Bradley Manning's Defense: Releasing Over-Classified Information To The Public Would Be Good For The US, Not Bad
from the not-about-harming-the-US dept
As the Bradley Manning case moves towards finally taking place, there are still some pre-trial events going on, and in this week's hearings, what appears to be Manning's key defense strategy is being explained: and it's that he's a believer in open information being a clear, good thing. Specifically, the defense is suggesting that Manning was actually careful to make sure the documents he released to Wikileaks would not harm the US, but were specifically situations where he felt the documents had been over-classified. Many anti-Manning people will argue that it is not his position to decide what is and what is not properly classified, and that's true. But, it does matter in the case, because the key charge against Manning, "aiding the enemy," requires him to have known (or "should have known") that his actions would aid enemies of the US. But, his defense is attacking that head on, arguing the exact opposite. That, as a believer in the power of open information and being worried about over-classification, his motive was to share info that would no harm the US, but which it would benefit the US to have open.Similarly, Manning's lawyers are making the point that the US government seems to be arguing that giving information to the media is the same thing as giving the info to Al Qaeda, which is preposterous. As they note, all such cases in the past have involved actually giving info directly to the enemy, and not to the public via the media.
The US, for its part, seems to be trying to do everything it can to prevent Manning from even being able to make this argument, arguing both that any discussion of over-classification should be barred from the case, and similarly that Manning's motives make no difference. Both of those claims seem fairly questionable, since the key part of aiding the enemy is understanding if Manning actually thought he was "aiding the enemy."
Update: The court has granted Bradley Manning 112 days sentencing credit for unlawful pre-trial punishment. According to the live blog of the trial, the judge also ruled that Manning's conditions did not count as solitary confinement, and that there was no evidence of command influence leading to unlawful conditions.
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: aiding the enemy, bradley manning, over-classified, us government
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Many anti-Manning people will argue that it is not his position to decide what is and what is not properly classified, and that's true.
Not so. Thats the problem with us. We have left the important issues up to corrupt politicians whose first choice is to hide everything. Too many of us just keep our mouths shut when we shouldn't.Like many of us, I believe, he felt he had no one to trust to do the right thing through "proper" channels. So he did what he believed was the next best thing.
He will never get a fair trial and they are going to use this poor man as an example.
But ya know... sometimes you find things out that keep nagging at you night and day until you feel the need to make it right.
So much focus on the man not the messages. Thanks lamestream media.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Question:
Is this the most brilliant defense of all time? It's generally accepted that the military over-classifies documents. If this offense the prosecution has offered requires the stated intent, then the classified material would need to be shown to refute the defense, but can the material if classified be shown? If not, then is that reasonable doubt and would that work similarly to civilian court? If they documents can indeed be shown, then is that evidence that they're over-classified, or could they be shown to be when shown to the jury?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question:
Given the volume of documents and the low level and experience of Manning, he is hardly in a position to be the arbiter of what is over-classified. As far as an open discussion of the classified documents, I doubt the judge will agree to even have such a discussion. I think it's a moot point.
Manning really has no defense, and his personal salvation probably rests in his ability to make a case against Assange.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Question:
That is part of the brilliance. He is not arguing that the documents were "over-classified". Manning's argument appears to be against the intent - he is arguing that HE thought the documents were over-classified. The argument is over his state of mind, not about the documents.
In that case, DH seems to be on to something with the content of the documents that Manning exposed being key evidence for or against him making it difficult to exclude.
I hope it works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Many anti-Manning people will argue that it is not his position to decide what is and what is not properly classified, and that's true.
Like many of us, I believe, he felt he had no one to trust to do the right thing through "proper" channels. So he did what he believed was the next best thing.
He will never get a fair trial and they are going to use this poor man as an example.
But ya know... sometimes you find things out that keep nagging at you night and day until you feel the need to make it right.
So much focus on the man not the messages. Thanks lamestream media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Many anti-Manning people will argue that it is not his position to decide what is and what is not properly classified, and that's true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Many anti-Manning people will argue that it is not his position to decide what is and what is not properly classified, and that's true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Many anti-Manning people will argue that it is not his position to decide what is and what is not properly classified, and that's true.
If we had trustworthy politicians, he could have gone to his Senator and tried that way. LOLLLOOLLOLLOOLOOL ROFLMAO. Yeah you see (hopefully) the absurdity in my suggestion there.
