Manning acquitted of Aiding the Enemy.

[MineralMan]

On CBS Radio now. No evil intent proven.

Guilty of other charges.

Sentencing tomorrow.

[Life Long Dem]

1. And the silence starts on the big bad Goverment's verdict.

Just as I suspected we would see with his fair trial.

[kestrel91316]

2. What planet do you live on? His verdict was rendered by a jury, not "the government".

[Life Long Dem]

12. Yep

The Gov. had nothing to do with a fair trial. Yep.

[MineralMan]

19. Besides, no jury was impaneled.

Manning waived a jury trial, in favor of a single military judge. Smart move, I think.

[HardTimes99]

43. Oh, you must support the pre-trial torture of Manning, as documented by the

U.N. rapporteur on human rights.

Good to know that you support and endorse torture if it is done to those with whom you disagree.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/12/bradley-manning-cruel-inhuman-treatment-un

[arely staircase]

84. bradley manning was never tortured

He was treated in a harsh and punative manner that violated his rights. But nothing done to him rose to the level of torture. Not even close._

[MineralMan]

18. There was no jury. Just the military judge.

You may not have been following things so closely, but Manning waived a jury.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

22. I guess you're wrong, dude!

[kestrel91316]

28. I'm a dudette, not a dude.

[MineralMan]

30. Nevertheless, you're incorrect.

By claiming that a jury decided, you revealed that you have not been following this case. Too bad.

[kestrel91316]

74. I haven't been following very closely. I DID watch a documentary on Manning on Frontline, though.

Just a couple of weeks ago. That's when I decided I sort of supported Manning. He's just a little dweeb who had plenty of problems and acted out. He's not some great threat to our FREEDUMBS.

I'm happy the worst charge didn't stick. He probably needs to cool his heels in jail for a while, though.

[MineralMan]

79. Well, a lot of people have been following it closely.

You made an important error in your post by assuming that a jury was impaneled. That's always the risk of posting when you don't have much information. It's never a good idea. Live and learn, I suppose.

[MineralMan]

5. Well, the court martial appears to have

treated the aiding the enemy charge fairly. The prosecution failed to prove intent, so that charge was denied.

The other charges don't have an intent portion, and the actions were taken, so he's found guilty on them. It's a victory for Manning's defense, but Manning will still be sentenced. My guess is 10 years. But that's just a guess.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

21. The government isn't a bunch of torturing despots? WHAT??!

of course Obama and his henchmen are at this very moment plotting how to take Manning down to Guantanamo and shove feeding tubes into him.

It's like THE MATRIX!!!

[Life Long Dem]

31. Of course

Or some here will be upset they can't point out bad bad Gov.

[HardTimes99]

44. Whom are you going to believe, Life Long Dem or the U.N.

rapporteur for human rights, Juan Mendez:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/12/bradley-manning-cruel-inhuman-treatment-un

[Pretzel_Warrior]

75. there are probably people who think reading 100 posts in DU is cruel and unusual punishment

International law does not treat the periods of solitary confinement as torture despite what Mr. Juan Mendez of the U.N. asserts.

[NuclearDem]

53. Nah, he's got enough prisoners he's actually force feeding.

[arely staircase]

60. instead of lettong them starve to death in US custody

While he is trying to get as many out of there who aren't a threat as he can after he tried to shut the place down and was stopped by Congress.

[NuclearDem]

65. Oh, well that makes it all better.

Nevermind that most human rights organizations consider force feeding torture.

[arely staircase]

78. i couldnt let anyone starve to death

Many of those people should have been released a long time ago. The ones like KSM who should never walk the earth as free men should be tried either in US district article 3 courts or military courts martial under the standard rules.

[NuclearDem]

108. I know it's not easy to deal with.

Plenty of doctors and nurses who have to watch patients waste away because they refused the procedure don't have it any easier. But they don't have any choice in the matter. Nasogastric feeding, because it's such a painful and unpleasant ordeal, can only be administered with the consent of the patient.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

81. What does the international tribunal say about it?

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-07-15/opinions/40580484_1_force-feeding-detainees-hunger-strike-torture

The U.N. has used feeding tubes for prisoners in The Hague.

[arely staircase]

87. thank you for posting that nt

[think]

91. Well fuck. I guess I'm fine with Gitmo now.....

[NuclearDem]

100. That article is wrong on so many counts

First of all, just because The Hague used it on a war criminal doesn't make it any more acceptable. It's torture there as well.

