LaurenM1

Well, my entire history with Manning has already become completely out in the open over the past couple of years since he was arrested and charged. And Adrian Lamo, who I believe is also expected to testify, has been writing entire columns about the case. I was never advised against it, and I've been speaking with the media for some time already without issue.

It's really difficult to know this for certain. The full versions of his published chats with Adrian Lamo seem to indicate that, at least at that time, he identified as a woman, felt he had gender dysphoria, and wanted to transition and had even set up online accounts under female names. At the same time, Rainey Reitman of the EFF, who works with the Bradley Manning Support Network, has reported that everything they're aware of indicates that he prefers to go by Bradley and male pronouns. When I asked the prosecution and defense about this, they also said he identifies as male. Obviously none of this is conclusive - trans people already have plenty of reasons not to come out, let alone in a circumstance like this - but that's just what I know.

If it came to that point, I imagine things would have gone significantly off the rails already.

If he did leak the documents he's accused of leaking (US diplomatic cables, the Iraq War Logs, the Afghan War Logs, and so on), then I imagine those charges would stand or fall on the facts of the matter (I am not a lawyer - I may be entirely clueless about these things, so take it all with a grain of salt). But the charge of aiding the enemy seems like it would be much more nebulous. I don't think Manning had any intention of assisting "the enemy" in his actions. When I spoke with him, he seemed like someone who was concerned for the welfare and safety of US troops as well as foreign civilians in war zones. However misguided or ill-considered his actions were, I really don't think he was trying to "aid the enemy", but I'm not entirely clear on what standard of proof the government would have to meet to succeed in convicting him of that.

I believe he was aware that what he was doing violated numerous laws and regulations - I mean, how could he not be? I don't know the details on what standard of proof is required for him to be convicted on the charge of aiding the enemy. If any experienced lawyers or servicemembers can chime in on that, I'd appreciate it.