Bradley Manning Found Not Guilty Of Aiding The Enemy, But Convicted On Lesser Charges

WikiLeaks whistleblower Bradley Manning was found not guilty of "aiding the enemy" through his massive data dump, but he was convicted on a number of Espionage Act violations and faces considerable prison time.

Bradley Manning, the U.S. Army analyst whose massive data dump to Julian Assange exposed possible U.S. war crimes and caused a geopolitical firestorm, was found not guilty of aiding the enemy in a Fort Meade, Maryland military courtroom today. However, Manning was found guilty of five counts of violating the espionage act and five theft charges, which could hypothetically result on a life sentence in prison. Manning's sentence has not been announced yet.

The Guardian's Adam Gabbatt is on site and liveblogging the verdict; a full list of the charges Manning is facing is reproduced here.

The ruling that Manning wasn't guilty of aiding the enemy, we're speculating, will be a boon to whistleblowers and journalists—and we're keeping an eye out for worthwhile analyses from legal scholars.

[Image: Bradley Manning Support Network]

Add New Comment

4 Comments

  • revamadison

    You do not need responses from legal scholars.  You only need to understand that releasing ANY classified information is against US law, and  an affront to all who would never dream to do so, plus a crime against the American people from whom they work.  Military and civilian employees, who handle classified information know the rules.  They take an oath, and make promises to protect classified information.  These guys (who release such information) deserve a death sentence, because they knew to release such information into the public section was to release it not just to Americans, but to people world wide, including the enemies of the USA.   What they are saying now, is that they were stupid and had no "idea" some bad guy would read it?  Come on folks!  We are not asking them to be Einstein, but to have common sense, that any person who could get a job in government (including the military) would be smart enough to know and understand that.  To state differently, after the fact, is subterfuge and asking us to believe they were stupid.  It is time for the US government House and Senate to pass new rules and regulations, and require each employee to state this in their oath of employment.  It is also beyond me why a newspaper/tv/radio, etc.  editor would print such information, knowing the harm it would cause to you and me - and indeed it does.  We hired these guys to keep our secrets, and if they do not do so, they need to hang.
     

  • Norm C

    REVAMADISON is Spot-On.  I work for a Corporation (not the government), yet like all organizations - there are rules. I know that if I choose to violate those rules, 1.) I'll be out of a job, and 2.) I could be commiting a crime. If I don't like the Corporation's rules - I do have the option of quitting my job. I DON'T have the option of violating the Corporation's rules just because I may think it would be a good idea. 

  • Michael Demi

    Sounds like first class paranoia. Instead of condemning the army / government that you fund through your taxes for crimes against humanity, you condemn the person who was brave enough to say that there's something wrong with your governments / army actions. 

  • revamadison

     There is no reason to continue discussion of this, with those who simply do not understand the duty of an employee, to stop an enemy from gaining advancement because some idiot simply gave it away, knowing it would harm his country.