FORT MEADE, US: The military judge overseeing the trial of US soldier Bradley Manning over his massive transfer of secret files to WikiLeaks began considering her verdict after closing arguments on Friday.
After hearing the final statements at Fort Meade outside Washington, Colonel Denise Lind closed the court. She is expected to give her verdict in the coming days.
At Manning’s request, the judge — and not a jury — will decide his fate, and he will spend the rest of his life behind bars if convicted of the most serious charges against him. Manning was a US army private serving as an intelligence analyst in Iraq when he sent anti-secrecy activist Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks website a massive trove of diplomatic cables and classified military reports from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Supporters such as Assange argue that if he is convicted it will be a huge blow for the United States’ cherished press freedoms, but opponents say Manning betrayed his country and his uniform while aiding America’s enemies.
Defence attorney David Coombs told the military court Friday that Manning was no traitor but rather a “young, naive and good-intentioned” whistleblower.
Manning wanted to shed light on America’s misdeeds on the battlefield, Coombs argued.
“He was hoping to spark worldwide discussion” through his leaks and was “hoping that things would change based on that information,” he said.
As the trial drew to a close, prosecution and defence lawyers clashed over Manning’s motives, with the government insisting he had “evil intent” to “aid the enemy.” The 25-year-old intelligence analyst has already admitted to leaking hundreds of thousands of classified diplomatic cables and battlefield intelligence reports to WikiLeaks.
But he has denied other charges against him, including the most serious count that he knowingly helped Osama bin Laden’s global extremist network Al Qaeda.
Manning’s attorney insisted WikiLeaks was “no different than the New York Times” or any other news outlet that seeks to play a watchdog role, and that his client was simply trying to get information to the public.
“In this instance giving something to a legitimate news organisation is — unfortunately or fortunately depending on what side of the fence you are on — the way we hold our government accountable,” Coombs said.
The government’s case suggests any leak posted online by news media could be treated as helping America’s foes, he argued.
The prosecution, however, portrayed Manning as a reckless “anarchist” who knew Al Qaeda would see the documents posted online. “Instead of the American flag, Manning placed his trust in WikiLeaks and Julian Assange,” prosecutor Major Ashden Fein said. AFP
