Live
• Bradley Manning convicted of multiple Espionage Act violations
• Acquitted of most serious 'aiding the enemy' charge
• Army private faces maximum jail sentence of 130 years
Bradley Manning verdict: guilty of most charges but not 'aiding enemy' – live
• Bradley Manning faces maximum 130-year sentence • Convicted of most charges against him at Fort Meade • Not guilty of most serious 'aiding the enemy' charge • Follow live updates • Read our latest news story
Bradley Manning is escorted to a security
vehicle outside a courthouse in Fort Meade, Maryland, on Monday 29 July
2013. The judge will rule on Manning's case on Tuesday. Photograph:
Patrick Semansky/AP
James Ball, the Guardian's data editor, writes that
"the Obama administration didn't merely go through the motions" in
pursuit of Bradley Manning; military authorities "imposed a charge that
should have sparked far greater alarm than it did".
They argued that by talking to the media, Manning had "aided the
enemy" – a charge tantamount to treason, which can carry the death
penalty (though this was not pursued in Manning's case).
This is not so much the beginning of a slippery slope for a
democratic nation as a headlong plummet. A guilty verdict would have
redefined the media – from outlets such as WikiLeaks to bastions of the
establishment like the New York Times – as proxies for the enemy. It
would have ended any distinction between a traitor selling military
secrets to the highest bidder and someone speaking to a journalist on a
matter of conscience and for no reward.
By finding Manning not guilty on this dangerous charge (though guilty
of espionage and theft), military judge colonel Denise Lind has pulled
the US back from the precipice – for now. But that outcome does not
alter the fact that such a charge was sought by prosecutors in the first
place.
Manning leaves Fort Meade today after hearing the judge's verdict. Bradley Manning leaves a military court
facility in Maryland after being convicted of espionage and theft
charges on Tuesday. Photograph: SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images
Bill Keller, former editor of the New York Times, heralded the not guilty verdict on the aiding the enemy charge as a "victory of common sense over petty vindictiveness", writes Ed Pilkington:
Under Keller's editorship in 2010, the New York Times joined forces
with the Guardian and Der Spiegel to publish many of the first WikiLeaks
disclosures.
Keller said that in his opinion, Manning had displayed a complicated
mix of personal and political motives, but that the judge had been right
to dismiss the US government's allegation that he had knowingly
assisted al-Qaida by transmitting documents to WikiLeaks. "I haven't
seen any evidence he intended or even imagined that his disclosures
would help America's enemies."
The former Times editor said Lind had spared America serious
consequences by avoiding setting a precedent that would have exposed all
future official leakers to the accusation that they "aided the enemy".
He said that had a guilty verdict been delivered, even innocuous
journalism such as public opinion polls might have been emperiled.
"If you follow that logic every poll that says Americans want to get
out of Afghanistan, every story about popular discontent over drone
strikes or surveillance, every statement that casts the country in an
unfavorable light – it all boosts morale at al-Qaida headquarters, and
thus aids the enemy."
Amnesty International has said "it’s hard not to
draw the conclusion that Manning's trial was about sending a message:
the US government will come after you".
Widney Brown senior director of international law and policy at the human rights charity, said in a statement that the US government's "priorities are upside down".
The US government has refused to investigate credible allegations of
torture and other crimes under international law despite overwhelming
evidence.
Yet they decided to prosecute Manning who it seems was trying to do
the right thing - reveal credible evidence of unlawful behaviour by the
government. You investigate and prosecute those who destroy the
credibility of the government by engaging in acts such as torture which
are prohibited under the US Constitution and in international law.
The government’s pursuit of the ‘aiding the enemy’ charge was a
serious overreach of the law, not least because there was no credible
evidence of Manning’s intent to harm the USA by releasing classified
information to WikiLeaks.
You can read the full Amnesty International statement here.
The American Civil Liberties Unionhas accused
the US government of "seeking to intimidate" anyone who might consider
whistle blowing in the future in prosecuting Manning under the Espionage
Act. Here's the ACLU's full statement commenting on the Manning
verdict:
While we're relieved that Mr. Manning was acquitted of the most
dangerous charge, the ACLU has long held the view that leaks to the
press in the public interest should not be prosecuted under the
Espionage Act," said Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU's Speech, Privacy
and Technology Project. "Since he 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.
While we are obviously disappointed in today’s verdicts, we are happy
that Judge Lind agreed with us that Brad never intended to help
America’s enemies in any way. Brad loves his country and was proud to
wear its uniform.
