US Army charges Wikileaks suspect with capital offense plus 21 others

WASHINGTON — The Army said Wednesday it has filed 22 additional charges against Pvt. 1st Class Bradley E. Manning, the soldier suspected of providing classified government documents published by the WikiLeaks anti-secrecy group.

Army officials said the charges accuse Manning of using unauthorized software on government computers to extract classified information, illegally download it and transmit the data for public release by what the Army termed "the enemy."

"The new charges more accurately reflect the broad scope of the crimes that Pvt. 1st Class Manning is accused of committing," said Capt. John Haberland, a legal spokesman for the Military District of Washington.

One charge — of aiding the enemy under the Uniform Code of Military Justice — is a capital offense, but the Army's prosecution team has notified the Manning defense team that it will not recommend the death penalty to the two-star general who is in charge of proceeding with legal action.

In a written statement detailing the new charges, the Army said that if Manning were convicted of all charges he would face life in prison, plus reduction in rank to the lowest enlisted pay grade, a dishonorable discharge and loss of all pay and allowances.

Story here.

Discuss.

What he did could of got him the death penalty he broke the law and he knew he did so he should be punished

Good. I don't particularly care for Private First C|ass Manning.

...the Army said that if Manning were convicted of all charges he would face life in prison, plus reduction in rank to the lowest enlisted pay grade, a dishonorable discharge and loss of all pay and allowances.

topsemag55

What order does this take place in? So he gets busted to E-1, spends life in prison, dies, and is then dishonorably discharged? I'm not following this.

Good. I don't particularly care for Private First C|ass Manning.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

...the Army said that if Manning were convicted of all charges he would face life in prison, plus reduction in rank to the lowest enlisted pay grade, a dishonorable discharge and loss of all pay and allowances.

Palantas

What order does this take place in? So he gets busted to E-1, spends life in prison, dies, and is then dishonorably discharged? I'm not following this.

It probably goes

Reduction in Rank -> Loss of pay and allowance -> Dishonorable Discharge (after release from prison)

It probably goes

Reduction in Rank -> Loss of pay and allowance -> Dishonorable Discharge (after release from prison)

UnknownSniper65

Probably, but mine was funnier. :P

Good. I don't particularly care for Private First C|ass Manning.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

...the Army said that if Manning were convicted of all charges he would face life in prison, plus reduction in rank to the lowest enlisted pay grade, a dishonorable discharge and loss of all pay and allowances.

Palantas

What order does this take place in? So he gets busted to E-1, spends life in prison, dies, and is then dishonorably discharged? I'm not following this.

In this case perhaps "dishonorably discharged" is meant entirely literally. :P

Good luck to the kid for doing what he thought was the right thing.

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

Good. I don't particularly care for Private First C|ass Manning.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

...the Army said that if Manning were convicted of all charges he would face life in prison, plus reduction in rank to the lowest enlisted pay grade, a dishonorable discharge and loss of all pay and allowances.

GabuEx

What order does this take place in? So he gets busted to E-1, spends life in prison, dies, and is then dishonorably discharged? I'm not following this.

In this case perhaps "dishonorably discharged" is meant entirely literally. :P

I believe not every punishment is applied until his appeals would be completed.

Eh, just find him guilty and disappear him to some black site. Much simpler.

American hypocrisy 101 Example: A chinese guy breaks the law and goes against his government in the name of truth -- America: He's a hero!! give him a Nobel! An american guy breaks the law and goes against his government in the name of truth -- America: He's a traitor!! shoot him in the spot! Oh america and then you wonder how come so many people around the world think you are a joke.kuraimen

Those two things are nothing alike. One was a guy campaigning for human rights. The other is a huge amount of secret information about various subjects that are important to U.S. interests being exposed to the world.

American hypocrisy 101 Example: A chinese guy breaks the law and goes against his government in the name of truth -- America: He's a hero!! give him a Nobel! An american guy breaks the law and goes against his government in the name of truth -- America: He's a traitor!! shoot him in the spot! Oh america and then you wonder how come so many people around the world think you are a joke.kuraimen

This is an overgeneralization - you're confusing civilian law with military law, and the latter is 100 times more strict. Every military member who is granted a security clearance knows from jump that it is a crime to divulge cIassified information.

He's a traitor to the U.S.. I think he should be put down. There should be no mercy on people who commit treason.

