This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/19/us/judge-in-manning-case-allows-charge-of-aiding-the-enemy.html

The article has changed 9 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Judge in Manning Case Allows Charge of Aiding the Enemy Judge in Manning Case Allows Charge of Aiding the Enemy
(35 minutes later)
The military judge in the trial of Pfc. Bradley Manning decided on Thursday not to drop a charge accusing Private Manning of “aiding the enemy.” If he is found guilty of the charge, he faces a possible life sentence in military custody with no chance of parole. FORT MEADE, Md. — The military judge in the trial of Pfc. Bradley Manning decided on Thursday not to drop a charge accusing Private Manning of “aiding the enemy.” If found guilty, Private Manning could face life in prison plus an additional 154 years.
In February, Private Manning, a 25-year-old Army intelligence analyst, admitted to having leaked hundreds of thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks. He denied that he was guilty of 12 counts, including aiding the enemy, but pleaded guilty to 10 lesser offenses that could have put him in jail for up to 20 years. In February, Private Manning, a 25-year-old Army intelligence analyst, admitted to having leaked hundreds of thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks. He denied that he was guilty of 12 counts, including aiding the enemy, but pleaded guilty to 10 lesser offenses that could have put him in prison for up to 20 years.
The government has said it will not pursue the death penalty against Private Manning. The aiding-the-enemy charge carries the death penalty, but the government had said it would not pursue capital punishment, but rather life in prison with no chance of parole. Under military law, aiding the enemy applies to “any person who aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or 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.”
The decision of the judge, Col. Denise Lind, centered on the prosecution’s evidence that some of the classified documents Private Manning admitted giving to WikiLeaks were posted on the Internet and later reached Osama bin Laden. The judge, Col. Denise Lind, said the government had provided sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Private Manning knowingly gave information to certain enemy groups such as Al Qaeda when he passed hundreds of thousands of documents to WikiLeaks in 2009.
The judge heard a request from the defense on Monday to drop the charge. David E. Coombs, the lead defense lawyer, argued that Private Manning did not have “actual knowledge” that by leaking the documents to WikiLeaks he was aiding the enemy. The defense argued in court on Monday that Private Manning did not act voluntarily and deliberately in aiding the enemy when he leaked the documents. But Colonel Lind concluded that Private Manning did have “actual knowledge” that the intelligence he leaked would end up in the hands of the enemy.
In the past, the government had argued that through his extensive training, Private Manning should have known that the information could end up with groups that wanted to harm American military personnel. But the government acknowledged Monday that “should have known” was not enough to define “actual knowledge.” Colonel Lind also decided not to drop a lesser charge, which was an offense under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Ben Wizner, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, said that despite the arguments, he does not think “actual knowledge” is enough to charge Private Manning with aiding the enemy. In his testimony in February, Private Manning conceded to possessing and willfully communicating to an unauthorized person all the sources of the WikiLeaks disclosure, including diplomatic cables, parts of the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs, files on detainees in Guantánamo, two intelligence memos and the “collateral murder” video of an Apache helicopter attack in Iraq.
“There has to be specific intent,” he said. “I found the video troubling at the time, your Honor, and I still do, but it’s just my opinion, though,” Private Manning said in February. “As I hoped, others were just as troubled — if not more troubled.”
David E. Coombs, the lead defense lawyer, said Monday that Mr. Manning divulged the information simply to “spark reform and debate.”
Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, said despite Private Manning’s intention, some of the information should not have been leaked. “The video arguably was a matter of overriding public interest. But many other records released by Manning and WikiLeaks had no obvious news value or larger public interest,” he said.
“Manning had privileged access to restricted information,” Mr. Aftergood said. “Not only did those records expose individuals to potential retaliation, but their publication signaled that the U.S. could not guarantee confidentially to others.”
Prof. Yochai Benkler, co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, told the court in testimony last week: “Once you accept that WikiLeaks is a new journalistic organization, if handing materials over to an organization that can be read by anyone with an Internet connection means that you are handing over to the enemy — that essentially means that any leak to a media organization that can be read by any enemy anywhere in the world becomes automatically aiding the enemy.”
Private Manning opted to be judged by the judge alone, and not a jury. Colonel Lind will hear closing arguments as early as Friday before moving into the sentencing phase.