Manning supporters put up billboard in DC

posted at 11:35 am on January 11, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

Supporters of accused traitor Bradley Manning (or, Breanna if you prefer) are keenly aware that a decision is upcoming – likely on Monday – by the Army as to whether or not he/she will be moving on to court martial on a variety of charges. With that in mind, they’ve decided to take their message to the good people of Washington, DC by… putting up a billboard?

Supporters of the Army private accused of providing a trove of U.S. government secrets to WikiLeaks have erected a billboard along New York Avenue NE in advance of an investigating officer’s recommendation on whether Manning should face a court-martial. “Free Bradley Manning,” reads the billboard, with a tag­line: “Blowing the whistle on war crimes is not a crime.”

“The military would like to characterize Manning as someone who broke military regulations and should be jailed for the rest of his life for doing so,” said Jeff Paterson of the Bradley Manning Support Network, which paid for the billboard. “We obviously have a different opinion.”

Right off the bat, I’m sure we can all agree that this is a great idea. Time are tough in Washington and everyone, including the outdoor advertising industry, is in need of work. The listed cost of this particular display is $16K per month, so that might help keep a few more people employed. Good job!

As to the message, it’s a nice sound bite, but anyone who has actually been following the story is unlikely to be swayed. “Blowing the whistle on war crimes” may sound good for a mic check on the occupy protest lines, but it’s not terribly applicable to what he allegedly did. Had Manning only released the one video of an attack which resulted in collateral damage, you might have a case to make on that front. (Though the military would still disagree, as it was not the call of a private to make.) But he allegedly released an additional three quarter of a million documents in a scatter-shot fashion with no regard for the contents or the consequences. Many had nothing to do with the war.

And finally, one has to wonder about the mental state of people who find it a worthwhile investment of their hard earned cash to put up a billboard to sway the public in a case like this. That’s a fine plan if you’re trying to sell a product or sway voters in an upcoming election. But there is no element of public support which plays into this. The Army is going to follow the regulations and proceed as the facts dictate. Nobody gets to “vote” on what happens in the next phase of these proceedings.

But, as I said… thanks for pumping a little extra cash into the economy, guys. Oh, and next time you do one of these, you might look for a better graphic of Manning. That one looks sort of like a bad Japanese anime knockoff.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

The sooner the execute this traitor and rub out “Judas ASSnage” (misspelling on purpose) via some covert CIA op, the better.

wildcat72 on January 11, 2012 at 11:38 AM

This is the latest cause celebre? How about “Save Smallpox”?

Paul-Cincy on January 11, 2012 at 11:39 AM

FREE BRADLEY MANNING

Silly Leftists think they shouldn’t have to pay for anything.

aunursa on January 11, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Free Leonard Peltier!!

portlandon on January 11, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Had Manning only released the one video of an attack which resulted in collateral damage, you might have a case to make on that front.

Didn’t it come out that this video had been seriously editied and doctored before Wikileaks released it?

tommyboy on January 11, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Brianna, meet Bubba, you’re new ‘roommate’.

GarandFan on January 11, 2012 at 11:43 AM

but……but…..he’s gay….it’s not his fault.

GhoulAid on January 11, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Bradley Manning…Bradley Manning…hmmm…Manning. I know I should know him, but I don’t.

Oh, wait. I got it. He’s the NY Giants QB, right? Or is it the Colts. I always get those two mixed up. If he’s not, I don’t really give a crap about one Mr. Bradley Manning.

rogaineguy on January 11, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Glad to see it; less money going for Obama’s re-election!

Bob in VA on January 11, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Stupid is as stupid does.

msupertas on January 11, 2012 at 11:45 AM

aunursa on January 11, 2012 at 11:41 AM

good stuff

DanMan on January 11, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Thanks suckers!

/the people who own the billboard.

Mord on January 11, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Treason! yea!

/morons

Scrappy on January 11, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Money spent on stupid crap like this, is money not donated to Democrats.

Good job!

M240H on January 11, 2012 at 11:47 AM

rogaineguy on January 11, 2012 at 11:44 AM

deep safety for the Texans, Danielle Manning. Yes, pronounced like a girl’s name even. But we needed him so its cool.