The Nobel committee is run by the same kind of hypocrites that promote this kind of selective reasoning so it is part of the joke.kuraimen

Selective reasoning? How in the hell are campaigning for human rights and exposing thousands of random classified documents in any way alike?

American hypocrisy 101 Example: A chinese guy breaks the law and goes against his government in the name of truth -- America: He's a hero!! give him a Nobel! An american guy breaks the law and goes against his government in the name of truth -- America: He's a traitor!! shoot him in the spot! Oh america and then you wonder how come so many people around the world think you are a joke.kuraimen

Your "analysis" here is so shallow that I'm not sure you're being serious. In case this is actually what you think, go ahead and read the following questions.

First, we'll assume there is a static "America" where everyone has the same opinion, as your setup here suggests. (Clearly this is absurd, but I'm happy to compound the absurdities of your statement.) What value is it you think is being praised in one instance and criticized in another? Is it the fact that a person is rebelling against their government? That seems unlikely, since America is supporing open revolt in Libya. Clearly, there's something else in play besides the simple fact that a person is rebelling against authority. Is it truth? Okay, what do you mean by "truth"? Since this is in the context of Wikileaks, I assume you mean oppenness, as opposed to secrecy...except that doesn't seem very likely either. On this forum, I'm not sure I've seen a single person argue for complete transparency from governments. (Maybe you can be the first.)

So tell me, what value is it that is being universally praised, then universally critized, thus creating the hypocrisy that you have so deftly unveiled?

He's a traitor to the U.S.. I think he should be put to death. There should be no mercy on people who commit treason.

BluRayHiDef

The judge of a General Court-Martial has that authority to impose a death sentence on a capital offense.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]American hypocrisy 101 Example: A chinese guy breaks the law and goes against his government in the name of truth -- America: He's a hero!! give him a Nobel! An american guy breaks the law and goes against his government in the name of truth -- America: He's a traitor!! shoot him in the spot! Oh america and then you wonder how come so many people around the world think you are a joke.topsemag55

This is an overgeneralization - you're confusing civilian law with military law, and the latter is 100 times more strict. Every military member who is granted a security clearance knows from jump that it is a crime to divulge cIassified information.

The Nobel committee is run by the same kind of hypocrites that promote this kind of selective reasoning so it is part of the joke.kuraimen

Selective reasoning...as opposed to non-selective reasoning?

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]The Nobel committee is run by the same kind of hypocrites that promote this kind of selective reasoning so it is part of the joke.superfluidity

Selective reasoning? How in the hell are campaigning for human rights and exposing thousands of random classified documents in any way alike?

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]American hypocrisy 101 Example: A chinese guy breaks the law and goes against his government in the name of truth -- America: He's a hero!! give him a Nobel! An american guy breaks the law and goes against his government in the name of truth -- America: He's a traitor!! shoot him in the spot! Oh america and then you wonder how come so many people around the world think you are a joke.kuraimen

This is an overgeneralization - you're confusing civilian law with military law, and the latter is 100 times more strict. Every military member who is granted a security clearance knows from jump that it is a crime to divulge cIassified information.

No comparison at all the way you're describing it - Chinese law has no application whatsoever.

The comparison is between U.S. statutes for regular civilians, and federal/military statutes for people in the Armed Forces of the United States.

His campaigning for human rights involves making the chinese government less secretive and controlling. Do you think that, if given the chance, the chinese guy wouldn't do the same with chinese documents? He was trying to make public information about how the chinese government acts secretily and hypocritically the same as the US guy.kuraimen

The point is, the information being released by Wikileaks is not merely or even mostly human rights abuses. It exposes all sorts of secret information regarding morally ambiguous subjects and primarily harms U.S. interests.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]American hypocrisy 101 Example: A chinese guy breaks the law and goes against his government in the name of truth -- America: He's a hero!! give him a Nobel! An american guy breaks the law and goes against his government in the name of truth -- America: He's a traitor!! shoot him in the spot! Oh america and then you wonder how come so many people around the world think you are a joke.Palantas

Your "analysis" here is so shallow that I'm not sure you're being serious. In case this is actually what you think, go ahead and read the following questions.

