I SUPPOSE IF I SUGGESTED SUMMARY EXECUTION I would be called "harsh"?

NOTE The following text is a quote:

http://www.defense.gov//News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=103001

Pentagon Demands WikiLeaks Return Stolen Documents

By Elaine Wilson
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Aug. 6, 2010 – The Defense Department is demanding that WikiLeaks immediately return the stolen military documents in its possession, including 15,000 documents that the website has not yet published, Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said here yesterday.

The department also wants the whistle-blower website to permanently delete all versions of these documents, which contain classified and sensitive information, from its website, computers and records, Morrell told reporters at a Pentagon briefing.

“We are asking them to do the right thing,” he said. “This is the appropriate course of action, given the damage that has already been done.”
The website recently published tens of thousands of classified documents spanning the January 2004 to December 2009 time frame. The documents detail field reports from Afghanistan and an alleged Pakistani partnership with the Taliban, and also include names of Afghan informants who work or have worked with the U.S. military.

Last week’s disclosure “has already threatened the safety of our troops, our allies and Afghan citizens who are working with us to help bring about peace and stability in that part of the world,” Morrell said.

Recent reports claim that WikiLeaks asked the department for help in reviewing these documents before releasing them to the public as part of a “harm minimization exercise,” Morrell said.

“WikiLeaks has made no such request directly to the Department of Defense,” he said.

The Defense Department is not yet sure which 15,000 documents the site is referring to, Morrell said. “We have some ideas and are doing some proactive work … in the event that the documents we suspect they could be are indeed the documents they are threatening to post,” he said, adding that the public disclosure of additional documents can only exacerbate the damage.

Defense officials further are demanding that WikiLeaks cease its “brazen solicitation” of U.S. government officials, including the military, to break the law, Morrell said. If WikiLeaks does not comply with these demands, he added, Pentagon officials will look to other options to “compel them to do the right thing.”

“This is an appropriate first step,” Morrell said. “We will cross the next bridge when we come to it.”

The incident is a matter of interest to the U.S. government as a whole, not just the military, Morrell said. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates asked the FBI to investigate early on, and the Justice Department also is involved. The Pentagon has a task force of more than 80 experts — from the Defense Department as well as other agencies — working around the clock to find issues of concern, he said.

When necessary, officials are notifying the appropriate entities, such as commanders in Afghanistan, Morrell said, and the Defense Department also is taking measures internally to reinforce existing rules and guidelines and boost vigilance.

Gates and Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, condemned the leaks during a Pentagon briefing July 29.

Related Articles:
Official Rejects Claim WikiLeaks Offered Document Review
Gates Calls on FBI to Join Leak Investigation
Document Leaks Could Endanger Afghan Civilians
Pentagon Assesses Leaked Documents
Pentagon Launches Probe into Document Leaks

I’m not a veteran, so I’ll leave the answer to veterans- did this perp commit treason?

I'm a veteran, but you don't have to be to recognize this for what it is:

Treason in a time of war, punishable by death.

Punitive Articles of the UCMJ
Article 106a—Espionage

... snip ...

(c) A sentence of death may be adjudged by a court-martial for an offense under this section (article) only if the members unanimously find, beyond a reasonable doubt, one or more of the following aggravating factors:

(1) The accused has been convicted of another offense involving espionage or treason for which either a sentence of death or imprisonment for life was authorized by statute.

(2) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of substantial damage to the national security.

(3) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person.

(4) Any other factor that may be prescribed by the President by regulations under section 836 of this title (Article 36).”

Quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2573910/posts

Antiwar activists rally around suspected leaker
Yahoo! News ^ | August 19, 2010 | DAVID DISHNEAU,
Posted on August 19, 2010 2:54:56 PM PDT by StrangeFeathers

HAGERSTOWN, Md. – The Army private suspected in one of the largest unauthorized disclosures of classified information in U.S. history has become a hero to many anti-war activists who have joined an international effort to free him.

At demonstrations this month in New York, Oklahoma City and Quantico, Va., where Army Pfc. Bradley Manning is being held, dozens of supporters have shouted that “Blowing the whistle on war crimes is not a crime.”

