Government Adds 22 Charges Against Bradley Manning

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Wed Mar 02, 2011 at 06:32:01 PM EST
Tags: Bradley Manning, Wikileaks (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Private Bradley Manning's criminal case just got a lot more difficult. The Government has added 22 new charges, including one, aiding the enemy, that provides for a life sentence (Actually, it also could result in a death sentence, but the Government has said it won't seek the death penalty. How gracious of them.)

He was charged in May with 12 counts of illegally downloading and sharing classified material, including a secret video and military and diplomatic documents.

The new charges include allegations he used "unauthorized software on government computers to download classified information and to make intelligence available to "the enemy". [More...]

Here's what he's accused of leaking, according to the BBC:

More than 380,000 records from a database of military records from the Iraq war
*90,000 records from a database of Afghan war files
250,000 records from a US state department diplomatic database
75 classified US state department cables, including one titled "Reykjavik-13"
A video file named "12 JUL 07 CZ ENGAGEMENT ZONE 30 GC"

Here's the military press release on the charges:

These charges allege that as a Military Intelligence Analyst, Manning introduced unauthorized software onto government computers to extract classified information, unlawfully downloaded it, improperly stored it, and transmitted the data for public release and use by the enemy.

The press release lists the charges as:

Aiding the enemy in violation of Article 104, Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)

16 Specifications under Article 134, UCMJ:

Wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the internet knowing that it will be accessed by the enemy (One Specification)

Theft of Public Property or Records, in violation of 18 United States Code (U.S.C.) 641 (Five Specifications)

Transmitting Defense Information, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 793(e) (Eight Specifications)

Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Computers in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(1) (Two Specifications)

Five specifications in violation of Article 92, UCMJ, for violating Army Regulations 25-2 “Information Assurance” and 380-5 “Department of the Army Information Security Program.”

As to the penalties:

If convicted of all charges, Pvt. 1st Class Manning would face a maximum punishment of reduction to the lowest enlisted pay grade, E-1; total forfeiture of all pay and allowances; confinement for life; and a dishonorable discharge.

The actual charge sheet is here.

Who is the "enemy" they are referring to? The Guardian reports that according to Manning's lawyer:

"Enemy" is defined as including "any other hostile body that our forces may be opposing," such as a rebellious mob or a band of renegades, and includes civilians as well as members of military organisations.

MSNBC reports:

Pentagon and military officials say some of the classified information released by WikiLeaks contained the names of informants and others who had cooperated with U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, endangering their lives.

According to the officials, the U.S. military rounded up many of those named and brought them into their bases for protection. But, according to one military official, "We didn't get them all." Military officials tell NBC News a small number of them still have not been found.

Manning's lawyer says he remains in solitary and under an "injury watch." The government has not yet responded to the Article 138 Complaint he filed in January.

< Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread: On the Cover of the Rolling Stone | FL Supreme Court To Hear Arguments Today On Compelling Rick Scott To Take The Money >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Government Adds 22 Charges Against Bradley Manning | 56 comments (56 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Ah yes.... (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by Dadler on Wed Mar 02, 2011 at 07:50:03 PM EST

...the military says he released names of people who worked with us and whose security was compromised. Every military brass who parrots this cowardly bullsh*t oughtta have his balls shave then rubbed with paint thinner. YOU AS*HOLES WAGED THESE WRETCHED ACTS OF MASS MURDER! And you don't have the nad, the manhood, the basic humanity to stand up and say "Gimme a break, we own this war, those informants are in trouble because we've been motherf*cking idiots for the last decade."

This country is dying faster than I thought it would. I beg my brother every chance I get to get himself outta that piece of sh*t, lies-and-abuses-its-employees-every-hour-of-every-day organization.

Disgusting. Hell, this nation is so far gone I have no doubt the government of Barack Obama, of all American ironies, would be on the wrong side of Martin Luther King on virtually EVERY issue.

: heh (none / 0) (#7)
by Wile ECoyote on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 05:33:36 AM EST

Every military brass who parrots this cowardly bullsh*t oughtta have his balls shave then rubbed with paint thinner.
Lemme guess, you learned that at a Common Cause meeting.
Oh, the fuax outrage that you would have had had someone said that with which you disagreed.

: hmmm (none / 0) (#13)
by jbindc on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 11:12:34 AM EST

Hell, this nation is so far gone I have no doubt the government of Barack Obama, of all American ironies, would be on the wrong side of Martin Luther King on virtually EVERY issue.
Adultery?

