Bradley Manning moves step closer to full court martial

[msanthrope]

32. Well, I think Manning left a trail of Assange requests for information. And he can testify to the

requests from Assange, which go far past the 'accepting information' defense that Julian might offer....

I wondered why Assange's lawyers wanted 'full access' to the closed-door sessions of the court-martial. After all, it wasn't because of 'classified documents' that Wikileaks had already published....no, the prosecution was using the 'classified' documents in open court...

"The prosecution flashed three chat logs onscreen that purportedly show correspondence between Manning and Assange discussing uploading so-called JTF-GITMO documents — classified assessment reports about Guantanamo Bay detainees. The chats also refer to two U.S. State Department cables about Reykjavik, Iceland, as well as a request from Manning to help him crack a password so that he could log onto his work SIPRnet computer anonymously."

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/category/bradley-manning/

The closed door sessions were about testimony and evidence received from the Grand Jury in Arlington. Which the military authorities can consider. And Assange has no legal access to that testimony.

****************

I found something very interesting---before release of the 'Collateral Murder' video, Manning ran a search for the term 'Birgitta Jonsdottir' in the SIPRnet database. See the reference to the 2 cables from Iceland above.

Did he pull this term out of the air? No..he was told to search for it. And see this curious testimonial exchange--

"The government asked if Madaras had ever used their computers to search for some of the same terms, as well as the term “JTF GITMO” or the name “Birgitta Jonsdottir,” or if he had ever used the Net Centric Diplomacy Database. Madaras replied “no” in each case.

The implication of the questioning seemed to be that the government had found forensic evidence that Manning’s workstation computers had been used to search these terms, though there was no testimony that stated this directly."

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/manning-apache-video/

So, someone chatted with Assange, (BM) and then, after chatting with Assange, ran specific queries into the SPIRnet system and forwarded relevant cables.

And then someone tweeted about it. (remember the twitter data case?)

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/12/06/wikileaks-associates-seek-injunction-on-twitter-data/

Looks like twitter is handing over the data....

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/twitter-wikileaks-court-order

Lots of onion layers.