Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bradley Manning lawyer: White House review found 'leak' did no real damage

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
alp227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 06:02 PM
Original message
Bradley Manning lawyer: White House review found 'leak' did no real damage
Edited on Mon Nov-28-11 06:02 PM by alp227
Source: Assoc. Press

The US army intelligence analyst suspected of giving classified material to WikiLeaks says a White House review has concluded that the alleged leaks did no real damage to national security.

Bradley Manning's defence attorney made the claim in a court filing he released publicly on Monday.

The filing also claims a defence department review found that all the information allegedly leaked was either dated, represented low-level opinions, or was already known because of previous public disclosures.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/28/bradley-man...
Refresh | +36 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
PETRUS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 06:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. That poor kid.
I just can't believe what he's gone through.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
2. So e can expect Bradley Manning to be released and offered some recompense?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. No - he still broke the law
we don't free bank robbers if they screw up and don't get away with any money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. OH? How do we know "He broke the law"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Ask me after the article 32 hearing
if they proceed to trial then there is sufficient reason to believe he broke the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. if they proceed to trial. Would that be the trial that determines if he broke the law? Or have we
done away with that pesky "presumption of innocence"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. OK - so lets wait until the trial.
I'm a patient man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
3. Don't Confuse The Govt. With Facts
They can't handle Truth. There's no profit in it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 06:19 PM
Response to Original message
4. There must be something to do with getting Julian Assange. None of this
makes much sense. Daniel Elsberg explained that he did the same thing, and never did jail time...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 06:21 PM
Response to Original message
5. Having lived in other countries, the Wikileaks sounded like
the stuff we would all know if we could read the newspapers and listen to the gossip everywhere in the world.

We in America focus on our own problems. How many people bother to read even the European papers a couple of times a week? Very few.

I can't say there wasn't any really highly classified information, but the reports I read did not reveal anything about any future plans or any secret, organizational details about our intelligence operations or even anything that wasn't routine about our military operations.

I have read old books about spies in WWII. The Wikileaks were not talking about anything that resembled the stories in those books. Some diplomat's take on the gossip in Tunesia? Hardly worth imprisoning someone although the person who leaked the documents did break the trust that was given to him. And he made a judgment that was not his to make.

But, in the end, I doubt that any harm was done to our national security other than that a few dictators here and there became more wary of us. In my view, the more distance between our government and the ugly dictatorships around the world, the better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 08:03 PM
Response to Original message
6. A redacted version of the defense filing can be obtained from the link here:
28 November 2011
Defense Request for Production of Evidence
The Defense filed the following request for production of evidence on November 22, 2011
http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info /

The link leads to google docs, and you will need a google account (and will need to sign into that account) to read the redacted filing

It's pretty dull imo: Coombs asks broadly for White House, Justice, State, and Defense materials relating to the case, including various damage assessments

Given the variety of damage assessments he requests, it may be somewhat incongruous that he also petitions for a ruling that the government not be allowed to argue damage inconsistent with the assessments -- since it's likely the multiple assessments are mutually inconsistent in various ways.This, however, is entirely secondary in any case, since the government obviously cannot take the position that soldiers, with access to restricted information, are entitled to release it, if the resulting damage would not be catastrophic
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Do you expect it's offered up to reduce any sentence?
IIRC Sgt. Lonetree had time knocked off post-conviction specifically because it was concluded the info he passed to the Soviets ultimately wasn't particularly damaging in the long run. IANAL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. ianal either.but there can be no actual proceedings until after the mid-december hearing.
so all of this is preparatory. i shouldn't try to distinguish between relevance to charges, sentence,or appeal issues
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
riderinthestorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 08:25 PM
Response to Original message
8. Treason!!!111!!! Shut him up in Leavenworth for the rest of his life!!1111!!!
He revealed top secret stuff and jeopardized the war on terrah!!!111!!!





Oh wait....

Turns out the guy released information that exposed shit that simply made the US look bad and he's been destroyed over it. I feel slightly sick. I have no doubt the US Government will declare him guilty (since of course his CIC has already pronounced him such) and lock him away for decades. But that would be a travesty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:49 AM
Response to Original message
10. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
11. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul 31st 2014, 02:45 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC