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 4 Version 5
Judge Upholds Charge Against Manning Judge Upholds Charge Against Manning
(35 minutes 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 on all counts, Private Manning could face life in prison without parole plus an additional 154 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 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.
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.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.
Private Manning’s defense team did not address the judge after she read her decision and had no immediate reaction.Private Manning’s defense team did not address the judge after she read her decision and had no immediate reaction.
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.”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.”
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.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.
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.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.
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. Arguments from both sides are scheduled to continue on Friday, followed by closing arguments, and there is a possibility that Colonel Lind will pronounce a verdict. Private Manning has already pleaded guilty to 10 lesser offenses that could put him in prison for 20 years.
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.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.
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. Private Manning is one of a record seven current or former government employees charged with violating the Espionage Act by leaking classified information since President Obama took office. In a report last month, the Congressional Research Service said the cases “demonstrate the Obama administration’s relatively hard-line policy" on unauthorized disclosures.
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.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.
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. 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 a video of an Apache helicopter attack in Iraq that killed two Reuters journalists.
“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.”“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.”
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.”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.”
“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.”“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.”
Ben Wizner, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, said that was beside the point. Ben Wizner, of the American Civil Liberties Union, 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.”“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.