DanMan on January 11, 2012 at 11:47 AM

I hope Manning rots in prison. When our neighbors trust us with access to secret information, it is our duty to safeguard that information. Manning betrayed every single man, woman, and child in this country. What he did wasn’t against “the government”, it was against the people of this country.

Let him rot.

crosspatch on January 11, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Not convicting and executing Breanna would be sexist. It has been over 50 years since we last executed a woman for treason and I find that to be blatant and shameful sexism.

NotCoach on January 11, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Please put up some more of these signs and please put down at the bottom of each sign that Obama approves of this message.

SC.Charlie on January 11, 2012 at 11:49 AM

FREE HANG BRADLEY MANNING!

cartooner on January 11, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Money spent on stupid crap like this, is money not donated to Democrats.

Good job!

M240H on January 11, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Good point.

wildcat72 on January 11, 2012 at 11:50 AM

DanMan on January 11, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Thanks for the update. It’s all coming back to me now.

rogaineguy on January 11, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Silly Leftists think they shouldn’t have to pay for anything.

aunursa on January 11, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Dang. Beat me to it.

The Rogue Tomato on January 11, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Manning should be set free from the bonds that hold him prisoner to this mortal coil.

SWalker on January 11, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Free Bradley Manning

I wouldn’t take one if you paid me.

RadClown on January 11, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Glad to see it; less money going for Obama’s re-election!

Bob in VA on January 11, 2012 at 11:44 AM

So there is an upside to this. : )

listens2glenn on January 11, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Free Bradly Manning?

What were they charging before? I mean is this a good deal or can you get one for basically free anywhere? It seems like a long way to go just to get a free one. Do they ship? What do the Amazon reviews say? Is it worth it to pay more for one with more features or is the free one the same?

Lily on January 11, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Old and busted: Mumia Abu Jamal

New hotness: Bradley Manning

UltimateBob on January 11, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Apparently, Manning things nothing shd be secret. Therefore, I demand that he waive his right to atty client privileges.

Blake on January 11, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Lily on January 11, 2012 at 11:52 AM

It’s a clearance sale on a failed product. But even at a 100% discount people still aren’t buying. Trust me, you don’t want one.

NotCoach on January 11, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Manning looks like Che Guevera in that photo

William Amos on January 11, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Is he the one who ran over Rachel Corrie with his tank?

Little Boomer on January 11, 2012 at 11:59 AM

I have 2 children. Both United States Marines.
What Manning did at the very least made their jobs harder, at worst, put them in greater danger.

This man is no whistleblower. He is a traitor. And a punk.

JusDreamin on January 11, 2012 at 12:00 PM

FREE HAT! FREE HAT! FREE HAT!

Red Cloud on January 11, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Pinko, idiot traitors.

rplat on January 11, 2012 at 12:02 PM

What do you mean “nobody votes on this”?

I vote on this! They should either prosecute him to the fullest extant, and then (assuming they have the right guy) execute him or throw his butt in prison, whatever the law calls for and the military court decides.

Then they should go after whomever he can name as complicit, like Punchy Sulzberger and….

MTF on January 11, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Rot in Leavenworth scumbag!

Anyone know what sentence he/she/it is facing? Oh yeah, here they are:

The charges can be broken down as follows:

UCMJ 104 (Aiding the enemy): 1 count. This charge carries a potential death penalty.
UCMJ 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation): 9 counts. Mostly related to computers.[2][3]
Army Regulation 25-2, para. 4-6(k): Forbids transferring classified info to non-secure systems
Army Regulation 25-2, para. 4-5(a)(3): Modifying or installing unauthorized software to a system, using it for ‘unintended’ purposes.
Army Regulation 25-2, para. 4-5(a)(4): Circumventing security mechanisms
Army Regulation 380-5: Improper storage of Classified Information
UCMJ 134 (General article): 24 counts. Most of these counts incorporate civilian statutes from the United States Code:
18 U.S.C. § 641: Embezzlement and Theft of Public Money, Property or Records. The government has claimed that various sets of records that Manning transferred were ‘things of value’ and has thus charged him under this statute.
18 U.S.C. § 793(e): This is part of the Espionage Act. The law forbids ‘unauthorized persons’ from taking ‘national defense’ information and either ‘retaining’ it or delivering it to ‘persons not entitled to receive it’. The terminology is rather complicated and often contested in court. 793(e) exists because the McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950 modified the original 1917 Espionage Act, partly because of the Alger Hiss/Pumpkin papers case. It is also the same law used against Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo in the Pentagon papers case.[4][5]
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a) 1 & 2: These are from the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986. 1030(a)(1) is sometimes called the ‘Computer Espionage’ law as it borrows much of it’s language from the Espionage Act. It was modified by the USA Patriot Act of 2001, which added it to the ‘Federal Crimes of Terrorism’ list, as well as making it prosecutable under RICO (Racketeering) law.[6]
Total number of counts: 34

Like I said, rot in Leavenworth!