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2574419/posts

“Michael Moore praises suspected WikiLeaks source”
hosted ^ | Aug 20
Posted on August 20, 2010 9:53:08 AM PDT by JoeProBono

SNIPPET: “HAGERSTOWN, Md. (AP) — Filmmaker Michael Moore is praising an Army private suspected of releasing classified war records to WikiLeaks and said he would contribute to his defense.”

NOTE The following text is a quote:

www.defense.gov//News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=60488

WikiLeaks Has Yet to Contact ‘Competent Authorities’

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Aug. 18, 2010 – The operators of a website that published tens of thousands of classified documents have contacted no “competent authorities” in the Defense Department, a Pentagon spokesman said here today.

WikiLeaks already has released 90,000 classified documents, and the site’s publisher said he plans to release about 15,000 more.

“Those documents should be returned,” Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said. “There should be no further posting of these classified documents, and those that have been posted should be removed.”

The Army’s Criminal Investigation Division and the FBI are conducting an investigation into the leak of the documents.

WikiLeaks officials have attempted to use the media as an intermediary, “but the Defense Department has had no direct contact with WikiLeaks,” Whitman said.
In any event, the Defense Department is not interested in negotiating with the organization, Whitman said, noting that it’s simply against the law to release classified documents. If Defense Department officials participated in trying to sanitize or redact these documents, he said, they still would be guilty of releasing classified documents.

“These documents are property of the United States government,” Whitman said. “The unauthorized release of them threatens the lives of coalition forces, as well as Afghan nationals. All should be returned immediately, they should be removed from the Web, there should be no further posting of them to the Web, and all data bases containing them should be destroyed.”

Defense Department officials are analyzing the leaked documents to try to minimize the risk to coalition forces and to Afghans who worked with the coalition, Whitman said, though he would not get into specifics.

Another danger of the leaks is the possibility that commands may safeguard information and intelligence so much that those who need it won’t get it, Whitman noted.

“There is a balance to make sure that all the available intelligence is accessible where it needs to be accessible,” Whitman said. “But there should be safeguards, too, to preclude or mitigate instances where people may be acting in an improper, unauthorized or even illegal way.”
Intelligence is a tool that young servicemembers must have to carry out their missions, he added.

“Anything that we do as we assess the situation here and learn lessons from this will always be balanced with the imperative that our forces on the ground need to have access to the best information that we can provide them,” he said.

Related Articles:
Pentagon Demands WikiLeaks Return Stolen Documents
WikiLeaks Guilty on Moral Grounds, Gates Says
Official Rejects Claim WikiLeaks Offered Document Review
Gates Calls on FBI to Join Leak Investigation
Document Leaks Could Endanger Afghan Civilians
Obama: Issues in Leaked Documents Led to Review
Pentagon Launches Probe into Document Leaks
Chairman Appalled by WikiLeaks Release
Pentagon Assesses Leaked Documents
Pentagon Releases Letter Sent to Purported WikiLeaks Attorney

NOTE The following text is a quote:

www.defense.gov//News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=60494

Pentagon Releases Letter Sent to Purported WikiLeaks Attorney

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Aug. 18, 2010 – Defense Department officials today released a letter the Pentagon’s top lawyer sent to a man purported to be an attorney for the WikiLeaks website, which published tens of thousands of classified documents last month and is threatening to release 15,000 more.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters this afternoon that Timothy J. Matusheski was a “no show” for a telephone call that was arranged last week when his name and purported status as a WikiLeaks attorney came up in an investigation of the document leak.

The following day, Whitman said, the Pentagon’s general counsel codified the Defense Department’s position in a letter and sent it to Matusheski.
Here is the text of the letter, dated Aug. 16 and signed by General Counsel Jeh C. Johnson. Words that were underlined in the original are presented here in all capital letters:

Dear Mr. Matusheski

I understand that you represent yourself to be an attorney for WikiLeaks and that you, on behalf of that organization, sought a conversation with someone in the United States Government to discuss “harm minimization” with respect to some 15,000 U.S. Government classified documents that WikiLeaks is holding and is threatening to make public. In response, I was prepared to speak with you yesterday at 10:00am EDT and convey the position of the Department of Defense. Despite your agreement to be available by telephone yesterday morning, we could not reach you at that time.

The position of the Department of Defense is clear, and it should be conveyed to your client in no uncertain terms:

WikiLeaks is holding the property of the U.S. Government, including classified documents and sensitive national security information that has not been authorized for release. Further, it is the view of the Department of Defense that WikiLeaks obtained this material in circumstances that constitute a violation of United States law, and that as long as WikiLeaks holds this material, the violation of the law is ongoing.

The Secretary of Defense has made clear the damage to our national security by the public release by WikiLeaks of some 76,000 classified documents several weeks ago, and the threat to the lives of coalition forces in Afghanistan and to the lives of local Afghan nationals as a result. As the Secretary has also stated, we know from various sources that our enemy is accessing the WikiLeaks website for the purpose of exploiting WikiLeaks’ illegal and irresponsible actions, to pursue their own terrorist aims.

The threatened release of additional classified documents by WikiLeaks will add to the damage. Among other sensitive items, we believe the classified documents contain, like the first batch of released documents, the names of Afghan nationals who are assisting coalition forces in our efforts to bring about peace and stability in that portion of the world.

Thus, the Department of Defense will NOT negotiate some “minimized” or “sanitized” version of a release by WikiLeaks of additional U.S. Government classified documents. The Department demands that NOTHING further be released by WikiLeaks, that ALL of the U.S. Government classified documents that WikiLeaks has obtained be returned immediately, and that WikiLeaks remove and destroy all of these records from its databases.
(Signed)
Jeh Charles Johnson

Related Articles:
WikiLeaks Has Yet to Contact ‘Competent Authorities’
Pentagon Demands WikiLeaks Return Stolen Documents
WikiLeaks Guilty on Moral Grounds, Gates Says
Official Rejects Claim WikiLeaks Offered Document Review
Gates Calls on FBI to Join Leak Investigation
Document Leaks Could Endanger Afghan Civilians
Obama: Issues in Leaked Documents Led to Review
Pentagon Launches Probe into Document Leaks
Chairman Appalled by WikiLeaks Release
Pentagon Assesses Leaked Documents

Quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2576862/posts

WikiLeaks says it will release CIA paper on Wednesday
CNN ^ | 8/24/2010
Posted on August 24, 2010 5:44:21 PM PDT by markomalley

(CNN) - WikiLeaks, a whistle-blower website, posted on the group’s Twitter page on Tuesday: “WikiLeaks to release CIA paper tomorrow.”

The website set off a firestorm of controversy recently when it posted some 76,000 U.S. documents related to the war in Afghanistan. The group has said it has another 15,000 documents, which it plans to release soon.

It was not immediately clear whether the Twitter post on Tuesday is related to the batch of documents that WikiLeaks has called the “Afghan War Diary.”

(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...

ON THE INTERNET:

twitter.com/wikileaks

Quote:

WikiLeaks to release CIA paper tomorrow.
about 3 hours ago via bitly

Russian-US talks: Afghan War Diary confirms Russian fears http://bit.ly/boLsVC
about 3 hours ago via bitly

###
###

Note: The above tiny url goes to this article link:

http://en.rian.ru/papers/20100824/160323433.html

ON THE INTERNET:

wikileaks.org/

Shot at dawn. Not harsh, Justice.

He will never get the death sentence.

Don’t you know that gay men are SPECIAL in our society?

Turn on your PBS station. Get the message. They are the ruling class. Straight, white middle class people are the losers, the worker drones. AND, we are supposed to donate money to their stupid liberal and sodomite causes.

Quote:

www.defense.gov//News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=60554

Spokesman Denies Pentagon Role in WikiLeaks Founder Charge

By Army Sgt. 1st Class Michael J. Carden
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Aug. 23, 2010 – A Defense Department spokesman today termed as “ridiculous” the notion that Pentagon officials were involved in recent rape allegations against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

Swedish authorities issued an arrest warrant Aug. 20, but revoked it soon after.
CNN reported today that Assange said the allegations were part of a “smear campaign” after his website posted tens of thousands of classified U.S. military war records. Assange says WikiLeaks has an additional 15,000 documents it plans to post.

Assange said he has ideas about who may be behind the accusations, but would not share his suspicion “without direct evidence.”

Any thought that the Defense Department may be part of such a conspiracy is “absurd,” Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said today when reporters questioned him about the matter.

“No. That’s ridiculous,” Whitman said.

