Army Pfc. Bradley Manning is escorted out of a courthouse in Fort Meade, Md., after receiving a verdict in his court-martial July 30. Manning was acquitted of aiding the enemy, the most serious charge he faced, but was convicted of espionage, theft and other charges, more than three years after he spilled secrets to WikiLeaks. (Patrick Semansky/AP)
In this courtroom sketch, Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, third from left, stands with lead defense attorney David Coombs, center, and his defense team as Army Col. Denise Lind, right, reads her verdict July 30. (William Hennessy/AP)
A look at Manning’s court-martial
FORT MEADE, Md. – Army Pfc. Bradley Manning has been acquitted of the most serious charge he faced, aiding the enemy, but was convicted of 19 other counts for leaking a trove of classified information to the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks. The military judge in his case has scheduled his sentencing hearing to begin Wednesday.
Here’s a look at the key elements of the case:
What was manning convicted of?
Manning was acquitted of the most serious charge of aiding the enemy, which carried a possible sentence of life in prison. He was still convicted of espionage, theft, computer fraud and other charges. How long Manning spends in prison is up to the judge, Army Col. Denise Lind. However, Manning could still spend the rest of his life in prison if the judge imposes the maximum sentence of 136 years.
What did manning do?
The 25-year-old native of Crescent, Okla., admittedly leaked hundreds of thousands of classified Iraq and Afghanistan war logs and diplomatic cables in 2009 and 2010 while working as an intelligence analyst in Baghdad. Manning also has acknowledged leaking a 2007 video clip of a U.S. helicopter crew killing 11 men, including a Reuters news photographer and his driver. The Pentagon concluded the troops acted appropriately, having mistaken the camera equipment for weapons.
What did the prosecutors’ evidence show?
Prosecutors presented testimony from 80 witnesses over five weeks. The government’s evidence showed Manning had been warned about the dangers of disclosing classified information, including posting it online.
There was testimony the leaked material revealed military tactics and other information an enemy could exploit. The government also presented evidence that al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden requested and received from an associate some of the documents Manning leaked after they were published on WikiLeaks.
In a more than four-hour closing argument, Fein said Manning betrayed his country’s trust and spilled government secrets to make a name for himself, knowing the material would be seen by al-Qaida.
Fein said Manning relied on WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange for guidance on what to leak.
What were the defense’s principal arguments?
The defense presented testimony from 10 witnesses in three days, plus one rebuttal witness after resting. Manning did not testify. The defense evidence showed Manning was authorized, even encouraged, to view a wide range of classified information as part of his job. The evidence was meant to counter charges that Manning exceeded his authorized computer access.
The defense also produced evidence some of the information Manning leaked was already publicly known before WikiLeaks published it. A defense expert witness, Harvard communications law professor Yochai Benkler, testified that WikiLeaks served a legitimate journalistic function in publishing leaked material.
Why did he do it?
Manning said in February he leaked the material to expose the U.S military’s “bloodlust” and disregard for human life, and what he considered American diplomatic duplicity. He said he chose information he believed would not the harm the United States and he wanted to start a debate on military and foreign policy.
Coombs portrayed Manning as a “young, naive but good-intentioned” soldier who was in emotional turmoil, partly because he was a gay service member at a time when homosexuals were barred from serving openly in the U.S. military.
What happened as a result of the leak?
The release of the cables and video embarrassed the U.S. and its allies. The Obama administration has said it threatened valuable military and diplomatic sources and strained America’s relations with other governments.
Who is the judge?
Lind has served in the Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps for 25 years, including four years as a military judge in Europe, Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Washington, D.C. She is a member of the bars of New York, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and the United States Supreme Court. She has several degrees, including a bachelor’s from Siena College and a law degree from Albany Law School. She is 53 years old and married.
— The Associated Press
- Bradley Manning says he wants to live as a woman
- Manning takes stand, apologizes for hurting U.S.
- Expert says enemy could've used Manning's leaked info
- Manning's max possible sentence cut to 90 years
- Witness: Manning leaks chilled U.S. relationships
- State Department 'horrified' by WikiLeaks releases
- General: Manning leaks fractured U.S. relationships
- Manning faces up to 136 years in prison as sentencing begins
- Manning verdict today could test notion of aiding enemy
- Military judge deliberates in Manning leak case
- Manning arguments wrap up; judge to deliberate
FORT MEADE, Md. – In a split decision, U.S. Army Pfc. Bradley Manning was acquitted Tuesday of aiding the enemy — the most serious charge he faced — but was convicted of espionage, theft and nearly every other count for giving secrets to WikiLeaks, a verdict that could see him spend the rest of his life in prison.
The judge, Army Col. Denise Lind, deliberated over three days before delivering a decision that denied the government a precedent that freedom of press advocates had warned could have broad implications for leak cases and investigative journalism about national security issues.
From the courtroom to world capitals, people struggled to absorb the meaning of a ruling that cleared thesoldier of a charge of aiding the enemy, which would have carried a potential life sentence, but convicted him of 20 of 22 counts that, together, could also mean life behind bars.
Manning faces up to 136 years in prison if given maximum penalties in a sentencing hearing that starts Wednesday. It is expected to last most of August.
The 25-year-old soldier stood quietly at attention in his dress uniform, flanked by his attorneys, as the verdict was delivered. He appeared not to react, though his attorney, David Coombs, smiled faintly when he heard “not guilty” on the aiding the enemy charge.
When the judge was done, Coombs put his hand on Manning’s back and whispered something to him, bringing a slight smile to the soldier’s face.
“We won the battle, now we need to go win the war,” Coombs said later, outside the courtroom. “Today is a good day, but Bradley is by no means out of the fire.”
Transparency advocates and legal experts had mixed opinions on the implications for the future of leak cases and investigative journalism in the Internet age.
The advocacy group Reporters Without Borders said the verdict was a chilling warning to whistleblowers, “against whom the Obama administration has been waging an unprecedented offensive,” and threatens the future of investigative journalism because intimidated sources might fall quiet.
However, another advocate of less government secrecy, Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, questioned whether the implications will be so dire, given the extraordinary nature of the Manning case.
“This was a massive hemorrhage of government records, and it’s not too surprising that it elicited a strong reaction from the government,” Aftergood said.
“Most journalists are not in the business of publishing classified documents, they’re in the business of reporting the news, which is not the same thing,” he said. “This is not good news for journalism, but it’s not the end of the world, either.”
Glenn Greenwald, the journalist, commentator and former civil rights lawyer who first reported Edward Snowden’s leaks of National Security Agency surveillance programs, said Manning’s acquittal on the charge of aiding the enemy represented a “tiny sliver of justice.”
But WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, whose website exposed Manning’s spilled U.S. secrets to the world, saw nothing to cheer in the mixed verdict.
“It is a dangerous precedent and an example of national security extremism,” he told reporters at the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, which is sheltering him. “This has never been a fair trial.”
To prove aiding the enemy, prosecutors had to show Manning had “actual knowledge” the material he leaked would be seen by al-Qaida and that he had “general evil intent.” They presented evidence the material fell into the hands of the terrorist group and its former leader, Osama bin Laden, but struggled to prove their assertion that Manning was an anarchist computer hacker and attention-seeking traitor.
Coombs said during trial that Manning had no way of knowing whether al-Qaida would access the secret-spilling website and a 2008 counterintelligence report showed the government itself did not know much about WikiLeaks at the time.
An aiding the enemy charge for someone who didn’t directly give an adversary information is extremely rare, and prosecutors had to cite a Civil War-era court-martial of a Union soldier when they brought the charge against Manning.
“I think certainly that a conviction on that charge would have had a ripple effect,” said Lisa Windsor, a retiredArmy colonel and former judge advocate. “I think it would have had certainly a chilling effect on anyone in themilitary who might decide that this is some sort of freedom of speech or whistleblower thing that they needed to engage in.”
The judge did not give any reasons for her verdict from the bench, but said she would release detailed written findings. She did not say when.
Manning acknowledged giving WikiLeaks more than 700,000 battlefield reports and diplomatic cables, and video of a 2007 U.S. helicopter attack that killed civilians in Iraq, including a Reuters news photographer and his driver. Prosecutors branded him an anarchist and traitor.
The defense portrayed the Crescent, Okla., native as a “young, naive but good-intentioned” figure. Manning said during a pretrial hearing he leaked the material to expose U.S military “bloodlust” and diplomatic deceitfulness, but did not believe his actions would harm the country.
Besides the aiding the enemy acquittal, Manning was found not guilty of one espionage count involving his acknowledged leak of a video from a 2009 airstrike in Afghanistan. The judge found that prosecutors had not proved Manning leaked the video in late 2009. Manning said he started the leaks in February the following year.
Manning pleaded guilty earlier this year to lesser offenses that could have brought him 20 years behind bars, yet the government continued to pursue all but one of the original, more serious charges.
Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, welcomed Tuesday’s verdict.
“Bradley Manning endangered the security of the United States and the lives of his own comrades in uniform when he intentionally disclosed vast amounts of classified data,” he said. “His conviction should stand as an example to those who are tempted to violate a sacred public trust in pursuit of notoriety, fame, or their own political agenda.”
Some of Manning’s supporters attended nearly every day of the two-month trial, protesting outside the Fort Meade gates wearing T-shirts with the word “truth” on them.
“I never in my heart ever thought that he was a traitor and I never thought he was trying to aid the enemy,” Joe Brown of Silver Spring, Md., said outside the courtroom. “He’s an American hero who saw things we did that he didn’t think were right ... The killing of people unnecessarily.”
The WikiLeaks case is by far the most voluminous release of classified material in U.S. history. Manning’s supporters included Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg, whose sensational leak of 7,000 pages of documents in the early 1970s exposed U.S. government lies about the Vietnam War.
Reacting to Tuesday’s verdict, Ellsberg said Manning’s acquittal on aiding the enemy limits the chilling consequences of the WikiLeaks case on press freedoms.
“American democracy just dodged a bullet, a possibly fatal bullet,” Ellsberg said. “I’m talking about the free press that I think is the life’s blood of the democracy.”
The material WikiLeaks began publishing in 2010 documented complaints of abuses against Iraqi detainees, a U.S. tally of civilian deaths in Iraq, and America’s weak support for the government of Tunisia — a disclosure that Manning supporters said helped trigger the Middle Eastern pro-democracy uprisings known as the Arab Spring
Associated Press writers Raphael Satter in London and Sagar Meghani and Calvin Woodward in Washington contributed to this report.