Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Let there be snark.

Incompetence, fear, or corruption? why not all three?

The arc of history bends toward the same old fuckery.

Everybody saw this coming.

And we’re all out of bubblegum.

Putin dreamed of ending NATO, and now it’s Finnish-ed.

Motto for the House: Flip 5 and lose none.

Putting aside our relentless self-interest because the moral imperative is crystal clear.

Prediction: the GOP will rethink its strategy of boycotting future committees.

I’ve spoken to my cat about this, but it doesn’t seem to do any good.

We cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation.

Historically it was a little unusual for the president to be an incoherent babbling moron.

Red lights blinking on democracy’s dashboard

“Jesus paying for the sins of everyone is an insult to those who paid for their own sins.”

We are builders in a constant struggle with destroyers. let’s win this.

Give the craziest people you know everything they want and hope they don’t ask for more? Great plan.

A thin legal pretext to veneer over their personal religious and political desires

Innocent people don’t delay justice.

Not so fun when the rabbit gets the gun, is it?

If you are still in the GOP, you are an extremist.

I like you, you’re my kind of trouble.

Whatever happens next week, the fight doesn’t end.

Republicans: slavery is when you own me. freedom is when I own you.

The words do not have to be perfect.

You are here: Home / Foreign Affairs / Military / Chelsea Manning / Manning Update

Manning Update

by | 253 Comments

This post is in: ,

PFC Bradley Manning’s Article 32, UCMJ hearing is currently ongoing at Fort Meade, MD.
Unlike a civilian Grand Jury proceeding, to which the Article 32 process is consistently compared,  in an Art. 32 hearing, the Defense gets to put on witnesses, introduce evidence, and to cross-examine Prosecution witnesses.  Many military defense attorneys consider the Article 32 hearing to be a freebie in that they get to see the Trial Counsel’s hand, and they are under no obligation to do anything at this point.  Others see it as a mini-trial, at which to take a stab at reducing the number of charges against the accused, and possibly preventing referral altogether.  Mr (LTC, AR) David Coombs, MAJ Matthew Kemkes, appear to be taking the second course of action, including petitioning the Army Court of Criminal Appeals to remove the Art. 32 Investigating Officer, LTC Paul Almanza from the case.  The ACCA summarily dismissed the petition on Friday.

The most reliable source I’ve found has been the Army Times.  Army Times is an independent paper owned by Gannett.  In addition to their own staff writers, they have included coverage from the Associated Press, have used Reuters for other things in the past, and so might use them here as well.  The Manning coverage in Army Times has all been in front of the paywall.   NBC/MSNBC ran a story by Jim Miklaszewski yesterday in which they stated that Manning was charged with Treason and was facing the death penalty.  Neither of these statements are true.

On a side note, any time the word ‘wikileaks’ appears in the URL, it’s blocked on a government computer.  I understand the reason for this–if there is any classified information that the user were to open, then he has introduced classified onto an unclassified platform, and how do you prove, 100% absolutely reliably that it came from outside and is not the result of an actual “spill”?  You can’t.  I understand that.  I just think that the implementation was clumsy.

I’m at work and getting ready to go to a soul-sucking staff meeting, to say nothing of actually being at work, so I won’t be taking the usual level of activity in this thread that I try to take until later.

 

Reader Interactions

253Comments

  1. 1.

    Odie Hugh Manatee

    I heard on the radio this weekend that his attorney intends to use as one defense that Manning did what he did because of his gender identity problems.

    IMO that’s weak. Really weak, and I doubt that it will get much traction except among his supporters.

  3. 3.

    Benjamin Franklin

    I guess this is the military version of a preliminary hearing. I don’t think Manning is contending the physical evidence, just that embarassing the US amounts to ‘harm’. So I don’t know why the prosecutor is going to such lengths as to show that Manning had access, but I am not a lawyer.

  4. 4.

    Amanda in the South Bay

    @Odie Hugh Manatee:
    Maybe its because I did come out to the Army as trans and got discharged (honorably!!) for it, this aspect of the Manning saga hits a little too close to home for me, and I’ve mostly avoided following it.

    Here’s hoping this thread doesn’t disintegrate…

  6. 6.

    Sizequeen

    Holy Fucking Shit. Does Matt Yglesias actually get paid writing this shit?

    It may seem obvious that the disproportionate political influence of the top one percent of the income distribution comes from their ability to bribe politicians with campaign contributions, but it’s worth noting that the economic elite are considerably more politically engaged in a fairly comprehensive way:

    For example, 41 percent of the very wealthy reported attending a political meeting. Only 9 percent of Americans did so in 2008. And 68 percent of the very wealthy reported giving money to a political candidate, party, or cause in the last four years. In 2008–a year in which “small donors” were numerous–only 13 percent of Americans donated to a political candidate or party. Again, there are small differences in the wording of the questions between the two surveys, but they are not likely responsible for the 55-point gap.

    Now needless to say, if I donate $50 and you donate $2,000 then your money is going to talk louder than mine. But in practical terms, the gap between $2,000 and $50 is probably much smaller than the gap between $50 and $0. The meeting statistics are even more telling in their way. And there’s considerable evidence that the rich have a much higher proclivity to actually show up and vote. I always liked the old Woody Allen line about how 90 percent of life is just showing up, and part of the story of the top one percent is that they show up. The median American household is economically struggling in a variety of ways, but isn’t so cash strapped as to be incapable of offering a political donation or two. Indeed, the American middle class is pretty passionate about donating to church groups and other charities. If more of that energy were directed into the political process, politicians would pay more attention. But as things stand, the wealthy are more highly engaged across the whole range of activities and so the political process is heavily tilted in favor of their preferences.

  8. 8.

    Odie Hugh Manatee

    @4tehlulz:

    Might be…lol

    @Amanda in the South Bay:

    Yeah, I hope not either but I’m sure that moto4Chanloco will be in soon to start the downward slide into oblivion.

    ETA: Speak of the devil…

    @FlipYrWhig:

    That’s what had me scratching my head when I heard it. I’m sure I’m not the only one either.

  9. 9.

    different-church-lady

    On a side note, any time the word ‘wikileaks’ appears in the URL, it’s blocked on a government computer. I understand the reason for this—if there is any classified information that the user were to open, then he has introduced classified onto an unclassified platform, and how do you prove, 100% absolutely reliably that it came from outside and is not the result of an actual “spill”? You can’t. I understand that. I just think that the implementation was clumsy.

    Any moment now that’s going to become the next long-awaited God particle that proves the paranoid hyper-liberal’s grand unification theory of government oppression. All you need to do is throw in some environmental angle and you’ll have a rant that amounts to a singularity.

  17. 17.

    Mnemosyne

    @Benjamin Franklin:

    So you think the president should have the power to step in and order the military court to drop the charges? Should the president have the power to do that with all trials, or just with military ones?

  18. 18.

    Suffern ACE

    @Samara Morgan: Well, to be honest, if you want to have a well informed group of people working with accurate information to plan the defense of the United States, the last thing you’d want them reading are US Newspapers.

  22. 22.

    Schlemizel

    @different-church-lady:

    I would guess the thought that GLTB folks are subject to blackmail to protect their ‘shameful secrets’

    Plus, ya know, thems with low moral standing are just more likely to do other immoral things.

  23. 23.

    Amir Khalid

    Could raising Manning’s gender-identity issues be a part of a defense of diminished responsibility due to [psychological problems? The story I found at the Army Times link also reports other testimony mentioning misbehavior — outbursts of temper, unresponsiveness to superiors — that might suggest such problems. How would that work for Manning asa defense. or as a plea for mitigation of sentence?
    (I used to watch JAG, but that show was never all that great at educating viewers about the finer points of American military law.)

  25. 25.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Mnemosyne: I’m very concerned about civil liberties and abuses of executive power, so I think the president should intervene decisively here. :P

  26. 26.

    Samara Morgan

    @different-church-lady: hmm…i think you screwed that up.
    the singularity point is actually where the US tries to pretend it supports democracy and a free press while simultaneously censoring publications and falsely classifying documents.
    ;)

  30. 30.

