Tweet
PFC Bradley Manning
UPDATE – 11:45 PM EST According to statement by defense, “PFC Manning is not pleading guilty to the specifications as charged by the Government. Rather, PFC Manning is attempting to accept responsibility for offenses that are encapsulated within, or are a subset of, the charged offenses. The Court will consider whether this is a permissible plea.” I’ve put a strike through “all charged” because I do not feel it appropriately reflects what Manning did with the notice of plea. He is through the notice acknowledging he provided information to WikiLeaks but not that he provided all the charged information.
Original Post
At Fort Meade, Maryland, during a motion hearing in Pfc. Bradley Manning’s court martial, his defense attorney David Coombs told the court Manning had submitted a plea notice indicating he would accept general responsibility for providing all charged information to WikiLeaks. The notice was the beginning of a process that could greatly simplify the upcoming trial proceedings in February.
Manning did not plead guilty to the charged offenses in the plea notice. However, significantly, he did indicate with this notice that he is willing to admit to the fact that the act of providing information to WikiLeaks did occur or that the government has evidence that would prove he did commit the act and so he is willing to plea to it.
The notice was a plea to lesser-included offenses—charges with different elements that the judge could agree upon if there is no evidence for the more severe charges. Pleading to lesser-included offenses makes it possible to not plea to committing offenses under the Espionage Act or Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). Importantly, he can plead guilty without accepting the government’s charge that he “aided the enemy” or “exceeded authorized access” on his computer
This is not a plea bargain with the government. Manning’s defense did not go to the government and inform them that he wanted to accept general responsibility. Therefore, it is up to the judge to decide whether to accept the plea notice.
As far as sentencing goes, the lesser included offenses would likely come with a less severe punishment (although the charge of “aiding the enemy,” which if convicted could lead to him be sentenced to life without parole, would still be in play.
What this does for the trial, if the plea is accepted, is it cuts back on the physical evidence and the witnesses that the government may need to call to make a case. It also cuts back on the arguments that would need to be made.
If any of this was accepted—and nothing is firmly in stone yet, the government would have to choose how to proceed by deciding how to handle the refusal to plea to the federal statutory charges under the Espionage Act or the CFAA.
Again, he did not plead guilty. This is all part of the process. The next step is the judge accepts or rejects the plea. If accepted, the government has to decide how it would like to handle the judge’s decision.
14 Comments
Was this expected? Is it helpful to Bradley?
OK, he didn’t plead guilty and it’s not a plea bargain. I hope this doesn’t make me sound like less of a legal genius than Clarence Darrow or Perry Mason, but what exactly did he do, what does it mean, why did he do it and how does this help him? None of these questions are clear to me from reading the OP.
I don’t get it either. Why would the defense make such a plea without first hearing the evidence… or was this indeed presented to them outside of court, and that could be what led to this “willingness to plead”, ostensibly not a plea but nonetheless an admission of partial guilt? Doesn’t this give the prosecution ammunition — possibly a reason to argue the more serious charge of “intent to aid the enemy”?
Yes, I’m confused too.
Is it more like a proffer of admitting facts without making a specific plea to a specific charge?
Don’t know. Kevin intimates in this post that they may have strong evidence that Manning did supply information to Wikileaks.
I’ll ask Kevin for more information on what this could mean for Bradley when he gets back tonight.
Strong? Must be an open and shut case that’s why it is proceeding so quickly./s
This sounds like a big deal, but, like the other commenters above, I don’t know enough to know what it means.
Does this protect Assange at all?
If Manning accepts responsibility for transferring information to WL, perhaps that means that the fight at trial will be over the other ridiculous accusations like aiding the enemy that are more likely to draw compassion from potential jurors? We still don’t know if this will be a trial by jury, right?.
Perhaps conceding that one point will lessen the severity of punishment and/or soften up the jury to nullify some of the other charges. Just a thought.
Coombs has no obligation to protect Assange, only his client first and foremost and nobody else or be subject to charge of irresponsibility.
The same holds true for Assange with respect to Manning and anybody involved in the handover of the material.
It is commonplace for prosecutors to divide and conquer by inducing parties to turn on one another, and not above mischaracterizing what each party is doing.
Lamo did this to Manning as will most anyone who is faced with greater penalty for not cooperating and former convicts like Lamo are often pressured to cooperate with the government.
Inducing others to turn on Assange, and vice versa, is the purpose of prolonging the investigation.
Coombs has to consider that others are intending to shift blame to Manning and Manning’s stalwart resistance to implicating others will be worn away as time in prison passes and looming lifetime or worse sentence is pondered.
The same method is being used at Guantanamo and prisons around the world.
The problem faced by all those involved in the Manning disclosure face is the crumbling of fidelity to others when presented, in confidence, with accusations and evidence by prosecutors.
Assange has already faced the risk of insider betrayal to protect their own interests, some of them known, others not. There is a host of persons mulling the extent of their obligation to Assange as he is about his manifold associates on board and jumped ship.
WL just tweeted that Manning has chosen to be tried by a judge alone, not a jury. Huh.
He is admitting that he sent documents to WL but not that doing such a thing counts as espionage etc. (I think).
Thank you for your perspective. It’s very interesting. I feel it’s very important to remember that Manning is supported by other military men and women. The thing about the military is that it is not blameless, or always truthful, toward those who give their lives to it. The other thing about the military is that it’s made up of human beings.
I hope that enough of those human beings look at what Manning is accused of doing, and think, really think, about whether his alleged actions endangered them, or will eventually do the opposite.
If he is the one who leaked the helicopter video, then Manning showed those willing or informed enough to look, and hear, what war sounds like and what it feels like from the perspective of the people fighting it. I don’t think he did it with an eye toward prosecuting those heard in the video, if he did do that. If what he said to Lamo in the chats is any indication, Manning wanted more people to know what was going on, so they could talk about it.
Considering that it’s my tax dollars that are being spent on those wars, I appreciate all the information I can get. It is entirely possible that the release of that video will, in the long run, save lives. Many lives. The question is whether the judge believes justice is what will benefit the ordinary soldier and the American taxpayers, or what will benefit those actors who only want to continue to make war. Of course these are only a couple of the many considerations she faces. And each of us taxpayers and oil consumers has a role, an active role, whether or not we want to own up to it.
I used to believe that I had a role in the oil usage in this nation. But when you consider that over 62.5% of all the possible oil, nuclear power and natural gas are used by the military before the rest of the available energy is offered up to us consumers, well, it’s hard for me to see that I can make a difference.
I mean, I never vote for candidates who support big military spending (and that includes the Obama Administration.) I was in the streets before Bush began Shock and Awe. If the nation had avoided its wars for profit, and had gone along as it was doing pre-Reagan, every damn home and apartment in America would be merrily humming along with solar and wind energy (and probably newer sources we don’t have available due to them being quashed.)
But our infernal and secret internal government is very careful to make sure we don’t proceed along those sensible policy paths.
Exactly. Ours is the “active role” of a victim who is unable to overpower their rapist. If we didn’t like it, we’d have stopped them, right?