Bradley Manning: Will the alleged WikiLeaks ally have a compelling defense?

Pfc. Bradley Manning is expected to enter a plea in response to 22 charges lodged by military prosecutors, including turning over to WikiLeaks hundreds of thousands of military and diplomatic documents.

Patrick Semansky/AP
In this December 2011 file photo, Army Pfc. Bradley Manning is escorted from a courthouse in Fort Meade, Md. The arraignment of Manning begins Thursday afternoon, Feb. 23, at Fort Meade near Baltimore.

Pfc. Bradley Manning, accused of one of the largest cyberleaks of secret military and foreign-policy information in US history, is set to be arraigned Thursday before a military tribunal in Fort Meade, Md.

Manning is expected to enter a plea in response to 22 charges lodged by military prosecutors, including downloading onto a flash drive and turning over to the WikiLeaks website hundreds of thousands of military and diplomatic documents.

Prosecutors contend that his actions amount to "aiding the enemy," which could result in a life sentence for Manning if he is convicted on that charge.

At a preliminary hearing in December, cyber forensic investigators testified that materials – such as cables from US embassies and a video of a US helicopter attack in Iraq – could be connected to the computers on which Manning worked as an Army intelligence analyst.

Key points in Manning’s defense are expected to include that many of the classified cables, videos, and other data he is alleged to have leaked did not harm US national security – or were overclassified in the first place. Another argument: Manning was given too much access for his junior rank.

The case highlights the need for tougher security protocols for access to computers – and the increasing threat that insiders with access to sensitive information pose to the military, government, and business, cyber law experts say.

"This is the first case that highlights the concept of hacktivists, really bringing to light organizations like Anonymous and their drive to expose things for what they are – not money-driven, but ideology-driven," says Fernando Pinguelo, a trial lawyer and partner at the firm Norris McLaughlin & Marcus, who specializes in technology law.

Defense lawyers, he notes, are expected to argue that Manning was not the only one with access to the particular computer terminal from which the sensitive information was downloaded.

Trend lines for insider attacks are not as dramatic as those for outside attacks. Indeed, they have mostly held steady for a decade. But a 2011 survey found that nearly half of the organizations polled reported an “insider incident” that year, suggesting the threat remains significant – and perhaps overlooked.

This CyberSecurity Watch Survey also suggests that insider attacks are in many cases more damaging than outsider attacks. One-third of respondents said they were costlier than other types of attack. Insider incidents include casual posting of trade secrets to social networking sites, sometimes quite innocently.

"Insider threats are rising along with the rise of social networking sites," says Michael Rustad, co-director of the Intellectual Property program at Suffolk University Law School in Boston. "It's so easy to post something on Facebook or a social network. This kind of conduct has really taken off."

Some of Manning's supporters plan to convene in a vigil outside Fort Meade Thursday, saying that if he did release those files, he is a hero for blowing the whistle.

"If Manning had been a member of the US Marine squad that admitted to systematically murdering two dozen innocent Iraqi men, women, and children in Haditha, Iraq, he'd be walking free today," said activist Max Obuszewski, according to the Baltimore Sun. "Instead, he faces the real prospect of life in prison for telling the truth."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.