D-fusit on January 11, 2012 at 12:05 PM

On the upside, at least this lends Newt & Perry a new leftie cause to promote.

whatcat on January 11, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Bonus; you can go throw rocks at it.

Free Willy!

Marcus Traianus on January 11, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Had Manning only released the one video of an attack which resulted in collateral damage, you might have a case to make on that front. (Though the military would still disagree, as it was not the call of a private to make.)

It wouldn’t even rise to the lofty standards of “maybe” having a case. It’s objective fact that Manning didn’t/wouldn’t have all the facts so even releasing what he THOUGHT was evidence wouldn’t be enough to establish the whole story.

The reality is you bring up concerns to your chain, not to Julian Assange.

JohnTant on January 11, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Free Willie!

chickie on January 11, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Maybe the East Anglia- Global Warming Fraud email “hacker” will get the same liberal celebrity treatment if they came forward now. Maybe not.

FlaMurph on January 11, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Anyone want to go in with me on an “Execute Bradley Manning” billboard right alongside this one?

The Count on January 11, 2012 at 12:11 PM

The Army is going to follow the regulations and proceed as the facts dictate.

The fact of the matter is that the Army was not going to hold an Article 32 hearing unless and until there was certainty that this “alleged” rat traitor was headed to a court martial. Manning broke the oath he swore when he enlisted, betrayed the nation, and deserves to rot in a military prison for a very long time.

Happy Nomad on January 11, 2012 at 12:12 PM

This little “he/she” freak should be dealt with like any other desease – exterminated.

rjulio on January 11, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Supporters of accused traitor Bradley Manning (or, Breanna if you prefer) are keenly aware that a decision is upcoming – likely on Monday – by the Army as to whether or not he/she will be moving on to court martial on a variety of charges.

Isn’t a traitor one who commits treason? What foreign government was Manning handing state secrets to?

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 12:15 PM

The reality is you bring up concerns to your chain, not to Julian Assange.

JohnTant on January 11, 2012 at 12:09 PM

True enough but I think some of that chain-of-command needs to come under scrutiny.

How exactly does a Private have the ability to release all those documents? What procedures were ignored? Who in charge let them be ignored?

Why exactly did a Private in Afghanistan have access to State Department communication that had nothing to do with the operations in that part of the world?

Manning needs to go away for a very long time but there are others whose actions should be investigated.

Happy Nomad on January 11, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Isn’t a traitor one who commits treason? What foreign government was Manning handing state secrets to?

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 12:15 PM

What if Breanna gave state secrets to al Queda?

NotCoach on January 11, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Right off the bat, I’m sure we can all agree that this is a great idea.

And what’s up with the infatuation of this logical fallacy of late? It popped up the other day in the Santorum/SOPA entry.

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 12:18 PM

What if Breanna gave state secrets to al Queda?

NotCoach on January 11, 2012 at 12:17 PM

How about we deal with facts instead?

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Intentional disclosure of classified information – execute him/her/it for treason.

dentarthurdent on January 11, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Isn’t a traitor one who commits treason? What foreign government was Manning handing state secrets to?

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 12:15 PM

I’m going to give benefit of the doubt and assume you are joking.
You hand secrets to Wikileaks, you hand the secrets to EVERY foreign government.

JusDreamin on January 11, 2012 at 12:22 PM

What foreign government was Manning handing state secrets to?

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Manning solemnly swore to support and defend the US Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic (not abet them by leaking classified material).

Manning agreed to bear true faith and allegience to the Constitution. (Which works against the idea that leaking national secrets to a foreigner is somehow noble).

Manning further agreed to obey the orders of the President and the officers appointed over him according to regulation and the UCMJ.

Bottom line Dante- the toad is a traitor no matter how many billboards his idiot supporters pay for. The only good news is that there is $16K less disposable income for Ron Paul and/or OWS.

