Ms. Manning's Court Martial

Post Reply
User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

Ms. Manning's Court Martial

#1

Post by SueDB » Sun Jun 02, 2013 5:09 pm

[/break1]caaflog.com/2013/06/02/manning-up/]Follow the Fine Points On the CAAFLog BlogOur Own Mr. Phil Cave is providing some of the narrative/opinion.
“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 5670
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

PFC Bradley Manning's Court Martial

#2

Post by Maybenaut » Sun Jun 02, 2013 5:34 pm

From a military justice perspective, this'll be more interesting than Lakin's trial, but not much more. I'm interested to see how the "aiding the enemy" charge plays out, but the rest is pretty straightforward. He's already pleaded guilty, and can expect significant confinement. From what I can tell, the "story" at this point has more to do with media access than the underlying charges.
"Hey! You know, we left this England place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too." - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

PFC Bradley Manning's Court Martial

#3

Post by SueDB » Tue Jul 23, 2013 10:59 pm

It's almost done - Waiting on the judgement.





Judge (Col) Lind let the major charge stand Aiding the Enemy





[/break1]verizon.com/news/read/category/us/article/ap-judge_readies_ruling_on_wikileaks_acquit-ap]Judge Rules - Let Charge Stand - Aiding the Enemy





FORT MEADE, Md. (AP) — A military judge refused Thursday to dismiss a charge that Army Pfc. Bradley Manning aided the enemy by giving reams of classified information to the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks.





It is the most serious charge Manning faces, punishable by up to life in prison without parole. Col. Denise Lind, the judge in Manning's court-martial, denied defense motions to acquit him of that charge and a computer fraud charge. The defense had cited a lack of prosecution evidence.





Lind found that the government had presented some evidence to support both charges.





Manning showed no reaction to the rulings, sitting forward in his chair and appearing to listen intently, as he has throughout the trial.The Charge and Specifications UCMJ Article 104 Aiding the Enemy -


[/break1]about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm104.htm]Charges and Specifications





“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.”





Elements.


(1) Aiding the enemy.


(a) That the accused aided the enemy; and


(b) That the accused did so with certain arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things.


(2) Attempting to aid the enemy.


(a) That the accused did a certain overt act;


(b) That the act was done with the intent to aid the enemy with certain arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things;


(c) That the act amounted to more than mere preparation; and


(d) That the act apparently tended to bring about the offense of aiding the enemy with certain arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things.


(3) Harboring or protecting the enemy.


(a) That the accused, without proper authority, harbored or protected a person;


(b) That the person so harbored or protected was the enemy; and


(c) That the accused knew that the person so harbored or protected was an enemy.


(4) Giving intelligence to the enemy.


(a) That the accused, without proper authority, knowingly gave intelligence information to the enemy; and


(b) That the intelligence information was true, or implied the truth, at least in part.


(5) Communicating with the enemy.


(a) That the accused, without proper authority, communicated, corresponded, or held intercourse with the enemy, and;


(b) That the accused knew that the accused was communicating, corresponding, or holding intercourse with the enemy.Manning has already pleaded guilty to:


reduced versions of nine espionage and computer fraud count and faces 20 years at the moment.





He's going to jail for awhile based on the charges where he has already pleaded guilty.
“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
Dolly
Posts: 14222
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:32 pm

PFC Bradley Manning's Court Martial

#4

Post by Dolly » Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:12 pm

From a military justice perspective, this'll be more interesting than Lakin's trial, but not much more. I'm interested to see how the "aiding the enemy" charge plays out, but the rest is pretty straightforward. He's already pleaded guilty, and can expect significant confinement. From what I can tell, the "story" at this point has more to do with media access than the underlying charges.I saw something recently regarding media access. [/break1]caaflog.com/2013/06/19/district-court-denies-ccr-pi-in-pfc-manning-court-martial-access-case/]http://www.caaflog.com/2013/06/19/distr ... cess-case/That post gives a link to the "MEMORANDUM OPINION" June 19, 2013IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND[/break1]caaflog.com/wp-contentsrc="http://thefogbow.com/forum/uploads/2013 ... ON-DMd.pdf]http://www.caaflog.com/wp-content/uploa ... ON-DMd.pdfThis is signed by Ellen Lipton Hollander, United States District JudgeSekrit Stuffs!
She is the judge in Orly's new case in Maryland. Taitz v Colvin (Maryland District Court)http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopi ... =24&t=9775
Avatar by Tal Peleg Art of Makeup https://www.facebook.com/TalPelegMakeUp

