Would Bradley Manning Face The Same Charges If He Leaked Same Info To NYTimes Instead Of Wikileaks?
from the questions,-questions dept
Pre-trial hearings for Bradley Manning, the guy accused of leaking State Department cables (and other info) to Wikileaks, are kicking off this week, with many assuming that he's clearly guilty and will spend the rest of his life in jail. Of course, reports suggest that many thousands (and perhaps hundreds of thousands) of people had access to the exact same documents, and we're still waiting for any proof of any harm from the leaks. That said, the most interesting question about the Manning trial comes from Gautham Nagesh, who asks if Manning would even have been prosecuted if he'd leaked the exact same info to the NY Times, rather than Wikileaks (even though the eventual publishing of the documents went through the NYTimes and others).And that brings up an interesting point. Is this really a trial of Manning... or a trial-by-proxy of Wikileaks itself?
That said, I'm not convinced it would have made a huge difference, but the overall attention level might have been different. If we went back a decade, perhaps it would have been an issue. However, starting under the Bush (the younger) administration and certainly ramping up under the Obama administration, the federal government has been pretty aggressive in going after whistleblowers -- even when they are going to the press (including some specific cases involving the NY Times).
Where I think it might have made a bigger difference is in how the case finally works out. There seems to be this presumption that Wikileaks is obviously "evil" and therefore anyone working with them must be trouble by association. The concern if the leaks had merely been to the NY Times perhaps wouldn't have been nearly as strong.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bradley manning, bush, obama, whistleblower, white house
Companies: new york times, wikileaks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Wikileaks tends to "look and feel" dirty to many people and has a much more negative view. It taints the case in many ways as a result of that view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's OK to do it in the open
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's OK to do it in the open
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's OK to do it in the open
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Think he's a God
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not like ordering an illegal war, no siree...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unfortunate timing....
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/06/politics/white-house-leaks/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How fun....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Your point is certainly valid, but I think the difference if it was NYT instead of Wikileaks is that the NYT wouldn't have released the trove, but sanitized snippets, thus perhaps limiting the exposure of Manning since the entire world wouldn't have seen the incriminating evidence the gov't doesn't want seen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wikileaks did pre-screen information before leaking it. The most significant difference here is that Wikileaks didn't prescreen content for information embarrassing to the government. Besides perhaps Bin-Laden, provide me with a shred of credible evidence that anyone was hurt due to Wikileaks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't remember 'consulting the government' being a requirement to the First Ammendment.
nor does it redact information that may lead to people being killed.
Fearmongering. There is no evidence to support that anyone was killed as a result of the leak. And again, the First Ammendment does not have a requirement to redact any information just because someone might get killed.
Assange is an egotistical shit-stirrer
Irrelevant.
not a journalist.
Who decides what constitutes a journalist?
So it's no surprise that Manning's treatment will be affected on who he put his trust in to protect him as a "whistleblower" or traitor as the case may be.
Just because its not a surprise that the government may treat someone differently based on which type of media they leak information to does not mean it is the correct, or ethical, course of action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think the idea isn't ask permission, but ask the Gov't if they maybe have a comment on what we're going to release.
Prior to 9/11 I believe there were extremely rare cases where the gov't did request stuff not be published, but they really couldn't stop it due to the constitution.
Since 9/11, the constitution has substituted for toilet paper and isn't as effective unfortunately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The response: Nothing, nadda, zilch. The military/government did not think it was important enough to put effort into such an endeavor.
Assuming it's true, it would completely blow their 'the leaks put lives at risk!' argument, since they had the chance to negate that risk but didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, Wikileaks did exactly that. With the SD cables, it redacted exactly that possibly sensitive info.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it because we can expect one to heavily censor it compared to the other? Is it because NYTimes is still bound by US law and can be easily told what they can and can't publish while Wikileaks can't?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's access - Invites to press meetings, semi-authorized leaks, permission for reporters to visit war-zones, etc.. These are the Scooby-Snacks that the WH uses to keep the mainstream press tame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Remember, you didn't hear it from me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is only illegal for those trusted with classified information to spread it. It is not illegal for random Joe to spread it (as he should not have it, nor is he in any position to judge whether it is or is not classified).
Whistleblower laws are intended to be an exception to it being illegal, although they're largely ignored and heavily subject to interpretation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
History...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Does that make them all traitors?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour."
I fail to see how what Manning did comes close to these definitions. Did he help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the US? Nope. Did he attempt or conspire to overthrow the government? Nope. It seems a lot of the people so keen to throw out the traitor accusation don't really know what it means.
