Author Topic: Brad/Chelsea Manning: Charged w/AFG file leak, Cdn angles, disposition (merged)  (Read 78816 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline NavalMoose

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,485
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 112
  • "Life in a blue suit"

Offline Blackadder1916

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 121,045
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,477
What rights exactly is she advocating for?  Maybe one day queer and transgendered will be able to vote or get married in the US?

Probably something more immediately pressing to most individuals . . . to take a piss in an appropriate, comfortable venue without some arsehole claiming the world will end.  Or the most significant positive (to her perspective) outcome of her legal challenges to the US government, the acceptance (however short lived) that transgender individuals could serve in the US military and that health care to deal with consequences of that would be provided.
Whisky for the gentlemen that like it. And for the gentlemen that don't like it - Whisky.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 222,436
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,989
Probably something more immediately pressing to most individuals . . . to take a piss in an appropriate, comfortable venue


Salient point there. When I think of rights I usually think of second amendment, constitution typs stuff but your example is a good one as any.

It's too bad she didn't think of individuals rights before she committed treason but maybe this is a way to make amends or something.


without some arsehole claiming the world will end.  Or the most significant positive (to her perspective) outcome of her legal challenges to the US government, the acceptance (however short lived) that transgender individuals could serve in the US military and that health care to deal with consequences of that would be provided.
[/quote]
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 406,465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21,467
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Any legal beagles:  would what Chelsea served time for in the U.S. be considered treason here or something closer to sharing secret info here?  Either way, I'm more than OK with her not being allowed in, but wouldn't mind hearing from those knowing more about the CCC than I do.
Quote
Chelsea Manning says she's been denied entry into Canada
Manning was convicted on charges under the U.S. Espionage Act and served 7 years in military prison

Chelsea Manning, the controversial former U.S. intelligence analyst who was convicted in the largest breach of classified information in U.S. history, says she been denied entry into Canada.

On Monday, Manning tweeted* that she's been "permanently banned" from entering Canada. She included a picture of a letter that appears to alert the minister of immigration, refugees and citizenship that Manning has not been authorized to enter Canada and is "inadmissible" due to her prior convictions ...
* - Tweet & photo of letter from GoC attached.
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline ModlrMike

    : Riding time again... woohooo!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 197,974
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,449
    • Canadian Association of Physician Assistants
I'm inclined to agree with the Minister here.
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher,smarter, faster and better looking than most people.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. (H.L. Mencken 1919)
Zero tolerance is the politics of the lazy. All it requires is that you do nothing and ban everything.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 94,210
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,821
Here is what our Criminal code, art 46(2)(b) states, Milnews:

46 (2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,

(b) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;


When someone who has been found guilty of an infraction/crime wishes to enter Canada, the Customs/Immigration officer at the border has to determine admissibility by determining what is the Canadian equivalent infraction. Then, depending on the Canadian equivalent and it's maximum punishment, a determination is made: Admissible (if it was just equivalent to one of our summary conviction offence), inadmissible without first obtaining "permission" from the Canadian Embassy/consulate (usually, criminal acts punishable by a max of ten years), forever inadmissible, for crimes with more than ten years penalty.

In the present case, the officer at the border did his job properly. The document you see is NOT a determination by the Minister, it is the Border services officer's report TO the Minister of the exclusion order he/she issued and the reason for his/her determination, in case of further appeal to the said Minister.
+300

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 406,465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21,467
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
... 46 (2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,

(b) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada ...
Barring any future court/administrative fracas, that's a pretty good fit, then.  Thanks!
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Online jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 132,442
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,524
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Yup, good and proper.  She may have been given time off for good behavior by Obama but she's still a admitted, convicted felon.  We'd be banned from the States if the tables were turned.
I'm just like the CAF, I seem to have retention issues.

Offline Retired AF Guy

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 29,250
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,399
Martha Stewart was banned for committing a lot less.
Years ago, fairy tales all began with, "Once upon a time." Now we know they all began with, "If I'm elected."

