Manning Acquitted Of Aiding The Enemy in Wikileaks Case

Bradley ManningAfter years of abuse in confinement from denying him a charge to denying him counsel, Pfc. Bradley Manning finally had a trial on the most serious charge against him: aiding the enemy. He was convicted on lesser charges. The verdict should again focus attention on the mistreatment of Manning by the Obama Administration for leaking classified reports and diplomatic cables. Many of these documents showed that the U.S. government was lying to the public and to its allies.

Manning previously pleaded guilty to 10 of 22 counts of lesser charges in giving the documents to Wikileaks. He could still face a long sentence and the Obama Administration has clearly worked to make an example of him after he embarrassed the government with both the public and allies.

The documented abuse of Manning by the Obama Administration while in custody will result in a four-month credit toward his sentencing. Yet there has been virtually no demand for the punishment of those responsible for the abuse.

The acquittal is a victory for military justice. There was never any evidence of an intent to aid the enemy and the overcharging of the case was indicative of the excessive response of the Administration — the same pattern shown with Snowden and Assange. Of course, those false or controversial communications in these documents have not been the focus of coverage by the media.

The verdict is also a vindication for the defense in taking a plea on the earlier charges to focus on the most serious charge.

Source: Politico

205 thoughts on “Manning Acquitted Of Aiding The Enemy in Wikileaks Case”

  1. The ethical consistency of Bradley Manning’s apology

    Unlike the US government’s vindictive behaviour, Pfc Manning’s expressions of regret are of a piece with his moral earnestness

    by Alexa O’Brien

    Alexa O’Brien in Fort Meade, Maryland
    Friday 16 August 2013 08.11 EDT


    “Deficient press coverage and the lack of public access, until lately, to some of the 35,000 pages of court documents from his trial have only exacerbated Manning’s legal predicament. Manning’s history with gender identity issues, the lack of public court documents, and the prejudicial and reactive statements by US government official for the last three years have left Manning prey to a feeding frenzy of salacious and hyperbolic coverage and a famine of serious media consideration.

    Manning directed his counsel to only engage with the press using text-based media, and to be as “accurate as possible, and try to get to the actual topic and try to be as factual as possible, and try to be as neutral as possible”. While his incredible earnestness is evident to many in court, it is hard to convey to those who haven’t experienced it. At the hearing concerning his unlawful pre-trial confinement at Quantico, in November 2012, Manning’s expressions of admiration and respect for his current command, and his friendly self-effacing charm, even disarmed the lead military prosecutor, Major Ashden Fein, who was smiling at Manning by the end of his cross-examination.

    A remarkable aspect of this historic trial is how Manning’s conduct, his candor to the court, and his reserved relationship with the press have shown in stark relief how bombastic and prejudicial the US government’s approach to his trial has been.

    Manning is expected to be sentenced next week. Perhaps, once his trial is over, the truth about it can finally be learned.”

  2. ’79 … Iran …hostages … Algeria was the country who facilitated their eventual release … I would have used that for cover as my jumping off point for fiction.

    And then you take us back to the Snowman where we started a month ago. The damage those two did is still not completely known but, catch this:

    “Lee was released on parole in 1998. Kathleen Mills, an activist who had worked towards earning Lee parole, turned her attention towards the release of Boyce following Lee’s freedom and eventually married Boyce. At some point after his release, Lee was hired by Sean Penn to be Penn’s personal assistant.”

  3. Blouise 1, August 2, 2013 at 5:18 pm


    Haven’t read it but I see what you mean from a long review at metapsyc.

    I wonder if he set it in Algiers because of ’79 … figuring that would give him some sort of cover.

    As to setups for prison … that’s also a good way to keep the active from going inactive

    You actually did more research than I. I don’t know anything more about Andy then what I’ve read “OSINT”-style… (i.e. Google, Wikipedia, etc.).

    You’re going to have to brief me on ’79 (Andy was only 11 then) as I’m a little brain-dead at the moment… (being overwhelmed w/real work)… But I wouldn’t put it past a spook to do that. RIchard Clarke did. He’s not the only one as there is Victor Ostrovsky who wrote quasi-“fictional” style about the Mossad only to be ‘called’ on it by them. He admitted that he “sanitized” his work a bit. That just killed it for me and I haven’t finished his books…

    What happened to Andy is what is called in the biz (I think) a “BURN NOTICE”. If you look at the actual evidence you see how retarded it all is. I mean he’s a HIGHLY-educated American black man who is multilingual turned Muslim. Made his way up in the CIA chain-of-command to STATION CHIEF and all that that entails. He writes a book(s) about an attack on a African US Embassy and the Ambassador is killed. He DOES NOT have CIA vet the book. “Joe Camel” (aka Leon Panetta) ‘plotz’-es. WHY did Joe Camel plotz? It’s just a make-believe book? That came true 10-years later… I guess…

    So now he can’t get Muslim chicks with his looks and personality? He has to use Rohypnol to get ’em in bed? And since when do orthodox Muslims act like this? Getting drunk, bedding fellow Muslims they aren’t married to, etc?