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

PFC Bradley Manning's Court Martial

#5

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Wed Jul 24, 2013 1:38 am

I believe a conviction on the "aiding the enemy" charge would be overturned. He is facing enough time on the other charges that, well, he'll have time to wait for the appeal on that one if he gets convicted on it.Personally, after the illegal conditions of his confinement, more properly described as torture, and the unconscionable delays in even trying him, I believe the government has thrown away any moral authority to give him more than time served.However, I expect something more than nothing, but less than life, unless he gets the "aiding the enemy" bullshit.Lind is a good judge and has conducted this trial as well as she could under the circumstances.

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

PFC Bradley Manning's Court Martial

#6

Post by SueDB » Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:30 pm

I thought it was over. I guess that is what I get for thinking.....[/break1]nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/25/19675490-accused-leaker-bradley-manning-had-evil-intent-prosecutors-say-in-closing-arguments?lite]Prosecution Final Arguments TodayFORT MEADE, Md. -- In a closing argument that ran almost five hours Thursday, prosecutors portrayed Pfc. Bradley Manning as a man with “evil intent” when he leaked more than 700,000 documents to Wikileaks.Army Prosecutor Maj. Ashden Fein took aim at the defense's portrait of Manning as a troubled individual who leaked out of humanitarian concern. "He was not a humanist. He was a hacker," Fein asserted. "He was not a troubled soul. He was not a whistle blower. He was a traitor."During the five-hour argument in the court-martial at Fort Meade, Fein painted a picture of Manning as a young man who was interested in making a name for himself and who was obsessed with leaking classified information, calling him "calculating" and "self-interested."The prosecution recapped evidence not only that Manning received Army training about the dangers of releasing classified information and how it could help the enemy, but that Manning even gave a presentation explaining these very ideas to his fellow soldiers.Hey guys, this is the prosecutor speaking.....K.....
“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 28717
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

PFC Bradley Manning's Court Martial

#7

Post by Foggy » Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:37 am

"five-hour argument"I'm sure the board (or whatever they call it in court martials) was a LOT more impressed than if Fein had only argued for 2 hours ... they probably had no understanding of the evidence, or it wouldn't have taken that long to 'splain it. :^o #-o I'm not a big fan of five-hour closing arguments. But, I guess listening to that is a little easier than ... y'know ... actually working, yesno?
Any time my questions are all fully answered, I know I'm asking the wrong questions. - Bernard Samson

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 5670
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

PFC Bradley Manning's Court Martial

#8

Post by Maybenaut » Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:53 am

"five-hour argument"I'm sure the board (or whatever they call it in court martials) was a LOT more impressed than if Fein had only argued for 2 hours ... they probably had no understanding of the evidence, or it wouldn't have taken that long to 'splain it. :^o #-o I'm not a big fan of five-hour closing arguments. But, I guess listening to that is a little easier than ... y'know ... actually working, yesno?This was a judge alone trial (don't know why we don't call them "bench trials), so there was no panel of members. The judge is Judge Lind -- same judge from the Lakin trial. From what I gather, they fought over the admissibility of just about everything, so I think it's relevance was pretty clear. Defense argument is today.I'm really interested to see whether she convicts on the aiding the enemy charge. I read somewhere that she ruled that Manning didn't have to have actual knowledge that he was aiding the enemy (as I understand it, there are three ways to violate the statute -- (1) giving help, items, money, etc; (2) communicating with; and (3) providing intelligence to. The last two require actual knowledge. If he communicated with or provided intelligence to the enemy, I don't think the government can avoid the requirement for actual knowledge just by charging it under the first one. But I haven't seen the charge sheet, so I don't know which of the three he was charged with.
"Hey! You know, we left this England place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too." - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 28717
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

PFC Bradley Manning's Court Martial

#9

Post by Foggy » Fri Jul 26, 2013 7:22 am

Thanks, Maybenaut. I admit, I haven't paid much attention to this court martial and I know less than zero about military law.I think I'm going to change the title of the thread.
Any time my questions are all fully answered, I know I'm asking the wrong questions. - Bernard Samson

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 5670
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