Secondly, the conflation between the legitimate practice of nasogastric feeding in the medical field (which is only administered with the patient's consent, to do otherwise is unethical in the profession) and the force feeding at Gitmo and other prisons is completely inaccurate. Prisoners being force fed to stop hunger strikes have not given consent to the procedure, and medical professionals who engage in that practice are unethical.

What the force feeding at Gitmo does is remove the last shred of control the detainees have over their own lives. Hunger strikes only hurt the person starving themselves. Hooking them up to painful injection tubes and forcing them to choke on their own vomit against their consent is torture.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

111. so I hope this means you consider forced blood transfusions as torture

is that the case?

[NuclearDem]

113. No, I don't consider forced blood transfusions torture, and to make the comparison is stupid.

The religious objections of JW to blood transfusions is nowhere near on par with forced feeding. I'm not a fan of religious objections to modern medical practices, especially if refusal to have them administered endangers the public health.

How on Earth do you consider that on the level of unethically forcing a painful procedure on an unwilling subject, especially if there's no threat to the health and well-being of others?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

115. just as I thought. selective morals.

JW objections to blood transfusions has been medically backed by studies. Most serious medical professionals today recognize the importance of the HOLISTIC person. To give someone a blood transfusion over their moral objections is to take away part of the person and subject them to extreme mental devastation.

Far worse than the government feeding Guantanamo rank and file prisoners that they have reason to believe are being coerced into participating by other al queda members in Guantanamo.

[NuclearDem]

117. And I never said someone shouldn't be able to refuse blood transfusions if they don't want it.

Nasogastric feeding cannot be administered at all without the explicit consent of the patient. Doctors and nurses can't force patients with severe mental disorders or who are otherwise of diminished capacity to receive nasogastric feeding without their consent either, even if they believe they are not of sound mind and judgment. Same goes for prisoners who the government believes are being "coerced" into participating in the strike.

Oh, and since we're on the topic of selective morals, it's nice to know you're so wholeheartedly against one forced medical procedure because it violates a patient's well-being, while at the same time being completely fine with a different one.

[Ichingcarpenter]

3. That is a relief...

Now for the appeal

[MineralMan]

8. Yes. Sentencing will be tomorrow, apparently.

My personal prediction is 10 years for the whole shebang. Time served will be subtracted from that.

Let's see if I'm right.

[Ichingcarpenter]

14. that would be nice any more

will be a travesty.

[BklnDem75]

52. I'm assuming more...

Considering the charges he already plead guilty to. They're max 20 year sentences.

[MineralMan]

54. I don't know. There's nothing to require a maximum sentence.

I expect less than the maximum, but don't really know.

[arely staircase]

90. i bet you are

right. and it would be appropriate imho

[oldhippie]

33. There will be no appeal ....

Not any grounds for appeal. He pleaded guilty. There was no jury to screw up. The only grounds for appeal would be if the Judge screwed up. Just doesn't happen in a military court.

[Junkdrawer]

4. ONLY because, IMHO, the government didn't want to name the enemies.

Strange that....

[Sheepshank]

10. I guess it doesn't hurt to make up shit and post it

some conspiracists may grab onto that and repost it enough times that it become viewed as 'fact'.

[Junkdrawer]

20. Can't make this shit up...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3368128

Too weird

[msanthrope]

48. Um, no--at the Article 32 Hearing, the government identified AlQaeda as the 'enemy'

they were concerned with regarding Manning. That's what his lawyer argued against. It was in the papers....

http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/04/25/government-argues-bradley-manning-knew-al-qaeda-frequently-visited-wikileaks/

[Junkdrawer]

70. The article you cite is from 4/25/2012...

The post I cite refers to an issue revealed May of this year.

[stevenleser]

107. How does that change the charges specified at the Article 32 hearing where the enemy was named? nt

[Junkdrawer]

110. Read

FT. MEADE, Md. (CN) - The government ended its case against Pfc. Bradley Manning on Tuesday by dropping its controversial claim that disclosures to WikiLeaks aided a "classified" enemy.
Prosecutors had accused Manning of "aiding the enemy," in particular, al-Qaida, al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, and a "classified enemy."

With legal scholars stumped over the term, a military spokeswoman eventually explained that the concept referred to "the means and methods of collection that the government has employed to" determine that its "enemy is in receipt of certain compromised classified information."

As the government rested its case Tuesday, however, Maj. Ashden Fein announced a new plan to drop the classified enemy charge.

"The United States has not presented nor does it intend to present, since the government rested, the evidence that was offered during the bill of particulars of a classified enemy," the lead prosecutor said.

