This piece from Fred Kaplan at Salon argues that PFC Manning ought not be charged with treason as Rep. Mike Rogers advocated (Politico coverage here).  The best part of the piece isn’t from Kaplan, but rather from the unflappable Eugene Fidell.  In context I give you the MilJus quote of the week:

If Pvt. Manning did what he is alleged to have done, he will more likely be tried in a military court for violating at least two articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice—Articles 92 . . . and 134 . . . The UCMJ’s Article 134 is a “general article” that covers a vast gamut of matters not specifically covered in other articles—”crimes and offenses not capital,” among others. (Eugene Fidell, a lecturer at Yale Law School, says it’s for this reason that 134 is known as “the fuck-you article.”)

10 Responses to “Manning Case Just Keeps On Giving [WARNING: Explicit Language]”

  1. Michael K says:

    I like that much better than “the catch-all article.” – time to adjust briefs accordingly.

  2. Ama Goste says:

    What’s the deal with the “correction” at the end?

  3. Mike "No Man" Navarre says:

    That is rather odd/stupid silly would actually be better.

  4. Gene Fidell says:

    Ama, the reporter garbled it in the original story, so at my request he very willingly arranged for a correction. Unfortunately, both the correction and the editors’ correction note are garbled. They should have distinguished between the Manual’s enumeration/explanation of “listed” Art 134 offenses and Art 134 itself. To us it’s simple; not so for laypersons.

  5. DC Steve says:

    I still think he should be charged with art 108, aiding the enemy. It fits (see below).

    Any person who without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or GIVES INTELLIGENCE to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly OR INDIRECTLY; shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.

    (emphasis added, obviously). There are some scientier issues with this charge, but I think it owuld work. If he gave information, knowing it would be published on the web, then he knew it would go to the enemy. (I don’t think it matters much that his motive was for it to go to the Western public, not the enemy).

  6. wager says:

    disagree. keep it as charged to avoid headaches. See Diaz.

  7. sin nombre says:

    That’s a big leap, DC Steve. At least you acknowledge the scienter problems. It would be much easier to show “reason to believe” it could be used to harm national security or advantage a foreign govt under 18 USC 793, via the “fuck-you article” (See Diaz). Now, you may equate Wikileaks with AQ or other enemies, but I don’t think that’s what 108 was intended for. Is it the death penalty you’re going for here?

  8. Christopher Mathews says:

    Funny, Gene, I never heard Article 134 called that before … and yet I doubt I’ll ever be able to think of it as anything else in the future.

  9. Butthead says:

    huh huh huh . . . DC Steve said “intercourse”

  10. Beavis says:

    Funniest post I’ve read in a long time! Thanks!