PFC Bradley Manning's Court Martial

#10

Post by Maybenaut » Fri Jul 26, 2013 8:19 am

I'm really interested to see whether she convicts on the aiding the enemy charge. I read somewhere that she ruled that Manning didn't have to have actual knowledge that he was aiding the enemy (as I understand it, there are three ways to violate the statute -- (1) giving help, items, money, etc; (2) communicating with; and (3) providing intelligence to. The last two require actual knowledge. If he communicated with or provided intelligence to the enemy, I don't think the government can avoid the requirement for actual knowledge just by charging it under the first one. But I haven't seen the charge sheet, so I don't know which of the three he was charged with.I went back and re-read the article about Judge Lind's ruling, and I read the charge sheet. He's charged with knowingly providing intelligence to the enemy by indirect means (charging "by indirect means" is specifically authorized in the statute). She didn't say he didn't have to have knowledge; she said he didn't have to have intent. In other words, it was enough that he knew he was providing intelligence to the enemy by releasing it to the public -- he didn't have to intend that the enemy get the information. I think she's right on knowledge vs. intent, but it's a stretch to say that publishing something to the entire world necessarily includes providing it to the enemy. But it does appear that he may have had some training about Wikileaks being a source of intelligence for the enemy, so there might be enough there. We'll know in a day or two how she comes down on this.There were a few other items of marginal interest from the Manning trial. Judge Lind ruled that the government could amend the charge sheet to reflect that Manning stole a portion of a database (as opposed to stealing the entire database). The defense was all up in arms, arguing that it couldn't recall the witnesses to the stand to ask them which portion of the database Manning stole. If he's convicted of that, the issue on appeal will be whether it is a "major" or a "minor" amendment (minor amendments after arraignment are OK; major ones are not). I think as long as the evidence shows that some of that database was in his possession, they appellate court will call it a minor amendment.And I think there was some fight over the valuation of the information that was stolen. He was charged under a federal statute (assimilated into the UCMJ under Article 134) of stealing records belonging to the United States, a thing of value over $1000. I don't know why he wasn't charged with larceny under Article 128 of the UCMJ (perhaps larceny requires proof of stealing tangible things as opposed to 'trons; don't know, haven't really thought about it). I don't know how this got resolved, but it must have, because it's still on the charge sheet.To me the Manning case is like that car wreck you can't look away from. It doesn't have the entertainment value that the Lakin trial did. It does have some stuff that's interesting to us military justice geeks. And I would say that it has the potential to inform the public that the military justice system is a real justice system, complete with due process and everything, except the only people reporting on it appear (to me, at least) to be people who think Manning is a hero (and this, therefore, is a kangaroo court).
"Hey! You know, we left this England place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too." - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

PFC Bradley Manning's Court Martial

#11

Post by SueDB » Fri Jul 26, 2013 8:57 am

IMHO, for PFC Manning to be any kind of "hero", he should have immediately the IG, his commander, -the chain of command - he could have contacted any of our crackpot Congressfolks - (the pugs would have loved to have the exclusive use of 'ebidense' against the Usurper. Hell, the little kid could have contacted the Worst Lawyers in the Known and Unknown Universe - but that would only get him an additional 100 years.Apparently there are documents that have not been made public yet concerning the case which were addressed yesterday, but not seen by the public. HMMMMMM....... :o :o :o :o
“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 5670
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

PFC Bradley Manning's Court Martial

#12

Post by Maybenaut » Fri Jul 26, 2013 4:00 pm

According to Firedog Lake, "Sketch artist Clark Stoeckley has been banned from the courtroom and the media center for the rest of the Bradley Manning court martial." FDL says the PAO issued this statement:"A member of the media has been barred from the court-martial by order of the military judge for posting threatening messages regarding some of the court-martial participants. The judge sealed the order so no other details will be forthcoming. “The safety and security of all personnel participating in United States vs. Pfc. Bradley Manning is of utmost importance throughout the legal proceedings.”
"Hey! You know, we left this England place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too." - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 8645
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:17 am
Location: FEMA Camp 2112 - a joint project of the U.S. and Canada
Contact:

