| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Military: U.S. Soldier To Be Charged In Leak Of Strike Video |
| 2010-07-06 |
| Video at link The U.S. military said Tuesday it is pressing criminal charges against Pfc. Bradley E. Manning, 22, for allegedly transferring classified data onto his personal computer and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. Manning of Potomac, Maryland, is suspected of leaking a classified 2007 video of an Apache helicopter strike that killed 12 civilians in Baghdad, including two journalists from the Reuters wire service, the military said. Manning was deployed with the 2nd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division, in Baghdad, Iraq, according to the military. According to Wired.com, Manning leaked the video to the whistle-blower website WikiLeaks.com, which posted the video in April. Wired.com reported that Manning confessed to the leak in a series of online chats with a former computer hacker. He allegedly owned up to leaking other items to WikiLeaks, including a classified Army document assessing the threat level of the website, according to the article, as well as State Department cables. |
| Posted by:Sherry |
| #5 There is a public interest defense. Like Black Bart sed: "Daniel Ellsberg defense". The film reveals that the helicopter group acted in good faith. Errors of perception - and not judgment - were made. How nice of you to allow that. Exposure would lead to prevention of repetition of same. So would an internal investigation. Exposure might also lead to second-guessing or inaction, with a friendly in an aircrew or on the ground getting killed as a result. Did you think about that? The charged soldier can probably convince a tribunal that release can be characterized as "good conduct." What color is the sky in your world? As much as I support the armed forces, concealment by government sucks. Srsly - you'd be more honest by leaving off the first eight words. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2010-07-06 23:48 |
| #4 There is no way a court martial is going to let this boy pass. My average guess is 10 years in Leavenworth. The court may mitigate or add on to this based on personalities. The problem is layered. He could have leaked "innocently", or even "honestly", to a US media source; but instead he sent it in to Wikileaks, who are a "bad faith" organization. This will be seen as just slightly better than leaking to the enemy. As such, it interferes with the good order and discipline of the military. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-07-06 18:16 |
| #3 Yeah, variety V3.s of the Daniel Ellsbergh defense. Greater good is gooder. |
| Posted by: Black Bart Shick7973 2010-07-06 17:55 |
| #2 does that also apply to teh classified documents, diplomatic cables, etc. that this POS also leaked? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2010-07-06 16:55 |
| #1 There is a public interest defense. The film reveals that the helicopter group acted in good faith. Errors of perception - and not judgment - were made. Exposure would lead to prevention of repetition of same. The charged soldier can probably convince a tribunal that release can be characterized as "good conduct." As much as I support the armed forces, concealment by government sucks. |
| Posted by: Boss Omomomp9613 2010-07-06 14:41 |