First, we'll assume there is a static "America" where everyone has the same opinion, as your setup here suggests. (Clearly this is absurd, but I'm happy to compound the absurdities of your statement.) What value is it you think is being praised in one instance and criticized in another? Is it the fact that a person is rebelling against their government? That seems unlikely, since America is supporing open revolt in Libya. Clearly, there's something else in play besides the simple fact that a person is rebelling against authority. Is it truth? Okay, what do you mean by "truth"? Since this is in the context of Wikileaks, I assume you mean oppenness, as opposed to secrecy...except that doesn't seem very likely either. On this forum, I'm not sure I've seen a single person argue for complete transparency from governments. (Maybe you can be the first.)

So tell me, what value is it that is being universally praised, then universally critized, thus creating the hypocrisy that you have so deftly unveiled?

Good riddance. He knew he was breaking the law but thought that his reasoning was more important than honoring the agreement he made not to divulge classified information. For all of you posters who claim he was a hero, if what he released was really so bad he could have just gave it to the Inspector General or if he didn't trust them either he could have revealed it to any government official with the proper clearance to see it. Leaking it to a foreign website was just stupid and if anybody thinks otherwise you don't understand how military law works. I'll give you a hint about military law, Freedom of Speech is limited to those in uniform and you can't just walk up to your CO and tell him to F himself like you could to your manager at your civilian job.

The value for truth and transparency. You said that America is going against the Lybian government well didn't they support Mubarak for a long time until their people were fed up with him? Another instance of hypocrisy where America (the american government that's what I mean) condemns something in the name of convenience and not truth or freedom or democracy or any of those concepts they love to fill their mouths with.kuraimen

In what way is transparency itself a virtue? Should we all publicly expose our bank account information for the sake of transparency?

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="topsemag55"]

This is an overgeneralization - you're confusing civilian law with military law, and the latter is 100 times more strict. Every military member who is granted a security clearance knows from jump that it is a crime to divulge cIassified information.

topsemag55

No comparison at all the way you're describing it - Chinese law has no application whatsoever.

The comparison is between U.S. statutes for regular civilians, and federal/military statutes for people in the Armed Forces of the United States.

His campaigning for human rights involves making the chinese government less secretive and controlling. Do you think that, if given the chance, the chinese guy wouldn't do the same with chinese documents? He was trying to make public information about how the chinese government acts secretily and hypocritically the same as the US guy.

kuraimen

I'm pretty sure that Liu Xiaobo wants to end Communist rule in China, or something like that. Tell me, what are PFC Manning's objectives? You have determined that since these two individuals use one of the same methods, they are therefore comparable, that it is their methods that make them the same, and not their goals. Okay.So why make a big deal of PFC Manning? Anytime somebody steals secrets from the US and criticized or punished for it, then there's hypocrisy afoot. Tell me, does this only apply to governments, or anybody who steals secrets? Like when some hackers break into your college's firewall and steal 15,000 social security numbers too, and then are arrested by the FBI, is that more hypocrisy?

You going to get back to me on my earlier questions?

American hypocrisy 101 Example: A chinese guy breaks the law and goes against his government in the name of truth -- America: He's a hero!! give him a Nobel! An american guy breaks the law and goes against his government in the name of truth -- America: He's a traitor!! shoot him in the spot! Oh america and then you wonder how come so many people around the world think you are a joke.kuraimen

I think they should use Mr Manning in an anti-leak TV campaign. 'Come on kids - don't be weak and leak'. I'm sure there's a catchphrase in their somewhere.

I don't know if I agree that he should get life in prison. Its not like he could be a repeat offender or anything. Commander-Gree

The main idea is deterrence. If he gets life, it'll deter the next would-be Manning from trying to steal secrets and giving them to foreign sources.

The value for truth and transparency.

kuraimen

These are different concepts, but we'll leave that alone for now. How did you determine that "truth and transparency" is a universal American value, and therefore subject to hypocrisy when not endorsed?

You said that America is going against the Lybian government well didn't they support Mubarak for a long time until their people were fed up with him? Another instance of hypocrisy where America (the american government that's what I mean) condemns something in the name of convenience and not truth or freedom or democracy or any of those concepts they love to fill their mouths with.

kuraimen

Now, Mubarak was in Egypt, and you're mentioning Libya here, but I'm sure you're not mixing anything up. Obviously, the United States has had the military resources to invade and depose either Mubarak or Gaddafi since they came to power. So have several other NATO countries. So are they giant hypocrites too? The UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy? Which country do you live in again? I mean, I'm sure you've thought through this.