....

http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/02/59044.htm

[Pretzel_Warrior]

25. yep. when faced with actual government actions going counter to your paranoia

build a new conspiracy theory that justifies your feelings in the face of facts that would tell a normal, rational person the opposite.

[Junkdrawer]

42. You're probably not aware that the government didn't want to name the enemies...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3368128

[msanthrope]

49. They did name enemies--at the Article 32.

http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/04/25/government-argues-bradley-manning-knew-al-qaeda-frequently-visited-wikileaks/


Look--if even Firedoglake is telling you they knew who the government was saying was the 'enemy,' it's time to give up.

[Junkdrawer]

68. The article you cite is from 4/25/2012...

The post I cite refers to an issue revealed May of this year.

[msanthrope]

72. Yes--the 'enemy' in the charge of 'aiding the enemy' was revealed over a year ago. nt

[Junkdrawer]

93. 2 of 3 were named. In July the charges associated with the mystery enemy were dropped.

When I discussed this with my wife, an Army brat with a high level Military Judge as a father-in-law, she said that the Judge would probably look dimly on the whole "aiding the enemy" charge if the prosecution engaged in this kind of behavior.

But, as I said, just my opinion.

[msanthrope]

98. What? Manning has only ever faced one 'aiding the enemy' charge. AlQaeda. nt

[Junkdrawer]

109. Here:

FT. MEADE, Md. (CN) - The government ended its case against Pfc. Bradley Manning on Tuesday by dropping its controversial claim that disclosures to WikiLeaks aided a "classified" enemy.
Prosecutors had accused Manning of "aiding the enemy," in particular, al-Qaida, al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, and a "classified enemy."

With legal scholars stumped over the term, a military spokeswoman eventually explained that the concept referred to "the means and methods of collection that the government has employed to" determine that its "enemy is in receipt of certain compromised classified information."

As the government rested its case Tuesday, however, Maj. Ashden Fein announced a new plan to drop the classified enemy charge.

"The United States has not presented nor does it intend to present, since the government rested, the evidence that was offered during the bill of particulars of a classified enemy," the lead prosecutor said.

....

http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/02/59044.htm

[msanthrope]

112. Ah--that's not a separate charge--that's an element to the single 104 charge.

I understand where the confusion is.

Who the third party was, however, was available to the defense.

[arely staircase]

97. they did

One of whom was osama bin laden in whose home navy SEALs found wikileaks documents he had gotten off the internet. The judge that wasn't Manning's intention so he was acquitted of it.

[JDPriestly]

128. Maybe the evidence had a problem -- such as no chain of custody or something, so

they didn't want to risk putting it in?

Could be some technical reason like that.

[arely staircase]

129. the prosecution did put it into evidence and based their case on that count on it

I would assume the judges rejection of the charge was based on Manning's frame of mind/intent. I don't know if the defense raised any chain of custody argument. They may have, but their defense, from what I have read was based on their client's intent. So I assume the judge also based her verdict on that too.

[JDPriestly]

130. I will have to learn more before I know what I think of it. So far this seems fair.

[DevonRex]

123. By your logic, the judge should have found Manning guilty of aiding the enemy.

It's called the "Guessing at Motive" instruction, in which the judge or jury can simply divine intent. Otherwise known as the "making shit up" allowance for keyboard warriors.

[G_j]

6. that is hopeful

thanks for the heads up!

[MineralMan]

41. I've been following the actual trial pretty closely.

I'm glad it's over, to be frank. I doubt, however, that the wide-ranging discussion of it will go away on DU. The political aspects of it will continue to be bickered over here for a long time, I'm sure.

[Rex]

7. Funny, was told he was guilty!

My my how some DUers wanted him to fry so bad! I wonder if they will deny reality again?

[MineralMan]

11. Not by me. I was pretty certain that he'd be found guilty on

the lesser charges, but made no prediction on the more serious charge. He did take the material and transmit it to someone. With those facts, it was certain that those charges would end in a guilty verdict.

We'll see what they do about sentencing tomorrow.

[Rex]

13. Yes it will be interesting to see what he does get charged with and sticks.

No, this was by the elder scholars of DU. They were convinced he is a commie traitor.

[MineralMan]

16. My opinion is that he was duped by people who never did

give a shit about him. He did the deed and now will spend some time in prison. Of that I'm sure. How long that will be I don't know, but I'm thinking 10 years, minus time served.

[Rex]

59. I agree, now that the most serious charge against him is out of the way.

Probably looking at about 10 years.