Happy Nomad on January 11, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Isn’t a traitor one who commits treason? What foreign government was Manning handing state secrets to?

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 12:15 PM

ALL of them.

dentarthurdent on January 11, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Isn’t a traitor one who commits treason? What foreign government was Manning handing state secrets to?

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Do you not read, I posted the charge sheet up thread, do you see Treason?

The closest one is this:

18 U.S.C. § 793(e): This is part of the Espionage Act. The law forbids ‘unauthorized persons’ from taking ‘national defense’ information and either ‘retaining’ it or delivering it to ‘persons not entitled to receive it’.

D-fusit on January 11, 2012 at 12:24 PM

They haven’t charged him with the death penalty. I compare his case to Lonetree, who was sentenced to 30 years, was reduced to 15 by the commander, and released after 9 because they still had parole back then.

However, Lonetree got caught in a honey trap. I don’t know what Manning’s mitigating factors are besides having a personality disorder.

Blake on January 11, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Some one should spray paint one word across that fine outdoor board. Leavenworth

Bmore on January 11, 2012 at 12:26 PM

I’m going to give benefit of the doubt and assume you are joking.
You hand secrets to Wikileaks, you hand the secrets to EVERY foreign government.

JusDreamin on January 11, 2012 at 12:22 PM

No on both counts.

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Do you not read, I posted the charge sheet up thread, do you see Treason?

D-fusit on January 11, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Oh, get off it! What you posted is so boring it makes people’s eyes roll back into their heads.

Blake on January 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Happy Nomad on January 11, 2012 at 12:23 PM

That doesn’t answer my question.

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 12:28 PM

How about we deal with facts instead?

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 12:22 PM

First, we need to unscrew your illogical brain. Again, what if Breanna handed state secrets to al Queda, a non-governmental foreign agency? Under your premise, how is that any different?

NotCoach on January 11, 2012 at 12:29 PM

I can see right away how an enterprising patriot with a ladder and a pot of red paint could drastically alter the effect of the billboard by changing the last three letters of the first word.

Get to it, DC readers!

EnglishMike on January 11, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Oh, get off it! What you posted is so boring it makes people’s eyes roll back into their heads.

Blake on January 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Did you forget you snark tag or do facts in legal procedings bore you?

D-fusit on January 11, 2012 at 12:33 PM

What foreign government was Manning handing state secrets to?

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 12:15 PM

All of them. He sent them to Assange knowing they would be published to the internet and all foreign governmenta would have access to them.

Blake on January 11, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Well, then someone needs to pump more money into the DC economy
by putting up another sign…. H A N G ‘EM H I G H

KOOLAID2 on January 11, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Did you forget you snark tag or do facts in legal procedings bore you?

D-fusit on January 11, 2012 at 12:33 PM

They bore me …. as do you.

Blake on January 11, 2012 at 12:34 PM

I say free him….just as a veterans’ parade passes by.

KillerKane on January 11, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Blake on January 11, 2012 at 12:34 PM

So do you support this piece of human excrement?

D-fusit on January 11, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Happy Nomad on January 11, 2012 at 12:17 PM

When you have a security clearance it’s not a question of physical access procedure anymore.

For the sake of discussion, let’s say I have access to a SCIF. I’ve gone through a pretty thorough investigation enough that the government trusts me to work in there. With that clearance, while there are certain things I cannot do security is more concerned with focusing efforts on keeping uncleared people away, figuring that those who have the clearances are the least threat.

More simply, because Manning had his clearance he wasn’t considered as much of a threat as an uncleared actor, and the procedures reflect that consideration.

The real question is the thoroughness of Manning’s clearance checks and how they can be improved to anticipate these kinds of things. In my experience very little could have foreseen Manning going off the deep end which, of course, means Manning is 100% culpable for his actions, as opposed to some kind of system failure that gave him access.

JohnTant on January 11, 2012 at 12:37 PM

The ruling is due on Mon., Jan 16. However, I wouldn’t be surprised it they take more time.

Blake on January 11, 2012 at 12:37 PM

First, we need to unscrew your illogical brain. Again, what if Breanna handed state secrets to al Queda, a non-governmental foreign agency? Under your premise, how is that any different?

