> I used to agree with this but honestly, the second Manning contacted him, he was complicit with the crime being committed
Are you sure this is true? You don't have a duty to report anything just because you become knowledgeable of it. Mere knowledge doesn't make you complicit.
I don't know specifically in Manning's case, but yes, in general in the US, knowledge that a crime is about to be, is being, or has been committed can make you an accomplice and expose you to criminal liability.
In not all cases will knowledge alone necessarily be enough to convict you, but that doesn't mean a prosecutor might not try. An ex-con should probably not take the chance that a prosecutor will ignore prior knowledge of a criminal act.
Edit: I shouldn't say "knowledge alone." I should rather say that knowledge alone plus a zealous prosecutor. And then throw in prior conviction... Just a risky proposition. Knowledge alone with no other factors to tempt a prosecutor will probably not put you at any greater risk.
Lamo talked to Manning under the guise of being a journalist. Here's what Glenn Greenwald wrote in 2011, after WIRED published the full logs between Lamo and Manning (it must be pointed out that Greenwald was one of the loudest critics of WIRED and its editors, but I use this link since it quotes from the logs):
> MANNING: uhm, trying to keep a low profile for now though, just a warning
> LAMO: I'm a journalist and a minister. You can pick either, and treat this as a confession or an interview (never to be published) & enjoy a modicum of legal protection.
Lamo didn't stumble upon evidence of a crime. He got it by claiming to be a journalist. And as a journalist, he would've had plenty of leeway in not revealing a source, even a source that admits to a crime.
Yes, this is it exactly. Keeping sources confidential is the norm for reporters in the US. Some have spent time in prison for refusing to reveal sources. Judith Miller, for example.
> I don't know specifically in Manning's case, but yes, in general in the US, knowledge that a crime is about to be, is being, or has been committed can make you an accomplice and expose you to criminal liability.
This is incorrect. Being an accomplice generally requires active counsel or assistance to a crime before it happens (the usual “accomplice before the fact”, or “aiding and abetting”) or active concealment (which goes by a number of terms, including “accomplice after the fact”.).
There are a few special cases where particular people have special duties to report specific crimes, but that is not the norm in general.
What's incorrect? Having knowledge of an actual crime can make you an accomplice.
I said generally. You said generally. I made edits before you quoted that to clarify that knowledge alone isn't likely going to make you a target of prosecution in the majority of cases. Maybe not even in 1 in a million cases.
I've had clients be targeted for prosecution on weak facts plenty of times.
If I were a lawyer for the ex-con, and he came to ask me whether to contact the FBI given the facts that seem to be stipulated, I certainly would not recommend not contacting the FBI.
Who does and does not have a duty to report is not really relevant in a whole lot of real world cases, unless you think that no ex-con has ever been railroaded on flimsy or fabricated charges.
I've had clients plead guilty when they probably could have fought it just because they can't risk doing long-term jail time, and I'm not even a dedicated criminal defense lawyer.
I've heard about, and read about, much worse. Surely, you have as well.
Edit: Just for example, say Lamo doesn't contact the FBI, and after Manning is prosecuted, they come after Lamo claiming that he advised Manning on how not to get caught, given Lamo's previous experience. Does Lamo beat the charges or go to prison? The system is not rigged in favor of ex-cons. Given the risk, I'd contact the FBI, too.
> Private Manning said he first called The Washington Post and spoke to an unidentified reporter for about five minutes. He decided that the reporter did not seem particularly interested because she said The Post would have to review the material before making any commitment.
> He said he then tried to reach out to The New York Times by calling a phone number for the newspaper’s public editor — an ombudsman who is not part of the newsroom — and leaving a voice mail message that was not returned.
Are you sure this is true? You don't have a duty to report anything just because you become knowledgeable of it. Mere knowledge doesn't make you complicit.