Carolyn Warner

Offline Retired AF Guy

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 29,250
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,399
From NewsWeek:

Quote
CANADA'S CHELSEA MANNING BAN LEADS DONALD TRUMP JR. TO MOCK TRANSGENDER WHISTLEBLOWER
BY JASON LE MIERE ON 9/25/17 AT 3:05 PM

Chelsea Manning, who was given a 35-year prison sentence for leaking a trove of United States government documents, has been permanently banned from entering Canada. The news was celebrated by some on Twitter, including Donald Trump Jr., who liked an offensive tweet mocking the transgender whistleblower.

Manning, who served seven years in military prison before being released in May after having her sentence commuted by President Barack Obama, tried to enter Canada as a visitor on Friday. According to a document she shared on Twitter Monday, Manning was denied on the grounds that her offense equated to that of treason in the Criminal Code of Canada.

Any offense that, if committed inside Canada, would carry a prison sentence of more than 10 years is grounds for refusing an individual entry into the country.

In further tweets, Manning said she “will be challenging denial of entry” at an admissibility hearing at a date yet to be set. She also challenged the idea that the treason law cited by the Canadian authorities matched her conviction.

Manning was convicted on multiple espionage and theft charges in 2013, but was acquitted of the most serious charge against her: that of aiding the enemy. One of the offenses defined as treason in the Canadian Criminal Code is “without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada.”

A secret Department of Defense report into what was the largest leak of classified documents in U.S. history concluded that it caused no significant harm to U.S. interests. A counterintelligence official who investigated the impact of Manning’s leaks also said that no individual had been killed by enemy forces as a result.

Manning’s sentence was the longest ever handed down in the U.S. for leaking government information. Despite Obama declaring that the seven years Manning served cle Link}was already a “tough sentence,” Manning’s sentence was only commuted, rather than fully pardoned, as was the case with President Donald Trump’s recent action toward Joe Arpaio, the controversial former Arizona sheriff.

Trump has labeled Manning a “traitor.” After Manning's tweet Monday, Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., liked a derogatory tweet aimed at Manning featuring a pair of scissors, two peanuts and a clown's face in makeup, an apparent reference to her being transgender. President Trump recently announced a ban on transgender people serving in the military.

Article Link
Years ago, fairy tales all began with, "Once upon a time." Now we know they all began with, "If I'm elected."

Carolyn Warner

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 119,215
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,398
  • Honey Badger FTW!
This is starting to smell like the Harvard situation.  I am not a fan Manning's insinuation on social media that opposition to her public persona is a smear on the LGBTQ community.  It's because she was disloyal and committed a serious felony.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 33,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,444
This is starting to smell like the Harvard situation.  I am not a fan Manning's insinuation on social media that opposition to her public persona is a smear on the LGBTQ community.  It's because she was disloyal and committed a serious felony.

I agree, it has 0% to do with being trans gendered, etc... it has everything to do with the actions that got her into this situation in the first place. Unfortunately younger generations seem to not understand actions have consequences that you have to live with.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline ModlrMike

    : Riding time again... woohooo!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 197,974
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,449
    • Canadian Association of Physician Assistants
She will discover over time that it's not just Canada that won't let her in.
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher,smarter, faster and better looking than most people.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. (H.L. Mencken 1919)
Zero tolerance is the politics of the lazy. All it requires is that you do nothing and ban everything.

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 47,625
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,441
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
This kiss me. Former PFC Manning was dealt with exactly the same as any other US citizen arriving at a port of entry with a US criminal record without having done the appropriate research and secured the required documents prior to their trip.

The really amusing part is the fact that Manning is a former intelligence analyst and, therefore, should be capable of some simple Google searches of Canadian immigration requirements.  Nobody to blame but herself.
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 369,385
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,745
... a former intelligence analyst and, therefore, should be capable of some simple Google searches...

You haven't met many folks from the Int branch, have you?
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Blackadder1916

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 121,045
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,477
Here is what our Criminal code, art 46(2)(b) states, Milnews:

46 (2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,

(b) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;


When someone who has been found guilty of an infraction/crime wishes to enter Canada, the Customs/Immigration officer at the border has to determine admissibility by determining what is the Canadian equivalent infraction. Then, depending on the Canadian equivalent and it's maximum punishment, a determination is made: Admissible (if it was just equivalent to one of our summary conviction offence), inadmissible without first obtaining "permission" from the Canadian Embassy/consulate (usually, criminal acts punishable by a max of ten years), forever inadmissible, for crimes with more than ten years penalty.