NotCoach on January 11, 2012 at 12:29 PM

He didn’t, so let’s deal with the facts, ok? How about answering my question instead?

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Ok. So I read the Breanna link and I find this;

The soldier had also reportedly assaulted a superior, turned over a table, damaged a computer and on another occasion was found “curled up in a ball”…

Don’t all of these behaviors scream “hospitalize and/or drug me!” rather than “entrust me with state secrets”? It seems negligent to do so.

dieudonne on January 11, 2012 at 12:40 PM

EnglishMike on January 11, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Another so-called conservative advocating destruction of private property.

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Maybe they could free Bradley like California freed Tookie Williams.

Pablo on January 11, 2012 at 12:41 PM

He didn’t, so let’s deal with the facts, ok? How about answering my question instead?

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 12:39 PM

By handing them to Wikileaks, he handed them to everyone. He knew that’s what he was doing.

Pablo on January 11, 2012 at 12:42 PM

How about answering my question instead?

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 12:39 PM

How about you answer mine.

D-fusit on January 11, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Hang Mumia!

Akzed on January 11, 2012 at 12:42 PM

ALL of them.

dentarthurdent on January 11, 2012 at 12:23 PM

No, it is thought that he passed it to Wikileaks, but Wikileaks doesn’t divulge the sources of their info.

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 12:45 PM

He didn’t, so let’s deal with the facts, ok? How about answering my question instead?

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 12:39 PM

You want to pretend there is a difference without defining why. Whatever. Breanna gave away state secrets to foreign agents. End of story. She isn’t being charged as having committed treason though. Or do you contend that it is only illegal to disclose state secrets if an act of treason occurs?

NotCoach on January 11, 2012 at 12:46 PM

How about you answer mine.

D-fusit on January 11, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Ok. I made my comment after reading the blog entry. So, no, I didn’t see your post and I still haven’t read it. Ok?

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 12:46 PM

She isn’t being charged as having committed treason though.

NotCoach on January 11, 2012 at 12:46 PM

I didn’t say anything about what Manning is officially being charged with; I specifically quoted Shaw’s opening sentence and asked a question regarding his characterization.

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Silly Leftists think they shouldn’t have to pay for anything.

aunursa on January 11, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Thread winner nominee

Jazz Shaw on January 11, 2012 at 12:56 PM

No, it is thought that he passed it to Wikileaks, but Wikileaks doesn’t divulge the sources of their info.

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Then you don’t understand the regulations for handling classified information in the military. It doesn’t matter whether wikileaks divulges the source of their information – that’s a red herring that has nothing to do with the regulations. If the information is classified it is, by definition, information – the release (to anyone) of which could cause harm to the US. How much harm it could cause is what determines whether the information is labeled Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret. EVERYONE in the military, civil service and contractors with a security clearance is trained at the start and at least annually on those regulations and the potential penalties for violating them.

dentarthurdent on January 11, 2012 at 12:57 PM

No, it is thought that he passed it to Wikileaks, but Wikileaks doesn’t divulge the sources of their info.

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 12:45 PM

For the premise of the following argument lets assume that they have identified the correct person (Bradley).

Regardless of who he passed it to, the fact that state secrets became public information through illegal actions due to the defendant means that by default he is responsible (and may be held accountable) for the release of these materials. The fact that the action which lead to the release of these materials was willful and the defendant had prior knowledge that what he was doing was likely to result in the release of secret materials to enemies during a time of war (although there could be some legal wrangling due to the nature of the conflict) means he can and will be tried for aiding the enemy (capital offense).

I’ll put it to an analogy that everyone can understand. Two guys walk into a store with the intent to rob it. During the crime one of them kills the store owner. Regardless of the intent of the other robber he will be charged with a murder because his involvement leads directly to the outcome.

Bunsin2 on January 11, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Thread winner nominee

Jazz Shaw on January 11, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Seconded

Bunsin2 on January 11, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Now that Islamic law can be consulted in Oklahoma, what does it say about spies and traitors?

Rixon on January 11, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Isn’t a traitor one who commits treason? What foreign government was Manning handing state secrets to?

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 12:15 PM

A Paulnut supports Bradley Manning. Colored me surprised.

/s

DethMetalCookieMonst on January 11, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Manning should be freed…

(on the opening day of the deer hunt in the back woods of Pennsylvania or West Virginia, naked with only a buck skin hide to protect his sorry butt.)