We the people are clearly (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by inclusiveheart on Wed Mar 02, 2011 at 08:34:27 PM EST

the so-called "enemy".

It is hard to believe that it has really come to that. Not that we haven't been here before at some level in the history of this country, but it seems bigger and more ominous to me right now. Maybe because I am living though this time rather than reading about it, but what's scary is that there seems to be a level of organizational and technological ability that makes this control over the people less noticeable and therefore more effective than past campaigns against a citizenry.

The Real Charges SHould be... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 08:47:58 AM EST

... embarrassing some really connected people and being made the example.

It would save the governemnt a whole lot of dough trying to prove a bunch on non-sense.

Aiding the enemy... don't I do that every time I fill up the gas tank ? Is there some kind of enemy list and how do they know those enemies are reading WikiLeaks ?

That being said, what did this kid think was going to happen ? I can not imagine a scenario in which this kid sees the light of day, wrong or right, he had to know he was playing with fire.

He's so heartbreakingly young (none / 0) (#10)
by sj on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 09:06:27 AM EST

The reality of the consequences has to be very different from how he envisioned them. Age 22 is adult, but at that age I still felt invincible. I imagine he did, too.


yea... (none / 0) (#14)
by CST on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 11:37:33 AM EST

Aiding the enemy might be a step too far. I don't know... I just hope the trial will be open and fair. Although I'm not sure how possible that is with the deck stacked.

That being said, he wasn't just playing with matches. He was playing with grenades.

This is not the type of law breaking where there is a chance you won't get caught. The whole point is you are making information public. Therefore, you will be caught. And making an enemy of the U.S. state/defense departments doesn't seem like a path to getting off easy.

Being 22, maybe he wasn't thinking about it. Or maybe he was, and decided it was worth it.


Just based on the information (none / 0) (#15)
by jbindc on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 11:44:21 AM EST

in the charge - why is "aiding the enemy" too far a charge? If the government can show that Manning leaked classified documents that contained the names of US operations, and that al-Qaieda (or whomever is not friendly to us) can use that information to kill and torture our informants and military personnel (let alone possibly civilians) - why isn't that "aiding the enemy"?

Remember - this has nothing to do your (or anyone's) personal feelings about where or why our military are deployed. They are where they are for a reason. If he released information that could (or has - you don't know that either) hurt them, then "aiding the enemy" seems like a perfectly reasonable charge.

Now they just have to prove it.


If Bradley Manning "aided the enemy," (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Anne on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 12:37:23 PM EST

by leaking the information, what did the various media outlets do that published it? And how should the government handle that aspect?

Kevin Jon Heller (international law professor):

If Manning has aided the enemy, so has any media organization that published the information he allegedly stole. Nothing in Article 104 requires proof that the defendant illegally acquired the information that aided the enemy. As a result, if the mere act of ensuring that harmful information is published on the internet qualifies either as indirectly "giving intelligence to the enemy" (if the military can prove an enemy actually accessed the information) or as indirectly "communicating with the enemy" (because any reasonable person knows that enemies can access information on the internet), there is no relevant factual difference between Manning and a media organization that published the relevant information.

Glenn Greenwald:

As Heller notes, since the UCMJ applies only to members of the military, newspapers (or WikiLeaks) couldn't actually be charged under Article 104; still, "there is still something profoundly disturbing about the prospect of convicting Manning and sentencing him to life imprisonment [GG: or the death penalty] for doing exactly what media organizations did, as well." It's true that members of the military have legal duties that others do not have -- including the duty not to leak classified information -- but this incredibly expansive interpretation of what it means to "aid the enemy" dangerously encompasses all sorts of legitimate press and speech activities, especially when combined with the Obama administration's escalating war on whistle-blowing and the journalists who expose government secrets. This is yet another step in infecting the law with doctrines of Endless War and its accompanying mentality.

Does the military have the right to set rules for what its members can and cannot do with respect to the information in their control? Of course. But how these rules are being used and interpreted is also important, especially given the role the media has played in all of it. Are they getting a pass, or does the action against Manning portend any action against these outlets?

If the government is going to regard Manning as an enemy, what are the chances for investigative reporting to be conducted without fear that the government won't declare reporters to be enemies of the state? Ask James Risen what he thinks about that.

And how does that affect our ability, as citizens, to understand and have a voice in the policies and actions our government is undertaking in our names? Doesn't this increase the power of the government with little or no ability to check that power?


from my understanding (none / 0) (#21)
by CST on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 12:50:50 PM EST

the Uniform Code of Military Justice only applies to people serving in the military, or who are otherwise associated with/involved with military operations.

