One of the most significant criminal trials in American history began yesterday at Ft. Meade. The mainstream media has finally woken up to the fact the government's relentless pursuit of whistleblower Bradley Manning is worthy of attention:
Prosecutors . . . contend the 25-year-old Army intelligence analyst effectively put U.S. military secrets into the hands of the enemy, including Osama bin Laden, and they want to send Manning to prison for the rest of his life.
The prosecution's opening statement posited a legal theory so dangerously broad that it should worry anyone who publishes information online. Despite Manning's plea offer that could result in his being sentenced to over 20 years in prison, the government still wants its pound of flesh from Manning and the legal precedent of convicting a whistleblower of Espionage and "aiding the enemy" for providing information to the public.
From WaPo:
“This is a case about a soldier who harvested hundreds of thousands of documents and dumped them on the Internet where they would be available to the enemy,” Capt. Joe Morrow said at the opening of Manning’s court-martial at Fort Meade.
Yes, when information is made public, terrorists have access to it. So do child molesters, serial murderers, cannibals and any other evil demon with WiFi. And, so does the press and the public, whose interest in the information Manning has admitted to revealing cannot be disputed considering the widespread media attention legitimately paid to it.
There is no evidence Manning had any intent to harm the United States. To the contrary, there is substantial evidence that his intent was exactly the opposite. Manning's lack of scienter aside, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the information Manning provided ACTUALLY harmed any solider - or any person.
The prosecution plans to prove that Manning "aided the enemy" in part by introducing evidence that the government found information Manning provided to Wikileaks in Osama bin Laden's compound. It's the equivalent of charging Nike because some terrorist was captured wearing Nikes and therefore might have escaped more easily thanks to a well-cushioned, perfectly-balanced sneaker.
Without proving any harm resulted, the prosecution's theory reeks of overreach and effectively expands the crimes of "aiding the enemy" and espionage to some Minority-Report-style future crime: The fact that the information is out there means someone might someday use it in a way that hurts the U.S., which means Manning has "aided the enemy." If publishing information can land you a conviction for "aiding the enemy" and espionage, where does that leave the First Amendment rights to free speech and the press? Obama's constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe understands the significance of the needlessly heavy-handed charges against Manning:
"Charging any individual with the extremely grave offense of 'aiding the enemy' on the basis of nothing beyond the fact that the individual posted leaked information on the web and thereby 'knowingly gave intelligence information' to whoever could gain access to it there, does indeed seem to break dangerous new ground."Tribe, who advised the department of justice in Obama's first term, added that the trial could have "far-reaching consequences for chilling freedom of speech and rendering the internet a hazardous environment, well beyond any demonstrable national security interest."
We've heard all of the prosecution's accusations that publishing information somehow endangers soldiers on the field before. Nixon famously dubbed Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg "the most dangerous man in America." The prosecutor
said the same about National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Thomas Drake, but it turned out none of the information Drake was accused of improperly retaining was actually even classified, much less that any harm to soldiers resulted from Drake's retention. In hindsight, the public recognized that what the government told us about Ellsberg and Drake was bunk, and we should be wary about the similar allegations against Manning.
Manning has admitted revealing information, including the war crimes in the Collateral Murder video, which is worth watching again while remembering that Manning sits on trial for revealing the video but none of the soldiers featured in it were charged with anything, much less "aiding the enemy."