Not much going on these days. I got caught up on Game of Thrones. We’ve also started watching “Chuck”, which I have never seen an episode before yesterday. I passed one of the two Microsoft certification tests I have to take. I’ll take the other one next week, time permitting. The washing machine, the refrigerator, and the garage door opener have all stopped working. We bought them all with the house about six years ago, and only the GDO is economically repairable (less than 40% of the cost of a replacement unit).
Some news on the Bradley Manning front–the same Military Judge that heard US v. Lakin (the birther who refused to deploy) has been assigned to hear US v. Manning. That judge is COL Denise Lind, JA. At a recent hearing motion, she denied a Defense motion to dismiss the Article 104 Aiding the Enemy charge, which has been preferred as a non-capital charge, but she did instruct the Trial Counsel (Prosecution) that they must prove that Manning knew specifically that the enemy would receive the information, and that it was his intent that they get that information, as opposed to merely showing that he knew they get a hold of it.
Lind said Thursday that prosecutors must prove during trial that Manning knew he was giving information to the enemy. If they fail to do so, Lind indicated she would consider a defense motion to dismiss the charge.
At that same hearing, Judge Lind dispensed with Defense motions dealing with multiplicity of charges, which she denied but instructed the Defense to maintain the issue for sentencing if there is a conviction. Also, she dealt with an issue regarding Defense requests for damage control documents from various agencies. Since Manning is charged with unlawfully accessing classified information and unlawfully disseminating that information, and not charged with doing any specific type of damage, the Trial Counsel argued such arguments are irrelevant. The Government needs only to prove that, excepting the aforementioned Art. 104 charge above, he accessed CI, unlawfully placed it on an unauthorized system, and then distributed that CI to parties who were not cleared to receive it, and that he did each of these acts with full intent and knowledge of their unlawfulness. The information I have does not indicate whether or not the Defense will be able to raise these questions at a penalty phase if necessary, but considering that the Defendant can make an unsworn statement at penalty phase, there is no reason (that I know) why not.
For reasons known only the Defense team, they have not filed any motions under Article 10, UCMJ, which would deal with pre-trial confinement and/or length of detention.
Open Thread–Manning Update, My Dog, and so on.Post + Comments (152)