General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBradley Manning ensured leaks would not harm US, lawyer insists
Source: The Guardian
Ed Pilkington in Fort Meade, Maryland
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 8 January 2013 19.27 GMT
Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of instigating the largest leak of state secrets in US history, consciously selected the information he passed to WikiLeaks to ensure that it would be of no harm to the US and would not aid any foreign enemy, his lawyer argued on Tuesday.
David Coombs, Manning's civilian lawyer, revealed at a hearing at Fort Meade military base in Maryland what is likely to be a central pillar of the defence case at the soldier's court martial. A full trial is scheduled to start on 6 March.
Coombs said that the defence would be calling as a witness Adrian Lamo, the hacker who alerted military authorities to Manning's WikiLeaks activities, to give evidence about the web chat he had with Manning shortly before the soldier's arrest in Iraq in March 2010. The content of the web chat, Coombs suggested, would be used by the defence to show that Manning selected information to leak that "could not be used to harm the US or advantage any foreign nation".
The issue of Manning's motive in allegedly leaking hundreds of thousands of US diplomatic cables and war logs from Afghanistan and Iraq to WikiLeaks goes to the heart of the case against the soldier, Coombs argued. The most serious charge against him, "aiding the enemy", that carries a maximum sentence in this case of life in military custody with no chance of parole rests on the US government proving that Manning knew, or reasonably should have known, that the leak would be exploited by anti-US forces.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/08/bradley-manning-hearing-fort-meade-lawyer
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)CIA.
It pays to be a war criminal.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)He exposed State Department cables and emails among mid-level Iraq and Afghanistan commanders. The Gitmo dump was not from Manning, or if it was, neither he, Lamo, nor the government have claimed so.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Yeah, sorry, I meant actual war crimes.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)idwiyo
(5,113 posts)idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)On twitter here:
https://twitter.com/kgosztola
Alexa O'Brien here:
https://twitter.com/carwinb
Ed Pinkerton from The Guardian here:
https://twitter.com/Edpilkington
Nathan Fuller here:
https://twitter.com/nathanLfuller
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)good for Manning.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Manning was a 23-year-old Pfc. who'd been in the service for less than three years when he started feeding information to Wikileaks. There's simply no way for him to have had the ability to determine (on his own) whether the information he was leaking who have been a significant security breach.
He may have been justified in what he was doing, but this is a silly argument from his defense team.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Manning did himself no favors with his actions and the evidence trail he left.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)You do the crime, you have to do the time.
I don't know any legal avenue for him to be acquitted.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)... made the Presiding Officer declare a prosecution hopelessly prejudiced. I'm no fan of Manning but the DoD has really fucked up here, both by making him a martyr and potentially blowing the case.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)This is exactly what I was thinking when I read the OP.
Robb
(39,665 posts)...it doesn't change the conviction, only the length of sentence.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Including all sorts of information that he really had no expertise about? (Example - I don't know what about the optics in an Apache are classified, but we now have lots of information about them due to the video he leaked)
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)He is toast. Sadly there are those that also are not of the elite that side with the elite for different reasons. Some dont like whistle blowers because they chip away at our security bubble. Some side with the elite because they worship the elite and want to emulate them.
We are in a class war and our side is losing.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)who tried to do their best to stop the illegal wars and the slaughter of civilians.
B-52 Two:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/may/26/iraq.iraq
Pitstop Ploughshares group:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitstop_Ploughshares
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/77460