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)

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

Reply to msanthrope (Reply #4)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 04:47 PM

Oct 2012

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

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