    Schlemizel

    @Amir Khalid:
    I think you have to understand that those guys on the show were all officers in the Judge Advocate General’s corp – or to use the short hand term, JAG-OFFS. I think many of the people involved in TV are in fact JAG-OFFS and hoping to learn anything from them is slightly more pointless than hoping to learn anything from TV news, where JAG-OFFS dominate completely.

  32. 32.

    Villago Delenda Est

    NBC/MSNBC ran a story by Jim Miklaszewski yesterday in which they stated that Manning was charged with Treason and was facing the death penalty.

    This is incompetence at a very high level. There is documentation on what he’s charged with, and what the possible penalties are.

  33. 33.

    Suffern ACE

    I was trying to figure out what the defense was doing with the GID defense, still couldn’t. But I thought the crux is going to be that investigators were targeting him. It is the motivation for the investigators for framing him. I don’t think this is a simple not guilty by reason of GID, but a matter of glove fits you must acquit and all that.

  34. 34.

    Benjamin Franklin

    “Daniel Ellsberg and Dan Choi seen outside the #Manning hearing. Assange’s attorneys inside. Now the hearing has closed for classifed info.”

    Chris Boyce had a meltdown, similar to Manning. Naive and in a tradition of FBI agents, he was horrified to see what his gubmint was up to. He got 25 years, but it was a pretty clear cut case.

    Oh, I say ‘gubmint’ for obvious reasons.

  35. 35.

    Samara Morgan

    @different-church-lady: lol, you still screwed that up.
    Higgs is the last particle of the standard model, true, but its confirmed existance will just support the further exploration and acquisition of knowledge….of super particles and strange matter, for example.
    so to extend your analogy to q-physics, sooners post actually supports the Assangian decay security state model of NLS collapse via paranoia induction.
    eg, the “Sooner- particle” frags more OODA loops and speeds up the ossification of the security state information system.

  36. 36.

    Mnemosyne

    @Suffern ACE:

    But I thought the crux is going to be that investigators were targeting him. It is the motivation for the investigators for framing him.

    That sounds like the most logical rationale. A defense of “oh, those transpeople just can’t help betraying their country!” would be bizarre, but claiming malicious and/or overzealous prosecution based on prejudice could be a way to get at least some of the charges reduced.

  41. 41.

    IM

    @Mnemosyne:

    But doesn’t he have the power? I understood the procedure that in the article 32 hearing there is just a recommendation, dnd that the convening authority decides if a military court will be called or not. Could not the president just overrule the convening authority?

  44. 44.

    dmsilev

    @Samara Morgan: A word of advice, which I’m sure you won’t take: Try not to blather about subjects that you don’t understand when your audience includes people who do understand those subjects. To be specific for this particular case, your understanding of particle physics is …lacking.

    Signed, a professional physicist.

  46. 46.

    burnspbesq

    @Samara:

    Just so we’re clear, it’s logically impossible to “falsely” classify a document. You’re welcome to argue that a document was inappropriately classified, but I’m not likely to think that your opinion on that subject should be given any weight due to your well-known bias.

  48. 48.

    Mnemosyne

    @IM:

    I’m pretty sure he can’t, just as he can’t overrule a civilian court and order a trial stopped. Being Commander in Chief does not give you dictatorial powers and there is a chain of command that needs to be followed. IIRC, he could pardon Manning or commute the sentence after the trial just as he could after a civilian trial, but he can’t intervene in the trial itself. Which is as it should be.

    But, then, it becomes what FlipYrWhig pointed out — some of the same people screaming about Obama overstepping the bounds of executive power now seem to be upset because he’s not overstepping in the direction they prefer.

  50. 50.

    Benjamin Franklin

    @handsmile:

    Thanks…

    “But despite the sensitive nature of the work carried out in the unit, soldiers were able to download files not authorised, it has been alleged.

    Music, games and even pirated movies purchased from Iraqi nationals were stored on a shared drive.

    An accceptable use policy had to be signed by all members of the unit, which outlined what they could and could not do.

    Prohibited was the burning of any files on to a disc, and the removal of that information from the secure terminals.

    But there was no real way of enforcing this, the hearing was told.”

    This seems mildly important. The status quo hates when plausible deniability is used against them.

  51. 51.

    IM

    @Amir Khalid:

    JAG informed me too on the american military court system. That said, using the argument that he was psychologically disturbed seems to be come a bit early. Because it seems to me you can use it more as mitigation argument.

    And arguing for a milder punishment is not what you will do at the article 32 hearing. Rather they should try to get all or the more serious charges dropped.

  52. 52.

    burnspbesq

    @SuffernACE:

    “It is the motivation for the investigators for framing him”

    The problem with this theory is that Manning isn’t being framed. He did it. He admitted doing it, and those admissions will be admissible as evidence under an exception to the hearsay rule if the rules of evidence in courts-martial are similar to the Federal Rules of Evidence.

  53. 53.

    Benjamin Franklin

    @Mnemosyne:

    Completely disingenuous. All that I am asking Obama to do is keep his mouth shut; or failing that, correct impromptu boners with a qualifier.

    He can’t even do that…

  55. 55.

    Mnemosyne

    @Mnemosyne:

    Just to step on my own comment, there’s also the crowd that’s of the opinion that Obama personally ordered this prosecution, so therefore he should stop it.

    It’s an insane opinion, of course, since it requires you to believe that the Army never prosecutes anyone for leaking classified material, but at least the conclusion is somewhat logical.

  56. 56.

    Benjamin Franklin

    @burnspbesq:

    He admitted doing it

    Which leads me to believe that the Prosecutions exhaustive review of thosestipulationsindicates they have no real case.

  57. 57.

    Benjamin Franklin

    @Mnemosyne:

    I had no idea there was an Obamic equivalent to Tea Baggers….

    Please accept this de-coder ring along with your membership in

    Ignoramus Americanus

    btw; Thank you Wikileaks…

  58. 58.

    Mnemosyne

    @Benjamin Franklin:

    Again, it wasn’t a public statement. It was a private conversation that was inadvertently caught on tape. But I realize it’s the only “evidence” you guys have that Obama personally ordered Manning’s prosecution and specified his imprisonment terms, so you’ve got to cling to it like Linus to his security blanket.

    ETA: Just out of curiosity, are you in the “Manning was framed and didn’t do anything!” crowd or the “Manning leaked the documents but didn’t think it was wrong!” crowd?

  59. 59.

    burnspbesq

    @B. Franklin:

    “Which leads me to believe that the Prosecutions exhaustive review of thosestipulationsindicates they have no real case.”

    I’m not quite sure how to respond to something so bizarrely, absurdly illogical other than to point out that it is bizarre, absurd, and illogical.

    What planet are you from?

  60. 60.

    IM

    @Mnemosyne:

    But military courts do work somewhat different. Article 32 proceedings can be overruled, even if that rarely happens. And if they can be overruled, then the president as CiC can overrule the overruler. That is not yet interfering in the proceedings of a court, but rather ordering the prosecution to drop a case.

    That said, that is all pretty academic. The recommendation won’t be overruled and it shouldn’t be overruled. Best to treat a quasi court like a real court.

  62. 62.

    carpeduum

    Surprisingly unbiased post which I appreciate.

    Personally I hope they throw the book at him. He did a lot of damage and probably cost lives. There is a reason that what he did has a maximum penalty of death.

  63. 63.

    superluminar

    Could somebody explain why it is that Manning has become such an important cause for the left? He betrayed secrets that he was entrusted with and is now facing the consequences. BFD.

  65. 65.

    Will

    @Soonergrunt

    I’m surprised that Caaflog doesn’t have more coverage up. I generally find their stuff to be quite good. I was going to point you in their direction, but I see you’re already commenting over there.

  66. 66.

    Samara Morgan

    @burnspbesq: meh, a doc that should be unclass that is classified TS to confidential, etc., is falsely classified.
    A doc that is classified secret that should be eyes-only or FOUO is inappropriately classified.
    Are you tryin’ to tell me that the American Security State doesnt classify its fuckups to cover them up?
    man, you are a naif.

  67. 67.

    IM

    @superluminar:

    Well, he was arrested in May 2010. And he gets his day in court now, one and a half year later.

    I think that is a bit late and the duration of his pre trial confinement to long.

