ACLU:leaks to the press in the public interest should not be prosecuted under the Espionage Act

[Luminous Animal]

NEW YORK – A military court-martial today found Pfc. Bradley Manning guilty of multiple charges under the Espionage Act for giving classified material to WikiLeaks, but not guilty of aiding the enemy.

"While we're relieved that Mr. Manning was acquitted of the most dangerous charge, the ACLU has long held the view that leaks to the press in the public interest should not be prosecuted under the Espionage Act," said Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. "Since Manning already pleaded guilty to charges of leaking information – which carry significant punishment – it seems clear that the government was seeking to intimidate anyone who might consider revealing valuable information in the future."

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-comment-bradley-manning-verdict

[Solly Mack]

1. K&R

[Luminous Animal]

2. CCR Condemns Manning Verdict, Questions Future of First Amendment

http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/ccr-condemns-manning-verdict%2C-questions-future-of-first-amendment

While the "aiding the enemy" charges (on which Manning was rightly acquitted) received the most attention from the mainstream media, the Espionage Act itself is a discredited relic of the WWI era, created as a tool to suppress political dissent and antiwar activism, and it is outrageous that the government chose to invoke it in the first place against Manning. Government employees who blow the whistle on war crimes, other abuses and government incompetence should be protected under the First Amendment.

We now live in a country where someone who exposes war crimes can be sentenced to life even if not found guilty of aiding the enemy, while those responsible for the war crimes remain free. If the government equates being a whistleblower with espionage or aiding the enemy, what is the future of journalism in this country? What is the future of the First Amendment?

Manning’s treatment, prosecution, and sentencing have one purpose: to silence potential whistleblowers and the media as well. One of the main targets has been our clients, WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, for publishing the leaks. Given the U.S. government’s treatment of Manning, Assange should be granted asylum in his home country of Australia and given the protections all journalists and publishers deserve.

We stand in solidarity with Bradley Manning and call for the government to take heed and end its assault on the First Amendment.

[cascadiance]

3. I might go further. Trying to charge people this way could be used as evidence later...

... to show that the government is trying to coverup malfeasance by pressing such charges! Perhaps if that gets emphasized enough, then they'd be a lot more judicious about trying to prosecute such charges.

[pnwmom]

4. That would exclude both Manning and Snowden then

because both released information beyond that of whistle-blowing that served the public interest.

Besides releasing the helicopter videos -- which did us a service -- Manning released to Wikileaks thousands of unredacted documents, some of which contained the names of CIA agents and associates in other countries.

And Snowden also did not limit himself to releasing information about US internal surveillance. He went on to share information with the Chinese newspaper about US spying on other countries.

[Luminous Animal]

5. .......

[Luminous Animal]

6. Reporters Without Borders:

MANNING VERDICT BLOW FOR INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM AND ITS SOURCES
http://en.rsf.org/united-states-manning-verdict-blow-for-30-07-2013,44995.html

Reporters Without Borders regards today’s verdict in U.S. Army private Bradley Manning’s trial as dangerous. Although acquitted of “aiding the enemy,” he was found guilty of five counts of espionage and five counts of theft, for which he could receive a combined sentence of more than 100 years in prison.

....

The verdict is warning to all whistleblowers, against whom the Obama administration has been waging an unprecedented offensive that has ignored the public interest in their revelations. It also threatens the future of investigative journalism, which risks finding its sources drying up.

“The information that Manning allegedly passed to WikiLeaks – used by newspapers such as The New York Times, The Guardian, Der Spiegel and Le Monde in coordination with Julian Assange’s website ¬– included revelations of grave abuses in the ‘war on terror’ launched by the Bush administration,” Reporters Without Borders said.

....

Reporters Without Borders added: “Will the resumption of the debate about protection of sources at the federal level suffice to overcome the many offensives against investigative journalism, such as the recent seizure of Associated Press phone records ? The outcome of the Manning trial unfortunately suggests the contrary.”

[geek tragedy]

7. There is no way on God's Green Earth that Manning's leaking of documents HE NEVER READ

can be considered whistleblowing.

Especially when he plead guilty to those charges.

For the one case of legitimate/borderline whistleblowing, he was found not guilty by the judge.

[Luminous Animal]

8. The ACLU is addressing the espionage charges. They say nothing about whistleblowing.

[geek tragedy]

9. The espionage charges Manning pled guilty to?

It seems odd to me to argue that military intelligence soldiers should be able to vacuum up and leak every document they can get their hands on (not even bothering to review the contents thereof) without negative consequences, which is essentially what the ACLU, CCR et al are essentially arguing.

[Luminous Animal]

10. He pled guilty to lesser charges not espionage.

So, tell me, who was manning spying for?

[geek tragedy]

11. He didn't need to be spying 'for' anyone.

What matters is that he stole documents and distributed them--without even bothering to review their contents.

What should happen to people who do that?

[woo me with science]

12. Thank you, ACLU.

This totalitarian bullshit must be crushed now.

[forestpath]

13. K&R

[Luminous Animal]

14. Index On Censorship condems Manning Verdicts

Index on Censorship condemns verdicts in Bradley Manning case

Free speech organisation Index on Censorship condemns the guilty verdicts in the trial of Bradley Manning. However, we welcome the verdict of not guilty to the charge of aiding the enemy.

Index Editor, Online and News, Sean Gallagher said:

‘Manning is a whistleblower who leaked files in order to inform the world about what really happened during the Iraq War to no personal gain. Index condemns this verdict and calls on the US government to abide by its duty to protect whistleblowers who speak out in the public interest. We urge the court to show leniency when sentencing Manning tomorrow.’

http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2013/07/index-on-censorship-condemns-verdicts-in-bradley-manning-case/

[woo me with science]

15. kick