In the present case, the officer at the border did his job properly. The document you see is NOT a determination by the Minister, it is the Border services officer's report TO the Minister of the exclusion order he/she issued and the reason for his/her determination, in case of further appeal to the said Minister.

Barring any future court/administrative fracas, that's a pretty good fit, then.  Thanks!

As they say, the devil is in the details (or the exacting wording in the case of law).  Should Ms (former Pvt) Manning appeal this finding (if she can) by a Border Services Officer (BSO?), she may have a case in overturning that specific determination of inadmissibility based on the specific item of Canadian law that the officer chose to use as the "equivalent" to the convictions that Manning received in the USA.

That article of the Criminal Code specifically deals with "communicating to an agent of a state other than Canada", thus that element of the offence must be present for it to be "treason".  Choosing that article and associating Manning's offence with treason seems (to me) to be (or have the potential to have been) a deliberate move on the part of the BSO to make a statement as to their opinion on Manning's action and to potentially remove any possibility of her entry to Canada.  With the exception of child sex crimes there is probably no crime that would stir greater disapprobation.  Or, it may have been a simple error on the part of the BSO.  However, in the facts of her case, Manning did not provide information or communicate with "an agent of an other state".  The US Army's prosecution of her did not prove so, nor did they contend it so.  If this article of the Criminal Code was not equivalent, then what should have been the item that justified inadmissibility to Canada?

Remember, (former) Pvt Manning was charged and convicted of multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  While the UCMJ is roughly equivalent to our Code of Service Discipline (CSD), there are (or so it seems to me) significant differences.  The attached PDF is the US Army's press release that itemized the charges and specifications and the determination (verdict) of each; it can also be found at this link.

In a nutshell, Manning was charged with:

I.  Violation of UCMJ, Article 104 NOT GUILTY  (Article 104 deals with "Aiding the enemy" and was the one charge that had a maximum penalty of death).

There was one specification to this charge.  It would have been roughly equivalent to some CSD offences in NDA 74 or 75
Though these CSD offences would have a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, it is moot for inadmissibility since she was found not guilty.

II.   Violation of UCMJ, Article 134 GUILTY  (Article 134 is the "General article") 

Article 134 seems to roughly equivalent to Sect 129 of the NDA, though since the UCMJ does not have a separate, specific article that address violations of other US laws this article also seems to be used as we would Sect 130

There were sixteen (16) specifications to this charge.  Three (3) of the specifications were stated as actions "prejudicial to good order and discipline" only and the other thirteen (13) referenced violations of other US codes as the basis for actions that were "prejudicial to good order . . .".  The other US codes referenced were:

18 US Sect. 793(e) (Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information) Seven of the specs referenced this, and she was found guilty on six of the specs and not guilty on one.

18 US Sect. 641 (EMBEZZLEMENT AND THEFT - Public money, property or records)  There were five specifications under Charge II that referenced this other US law and the value amount specified in each instance was in excess of $1000.  She was found guilty in all five of these specifications.

18 US Sect. 1030(a)(1) (Fraud and related activity in connection with computers)   There was one specification under Charge II that referenced this other US law and which was a guilty.

III. Violation of the UCMJ, Article 92 GUILTY (Article 92 deals with "Failure to obey order or regulation")  The rough equivalent in the CSD would be a mix of Sect 83 (Disobediance of a lawful command) and Sect 129 which specifically lists failing to follow regulations.  The three specifications to this charge all referenced Army Regulations as the violations.

If the Canadian Criminal Code offence of Treason is not an appropriate equivalent to the US convictions, what would be.  Should the BSO's report to the Minister have referenced NDA 129 that prescribes punishment as "dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty’s service or to less punishment" or NDA 130 which prescribes the punishment as that which would be the "minimum" (this section confused me re-read it and no longer confused) the punishment specified for the enactment that was violated with some dismissal with disgrace thrown in.