    Justice delayed and all that.

  68. 68.

    Benjamin Franklin

    Sorry for the bandwidth.

    http://www.democracynow.org/2011/4/26/daniel_ellsberg_bradley_manning_charges_should

    President Obama, who was questioned by supporters of accused U.S. Army whistleblower Bradley Manning last week at a fundraiser in San Francisco. The President’s comments were recorded on a cell phone. He said that what Bradley Manning had done was different from what Dan Ellsberg had revealed a generation ago. Listen very carefully. This is a cell phone recording.

    PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: We’re a nation of laws. We don’t individually make our own decisions about how the laws operate. No, he’s doing fine, he’s doing fine; I mean, he’s being courteous, and he’s asking a question. He broke the law.

    LOGAN PRICE: You can make it harder to break the law, even to tell the truth.

    PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Well, what he did was he dumped —

    LOGAN PRICE: Isn’t that just the same thing as what Daniel Ellsberg did?

    PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: No, it wasn’t the same thing. What it was, Ellsberg’s material wasn’t classified in the same way.

    AMY GOODMAN: President Obama openly declaring that Bradley Manning — who has yet to stand trial — has broken the law. According to Obama, the cases are not similar because, quote, “Ellsberg’s material was not classified the same way.” Dan Ellsberg is on the phone with us right now, the world-renowned whistleblower who exposed the Pentagon Papers some 40 years ago.

    Dan, he says don’t compare Bradley Manning with you.

    DANIEL ELLSBERG: Well, nearly everything the President has said represents a confusion about the state of the law and his own responsibilities. Everyone is focused, I think, on the fact that his commander-in-chief has virtually given a directed verdict to his subsequent jurors, who will all be his subordinates in deciding the guilt in the trial of Bradley Manning. He’s told them already that their commander, on who their whole career depends, regards him as guilty and that they can disagree with that only at their peril. In career terms, it’s clearly enough grounds for a dismissal of the charges, just as my trial was dismissed eventually for governmental misconduct.

    But what people haven’t really focused on, I think, is another problematic aspect of what he said. He not only was identifying Bradley Manning as the source of the crime, but he was assuming, without any question —

    AMY GOODMAN: Dan, we have four seconds.

    DANIEL ELLSBERG: — that a crime has been committed. Hello?

    AMY GOODMAN: We have four seconds. And we’re going to have to leave it there, but we’re going to pick it up with you tomorrow. Dan Ellsberg, Pentagon Papers whistleblower, thanks for joining us.

  69. 69.

    Villago Delenda Est

    @dmsilev:

    You are correct, she will not take the advice. She’s all knowing about everything. When confronted with actual knowledge, she goes into the Newt Gingrich bullshit mode.

  70. 70.

    superluminar

    Dave @54:
    All I’m going to do is requote what Omnes said to me many moons Ago when I tried some GG-related trollery: “That is really not helpful”.

  72. 72.

    IM

    And that is not just my opinion. I just learned on wikipedia that there is guideline in the military justice system that pre trial detention should not be longer then 180 days.

  73. 73.

    Villago Delenda Est

    PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: We’re a nation of laws. We don’t individually make our own decisions about how the laws operate.

    This explains why George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are languishing in cells at a Supermax right now.

  74. 74.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @ IM: I think that you can rest assured that any Speedy Trial violation will be aggressively pursued by defense counsel. He is getting his day in court. He could be found not guilty; I tend to doubt it, but it is possible.

  75. 75.

    Samara Morgan

    @superluminar: hes a whistleblower like Ellsberg. The left protects whistleblowers.

    hei, you still post at the League of Incredibly Boring Glibertarians, dont you?
    Do you know what a neoconservative is? is that like Obama is worse than Bush?

  78. 78.

    carpeduum

    Benjamin Franklin: What does that post that you accurately described as a waste of bandwidth (as is the rest of that site of firebagger nutjobs) have to do with anything.

    They are shooting for a gotcha over the sementantics of what the prez said because he never used the word ‘allegedly’ . That is all. Perhaps there is no need to use ‘allegedly’ in military court cases? I don’t know the answer to that. Seems these people don’t understand the differences and are trying to frame it as if mannings civil rights are being violated or something.

  80. 80.

    burnspbesq

    @Samara:

    “Are you tryin’ to tell me that the American Security State doesnt classify its fuckups to cover them up?”

    Never said that or anything like it. Please stop making things up.

  81. 81.

    Samara Morgan

    @Villago Delenda Est: i would be very grateful for dsmlv to correct any misunderstanding of Higgs bosons that i have inadvertantly conveyed in metaphor….
    he can start naow.
    here is a space _______________________________________
    _______________________________________________________
    ______________________________________________________

  82. 82.

    carpeduum

    @Villago Delenda Est: So you would have preferred we drag that on for years (which would probably not accomplish your goals anyways) instead of….oh I don’t know, healthcare reform or dadt, or any one of the hundreds of other things Obama has done so far?

    Is that what you firebaggers think would have been the right thing for the prez to do?

  84. 84.

    superluminar

    IM @ 67:
    FWIW, I agree that some of Manning’s treatment has been awful, especially Quantico (sp?), but I can’t for the life of me see how his actions were justified legally or ethically. It would appear the world faces considerable injustices, and Bradley Manning’s trial is not one of them.

  85. 85.

    soonergrunt

    @Amir Khalid: That’s one of the possibilities, but since the sanity board ruled that Manning was legally sane at the time of the charged misconduct, that defense will be “unavailing”.

  88. 88.

    Warmongerer

    @IM:

    A good portion of the delay is because the *defense* requested a Rule 706 hearing to determine Manning’s competency. It was after he was declared mentally competent to stand trial that he was taken off of prevention of injury watch.

  91. 91.

    Villago Delenda Est

    @carpeduum:

    Because a serious mistake was made by not tossing Tricky Dick into prison 37 years ago, and then impeaching and tossing Ronald Reagan into prison 24 years ago.

    If those things had happened, perhaps the deserting coward might not have done what he did with absolute impunity. It certainly doesn’t help that Obama looks the other way at the worst war crimes at the highest levels committed since 1945.

  92. 92.

    superluminar

    @ Samara
    I haven’t read LoOG for a while, I happened to check it out the other day and leave some comments. I’m not andhave never been a regular there. Unlike some people.

    And how the fuck don’t you understand the difference between whilstleblowing and just releasing a whole bunch of information to a foreign party?

  98. 98.

    IM

    @superluminar:

    If his actions were so clearly illegal, why not charge him much earlier?

    And I don’t think the “there is somewhere in the world” a worse injustice” is much of an argument.

  100. 100.

    Earl Butz

    @carpeduum:
    @superluminar:

    I don’t get it either. There’s no uncertainty here about what he did. The law is very clear as is the penalty. If he gets off without a trip to a firing squad he should count himself lucky.

    Others whose names he divulged have not been so fortunate.

  103. 103.

    IM

    @Warmongerer:

    He was taken off prevent to injury after he was transfered. And do you really blame a dentention of one and a half years just on his medical examination? Seems like wilful delay.

  104. 104.

    Samara Morgan

    @Earl Butz: link or GTFO.
    that was a popular eumeme spread by the US gov’t at the time of the A-stan doc drop, but there have not been any actual documented cases to my knowledge.

  105. 105.

    FlipYrWhig

    @superluminar: It helps in telling a story about the restriction of civil liberties in the name of national security under Obama. Manning and Awlaki are crucial to that tale. From there you can expand to worry over suppression of dissent and nightmares about being disappeared in the middle of the night. I would quibble with calling it “left” though. It’s full-on civil libertarianism, which has adherents on the right as well as the left.

  106. 106.

    Villago Delenda Est

    @Benjamin Franklin:

    Remember that the predicate crime for the Holocaust was waging aggressive, “pre-emptive” war. All other crimes outlined at Nuremburg stem from that fount.

    Which had not been done by a major power since 1939.

    That’s the crime committed by the deserting coward and Darth Cheney.

    That’s the crime for which they should hang.

  108. 108.

    superluminar

    @Samara yes I do know what a neocon is, I also don’t agree with loads of EDK’s positions including Paul endorsements. I don’t get your point, sorry.

