If people packed heat on planes, the terrorists would think twice, no, multiple times before trying something. Let the people defend themselves, we can do a fine job of it if left to our own means. Abroad though, we need the military to conduct operations in distant lands.


RE: Big problems
By luseferous on 3/4/2011 12:54:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If people packed heat on planes, the terrorists would think twice, no, multiple times before trying something.


Nope they would be laughing their socks off as you (the American public) did their job for them.


RE: Big problems
By MrBlastman on 3/4/2011 1:12:55 PM , Rating: 2
Lets see--I think they are laughing their "socks" off far more right now. Why?

Lets see...

We have full body scanners that reveal our privates to anyone looking.

We have enhanced pat-downs that require fondling of the breasts and genitals--and exposure of the buttocks sometimes.

We have long lines waiting to make it through security.

We have children and old people showing up on the TSA do-not-fly lists.

We have a stupid "Wargames" style colored-threat level system.

I could go on. Don't you see? The terrorists have already won indirectly by taking our freedoms and liberties away. We're living in fear! It is time we give freedom back to America.


RE: Big problems
By thurston on 3/3/2011 8:58:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Last I checked, we haven't had any since we began the war on terror.


Last I checked our county had become a total shit storm since we began the war on terror.


RE: Big problems
By TSS on 3/3/2011 10:41:05 PM , Rating: 2
Last i checked you didnt have any foreign attack on domestic soil since pearl harbor, before 9/11. Terrorist or otherwise. Waging 2 wars won't reduce your chances any further.

And what if the next terrorist you face is another unabomber? whatta ya going to do then, ask another country to invade you? Declare martial law for the entire nation?

If it has truely created more terror then there was before we won't know until US forces are gone from afgahnistan and iraq. Depending on how that power vacuum gets filled we can say if the wars had any sort of meaning at all.

But considering the terrorists killed 5000 civilians and the wars killed 100,000 civilians (iraqi though so then they don't count), it certainly hasn't created any less terror.


"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki