 "US judge refuses to drop key charge against Manning")
A US military judge has refused to dismiss a key charge that an American soldier "aided the enemy" by giving a trove of secret documents to WikiLeaks.
The decision yesterday, marked another setback for Bradley Manning, 25, the Army private on trial for espionage who has admitted to passing hundreds of thousands of classified military and diplomatic files to WikiLeaks.
Manning's defence lawyers had filed motions seeking the dismissal of the aiding the enemy count as well as a charge of computer fraud. But the judge, Colonel Denise Lind, said prosecutors had offered enough evidence to allow the trial to go ahead with the charges intact, pending a final verdict.
The ruling also carries possible repercussions for the rights of government employees seeking legal "whistleblower" protections when they disclose classified or sensitive information.
Defence lawyer David Coombs had contended prosecutors failed to show that Manning had "actual knowledge" that by passing a trove of classified documents to the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks he would be assisting al-Qaeda, either directly or indirectly.
Lind, however, said the government had provided "some evidence" that Manning's training as an intelligence analyst "included a lesson on the terrorist use of the internet" and that "he was aware the enemy was engaged in similar activities."
Explaining her decision under court-martial rules, Lind said in weighing a defence request to dismiss a charge, "evidence should be viewed in light most favourable to the prosecution."
Although her decision does not prejudge Manning's innocence or guilt on the charge, it raised concerns among some legal experts and rights advocates.
"It's pretty disconcerting from a First Amendment perspective," said Mary-Rose Papandrea, a Boston College Law School professor.
"The government is equating all leakers with traitors and they're not," said Papandrea, adding that whistleblowers seek to shed light on wrongdoing while "traitors" seek to funnel secrets to adversaries.
At an earlier session, the judge asked if the government would have pressed charges if Manning had leaked the documents to a newspaper instead of WikiLeaks. The prosecutors said they would have still pursued the case.
The decision yesterday, marked another setback for Bradley Manning, 25, the Army private on trial for espionage who has admitted to passing hundreds of thousands of classified military and diplomatic files to WikiLeaks.
Manning's defence lawyers had filed motions seeking the dismissal of the aiding the enemy count as well as a charge of computer fraud. But the judge, Colonel Denise Lind, said prosecutors had offered enough evidence to allow the trial to go ahead with the charges intact, pending a final verdict.
More From This Section
Manning maintains his massive leak -- the biggest in American history -- was meant to trigger a public debate about US foreign policy but he faces a potential life sentence if he is found guilty of deliberately "aiding the enemy."
The ruling also carries possible repercussions for the rights of government employees seeking legal "whistleblower" protections when they disclose classified or sensitive information.
Defence lawyer David Coombs had contended prosecutors failed to show that Manning had "actual knowledge" that by passing a trove of classified documents to the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks he would be assisting al-Qaeda, either directly or indirectly.
Lind, however, said the government had provided "some evidence" that Manning's training as an intelligence analyst "included a lesson on the terrorist use of the internet" and that "he was aware the enemy was engaged in similar activities."
Explaining her decision under court-martial rules, Lind said in weighing a defence request to dismiss a charge, "evidence should be viewed in light most favourable to the prosecution."
Although her decision does not prejudge Manning's innocence or guilt on the charge, it raised concerns among some legal experts and rights advocates.
"It's pretty disconcerting from a First Amendment perspective," said Mary-Rose Papandrea, a Boston College Law School professor.
"The government is equating all leakers with traitors and they're not," said Papandrea, adding that whistleblowers seek to shed light on wrongdoing while "traitors" seek to funnel secrets to adversaries.
At an earlier session, the judge asked if the government would have pressed charges if Manning had leaked the documents to a newspaper instead of WikiLeaks. The prosecutors said they would have still pursued the case.