Constitutional Scholar Who Taught Obama Comes Out Against Bradley Manning Trial
from the as-he-should dept
As the Bradley Manning trial officially kicks off today, it's interesting to see famed Constitutional scholar and Harvard professor Laurence Tribe speak out against the case. As The Guardian notes, Tribe taught Constitutional Law to President Obama when he was in law school.Laurence Tribe, a Harvard professor who is considered to be the foremost liberal authority on constitutional law in the US and who taught the subject to President Barack Obama, told the Guardian that the charge could set a worrying precedent. He said: "Charging any individual with the extremely grave offense of 'aiding the enemy' on the basis of nothing beyond the fact that the individual posted leaked information on the web and thereby 'knowingly gave intelligence information' to whoever could gain access to it there, does indeed seem to break dangerous new ground."I know that some people have pre-convicted Manning, but the charges here are simply crazy. He's already pled guilty to certain charges, but this trial focuses on whether or not he was "aiding the enemy," which would require to show that he did this knowing that it would help Al-Qaida and [classified enemy]. The supposed "proof" of this is going to be the fact that Osama bin Laden apparently had Wikileaks documents in his compound in Pakistan. But that's ridiculous. Under that theory, anyone reporting information that terrorists found useful would be guilty of violating the Espionage Act and could face the death penalty. As others in the article note, this would create a tremendous chill on investigative reporting.
Tribe, who advised the department of justice in Obama's first term, added that the trial could have "far-reaching consequences for chilling freedom of speech and rendering the internet a hazardous environment, well beyond any demonstrable national security interest."
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, al qaida, bradley manning, laurance tribe, military, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
As the government would be sure to say(though never publicly), 'That's a feature, not a bug'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ARRRRRGGGGHHHHHH
-
The desired outcome IS to create a tremendous chill on investigative reporting, and says loud and clear to any normal citizen, dont F with big brother or you'll get your ass kicked.
-
Barry knows exactly what he is doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ARRRRRGGGGHHHHHH
Why are you sure he had whole disk encryption? Obviously he was very careful, but perhaps he figured if he was found he didn't really care what happened to his information since he would be a dead man anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ARRRRRGGGGHHHHHH
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess I'm happy for his point of view to be put out there, but it seems like somewhat a conflict of interest to be the foremost authority and be specifically partisan.
(and I'm extremely liberal myself)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just a different view point, but on the same grounds, and if different view points can find a middle ground there is some hope left to pull the power from those that are only using it to prop themselves up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Think of him as the equivalent of Michael Jordan in his prime: yeah, others can play the game, but NOBODY can play it like this guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some heads need to roll...
I wonder when people will stop believeing the lies they are told every day by these supposed "leaders."
We need to find a way to awaken the proles and end this facist tyranny that is wrapped in a sugar coated porn mag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is amazing news!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/15442917016/constitutional-scholars-explain-wh y-sopa-protect-ip-do-not-pass-first-amendment-scrutiny.shtml
You're in such a blind rush to attack me that you're completely and totally wrong. Again.
Laurence Tribe explained why SOPA violated the First Amendment, and we agreed with him.
Please point us to where he said otherwise and where we issued "personal attacks" on him?
Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I looked at the Techdirt story about Abrams' SOPA analysis, and nowhere in there does he say that Abrams "didn't know what he was talking about."
On the other hand, he does point this out:
After that, Mike went into a great amount of detail, showing the lack of merits of Abrams' position. No part of the article involved personal attacks, or the implication that Abrams "didn't know what he was talking about."
If anyone was saying that Abrams "didn't know what he was talking about," it was Lawrence Tribe, Constitutional scholar, in the article that Mike linked to.
So, the original A.C. (who is obviously Average Joe) not only got the whole thing completely wrong - but he accused Mike of doing precisely the thing that he, himself, did. After all, he is the one who called any First Amendment concerns about SOPA "FUD," and who actually implied that Tribe was shilling for Google.
So, let's make his comment accurate:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111111/16242216727/first-amendment-expert-floyd-abrams-adm its-sopa-would-censor-protected-speech-thinks-its-okay-collateral-damage.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Laurence Tribe explained why SOPA violated the First Amendment, and we agreed with him.
