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 2 Version 3
Judge in Manning Case Allows Charge of Aiding the Enemy Judge Upholds Charge Against Manning
(about 2 hours later)
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. 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 without parole 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 prison for up to 20 years. In February, Private Manning, 25, an 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 put him in prison for up to 20 years.
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 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 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, like as Al Qaeda, when he passed hundreds of thousands of documents to WikiLeaks in 2009.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, like as Al Qaeda, when he passed hundreds of thousands of documents to WikiLeaks in 2009.
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.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.
Colonel Lind also decided not to drop a lesser charge, which was an offense under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.Colonel Lind also decided not to drop a lesser charge, which was an offense under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
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. The Congressional Research Service reported in June that a number of other cases involving charges under the Espionage Act, including efforts to extradite Edward J. Snowden, the National Security Agency leaker, “demonstrate the Obama administration’s relatively hard-line policy with respect to the prosecution of persons suspected of leaking classified information to the media.”
“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.” 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 at Guantánamo Bay, two intelligence memos and the “collateral murder” video of an Apache helicopter attack in Iraq.
“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.”
Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, said that despite Private Manning’s intentions, some of the information should not have been leaked. “The video arguably was a matter of overriding public interest,” Mr. Aftergood said. “But many other records released by Manning and WikiLeaks had no obvious news value or larger public interest.”
“Manning had privileged access to restricted information,” he 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.”
Private Manning opted to face a judge and not a jury. The court will reconvene Friday morning.
David E. Coombs, the lead defense lawyer, said Monday that Mr. Manning divulged the information simply to “spark reform and debate.”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.”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.”
Before lunch recess on Thursday, Colonel Lind heard arguments by both the prosecution and the defense regarding five offenses for stealing United States government property. Private Manning pleaded not guilty to all charges for “stealing, purloining, or knowingly converting” government databases that contain records that include the Iraq War Logs and the Afghan War Diary. The defense requested that the judge drop the charges.
The government charged that Private Manning stole or converted entire databases instead of just “information” or “copies.”
“The records and databases are inherently intertwined,” said Capt. Joe Morrow, the chief prosecutor.
The defense cited U.S. v. Jordan, a case that did not charge the defendant with stealing an entire database. Mr. Coombs further argued that the government has not proved that having taken the information was “wrongful.”The defense cited U.S. v. Jordan, a case that did not charge the defendant with stealing an entire database. Mr. Coombs further argued that the government has not proved that having taken the information was “wrongful.”
Private Manning opted to face the judge alone, and not a jury. Colonel Lind will hear closing arguments as early as Friday before moving into the sentencing phase.Private Manning opted to face the judge alone, and not a jury. Colonel Lind will hear closing arguments as early as Friday before moving into the sentencing phase.

Kitty Bennett contributed reporting from Washington.