Judge’s ‘legal rationale’ on Manning calls his conduct ‘heedless’

August 17, 2013 10:14 am | Updated November 16, 2021 09:27 pm IST - FORT MEADE, Maryland

Bradley Manning. File photo

Bradley Manning. File photo

A military judge, in a document explaining why she found U.S. Army Pfc. Bradley Manning guilty of 20 counts including six violations of the federal Espionage Act, said the enormous leak of classified information he engineered was “imminently dangerous to others”.

Army Col. Denise Lind released her legal rationale, or “special findings”, as the sentencing phase of Manning’s court-martial neared its end Friday. Lawyers will make closing arguments Monday, and Ms. Lind said she would announce the sentence as soon as Tuesday.

Manning faces up to 90 years in prison.

Ms. Lind wrote in the 10-page document that Manning’s actions were wanton and reckless.

“Pfc. Manning’s conduct was of a heedless nature that made it actually and imminently dangerous to others,” she wrote.

The rules for special findings require a written rationale only for guilty verdicts. Therefore, Ms. Lind provided no explanation for her decision to acquit Manning of the most serious charge, aiding the enemy. On the espionage convictions, for transmitting defence information, Ms. Lind found that the leaked material was both potentially damaging to the United States and “closely held”, meaning it had been classified by the appropriate authorities and remained classified at the time it was leaked. The lone computer fraud count on which Manning was convicted hinged on whether he knowingly exceeded his authorised access on a classified government network when he used his workplace computer to save the State Department cables to a CD so he could use his personal computer to transmit them to WikiLeaks.

The defence had argued that Manning was authorised to view the cables as part of his job, and that there was no prohibition on downloading or saving them. Prosecutors had argued that Manning had no authority to access such a wide range of cables since his job was narrowly focused on the threat from Shia Muslims in Iraq.

Ms. Lind drew a fine line in her legal reasoning. She said the phrase “exceeds authorised access” means Manning used the computer with authorisation, and then used that access to obtain information he wasn’t entitled to obtain.

Manning had apologised on Wednesday for the harm he caused by leaking the information. He did not apologise, though, for exposing what he considered wrongdoing by the U.S. military and duplicitous diplomacy by the State Department.

Speaking to Manning supporters after Friday’s session, defence attorney David Coombs acknowledged that Wednesday had been a tough day for Manning because it was “family day”.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.