: oh.. just kidding (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by CST on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 12:52:21 PM EST

I finished reading your post, you mentioned that.

but I do think (none / 0) (#23)
by CST on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 12:54:49 PM EST

it's pretty clear that different standards apply to people once they sign their life away to the U.S. military.

Fair or no. But reporters are not, and should not ever be subject to the same rules. They did not sign on that dotted line relinquishing many of their rights.


How confident are you, in light of how the (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Anne on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 12:58:28 PM EST

Obama administration has been going after whistleblowers, that reporters will not be subject to similar standards?

I mean, what better way to shut down the exposure of the government's actions than to prosecute some reporters under laws with some pretty draconian consequences?

Speaking for myself, I'm not all that confident.


ok... but that's a different bridge (none / 0) (#25)
by CST on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 01:06:54 PM EST

If and when reporters are subject to those standards, that's when we cross it.

But that's not what's happening here. And I'm not convinced this is that "slippery slope". It's pretty clear to me that we hold people in the military to different standards.

And honestly, I don't see them going after reporters. Not after what's been happening in the middleeast. I don't think Obama wants any Mubarak comparisons. Plus, even if they were to try such a thing, I don't see a law like that surviving a supreme court challenge. If there is anything this court seems eager to protect these days it's free speech.


Exactly (none / 0) (#27)
by jbindc on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 01:13:19 PM EST

Manning willingly gave up some of his rights when he enlisted in the military - no one made him do it. Military justice does not work like civilian justice. He also knew that his future actions would be watched when he became an intelligent analyst -anyone with secret or top secret clearance has to watch their actions - it's not like that's kept from them.

And I don't buy the slippery slope argument either. I mean, why stop there? Why not go after the ISP providers that allowed them to post those stories? Why not go after the people that made the technology? How about the people that make the components?


He gave up rights, (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by sj on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 01:58:15 PM EST

but he didn't give up his conscience. That's where the difficulty lies. What a tragic, terrible choice that is to have to make.

Does one honor the spirit of the law when that action is in conflict with the letter of the law? Because it is the letter of the law that will be used to punish you.

Or do you just follow orders and try to ignore your conscience.


Yes (none / 0) (#33)
by jbindc on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 02:02:34 PM EST

But didn't he have other choices? He could have not enlisted, he could have asked to be transferred out of intelligence, he could talked to someone.

If he leaked these cables, this was not the action of first choice, unless of course, there was a different motive that we don't know about yet besides "conscience".


Tell me (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by sj on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 02:45:09 PM EST

how does one "un-enlist". You make it sound like he could go back in time once he finds the corruption and decay in his environment.

What does this:

If he leaked these cables, this was not the action of first choice,

have to do with this?

unless of course, there was a different motive that we don't know about yet besides "conscience".

I know what all those words mean, but as many times as I read it, those words together make no sense.

The so-called "other choices" you offer all involve leaving in place the corrupt status quo.

What he did may be criminal (and the government keeps piling on charges, which appears that they're hoping something will stick) but if we as a society all lay down and accept unjust laws because they're ... you know, the law... then we deserve what we get.

Frankly, I don't know that I have the strength of character to do what he did. Nor the foolhardiness -- that comes with youth I expect. And yes, he could have done other things. But he did what he did. Pre-convicting him without "all" the facts is just as blind as pre-exonerating with "all" the facts.


Money? (none / 0) (#45)
by jbindc on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 03:23:09 PM EST

oy (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by sj on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 03:37:08 PM EST

: I'll see your "oy" and (none / 0) (#54)
by Anne on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 03:52:17 PM EST

raise you a "seriously?"

sj, I think what it means is (none / 0) (#47)
by Anne on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 03:27:24 PM EST

that if he had these kinds of concerns about the US government, perhaps he should not have decided to enlist in the military in the first place.

But see, that presumes that he had these concerns before he joined up, and I don't know if we can make that assumption. While I am perfectly willing to be proved wrong, I suspect that his concerns developed because the behind-the-curtain look he was getting made a significant dent in what he believed about the government he was serving.

The nature of whistleblowing is that it always involves divulging "insider" information, going against company policies, or laws, so we can always say that the action was illegal in some way. In the case of the government, it is always going to use the law to punish those who are revealing something about its actions that it doesn't want exposed, or raising questions about its policies, and I think it is worth examining what those revelations are, and asking those questions, before throwing the book at the messenger.