[MineralMan]

62. I hope he gets no more than that.

Based on the ruling today on the most serious charge, it sounds like this judge has a cool head on her shoulders.

[Rex]

71. Yes, she didn't let outside forces determine her ruling.

Glad to see a judge be a judge and not a PR person.

[MineralMan]

77. The military court martial process is

actually a pretty fair venue, most of the time. I believe Manning's attorney advised him well when they waived a jury. Military juries are something else, again, given their makeup. Somewhat unpredictable, they are.

All in all, it seems a fair outcome, but sentencing will determine that, I think.

[Rex]

82. I've got to give him credit on his fortitude.

Manning has handled this far better mentally then I could have.

[MineralMan]

88. I have no idea what his mental state is, really.

He has comported himself well during the trial, from what I've seen, but he hasn't really said much about any of it. When I consider what a prison sentence might mean to me, I'm not even sure what my state of mind might be if I were in his shoes. I do well on my own, and would probably turn such a sentence into an opportunity of sorts, but it wouldn't be something I'd choose for myself.

Still, when he released all of that information, I have no question about his knowledge that he might face prosecution. That's made so clear in briefings on handling classified information that I can't imagine anyone not being aware of the risks. I'm just sad that he was duped by those to whom he gave the information. I'm not sure how they convinced him to do it, but he did do it, and knew the potential consequences.

To that extent, his actions were the very definition of civil disobedience and his apparent willingness to face the consequences for that is something everyone should think about who is interested in this whole thing. Perhaps we'll hear from him directly on this in the future.

[Rex]

94. It would be interesting after the trial is over, to hear what

he thinks about the whole thing and some of the current events going on around the world (snowden and nsa being two).

[MineralMan]

95. Well, he'll have some freedom to communicate

after sentencing and while serving his sentence. Many books have also been written in prison cells. I imagine we'll hear more, but how soon, I'm not sure.

[MineralMan]

39. Lots of folks said lots of stuff regarding this case.

Much of it had nothing to do with the realities. Those realities are that Manning did grab the stuff and disseminate it. He pleaded guilty to that stuff. He knew that was against the UCMJ, and had signed forms, like everyone with a clearance signs. So, he did something that he could stand trial for. He decided to plead out on those charges. The additional, more serious, charge, he stood trial for, and got acquitted. So, he has a good attorney, it seems.

This case has been discussed all over the place, with so much extraneous stuff in those discussions, that I stopped paying attention to the discussions, and just focused on the trial itself.

That is now over, with only the sentencing left in question. That question will have an answer very soon. After that, any further discussion of this case will go on without my participation. It will be irrelevant.

[Sheepshank]

17. There are going to be whole lotta disappointed DUers....but not necessariily in the way you think

I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't some Manning supporters who really really wanted him to be found guilty so they could go on an anti-Obama tirade. The wind just got taken out of their sails and their portrayal of "dead man walking" was proven a tad hyper and melodramatic.

[HardTimes99]

45. The fact that Manning was tortured while in captivity has not gone away. - nt

[MineralMan]

55. The opinion has not gone away, but where will that case be

heard, do you think? In your mind, it is a fact. But that's irrelevant in the real world, where we all live. Unless charges are brought and a trial is held, Manning's "torture" is just an opinion.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

26. he was guilty on a lot of other counts....so your point is?

[msanthrope]

36. He is guilty. Just not of that one charge. I think his attorney did an excellent job on that

particular charge, and I think it might mean a serious reduction in sentence.

[Rex]

76. I agree with MM, maybe get 10 years

minus time served. Snowden should have taken notes on how a real whistleblower behaves imo. Instead of running off to play spy.

[msanthrope]

85. Snowden is a coward, holed up in a hotel. The thing that may work against Manning at

sentencing, though, is his refusal to cooperate with the feds. Judges tend not to give lenient sentences to people who don't 'fess up.

[Rex]

89. True, however I am impressed with his fortitude.

I just hope he doesn't get 99 years for his mistake to comply. OTOH, I don't think Snowden would have lasted a day in Manning's shoes.

[msanthrope]

96. Well, he cannot be accused of not sticking to his principles, even when it was so obvious that

Assange had sold him down the river.

I'd be interested in knowing the prosecution's sentencing suggestion.

[Rex]

101. I would be so pissed off at Assange.

We can clearly see who stands on principles in this case and who runs off to hide and/or make money/exploit the event.