"but he was not charged in any way with making this decision" And any, if any, policies are put in to place to deal with that the people who were in charge of making those decisions have failed... miserably.
"If corruption needs to be weeded out" If?
" it needs to be done differently."
Then please be part of the solution and enlighten us as to how you would go about that.
Everyone acts like it was WOW im going to download all this crap and turn it over. I am sure it was not. I am sure there were feelings of disgust, and betrayal as the details were exposed to him. I am sure it was not an easy decision to knowingly throw your life away to do the right thing.
He did the right thing. What disgusts me is no one has looked at what was implicated, but choose to go on a witch hunt to prosecute.
Gotta go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Many anti-Manning people will argue that it is not his position to decide what is and what is not properly classified, and that's true.
I think that Manning's intentions were noble, but ultimately futile at the time. That does not assuage my conscience, however,t hat his treatment has been, at best appaling, and at worst, inhuman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just think that sentence through for a moment and you realize the government considers the public as the enemy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
the public
hmm...perhaps we should start the list at number 2.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's not a defense, it's not the government's job to serve the public interest. It's their job to serve their own interests and releasing potentially embarrassing information doesn't make the government look good. Hence Manning should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wow are you ever fucked up in the head?
Never was there more of an example of someone not deserving of our freedoms here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't feel bad, I read it twice because my initial reaction was the same as yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'd say so. A lot, for starters.
"Wasnt everyones argument just a few months ago that there was no clear evidence that he did these things?"
No, that hasn't ever actually been "everyones argument". In point of fact, everyone's argument has been that there was/would eventually be evidence of what he did, but that one must take into account his motivation for doing what he did.
"Now he is admitting it and trying some bogus lawyer tricks."
If by "bogus lawyer tricks" you refer to "using and expecting for due process of the law to be followed" then yes, he is indeed using "bogus lawyer tricks". I can see how someone you obviously don't like expecting due process might upset you and cause you to refer to their actions as "bogus lawyer tricks", but your issues with said person DO NOT mean they are denied due process just because you have issues with them.
"Just kill him and save our tax money."
Translation, "Fuck due process."
Yeah, that'll definitely show the world that America believes in freedom and due process and all those other ideals it was founded on. Or not.
"The world will not miss his Rat ass."
Well, you won't. But the world will. The world will miss an individual who had the integrity to buck the chain of command when he saw something that his conscience could not allow to go unreported. The world needs more people like him I say. Those not afraid to go against the status quo and say "fuck it, damn the consequences, I'm going to do what I think is right". But again, I can see how such people might upset someone like you. Let me ask, would you be first in line to ask or be asked, "Halt! Papers please." If you can say yes to that then you sir/ma'am are most definitely someone the world would actually not miss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now try saying that while twirling your greased thin moustache and chuckling to yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This, from a country where torture is standard practice, means very, very little.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huge public outcry over Manning being in solitary confinement forces government to move him to somewhere better.
Judge rules that he wasn't in solitary confinement.
What.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
don't tell those guys freed after 20 years by DNA evidence
I have never heard of such a thing before, but it certainly raises some interesting possibilities, especially if he's acquitted.
"Your Honor, how much would I get if I burned down the local Army recruiting office, then turned myself in?"
"I'd say about three months-- oh, dear."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: don't tell those guys freed after 20 years by DNA evidence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: don't tell those guys freed after 20 years by DNA evidence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: don't tell those guys freed after 20 years by DNA evidence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: don't tell those guys freed after 20 years by DNA evidence
I think it's a non-transferrable coupon, figuratively speaking. However, if it did work that way...
I'm pretty sure Arson carries more than a few months since it's often punished at the level of attempted murder if it is reasonably possible to be occupied. However, he could probably get away with a minor assault on almost 4 months of 'credit'.
So, your honor, how much time would I be sentenced to if I kicked the prosecutors in the balls? 2-3 months? I'll be back in 5 minutes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This will be interesting. I've always wondered why the U.S. has wanted Assange so badly as well.
Is is me or is this lacking press coverage?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't care whether you think what Manning did was right or wrong, his pre-trial treatment should scare the hell out of every American citizen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just consider it 'conditioning the sheeple'....
First they came for the Copyright Infringers,
and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't one of them.
Then they came for the Domain Names,
and I didn't speak up, even though I had one.
Then they came for the accused terrorists,
and I couldn't speak up because they said I was the terrorist...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not secret
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
over-classified
[ link to this | view in chronology ]