PFC Bradley Manning's Court Martial

#13

Post by Kriselda Gray » Sat Jul 27, 2013 2:09 am

I'm really interested to see whether she convicts on the aiding the enemy charge. I read somewhere that she ruled that Manning didn't have to have actual knowledge that he was aiding the enemy (as I understand it, there are three ways to violate the statute -- (1) giving help, items, money, etc; (2) communicating with; and (3) providing intelligence to. The last two require actual knowledge. If he communicated with or provided intelligence to the enemy, I don't think the government can avoid the requirement for actual knowledge just by charging it under the first one. But I haven't seen the charge sheet, so I don't know which of the three he was charged with.How could he be said to have not knowingly given information to our enemies? It was posted on WikiLeaks, and as far as I know, he intended for it to be posted there. It would seem that he would have to know that our enemies could access WikiLeaks easily as civilians, so why wouldn't that be considered knowingly getting them or communicating to them the information? Maybe I'm not Understanding what the law means by "knowingly"
Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand... - "Witch Hunt" by Rush

SCMP = SovCits/Militias/Patriots.

Thor promised to slay the Ice Giants
God promised to quell all evil
-----
I'm not seeing any Ice Giants...

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

PFC Bradley Manning's Court Martial

#14

Post by SueDB » Sat Jul 27, 2013 7:35 am

I'm really interested to see whether she convicts on the aiding the enemy charge. I read somewhere that she ruled that Manning didn't have to have actual knowledge that he was aiding the enemy (as I understand it, there are three ways to violate the statute -- (1) giving help, items, money, etc; (2) communicating with; and (3) providing intelligence to. The last two require actual knowledge. If he communicated with or provided intelligence to the enemy, I don't think the government can avoid the requirement for actual knowledge just by charging it under the first one. But I haven't seen the charge sheet, so I don't know which of the three he was charged with.How could he be said to have not knowingly given information to our enemies? It was posted on WikiLeaks, and as far as I know, he intended for it to be posted there. It would seem that he would have to know that our enemies could access WikiLeaks easily as civilians, so why wouldn't that be considered knowingly getting them or communicating to them the information? Maybe I'm not Understanding what the law means by "knowingly"IRR - they kinda get ignored sometimes, but the Army does do some pretty good security briefings. At least when I was in anyways... They have laundry lists of stuff you have to watch out for like DON'T DO the stuff that Manning went and did anyway. He did know better or was as least taught better. You can lead a "hacktivist" to the "shouldn'tadoneits" and "don'tdoits" and the "forfuck'ssakeyoustupidbastardshits", but you can't make him think, grow up, or complete his ego.
“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 5670
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

PFC Bradley Manning's Court Martial

#15

Post by Maybenaut » Sat Jul 27, 2013 9:27 am

How could he be said to have not knowingly given information to our enemies? It was posted on WikiLeaks, and as far as I know, he intended for it to be posted there. It would seem that he would have to know that our enemies could access WikiLeaks easily as civilians, so why wouldn't that be considered knowingly getting them or communicating to them the information? Maybe I'm not Understanding what the law means by "knowingly"If I understand the defense argument, they're saying that giving it to the press -- whether it's Wikileaks or the Washington Post -- is the same thing as making it publicly available to the entire world -- and while the enitre world includes "the enemy," it's just too broad a definition. To me, that argument substitutes intent for knowledge. In other words, it's sounds like they're saying, yeah, he gave the information knowing they were going to publish it to the entire world and as a result the enemy could access it, but his real purpose was informing the public, not aiding the enemy. I think his purpose in doing it is irrelevant to the statute; what is relevant is that he knew what he was doing. And I think the government's position is more than just, he knowingly gave it to Wikileaks so he must have knowingly given it to the enemy. I think there was some evidence that they had been briefed specifically about Wikileaks being a tool that could be used by the enemy (I don't know the details on that, though).
"Hey! You know, we left this England place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too." - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 28717
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

PFC Bradley Manning's Court Martial

#16

Post by Foggy » Sat Jul 27, 2013 9:34 am

The phrase "the enemy" troubles me. We're not at war with any country, which was the traditional definition of the enemy. To say "it's a war on terror now, so all terrorists are the enemy" is too nebulous for my taste. What about people who hate the U.S. and support terrorism against us, but they don't actually do anything? Does "the enemy" simply mean people who don't like us, or whom we don't like?If Lind is going to rule against Manning on this issue, I'd like to see her give a really tight definition of who "the enemy" is. Is North Korea "the enemy"? Is a warlord in Afghanistan "the enemy"? Is Wikileaks "the enemy"?
Any time my questions are all fully answered, I know I'm asking the wrong questions. - Bernard Samson