Assuming you're American, you should be far more outraged by the exposed actions of the USG than Manning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nope, probably would have been intimidated by someone, before the evidence was destroyed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Daniel Ellsburg only got away with it because Nixion broke a hell of a lot of laws in illegally gathering evidence against him, which caused the whole case to get thrown out. Had Nixon not been a crook doing things like sending people to break into Ellsburg's dentists office the man would have spent the rest of his life in jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is the core issue?
Don't forget the government is made up of people just like you and me.
There is also someting that has been left out of this discussion - discipline in the military. If his behavior is condoned, wouldn't this just encourage the release of other classified material? Ultimately leading to the death of sevicemembers - our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters.
I do not want anyone to die because a young and immature individual throws his fellow soldiers under the bus.
I personally would not be opposed to life in prison for him. Little time to think about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is the core issue?
I do think Manning should be punished for breaking his oath. I also think that acting as he did in the face of certain punishment makes him a hero.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So rather than rip apart your comment, I'm going to just say one thing. Treason DOES NOT mean what you apparently think it does. So I'll just quote the part that is in the Constitution. You know, that document that our country was founded on, with that Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights and whatnot. That thing.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
Now per that definition (which overrules any belief or opinion you may hold regarding what constitutes treason) Manning is NOT guilty of treason. However, it is entirely possible he may be found guilty of sedition or espionage.
Of course I have to include the related information on "sedition" and "espionage".
Up first, "sedition".
"The Sedition Act (officially An Act in Addition to the Act Entitled "An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States"; ch. 74, 1 Stat. 596) made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government or certain officials."
Hmm. Nope. Since Manning himself published nothing it seems to me that this also DOES NOT apply to him.
So let's take a look at the part about "espionage".
"To convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. This was punishable by death or by imprisonment for not more than 30 years or both.
To convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies when the United States is at war, to cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or to willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States. This was punishable by a maximum fine of $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or both."
Hmm. Now I'm obviously no legal expert, nor would I claim to be, but it appears to me that "espionage" seems to be a bit more likely as something that Manning may be charged with and possibly convicted of. Of course, the most important part in determining guilt regarding espionage would be "intent". Was Manning's intent to do any of the previously stated? Unfortunately, I cannot answer that. Suffice it to say, neither can you with any reasonable certainty.
On that note, thank you very much and have a nice day. Perhaps you should look things up before you go spouting factually incorrect information. I'm sure I could do a bit more research and find more information to further supplement all I've stated here so far, but to be honest I'm feeling a bit lazy. However, since I'm not the person who claimed Manning had committed treason and was a traitor, the burden of proof for explaining why exactly he is guilty of that would fall on you. I'm merely the guy poking holes in your rather erroneous statement, which is nothing but your personal opinion. And as we all know, opinion DOES NOT make fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You seem to forget our country was founded through civil disobedience. I feel that Manning is more representative of our founding fathers than those like you. He stood up to the government for what he believed in.
If not for acting against an unjust government and informing the public of the governments abuse, we would still be hailing to the Queen.
Plus the material was redacted when Wikileaks released, so please tell me how it put anyone in danger of anything other than "dying of embarrassment". I have yet to see current troop locations, troop strengths, weak points in Abrams tanks, or nuclear missile locations and launch codes, blah blah blah.
Please tell us exactly who he endangered.
And PS: I was an American Army soldier. I was a tank mechanic for the M1A* series Abrams. My family also has a heavy military background, and yet not a single one feels "Stabbed in the back", even my uncle who is currently a private contractor in the war zones installing security systems and occasionally being recalled to active duty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The NYT likely would have looked at it, looked for some gems, ran with them, and contacted authorities about the rest. They likely would not want to hold onto it.
Manning pretty much will hang for his crimes, and it doesn't matter where the data went.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How soon we forget
It seems that everyone has forgotten the Valerie Plame incident with the Washington Times. Outing a covert CIA operative seems to be a much bigger deal and Scooter Libby got off with a slap on the wrist instead of life in prison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I understand soldiers cannot live by everyday rules, but nor can you just suspend Constitutional rights willy nilly.
I'm pretty sure there's been a lot of changes to the US military due to the appilcation of numerous Constitutional amendments, such as the 14th...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
weakileaks
Weakileaks is not on trial here for receiving documents, Manning is for turning documents over(.) Even if it was for conscientious objection, Manning still took his chances deciding, by and for himself, for a nation what possible consequences these documents being turned over to an outside entity would or even might have for that nation's security and safety of servicemen when this nation is at war with many who were given instant access to these documents regardless of the contents. If he is that steadfast in his beliefs, then he should have no fear facing the consequences now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: weakileaks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]