Without getting any deeper into the weeds about what Canadian law (criminal or otherwise) that might be the best equivalency, I'll look at the most prominent action of Manning, i.e. providing information that she wasn't supposed to.  In that case, my opinion is that the BSO should have referenced the Security of Information Act as the Canadian law (specifically Sect 4(1)) that, had Manning been subject to Canadian law when he committed these acts. would likely have been the offence that he would be charged with.  The punishment prescribed is that, unless otherwise stated (there are some offences lighter and some that go to life), "a person who commits an offence under this Act is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years".  That would have been sufficient to reach the same result of denying admission without opening up a potential path to appeal and overturn.

And as an example of application of the Security of Information Act, we can look to R. v. Delisle, whose offences relating to providing information was dealt with through Section 16(1) of that act, though most here (including me) would probably believe that the treason offence of the Criminal Code would have been more appropriate.

As it is apparent that Ms. Manning is not someone who will likely avoid the spotlight in the future (either by choice or circumstance), we can probably expect that this is not the last we'll hear on this latest wrinkle in her life.  And, (IMO) there is probably quite a bit for the lawyers to grab onto concerning this and make it last for some time to come.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2017, 16:03:10 by Blackadder1916 »
Whisky for the gentlemen that like it. And for the gentlemen that don't like it - Whisky.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 103,270
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,912
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
This is starting to smell like the Harvard situation.  I am not a fan Manning's insinuation on social media that opposition to her public persona is a smear on the LGBTQ community.  It's because she was disloyal and committed a serious felony.

Technically "He" was guilty, "she" seems to think she was only along for the ride

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 94,210
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,821
As they say, the devil is in the details (or the exacting wording in the case of law).  Should Ms (former Pvt) Manning appeal this finding (if she can) by a Border Services Officer (BSO?), she may have a case in overturning that specific determination of inadmissibility based on the specific item of Canadian law that the officer chose to use as the "equivalent" to the convictions that Manning received in the USA.

That article of the Criminal Code specifically deals with "communicating to an agent of a state other than Canada", thus that element of the offence must be present for it to be "treason".  Choosing that article and associating Manning's offence with treason seems (to me) to be (or have the potential to have been) a deliberate move on the part of the BSO to make a statement as to their opinion on Manning's action and to potentially remove any possibility of her entry to Canada.  With the exception of child sex crimes there is probably no crime that would stir greater disapprobation.  Or, it may have been a simple error on the part of the BSO.  However, in the facts of her case, Manning did not provide information or communicate with "an agent of an other state".  The US Army's prosecution of her did not prove so, nor did they contend it so.  If this article of the Criminal Code was not equivalent, then what should have been the item that justified inadmissibility to Canada?

Remember, (former) Pvt Manning was charged and convicted of multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  While the UCMJ is roughly equivalent to our Code of Service Discipline (CSD), there are (or so it seems to me) significant differences.  The attached PDF is the US Army's press release that itemized the charges and specifications and the determination (verdict) of each; it can also be found at this link.

In a nutshell, Manning was charged with:

I.  Violation of UCMJ, Article 104 NOT GUILTY  (Article 104 deals with "Aiding the enemy" and was the one charge that had a maximum penalty of death).

There was one specification to this charge.  It would have been roughly equivalent to some CSD offences in NDA 74 or 75
Though these CSD offences would have a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, it is moot for inadmissibility since she was found not guilty.

II.   Violation of UCMJ, Article 134 GUILTY  (Article 134 is the "General article") 

Article 134 seems to roughly equivalent to Sect 129 of the NDA, though since the UCMJ does not have a separate, specific article that address violations of other US laws this article also seems to be used as we would Sect 130

There were sixteen (16) specifications to this charge.  Three (3) of the specifications were stated as actions "prejudicial to good order and discipline" only and the other thirteen (13) referenced violations of other US codes as the basis for actions that were "prejudicial to good order . . .".  The other US codes referenced were:

18 US Sect. 793(e) (Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information) Seven of the specs referenced this, and she was found guilty on six of the specs and not guilty on one.

18 US Sect. 641 (EMBEZZLEMENT AND THEFT - Public money, property or records)  There were five specifications under Charge II that referenced this other US law and the value amount specified in each instance was in excess of $1000.  She was found guilty in all five of these specifications.

18 US Sect. 1030(a)(1) (Fraud and related activity in connection with computers)   There was one specification under Charge II that referenced this other US law and which was a guilty.

