Bradley manning trial - charge sheets

Discussion in 'US' started by Charm_City, Dec 17, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Looking at the charge sheet

    Bradley Manning: charge sheet | Law |

    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.
  2. $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.

  3. seaweed

    seaweed LE Book Reviewer

    I'm sure the crypto-commies on the Grauniad will be whining and mewling for Bradley Manning, but I won't.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Thanks for that.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Ever since Bradley and Stacey split up we knew itwould end in tears.
  8. 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.

    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.

    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...
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. Some Irish hack type reviewing the papers on Skye this morning said
    "Yes that's right he is only 22 still just a child". So hat's OK then, my heart pumps pure piss for him. As for Assange, the sooner that moralising piece of shit gets sent out of the UK to face trial the better. Both of these bastards were quite willing to put at risk the lives of people that were working for us in Afghanistan. **** em.
    • Like Like x 1
  12. It's quite simple really. They are called "secrets" for a reason. He hasn't blown the whistle on someone using the company credit card on hookers or exposed MP expenses.

    He's wilfully, with forethought, committed a treasonous act.

    I'd fry the little twat for the danger that he's done, not only to the US, but also to other nations.
  13. I'm a bit surprised the West Highland Free Press are covering the story to be honest :)
    • Like Like x 1
  14. I really do think this will most definately be a case of "march the guilty bastard in Sergeant Major".
  15. Is he being charged for being a spunk-absoring **** merchant and half-Welsh too?

    I believe that those two charges alone carry the maximum sentance in US Military law?