Whitman said the Pentagon remains firm in its demand for WikiLeaks to remove the posted documents, many of which contain the names of U.S. troops and Afghan nationals who support them.

“I think we’ve made our position very clear, that this stolen property should be returned immediately,” Whitman said. “The information on the Web should be taken down. There should be no further posting of any information, and the department is not interested in any sort of minimization or sanitation exercise.”

The Pentagon is working to ensure the safety of the individuals – American and Afghan – named in the documents, Whitman added.

“The mere existence of some of these documents and the names that are in the documents certainly do pose a threat,” he said. “We have a moral and ethical obligation to take measures.”

Related Articles:
Pentagon Demands WikiLeaks Return Stolen Documents
WikiLeaks Guilty on Moral Grounds, Gates Says
Official Rejects Claim WikiLeaks Offered Document Review
Gates Calls on FBI to Join Leak Investigation
Document Leaks Could Endanger Afghan Civilians
Obama: Issues in Leaked Documents Led to Review
Pentagon Launches Probe into Document Leaks
Chairman Appalled by WikiLeaks Release
Pentagon Assesses Leaked Documents
Pentagon Releases Letter Sent to Purported WikiLeaks Attorney

www.shamikh1.net/vb/showthread.php?p=1058171304#post1058171304

http://s88179113.onlinehome.us/2010-12-24/shmukh-how_wl_got_docs/post.html

#

AQ [Heart]s Manning Too
http://internet-haganah.com/harchives/007120.html

SNIPPET: “Click to view archive (which purports to explain how Wikileaks got the documents from Manning”

NOTE The following text is a quote:

http://www.defense.gov//News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=63002

News
American Forces Press Service

Army Adds 22 Charges Against Intelligence Analyst

From a U.S. Army Military District of Washington News Release

FORT LESLEY J. MCNAIR, D.C., March 2, 2011 – After seven months of additional investigation by the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command and other investigative agencies, the Army has added 22 charges in the case of a military intelligence analyst accused of leaking classified material.

The new charges against Pvt. 1st Class Bradley E. Manning allege that he introduced unauthorized software onto government computers to extract classified information, unlawfully downloaded it, improperly stored it, and transmitted the classified data for public release and use by the enemy.

The investigation remains ongoing, officials said.

“The new charges more accurately reflect the broad scope of the crimes that Private 1st Class Manning is accused of committing,” said Capt. John Haberland, a legal spokesman for U.S. Army Military District of Washington. “The new charges will not affect Private 1st Class Manning’s right to a speedy trial or his pretrial confinement.”

U.S. military officials in Baghdad preferred two charges consisting of 12 specifications against Manning on July 5. Officials said the commander of U.S. Army Headquarters Command Battalion preferred the new charges yesterday.
In addition to a charge of aiding the enemy in violation of Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the new charges include 16 specifications under the UCMJ’s Article 134:

— One specification of wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the Internet knowing that it is accessible to the enemy;
— Five specifications of theft of public property or records, in violation of 18 U.S. Code 641;
— Eight specifications of transmitting defense information in violation of 18 U.S.C. 793(e);
— Two specifications of fraud and related activity in connection with computers in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(1); and
— Five specifications in violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ for violating Army Regulations 25-2, “Information Assurance,” and 380-5, “Department of the Army Information Security Program.”

The charge of aiding the enemy under Article 104 is a capital offense, officials said. However, they added, the prosecution team has notified the defense that the prosecution will not recommend the death penalty to the convening authority, Maj. Gen. Karl R. Horst, commanding general of the U.S. Army Military District of Washington.

Under the UCMJ, the convening authority ultimately decides what charges to refer to court-martial, and whether to seek the death penalty if Article 104 is referred. Therefore, if convicted of all charges, Manning would face a maximum punishment of reduction to the lowest enlisted pay grade,; total forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for life, and a dishonorable discharge.

At the request of Manning’s defense attorneys, the trial proceedings have been delayed since July 12, pending the results of a defense-requested inquiry into Manning’s mental capacity and responsibility, pursuant to Rule for Courts-Martial 706. Depending on the results of the inquiry, an Article 32 hearing may follow, officials said. An Article 32 hearing is the civilian equivalent of a grand jury, with additional rights afforded to the accused, they explained.