And I'm telling you they are 2 completely different laws made by different countries you can't judge one country's law making reference to the other. I'm arguing about the principle of fighting for truth and transparency something that is not dependent on any country's particular law not about which law says what.kuraimen

Manning broke his oath, he broke the law contained in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He did not work for truth, he committed a crime.

Any other person besides him that wears the uniform would be charged the same as him if they committed the same offenses.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] His campaigning for human rights involves making the chinese government less secretive and controlling. Do you think that, if given the chance, the chinese guy wouldn't do the same with chinese documents? He was trying to make public information about how the chinese government acts secretily and hypocritically the same as the US guy.superfluidity

The point is, the information being released by Wikileaks is not merely or even mostly human rights abuses. It exposes all sorts of secret information regarding morally ambiguous subjects and primarily harms U.S. interests.

Of course it primarily harms US interest of lying and being a hypocrite. Just a couple of things Wikileaks has uncovered which I posted in a thread before, I'm sure there are many more.

Yeah because pimping boys in Afghanistan and consealing it is not against the law, asking the Uganda government to tell the US when they are going to use their intelligence to commit warcrimes as a heads up only is not against the law, pressuring governments backstage to spare soldiers that have commited murder is not against the law, US oil companies infiltrating people in foreign nations to control internal politics in their favor is not against the law, kidnapping an innocent man and then pressuring a foreign government to not pursue the kidnappers is not against the law, a US pharmaceutical company making illegal experimentation with drugs on children and then blackmailing foreign government officials to dismiss the case is not against the law.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] The value for truth and transparency. You said that America is going against the Lybian government well didn't they support Mubarak for a long time until their people were fed up with him? Another instance of hypocrisy where America (the american government that's what I mean) condemns something in the name of convenience and not truth or freedom or democracy or any of those concepts they love to fill their mouths with.superfluidity

In what way is transparency itself a virtue? Should we all publicly expose our bank account information for the sake of transparency?

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

His campaigning for human rights involves making the chinese government less secretive and controlling. Do you think that, if given the chance, the chinese guy wouldn't do the same with chinese documents? He was trying to make public information about how the chinese government acts secretily and hypocritically the same as the US guy.

Palantas

I'm pretty sure that Liu Xiaobo wants to end Communist rule in China, or something like that. Tell me, what are PFC Manning's objectives? You have determined that since these two individuals use one of the same methods, they are therefore comparable, that it is their methods that make them the same, and not their goals. Okay.So why make a big deal of PFC Manning? Anytime somebody steals secrets from the US and criticized or punished for it, then there's hypocrisy afoot. Tell me, does this only apply to governments, or anybody who steals secrets? Like when some hackers break into your college's firewall and steal 15,000 social security numbers too, and then are arrested by the FBI, is that more hypocrisy?

You going to get back to me on my earlier questions?

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]American hypocrisy 101 Example: A chinese guy breaks the law and goes against his government in the name of truth -- America: He's a hero!! give him a Nobel! An american guy breaks the law and goes against his government in the name of truth -- America: He's a traitor!! shoot him in the spot! Oh america and then you wonder how come so many people around the world think you are a joke.sonicare

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

The value for truth and transparency.

Palantas

These are different concepts, but we'll leave that alone for now. How did you determine that "truth and transparency" is a universal American value, and therefore subject to hypocrisy when not endorsed?

You said that America is going against the Lybian government well didn't they support Mubarak for a long time until their people were fed up with him? Another instance of hypocrisy where America (the american government that's what I mean) condemns something in the name of convenience and not truth or freedom or democracy or any of those concepts they love to fill their mouths with.

kuraimen

Now, Mubarak was in Egypt, and you're mentioning Libya here, but I'm sure you're not mixing anything up. Obviously, the United States has had the military resources to invade and depose either Mubarak or Gaddafi since they came to power. So have several other NATO countries. So are they giant hypocrites too? The UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy? Which country do you live in again? I mean, I'm sure you've thought through this.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] And I'm telling you they are 2 completely different laws made by different countries you can't judge one country's law making reference to the other. I'm arguing about the principle of fighting for truth and transparency something that is not dependent on any country's particular law not about which law says what.topsemag55

Manning broke his oath, he broke the law contained in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He did not work for truth, he committed a crime.

Any other person besides him that wears the uniform would be charged the same as him if they committed the same offenses.