    Then he gets shipped home. Eventually local VA police are tipped off that he’s been doing drugs (i.e. cocaine)… HUH? You remember what Whitney Houston said about crack-cocaine don’t you? 🙂 Then when he’s picked up he has a gun. No duh! A burned CIA officer with a gun… big whoop!

    Well any way I think there was a deal of sorts. Andy is just going along with the program and serving his time until 2016 versus a life-sentence. I mean Christopher Boyce did someone a solid and got a life sentence. Where is he now? Not serving his life sentence. I guess Andy didn’t know anyone in the Bush Family? D’oh! 😉
    “Babs! I don’t think I like this fella’ SOTB… read my lips Babs…” – George Sr
    “Well George why not put a man on it?” – Babs
    “Good idea… Now where’s my little black book dammit?” – George
    “In your Skulls jacket breast pocket honey…” – Babs

    A little corny tongue-in-cheek humor? 😉

  4. anonymously posted 1, August 3, 2013 at 12:33 pm

    A lengthy comment disappeared. Anyone to its rescue?

    Happens a lot around here… just wait it out any it will prolly show up eventually.

    Think about using an ESSAY type site (i.e. That eliminates the “WALL OF WORDS” effect here which actually chills some people from actually reading it. Remember we Americans only have an 8-second attention span? – Paddy Chayefsky 🙂

  5. TonyC: I will try and reply succinctly as I can. I’ll do it in pieces below.

    SOTB: Yes I would agree with you if Manning was illegally ordered to kill somebody on his team or something. That’s different.

    It is only different in your mind. There is no characterization of severity that you can point at anywhere. The SCOTUS has put the burden of conscience on the soldier and nobody else, without any of the additional characterization or detailing or distinctions between actions that you are pulling out of your ass.

    You seem to be severely taking me out of context. This is IMO leading to your misinterpretation of my motives.

    FIRST – I was not talking about JUST the Supreme Court decision on EA1917. I was talking about a COMPLETE combined package of that, EA1917, Intelligence-NDA, and UCMJ code of conduct. Yes you should REFUSE to take action to carry out an obvious illegal act from your IMMEDIATE senior ranking officer – not the CINC (Commander In Chief aka the POTUS – president of USA). The military executive officers involved are responsible to take that action against or a refusal of an CINC Executive Order not an active-service PFC (i.e. August 2007 incident with JCS Admiral Mullen v. POTUS-GWB). It’s all about PROTOCOL (Manning officially agreed to carry out faithfully) which I think you are not grasping or are deliberately being contrary.

    However, the complete package teaches you that you should STFU (inaction) about stuff you do not need to share with people with “no need to know”. The MSM is one of those people that don’t need to know SOME stuff (old stuff maybe OK not OPSEC stuff). If Manning had a problem with stuff he actually had NOTHING to do with (i.e. he is was a third-hand-blabber) then he should have told his senior executive officer THROUGH his Sergeant (Chain of Command?). That’s SOP as you know from your military career.

    And what’s so revealing about what George W. Bush and Cheney were responsible for? It was already kinda’ public knowledge. I don’t see how he should be my “hero” by preaching to the pulpit. I don’t see where he is revealing any high crimes & misdemeanors by the PRESENT POTUS. Do you?

    You simply do not know what you are talking about, and you are making it up as you go along.

    Yup… that’s a distinct possibility. But I’m giving it my best shot like Mr. Obama is too. 😉

    Manning was courageous. He was acting on behalf of the American people…

    Uhhh not all American people… What about the American people that MAY be harmed by any of his revelations? Could there be some “outing” stuff like Bush/Cheney did to Valerie Plame? American people DIED over that debacle. So far his package seems inert. But what may come up that we haven’t seen yet? I’m not sure how much intel he supplied to Assange and what level of pooch-screwing will occur. Do you know more?

    …with no intent of gain for himself. He is a hero.

    Agreed but the HERO part is subjective…

    Because he was (from my reading) a little immature and trusting of an opportunistic sleaze because he had no other friends, he got caught, but it is quite clear from the agreed upon chain of events that it was never his intent at the time of the leak to get caught or reveal it was him that leaked.

    OK I agree with you on that…

    Which means at the time of the leak, his actions were honorable and his motives altruistic, he was putting the truth out there because his fellow citizens were being misled and deceived. Hero. Breaking an oath, a law, or an NDA does not automatically preclude one from being a hero, it depends entirely upon his motivations and whether his actions were made to benefit others at his own risk or expense. Hero.

    OK I guess I can’t argue that point. Your analysis seems fair to me now. My only “CHEESED-OFF” point is any blow-back on Mr. Obama being suggested. Also I’m concerned about the message this sends to future NDA&Oath-Breakers. The definition of a whistle blower (to me) does not apply to Manning as he was NOT involved as a first-hand player in any of it – IMO that is. He seems to be blowing someone ELSE’s whistle.

    Snowden seems more like a real whistle blower as he obviously worked on PRISM at NSA. But his revelation is a “SO WHAT?” too as almost every informed American citizen knew about this barely legal NSA-domestic-spy-program since it was revealed by Investigative-Journalists Wayne Madsen (ex-NSA) and his mentor the late Jack Anderson.

Comments are closed.