    @IM I believe another commenter has addressed the length before trial issue, but I have to confess ignorance about the rules on this.

  110. 110.

    Soonergrunt

    @dmsilev:

    A word of advice, which I’m sure you won’t take: Try not to blather about subjects that you don’t understand when your audience includes people who do understand those subjects. To be specific for this particular case, your understanding of particle physics is …lacking.
    —
    Signed, a professional physicist.

    If she restricted herself to only commenting on things about which she understands, we’d only hear from her about 5% of her current posting frequency.

  112. 112.

    Soonergrunt

    @burnspbesq: They are–in fact, the Manual For Courts-Martial specifies that Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) shall be used whenever there is not an applicable Military Rule of Evidence (MRE).

  114. 114.

    Soonergrunt

    @Will: I mentioned it to the site moderators there, and they got burned by the whole thing with Terry Lakin and the birthers, so I think they’ve chosen to lay low on this one, especially since they primarily blog about court-martial appellate practice as opposed to trial practice, even as many of them do both types.

  116. 116.

    Soonergrunt

    @IM: Wikipedia is not the authoritative source for well, anything.
    That 180-day thing is guidance. And there are a huge number of caveats to it. That 180 days only counts for avoidable delays by the government.
    The clock stops whenever the defense does something like request an RCM 706 (Sanity) board, as the defense did here. That does not stop the clock entirely, but it does slow it down quite a bit. There are other things that the defense can do that will slow down or stop the clock.
    Additionally, unavoidable delays do not count against the clock. It’s up the military judge to determine what are avoidable vs. unavoidable delays. Classification review, which has necessarily been extensive in this case, is an unavoidable delay.
    Unlike a civilian court, there is no mechanism in military law by which charges may be dismissed due to the government not bringing the accused to trial in a timely manner. The only remedy available under the UCMJ is sentence credit, which can be anywhere from 1 day to 5 days per avoidable delay day/maltreatment in PTC day.

  117. 117.

    Soonergrunt

    @Benjamin Franklin: no, other than it used to be the line of thinking.
    If you desperately need a position from me for some strange reason, and have heretofore been unable to read anything I’ve ever written about the subject here and elsewhere, let me reiterate that it is wrong thinking, and always was wrong thinking that homosexuals are any less trustworthy than anyone else. I’ll note the catch 22 that existed because homosexuality was a disqualifier for military service, such persons who were in the military were there illegally, and therefore subject to blackmail. The proper resolution to that artificial construct has now come to pass in that homosexuality is no longer a disqualifier for military service in any way, shape, or form.

  118. 118.

    IM

    @Soonergrunt:

    You are needlessly aggressive. Did I claim that wikipedia is an authoritative source? And I said guideline.

    And just claiming that any delay has been unavoidable is not very persuasive. You seem to infer that a legitimate defense can be retaliated against the accused by prolonged detention. Why should were any need to review classification on the accuseds time? Only the classification at the time of the crime obviously matters.

  120. 120.

    Mnemosyne

    @Benjamin Franklin:

    So, again, the fact that the president answered a question at a private event in a way you didn’t like proves what, exactly? There’s apparently some kind of grand conspiracy that you’ve built around a cell phone recording, but for the life of me, I can’t figure out what it is.

  122. 122.

    burnspbesq

    @Samara Morgan:

    it seems to me that Mannings defense team might have grounds for an entrapment defense

    That you could even consider this for a split second shows beyond dispute that you have no earthly idea of what the law actually is regarding entrapment.

  123. 123.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @ IM at 118: Trials are conducted according to established rules. Your feelings about them are not particularly germane.

  124. 124.

    burnspbesq

    @IM:

    Did I claim that wikipedia is an authoritative source?

    Yes, you implicitly did when you cited it.

    If you don’t consider it to be an authoritative source, why did you cite it?

  125. 125.

    burnspbesq

    @Soonergrunt:

    Then Manning has a fairly significant problem.

    If he doesn’t testify in his own behalf, his statements to Lamo can come in under FRE 804(b)(3); the existence of the “Lady Gaga” disks is sufficient corroboration for purposes of rule 804(b)(3)(B).

    If he does testify, and denies having stolen the stuff, he opens himself to cross-examination about his statements to Lamo.

  126. 126.

    JR

    @Benjamin Franklin: Me too.

    I was totally disappointed that the officials who ordered that suspects (NOT convicts) be tortured to attempt to obtain information were never prosecuted. The lessons supposedly taught by the Nuremberg Trials are already discarded (not forgotten, shit-canned!).

    I’m not surprised by this decision, just disappointed.

    Also, too, Pvt. Manning is being tried in the Military Justice system, which is to real justice as military intelligence is to real intelligence. Dr. Ellsberg was being tried in a regular court, with a chance of actual justice. Like having charges dismissed for government misbehavior.

    Military courts, on the other hand, are expected to behave militarily – or in other words, to misbehave.

    My sympathy for those of you who have lost pets recently. I had a 19 y o cat I adopted when he was 4 or 5 months old who had renal failure while my wife was in the ICU in an induced coma.

    His vet had known him for his whole life and was very compassionate – I stopped by on the way to the hospital with Rufus – but it was very hard for me. They left me in the exam room with my buddy for as long as I needed to get it together, half an hour or so.

    I didn’t mention it to my wife until, while I was talking about the surviving pets (3 dogs, 4 cats, on a remote rural farm), she asked about him. It was a month later, she was doing well, but it tore me up again.

    Wife’s at home doing well, the next oldest kitty Harvey (because he was invisible the first month we rescued him) is having some kidney trouble, but doing well on therapy. He’s 17 or so, ans was 2 or 3 when we rescued him. He wants physical contact all the time, he’s cold. Always hungery, doesn’t want to eat prescription food, so the vet said it’s more important form him to eat enough than to have the prescription renal care food.

    The late Rufus slept on my shoulder for a year or so, also to keep warm, but partly he was very affectionate. He made up to me back in 1992 at the neighborhood gas station cum hardware store. White with red on his head, about 12 or 14 pounds. What a sweety.

    Merry HoHo to all. and a happy Solstice!

    JR

  127. 127.

    Benjamin Franklin

    If you desperately need a position from me for some strange reason,

    Yes, it’s a desperate observation which requires your immediate attention, or not.

  128. 128.

    Joseph Nobles

    “his commander-in-chief has virtually given a directed verdict to his subsequent jurors, who will all be his subordinates in deciding the guilt in the trial of Bradley Manning. He’s told them already that their commander, on who their whole career depends, regards him as guilty and that they can disagree with that only at their peril.”

    Daniel Ellsberg, great at releasing Pentagon Papers, not so great at law analysis actually. He’ll be here all week.

    His own defense team is not trying to prove he didn’t do what the government said he did. They are trying to prove he was not responsible for what he did. This fantasy of Obama ordering his military subordinates to declare Manning guilty is laughable.

  129. 129.

    Soonergrunt

    @IM: I am not ‘needlessly aggressive.’
    And I also pointed out that whether or not the delay was avoidable is a matter for the Military Judge. Just because you think something is wrong doesn’t make it so.

    @Samara Morgan: To my now retired knowledge, no. Also, that is irrelevant to the actual question I was asked.

    @burnspbesq: I think that’s probably why (IANAL, for the rest of you) his defense seems specifically gearing towards mitigation and extenuation rather than absolute guilt or innocence.

  130. 130.

    Will

    @Soonergrunt:
    That makes sense. However, it was hilarious to watch them slap around all the birthers that wandered into their comments section.
    Its unfortunate too, as they do write about trial practice from time to time, and they know their stuff. My exposure to miljus stuff is limited, but I know enough to start pulling out my hair whenever any discussion of the procedural aspects of Manning’s case arises. Whatever my own opinions of the case, it drives me nuts when the basics of military law are totally clusterfucked in a simple news report.

  131. 131.

    sistermoon

    And I just saw on TV that Dan Choi has chosen this particular venue to continue his famewhoring. He was escorted by police from outside the courthouse.

    Will someone remind him that this is not a formal occasion? He shouldn’t be wearing his dress blue uniform.

  132. 132.

