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 3 Version 4
Judge Upholds Charge Against Manning 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 without parole 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, 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 judge, Col. Denise Lind, said the government had provided sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Private Manning knowingly gave information to enemy groups like Al Qaeda when he passed hundreds of thousands of documents to WikiLeaks in 2009.
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.” Colonel Lind also refused to drop a lesser charge under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. She did not address defense requests to drop five other charges that deal with stealing government property.
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. Private Manning’s defense team did not address the judge after she read her decision and had no immediate reaction.
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. Later in the day, the prosecution began its rebuttal of the case presented by the defense, which rested last week. Defense lawyers have said that Private Manning did not intend for the documents to end up with Al Qaeda. David E. Coombs, the lead defense lawyer, has said that Private Manning divulged the information simply to “spark reform and debate.”
Colonel Lind also decided not to drop a lesser charge, which was an offense under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Prosecutors on Thursday presented evidence to show how thorough Private Manning was in collecting the documents that he handed over to WikiLeaks. One of their witnesses, Special Agent David Shaver of the Army Computer Crimes Investigative Unit, searched Private Manning’s personal computer and work desktop and collected his Twitter messages, his e-mails and how he used certain software programs to copy and collect information.
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.” One e-mail he specifically mentioned was sent to The New York Times in April 2010, and prosecutors said that indicated that Private Manning recognized that WikiLeaks was not a legitimate news organization. Colonel Lind said she would not consider that argument in her decision.
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. Arguments from both sides are scheduled to continue on Friday, followed by closing arguments. There was no indication when Colonel Lind would pronounce a verdict on 12 counts — including aiding the enemy — or sentence Private Manning. He has already pleaded guilty to 10 lesser offenses that could put him in prison for 20 years.
“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.” Private Manning, 25, is accused of the largest leak of classified information in United States history, and there is no public record that a military court has ever heard a case involving the aiding-the-enemy charge. His trial has illustrated the extent to which the Obama administration has cracked down on people accused of leaking documents or other information to news organizations, in both military and civilian courts.
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.” Some of the cases in federal court involve the Espionage Act — including the charges against Edward J. Snowden, the accused leaker of documents from the National Security Agency — the Congressional Research Service reported last month.
“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.” At least two people have been charged in civilian courts with violating another secrecy law, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which is intended to prevent federal agents’ names from being released.
Private Manning opted to face a judge and not a jury. The court will reconvene Friday morning. During a court hearing in February, Private Manning conceded that he possessed and handed over, among other things, 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.
David E. Coombs, the lead defense lawyer, said Monday that Mr. Manning divulged the information simply to “spark reform and debate.” “I found the video troubling at the time, your honor, and I still do, but it’s just my opinion, though,” he said at the time. “As I hoped, others were just as troubled — if not more troubled.”
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.” Steven Aftergood, the director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, said in an interview on Tuesday that “the video arguably was a matter of overriding public interest.”
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.” “But many other records released by Manning and WikiLeaks had no obvious news value or larger public interest,” he added. “Manning had privileged access to restricted information. 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 the judge alone, and not a jury. Colonel Lind will hear closing arguments as early as Friday before moving into the sentencing phase. Ben Wizner, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, said that was beside the point.
“It doesn’t matter if it’s a classified document or a Kleenex,” Mr. Wizner said. “The aiding-the-enemy statute does not require the information divulged be classified.”
Colonel Lind is hearing the case without a jury, at Private Manning’s request.

Kitty Bennett contributed reporting from Washington.

Kitty Bennett contributed reporting from Washington.