Manning remains confined in the Marine Corps Base Quantico brig in Quantico, Va. He was notified of the additional charges in person during a command visit today, officials said.

Officials emphasized that Manning is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and added that the Army is committed to ensuring his continued safety and well-being while in pretrial confinement.

Related Sites:
Joint Force Headquarters National Capital Region/U.S. Army Military District of Washington
Related Articles:
Soldier in Iraq Faces Criminal Charges

DEFENSE.gov - Transcript: "DOD News Briefing with General Counsel Johnson, Under Secretary Westphal and Lt. Col. Hilton from the Pentagon on the status of Army Pfc. Manning" (April 19, 2011)

Link (pdf)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/army-pfc-manning-to-face-pretrial-hearing-in-in-wikileaks-case/2011/12/13/gIQADURzwO_story.html

“Army Pfc. Manning to face pretrial hearing in WikiLeaks case”
(December 13, 2011)

NOTE The following text is a quote:

www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=66517

Pretrial Begins for Alleged Document Leaker

By Elaine Sanchez
American Forces Press Service

FORT MEADE, Md., Dec. 16, 2011 – The Article 32 hearing for the soldier allegedly involved in what’s considered one of the largest leaks of classified material in U.S. history got under way in a crowded military courthouse here today.

Pfc. Bradley E. Manning, an Army intelligence analyst, is suspected of leaking military and diplomatic documents, including classified records about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks, which released thousands of classified military documents on its website last year.

At the time, then-Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and other senior defense officials condemned the organization’s actions, claiming the act put deployed service members at an increased risk.

The hearing today marked Manning’s first appearance in a military court since his arrest in Iraq in May 2010. An Article 32 hearing, often likened to a civilian grand jury, is a pretrial hearing to determine if there are grounds for a general court martial, the most serious of courts martial.

The soldier, dressed in an Army combat uniform, his hair cut short and with black-rimmed glasses, sat between his civilian lawyer David E. Coombs, and his two military lawyers. The soldier was attentive throughout, eyes forward and his hands clasped or fiddling with a pen, taking notes occasionally. When asked if he understood the charges and if he was satisfied with his representation, he answered “Yes sir” each time in a soft-spoken tone.

The soldier, who turns 24 tomorrow, faces more than 20 charges and a maximum sentence of life in prison if proven guilty. The charges allege Manning introduced unauthorized software onto government computers to extract classified information, unlawfully downloaded it, improperly stored it, and transmitted the data for public release and use by the enemy.

The charge of aiding the enemy under Article 104 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice is a capital offense; however, the prosecution team has said it won’t recommend the death penalty, a legal official said today.

First up today was Coombs for defense, who came out swinging. He almost immediately called for Army Reserve Lt. Col. Paul Almanza, the hearing’s investigating officer, to disqualify himself from the hearing for bias or perception of bias, along with some rulings against the defense. It’s the investigating officer’s role to consider witnesses’ testimony and evidence presented to counsel and to recommend if the case should be referred for trial to general court martial or other courts martial, or be dismissed.

Almanza serves as a reserve military judge as well as the deputy chief of the Justice Department’s child exploitation and obscenity section. Coombs argued there’s a conflict of interest since the Justice Department has an ongoing criminal investigation regarding this case.

The officer, Coombs continued, also allowed all of the government’s 20 witnesses and only two of the defense’s 38 witnesses, who were not in common with the government. He also argued the fact that the hearing is open, not closed, which can allow prejudicial information to impact the trial. Finally, Almanza is allowing unsworn statements from the prosecution to be considered, he added.

After lengthy recesses and with input from the defense, the government and his legal advisor, Almanza denied the defense’s request for a recusal and for a stay, or delay, of proceedings.

Almanza said he doesn’t believe that “a reasonable person knowing all the circumstances” of the case would question his impartiality, and stressed that no aspect of his civilian work is involved with or relates to Manning’s case.
Almanza then called for another recess to give Manning’s defense team time to file a writ, or legal document, to stay the hearing to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, located at Fort Belvoir, Va.

Turning proceedings back to the case at hand, Almanza reviewed Manning’s rights with him, ensuring the soldier had a copy of the charge sheet and understood the charges preferred against him.

Almanza also discussed the possibility that classified information may be introduced into the hearing. If classified information needs to be discussed, he explained, a determination will be made to close portions of the hearing as required.