    Soonergrunt

    @sistermoon: well, there is only the dress blue or service blue uniform now. The service greens, dress greens, and dress mess, both white and blue, are being are being retired.
    I fucking hate what they did to the blues to make them the only non-duty uniform. It’s just as well that I retired.

  134. 134.

    Mnemosyne

    @Joseph Nobles:

    What, you mean you don’t think that a conversation recorded on a cell phone because it was not meant for public consumption counts as “a directed verdict to [Manning’s] jurors”?

    That’s just crazy talk. :-)

  135. 135.

    Samara Morgan

    @Soonergrunt: i would hazard a guess that homosexuality, like…say… prior drug experimentation, a conviction for bestiality/sex offender and/or a relly bad credit score would still exclude one from certain billets.

  136. 136.

    eemom

    As I have said before with respect to Ellsberg’s opinions about Manning, I think you need to consider the source — the source being an old forgotten hero who is just thrilled as hell to be relevant again. The comparison of TPP to Manning’s act is so wrong on so many levels, it seems to me that is the most plausible explanation for why he keeps insisting on it.

  138. 138.

    Soonergrunt

    @Samara Morgan: probably so to those others, but homosexuality shouldn’t exclude anyone from anything anymore. Prior drug experimentation isn’t a straight disqualifier for a security clearance.
    And as I said earlier, it never should have in the first place.

  139. 139.

    Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)

    @Samara Morgan:

    it seems to me that Mannings defense team might have grounds for an entrapment defense—but that would mean releasing the Adrian Lamo tapes in totes. I doubt that Wired has the nads to do that.

    @eemom:

    The comparison of TPP to Manning’s act is so wrong on so many levels, it seems to me that is the most plausible explanation for why he keeps insisting on it.

    The major difference between them being that even if Manning can get off by either moral justification or entrapment nullification for leaking files, he can’t justify accessing those files– unlike Ellsberg, across whose desk TPP passed legally before being leaked.

  140. 140.

    Samara Morgan

    @Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again):

    he can’t justify accessing those files

    huh? the highest classification of any file was SECRET-NOFORN. Manning had access.
    @Soonergrunt:

    Prior drug experimentation isn’t a straight disqualifier for a security clearance.

    for some codeword billets it is.

    but homosexuality shouldn’t exclude anyone from anything anymore.

    “shouldn’t.” but you know that it can, if its deemed a vulnerability.

  141. 141.

    The Thin Black Duke

    The question is, did innocent people die because of the information Manning leaked? If so, then I don’t care what happens to him, to be honest.

  142. 142.

    Samara Morgan

    @Soonergrunt: so…if some mil analyst lost their billet because they couldn’t pass their yearly poly BECAUSE they were homosexual then on the basis of DADT repeal they could sue to get their access back?

  143. 143.

    Samara Morgan

    @The Thin Black Duke: there have been no documented cases of harm resulting from wikileaks.
    so no.

    However, the Iraq drop probably saved lives, in inflaming the Iraqi population against continued American troop presence.

  146. 146.

    The Moar You Know

    you have never had a poly, obviously.

    @Samara Morgan: Debating with a person who likely needs a forklift to take a walk is not all it’s cracked up to be. Believe what you want. Some people on this thread are speaking from real-world experience. You might want to try listening to them and learning something.

  151. 151.

    Mnemosyne

    @Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again):

    I work for a Giant Evil Corporation and have access to all kinds of image files that belong to the company that I’m allowed to use (aka access) in the course of my workday. You’d better believe my ass would be fired (and probably prosecuted) if I released them on the internet, and we’re talking about art pieces (drawings, etc.), not military information.

  153. 153.

    Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)

    @Mnemosyne:

    Well, whether you were entrapped in order to release those art pieces- or could make a moral-trumps-legal justification for doing so- isn’t the point I was making. If you were in, say, the PR department, would you be allowed to actually use those files to, say, design a brochure for the company? You know, download, take home and work with from a remote site? Are there some of those files that you could take home w/permission and others w/out permission?

    Hell, that doesn’t really matter, because not every Giant Evil Corporation would have the same internal rules for that (and the board of directors can’t pass any laws to enforce their policy, unlike Congress) . So, ya know, it’s sort of anecdotal, no?

  154. 154.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Benjamin Franklin: You mean because both cases involve revealing classified information? Sort of an interesting comparison. But doesn’t it suggest that Manning should also get hammered?

    (For that matter, as I recall, The Nation’s resident old-school hard lefty Alexander Cockburn thought that it was just peachy to “out” Wilson and Plame, too, because the repugnant history of the CIA made any attempt to thwart it a defensible action.)

  156. 156.

    Soonergrunt

    @Samara Morgan: I don’t know. I’m retired and even if I wasn’t, I never served in any position to have policy-making authority with regards to security classifications.
    I should think that it would be possible though. I don’t see any reason why not, excepting that the Army is contemplating drawing down 100,000+ billets.
    As for codeword billets being barred to persons with prior drug experimentation–codeword billets can be barred or opened pretty much at will on a case by case basis by the OCA or the ACA. I never had a codeword-cleared file. And couldn’t admit it if I did.

  159. 159.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Benjamin Franklin: I dunno, I stopped paying attention after the build-up to “Fitzmas” fizzled out. All I remember since then is that he didn’t get pardoned. I guess I should look it up. What’s your point?

  161. 161.

    Benjamin Franklin

    @FlipYrWhig:

    What’s your point?

    Libby was sentenced to 2 1/2 years, then had term commuted by Bush.

    What is Manning facing? Which hammering seems equitable?

  166. 166.

    Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)

    @Mnemosyne:

    It’s that whether or not he can justify disseminating those files, he can’t justify downloading and copying them. He did so proactively, without permission to do so, unlike Ellsberg, who, in his time at Rand and State, had all of TPP set down right in front of him. Manning went out his way to obtain documents, Ellsberg didn’t.

    It goes to the nature of whistle-blowing. IMO, Manning, if he did download those files, is like a a vandal who happened to steal a video tape of a murder when trashing the tv and vcr. Ellsberg is the guy who got the tape from the murderer, who thought the tape was the final episode of Lost.

  167. 167.

    burnspbesq

    @Benjamin Franklin:

    You think Libby got hammered?

    Conviction of a felony is, IIRC, grounds for automatic disbarment in every jurisdiction in which Libby was admitted to practice.

    Yeah, I’d say losing your career, and paying millions of dollars in legal fees to do so, counts as being hammered.

  169. 169.

    Anne Laurie

    Late to the party, but thanks for putting this up, Soonergrunt. Nothing I’d been able to find at the usual sources — e.g., the WaPo/Foreign Policy going full-metal aaaaieeee! ! kweerbaby ladyboy acting-out-scaryghei! ! before dealing with any of the actual trial evidence — seemed worth posting about. Especially since, surprise surprise, some 90% of the commentors here already have their arguments set like concrete, especially when they see my name on a post.

    It does seem, IMO, like the Manning defense team is going with a mitigation argument, rather after the lines suggested by a military-experienced poster here some months ago: The poor confused little mope shouldn’t have been allowed access to those files in the first place, and the “intelligence” was being (mis)handled in a manner so incompetent as to be criminally negligent anyway.

    Kind of like arguing that you don’t arrest an abused pitbull for fatally attacking a small child — you arrest the people responsible for not keeping the dog away from the general public in the first place, especially if they can also be implicated in the original abuse. Of course, the pitbull in this analogy is gonna end up in a very bad place regardless, but I’m sure Manning’s attorney has done his best to make it clear to his client that he’s not going home for the holidays with an honorable discharge and his back pay.

  170. 170.

    handsmile

    Lewis Libby is now the senior vice president of the Hudson Institute, a right-wing think tank based in Washington “dedicated to innovative research and analysis that promotes global security, prosperity and freedom.”

    According to his Hudson biographical statement, Libby “guides the Institute’s program on national security and defense issues, devoting particular attention to U.S. national security strategy, strategic planning, the future of Asia, the Middle East, and the war against Islamic radicalism.”

    In March 2008, the DC Court of Appeals barred Libby from practicing law in the District until at least 2012. (Washington Post)

    As far as hammers go, I’d say that’s a pretty soft tool.

  171. 171.

