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/2013/07/31/us/bradley-manning-verdict.html

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

Version 6 Version 7
Manning Is Acquitted of Aiding the Enemy Manning Is Acquitted of Aiding the Enemy
(about 2 hours later)
FORT MEADE, Md. — A military judge on Tuesday found Pfc. Bradley Manning not guilty of “aiding the enemy” for his release of hundreds of thousands of military and diplomatic documents to WikiLeaks. But she convicted him of multiple counts of violating the Espionage Act, stealing government property and other charges that could result in a maximum sentence of 136 years. FORT MEADE, Md. — A military judge on Tuesday found Pfc. Bradley Manning not guilty of “aiding the enemy” for his release of hundreds of thousands of military and diplomatic documents to WikiLeaks for publication on the Internet, rejecting the government’s unprecedented effort to bring such a charge in a leak case.
In delivering the mixed verdict, the judge, Col. Denise Lind, pulled back from the government’s effort to create a precedent that press freedom specialists had warned could have broad consequences for the future of investigative journalism about national security in the Internet era. But the judge in the court-martial, Col. Denise R. Lind, convicted Private Manning of six counts of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 and most of the other crimes he was charged with. He faces a theoretical maximum sentence of 136 years in prison, although legal experts said the actual number was likely to be much lower.
Colonel Lind marched through a quick litany of the charges and specifications against Private Manning, 25, who stood quietly in his dress uniform as she spoke. She said she would issue findings later that would explain her ruling. While advocates of open government celebrated his acquittal on the most serious charge, the case still appears destined to stand as a fierce warning to any official who is tempted to make public vast numbers of secret documents. Private Manning’s actions lifted a veil on American military and diplomatic activities around the world, and engendered a broad debate over what information should become public, how the government treats leakers, and what happens to those who see themselves as whistle-blowers.
The sentencing phase in the court-martial will begin on Wednesday with more than 20 witnesses each for the prosecution and the defense. It could last weeks; there is no minimum sentence in the military justice system. Subsequent appeals could take years, legal specialists said. “We always hate to see a government employee who was trying to publicize wrongdoing convicted of a crime, but this case was unusual from the start because of the scope of his release,” said Gregg Leslie of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, adding, “Whistle-blowers always know they are taking risks, and the more they reveal the bigger the threat is against them.”
Most reporters watched the proceedings from a closed-circuit feed in a filing center. One who was able to watch from inside the small courtroom here said Private Manning at first appeared relaxed when he entered the room, smiling and drinking from his water bottle. But as the hour drew near he grew more stoic, and he showed no emotion as Colonel Lind read her findings. Colonel Lind said she would issue findings later that would explain her ruling on each of the charges. But she appeared to reject the government’s theory that an official who gives information about national security matters to an organization that publishes it online for the world to see is guilty of aiding the enemy.
The aiding the enemy charge was the first in the list, and she said “not guilty.” But she quickly moved into a long list of guilty findings for the bulk of the remaining charges, including six counts of violating the Espionage Act, five of stealing government property, and one violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Each of those carries up to a 10-year sentence. She also found Private Manning guilty of various lesser charges, including multiple counts of disobeying orders. The premise of that theory is that the world includes not just ordinary people who might engage in socially valuable debate, but also enemies like Al Qaeda. Critics have said that it is not clear how giving information to WikiLeaks is different for legal purposes from giving it to traditional news organizations that publish online. Yochai Benkler, a Harvard law professor who testified in Private Manning’s defense, praised the judge for making an “extremely important decision” that he portrayed as denying “the prosecution’s effort to launch the most dangerous assault on investigative journalism and the free press in the area of national security that we have seen in decades.”
But Colonel Lind accepted his lesser guilty pleas on two counts, one of which involved leaking a video of an American helicopter attack in Baghdad that killed a group of men. But, he said, the decades of imprisonment that Private Manning could face “is still too high a price for any democracy to demand of its whistle-blowers.”
She also found him not guilty of the charge that he had leaked a video of an airstrike in Afghanistan in which numerous civilians had died in late 2009; Private Manning had admitted leaking it, but said he did so in the spring of 2010, after the date listed in the charge. The sentencing phase will begin on Wednesday, with more than 20 witnesses scheduled to appear for both the prosecution and the defense. It could last for weeks; there are no sentencing guidelines or minimum sentences in the military justice system. Private Manning’s appeals could go on for years, legal experts said.
WikiLeaks, in a Twitter post, called the Espionage Act convictions “a very serious new precedent for supplying information to the press.” Eugene R. Fidell, who teaches military law at Yale Law School, said Private Manning would not be sentenced to anywhere near the 136-year maximum because Colonel Lind was likely to collapse some charges so he did not “get punished twice for the same underlying conduct.”
Still, Yochai Benkler, a Harvard law professor who testified in Private Manning’s defense, praised the judge for making an “extremely important decision” to reject the aiding the enemy charge and thereby deny “the prosecution’s effort to launch the most dangerous assault on investigative journalism and the free press in the area of national security that we have seen in decades.” The case has arisen amid a crackdown by the Obama administration on leaks and a debate about government secrecy. Private Manning is one of seven people to be charged in connection with leaking to the news media during the Obama administration; during all previous administrations, there were three.
