You have commented 30 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Photo
Home Front: WoT
Manning denied chance to make whistleblower defence
2013-01-21
Bradley Manning, the US soldier accused of being behind the largest leak of state secrets in America's history, has been denied the chance to make a whistleblower defence in his upcoming court martial in which he faces possible life in military custody with no chance of parole.
He just keeps digging deeper and deeper...
The judge presiding over Manning's prosecution by the US government for allegedly transmitting confidential material to WikiLeaks ruled in a pre-trial hearing that Manning will largely be barred from presenting evidence about his motives in leaking the documents and videos. In an earlier hearing, Manning's lead defence lawyer, David Coombs, had argued that his motive was key to proving that he had no intention to harm US interests or to pass information to the enemy.
Of course not. He just wanted classified information out in the public realm for people to see. Our enemies would never think of checking Wikileaks...
The judge, Colonel Denise Lind, ruled that general issues of motive were not relevant to the trial stage of the court martial, and must be held back until Manning either entered a plea or was found guilty, at which point it could be used in mitigation to lessen the sentence. The ruling is a blow to the defence as it will make it harder for the soldier's legal team to argue he was acting as a whistleblower and not as someone who knowingly damaged US interests at a time of war.

"This is another effort to attack the whistleblower defence," said Nathan Fuller, a spokesman for the Bradley Manning support network, after the hearing.

The judge also blocked the defence from presenting evidence designed to show that WikiLeaks caused little or no damage to US national security.
That's also a judgment for a forum other than the trial.
Coombs has devoted considerable time and energy trying to extract from US government agencies their official assessments of the impact of WikiLeaks around the world, only to find that he is now prevented from using any of the information he has obtained.
Sure hope you're being paid by the hour and not by the score...
The 25-year-old intelligence analyst faces 22 charges relating to the leaking of hundreds of thousands of classified diplomatic cables, war logs from the Afghan and Iraq wars, and videos of US military actions. The most serious charge, "aiding the enemy", which carries the life sentence, accuses him of arranging for state secrets to be published via WikiLeaks on the internet knowing that al-Qaida would have access to it.

The US government is expected at trial to present evidence that allegedly shows that Osama bin Laden personally requested to see some of the WikiLeaks publications attributed to Manning and that documents were found on his computer following the US navy Seals raid that killed him.
That rather guts the argument, if it ever is admitted to trial, that the information didn't help our enemies.
In a limited victory for the defence, Coombs and the defence team will be allowed to talk about the soldier's motives on two narrow counts: where it can be used to show that he did not know that his leaks would be seen by al-Qaida; and as evidence that he consciously selected certain documents or types of documents in order to ensure they would not harm the US or benefit any foreign nation.
Sure. Out of over 750,000 documents Manning personally curated and reviewed to ensure that releasing them wouldn't harm the country. Go for it, counselor...
Lind's ruling means that some of the most impassioned statements by Manning about why he embarked on the massive transfer of information to WikiLeaks will now not be heard at trial. In the course of a now famous web chat he had with the hacker-turned-informer Adrian Lamo, Manning wrote : "information should be free / it belongs in the public domain / because another state would just take advantage of the information ... try and get some edge / if its out in the open ... it should be a public good."
Posted by:Steve White

#2  This is another effort to attack the whistleblower defense.

Yeah right. You might get some mileage out of the whistleblower thing with the gullible hoard. Maybe they’ll even chip in for your bill. But you might want to play it safe and stick with the ‘Failure of superiors to recognize a threat’ defense. You know, play up the Bradley’s gender confusion and his irrational impatience. Good luck…traitors.
Posted by: DepotGuy   2013-01-21 20:27  

#1  Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Willful stupidity doesn't fly, either. The best they can hope for would be to sow the seeds of doubt and hope to tip the scales in favor of some kind of deal.
Posted by: gorb   2013-01-21 11:38  

00:00