    Benjamin Franklin

    for fatally attacking a small child

    Funny how the defensive rhetoric proceeds without any loss of momentum.

    It reminds me of the defunct “Blame Bush” which attempted to deflect
    all blame for that Presidunce.

  172. 172.

    Anne Laurie

    @Benjamin Franklin:

    I think there are some conservative cock-puppets here.

    Well, it might look that way to a newcomer, because you seem to be under the impression that Manning’s actual guilt or innocence is the topic under discussion. The tribalists on “our” side of the aisle aren’t any more logically consistent than the Teavangelicals at RedState, but at least they are better spellers.

  173. 173.

    Mnemosyne

    @Benjamin Franklin:

    Yes, because when Anne Laurie says that the defense’s plan seems to be claiming Manning isn’t to blame for his actions because of the sloppy handling of the files, she’s really secretly defending Obama.

    You’re gonna have to chart that one out for us, because I’m really not sure how you zoomed from A to Z in that chain of logic.

  174. 174.

    eemom

    fwiw, Dirty Dick reportedly was after Bush night and day at the end of his presidency to pardon Scooter, but Bush wouldn’t do it. Probly the only time in the whole 8 years that the Prince of Darkness didn’t get his way.

  175. 175.

    Benjamin Franklin

    @Anne Laurie:

    under the impression that Manning’s actual guilt or innocence is the topic

    Your metaphor reeked of guilt, as though Manning has harmed anything, or anyone, except the bureaucrats who had their feelings hurt.

    For the record, I am not normally born-again-hard, unless attacked, and I was
    a little surprised at the ferocity.

  177. 177.

    Suffern ACE

    @Anne Laurie: OK. So if I’m summarizing the summary correctly, the defense right now is claiming “Look, you knew the guy was messed up mentally. He was throwing tantrums at work, physically fighting with other employees, refusing to do tasks assigned to him, you did some kind of investigations of him and knew that this was the case and did nothing. And in general, your department practices and standards were so lax that people were mixing things like movies and MP3s on the same systems with classified information that they used for their jobs as security analysts and were told to stop doing that but didn’t bother to do anything.”

    I am understanding that, but what is the defense?

  178. 178.

    Soonergrunt

    @Anne Laurie: Well, the problem here for some is that they don’t understand that the military justice system is designed to deliver two things and not a third:
    It is designed, first and foremost, to provide justice–military personnel had certain rights as a functional thing long before civilians had them. The right to remain silent was being codified for military accused sixteen years before the Miranda ruling under Article 31. That same article granted right to Counsel fourteen years prior to Gideon v. Wainright. Appeal is automatic in cases involving more than a year of adjudged confinement or a punitive discharge/dismissal.
    The second thing the military justice system is designed to do is to promote “good order and discipline”, which is the goal of every military commander, and the reason that the Convening Authority is the General Officer Commanding. Because Go&D is his/her absolute responsibility. The service cannot function without it.
    What the military justice system is NOT designed to do is to grant them the outcome they think should happen.
    Funny thing–due to a quirk in the sentencing procedure, should PFC Manning be found guilty–NOT guaranteed for all charges, regardless of what people believe or want to believe, he will almost certainly get a lighter sentence than he would have, had he been charged with espionage under the civilian system.
    Small nit to your original post–as long as Manning remains the accused, and not been convicted, he will continue to collect full pay. He doesn’t have anywhere to spend it, but he still collects it. He has access to some of it, and will if convicted, in which case he may (or may not) be sentenced to fines and forfeitures.

  179. 179.

    Benjamin Franklin

    I am understanding that, but what is the defense?

    Plausible deniability. Worked for Bush. Works for me…

  181. 181.

    Soonergrunt

    @Suffern ACE:

    but what is the defense?

    Perhaps none at this point, other than to introduce reasonable doubt as much as possible to limit the number of charges preferred?
    Perhaps to pre-empt charges and create a negotiating position for a plea bargain? Remember that the cost of this trial comes out of the operating budget of the Military District of Washington. That means less office supplies, fewer Soldiers going to schools, less fuel for vehicles, etc. to say nothing of the cost of six to eight Field Grade Officers in a court room and not at their regular billets.
    IANAL, but that seems to be the idea.

  182. 182.

    Benjamin Franklin

    But, you could have had a greater significance in the discussion, if you had participated in the discussion.

  185. 185.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Samara Morgan: Having sufficient clearance is a necessary, but not sufficient, fact. Because someone has an adequate clearance to view Secret docs does not mean that the person can run willy-nilly through the archives reading and copying whatever he or she wants.

  186. 186.

    IM

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Don`t lie. I didn’t said anything about feelings.

    And if there aren’t any rules about pre trial detention regarding military trials, that is exactly the problem.

  187. 187.

    IM

    @burnspbesq:

    Oh, I did imply it. I did cite it because even wikipedia is more authoritative than some opinion on a blog or a blog comment. If you some have something better, then put up.

  188. 188.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Benjamin Franklin: So what was the point of this whole tiresome dance? Fine, I fucked up, I thought Libby was punished worse than he was. Your initial point was something about how people who leaned against Manning would probably have some kind of view on Libby. What was it? Was it supposed to be that if you wanted Libby punished you probably would want Manning not to be? That doesn’t make any sense. You caught me as someone who had lost track of the outcome of the Libby case. Touche. But I don’t get what it was supposed to prove. If the point was to raise the parallelism between the two cases, that doesn’t leave Manning looking very good, because as I recall the Libby case — and, specifically, the desire to see Libby punished as harshly as possible — was not only a cause celebre in the liberal blogosphere but, if I’m not mistaken, the entire reason why anyone started paying attention to FireDogLake in the first place. Likening Manning to Libby doesn’t exactly color Manning in glory. So I’m at a loss as to why we’ve gone done this road at all.

    -FYW, +3 beers after losing what was left of his tolerance in the first place…

  189. 189.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @IM: I love the way you jump to accusing someone of lying. Who said there weren’t any rules about pre-trial detention? Honestly, Manning has counsel, very good counsel from what I understand; if there is a Speedy Trial claim to be made, it will be. The fact that you don’t like the way the military justice system works doesn’t really affect anything. I have yet to see an expert on military criminal law step up and say that the proceedings are improper. BTW I think Manning was mistreated during at least part of his pre-trial detention and, if convicted, should get multiple day rather than one for one credit for time served.

  190. 190.

    IM

    @Soonergrunt:

    ou are needlessly agressive.

    And I also pointed out that whether or not the delay was avoidable is a matter for the Military Judge. Just because you think something is wrong doesn’t make it so.

    And just because you think something is right doesn’t not make it so. I still think that extraordinary actions – a very long pre trial detention – needs extraordinary evidence.

  192. 192.

    Mnemosyne

    I’m not getting the Manning-Libby connection either. If we wanted Libby to go to jail, we’re supposed to not want Manning to go to jail for his similar actions? Or is there some kind of partisanship assumption where only people who hated Bush wanted Libby to go to jail, so therefore people who hated Bush should want Manning acquitted?

  193. 193.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Benjamin Franklin: Ben, calm the fuck down. Flip just gave a reasonable response to your question. It might not be the one you wanted of expected, but it did not warrant that reply.

  194. 194.

    Benjamin Franklin

    @Mnemosyne:

    Just trying to separate the wheat from the chaff.

    There are a lot of pseudo-libraltarians skulking the internets. (aka-conservatives_

  197. 197.

    IM

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Hold on. I don’t jump to accuse anybody of lying. But i really didn’t said anything anymore about my feelings. Can you source that? If not, why don’t you just retract your claim and I won’t say anything anymore about lying?

    Who said there weren’t any rules about pre-trial detention?

    Oh come on. If were are rules, why don’t you cite them? There does seems to be problem in the military court system about rules about pre trial detention. Or the lack of them.

    The fact that you don’t like the way the military justice system works doesn’t really affect anything.

    Might make right? Neither my or your opinion affects anything. Look, I don’t have that much a problem with how military justice works, but how the administration seems to abuse the loopholes.

    I have yet to see an expert on military criminal law step up and say that the proceedings are improper.

    Authority isn’t an argument.That I learned during my legal education. I’m not an expert, but then nobody arguing here is an expert either.