The Rock on January 11, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Another so-called conservative advocating destruction of private property.

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Meanwhile you are a huge supporter of a so-called “conservative” that accues our soldiers of killing 100,000 1,000,000 Iraqis and blames the U.S. for EVERYTHING.

DethMetalCookieMonst on January 11, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Nobody gets to “vote” on what happens in the next phase of these proceedings.

They get to vote for Obama– who (like Bubbah’s Pardongate) is ideologically prone to pardoning political prisoners terrorists.

Terp Mole on January 11, 2012 at 1:31 PM

The smiling youth depicted in the billboard is already free.

To move about his cell, that is.

Sherman1864 on January 11, 2012 at 1:43 PM

You got to understand that Manning guy. Getting himself a jail sentence was the only chance to get laid.

Archivarix on January 11, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Manning is charged with aiding and abetting the enemy under Article 104 of the UCMJ.

He is not charged under Article 106, which deals specifically with espionage. Article 106 contains the only reference to “treason” in the UCMJ.

In giving thousands of classified field documents to WikiLeaks, Manning gave anyone with a computer access to the names of local confidential informants in Afghanistan. See here for the murder of one of these informants after his identity was revealed through WikiLeaks. 70 other Afghans received death threats at the same time. But even if they hadn’t, there is no question that having their names revealed on the internet put them in danger, given the history of murders of informants in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Manning signed the same security oath everyone else does to get access to classified information. He agreed, under penalty of law, not to handle the material in an unauthorized manner. He broke his oath and the law, in multiple ways that produced the 22 charges against him.

He is accused of aiding and abetting the enemy. In the eyes of many Americans, that makes him an accused traitor. To suggest that he can’t be called that because the UCMJ charges don’t include the article in which the word “treason” appears is pedantic to the point of imbecilic.

J.E. Dyer on January 11, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Then you don’t understand the regulations for handling classified information in the military. It doesn’t matter whether wikileaks divulges the source of their information – that’s a red herring that has nothing to do with the regulations. If the information is classified it is, by definition, information – the release (to anyone) of which could cause harm to the US. How much harm it could cause is what determines whether the information is labeled Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret. EVERYONE in the military, civil service and contractors with a security clearance is trained at the start and at least annually on those regulations and the potential penalties for violating them.

dentarthurdent on January 11, 2012 at 12:57 PM

You’re right; it doesn’t matter whether wikileaks divulges the source of their information. I only put it that way because he is alleged to have done it, and for the sake of accuracy. So, no, it wasn’t meant to be a red herring. As for the rest of your post, that’s immaterial.

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 2:09 PM

death by firing squad, so long Breanna

burserker on January 11, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Wow, I must have missed alot of this story. What “war crimes” did he expose?

Ellis on January 11, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Nobody gets to “vote” on what happens in the next phase…

Oh, yea, Mr. Fascist Shaw!!
We’re gonna go up and free him ourselves!!!
Time People of the Year!!!!
Occupy the Pentagon!!!!! Eleventy!!!!!

eeyore on January 11, 2012 at 2:32 PM

No, it is thought that he passed it to Wikileaks, but Wikileaks doesn’t divulge the sources of their info.

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 12:45 PM

It doesn’t matter. He could have given it to his Uncle Joe or some drag queen he met on a message board. The intent was to have the information disseminated via the internet.

Wendya on January 11, 2012 at 2:35 PM

I thought Abbie Hoffmann passed away.

Portia46 on January 11, 2012 at 2:48 PM

But he allegedly released an additional three quarter of a million documents in a scatter-shot fashion with no regard for the contents or the consequences.

You forgot to mention outing folks behind enemy lines in Iran, Iraq, & other locales of fun & games.This guy deserves a firing squador at least life in prison. Because of the minority hysteria over his punishment, I wager the Army takes it easy on him! I can’t wait for the CIA to catch up with Assange, no one will know about it until it’s all over.

Boats48 on January 11, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Mumia is livid.

But seriously, folks, we should free Brad Manning, Rep. Dr. Ron Paul’s Whistleblowin’ All-American Hero. He should be released forthwith. In fact, SEAL Team 6 has expressed an interest in throwing him a Charges Dismissed! Party in an undisclosed location.

spiritof61 on January 11, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Comment pages: 1 2