We want to express our deep thanks to David Coombs, who has dedicated
three years of his life to serving as lead counsel in Brad’s case. We
also want to thank Brad’s Army defense team, Major Thomas Hurley and
Captain Joshua Tooman, for their tireless efforts on Brad’s behalf, and
Brad’s first defense counsel, Captain Paul Bouchard, who was so helpful
to all of us in those early confusing days and first suggested David
Coombs as Brad’s counsel. Most of all, we would like to thank the
thousands of people who rallied to Brad’s cause, providing financial and
emotional support throughout this long and difficult time, especially
Jeff Paterson and Courage to Resist and the Bradley Manning Support
Network. Their support has allowed a young Army private to defend
himself against the full might of not only the US Army but also the US
Government.
Updated
Colonel Denise Lind, the military judge presiding over the court martial of the US soldier, delivered her verdict in curt and pointed language, writes Ed Pilkington from Fort Meade:
“Guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty,” she repeated over and over, as the
reality of a prolonged prison sentence for Manning on top of the three
years he has already spent in detention dawned.
The one ray of light in an otherwise bleak outcome for the Army
private was that he was found not guilty of the single most serious
charge against him - that he knowingly “aided the enemy”, in practice
al-Qaida, by disclosing information to the WikiLeaks website that in
turn made it accessible to all users including enemy groups. Lind’s
decision to avoid setting a precedent by applying the swingeing “aiding
the enemy” charge to an official leaker will invoke a sigh of relief
from news organisations and civil liberties groups who had feared a
guilty verdict would send a chill across public interest journalism.
Lind also found Manning not guilty of having leaked an encrypted copy
of a video of a US airstrike in the Farah province of Aghanistan in
which many civilians died. Manning’s defence team had argued
vociferously that he was not the source of this video, though the
soldier did admit to later disclosure of an unencrypted version of the
video and related documents.
The judge also accepted Manning’s version of several of the key dates
in the WikiLeaks disclosures, and took off some of the edge from other
less serious charges. But the overriding toughness of the verdict
remains: the soldier was found guilty in their entirety of 17 out of the
22 counts against him, and of an amended version of four more.
Once the counts are cumulatively added up, the prospects for the Army
private are bleak. Barring reduction of sentence for mitigation, which
becomes the subject of another mini-trial dedicated to sentencing that
starts tomorrow, he will face a substantial chunk of his adult life in
military custody.
The consequences for Manning, and for the wider world of
whistleblowing and official leaking in the digital age, will take time
to sink in. Bradley Manning's defense attorney David
Coombs and Coomb's wife Tanya Monestier arrive at court for the verdict
in Manning's military trial at Fort Meade, Maryland. Photograph: Gary
Cameron/Reuters
Updated
Summary
Bradley Manning has been found not guilty of aiding the
enemy but still faces up to 130 years in prison after being found guilty
on several counts of theft and espionage.
The military judge hearing the case, Army Col Denise Lind, gave her
verdict at 1pm on Tuesday. The aiding the enemy charge was the most
serious, as it carried a maximum sentence of life in prison without the
possibility of parole.
However Manning could still face an effective life sentence after
being convicted on numerous other counts. He was found guilty of five
charges of theft and five charges of espionage as well as other
offenses. His convictions carry a maximum sentence of up to 130 years in
prison.
Manning's sentencing hearing will begin tomorrow.
Although Manning has been cleared of the aiding the enemy charge,
his convictions mean he could still face a lengthy prison sentence.
What we know
Information is still filtering out of Fort Meade – we will have a
full report from Ed Pilkington shortly – but for the moment, this is
what we know:
• Bradley Manning has been found not guilty of aiding the enemy
• Manning has been found guilty of five espionage charges
• He has been found guilty of five theft charges
Manning found not guilty of aiding the enemy
Manning has been found not guilty of the most serious charge of
"aiding the enemy". However the private has been found guilty on five
counts of violating the espionage act.
Updated
From Fort Meade, Ed writes:
As we wait for Colonel Denise Lind to enter court, a military lawyer
is talking us through some of the possible next steps in the case after
the verdict. He's confirmed a couple of interesting points:
* The maximum sentence that Manning could face is life in military
custody if he is found guilty of "aiding the enemy" and 154 years in
jail if he is found guilty of all the remaining 20 counts. There is no
minimum sentence for any of the total of 21 charges.