After one final recess, Almanza noted the hearing will reconvene tomorrow at 10 a.m. Manning remains in pretrial confinement.

Manning’s Article 32 hearing is expected to continue for several days, possibly up to a week. When the hearing is over, Almanza will file a report recommending either a trial, or that some or all of the charges against Manning be dismissed.

Related Articles:
Army Adds 22 Charges Against Intelligence Analyst

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-manning-hearing-20111223,0,3196435.story

“WikiLeaks founder helped Army private get data, prosecutors say

They say chat logs show Julian Assange’s role in the leak of U.S. secrets that led to charges against Pfc. Bradley Manning.”

by Brian Bennett, Washington Bureau

December 22, 2011, 5:51 pm

SNIPPET: “It was the first time the government had shown direct evidence that Assange and WikiLeaks may have played an active role in helping Manning remove and transmit more than 700,000 files taken from a top-secret facility in Iraq.”

NOTE The following text is a quote:

www.defense.gov//News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=66586

Pretrial Wraps Up for Alleged Document Leaker

By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service

FORT MEADE, Md., Dec. 22, 2011 – The prosecution and defense rested today after delivering their closing statements in the Article 32 hearing of a soldier charged with leaking hundreds of thousands of classified documents.

Today’s session, which adjourned at about 10:30 a.m., wrapped up eight days of pre-trial proceedings in the case against Army Pfc. Bradley E. Manning that began Dec. 16.

An Article 32 hearing, often compared to a civilian grand jury, is a pretrial hearing to determine if grounds exist for a general court martial, the most serious of courts martial.

The investigating officer, Army Lt. Col. Paul Almanza, now has until Jan. 16 to issue his recommendations to the Special Court Martial Convening Authority, a Military District of Washington spokesperson told American Forces Press Service.

Alamanza may ask for an extension, if needed, the official said.
His report will recommend that the case be referred to a court martial, or that some or all of the charges against Manning be dismissed.

The Special Court Martial Convening Authority, Army Col. Carl Coffman, will then provide Alamanza’s recommendation to the General Court Martial Convening Authority, and indicate whether he concurs with it, the MDW official said.

Manning, an intelligence analyst, is suspected of leaking military and diplomatic documents to the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks in what officials believe is the biggest intelligence leak in U.S. history.

WikiLeaks, in turn, released thousands of these documents, including classified records about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, on its website last year.

At the time, then-Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and other senior defense officials condemned the organization’s actions, claiming the act put deployed service members at an increased risk.

The Article 32 hearing marked 24-year-old Manning’s first appearance in a military court since his arrest in Iraq in May 2010.

He faces more than 20 charges alleging he introduced unauthorized software onto government computers to extract classified information, unlawfully downloaded it, improperly stored it, and transmitted the data for public release and use by the enemy.

The charge of aiding the enemy under Article 104 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice is a capital offense; however, the prosecution team has said it won’t recommend the death penalty, a legal official said.

If convicted of all charges, Manning would face a maximum punishment of life in prison. He also could be reduced to E-1, the lowest enlisted grade, face a total forfeiture of all pay and allowances and dishonorable discharge, officials said.

(Editors’ Note: Elaine Sanchez contributed to this article.)

Related Articles:
Pretrial Begins for Alleged Document Leaker
Army Adds 22 Charges Against Intelligence Analyst

bostonglobe.com/business/2012/01/08/laptop-seizures-customs-cause-thorny-legal-dispute/dnbJ2nTqirLOnsVRIBRwjP/story.html

“Laptop seizures at customs cause thorny legal dispute”
By Katie Johnston | GLOBE STAFF JANUARY 08, 2012

SNIPPET: “David House took his laptop to Mexico a little over a year ago...”

SNIPPET: “House, who worked at MIT until last summer, had his laptop seized when he changed planes in Chicago on his way to Boston because federal agents wanted to learn more about his connections to Bradley Manning, the US Army private who leaked classified government information to the website WikiLeaks. House met Manning at a hackers’ workshop at Boston University in early 2010 and helped to found a support network to raise money for him after he was imprisoned.

The government kept House’s computer for 49 days, during which government agents had access to contact information for donors and House’s bank account passwords and family photos, as well as coding he had done in Mexico.”