Judges Doubt Need for Secrecy in Bradley Manning Court-Martial

[AntiFascist]

Source: Courthouse News Service

WASHINGTON (CN) - A military appeals court blasted the government Wednesday for guarding records on the court-martial of Pfc. Bradley Manning more closely than it guards terror cases.

Manning's alleged disclosure of diplomatic and warfare secrets to WikiLeaks led to criminal charges that carry a potential life sentence for the young soldier.

The Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces, or CAAF, looked Wednesday at whether the government has violated the First and Sixth Amendment safeguards for a free press and a public trial by choking off access to filings and transcripts related to Manning's court-martial.

...

If the journalists vault procedural hurdles, the judges seem inclined to open court-martial access.

Read more: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/10/10/51150.htm

---

Much more detailed info at the link!

[SamKnause]

1. Bradley

Bradley we haven't forgotten you !!!

You have the support of millions upon millions around the world.

Stay safe, stay strong.

My wish is that one day very soon you will be a free man.

You are a true hero !!!!!

Sending good thoughts your way.

There is rarely a day that passes that I do not think of you and the horrible injustice that is being perpetrated against you.

[randome]

2. Not to put too fine a point on it but...

...I think Manning would prefer to die a 'free woman', given his gender identity issues. Whether jailed or not, I hope he gets the help he needs.

[AntiFascist]

3. The help he has been receiving...

involves a 'suicide watch' where he is stripped naked in solitary confinement with a guard posted 24 hours. Your concern is duly noted.

[randome]

9. And you think I approve of that, don't you?

Your concern for my concern is...silly.

[msanthrope]

4. The procedural hurdles? You mean like the one where the court in question has no jurisdiction?

Center for Constitutional Rights attorney Shayana Kadidal had barely started his opening arguments about the public's hunger for more information on the case when one of the judges interrupted him.

"Counsel, how do we have the jurisdiction over this matter?" Judge Margaret Ryan asked.

Kadidal appeared unprepared to answer, noting that the matter had not been disputed.

"It certainly wasn't challenged by the government," he replied.

That's the kind of question one must have an answer to, at the ready. You don't have jurisdiction, the case goes no where.

[AntiFascist]

6. Most of the judges are clearly siding with the journalists...

The panel peppered the government lawyer, Capt. Chad Fisher, about why the executive branch forced the case to go to court rather than devise a system for public access.

"Instead of making a constitutional case about this, why not just make it available?" Judge Ryan asked, adding that the government chose litigation over "simple and reasonable" solutions.

The question of jurisdiction is one that is being worked on, but it seems that the Obama Administration has final say over release of these documents, and clearly they can be affected by politics. Too bad the AP reporting chose to leave out significant details of this story.

[msanthrope]

7. Doesn't matter. If there's no jurisdiction, there's nothing the judges can do for them. I'd love

to have more information, but I have to take that argument to a court authorized to hear my case.

That's the threshhold--if you can't prove justiciability, it doesn't matter what the justices think.

Based on this article, I think you are looking at this court booting it on the political question. I still haven't read a reasonable argument as to how Article 1, Section 8 is overriden by the 1st amendment in this case.

[AntiFascist]

8. We'll see how it plays out...

the reporter may disagree with your assessment, if you notice the paragraph I put in bold:

If the journalists vault procedural hurdles, the judges seem inclined to open court-martial access.

Why shouldn't the CAAF have jurisdiction over court-martial records?

What other court would have jurisdiction besides the Supreme Court?

[msanthrope]

11. Well, the reporter isn't a lawyer. I am. And frankly, he's not a very good reporter

if he thinks that justiciability is a mere 'procedural hurdle.'

To answer your questions--Article 1, Section 8 is the authority under which the Armed Forces are convened. What would give either CAAF or SCOTUS authority over this process?

[AntiFascist]

12. If you are a lawyer, then can you answer my other question?

Who should have jurisdiction over a court-martial case if only the Supreme Court, then?

[msanthrope]

13. I answered you above. But I'll answer again---

This isn't a court-martial case. This is a case about access to a court-martial, which is controlled by the authority granted to Congress under Article 1, Section 8.

[AntiFascist]

14. So you're saying thay have to have some sort of Congressional Hearing?

According to the article:

Baker ordered the parties to submit written arguments about whether the court has jurisdiction to grant this type of relief.

It sounds like even the judges aren't sure whether they should have jurisdiction and once they see formal arguments in favor of jurisdiction, then they will decide.

[msanthrope]

15. No--not a congressional hearing. They've been asked to brief on

justiciability, which means that's the argument the court will boot this on.

The justices know they don't have jurisdiction--but they aren't going to do the government's work for them.

I hope the press don't ask for a stay of proceedings.

[AntiFascist]

16. Both you and the Associated Press...

seem to want to color this story as the judges being eager to boot the case.

The story reported by the Courthouse News seems to indicate the judges eagerness to work wth the reporters as much as possible:

Judge William Cox wondered whether the solution called for a court-martial analog to the federal court database, Pacer.

Chief Judge James Baker added that this would raise issues of cost and implementation.

Kadilal proposed several possibilities, such as paying stenographers for the cost of copies, transmitting audio of the proceedings online or having the parties release redacted documents on the court's website.

The CAAF, unlike the courts-martial it reviews, makes documents and audiotapes available over the Internet , Kadilal noted.

[msanthrope]

17. I suspect that the AP reporter is, as I am, a bit more used to appellate

argument.

Just because the justices use up their time, it doesn't tell us what will happen.

That they asked to brief on an issue is indicative of its importance.

[AntiFascist]

18. The title of the Courthouse News article gets right to the point...

though, doesn't it? Judges Doubt Need for Secrecy in Bradley Manning Court-Martial

unlike the AP article title: "Media Seeks Court-Martial Files In Bradley Manning Case" with no indication in the article itself that the panel of judges even doubt the need for secrecy in the slightest:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/media-bradley-manning-court-martial_n_1954972.html

[msanthrope]

19. But that doesn't matter. Each judge can agree that there's no need for secrecy, and

each judge can speculate on changes....BUT, if the justiciability threshold isn't crossed, then it doesn't matter. It's booted.

[randome]

5. How is this 'blasted the government'? They asked a question. Nobody answered.

[msanthrope]

10. The author of this article really likes using that word in his articles. A google search of his

name and the word 'blasted' shows that Mr. Klasfeld needs a thesaurus.