[morningfog]

9. This is good for that precedent, still bad for Manning. Still a sad judgement.

[MineralMan]

15. Tough for Manning, no doubt.

However, I'm predicting a relatively light, concurrent sentence on the other charges. They're simply not just going to let him walk on this. It's the military, after all.

Manning should be breathing a sigh of relief, though, because of the acquittal on the most serious charge.

[Ichingcarpenter]

23. His guilty pleas guarantee some kind of judgment

and penalties.



We shall see
He's no bank, CIA agent or wall street traitor.




Too bad .

[MineralMan]

27. He's serving in the military.

Courts martial are not kid stuff. He'll get some sentence. How long is still up in the air.

[Ichingcarpenter]

32. Extremely brave soul

He is more grown up than most of us.

[MineralMan]

34. I don't know about that. I don't know Manning at all.

If he wasn't before, though, he'll certainly be by the time this is all over. Grown up, I mean. Manning was duped by people who wanted the information and didn't care one whit about Manning. They face no punishment at all. Not fair.

[KoKo]

99. Who do you feel he was duped by?

I've not seen any evidence presented that he was duped...so this is new to me...and I've been following his trial pretty regularly.

[MineralMan]

102. To whom did he deliver the material?

Answer that and you have your answer.

[KoKo]

114. Okay....

So you don't believe that Manning followed his own conscience and tried to give the information it to others to publish? I've seen information that he tried to get NYT and others to publish and was not answered.

So, it would come down to whether Assange could defend that he and his group were qualified to act as journalists is what you are saying? Or, you feel evidence could be found that Assange approached Bradley Manning somehow and set him up or coerced him to reveal the the Video(which was not classified) and to then download the other documents so that wikileaks could have a scoop?

[MineralMan]

116. Cui Bono?

Answer that and you have the answer. If you need a translation, go here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cui_bono

[KoKo]

121. Personally...

I feel he was a young kid with a conscience who saw things he thought were morally reprehensible to him. And, I personally applaud Assange and Snowden for revealing what they have for the greater good of the people of this country to know what is being done in their name...and with their tax dollars.

So....we would definitely differ.

[MineralMan]

122. We do differ, and in many areas.

And there it is. I am not a fan of Assange. I'm not a fan of Snowden or Glenn Greenwald, either.

[Ichingcarpenter]

103. I think Snowmen got got trapped in russia

Because of them and they couldn't deliver
their promises.

His trip to Hong Kong was smart because of the size of the state and access to many things.

[MineralMan]

105. Yes, I think you're right.

The people who are truly benefiting from Snowden's actions appear to have now abandoned him to his fate. Such things are pretty common, it seems. Too bad. Apparent friends may not be real friends. At least one person has profited mightily from Snowden's predicament. Shame on that person!

[msanthrope]

24. Good for him. His lawyer did an excellent job hammering away at that charge, and if he's lucky, he

may get 10 years with time off for prior serve.

I hope he stays in medium security---that would be a priority for him, I imagine.

[MineralMan]

29. Yes. They're not going to use consecutive sentences, I think.

One concurrent sentence for everything. 10 years is a likely sentence, including time served. I don't know what the parole rules are for military sentences, though.

[msanthrope]

35. Concurrent, definitely, but I would be far more concerned about where he transfers after this--

He was being held in pre-trial medium security detention in Leavenworth prior--and he no longer qualifies for that.

He's a maximum security prisoner now. And that is not a good thing to be.

I agree with you about the 10 years--more than that, the message is too punitive, I think.

[MineralMan]

37. I don't know. I'm going to wait for the

actual sentencing and see. My 10 year guess is just that - a guess. I'm not any sort of expert on military justice.

[msanthrope]

38. He still has the opportunity of cutting a deal with the Feds and serving

on the civilian side. Butner would be a good place for him.

[MineralMan]

40. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

For me, this case is over. I stopped participating in almost all threads about Manning some time ago. The discussions were all over the place, and mostly had nothing to do with the case at all. The UCMJ gets enforced by the military, and there is no discussion of issues not directly related to the actual case in the trial.

All of the extraneous stuff was irrelevant to Manning's actual case, so I could not see any reason to get involved in most of those discussions.

[msanthrope]

46. Well, Manning threads have dropped off this site ever since the Second Coming: Snowden! nt

[MineralMan]

47. That's true. But, this is going to rekindle them,

I'm sure, complete with all of the irrelevancies.

[msanthrope]

50. Oh, what I wouldn't give for a good Assange-is-being-framed thread right now! nt

[MineralMan]

51. Yeah, well, I've dropped out of all those threads.

They accomplish nothing and are meaningless in the real world, where I live.