But he said that the potential decades of imprisonment Private Manning still faces remains a major blow to “leakers and whistle-blowers,” and that the prospect of decades of imprisonment “is still too high a price for any democracy to demand of its whistle-blowers.” The Justice Department recently won an appeals court ruling forcing James Risen, a reporter for The New York Times and an author, to testify in the criminal trial of a former intelligence official accused of being his source. And it has used aggressive tactics in secretly subpoenaing communications records of reporters for Fox News and The Associated Press.
Steve Aftergood, the director of the project on government secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists, called the outcome “a weighty verdict that the prosecution would count as a win,” but argued that the “larger significance of the case” may be limited. Most reporters watched the proceedings from a closed-circuit feed in a filing center. One who was inside the small courtroom said that Private Manning, 25, appeared relaxed when he entered the room. But as the hour drew near he grew more stoic, and he showed no emotion as he stood while Colonel Lind marched through the litany of charges.
“The unauthorized disclosures that Manning committed were completely unprecedented in their scope and volume,” he said. “Most investigative journalism does not involve the wholesale publication of confidential records, so the impact of these verdicts on working journalists may be confined. It’s not good news for journalism, but it’s not the end of the world either.” The “aiding the enemy” charge was the first in the list, and she said “not guilty.” But she quickly moved into a long list of guilty findings for the bulk of the remaining charges, including six counts of violating the Espionage Act, five of stealing government property, and one violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Each carries up to a 10-year sentence.
Months before the trial, which began in June, Private Manning had already confessed to being WikiLeaks’ source for some 700,000 files that vaulted the organization into global fame three years ago. They included videos of airstrikes in which civilians were killed; front-line incident reports from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars; dossiers on men being held without trial at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; and about 250,000 diplomatic cables. Colonel Lind accepted Private Manning’s lesser guilty pleas on two counts, one of which involved leaking a video of an American helicopter attack in Baghdad. She also found him not guilty of leaking in 2009 a video of an airstrike in Afghanistan; he had admitted leaking it, but said he did so later than the time in the charge.
But the government was determined to press forward with the more serious charges against him. Because most of the facts in the case were not in dispute, the trial raised the more abstract question of how to understand what Private Manning had done. Steven Aftergood, the director of the project on government secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists, called Private Manning’s many other convictions “a weighty verdict that the prosecution would count as a win,” but he argued that the “larger significance of the case” for open government may be limited, since most leakers do not disclose entire databases.
Throughout the trial, prosecutors sought to portray him as an “anarchist” and a “traitor” who recklessly endangered lives and betrayed his country out of a desire to “make a splash.” The defense portrayed him as a young, naïve, but good-intentioned humanist who wanted to prompt debate and who avoided releasing documents that could cause harm. Months before the trial, Private Manning confessed to being WikiLeaks’ source for videos of airstrikes in which civilians were killed; incident reports from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars; dossiers on detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; and about 250,000 diplomatic cables.
Hours before the verdict, about two dozen supporters of Private Manning gathered at the main gate to Fort Meade, some wearing T-shirts that said “truth.” They displayed signs to traffic with messages like “whistle-blowers keep us honest” and “thank you Bradley Manning.” Private Manning also pleaded guilty to a lesser version of the charges against him, although that was not part of any bargain with prosecutors. The move was unusual, and it appeared aimed at trying to persuade the judge to view Private Manning as having taken responsibility for his actions, while recasting the trial as a test of whether the government had brought excessive charges in the case.
Ben Wizner, director of the Speech, Privacy and Technology Project for the American Civil Liberties Union, expressed relief that Private Manning was acquitted of the “most dangerous charge” brought against him, but criticized the espionage charges. The government elected to press forward with trying to convict Private Manning of the more serious charges. Prosecutors portrayed him as an “anarchist” and a “traitor” who recklessly endangered lives out of a desire to “make a splash.” The defense portrayed him as a young, naïve, but good-intentioned humanist who wanted to prompt debate and change.
“While we’re relieved that Mr. Manning was acquitted of the most dangerous charge, the A.C.L.U. has long held the view that leaks to the press in the public interest should not be prosecuted under the Espionage Act,” he said. “Since Manning already pleaded guilty to charges of leaking information — which carry significant punishment — it seems clear that the government was seeking to intimidate anyone who might consider revealing valuable information in the future.” Hours before the verdict, about two dozen supporters of Private Manning gathered at the main gate to Fort Meade displaying signs with messages like “whistle-blowers keep us honest.” After the verdict, his supporters announced a protest rally Tuesday in front of the White House.
Gregg Leslie, the legal defense director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said the Espionage Act convictions — a charge that covers not spying but releasing defense information that could cause harm — were not surprising but were still alarming, given that the information released was important for public debate. But Representatives Mike Rogers of Michigan and C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland, the top Republican and Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, praised the verdict.
“We always hate to see a government employee who was trying to publicize wrongdoing convicted of a crime, but this case was unusual from the start because of the scope of his release,” he said. “Because of Manning’s obligations as a government employee, it almost would have been more of a surprise if the government had not won on an Espionage Act count.” “Justice has been served today,” they said in a statement. “Pfc. Manning harmed our national security, violated the public’s trust, and now stands convicted of multiple serious crimes.”
Still, he added: “Whistle-blowers always know they are taking risks, and the more they reveal the bigger the threat is against them. But we know they are not betraying the government. And when they contribute vital information to an important public debate, it should not be a crime — especially the kind of crime that sends you to jail for the rest of your life.”
Private Manning is one of seven people who have been charged with leaking information to the press for public consumption under the Obama administration. Under all previous presidents combined, there were only three such cases.