U.S. Soldier Charged in Iraq Attack Video Leak
An American soldier suspected of leaking a military video of an attack on unarmed men in Iraq was charged with multiple counts of mishandling and leaking classified data and putting national security at risk, the U.S. Army said in a statement Tuesday.
Army Spc. Bradley Manning is suspected of leaking a classified video that shows a group of men walking down the street before being repeatedly shot by the Apache helicopters. The American gunners can be heard laughing and referring to the men as "dead bastards."
The classified video was taken from the cockpit during a 2007 fire fight and posted last April on the website WikiLeaks.org. It was an unflattering portrait of the war that raised questions about the military's rules of engagement and whether more should be done to prevent civilian casualties.
Spc. Manning Charge Sheet (Redacted)
Army Statement on Charges
Among those believed to have been killed in the attack were a Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, and his driver Saeed Chmagh, 40. Two children were wounded.
Manning, 22, from Potomac, Md., was detained in Baghdad in early June and is now being held in Kuwait.
A military version of a grand jury hearing will determine if Manning should face a trial by court-martial, the Army's statement said.
A criminal investigation is still open, the statement said, detailing charges against Manning including "transferring classified data onto his personal computer and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system."
Manning was also charged with "communicating, transmitting and delivering national defense information to an unauthorized source" and with "disclosing classified information concerning the national defense with reason to believe that the information could cause injury to the United States."
Iraqi Journalist Shooting Video
Unedited Video From WikiLeaks (YouTube)
An internal military investigation concluded that the troops in the helicopters acted appropriately. According to a last year's summary of the results of the inquiry, Reuters employees were likely "intermixed among the insurgents" and difficult to distinguish because of their equipment, the document states.
Former computer hacker Adrian Lamo of Sacramento, Calif., said he alerted the military after Manning confided in him online that he had leaked the video in addition to 260,000 classified diplomatic cables.
Lamo, who first provided his account to Wired.com, told The Associated Press last month that he agonized over the decision.
"I turned him in because, for the rest of my life, I'd wonder if something he leaked would have cost a human life," Lamo said.
In 2004, Lamo had pleaded guilty to breaking into The New York Times' computer system and still owes $62,800 in federal restitution. He said he has received no financial benefit from turning in Manning and that the money he owes was never discussed.
For more info:
No Secrets: How WikiLeaks Leaked the Apache Combat Video (The New Yorker)
By Associated Press Writer Barbara Surk
© 2010 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Army Spc. Bradley Manning is suspected of leaking a classified video that shows a group of men walking down the street before being repeatedly shot by the Apache helicopters. The American gunners can be heard laughing and referring to the men as "dead bastards."
The classified video was taken from the cockpit during a 2007 fire fight and posted last April on the website WikiLeaks.org. It was an unflattering portrait of the war that raised questions about the military's rules of engagement and whether more should be done to prevent civilian casualties.
Spc. Manning Charge Sheet (Redacted)
Army Statement on Charges
Among those believed to have been killed in the attack were a Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, and his driver Saeed Chmagh, 40. Two children were wounded.
Manning, 22, from Potomac, Md., was detained in Baghdad in early June and is now being held in Kuwait.
A military version of a grand jury hearing will determine if Manning should face a trial by court-martial, the Army's statement said.
A criminal investigation is still open, the statement said, detailing charges against Manning including "transferring classified data onto his personal computer and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system."
Manning was also charged with "communicating, transmitting and delivering national defense information to an unauthorized source" and with "disclosing classified information concerning the national defense with reason to believe that the information could cause injury to the United States."
Iraqi Journalist Shooting Video
Unedited Video From WikiLeaks (YouTube)
An internal military investigation concluded that the troops in the helicopters acted appropriately. According to a last year's summary of the results of the inquiry, Reuters employees were likely "intermixed among the insurgents" and difficult to distinguish because of their equipment, the document states.
Former computer hacker Adrian Lamo of Sacramento, Calif., said he alerted the military after Manning confided in him online that he had leaked the video in addition to 260,000 classified diplomatic cables.
Lamo, who first provided his account to Wired.com, told The Associated Press last month that he agonized over the decision.
"I turned him in because, for the rest of my life, I'd wonder if something he leaked would have cost a human life," Lamo said.
In 2004, Lamo had pleaded guilty to breaking into The New York Times' computer system and still owes $62,800 in federal restitution. He said he has received no financial benefit from turning in Manning and that the money he owes was never discussed.
For more info:
No Secrets: How WikiLeaks Leaked the Apache Combat Video (The New Yorker)
By Associated Press Writer Barbara Surk
Popular on CBSNews.com
- Photos of the week 22 Photos
- Toronto mayor: I don't smoke crack cocaine
- Graphic video: Man dead in "truly shocking" London attack Play Video
- Bangladesh slum life 13 Photos
- Deadly car bombing at aid group's house in Kabul
- 2 men from diverted Pakistani flight into U.K. arrested
- NKorean envoy delivers letter to China's president
- Tokyo's rockabilly scene 16 Photos
Judgment of Nazis at Nuremberg--
After World War II, fought at great cost to defeat Hitler's threat to our democracy, the Nuremberg trials established the principle of individual responsibility for actions-- no matter how inconvenient for a soldier to say, "This is wrong".