[arely staircase]

56. well that answers my question

I was wondering what the required level of intent was for that. The statute says "knowingly" so apparently "should have known" doesn't rise to that level.

[MineralMan]

57. Well, apparently that intent was not proven by the prosecution,

so the judge rightly acquitted on that charge. I'm sure the prosecution tried, but apparently they failed to present a case that convinced the judge.

[arely staircase]

61. that is what I just said nt

[MineralMan]

64. I know. I was agreeing with you.

[arely staircase]

69. sorry nt

[morningfog]

58. Wikileaks is not an enemy.

[arely staircase]

63. no but osama bin laden was nt

[morningfog]

104. The judge, correctly, found that releasing to journalists or even

the public is not the same as aiding the enemy just because an enemy could possibly access it.

The judge got this right. It would be a chilling precedent to set.

[arely staircase]

106. i agree. nt

[MineralMan]

66. Some would argue to the contrary.

[think]

80. I'm sure THEY would.....

[MineralMan]

83. Then we agree on that.

Who knew?

[think]

86. There are many things we may agree on. Torturers and whistleblowers

not so much....

[OLDBRO]

67. Good

Of course he's guilty of something. We are in fabricated wars and this does not rise to the
level of treason.

[MineralMan]

73. He was not charged with treason.

That would be a different matter, altogether.

[burrowowl]

92. Good!

[OLDBRO]

118. Its harding this point.

What is aiding and abetting the enemy in time of war.


"The Treason Clause traces its roots back to an English statute enacted during the reign of Edward III (1327–1377). This statute prohibited levying war against the king, adhering to his enemies, or contemplating his death. Although this law defined treason to include disloyal and subversive thoughts, it effectively circumscribed the crime as it existed under the Common Law. During the thirteenth century, the crime of treason encompassed virtually every act contrary to the king's will and became a political tool of the Crown. Building on the tradition begun by Edward III, the Founding Fathers carefully delineated the crime of treason in Article III of the U.S. Constitution, narrowly defining its elements and setting forth stringent evidentiary requirements.

Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.

The Treason Clause applies only to disloyal acts committed during times of war. Acts of dis-loyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution. Nor do acts of Espionage committed on behalf of an ally constitute treason. For example, julius and ethel rosenberg were convicted of espionage, in 1951, for helping the Soviet Union steal atomic secrets from the United States during World War II. The Rosenbergs were not tried for treason because the United States and the Soviet Union were allies during World War II.

Under Article III a person can levy war against the United States without the use of arms, weapons, or military equipment. Persons who play only a peripheral role in a conspiracy to levy war are still considered traitors under the Constitution if an armed rebellion against the United States results. After the U.S. Civil War, for example, all Confederate soldiers were vulnerable to charges of treason, regardless of their role in the secession or insurrection of the Southern states. No treason charges were filed against these soldiers, however, because President Andrew Johnson issued a universal Amnesty.

The crime of treason requires a traitorous intent. If a person unwittingly or unintentionally gives aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States during wartime, treason has not occurred. Similarly, a person who pursues a course of action that is intended to benefit the United States but mistakenly helps an enemy is not guilty of treason. Inadvertent disloyalty is never punishable as treason, no matter how much damage the United States suffers."

[MineralMan]

120. Would you care to retype that post title.

It makes no sense.

[ljm2002]

119. Such a relief!

Here's hoping for a light sentence on the remaining charges. Make them all served concurrently or something. Well, a person can hope...

[MjolnirTime]

124. So, does he get to go free??

[BainsBane]

125. They say he was convicted of the other charges

so no.

[FSogol]

126. He plead quality to 10 charges. The judge will sentence him tomorrow.

Minimum? Time served.
Maximum? 20 years minus time served.

MM's guess of 10 years minus time served is probably a good guess.

[MineralMan]

127. I'd think that would be doubtful.

[snot]

131. I've been thinking . . .

I think the government initially wanted to make an example of Manning, but once the UN accused them of torture, that approach started to backfire on them.

I think that at some point they realized Manning wasn't dangerous anymore, that they'd made enough of an example out of him to scare other potential whistleblowers, and that continuing to treat him too harshly was costing them more than it was worth -- not only did they risk making a martyr out of him, but an overreaching conviction was eviscerating the government's claims that people like Assange or Snowden could expect fair treatment here.

So I think the government did the smarter thing.

And no, I'm not convinced that this means that Assange or Snowden should expect fair treatment here.