Bradley Manning trial closing arguments ask: Why did he do it?
Closing arguments in the Bradley Manning trial began Thursday. Prosecution and defense lawyers paint very different pictures of why the intelligence analyst leaked classified documents.
In Pictures Julian Assange and the WikiLeaks Scandals
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
When they’re finished, military judge Col. Denise Lind will decide the future of the young intelligence analyst, who could spend the rest of his life in prison.
The facts in the case are not in dispute: While serving in Iraq in 2009 and 2010, Private Manning provided more than 700,000 classified files, combat videos, and diplomatic cables to the whistle-blower group WikiLeaks. Many of the cables were embarrassing for the US, candidly and sometimes critically assessing officials from other countries (some of them allies).
Specifically, Manning is charged with aiding the enemy; wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the Internet, knowing that it is accessible to the enemy; theft of public property or records; transmitting defense information; fraud and related activity in connection with computers; and violating Army regulations and an information security program. There are 21 charges in all, including violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the Espionage Act of 1917.
Under the UCMJ, Manning was able to choose to have his case decided by a single judge rather than a panel of military officers.
In closing, the two sides in this lengthy legal battle are painting two very different pictures of Manning.
The defense says he’s an idealist who became disillusioned by what he learned in Iraq and that he was trying to save lives by revealing secrets about US operations there.
Attorneys for Manning argue that no real harm was done to US national security interests, pointing to testimony from one witness (retired Air Force Col. Morris Davis, the former chief prosecutor at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba) who said that much of the information in the “detainee assessment briefs” revealed by Manning was easily available from open sources, including government sources.
The defense also seeks to undermine the most serious charge: aiding the enemy, specifically Al Qaeda and its affiliate in Iraq, by showing that Manning had no intention to do so.
In their closing arguments, military prosecutors say far from being an idealist, Manning was arrogant, reckless, and self-centered, looking for publicity.