Bradley Manning’s conviction sends a chilling message

[Catherina]

Bradley Manning’s conviction sends a chilling message


By Jesselyn Radack, Published: August 2

Jesselyn Radack is the National Security & Human Rights Director of the Government Accountability Project.

In 1971, Richard Nixon’s administration charged Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo, the men who leaked the classified Pentagon Papers, under the Espionage Act. The case was eventually dismissed due to government misconduct. With the guilty verdict against Pfc. Bradley Manning, President Obama has won what Nixon could not: an Espionage Act conviction against a government employee accused of mishandling classified information. Obama’s administration has relied heavily on the draconian World War I-era law — meant for prosecuting spies, not whistleblowers — in its ruthless, unprecedented war on “leaks,” invoking it seven times (more than all other U.S. presidents combined) to go after people who reveal information embarrassing to the United States, or, worse, that exposes its crimes.

Until this week, this extreme crackdown had failed. I represent two of the whistleblowers whom the Obama administration at one time charged with espionage: former National Security Agency senior executive Thomas Drake and former CIA agent John Kiriakou. Not coincidentally, they exposed two of the biggest government scandals of the Bush administration — secret domestic surveillance and torture, respectively.

A little-known fact is that the government ended up dropping all espionage charges in both cases. In contrast, this did not happen in the case of Manning: A military judge convicted him on six espionage counts, among other charges. A key difference is that Manning’s trial occurred in a court-martial, significant parts of which were conducted in secret. The trial was barely covered by most media outlets, and those that did cover it closely were thwarted at every step by restrictive, arbitrary and ever-changing press rules from the Army’s Public Affairs Office. Thus the government was able to avoid the public and media scrutiny that assisted Drake and Kiriakou.

...

In this case, the people being prosecuted are those who disclosed fraud, waste, abuse and illegality of the highest order for the purpose of benefitting the public. It sends the most chilling of messages to jail truth-tellers and dissenters, essential actors in maintaining an informed citizenry, which lies at the heart of a free and open democratic society. After all, in our grand experiment with democracy, the people are supposed to control the government, not the other way around. The work of the government is supposed to be public and people’s personal lives private, not the other way around. There are a number of brave souls trying to correct the trajectory of decline that our country is on. Public servants should not have to choose their conscience over their careers, and especially their very freedom.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jesselyn-radack-bradley-mannings-conviction-sends-a-chilling-message/2013/08/02/aaf5865e-facd-11e2-a369-d1954abcb7e3_story.html

[Smarmie Doofus]

1. A military judge who was offered and accepted a promotion while sitting on the case?

>>>A military judge convicted him on six espionage counts, among other charges.>>>>

Nixon and Erlichman were nearly lynched when they tried to fix Ellsberg's case by bribing Judge Byrne. And the media was ALL OVER THEM.


That's the difference:

>>>The trial was barely covered by most media outlets, and those that did cover it closely were thwarted at every step by restrictive, arbitrary and ever-changing press rules from the Army’s Public Affairs Office.>>>

If a tree falls in the forest... and no one hears it... justice suffers, the innocent are punished and the guilty go free.

[Catherina]

2. The whole thing is a shameful charade.

STRATFOR

A hero? .... I'd feed that shit head soldier to the first pack of wild dogs I could find.

http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/389793_.html

That sums up how *fairly* Manning was treated.

[newfie11]

3. This does not bode well for the future

"In this case, the people being prosecuted are those who disclosed fraud, waste, abuse and illegality of the highest order for the purpose of benefitting the public."
Says it all.
We need to vote these creeps out but even that maybe to late with voter suppression, manipulation.

[Hippo_Tron]

4. So if you're in the military, does every crime you commit get tried under a court-martial?

I was under the impression that courts-martial were convened for alleged violations of the UCMJ, where there's some logic to trying them there vs in civilian court.

Bradley Manning was charged with offenses that a civilian could also be charged with. Why didn't he get a trial in civilian court?

[Angleae]

7. It depends on who files charges.

If the military brings charges it's a court-martial. If the DoJ brings charges it's federal court. If the state/county/city brings charges it's in that state's court system.

[Hippo_Tron]

9. I just think that anything involving serious time should be brought before a civilian court

If they want to convene a court-martial to dishonorably discharge someone who doesn't end up being convicted by the civilian court, that's fine with me.

I just hate the idea of "sign on this dotted line and waive your judicial rights".

[Angleae]

11. And just what civilian law would cover disobeying orders, insubordination, desertion, etc?

There are no civilian equivalents for many military charges and civilian courts can't use the UCMJ.

[Hippo_Tron]

12. I have no problem with those things being tried by courts-martial

But if you want to lock someone up for the rest of their life for espionage, murder, etc. it should go to a civilian court.

[branford]

14. We have an all volunteer military.

All recruits unequivocally agree to be bound by the UCMJ during their service. It has also always been understood that our men and women in uniform give-up certain rights while they serve. For instance, their First Amendment rights are severely curtained to maintain discipline and (hopefully) keep the military out of politics. Additionally, due to the unique nature of military service (deployments, absolute need to obey orders, troop movements, espionage, national security, etc.), service members are subject to additional or revised crimes (e.g., desertion), modified rules of evidence and procedure, and penalties could differ for similar civilian crimes.

Civilian courts are not generally equipped to handle the unique situations and concerns of active military service, nor do they have the capacity to adjudicate military matters in a timely fashion. Many federal district courts already have overflowing dockets.

The military Judge Advocate General Corps. is also generally competent and well-respected. Civilian lawyers are also available, as was the case with Manning.

[Lee-Lee]

15. Imagine two parallel systems

There are some crimes that come under both, and some that come under just the UCMJ.

And a person can not only be tried under either for some crimes, but even under both without double jeapordy coming into play. So a Soldier can get a DUI in town, be convicted, punished, and then still also be subject to UCMJ punishment.

Manning was charged with crimes under the UCMJ. Some of those same acts could have also brought charges under civilian law, but it isn't the same law he wou be charged with violating.

[99Forever]

5. And some...

... of the freakin' tools around here pretend that Snowden should have "surrendered" to tho authoritarian/police state cancer our government has become.

Who the fuck do they think they are fooling?

[idwiyo]

6. K&R

[WillyT]

8. K & R !!! - Did You Catch This ???

DULink: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023399736

[forestpath]

10. K&R

[AppleBottom]

13. Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

former National Security Agency senior executive Thomas Drake and former CIA agent John Kiriakou. Not coincidentally, they exposed two of the biggest government scandals of the Bush administration — secret domestic surveillance and torture, respectively.

A little-known fact is that the government ended up dropping all espionage charges in both cases.

Where did we go so wrong as a society.