I stand corrected. I was thinking of Abrams. See, it's simple to admit a mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comforting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it wrong...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obviously Obama slept through that class...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Strike That No Supreme Court Review, the only thing that can save him is a pardon from a president.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you believe that what they were doing should have been made public or do you think that the Government should be un-accountable for their actions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's a bit like saying an army guy stole another army guy's gun, and now he deserves life imprisonment or the death sentence, as that 'helped the enemy'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give Back the Nobel Peace Prize
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In related news
Remember, it's 4 out 5 dentists, not all of them. There is always 1 that gets it wrong!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In related news
If there is 1 that gets it wrong then that makes them in the minority and as you are in the minority on here in your opinion then that makes you opinion and comment in the wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In related news
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damning with faint praise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Damning with faint praise
The guy is widely considered one of, if not the, best constitutional scholars around. You don't have to agree with everything he said, but just because he has a poor student, doesn't mean he's off-base.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Damning with faint praise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, we have not pre-convicted him, we are simply agreeing to the self conviction from Manning.
He's already pled guilty to certain charges
That's the bottom line, we agree with Manning's assessment of his guilt.
it's also not clear from what you have posted that Tribe has actually come out against it.
Tribe is also clearly wrong about "breaking new ground" perhaps he good at constitution law, but not so hot on history.
None of this is "new ground".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually it is. Very much. These kinds of charges, against this kind of action? Yes. If you knew your history you would know that it is absolutely extremely new ground.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No. The person initially publicizing it on the internet for everyone to see and redistribute is guilty of violating the Espionage Act. The act of reporting on or reprinting what has already been globally distributed is a different matter entirely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the files were already leaked before Manning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the files were already leaked before Manning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When did Manning become an investigative reporter?
First, his role as an active duty member of the military, did not somehow qualify him as an investigative reporter. Rather, while in that role, he was expected to follow certain protocols regarding the dissemination of information. And while WikiLeaks may be considered a form of journalism, there is no basis, that I am aware of, for treating Bradley Manning as a reporter for that organization.
Second, there are mechanisms within the military and the government for exposing the bad things that are done. They don't always work the way we would like, but they are there as a means to at least make the attempt. Maybe Bradley Manning tried going down those paths first, although I don't recall seeing any indication that he did so. Instead, it seems that the approach he took in "whistleblowing" was to decide on his own what documents should be handed over to an outside organization. In that, he became judge, jury and executor of the entire affair.
To put it in a different perspective...
Let's say that some person, in your inner circle, with whom you've entrusted a secret about yourself. Maybe the secret isn't something that will absolutely cause you to be jailed, but it will probably keep you from getting any job that you want to have. Would it be right for that person to decide that your secret should be exposed to the world? Should that person be held responsible for telling your secret to the world? Or should they be held up as an example of good investigative reporting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When did Manning become an investigative reporter?
While there seems to be a lot of rhetoric supporting Manning, yours is the first comment addressing some of the downsides of what Manning did, and I believe you are on point with your comments.
Some things Manning did trouble me significantly. I have read that Manning released something on the order of 700,000 classified documents to Wikileaks, and supposedly those documents could not cause harm to the U.S. So, Private Manning reviewed all 700,000 documents and decided all on his own that none of these documents would compromise any field operations or put any soldiers at risk? Private Manning reviewed those documents in view of all other intelligence and considered whether any of these documents could be combined with other intelligence to put soldiers into harm's way? If Manning took these actions, I am impressed and in awe. Clearly Private Manning is a genius and an intelligence expert ready to be inducted into the highest tiers of an intelligence organization, if he could keep his mouth shut.
Manning also claimed that his purpose was to spark a debate about how Iraqi citizens were being treated. I wonder that 700,000 documents cover poor and possibly illegal treatment of Iraqi people. I guess someone in the government has way too much time on their hands if they can document treatment of Iraqi citizens in 700,000 documents. Of course, if many of the documents, perhaps the vast majority, do not cover treatment of Iraqi citizens, then maybe Manning was just ignoring the oath he took to safeguard classified data for his own purposes.
Documents are generally classifed because they include operational information, which puts people into danger and if provided to an enemy are direct aid to an enemy, because they include information that can provide a link to an information source, which is direct aid to an enemy, or because they include capabilities, such as number of men, when and where they are going, etc., which would also be direct aid to an enemy. I struggle to believe that Private Manning was so skillful that he was able to leak only those documents that did not fall into those categories.
