Bradley Manning pre-trial hearing opens amid tight security

[Seedersandleechers]

Bradley Manning has been seen in public for the first time since he was arrested in Iraq in May 2010 for allegedly leaking hundreds of thousands of secret US state documents to WikiLeaks.

Security was exceptionally – some say bizarrely – tight at the opening on Friday of Manning's pre-trial hearing at Fort Meade in Maryland. Though a small number of seats in the military courtroom were reserved for members of the public, rigid reporting restrictions remained in place that prevent any live coverage of the proceedings.

The full charge sheet against Manning was released for the first time. It includes a total of 23 counts against the soldier, the most serious of which is that Manning knowingly gave "intelligence to the enemy, though indirect means".

The idea that WikiLeaks constituted an "enemy", or a conduit to an enemy of the US state, will in itself be subject of much debate and legal argument. A second charge follows a similar theme, and accuses of Manning of causing information to be published "having knowledge that intelligence published on the internet is accessible to the enemy"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/16/bradley-manning-military-hearing-wikileaks

[dipsydoodle]

1. Updates on this link

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/dec/16/bradley-manning-hearing-live-updates

[EFerrari]

2. Great updates! Thank you for the link.

So, David Leigh smears Manning's lawyer by calling one of his arguments a conspiracy theory (mistreat Manning in hopes of getting Assange).

Coombs has asked investigator Almanza to recuse himself for ties to the DoJ.

DoD has embedded the press as much as possible, has cut them off from the net while in the hearing.

Reporters to keep track of:

Camille Elhassani @celhassani (AJ)

The Guardian US @Edpilkington (Guardian)

Arun Rath @ArunRath PBS

Philip Crowther @PhilipinDC France 24

For The Guardian At Forte Meade: Ed Pilkington @EdPilkington and Matt Williams @MattyWills
At the Guardian in New York: Matt Wells @MatthewWells

[struggle4progress]

3. Manning's lawyer asks investigator to step down

By Joe Gould, Army Times

FORT MEADE, Md. – A lawyer for accused WikiLeaker Bradley Manning has filed a motion asking that the investigating officer in the case recuse himself because of bias.

The civilian lawyer for the private first class, David E. Coombs, alleged the investigating officer, Reserve Lt. Col. Paul Almanza, was biased because he holds a civilian job as a prosecutor for the Department of Justice and because he denied several of the defense's motions ...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/story/2011-12-16/bradley-manning-wikileaks-hearing/52010568/1?csp=34news

[struggle4progress]

4. Manning Hearing Halted as Investigator Considers Recusal Request

... Colonel Paul Almanza said he did not believe he was biased because he does not currently supervise criminal cases in his job at the Justice Department and his work involves child abuse and obscenity, not national security. But he noted that military rules require him to recuse himself if a “reasonable person” might perceive bias, and he broke off the hearing at midday to consider the matter, with a decision possible Friday afternoon ...

If Colonel Almanza declines to recuse himself, Mr. Coombs said he would seek a stay of the hearing while the recusal question is appealed to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals. If the case proceeds to court-martial, the military judge appointed to oversee the trial could consider the defense claim of bias and send the case back for a new hearing ...

“This is one of the most interesting military cases of the last 20 years,” said Eugene R. Fidell, who teaches military justice at Yale. Mr. Fidell said the case comes at the intersection of advancing technology, making it possible to lay bare a truckload of secrets on the Web with the click of a mouse, and the culture of the Facebook era in which nothing stays secret for long ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/17/us/bradley-manning-accused-of-aiding-wikileaks-will-appear-in-military-court.html?_r=1

[bottom line]

5. Hero

Bradley Manning is a Hero for All Time.
He should be granted whistleblower status for exposing an army run amok. A security system, so easily broken.
That he didn't report to higher lamedastical (which I thought was a word, after googling the best I could come up with is lame dastardly or lame Das Kapital...) (I humor myself ALOT) (maybe I read it in a comic book. Yes, that makes sense) authorities...
So mumstream, under the rug, etc., Bad Bad, for exposing US, i.e. Le Bosses. i.e How many words would fit in this blank ____ 4 letters, or 5, 6, (Oh, Goodness!) It could take up the entire alphabet & in other languages. (I humor myself ALOT)
My Heart & Soul goes out to him... Peace Brother, if our loving energy can comfort you in any way, you never know... There is always HOPE.
Spell check.

