Why Bob Woodward And His White House Sources Should Be On Trial Before Bradley Manning
from the low-court,-high-court dept
As we noted recently, one of the key questions in Bradley Manning's trial is whether or not his leaking of information amounted to aiding the enemy, a charge which can lead to a death sentence. This is troubling on many levels, considering the evidence is pretty clear that Manning was actually trying to do the opposite: aid the US, by providing more openness and transparency, not help Al Qaeda. Even scarier, the government's ridiculously broad interpretation of "aiding the enemy" seems to be revealing or publishing any information that Al Qaeda might like. As Glenn Greenwald notes, if that's the case, famed investigative reporter Bob Woodward (one half of the duo who revealed Watergate) and his White House sources should be on trial first.Indeed, he goes on to point out a report from 2010 by Michael Isikoff showing that Woodward's book revealed a ton of highly sensitive info.But let's apply the government's theory in the Manning case to one of the most revered journalists in Washington: Bob Woodward, who has become one of America's richest reporters, if not the richest, by obtaining and publishing classified information far more sensitive than anything WikiLeaks has ever published. For that reason, one of Woodward's most enthusiastic readers was Osama bin Laden, as this 2011 report from AFP demonstrates:
"Al-Qaeda has released a video marking the anniversary of 9/11 which includes a message from its slain leader Osama bin Laden to the American people . . . . He recommended that Americans read the book 'Obama's War' by Bob Woodward which details wrangles over US military decision-making."
If bin Laden's interest in the WikiLeaks cables proves that Manning aided al-Qaida, why isn't bin Laden's enthusaism for Woodward's book proof that Woodwood's leakers - and Woodward himself - are guilty of the same capital offense? This question is even more compelling given that Woodward has repeatedly published some of the nation's most sensitive secrets, including information designated "Top Secret" - unlike WikiLeaks and Manning, which never did.
In the first 12 pages of his new book, “Obama’s Wars,” famed journalist Bob Woodward reveals a wealth of eye-popping details from a highly classified briefing that Mike McConnell, then-director of National Intelligence, gave to President-elect Barack Obama just two days after the November 2008 election.Thus, under the basic argument being used against Manning, any government source who provided info to Woodward -- and Woodward himself -- could be subject to the same charges (and potential death penalty). That is, to put it mildly, insane. And, yet, very few journalists are speaking out about how ridiculous the charges are against Manning. Sometimes this is because they're just not paying attention. Or it's because they don't like Wikileaks. No matter what the reason, it's quite scary.
Among the disclosures: the code names of previously unknown National Security Agency programs, the existence of a clandestine paramilitary army run by the CIA in Afghanistan, and details of a secret Chinese cyberpenetration of Obama and John McCain campaign computers.
The contents were so sensitive that McConnell, under orders from President George W. Bush, barred Obama's own transition chief, John Podesta, from sitting in at the briefing, which took place inside a tiny, windowless and secure room known as a SCIP (or Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility.)
What this really shows, however, is that it appears the Obama administration -- which has gone after a ton of journalists who have published embarrassing information -- is using these lawsuits strategically. If you reveal highly sensitive info that makes them look good: no problem. If you reveal much less sensitive info that makes them look bad: watch out.
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, bob woodward, bradley manning, chilling effects, free speech, journalism, leaks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
-Frank Lloyd Wright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seems that some of them are working very hard to bring this country to its knees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why would I?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/904
10 USC � 904 - Art. 104. Aiding the enemy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why would I?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And when those documents detail crimes against humanity, you now have a dilemma: keep your mouth shut because you signed a piece of paper, or actually do your duty to serve and defend this country by revealing the crimes being committed by the very institutions meant to defend us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/01/10/mann-j10.html
"If the prosecution�s argument is upheld, the case will set a precedent for treating WikiLeaks, the media and the Internet as a whole as an extension of the battlefield, in which whistleblowers, journalists and others may be charged with aiding terrorism."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yet, people attack the government instead of looking into why we are suppressing information.
It's really not that hard. Who controls the politicians? Who has excesses funds to supply the president with funds to further their agenda?
That would be the very wealthy. We have an established shadow democracy that the FBI, CIA and other governmental entities answer to. The ones that further their existence would be the same ones that use bribery and extortion to create their ill-gotten billions.
Honestly, I would rather people focused on how to create a better alternative than a government only interested in helping out the extremely wealthy to the detriment of the entire nation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The agenda to disarm us is promoted with slick mass-media exposure and plenty of sympathy plays and rants against "lunatic" gun owners in order to goad people into making an emotional response rather than a rational one. Remember that what happened in countries like Russia, China, Cuba, etc. can happen here just as well, if we allow government to have its way.
It's alarming how liberal-socialists attempt to paint the Constitution as somehow being old-fashioned, all the while exercising their 1st Amendment rights --which, ironically, is guaranteed by the 2nd. Oh, and did you hear about how Obama and Bush Jr. now have life-long secret service? It's sheer hypocrisy to decry Americans for exercising their 2nd Amend. rights while giving themselves armed security detais (fully equipped with "assault weapons," no less) at taxpayer expense.
