Looking at the charge sheet

Bradley Manning: charge sheet | Law | guardian.co.uk

in some specifications the information he is charged with divulging has a monetary value 'of more than $1,000' placed on it, in others not.

How on earth do you arrive at these values.

Originally Posted by Charm_City

How on earth do you arrive at these values.

$1000 is a watershed figure. If the value of the 'thing of value' is greater than $1000, a person guilty of the offence is liable to a term of imprisonment of up to ten years, if less than $1000, then the maximum prison term is one year. I would imagine that it would be very easy for them to demonstrate that the items they have listed as having a value in excess of $1000 would have cost them more than that amount to gather and document.

Link

I'm sure the crypto-commies on the Grauniad will be whining and mewling for Bradley Manning, but I won't.

Originally Posted by Joe_Private

$1000 is a watershed figure. If the value of the 'thing of value' is greater than $1000, a person guilty of the offence is liable to a term of imprisonment of up to ten years, if less than $1000, then the maximum prison term is one year. I would imagine that it would be very easy for them to demonstrate that the items they have listed as having a value in excess of $1000 would have cost them more than that amount to gather and document.

Link

Thanks for that.

Originally Posted by seaweed

I'm sure the crypto-commies on the Grauniad will be whining and mewling for Bradley Manning, but I won't.

I can't see any way out for him. He didn't "whistleblow" (i.e. communicate belief in a specific illegal activity) he just tried to make his government/Army look ridiculous.

That said I do think the US response toward Assange was a bit heavy handed, although he is a crank and probably deserves it.

Originally Posted by Pyianno

I can't see any way out for him. He didn't "whistleblow" (i.e. communicate belief in a specific illegal activity) he just tried to make his government/Army look ridiculous.

That said I do think the US response toward Assange was a bit heavy handed, although he is a crank and probably deserves it.

I think there's no doubt that young Bradley is toast - there will doubtless be some inventive strokes from his legal team but he's going down and will join those other martyrs whose names we will never forget like, errr ....

What might be interesting is how much evidence is introduced regarding his personality, mental stability, etc. That might result in embarrassing questions for DOD about why he was recruited, vetted and allowed continued access after it became apparent he wasn't really the best person to let loose on classified databases.

Assange? - a tit with a cause, and I think the titishness overtook any righteousness the cause possessed.

Ever since Bradley and Stacey split up we knew itwould end in tears.

Originally Posted by Charm_City

I think there's no doubt that young Bradley is toast - there will doubtless be some inventive strokes from his legal team but he's going down and will join those other martyrs whose names we will never forget like, errr ....

Yep. I've got respect for actual whistleblowers who identify something illegal happening and speak out. They're protected by law in this country (not sure about stateside). But this guy wasn't a whistleblower, just disillusioned, and it was pretty irresponsible to 'data dump' in the way he did. He could have (possibly did?) put lives at risk.

Originally Posted by Charm_City

What might be interesting is how much evidence is introduced regarding his personality, mental stability, etc. That might result in embarrassing questions for DOD about why he was recruited, vetted and allowed continued access after it became apparent he wasn't really the best person to let loose on classified databases.

This is the bit that always mystifies me too. Such stringent assessments and vetting procedures which always seem to fail. I thought this after the tragic incident on HMS Astute this year - anybody could see the guy was a complete crank. I'm amazed he ever got through DV.

Originally Posted by Charm_City

Assange? - a tit with a cause, and I think the titishness overtook any righteousness the cause possessed.

At first I respected him for not caving, but then the data-dump frittered away his credibility (the rape allegations didn't help). Private Eye did the rest - if you've not been following it he started telephoning Ian Hislop, spinning his conspiracy theories about how Alan Rusbridger was part of a Jewish conspiracy to discredit him (Assange). Hislop quickly pointed out that Rusbridger isn't Jewish...

Who is to say he didn't take his problems and grievances to his CoC?

Perhaps he did, and was effed off at the high port, so went nuclear.

Originally Posted by Arte_et_Marte

Who is to say he didn't take his problems and grievances to his CoC?

Perhaps he did, and was effed off at the high port, so went nuclear.

Again I don't know about state-side, but here the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 does not provide protection for people who make public disclosures. It has to be made to a 'Prescribed Person' or, failing that, a 'responsible person'. Journalists are rarely 'responsible persons'. You are allowed to make disclosures other than your employer, if you reasonably believe your employer would either attempt to destroy evidence or fail to act or would attempt to inflict detriment upon the person making the allegations. But this does not allow you to disclose allegations or information to any old loon.

Also, Manning doesn't appear to have identified any specific or systemic illegality and disclosed this (this would perhaps have been defensible). It was literally a data dump and about 99.9% of it was trivia/gossip.

If he had tried to bring specific illegality to the attention of several public authorities and he was rebuffed at every stage, then he might have a defence. He doesn't appear to have done this. I am not aware of this being a line of defence that has been entered. I am similarly not aware of this defence ever having succeeded in the UK.

He's screwed, in my (amateur) opinion.