    BTW I think Manning was mistreated during at least part of his pre-trial detention and, if convicted, should get multiple day rather than one for one credit for time served.

    If you think that, don’t you think I am right? After all: I didn’t argue that he is innocent – I don’t know – or that his detention is illegal – it is just to long.

  199. 199.

    Anne Laurie

    @Soonergrunt:

    Funny thing—due to a quirk in the sentencing procedure, should PFC Manning be found guilty—NOT guaranteed for all charges, regardless of what people believe or want to believe, he will almost certainly get a lighter sentence than he would have, had he been charged with espionage under the civilian system.
    Small nit to your original post—as long as Manning remains the accused, and not been convicted, he will continue to collect full pay. He doesn’t have anywhere to spend it, but he still collects it. He has access to some of it, and will if convicted, in which case he may (or may not) be sentenced to fines and forfeitures.

    Thanks, once more.
    __
    So I can continue to hope that justice, in the hands of the individuals currently in that courtroom, will eventually prevail. Best outcome I can see, from here, is he’s given the minimum possible further incarceration, plus whatever treatment he needs to get his personal issues (pre- and/or post-military) mitigated. Following which, a new name, and a long happy out-of-the-spotlight life… hey, it’s the season for dreaming…

  200. 200.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @IM:

    Oh come on. If were are rules, why don’t you cite them?

    Like you, I am not a military trial lawyer.

    Authority isn’t an argument.

    Didn’t say it was. My point was that, given the reasonably high profile of the case, if there were abuses of military criminal procedure, I would have expected to have heard something from an expert by now. Curious incident of the dog…

    As far as the rest goes, I am not overly impressed with the military justice system either. It is, however, the law that applies to the case.

  202. 202.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Benjamin Franklin: So did you ever decide to share what your point was?

    Taking a time machine back to when the Libby case was in the news more, I remember wanting Libby to get nailed. Part of it was about “outing” covert agents, and part of it was about, yes, retaliating against critics of the Iraq war. Manning revealed classified information, like Libby did; Manning also, the way Manning-philes tell it, was a critic of the Iraq war, so throwing Manning in jail might be analogous to ruining Plame’s and Wilson’s lives. But each track leads somewhere different, and one makes Manning like Libby, and the other makes Manning like Libby’s victims Wilson and Plame.

    And since you didn’t bother to explain which one you were trying to bring up, it kinda seems like the burden is on you to, you know, actually say what you damn well mean rather than trying to be cute and coy.

  203. 203.

    Soonergrunt

    @Benjamin Franklin: the ellipses in your original post looked like the last time somebody did that, which, after I replied “thanks” or some such was followed by a tirade about baby killing, girl raping murderers for hire.
    As I appear to have mis-read you, I’m sorry.
    FWIW, “semper fi” is the motto of the USMC. The Army’s motto is “this we’ll defend”.

  204. 204.

    Samara Morgan

    @Omnes Omnibus: oh no. that isnt how it works. Can’t read up, cant write down, bell-lapadula, star property. and compartments take care of need to know.
    Manning didnt access anything he didnt have the tickets for– he couldn’t.
    the security officers for the SCIF let him carry R/W media in and out.
    That was a violation of his oath, and i expect they got shitcanned for not observing protocol.

  205. 205.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Soonergrunt: I have begun to read “Thank you for your service” comments as being a pro forma thing that someone often feels he or she must say before launching into the meat of the critical remark. BF may not have intended such a reading, but that was how I saw it.

  206. 206.

    Soonergrunt

    @IM: I’m sure that his lawyer will make the required motions at the appropriate time.
    You’ll just have to deal with the fact that your opinion of how the military justice system works or should work is as irrelevant as my opinion.
    Of course, when I point out that whether or not Manning’s dentention conditions have at times been un-necessarily harsh (as I think them to be) is a matter to be decided by the Military Judge, as is any remediation to come from that, I’m not being aggressive any more than it would be aggressive to point out that the sun will rise tomorrow and that whether or not it warms your part of the earth is dependent upon factors such as the season of the year, the cloud cover, precipitation and so on, and that it doesn’t matter what you want to happen with that either.

  207. 207.

    IM

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Like you, I am not a military trial lawyer.

    Indeed. So my speculations – or feelings – are as good as yours.

    My point was that, given the reasonably high profile of the case, if there were abuses of military criminal procedure, I would have expected to have heard something from an expert by now. Curious incident of the dog…

    Absence of evidence is now evidence of absence? Come on. Acording to wikipedia – I know not a good source as far soonegrunt is concerned- ca. 200 lawyers complained about the treatmwnt of Manning. Including Lawrence Tribe etc.

    As far as the rest goes, I am not overly impressed with the military justice system either. It is, however, the law that applies to the case.

    So you do think I have a point – and that was my point – regarding overlong detention pre trial and delay of justice?

    PS.: Do you want to retract your assertion regarding my feelings?

  208. 208.

    Samara Morgan

    And as for you guyz not believing Manning is a whistleblower….what was the first release? the collateral murder video.
    didnt that outrage you when you saw it?
    it made me want to hurl.
    what did the “leaker” ask of Assange?
    not money.
    the “Leaker” asked for Assange to maximize impact.

  209. 209.

    Suffern ACE

    @Mnemosyne: I’m going to go with “If you didn’t think Libby’s actions warranted the death penalty for treason, those commentators who say stuff like “he’s lucky if they don’t shoot him for treason for his enormous crime” should STFU or at least tone it down” as my connection between the two.

  210. 210.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @IM: In the interests of comity and good feeling, I hereby retract any and all reference to your feelings. I should never have used a term of such a personal nature and inexactitude in the comment section of a blog, and I should have been fully aware that someone might find it hurtful. The fact that I used “feelings” rather than “beliefs” or “opinions: just show how cretinous a human being I truly am.

    Does that satisfy?

  212. 212.

    Soonergrunt

    @Samara Morgan: It doesn’t appear that this particular T-SCIF was run to standards. There don’t appear to have been any effective access controls such as you are mentioning. I’m guessing that a number of the fifteen people disciplined over this incident were disciplined for those very failures.

    The hell of it is that those controls are not difficult to enforce for someone moderately familiar with Windows 2003 Server Active Directory.
    You also know that their failure to properly do their jobs never relieved PFC Manning of his sworn responsibility to not access that information necessary to accomplish his assigned tasks, nor to do any other act that violated the security of the information in his care. Such would be the case even if he didn’t have a security clearance.

  213. 213.

    IM

    @Soonergrunt:

    You’ll just have to deal with the fact that your opinion of how the military justice system works or should work is as irrelevant as my opinion.

    If your opinion is that irrelevant why did you post this post?
    As long as your post is relevant my comment is relevant too.

    Of course, when I point out that whether or not Manning’s dentention conditions have at times been un-necessarily harsh (as I think them to be) is a matter to be decided by the Military Judge, as is any remediation to come from that,

    It is unnecessarily harsh because for some reason you seem to think that you can have an opinion on that and I don’t. So do you think that Manning was subjected to an overly long detention or not?

    The military court system seems to be a bit lax on pre trial detention, but does that makes an abuse of that powers right?

  216. 216.

    Soonergrunt

    @Samara Morgan: And so Assange edited the file in question, removing a not insignificant part of it and added commentary to it in the form of a title at the top.

  217. 217.

    IM

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    For god’s sake, you are petty.

    And I am a bit disappointed. As an regular lurker I always thought your were capable of honest disagreement.

    Is it really to much to demand that my interpretation of some legal issue is per se not worse than yours?

  218. 218.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @IM: No, your interpretation is not per se worse than mine. Your decision to get worked up about my use of the word feelings rather than belief or opinion though is another matter. It was that to which I was reacting. As a regular lurker, you also should know that it doesn’t pay to be too thin-skinned around here. I actually don’t think we are all that far apart on our views on the state of due process in a military trial either. Finally, I apologize; I have had a bad day and may have turned more vitriol in your direction than was warranted by the situation.

    Edited slightly.

  219. 219.