For decades since that time, American officials emphatically have reaffirmed the principle established by the international court at Nuremberg-- that "Befehl ist Befehl" ("An order is an order.") is not a defense for any soldier of a civilized country.
According to Nuremberg, soldiers are obligated to obey only a lawful order.
The Milgram Experiment--
Decades ago, Harvard psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted an experiment in which 40 volunteers were given an experimental situation, testing their inner resolve to do the right thing.
In the experiment, subjects were told to tell another person to administer electric shocks (up to 450 volts and beyond) to individuals in another room (linked by intercom) who did not cooperate with their instructions.
The "uncooperative" individuals were professional actors, trained to simulate real response to pain, and ordinary persons could not be expected to detect Milgram's deception.
As it turned out, Milgram was appalled at the results. His 40 experimental subjects were surprisingly detached, and 26 agreed to apply electric shocks-- all while hearing cries from persons seemingly in pain, even torture. One subject asked his "assistant" to administer 450 volts to an uncooperative subject.
The use of an assistant to apply pain is the most interesting aspect of the experiment, simulating the detachment some field commanders experience when they do not actually pull the trigger.
Lt. Calley at My Lai did not kill every Vietnamese child cowering in a ditch-- his order to "waste 'em" was carried out by otherwise ordinary soldiers taught every day never to question an order.
The Zimbardo Experiment--
Stanford Psychologist Philip Zimbardo conducted an experiment in which 24 male college students were randomly assigned as either "guards" or "prisoners".
"Guards" wore nightsticks, uniforms and a whistle. "Prisoners" were stripped of their clothing, shaved, deloused, given a prison uniferm and a number, and escorted to their cells by prison "guards".
The experiment went badly. Although designed for two weeks, it was cut short after six days because of signs of lasting emotional trauma among the "prisoners".
"Guards" were determined to make their charges obey them, and administered punishments ranging from physical punishment and imposed exercise, to refusal to allow "prisoners" to shower and brush their teeth, steady torment and provocations, and use of special tactics to turn "prisoners" against each other.
As early as the second day, the "prisoners" rebelled, and tore off their own prisoner clothes down to underwear. Zimbardo and associates were notified and rushed to witness "guards"-- college students-- taking violent reprisals on "prisoners".
One of the "prisoners" snapped under the experimental pressures, and began to show signs of uncontrolled rage, depression, and was finally dropped from the experiment after screaming and other bizaare behavior in front of his fellow "prisoners".
More to the point, a full one-third of the "guards" showed "genuine" sadistic behavior, according to researchers.
Like Milgram, Zimbardo was astonished to find law-abiding, well-educated, well-nourished and "decent" human beings could revert to such a primitive, anti-social level in a few days.
In part, their experiments answered many questions lingering about how German culture could degenerate into Nazi parades in fewer than five years.
The comparisons with IRA prisoners in rebellion are inescapable-- they, too, resisted with all they had in a situation clearly out of control for both UK and the IRA. And of course, Guantanamo and Abu Graib come to mind, immediately-- both are an eerie and faithful parallel.
Our Lessons from History--
Unless the conscience is put first, soldiers steadily lose their identity as (American) human beings.
We, as a country, send our soldiers to defend a system of government and ethical values we claim to honor. We cannot allow our soldiers to betray their American values, in the name of protecting our own.
The video was classified for a reason, the soldier gave classified information to others that disseminated it to the enemy in Iraq and it is now being cut and snipped into a propaganda video. The soldier broke a law and now he must pay the price.
Judgment of Nazis at Nuremberg--
After World War 2, fought at great cost to defeat Hitler's threat to our democracy, the Nuremberg trials established the principle of individual responsibility for actions-- no matter how inconvenient for a soldier to say, "This is wrong".
For decades since that time, American officials emphatically have reaffirmed the principle established by the international court at Nuremberg-- that "Befehl ist Befehl" ("An order is an order.") is not a defense for any soldier of a civilized country.
According to Nuremberg, soldiers are obligated to obey only a lawful order.
The Milgram Experiment--
Decades ago, Harvard psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted an experiment in which 40 volunteers were given an experimental situation, testing their inner resolve to do the right thing. In the experiment, subjects were told to tell another person to administer electric shocks (up to 450 volts and beyond) to individuals in another room (linked by intercom) who did not cooperate with their instructions.
The "uncooperative" individuals were professional actors, trained to simulate real response to pain, and ordinary persons could not be expected to detect Milgram's deception.
As it turned out, Milgram was appalled at the results. His 40 experimental subjects were surprisingly detached, and 26 agreed to apply electric shocks-- all while hearing cries from persons seemingly in pain, even torture. One subject asked his "assistant" to administer 450 volts to an uncooperative subject.
