Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

AntiFascist

(13,756 posts) Wed Oct 10, 2012, 04:12 PM Oct 2012

Judges Doubt Need for Secrecy in Bradley Manning Court-Martial [View all]

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!

19 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Judges Doubt Need for Secrecy in Bradley Manning Court-Martial [View all] AntiFascist Oct 2012 OP

Bradley SamKnause Oct 2012 #1

Not to put too fine a point on it but... randome Oct 2012 #2

The help he has been receiving... AntiFascist Oct 2012 #3

And you think I approve of that, don't you? randome Oct 2012 #9

The procedural hurdles? You mean like the one where the court in question has no jurisdiction? msanthrope Oct 2012 #4

Most of the judges are clearly siding with the journalists... AntiFascist Oct 2012 #6

Doesn't matter. If there's no jurisdiction, there's nothing the judges can do for them. I'd love msanthrope Oct 2012 #7

We'll see how it plays out... AntiFascist Oct 2012 #8

Well, the reporter isn't a lawyer. I am. And frankly, he's not a very good reporter msanthrope Oct 2012 #11

If you are a lawyer, then can you answer my other question? AntiFascist Oct 2012 #12

I answered you above. But I'll answer again--- msanthrope Oct 2012 #13

So you're saying thay have to have some sort of Congressional Hearing? AntiFascist Oct 2012 #14

No--not a congressional hearing. They've been asked to brief on msanthrope Oct 2012 #15

Both you and the Associated Press... AntiFascist Oct 2012 #16

I suspect that the AP reporter is, as I am, a bit more used to appellate msanthrope Oct 2012 #17

The title of the Courthouse News article gets right to the point... AntiFascist Oct 2012 #18

But that doesn't matter. Each judge can agree that there's no need for secrecy, and msanthrope Oct 2012 #19

How is this 'blasted the government'? They asked a question. Nobody answered. randome Oct 2012 #5

The author of this article really likes using that word in his articles. A google search of his msanthrope Oct 2012 #10