That means that theoretically Lind could find Manning guilty of all
21 offences, then go on to sentence him in a few days or weeks to let
him walk from court having reduced his actual sentence to nothing. Don't
hold your breath though.
* If the soldier is eventually sentenced to more than six months in
custody, or given a punitive discharge, he will automatically be
entitled to an appeal to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals. That
suggests that a lengthy and fraught appeals process is all but certain.
Yochai Benkler, law professor and director of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, appeared as a witness for Manning's defence. On Comment is free recently he explained
why the 'aiding the enemy' charge Manning faces is a threat to
journalism, arguing that the judge's refusal to dismiss the charge
"establishes a chilling precedent: leaking classified documents to the
these newspapers can by itself be legally sufficient to constitute the
offense of 'aiding the enemy', if the leaker was sophisticated enough
about intelligence and how the enemy uses the internet".
Debra Van Poolen, 44, a Manning supporter, has spent every day of
the eight-week trial on the public benches of the courtroom in Fort
Meade, Maryland, writes Ed Pilkington from Fort Meade.
She’s spent the time sketching the US soldier, so she has developed a pretty intimate sense of his demeanour.
“He’s been incredibly attentive 100 per cent of the time,” she says.
“Usually he’s sitting on the edge of his seat, often with a pen in his
hand, often taking notes, staring straight ahead at whatever is
happening in court at the time.”
Catching a convincing likeness of the Army private in her drawings
has been a challenge, Van Poolen says, because he is so tiny, barely 5ft
2inches tall. “I’m always amazed by how small his hands are, they look
like the hands of a woman or a boy.
“He’s so small that I find it hard to draw the features of his face
accurately, though I think I’ve managed to get him down in a couple of
sketches.”
Poolen is donating 80% of the proceeds from the sale of her sketches
to the Bradley Manning Support Network's legal defense fund andClaire
Lebowitz's Washington DC production of the play "bradass87", she says. Debra Van Poolen has spent the last eight
weeks in the Fort Meade courtroom, sketching Bradley Manning.
Photograph: Debra Van Poolen
A supporter of Bradley Manning protests
outside the main gate before the reading of the verdict in Manning's
military trial at Fort Meade. Photograph: James Lawler Duggan/Reuters
The judge is due to start delivering her verdict from 1pm, but there could be problems with getting the verdict out quickly, according to numerous reports.
Journalists have been told they will not be allowed to leave once
the court is in session. Phones are not allowed in the courtroom, so
they will have to attempt to leave, get their phones, before calling in
the decision. This could obviously mean a delay.
Updated
The scores of Bradley Manning supporters who have
started to gather on a street corner outside the Fort Meade military
base don’t look a particularly glum bunch – in fact they seem to be in
high spirits under a blazing Maryland sun, Ed Pilkington writes from the court.
But ask them what they think today’s verdict holds for the WikiLeaks source and they speak with one gloomy voice.
“I’m afraid it’s going to go against Manning completely,” says Bill
Wagner, 75, a former official at NASA HQ. Paradoxically, he thought that
a wall-to-wall guilty verdict might in the long run have a beneficial
impact as “at least it would get people’s attention.”
As we’re speaking, the driver of a car passing by the base shouts out
at us: “They ought to hang him!” which puts the opinions of the Manning
crowd in perspective.
Joel Greenfield, a trainee electrician aged 23, has driven all the
way from Los Angeles to catch the end of the trial and despite such
commitment he too is feeling despondent. “Three years is enough” says
the placard he is carrying.
“I realise what’s going to happen here today - they are going to find
him guilty.” Greenfield is putting all his hopes for a not guilty
verdict into just one charge, the most serious one “aiding the enemy”.
In his view, if Manning is convicted of this charge then “that means
the American people are the enemy. He exposed war crimes, he told the
American people what our government was doing in our name.”
Karen Steele’s cowgirl hat comes in handy on such a blisteringly hot
day. She’s attended almost every day of pre-trial hearings and much of
the eight week trial proper.
Her observation of the trial judge, Colonel Denise Lind, who will
deliver the verdict alone in the absence of the jury, makes her feel
pretty depressed too. “My heart tells me that this girl is all
military,” she says, referring to Lind. “I fear Bradley’s going down for
a long time.”
Updated
Buzzfeed has updated its detailed look at "Who is Bradley Manning?"
– featuring lots of photos and accounts from his early life up to his
military career and arrest. It's a good piece and gives some perspective
on what Manning's upbringing and military career.
My colleague Ed Pilkington is at Fort Meade and reports that the mood is not positive among Manning's supporters.