The use of an assistant to apply pain is the most interesting aspect of the experiment, simulating the detachment some field commanders experience when they do not actually pull the trigger. Lt. Calley at My Lai did not kill every Vietnamese child cowering in a ditch-- his order to "waste 'em" was carried out by otherwise ordinary soldiers taught every day never to question an order.
The Zimbardo Experiment--
Stanford Psychologist Philip Zimbardo conducted an experiment in which 24 male college students were randomly assigned as either "guards" or "prisoners".
"Guards" wore nightsticks, uniforms and a whistle. "Prisoners" were stripped of their clothing, shaved, deloused, given a prison uniferm and a number, and escorted to their cells by prison "guards".
The experiment went badly. Although designed for two weeks, it was cut short after six days because of signs of lasting emotional trauma among the "prisoners".
"Guards" were determined to make their charges obey them, and administered punishments ranging from physical punishment and imposed exercise, to refusal to allow "prisoners" to shower and brush their teeth, steady torment and provocations, and use of special tactics to turn "prisoners" against each other.
As early as the second day, the "prisoners" rebelled, and tore off their own prisoner clothes down to underwear. Zimbardo and associates were notified and rushed to witness "guards"-- college students-- taking violent reprisals on "prisoners".
One of the "prisoners" snapped under the experimental pressures, and began to show signs of uncontrolled rage, depression, and was finally dropped from the experiment after screaming and other bizaare behavior in front of his fellow "prisoners".
More to the point, a full one-third of the "guards" showed "genuine" sadistic behavior, according to researchers.
Like Milgram, Zimbardo was astonished to find law-abiding, well-educated, well-nourished and "decent" human beings could revert to such a primitive, anti-social level in a few days.
In part, their experiments answered many questions lingering about how German culture could degenerate into Nazi parades in fewer than five years.
The comparisons with IRA prisoners in rebellion are inescapable-- they, too, resisted with all they had in a situation clearly out of control for both UK and the IRA. And of course, Guantanamo and Abu Graib come to mind, immediately-- both are an eerie and faithful parallel.
Unless the conscience is put first, soldiers steadily lose their identity as (American) human beings.
We send our soldiers to defend a system of government and ethical values we claim to honor. We cannot allow our soldiers to betray their American values, in the name of protecting our own.
Thank God for American soldier, Spc. Bradley Manning-- or whoever did leak the video of an atrocity in Iraq by an American attack helicopter. This American soldier did his duty to his country and to his conscience.
The Atrocity in Iraq--
As the video revealed, the group of civilians cut down by American fire on an Iraqi street was involved in no hostile action of any description. Their appearance, manner and movement indicated individuals who did not consider themselves in a combat action.
Instead of moving swiftly and in coordinated fashion, they literally ambled down the sidewalk, with no hint they imagined attack from any quarter, or planned one.
Clearly, the group of civilians was not a legitimate target, at all-- only a complete dereliction of duty by the commander of the attacking American aircraft and his gunner made the atrocity possible. Because theirs was not a hasty decision and maneuver in the fog of combat, but a steady, calculated attack, with ample opportunity for reflection.
Moments later, on the same street, a white passenger van containing a civilian family was strafed not once, but twice. The second run was made after the vehicle was already on fire, enveloped in smoke and clearly disabled. There was no plausible excuse for the second attack run, not to mention the first.
Iraqi rescuers carried out the bodies of two children, recovered from the floorboard area immediately behind the driver's seat.
This was the same cold-blooded killing that happened at My Lai in Vietnam, and at Haditha and Mahmoudiya in Iraq.
And like UK PM Cameron, finally apologizing for the Bloody Sunday massacre of 14 civilians decades before in Londonderry, everyone was "really, truly sorry" it happened.
Until next time...
.
I don't believe Manning will be the recipient of such largesse.
This country should honor its whistleblowers with all it can offer, starting with legal immunity and all other protections required.
We offer at least that protection to those who turn state's witness in a criminal prosecution. How much more protection should be accorded to those who act-- on their own initiative-- in the public interest?
Enron never would have been understood so soon, had it not been for Sharon Watkins, who gave CEO Ken Lay the ultimate memo-- essentially, "Boss, you are on the edge." Lay chose to ignore her, and listen to Skilling.
Likewise for Cynthia Cooper of WorldCom and Coleen Rowley of the FBI-- both pointed out the critical faults which led to disaster, and could yet again. In Rowley's case, she pointed out one of the proximate causes of 911.
Whistleblower Mark Klein exposed high crimes (by definition under federal law) committed by Bush, the NSA chief and AT&T-- spying on the private conversations of American citizens, routinely bypassing the FISA court and violating federal law not once, but routinely, for years.
Such people are more than patriots, they deserve our highest honor. They put their careers and sometimes their personal safety on the line, simply to do what we celebrate in Nathan Hale-- a willingness to put country first.
The only decision is about intent, accident, and criminality. The military needs to understand they are and always have been held accountable for actions and not be given some carte blanche permission to kill civilians as they deem fit.
The murderers who elect murderers to lead this nation are a disgrace. Unfortunately, they persuade too many to support murder under the banner of patriotism. When will people wake up and see what a blood thirsty nation we have become?