More

Bradley Manning Recommended By Army Officer For Court-Martial in WikiLeaks Case

Bradley Manning Wikileaks

DAVID DISHNEAU   01/12/12 05:06 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON — An Army officer recommended a general court-martial Thursday for a low-ranking intelligence analyst charged with causing the biggest leak of classified information in U.S. history.

Lt. Col. Paul Almanza's recommendation to try Pfc. Bradley Manning on all 22 counts, including aiding the enemy, now goes up the chain of command for a final determination. Almanza sent his report to Col. Carl Coffman, garrison commander of Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall near Washington. Coffman will make a recommendation to Military District of Washington commander Maj. Gen. Michael Linnington, whose decision is final.

The military did not provide a timeline for those actions.

Manning, a 24-year-old native of Crescent, Okla., allegedly gave more than 700,000 secret U.S. documents to the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks for publication. Prosecutors say WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange collaborated with Manning.

Defense lawyers say Manning was clearly a troubled young soldier whom the Army should never have deployed to Iraq or given access to classified material while he was stationed there from late 2009 to mid-2010.

Manning could be imprisoned for life if convicted of the aiding the enemy, the most serious charge. The charge carries a maximum penalty of death, but Almanza agreed with prosecutors, who recommended against seeking the death penalty. Ultimately, however, that decision lies with Linnington.

Almanza presided over Manning's seven-day preliminary hearing, called an Article 32 investigation, in December at Fort Meade, Md. During that hearing, military prosecutors produced evidence that Manning downloaded and electronically transferred to WikiLeaks nearly half a million sensitive battlefield reports from Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables, and video of a deadly 2007 Army helicopter attack that WikiLeaks shared with the world and dubbed "Collateral Murder."

Manning's lawyers countered that others had access to Manning's workplace computers. They say he was in emotional turmoil, partly because he was a gay soldier at a time when homosexuals were barred from serving openly in the U.S. armed forces.

Manning's apparent disregard for security rules during stateside training and his increasingly violent outbursts after deployment were red flags that should have prevented him from having access to classified material, the defense claims. Manning's lawyers also contend that military computer security was lax; and that the material WikiLeaks published did little or no harm to national security.

Defense attorney David Coombs didn't immediately respond Thursday to requests from The Associated Press for comment on Almanza's recommendation.

Jeff Paterson, a founding member of the Bradley Manning Support Network, said the recommendation was what he expected.

"We're not surprised, we're disappointed, and we're going to go forward with our public efforts," Paterson said.

He said the group hopes to bring thousands of Manning supporters to demonstrate at Fort Meade if there is a trial there.

Separately Thursday, Coombs released a document he has filed in the case seeking approval to take depositions – sworn, out-of-court testimony – from six people who either ordered or reviewed the classification of various leaked documents and videos. Coombs wrote in the filing that he wants to question them because Almanza improperly determined they weren't available to testify at the Article 32 hearing.

The witnesses' names were blacked out on the document, but from Coombs' characterization of the testimony he is seeking, none would appear to be President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, all of whom were on Coombs' prospective witness list for the December hearing.

___

AP National Security Writer Robert Burns contributed to this report from Washington.

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON — An Army officer recommended a general court-martial Thursday for a low-ranking intelligence analyst charged with causing the biggest leak of classified information in U.S. history. ...
WASHINGTON — An Army officer recommended a general court-martial Thursday for a low-ranking intelligence analyst charged with causing the biggest leak of classified information in U.S. history. ...
Filed by Luke Johnson  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 381
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
06:24 AM on 02/19/2012
Manning decided himself to be treason to the country he lived in and served- no matter if anyone died or not he gave up information that he knew could cause death- this is not because he is Gay-and no one but the USA has a right to decide treason -he american rights should be stripped from him as a trator---send him to the UK Gays that say they want him- anyone that desires to oput thier thing up a mans ass that is full of waste from the human body not designed to have a thing put up then they are really messed up in thier heads and they have to be athiest or least agnostic---- May God have Mercy on his soul-I hope he can see I forgive him as one that retired Military but beleive his punishment should fit his crime---- I ask God to help him see being Gay will do nothing but bring him destruction in his life-----
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ShawnRay
09:19 AM on 02/01/2012
Have fun in jail without parole.
photo
woodshoe
MAYDAY! BastaYA!
08:43 PM on 01/15/2012
sure is a great deal of yadda yadda regarding chain-of-command among the comments.