The silence of gay rights groups over the fate of Bradley Manning has been "deafening", Christopher Carbonewrites today for Comment is Free:
First, Manning is the opposite of everything that these groups seek
to portray as the image of "gay Americans". I use those quotes because
the majority of LGBT Americans don't conform to these upwardly mobile,
white, polished, virile male stereotypes. Manning doesn't look like CNN
anchor Anderson Cooper. With his slight frame, lower-class background,
questioning of his gender identity, inability to hold down a typical
job, general dorkiness and dysfunctional family life, Manning does not
fit the poster boy image that GLAAD or the Human Rights Campaign would
hold up and promote. It's bizarre because Manning is actually what many,
if not most, LGBT people have been at one point or another – an
outsider, a loner, a person who does not fit in or conform.
Second, organizations like the HRC, which had net assets of over
$32.7m at the end of last year and claims more than a millions members
and supporters, happens to have the financial backing of major military
industrial corporations, including Lockheed Martin, which is sponsoring
the HRC's upcoming national gala in Washington DC and Booz Allen
Hamilton, a corporate partner for the national event, as well as
Northrop Grumman a sponsor of their Los Angeles gala.
Updated
Manning arrives at court
Bradley Manning has arrived at Fort Meade, according to reporters at
the court. A verdict is expected at around 1pm, although it is unclear
at the moment how quickly information will filter out. Journalists are
not allowed to tweet or email from the courtroom, but can leave to file
updates. Bradley Manning arrives alongside a military
official at a US military court facility for the verdict in his trial
at Fort Meade, Maryland Photograph: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images
At the culmination of almost four hours in front of the judge, [Major
Ashden Fein, the lead prosecutor] sought to press home the most serious
and contentious charge against Manning – that he knowingly "aided the
enemy" by transmitting state secrets to WikiLeaks.
"He was not a humanist; he was a hacker who described his fellow
soldiers as 'dykes' or 'global idiots'. He was not a troubled young
soul; he was a determined soldier with the ability, knowledge and desire
to harm the US. He was not a whistleblower; he was a traitor."
The next day Manning's lawyer, David Coombs, "ridiculed the prosecution case as a 'diatribe'", Ed wrote.
Over four hours of intense closing arguments at Fort Meade in Maryland,
David Coombs set up a moral and legal clash of characterisations,
between the Manning that he laid out for the court, and the callous and
fame-obsessed Manning sketched on Thursday by the US government. "What
is the truth?" the lawyer asked Colonel Denise Lind, the presiding judge
who must now decide between the two accounts to reach her verdict.
"Is Manning somebody who is a traitor with no loyalty to this country
or the flag, who wanted to download as much information as possible for
his employer WikiLeaks? Or is he a young, naive, well-intentioned
soldier who has his humanist belief central to his decisions and whose
sole purpose was to make a difference."
A military judge today announces her decision in the trial
of the former intelligence analyst, Bradley Manning, accused of the
biggest-ever leak of US state secrets.
The judge, Colonel Denise Lind, is expected to give her verdict in
about three hours' time, at 1pm ET on Tuesday. Manning faces 21 counts
including espionage, computer fraud and theft charges. He has already
offered a guilty plea to 10 lesser charges.
The most serious charge – that he knowingly "aided the enemy" by
transmitting intelligence to WikiLeaks – carries a possible sentence of
life in a military prison without the chance of parole. But Manning will
not be sentenced today – that will be decided after a further hearing.
During the eight-week trial, which ended on Friday, the US government
has argued that Manning knew he was helping al-Qaida when he released
more than 700,000 documents to WikiLeaks.
Manning's legal team has sought to depict Manning as a naive but
well-intentioned young man, who was motivated by deep Humanist beliefs
and who wanted to prompt a debate within US society about the costs of
war.
Debate has also centered over whether WikiLeaks is a journalistic
organisation, in the same manner as the New York Times or the Guardian,
who published key revelations. Lind's verdict could have potentially
serious implications for the future of investigative journalism in the
US.
Follow live updates here through the morning and as Lind announces her decision. Our correspondent Ed Pilkington is at Fort Meade and we will be hearing from him throughout the day.
COPY http://www.theguardian.com/uk
Bradley Manning is escorted to a security
vehicle outside a courthouse in Fort Meade, Maryland, on Monday 29 July
2013. The judge will rule on Manning's case on Tuesday. Photograph:
Patrick Semansky/AP
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário