It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Bradley Manning guilty of aiding a "Classified Source"?

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 30 2013 @ 03:26 PM
As many know who have been following the epic saga of Bradley Manning, he's plead guilty to the core of the case. That is, the unauthorized release and distribution of Classified Material. That's no shocker and was self evident. Anyone could see that without reading a bit of what he released.

In fact, he plead to a great number of charges with a collective 20 years of time in Military Prison for what he's done. Why then, a full blown trial still to go? Well, they are pursuing the issue of Aid/Comfort to the Enemy in Time of War. Basically Treason...for the Life/Death that carries with it. I have a couple problems with this. First, I think Manning is getting everything he deserves. Namely, he DID betray decades of State Department Cables, Iraq Theater-Wide action reports as well as Afghanistan's Theater-Wide action reports. Hundreds of thousands of cables and reports, together.

My problem is...when is it enough? Well.... It WOULD be enough, if not for the "Aiding the Enemy" element, which I find absurd on the face of it. He was following the path of previous leakers...not being a Benedict Arnold.

There is a larger problem though...and that brings me to the story here.

(CN) - The "classified enemy" designation attached to one of the three entities that WikiLeaker Bradley Manning is accused of aiding has perplexed and divided professors of military law.

Manning, a 25-year-old former intelligence specialist, has been incarcerated for more than three years in connection with the largest intelligence disclosure in U.S. history. He recently admitted that he leaked hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables, incident reports from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Guantanamo detainee profiles, and, most famously, footage of a Baghdad airstrike.

That, just to recap the basics. Here is the issue.

Three professors of military law - Yale Law School's Eugene Fidell, Duke University School of Law's Scott Silliman and Texas Tech University School of Law's Richard Rosen - told Courthouse News they had never heard of a case involving a "classified enemy."

After being informed that the phrase stumped the professors, a military spokeswoman insisted that the confusion stemmed from a misunderstanding, because "who the enemy 'is' is not classified."

"What 'is' classified is that our government has confirmed that this enemy is in receipt of certain compromised classified information, and that the means and methods of collection that the government has employed to make that determination are classified," the spokeswoman said in an email.
(Source: Courthouse News

Okay, the Classified enemy isn't Classified...just the material the Classified enemy got and how we learned they got it is Classified. Ahh.. Yes... That clears up everything. Nice and neat. (Not!)

I wonder...Who is this Classified FROM, precisely? The enemy HAS the intelligence...or they wouldn't be charging Manning with supplying it. They know they have it and they surely know that WE know they have it. I know it gets confusing, but that is the logic here and it's crazy.

So... How about, if we seek to kill this kid by execution or just natural causes and old age in a cage, we at least do it without tons of secrecy?

To be blunt, I do not trust this Government, it's people OR it's Military leadership when they say something needs to be secret for a given reason. They've abused the privilege TOO many times for nonsense and butt covering for it to be credible at this point. This whole trial is about how *THIS* specific information couldn't be kept secret and became front page, world wide. Now we look to ruin the kid, forever, on secret evidence??

Is it just me...or does anyone else not necessarily sympathize with Manning ...but still, says enough is enough?? How much is enough to punish? How far is far enough? The blood debt Obama and Clinton hold toward this kid for what he did to their Diplomatic and Military policies has to end. 20+ years in Military Prison seems fine for leaking data.

There are Child Molesters and Murderers who get less than 20 years...and yet, that still isn't enough. This trial still "needs" to happen..despite 20 as a gift on guilty pleas.

posted on May, 30 2013 @ 04:20 PM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I don't think too many people sympathize with the Manning for the simple fact that he knew exactly what he was doing. But IMHO that info had to be made public. Aiding the enemy in a time of war...that's a little bit pushing it though. First off they've been at war since at least '93 non stop even though they didn't call it that. Second, why so much secrecy and punishing whistle blowers if there's nothing to hide?

posted on May, 30 2013 @ 04:50 PM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

the classified source is Julian Assange who was a hacker before wikileaks hell I have seen his programs in my information security books. While I must admit this is all just speculation its very interesting non the less during the 80's and 90's hackers gained reputation and got jobs not based on actual skill in a tested environment but in the real world. there are many examples where hacker did their time" for hacking large institutions" then went to work for the very same people they hacked as a security expert when caught. Apparently Assange hacked nasa in 1989 and while he may be an expert at programming, nasa sent men to the moon and must of caught him. Add in pressure from the US government they must of deployed him as firewall aka they make him a leader of stolen information " wiki leaks" to which he can relay to the US government or other countries where the information came from and who it was, he can publish disinformation or be used as black mail materiel when other countries have information they don't want leaked primarily Julian controls the information and can block it.

If you have an asset like him and lets say he gets information from government officials or military personal you conduct an investigation to find the leak and how they have the ability to leak the information you just don't capture and arrest the person right off the bat. The US must of told him to publish the material then told him where to flee to and now you have the newspapers and media hype him up as the ultimate hacker " leader of freedom and destroyer of secret information" Now that his name and website is very public and every leaker now knows to were to go to leak information

posted on May, 31 2013 @ 01:31 AM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Which is the reason for the trial... The miliary Justice System is unique in that it deals with issues that dont normally come into play in civilian courts.

Hopefully this helps - Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)

846. ARTICLE 46. Opportunity to obtain witnesses and other evidence

by admin on Jul.22, 2010, under 07. Trial Procedure

The trial counsel, the defense counsel, and the court-martial shall have equal opportunity to obtain witnesses and other evidence in accordance with such regulations as the President may prescribe. Process issued in court-martial cases to compel witnesses to appear and testify and to compel the production of other evidence shall be similar to that which courts of the United States having criminal jurisdiction may lawfully issue and shall run to any part of the United States, or the Commonwealths and possessions.

Reason for the trial -

845. ARTICLE 45. Pleas of the accused

by admin on Jul.22, 2010, under 07. Trial Procedure

(a) If an accused after arraignment makes an irregular pleading, or after a plea of guilty sets up matter inconsistent with the plea, or if it appears that he has entered the plea of guilty improvidently or through lack of understanding of its meaning and effect, or if he fails or refuses to plead, a plea of not guilty shall be entered in the record, and the court shall proceed as though he had pleaded not guilty.

(b) A plea of guilty by the accused may not be received to any charge or specification alleging an offense for which the death penalty may be adjudged. With respect to any other charge or specification to which a plea of guilty has been made by the accused and accepted by the military judge or by a court-martial without a military judge, a finding of guilty of the charge or specification may, if permitted by regulations of the Secretary concerned, be entered immediately without vote. This finding shall constitute the finding of the court unless the plea of guilty is withdrawn prior to announcement of the sentence, in which event the proceedings shall continue as though the accused had pleaded not guilty.

An example of how Military Law differs from Civilian Criminal Law -
Double Jeopardy is prohibited by the US Constitution, except for the military and only if -

844. ARTICLE 44. Former jeopardy

by admin on Jul.22, 2010, under 07. Trial Procedure

(a) No person may, without his consent, be tried a second time for the same offense.
(b) No proceeding in which an accused has been found guilty by a court-martial upon any charge or specification is a trial in the sense of this article until the finding of guilty has become final after review of the case has been fully completed.
(c) A proceeding which, after the introduction of evidence but before a finding, is dismissed or terminated by the convening authority or on motion of the prosecution for failure of available evidence or witnesses without any fault of the accused is a trial in the sense of this article.

The military uses different standards than civilian courts and for good reason. I would recommend people research the UCMJ and understand how it works. Trying to view Mannings legal issues by using civilian laws is only going to confuse people and lead to more misunderstandings and perceived injustice where none may exist.

Manning knew what he was getting himself into when he joined the military...
Manning knew what he was getting himself into when he chose his MOS....
Manning knew what he was getting himself into when he illegally accessed classified information and forwarded it on.

As for the aiding the enemy charge, lets look at the Article itself -


by admin on Jul.21, 2010, under 10. Punitive Articles

Any person who–

(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or

(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or [protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;

shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.

By giving wikileaks those files, with those files containing information about military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with those files being released by wikileaks, it allowed the enemy to access those documents, thereby giving the enemy acess to military information they can use against US/Allied operations.

Which is where that charge comes from - aiding the enemy.

(as a side note im not personally attacking the poster im replying to. Ive re-read my response a few times and made some changes to correct that possibility. If im coming off as accusatory towards you its not intended and my apologiies).

edit on 31-5-2013 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-5-2013 by Xcathdra because: Added link to UCMJ / speeling / added info.

posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 02:24 PM
Bradley Manning did nothing more than help to open the eyes of more people in this world; by exposing inhumane criminal acts committed on behalf of rogue government/s that continue to expand their brutal illegal war/s on "terror."

He is a hero, who has sacrificed himself for world peace.


edit on 30-7-2013 by seasoul because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

log in