i am so pleased and grateful that manning did not see this authoritarian institutional barrier, when compared against the whole spectrum of human rights, as any barrier whatever.

we could use a few thousand more like him.

i am so pleased and grateful that the mythologies of petty nationalism, when compared against a whole world of peoples every bit as human and every bit as deserving of security, did not undermine manning's resolve to expose corruption.

the most disturbing thing about this whole story,.. is that apparently hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, have had similar security clearance to that enjoyed by manning.. and as yet manning seem to have been the only one to have had the courage to go where the silence was and point.

it is similarly upsetting that the 'collateral murder' video was not copied and released by every individual who viewed it..

the material published exposed a number of system wide defects and institutional anomalies which make the argument that manning should have respected the command chain into a farce, into an absurdity..

he should have gone to his boss? (or HIS boss?) and said "sir!.. we have become a hyper-secretive, torturous, lawless state turned empire for capitalism! Sir! did YOU know this Sir?"
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:46 PM on 01/15/2012
Brad Manning is a hero. He did what the military is required to do by the Geneva Convention,
expose criminality.

Thank you, Brad Manning !
07:08 PM on 01/13/2012
What a surprise! And the members of the court-martial board (the jury) will listen to all of the "evidence" and their deductive reasoning will be formed by the following mantra: IF THE GOVERNMENT THOUGHT MANNING WAS INNOCENT THEY WOULD NOT HAVE CHARGED HIM WITH THIS CRIME--AND THEREFORE IT IS OUR DUTY TO CONVICT HIM. This reasoning comes about as natural to career military members as they are basically 'book men'; they do things 'by the book'. It is not until long after retirement that military men and women realize that during their careers they never entertained an original idea. By then, it will be too late for Manning. http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id1.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
blizzard man robot voice
Mark 13:13
04:32 PM on 01/13/2012
He knew about chain of command. He knew about Requesting Mast (or whatever the term is for the army). If you don't know this term, it means that if you have issues that cannot be solved by your immediate supervisor (or you don't trust him), you can request to see your commanding officer right away. The commanding officer doesn't have to see you but must give a valid, written reason as to why not. If your issue isn't solved with that commanding officer, you can request to speak with his commanding officer and so on. In this situation concerning the video, he could have requested to speak with his commanding officer or just went straight to the military police. No matter what, releasing all of the other confidential, secreted information put local translators' lives at risk and became an operational security nightmare. The enemy doesn't need a top secret document, they need operational security information which is what Manning posted.

Manning looks like one of those guys who got his whole platoon slayed in bootcamp because he stole peanut butter from the chow hall. He looks like the type of soldier that talked back to his NCOs and when they punished him, he cried "hazing."
07:29 PM on 01/13/2012
Absolutely 100% correct. I can only hope that those that blindly advocate for Manning's release would read and comprehend your words.

If an embedded CNN reporter exposed what Manning exposed, I would say, "Well... huh." But because a soldier did it, it changes everything.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WhereIsTheTruth
We need more chlorine in the gene pool!
09:33 PM on 01/13/2012
I am surprised to see these posts! I was beginning to get the idea that only posts protesting Manning's arrest and detention and celebrating Julian Assange's "bravery" were allowed.
10:37 AM on 01/13/2012
This will set an example for all soldiers out there. Loose lips sink ships. Also, if you witness something criminal, notify your Chain of Command. DO NOT notify CNN, Wikileaks, or your grandmother's neighbor. If you choose to violate the rules in the Uniform Code of Military Justice and get caught, you will suffer the consequences.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:44 PM on 01/13/2012
I'm not in the military, but if you are and witness a criminal act BY someone IN the "Chain of Command" itself who would you report it to?

I haven't heard of any sinking ships, only embarrassments - "sinking face".
03:03 PM on 01/13/2012
You report it up higher. If they're in your Chain of Command, you bring it to the attention of a higher authority without going outside of the Chain of Command.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
blizzard man robot voice
Mark 13:13
04:10 PM on 01/13/2012
The Wikileaks report revealed the real names of local interpreters working for coalition forces. To say this did not directly endanger the lives of these brave interpreters would be a lie.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Henry Spencer
"In Heaven, everything is fine!"
09:23 AM on 01/13/2012
Under Executive Order 13526, the information Manning exposed was NOT supposed to be classified.

The SlMPLETONS, of course, have already found him guilty and want to see him punished for exposing CRIMINAL ACTIVITY of this government.

Of course, they do not CARE about this fact, they simply BLlNDLY follow what they're told because they are incapable of seeing whats right or wrong...
10:32 AM on 01/13/2012
Please. You can classify anything. I mean anything. If an agency within the Department of Defense decided to classify a toothbrush, they could. I mean this in all seriousness. They could quite literally make a store-bought toothbrush a Top Secret toothbrush.
photo
dim
one in a can
11:24 AM on 01/13/2012
And they would be laughed out of court.

By law, classified information can only pertain to national security. Oral hygiene is important, but hardly qualifies.

You may wish to read the last paragraph of the introduction to the wikipedia article on classified information. It'll give you a flavour of how the system works.
photo
dim
one in a can
01:24 PM on 01/13/2012
>Dim, each individual classified document does not go before a jury to become classified­.

I didn't say that, did I? What I said is if the gvt. wants to prosecute someone for leaking classified info, it's up to the jury to decide the propriety of said classification for prosecution purposes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
blizzard man robot voice
Mark 13:13
04:37 PM on 01/13/2012
I do not see how the OPSEC info he released would not have been classified as Confidential, if not Secret. Mostly all of the information he released was OPSEC information.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ralph Reinhold
05:36 PM on 01/13/2012
Some of the information he released was NOFORN, which means no foreigners, not even our allies are allowed to see it with permission of SoD. Some of the information is clearly marked Top Secret with a code word. The code word, if correct, is classified Top Secret-cryptologic access only. And yes, all of the OPSEC data was likely classified a minimum of Secret.
09:21 AM on 01/13/2012
What I find particularly repugnant it Pfc. Manning' s treatment after his arrest. The government subjected him to mental and physical abuse for nine months and made sure that the word got out as an example of what happens when you cross them.

As in the case of Waco and Ruby Ridge, even though law enforcement action was justified, the message sent was: "Defy us and we will utterly destroy you."
photo
dim
one in a can
11:29 AM on 01/13/2012
The message was delivered by TANKS!
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Robert Weller
Retired AP Foreign Correspondent
09:20 AM on 01/13/2012
Now that his superiors are being punished there should be a mistrial.
photo
fredpa
I will try again tomorrow.
09:21 AM on 01/13/2012
LOL
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:17 AM on 01/13/2012
Treason, plain and simple.
photo
dim
one in a can
11:29 AM on 01/13/2012
You are obviously not familiar with the definition of treason.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:02 PM on 01/13/2012
trea·son   [tree-zuhn]
noun
1.
the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2.
a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3.
the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:47 PM on 01/13/2012
"plain and simple" only to simple minds.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
blizzard man robot voice
Mark 13:13
04:23 PM on 01/13/2012
^^ "I disagree with your point of view and because it is different than mine, you must be an idiot!" - You.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kcinci
40 something programmer in Cincinnati
09:08 AM on 01/13/2012
I'm as progressive as they come but just cannot fathom any excuse for this kind of dereliction of duty. The man made a choice. A bad choice. Pissed because he felt wronged in some way. He didn't blow the whistle on on anything or anyone. He passed 700K documents, en mass, without regard to the content, to someone outside of the security structures in place. It was illegal and he wasn't coerced. He was in control of his faculties - regardless of his emotional distress. I was seriously depressed for months when my daughter died. I didn't go an kidnap someone else daughter because I felt wronged and deserved to still have my daughter with me.

Had he deliberately released some specific evidence of some blatant disregard for the law and the coverup of crime(s) like murder or enemy collusion I could see the whistle blower consideration. But the facts don't support that.

Neither do the facts support that we are in a legal declaration of war time. IMO (that and 4.50 will buy a Starbucks whatever) this doesn't meet the traitor in war time benchmark and the death penalty should be off the table.