    Soonergrunt

    @IM: No, moron. I think your opinion about this subject is irrelevant.
    I have, as much as possible, refrained from posting my opinion, which is also irrelevant.
    Your comprehension of my writing seems to be about as weak as your comprehension of the facts of the matter that your opinion is irrelevant. You claim to be a lawyer. Then you should know that your opinion is irrelevant, and that the law governs.
    If you’re interested, the governing law here is Article 10, UCMJ and Rule for Courts-Martial 707. I didn’t understand a lot when I read them, but nowhere in either one was a reference to my opinion or yours for guidance.

    NOW I’m being aggressive.

  220. 220.

    IM

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Fine. All that cleared up – and perhaps I reacted I bit strongly- don’t you think one and half years until a trial is a bit long? And strictly speaking article 32 isn’t even a trial.

  222. 222.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @IM:

    don’t you think one and half years until a trial is a bit long?

    In most circumstances, yes. From my days doing habeas work, 90 days in custody (270 when not in custody) generally triggers Speedy Trial concerns; Speedy Trial issues though do not have a bright line test. I don’t know how much of the delay is at the behest of the defense, for example. Also, I know that military law handles things differently.

  223. 223.

    IM

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Then I bow down to the superiority of US law. Civil law. Here in Germany the ordinary limit is six months regarding pre trial detention.

    Now there seems to be some sort sort of guidance in the military court system regarding pre trial detention: not more then 180 days.

    So even admitting that the military system is different, there is a problem here. And there was I think a tendency to mistreat Manning d during detention.

  224. 224.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @IM: Again, action by the defense tolls the running of a time limits.

    To some extent, I think that Manning’s treatment in pre-trial confinement was par for the course. That points to a set of problems that are not Manning specific, but should be addressed. It is my opinion that many of those outraged by Manning’s treatment in confinement believe that the any and all mistreatment was due to who Manning in particular was. I would contend that much of it is directly related to the shitty conditions in which all US prisoners are kept. An outrage, yes, but a different one.

  225. 225.

    IM

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    He wasn’t raped, so he fared about average!
    I wish I was joking.

    But to the point: I don’t think putting someone on prevent to injury and prevent to suicide watch that long is usual. And both watches seem to be pretty close to sleep deprivation.

    And I should look up the average duration of pre trial detention. If there is such data.

    That said, the wardens, the prosecutors etc. did know who Manning is. Do you really think that didn’t influence them at all?

  227. 227.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @IM: I think it mattered; I just think that it primarily mattered at the margins. Prison/jail/detention simply sucks in ways that most of us, thankfully, will never comprehend. And on that note, I need to leave this conversation.

  228. 228.

    Samara Morgan

    @Soonergrunt: AMG sooner– those guys in the cockpit were chuckling. it was a FUCKING VIDEO GAME to them.
    THEY SHOT CHILDREN.

    what is wrong with you people?

  229. 229.

    Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)

    @Samara Morgan:

    And as for you guyz not believing Manning is a whistleblower….what was the first release? the collateral murder video.

    And if it had stopped right there, I might be more easily convinced that he was a whistleblower.

    But if he did, as alleged, download 260K+ docs, including the tidbits on the Berlusconni-Putin relationship and US diplomatic efforts to get the Japanese whaling fleet out of Antarctic calving waters, then he appears to me less a whistleblower and more like a kid throwing a tantrum who thinks that whatever good comes from his actions excuses all the shitty behavior.

  231. 231.

    Soonergrunt

    @Samara Morgan: Yes. They did. And it’s horrifying.
    And I had nothing to do with it.
    Nothing in that video or in the Gurani video, if such exists, excuses Manning’s misconduct.

  234. 234.

    Benjamin Franklin

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    I think there is some merit to your contention ‘two wrongs……’.

    However, just as we have plea deals for criminals who provide the law and the public with access to greater criminals and thereby remove them from public intercourse, so too, we need whistleblowers.

    Can you divine a connection between a ‘snitch’ and whitstleblower?

  236. 236.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Benjamin Franklin: If Manning is a whistleblower, he can and should make that argument at his trial. I have no problem with making that a part of his defense. It is really a nullification argument, but, if the court allows it and counsel thinks it will fly, I say go for it. From what I know of the evidence, and I have not been following the case obsessively, it does appear that he did download and distribute classified information. If he cannot argue that he had a legal justification or that he met a standard of mental disturbance that diminished his ability to tell right from wrong (legally, not morally), he is probably in a great deal of trouble.

  237. 237.

    Corner Stone

    I think they should go with the vaunted “Chet Defense”, essentially, why the fuss about secrets? If every nation is talking shit about every nation then there’s no way they can track down the shit the USA is saying. Because who would care? Just do a big shoulder shrug and rest your case.
    I mean, that’s the way to conduct all your business, amirite?

  240. 240.

    Samara Morgan

    @Soonergrunt: IF IT EXISTS?
    wtf is wrong with you…..it exists.
    the military debated releasing it.
    killing children for their own good.

    i hate your guts too, sooner.

  242. 242.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Samara Morgan: Who between us supported and played cheerleader for the war? Not I. So don’t fucking cry to me about dead anyone. I am all for prosecuting the living hell out of anyone involved in any massacre that happened in that war. I am not really in favor of someone dumping massive amounts of classified information out into the world.

  243. 243.

    Benjamin Franklin

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    My question had more to do with the idea of ‘snitch’, and the legal foundation within the context of ‘whistleblower’, because there seems no discussion on the merits.

  244. 244.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Benjamin Franklin: I am not completely clear on your question, and since there has been a lot of animosity going back and forth on this thread, I hesitate to answer right away. do you mean the the merits of whether or not Manning was morally justified in doing what he did? Or are you talking about legal merits?

  245. 245.

    Samara Morgan

    @Omnes Omnibus: that is the difference between you and me.
    you believe in “good” secrets and “bad” secrets.
    there are no good secrets.

    i was eighteen, asswipe.

  247. 247.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Benjamin Franklin: You need to remember that this is a military trial involving the release of classified information. Most whistleblower precedent is going to be inapplicable. The law is reasonably simply; if the prosecution can prove that Manning accessed info he wasn’t supposed to access, released info he wasn’t supposed to release, or both, they will have proven their case in chief. At that point, Manning probably would have to argue that he was justified in doing so or that he could not legally be held responsible because of his mental state. I am not sure how well either of those arguments would fly.

  248. 248.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Samara Morgan: Look, I appreciate that your views have changed, but you need to understand that a lot of the people you are spitting at and accusing of supporting massacres never wanted the war in the first place. If we had been listened to, there would be no massacre tape because the massacre would not have occurred. This is one reason we get a little fucking testy when someone scampers in after having a life changing experience and accuses us of being shitbags. So check yourself.

  249. 249.

    Benjamin Franklin

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Probably correct. Deals (snitch) generally agreed upon in advance with the prosecution. He has no such status. My hope is that he
    reaches a deal.

  250. 250.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Benjamin Franklin: A lot of times deals require having something to give. Does he? Unless it is saving the time and expense of a trial. Also, I don’t know what his real mental state is, he may have some arguments to make on those grounds. This, however, pretty much exhausts my knowledge on this case. I think the situation is sad because Manning is pretty young and his life, win, lose or draw, is messed up from here on out.

  251. 251.

    Benjamin Franklin

    is sad because Manning is pretty young and his life, win, lose or draw, is messed up from here on out.

    Yup. Like Chris Boyce, we sacrifice our innocents on the altar of regret.

  252. 252.

    Samara Morgan

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    if the prosecution can prove that Manning accessed info he wasn’t supposed to access

    he had access to everything in the SCIF. NOFORN is the compartment. SECRET is the superset. He could not READ UP. He WROTE DOWN.

    If we had been listened to, there would be no massacre tape because the massacre would not have occurred.

    Bulshytt. OIF wasnt a singleton event in history. This is what America has been doing for half a century in various iterations. And Garani happened IN FUCKING AFGHANISTAN, not Iraq.

  253. 253.

    Samara Morgan

    @Omnes Omnibus: America recently massacred 24 Pakistani soldiers in their own country.
    America massacred 40 civilians in Waziristan inside the borders of Pakistan.
    Its what America DOES, from Operation Ajax to propping Mubarack, and now America is propping SCAF.
    Its what we doooo.

Comments are closed.