III. Violation of the UCMJ, Article 92 GUILTY (Article 92 deals with "Failure to obey order or regulation")  The rough equivalent in the CSD would be a mix of Sect 83 (Disobediance of a lawful command) and Sect 129 which specifically lists failing to follow regulations.  The three specifications to this charge all referenced Army Regulations as the violations.

If the Canadian Criminal Code offence of Treason is not an appropriate equivalent to the US convictions, what would be.  Should the BSO's report to the Minister have referenced NDA 129 that prescribes punishment as "dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty’s service or to less punishment" or NDA 130 which prescribes the punishment as that which would be the "minimum" (this section confused me re-read it and no longer confused) the punishment specified for the enactment that was violated with some dismissal with disgrace thrown in.

Without getting any deeper into the weeds about what Canadian law (criminal or otherwise) that might be the best equivalency, I'll look at the most prominent action of Manning, i.e. providing information that she wasn't supposed to.  In that case, my opinion is that the BSO should have referenced the Security of Information Act as the Canadian law (specifically Sect 4(1)) that, had Manning been subject to Canadian law when he committed these acts. would likely have been the offence that he would be charged with.  The punishment prescribed is that, unless otherwise stated (there are some offences lighter and some that go to life), "a person who commits an offence under this Act is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years".  That would have been sufficient to reach the same result of denying admission without opening up a potential path to appeal and overturn.

And as an example of application of the Security of Information Act, we can look to R. v. Delisle, whose offences relating to providing information was dealt with through Section 16(1) of that act, though most here (including me) would probably believe that the treason offence of the Criminal Code would have been more appropriate.

As it is apparent that Ms. Manning is not someone who will likely avoid the spotlight in the future (either by choice or circumstance), we can probably expect that this is not the last we'll hear on this latest wrinkle in her life.  And, (IMO) there is probably quite a bit for the lawyers to grab onto concerning this and make it last for some time to come.

Yes. Security of Information Act would have been my choice too, but since the penalty is the same (14 years max. in both cases and therefore, over ten years), the result would still be an exclusion.

If she was consulting me on a potential appeal, I would probably tell her: "You will likely succeed in having a reference to the treason article overturned, but you will then be found to have committed the infraction user the S.I.A. and the result would be the same. Since the Officer's error in choice of law is not dispositive of your right to enter Canada, your appeal will not succeed. Don't waste your time and money."

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 96,135
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,010
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • WordPress Page
Yes. Security of Information Act would have been my choice too, but since the penalty is the same (14 years max. in both cases and therefore, over ten years), the result would still be an exclusion.

If she was consulting me on a potential appeal, I would probably tell her: "You will likely succeed in having a reference to the treason article overturned, but you will then be found to have committed the infraction user the S.I.A. and the result would be the same. Since the Officer's error in choice of law is not dispositive of your right to enter Canada, your appeal will not succeed. Don't waste your time and money."

I think that you can also look to s 75(b) of the NDA which reads:

Quote
75 Every person who:

(b) without authority discloses in any manner whatever any information relating to the numbers, position, materiel, movements, preparations for movements, operations or preparations for operations of any of Her Majesty’s Forces or of any forces cooperating therewith,

which has a maximum punishment available upon conviction of life imprisonment.

While Charge II was cited under UCMJ 134 (a near equivalent to our NDA s129) the numerous specifications were described primarily as violations of 18 US Code 793(e):

Quote
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;

or 18 US Code 641:

Quote
Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or

Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; but if the value of such property in the aggregate, combining amounts from all the counts for which the defendant is convicted in a single case, does not exceed the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

The word “value” means face, par, or market value, or cost price, either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater.

which are primarily respecting unauthorized disclosure of information provisions. (Note as well that there were other convictions and also that the way that they use USMC 134 is more a combination of both NDA s 129 and s 130)

Be that as it may, there are more then sufficient equivalencies in our laws to be used which provide a greater than 10 year punishment so as to deny him entry here.

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" book series at:
https://wolfriedel.wordpress.com

Offline Retired AF Guy

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 29,250
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,399
You haven't met many folks from the Int branch, have you?

Whoa Nelly!! Them's fighting words!!
Years ago, fairy tales all began with, "Once upon a time." Now we know they all began with, "If I'm elected."