He chose this. He made choices that put him here - not the least of which was enlisting. Lack of supervision and the wrong doing by others is no defense. He has to live with the consequences of those choices. Like all the rest of us have to live with the consequences of our own
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Henry Spencer
"In Heaven, everything is fine!"
09:27 AM on 01/13/2012
The information he passed was NOT supposed to be classified to begin with in accordance with Executive Order 13526.

The information exposed WAR CRIMES and other CRIMINAL ACTIVITY of the government.

The information was EMBARRASSING to high ranking officicials who ILLEGALLY tried to hide their CRIMINAL behavior.

But, you're frothing at the mouth for yet another injustice...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kcinci
40 something programmer in Cincinnati
09:49 AM on 01/13/2012
I'm not frothing at the mouth for anything - certainly for not another injustice.

The determinations weren't his to make. Nor did actually try. He just released hundreds of thousand of document with distinction or discrimination. He may indeed have INADVERTENTLY uncovered criminal wrong doing. That wasn't his intention. Hi intention was to somehow get even. Whatever was in them is besides the point - it was wrong and he knew it. And I think that there were indeed documents there that should have been, and were, classified. You have no information to the contrary that any of those alleged illegal activities weren't under some sort of investigation. Again, not your call to make... nor was it Mannings.

As for accusing me of being blood thirsty for injustice? You don't know me or anything about me. But I'll tell you this - I am PRO-Being Responsible For My Own Actions, PRO-YOU Being Responsible For Your Own Actions.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ralph Reinhold
03:31 PM on 01/13/2012
First of all, Executive Order 13526 cannot supersede the National Security Act of 1946 under which Manning's activities were governed. He signed a statement less than three months before the incident that he understood his restrictions. If he believed that the material he found fit the Whistleblower statutes, there were specific paths that he could follow to expose them. Among these paths were to bring it to the attention of any member of congress or the responsible Inspector General. He was in a position where he could access the IG of the Department of State, US Army, CIA or NSA. He chose not to attempt that but rather send a dump of information to the public. The only mouth frothing I've seen here are from his fanboys
09:53 AM on 01/13/2012
Perhaps, you are not very aware of the facts. I would encourage you to read the chat logs that are the primary evidence of Manning's guilt in this case (they have been posted on Wired). It explains Manning's motivations better than any article I've read. I think this article by only presenting the defense's line of reasoning from the pretrial is guilty of trying to psychologize Mr. Manning and explain his actions through his sexuality. However, I think it is possible to have a legal defense tactics that are seperate from reality and reading the chat logs lay bare to Bradley's true motivations.

Moreover, Manning did, if guilty of the crimes his accused, leak specific examples of war crimes in releasing two videos of separate helicopter attacks on unarmed civilians--one in Iraq, one in Afghanistan. As well as numerous other examples of criminal and moral corruption.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
blizzard man robot voice
Mark 13:13
04:41 PM on 01/13/2012
The video is harrowing and you are right.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tnlcallen
08:52 AM on 01/13/2012
I don't think the kid should go away for life, but you can't ignore the fact that what he did was wrong. It was his job to safeguard that information. I can tell you that this kid is definitely sc.rewed. The government will never let this kid go. If they did, it would set a precedent that it is OK to release classified information. In other words, they are going to make an example of this kid, and for good reason.
08:46 AM on 01/13/2012
Security rules are quites concrete in the government and so are the repurcussions of disclosing them to anyone with out a clearance. It doesn't matter what was disclosed to whom it is a crime. A crime in a system where there is little compassion. If you are going to be mad at someone vent your anger at Wikileaks for taking advantage of Manning. Sometimes we have to be protected from ourselves and Wikileaks failed to protect Manning.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tnlcallen
08:56 AM on 01/13/2012
That is a great point. Julian Assange did this kid no favors. He acted no different than a foreign government would in seeking information. If his source gets caught then it isn't his problem any more.
photo
dim
one in a can
11:30 AM on 01/13/2012
Foreign gvt? How about our own newspapers?
08:46 AM on 01/13/2012
Seems like most posters would prefer that our government lie to us than to know what our government it up to in our name.

The American way?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tnlcallen
08:54 AM on 01/13/2012
Sorry, but government secrets are necessary. It isn't us they are safeguarding the information from, it is those foreign governments.
09:24 AM on 01/13/2012
Most "secrets" are already known by foreign governments. We are the ones our government is hiding their actions from.