Private Manning's heart may have been in the right place, but he went about it in the wrong way. Releasing 700,000 classified documents seems to me much like shooting a mouse with a machine gun. I have to wonder why anyone would do anything so ridiculous, unless they were fundamentally irresponsible or just did not know what they were doing. It seems to me that Manning could have released specific documents documenting the abuses of Iraqi citizens. Even more effective would have been documents documenting the abuse that appear to have been classified ONLY because of the documented abuse.
I was in the military some time ago. I took my oath to safeguard classified documents and equipment seriously. I recognized that leaks of certain information could, and did, lead to intelligence sources being discovered and murdered. I did sometimes wonder why certain documents were classified, and probably many documents were classified needlessly, but without perfect knowledge, and I certainly did not have perfect knowledge, I was not in a position to challenge the classifying authority. I do not believe Private Manning was in such a position either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When did Manning become an investigative reporter?
IIRC one of the things we learned here is that they are often classified to avoid embarrassment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: When did Manning become an investigative reporter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: When did Manning become an investigative reporter?
http://www.presstv.com/detail/228484.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contents_of_th e_United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak_%28analysis_of_individual_leaders%29
"However, other governments' reactions were considerably milder concerning the possible impacts of the leaks. According to US Defense Secretary Robert Gates the leaks were embarrassing but he estimated that they would only have "modest" consequences for US foreign policy"
http://www.ifla.org/publications/what-is-the-effect-of-wikileaks-for-freedom-of-informati on
'As for the diplomatic cables, Manning said that the more he read them, the more he came to the conclusion that the cables should be made public. He said he didn’t believe that it would damage the United States, but that it might be embarrassing, “since they represented very honest opinions and statements behind the backs of other nations and organizations.”'
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/88402-why-bradley-manning-leaked-classified-docu ments-to-wikileaks/
I'm not going to try to go through the hundreds of thousands of documents to pick one out, but it certainly seems at a bare minimum fishy to me, and at worst completely corrupt. Also, given the millions and millions of classified documents that exist, your viewing of a non-random selection of a few hundred of them is not statistically meaningful. There could easily be huge numbers of inappropriately classified documents without you having seen any of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When did Manning become an investigative reporter?
So, you have proven beyond question that Manning's supposed motivation, the release of documents regarding the treatment of Iraqi citizens, was clearly a blatant lie. I appreciate you clearing that up.
Behind the scenes analysis of individuals is nearly always classified. Admittedly, the reason for the classification is that it is a summary of informed opinions of other leaders, and perhaps even domestic leaders, but everyone does exactly the same thing. What people would rather not do is have that summary out there for a multitude of reasons. I doubt there was all that much embarrassment over the analysis of the the various foreign leaders (more stuff that Manning revealed that directly related to the harsh treatment of Iraqi citizens), because all governments and many corporations do the same thing. All those documents are classified because while such analyses exist, it is considered gauche to reveal them.
As for my viewing of "non-random" classified documents, I was once tasked to perform an analysis, and as part of that task I perused hundreds of document randomly (pre-computer days) to determine the scope of knowledge available. Of course, my analysis was technical rather than diplomatic, so none of the stuff you linked to would have been available to me.
Thus far, I have seen nothing that I would describe as corrupt, except Manning's actions in violating a contract and an oath. I guess Manning does not hold his word in very high esteem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When did Manning become an investigative reporter?
Isn't the foremost part of the military oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same"?
I would argue that section takes precedence over the rest of the oath due to it's placement. Therefore, if the action was founded in preserving the rights protected by the Constitution, even violating the UCMJ wouldn't break that oath.
Not saying that is the case here. Just saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When did Manning become an investigative reporter?
My guess: Manning was not selective in what he released, and while some of the documents might support that position, many will not.
We also need to remember that he has already pled guilty to charges that could land him in prison 20 years or more, so that part is a done deal. Among the charges to which he pled guilty are those which would have bolstered his argument that he released the documents to "support and defend the constitution." Since he has already essentially given up that position with his guilty plea, I think the "support and defend" argument is pretty much a dead end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about the other things found in Bin Laden's compound?
Death to bedding manufacturers, HVAC contractors, electronics stores, school suppliers, textbook publishers, grocers, farmers, and pharmaceutical companies!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]