You wanna bet that Senator Feinstein and the rest have armed security and own guns themselves? Heck, she gave herself the right to concealed carry while denying the same for other Californians, even carrying it into the hospital, i.e. a 'gun-free zone'. No charges were pressed. *shrugs* Apparently elected officials don't need to operate under the same laws as the people they (supposedly) work for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: MUST READ
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2449983/posts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Manning is being held and tried for
Rather than correct their actions they chose to find a scapegoat... as they usually do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Manning is being held and tried for
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Manning is being held and tried for
Which is why the DoJ is insisting that everything ever, ever, ever, ever, ever done in the US automagically falls under its purview.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Manning is being held and tried for
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And we have a bit of proof that that's what they want to do from when the Wikileaks cables were revealed. They banned all government employees from reading them. And now they want to extend that to the whole population.
This should be US's new motto, instead of "land of the free, home of the brave", it will be "If you read about our crimes, you're aiding terrorists!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
/repost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One: Allow broad prosecution to keep anything from falling through the cracks.
Two: Remove as many loopholes as possible.
Military Justice is a completely different beast than Civilian Justice.
I don't think Manning will get the death penalty because this is a heavily politically charged case with the entire world looking over our shoulders, the military does not need the bad press, but it's a near certainty he will get life in prison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In this case, Manning would be the source in the government, and Wikileaks/Assange did the publishing of said info.
And there's a big chance some of Woodward's sources fell under the UCMJ. Except since they didn't get caught, everything is fine and dandy.
[ 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:
(spoiler) there was none, for perfectly legal reasons. It was not 'handled badly' by the Government. It was handled exactly how you laws apply. As is what is happening to manning.
Manning has little choice but to try for some plea, to get life instead of Death. This will entail providing further information to the Government like who he gave the information too, when and why.
He might be a hero in your eyes, but he is not going to be a martyr, unless he is totally brain dead (or will be).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
as will manning be..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So there was no case to be faced for a treason trail or conviction.
(confirmed by the Supreme Court in decision Gravel V. United States.)
Bit of research goes a long way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What indication do you have that this information came someone in the military to Woodward? I've seen nothing suggesting this (and doubt you have either)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The difference is that the stuff on Woodward's book glorifies the government, so they're okay with the leaks. When the leaks are embarrassing, that's when the espionage charges come out. See Stephen Kim and Thomas Drake as prime examples.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bob Woodward? Seriously?
At the time it went to press, President Bush said that whoever leaked her identity would be tried for treason.
When it came to light that it was most likely Dick Cheney, they found a scapegoat in Lewis "Scooter" Libby. And the best part is that Libby is only found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice, no mention of outing a CIA operative or treason.
To cap it all off, President Bush commutes his 2 year sentence.
The sheeple will tolerate almost anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bob Woodward? Seriously?
UCDavis has to shell out a bunch of money due to the dumbassery of a rent-a-cop with mace, but ultimately who is it stuck with the bill? Yeah, you guessed it - the tax payer. So, although it is nice to demonstrate and show your support for a cause etc in the end it simply costs you more and accomplishes little other than providing some internet humor and billable hours for lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bob Woodward? Seriously?
Richard Armitage was the source of the leak. (3 seconds and the google machine proves that: http://articles.cnn.com/2006-08-30/politics/leak.armitage_1_novak-and-other-journalists-cia-officer- valerie-plame-plame-and-wilson?_s=PM:POLITICS )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Makes me wonder why and how newspapers are failing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of Course they are.. just like it is happening to manning for providing info the wikileaks, if someone caught those people providing that intel (if any), they could be charged and convicted of the same crime.
Manning was also a holder of a security clearance, this in an international (NATO) agreed principle, as such he had to sign away specific rights, including the right to provide any information he comes across in the course of his duties to people without said security clearance.
This is a criminal offense.
It is also something jurnalists are not required to sign, but it is equally an offense to receive or solicit such information that is known too or held by someone with a security clearance.
It is also an offense if someone with a high clearance to travel to certain countries or to communicate to certain people, without first getting permission from the security body that cleared you. This applies for several years after you leave the service.
You also continue to hold your clearance for years after you leave the military, although you are not exposed to any critical information, security is based on a 'need to know' basis, and even if you have a clearance (and the highest) if you do not need to know something you do not get access to it.
Manning is bound by these laws, and that is what he sighed onto when he took on that job, he gave up his free speech rights with it comes to information gained in the course of his employment, so free speech in no defence for him, as the military and NSA will produce the document he signed when he was given his clearance that states he gives up his free speech rights to gain the privilege of his clearance.
He (or masnick) does not get to decide if he was doing good or bad for his country, most would be able to put up a strong argument that he did in fact aid the enemy, he most certainly was fully aware of his legal responsibilities and the consequences should he disregard them.
He will get life minimum, make all the excuses you like, he did what he did knowing full well the legal consequences of his actions (with malice, and intent). For good or bad does not matter, the act itself is criminal and has the death penalty.
Look up Robert Hanssen, Manning is in the same class, if he cooperates with authorities and implicates others (assange) his death sentence will probably be commuted to life, it will be mannings choice.
At the present time NSA, CIA have mannings balls in a vice, it will be up to manning to plead a deal and that deal will involve him giving up the full details of his activates, as in the Hanssen affair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hanssen gave intelligence directly to Russian Intelligence agencies. He profited to the tune of $1.4 million. He outed CIA informants and operatives, which is more like Dick Cheney's class than Manning's.
By the way, nothing Manning leaked was Top Secret. And no one has proved "malice, and intent" yet, and they probably won't because Manning's goal was not to injure the US or help its enemies. Keep that in mind while you're calling for his head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
ie, if you receive a document with "secret" on it, and you then read it and tell others about it, you are liable under the same act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]