wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 07:14:33 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 04:37:13 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message


and we had it red handed for over a dozen espionage charges while
in uniform. In any earlier time that should have been the firing
squad.

There were no espionage charges, that was a lie.

From Wikipedia
She was charged with several offenses in July, replaced by 22 charges
in March 2011, including violations of Articles 92 and 134 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and of the Espionage Act.

Just because someone claims something in wikipedia...

And I get it was just another example of the use of shotgun
charges with no evidence of any espionage at all.

Argue with them.

No thanks, I'm not talking to them.

There are other sources.

Then cite them.

https://www.wired.com/2010/07/manning-charges/

Again, that's just some journo. Show us the charge sheet.

according to the charge sheet, Manning downloaded a classified
video of a military operation in Iraq and transmitted it to a third
party, in violation of a section of the Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. 793(e),

Doesn't mean that doing that is actually espionage, stupid.

which involves passing classified information to
an uncleared party, but not a foreign government.

That's not espionage, whatever that stupid legislation claims, stupid.

The remaining criminal charges are for allegedly abusing
access to the Secret-level SIPR network to obtain more
than 150,000 U.S. State Department cables, as well as
an unspecified classified PowerPoint presentation.

Not espionage either.

What part of "Espionage Act" confuses you?

It no news that much of your stupid legislation has
nothing to do with the title of a particular act, stupid.

You can read for days if you like,m including the court
transcripts the indictments various court papers about
appeals or whatever your search engine turns up.

None of which shows that anything Manning did is actually espionage.