Bradley Manning Trial Verdict: Mostly Guilty, But Did Not Aid Enemy

Bradley Manning’s conviction at his long running trial is breaking news everywhere, this version from CNN:

A military judge has found Pfc. Bradley Manning, accused of the largest leak of classified information in U.S. history, not guilty of aiding the enemy — a charge that would have carried a maximum sentence of life in prison.

Manning was also found not guilty of unauthorized possession of information relating to national defense.

He was found guilty of most of the remaining charges against him, with the judge accepting some of the guilty pleas he made previously to lesser charges.

The sentencing phase of the court-martial is expected to begin Wednesday.

He could be sentenced to up to 20 years behind bars on some of the other charges.

Manning already has spent three years in custody…

[continues at CNN]


Majestic is gadfly emeritus.

Latest posts by majestic (see all)

8 Comments on "Bradley Manning Trial Verdict: Mostly Guilty, But Did Not Aid Enemy"

  1. Manning-Snowden 2016

    • Anarchy Pony | Jul 30, 2013 at 7:59 pm |

      Smash/TheState 2013

    • BuzzCoastin | Jul 30, 2013 at 8:24 pm |

      Nobody for Prez & Everybody for Vice 2016

      • Virtually Yours | Jul 31, 2013 at 8:17 am |

        Arthur C. Clarke had an interesting idea: anyone who attempts to run for public office probably has ulterior motives and thus, cannot be fully trusted. He suggested a system in which a computer would randomly select social security numbers…if your number was picked, you would have to serve. I think the idea has a lot of potential, though in order for it to be implemented successfully, I imagine you would first have to eliminate the electoral college and then institute compulsory voting. It would be the closest thing to democracy (by the people, for the people) that we have ever had…

        • BuzzCoastin | Jul 31, 2013 at 2:17 pm |

          good suggestions, but not likely to be implemented
          politicians hate democracy
          citizens tend to shirk civic responsibility

          FYI: Australia (OZ) has compulsory voting
          you have to chose between Coke & Pepsi by law

          • Virtually Yours | Aug 1, 2013 at 12:59 am |

            “citizens tend to shirk civic responsibility” Absolutely. We would not be in this mess, otherwise…distracted and docile versus determined and daring. But does Clarke’s proposed system have enough potential (and would it resonate with enough people) in order to help foster a communal sense of productive participation and renewed responsibility?

            Have you heard about Living Room Conversations? It was founded by two individuals on polar ends of the political spectrum (Tea Party and MoveOn) who came together to discuss several issues upon which they agree, while leaving aside arguments and debates about non-related topics.

            I wonder if it would ever be feasible to start a legitimate third party based upon shared goals and values, following similar methods of cooperation and respect as those which are used during LRC discussions? The party would also distinguish itself because you would not be promoting nor voting for a specific candidate: rather, you would be voting for the party platform; for the shared goals and values that brought you together in the first place.

            Upon winning the election, a computer could then randomly select individuals to fill whatever positions were deemed necessary in order to guarantee the successful implementation of said policies.

          • BuzzCoastin | Aug 1, 2013 at 2:13 pm |

            the illusion of democracy
            is the basis for rule by elites
            they are not about to turn power over willingly
            especially to a computer

Comments are closed.