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 28717
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

PFC Bradley Manning's Court Martial

#17

Post by Foggy » Sat Jul 27, 2013 10:03 am

On "Manning should have known that the terra-ists were among the rest of the world who could read what Wikileaks published." Isn't that true of any journalist who might have published something given to him by an insider?"Something"?? Are you refusing to accept that what he gave Wikileaks was classified, secret information that could hurt the U.S.? He didn't just give them "something"; and any journalist who publishes "something" wouldn't be at risk ... unless it was more than just "something".And yes, any journalist who publishes classified, secret information that could hurt the U.S. after it was "given to him by an insider" damn well IS at risk of prosecution. And should be.
Any time my questions are all fully answered, I know I'm asking the wrong questions. - Bernard Samson

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 5670
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

PFC Bradley Manning's Court Martial

#18

Post by Maybenaut » Sat Jul 27, 2013 10:13 am

The phrase "the enemy" troubles me. We're not at war with any country, which was the traditional definition of the enemy. To say "it's a war on terror now, so all terrorists are the enemy" is too nebulous for my taste. What about people who hate the U.S. and support terrorism against us, but they don't actually do anything? Does "the enemy" simply mean people who don't like us, or whom we don't like?If Lind is going to rule against Manning on this issue, I'd like to see her give a really tight definition of who "the enemy" is. Is North Korea "the enemy"? Is a warlord in Afghanistan "the enemy"? Is Wikileaks "the enemy"?Enemy in the context of Article 104, UCMJ, has a specific definition:"Enemy" includes organized forces of the enemy in time of war, any hostile body that our forces may be opposing, such as a rebellious mob or band of renegades, and includes civilians as well as members of military organizations. "Enemy" is not restricted to the enemy government or its armed forces. All the citizens of one belligerent are enemies of the government and all the citizens of the other.I think the government's been pretty clear that Al Quieda is the enemy in this case. I think it's fair to characterize it as an enemy.
"Hey! You know, we left this England place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too." - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 28717
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

PFC Bradley Manning's Court Martial

#19

Post by Foggy » Sat Jul 27, 2013 10:38 am

I might have an easier time swallowing that if Al Qaeda was a "hostile body," and not a disorganized group of rabble united only by some vague jihadi philosophy.So far as I know, in Al Qaeda there's no central command, no command and control from anywhere but local groups, no real communication between units, etc. We've killed their "#2" guy about ten times, and in '11 we even got #1, finally.From what I can see, that means that even if there's just one cell left in Al Qaeda with 4 guys in it, we've got an "enemy" for purposes of that statute, which is exactly what I meant by "too nebulous for my taste".The Constitution mentions "adhering to [our] Enemies". Does anyone think they meant anything close to that definition?
Any time my questions are all fully answered, I know I'm asking the wrong questions. - Bernard Samson

User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 16010
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

PFC Bradley Manning's Court Martial

#20

Post by ZekeB » Sat Jul 27, 2013 10:42 am

It means the same thing as "a well regulated militia," Foggy.
Trump: Er hat eine größere Ente als ich.

Putin: Du bist kleiner als ich.

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 28717
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

PFC Bradley Manning's Court Martial

#21

Post by Foggy » Sat Jul 27, 2013 10:48 am

Ah. You can always trust ol' Zeke to cut straight to the heart of the matter. :lol:
Any time my questions are all fully answered, I know I'm asking the wrong questions. - Bernard Samson

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 28717
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

PFC Bradley Manning's Court Martial

#22

Post by Foggy » Sat Jul 27, 2013 10:49 am

This is making me think about the Barbary pirates. Were they ALL "Enemies" or just the ones who were attacking U.S. ships? :-k
Any time my questions are all fully answered, I know I'm asking the wrong questions. - Bernard Samson

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 28717
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

PFC Bradley Manning's Court Martial

#23

Post by Foggy » Sat Jul 27, 2013 11:07 am

I believe some of the argument by the prosecution in the Manning trial is meant to be a notice to journalists that the government is broadening its definition of what information constitutes a risk to national security.Ah. That I can understand, but I just don't see it. I think what Manning divulged would have been considered a risk to national security under the old standard. Why do you think they're trying to impose a new standard about what information is a risk to national security?
Any time my questions are all fully answered, I know I'm asking the wrong questions. - Bernard Samson

Post Reply

Return to “Military”