Chelsea Manning

Bradley Manning Thanks Supporters; New Federal Probe into National Security Leaks Likely to Include White House


court martialed

Private Bradley Manning's attorney, David Coombs, posted a message to Manning's supporters as the private's court martial continues:

I would like to publicly thank all those who have supported my client over the past two years.  I also want to pass on the following message from Brad:  "I am very grateful for your support and humbled by your ongoing efforts."  Brad also asked me to specifically thank on his behalf the unflinching support of Courage to Resist and the Bradley Manning Support Network.

Private Manning was arrested in May 2010, accused of leaking various State documents to Wikileaks. Army investigators claim the private is responsible for Wikileaks' receipt of video showing U.S. strikes killing Iraqi civilians and Reuters journalists. The military confirmed the video's authenticity, but apparently couldn't find its own copy. Manning is also accused of leaking the State Department diplomatic cables Wikileaks released later that year.

Manning was detained for nearly two years before being ordered to stand trial in February. His trial starts in September November and the "Article 39" pre-trial hearing began in April. Manning's attorneys said they've received only 28 of 63 requested documents, and that they show the damage caused by the Wikileaks leaks was minimal. Government prosecutors admit they've only made 8,741 of more than 40,000 pages available to Manning's defense attorneys.

Meanwhile, the origin of a wide array of timely and politically beneficial leaks on sensitive national security workings of the executive branch is disputed, with the president calling the notion that the leaks would come from the White House "offensive". A pair of federal prosecutors are nevertheless likely to include the White House in their probes of the leaks.

NEXT: North Carolina PBA Warns of Anti-Police Conspiracy, Calls for Federal Investigation

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Administration members who leaked sensitive information can look forward to two years confinement before trial? I suppose it’s good for them they aren’t in the Armed Forces.

    1. Yeah, but they released info that made the government (Obama) look good, not bad. See the difference, now, FoE? Or are you too busy watching Incredible Hulk reruns?

      1. You wouldn’t like me when I’m miffed.

        1. We don’t like you now, FoE.

          1. Probably because I’m miffed.

            1. I was wondering what was up with your skin color.

      2. Very little of what Manning leaked actually made the govt look bad. There was the airstrike video and that was basically it.

        The rest was either (a) telling us what we already knew, or (b) silly frat boy gossip about which cartoon character each world leader most resembled and the like.

        1. You are arguing the difference between murder and attempted murder. Bad aim isn’t a defense.

          I haven’t heard evidence that he withheld any classified data because he thought it was too important to release. He just dumped everything he could get his hands on.

          What should or shouldn’t be classified is a decision made way above a Private’s pay grade.

  2. Manning is going to have a whale of an unlawful pretrial confinement hearing. He is going to get a ton of credit.

    And there is nothing necessarily “pre trial” about an Article 39 hearing. It just is a hearing held without the jury present.

    And most of the delay in this case has been at the request of the defense. I think Manning has a real case for unlawful pre trial punishment judging from the way the Marines treated him. He does not however have a case for a speedy trial violation.

  3. they show the damage caused by the Wikileaks leaks was minimal.

    They show that when everything is deemed secret, secrecy becomes meaningless.

    1. Pretty much. And no one really wants to explain how their information security was so low that a private in Baghdad was able to download ever diplomatic cable ever written.

      That said, he took an oath and he knew what he was doing. He deserves to be punished. I would give him a Bad Conduct Discharge and say 10 years. But then I would ream the living hell out of the government for how he was treated in pre trial confinement and give him so much pre trial credit that he walked out of the court that day.

      1. 10 years?

        1. Yeah. But really time served after I got done with the unlawful pretrial punishment hearing. As LTC below says. Manning is not a good guy.

    2. Yeah, the Brits I worked with in Afhganistan needed extra Visine because of all their eye rolling at our classifcation of anything above a Burger King receipt.

      That said, this guy has already jeopardized or gotten some of our local pals killed. He didn’t exactly care what he released – and that doesn’t help make folks inclined to trust us.

      1. Yes, Manning got them killed, not the scumbags who killed them or the scumbags who sent them over there.

        1. I seem to recall people on here being pretty damned upset when drug cops leaked the names of informants and got the informants killed. Same thing here. Manning got them killed.

          1. No the same thing would be if the US released the names of the informants.

            1. The person who releases the names and gets the person killed has done a bad thing.

              1. I disagree, if the perpetrators of a bad war (drug or foreign)specifically releases the names of an informant knowing it puts their life at risk that is a bad thing. If someone grabs a whole bunch of stuff with no intent of actually naming informants, and is not the bad moral actor putting those informants at risk then that is different.

                If anything I would lay some blame at the people who published the leak without checking for things like this. But still the US government and the terrorists are responsible for the deaths not Manning or the leakers.

                1. By your logic, the drug lords not the cops are responsible for the death of informants.

                  1. By my logic both the cops (and politicians) and the drug lords are responsible yes. Do you have a point. Your analogy is poor because Manning isn’t either one.

          2. I seem to recall people on here being pretty damned upset when drug cops leaked the names of informants and got the informants killed.

            Link to specific instance of this, please?

            If you’re talking about cases where they pinched a drug user and forced them to become an informant, and THEN leaked their info… it’s pretty clear why we’d be upset.

      2. That and how we can manage to write a 40 page FRAGO for moving a single company thirty miles always amazes the Brits too and anyone else with any sense. No one does bureaucracy like the United States.

  4. I wish someone would back up MY servers for free!

  5. Two sincere questions:
    1. Would someone point me to a website that discusses evidence that Manning’s releases “got people killed”?
    2. IRT the notorious video of the van/kids getting shot up: is there a valid reason for having video of this type classified? Or is it just CYA?

  6. Dude is not making a whole lot of sense man Wow.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.