[hack89]

6. He should be in jail for the rest of his life. nt

[bottom line]

7. ?

I truly don't know what the nt (if they change from in original post) stands for.
Did you forget the Y as in York?

[hack89]

8. No Text - I wrote nothing in the message text box. nt

[bottom line]

10. Thanks

learn something every day

[Little Tich]

14. Yes, he's a hero.

Bradley Manning revealed lies, not military secrets. This has not damaged the US military. On the contrary, it has forced them to behave better. It's sad that they are trying to kill the messenger revealing the truth.

[struggle4progress]

9. At Manning Hearing, Investigator Refuses Recusal

By SCOTT SHANE
Published: December 16, 2011

FORT MEADE, Md. — A defense lawyer for Bradley Manning, the Army private accused in the most famous leak of government secrets since the Pentagon Papers, began a frontal attack during Private Manning’s first court appearance here on Friday morning, claiming that the Army’s investigating officer at the evidentiary hearing was biased and should recuse himself from the case.

The lawyer, David Coombs, said that Lt. Col. Paul Almanza, the investigating officer who works as a Justice Department prosecutor in civilian life, was preventing the defense from calling witnesses to show that little harm was done by the disclosure of hundreds of thousands of confidential documents provided to WikiLeaks, the antisecrecy organization.

“All this stuff has been leaked,” Mr. Coombs said. “A year and a half later, where’s the danger? Where’s the harm?”

Colonel Almanza said he did not believe that he was biased, because he does not currently supervise criminal cases in his job at the Justice Department and his work involves child abuse and obscenity, not national security. After a 90-minute break to consider the question, he declined to recuse himself, saying he believed that a “reasonable person” would consider him impartial ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/17/us/bradley-manning-accused-of-aiding-wikileaks-will-appear-in-military-court.html?_r=1

[EFerrari]

11. No reasonable person could look at the DoJ vendetta against Wikileaks and at

Brad Manning's pretrial treatment and believe someone IN the DoJ is unbiased. That's just patently ridiculous.

[cstanleytech]

12. Maybe but maybe not, the question really is simply if he gave

information classified as secret and if he did then he is guilty, it doesnt matter if the info was where secret bases are or how to fix a toilet but if it was classified and if he revealed then he is guilty.

[EFerrari]

13. No, the question is about the venue he is being tried in.

He can be guilty as hell and still deserve a fair trial. That is our standard.

[cstanleytech]

15. Since he is or was part of the military he will be tried before whatever

passes in the military as a judge and a jury or is there some other venue you are implying he might be tried before?

[EFerrari]

16. This issue is or was if the investigator assigned is biased and should recuse himself.

The man took a recess to pretend to consider the question but of course, he didn't recuse himself. He likely got this case because of his connection to the DoJ, not despite it.

[cstanleytech]

17. Interesting but how does any bias if it exists on the part

of the prosecutor really matter? If it was say the judge I would understand but the prosecutors job is to prosecute the case and not to be the judge to decide if the accused is innocent or guilty nor to defend the accused.

[EFerrari]

18. I am talking about the individual who is adjudicating the hearing.

The terms are different in the military so he's not called a judge but an investigator, iirc.

ETA, from the article:

"Under the military system, the proceedings will be led by an army official known as an investigating officer, whose duty will be to recommend at the end of the hearing whether Manning should move on to a general court-martial or face a lesser punishment."

[cstanleytech]

19. Ah ok, thanks for clearing it up.

[hack89]

20. Manning's problem is that motive is irrelevant to his charges

all they have to do is prove he illegally copied the files and he is toast.