Carolyn Warner

Offline Shrek1985

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 6,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 311
Technically "He" was guilty, "she" seems to think she was only along for the ride

Why not? it worked for Bruce Jenner and his car crash.

Kids these days probably get the idea from the 80% sentencing disparity between men and women across the west for the same crimes.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 186,517
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,749
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451986/chelsea-manning-espionage-wikileaks-canada-border-officials-deny-entry-harvard-university?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=170929_Jolt&utm_term=Jolt

Chelsea Manning: Hero? No. Traitor? Yes

by Deroy Murdock September 28, 2017 5:58 PM

Canadian border officials were right to block the former soldier convicted of disclosing classified U.S. military and diplomatic documents.

Canada dared call it treason.

American’s northern neighbor slammed the door on Chelsea (née Bradley) Manning when she tried to drive into Quebec last week. Canadian authorities blocked Manning “on grounds of serious criminality,” according to official records, “that would equate to an indictable offense, namely treason.”

Canada’s red light mocked the laurels and hearty welcomes offered to Manning since she waltzed out of the United States Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth on May 17. Manning was feted like a conquering heroine in New York City’s gay-pride parade last June. This month’s Vogue magazine showcases Manning in a one-piece swimsuit, snapped by celebrity photographer Annie Leibovitz. Manning will be a headliner at October’s New Yorker Festival. And Harvard recently named Manning a visiting fellow.

“She speaks on the social, technological and economic ramifications of Artificial Intelligence,” Harvard breathlessly announced. “As a trans woman, she advocates for queer and transgender rights as @xychelsea on Twitter.” Tragicomically, Harvard described Manning as “a Washington D.C. based network security expert.”

These plaudits are outrageous, given why Manning landed behind bars: In July 2013, Bradley Manning was convicted of 20 of 22 charges filed against him, including six violations of the Espionage Act of 1917.

Manning received “the stiffest punishment ever handed out in the U.S. for leaking to the media,” the Associated Press reported, “for spilling an unprecedented trove of government secrets.” This included “more than 700,000 classified military and diplomatic documents, plus battlefield footage, to the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks. By volume alone, it was the biggest leak of classified material in U.S. history, bigger even than the Pentagon Papers a generation ago.”

Manning was acquitted of “aiding the enemy.” Nonetheless, presiding judge Colonel Denise Lind ruled that Manning had “reason to believe the information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” Further, Manning possessed “knowledge that intelligence published on the Internet was accessible to al Qaeda.” She added: “Manning’s conduct was of a heedless nature that made it actually and imminently dangerous to others. His conduct was both wanton and reckless.”

Despite these high crimes, Obama granted Manning clemency, thereby slashing her 35-year prison term to seven years already served. It’s inconceivable that Obama would have spared Manning 80 percent of her sentence were she still named Bradley.

All of this has given intelligence experts fits.

“Senior leaders in our military have stated publicly that the leaks by Ms. Manning put the lives of U.S. soldiers at risk,” said former CIA acting director Michael Morrell. He resigned from Harvard’s Belfer Center on September 14, refusing to associate with an institution “that honors a convicted felon and leaker of classified information.”

Chastened by the reaction to the emoluments that it presented to Manning, Harvard retreated.

“We are withdrawing the invitation to her to serve as a Visiting Fellow - and the perceived honor that it implies to some people,” Kennedy School of Government dean Douglas Elmendorf conceded the next day. “I apologize to her and to the many concerned people from whom I have heard today for not recognizing upfront the full implications of our original invitation.”

“As a Harvard graduate, I was especially offended by the honors bestowed on Chelsea Manning by the Kennedy School,” said Jefferson Adams, professor emeritus of history and international relations at Sarah Lawrence College. The author of Strategic Intelligence in the Cold War and Beyond continued: “When the dean started to backtrack and rescind the fellowship, he only compounded matters with his flimsy statements about diversity. It was radical chic in full display - and will not be forgotten soon.”

“Canada has done absolutely the right thing in refusing entry to Manning based on that individual’s previous conviction for espionage, and was correct in calling his/her actions ‘treason,’” Richard Valcourt, editor-in-chief of the International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence, tells me. “Manning is no hero, whistle-blower, or any variation thereof. Nor is Edward Snowden. Both belong in jail for having significantly endangered the security of the American people.”