Chris Hedges: The Judicial Lynching of Bradley Manning

[marmar]

from truthdig:


The Judicial Lynching of Bradley Manning

Posted on Jun 9, 2013
By Chris Hedges


FORT MEADE, Md.—The military trial of Bradley Manning is a judicial lynching. The government has effectively muzzled the defense team. The Army private first class is not permitted to argue that he had a moral and legal obligation under international law to make public the war crimes he uncovered. The documents that detail the crimes, torture and killing Manning revealed, because they are classified, have been barred from discussion in court, effectively removing the fundamental issue of war crimes from the trial. Manning is forbidden by the court to challenge the government’s unverified assertion that he harmed national security. Lead defense attorney David E. Coombs said during pretrial proceedings that the judge’s refusal to permit information on the lack of actual damage from the leaks would “eliminate a viable defense, and cut defense off at the knees.” And this is what has happened.

Manning is also barred from presenting to the court his motives for giving the website WikiLeaks hundreds of thousands of classified diplomatic cables, war logs from Afghanistan and Iraq, and videos. The issues of his motives and potentially harming national security can be raised only at the time of sentencing, but by then it will be too late.

The draconian trial restrictions, familiar to many Muslim Americans tried in the so-called war on terror, presage a future of show trials and blind obedience. Our email and phone records, it is now confirmed, are swept up and stored in perpetuity on government computers. Those who attempt to disclose government crimes can be easily traced and prosecuted under the Espionage Act. Whistle-blowers have no privacy and no legal protection. This is why Edward Snowden—a former CIA technical assistant who worked for a defense contractor with ties to the National Security Agency and who leaked to Glenn Greenwald at The Guardian the information about the National Security Council’s top-secret program to collect Americans’ cellphone metadata, e-mail and other personal data—has fled the United States. The First Amendment is dead. There is no legal mechanism left to challenge the crimes of the power elite. We are bound and shackled. And those individuals who dare to resist face the prospect, if they remain in the country, of joining Manning in prison, perhaps the last refuge for the honest and the brave.

Coombs opened the trial last week by pleading with the judge, Army Col. Denise Lind, for leniency based on Manning’s youth and sincerity. Coombs is permitted by Lind to present only circumstantial evidence concerning Manning’s motives or state of mind. He can argue, for example, that Manning did not know al-Qaida might see the information he leaked. Coombs is also permitted to argue, as he did last week, that Manning was selective in his leak, intending no harm to national interests. But these are minor concessions by the court to the defense. Manning’s most impassioned pleas for freedom of information, especially regarding email exchanges with the confidential government informant Adrian Lamo, as well as his right under international law to defy military orders in exposing war crimes, are barred as evidence. .............................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_judicial_lynching_of_bradley_manning_20130609/

[Ninga]

1. And now Snowden has affectively knocked Manning off the radar...this makes me sick.

Why muzzle Mannings chance at a defense? Why? Is the obvious answer he right one?

[struggle4progress]

2. Manning has admitted he released the documents, and he will be allowed during the sentencing phase

of the trial to present evidence regarding his motives

[Ninga]

3. As dicitated by a military trial. Why restrict defense at all?

[geek tragedy]

6. It's irrelevant towards his guilt/innocence.

Defendants need to make legal arguments at trial.

[Ninga]

7. Got it.

[struggle4progress]

8. Since he's already pleaded guilty to most of the charges, the question of a necessity defense (say)

is moot: he can scarcely argue he should be found not guilty on the grounds that his acts were required to prevent commission of larger crimes, after he has pleaded guilty; the sole remaining question on those charges is how to sentence him, and he will be allowed to argue his motives in that context

The biggest factual issue facing him during the main part of the trial is whether he will be found guilty of "communicating with the enemy" by deliberately handling information in such manner that it could fall into enemy hands. The question for the court here may not turn on motive at all but may simply be: whether a reasonable person, after being explicitly warned that the enemy combs the internet for information, might have expected that the enemy would be likely to find at least some of the documents, if 750K sensitive documents were transferred to an organization specializing in publicizing and publishing documents on the internet

[GoneFishin]

10. He did not plead guilty to all of the charges. If they have a sound case they would not kneecap

his defense team. If their foundation argument is that his actions harmed people, they should be forced to prove that. I know that evidence and proof is an old fashioned concept, but if they are not able to prove their case maybe it is because they are exaggerating the harm. That seems likely since they are unwilling to back up their allegations with facts.

Don't tell me they can't reveal the harm for national security reasons. That dead horse has been beaten to a pulp, and is now a maggot infested corpse.

[struggle4progress]

11. Perhaps you should re-read the post to which you responded, because

your comments are not responsive to what I actually wrote there

The most serious charge to which he has not pleaded guilty is the UCMJ 104 charge of communicating with the enemy. This article is covered in the 2012 Manual for Courts-Martial beginning at IV-41, and the explanation there says:

... The intent, content, and method of the communication, correspondence, or intercourse are immaterial. No response or receipt by the enemy is required. The offense is complete the moment the communication, correspondence, or intercourse issues from the accused. The communi­cation, correspondence, or intercourse may be con­veyed directly or indirectly. ...

That is, Manning's motives are immaterial to the charge. Inessential to the charge is the question: whether or not the enemy received the communicated material, though the prosecution originally intended to prove it; if I understand correctly, the defense agreed to stipulate on this, to avoid the testimony. Since knowledge may here be proved circumstantially, the issue might simply be whether Manning knowingly and deliberated communicated material which he should reasonably have known could fall into enemy possession. Manning's mental fitness to make decisions with an understanding of consequences would seem relevant, but IIRC that defense might have been abandoned pre-trial

[GoneFishin]

13. My comment stands. Even by your account, actual knowledge is required and normally must be proven,

and he should be entitled to wage a defense which is not hamstrung.

¶28.c.(6)(b) Knowledge. Actual knowledge is required but may be proved by circumstantial evidence.

Yes, it is a low bar. But I never doubted that the deck would be stacked against Manning.

[Ninga]

4. I seriously do not understand.

[geek tragedy]

5. Apparently requiring a defendant to make legal and

not political arguments is a 'lynching' in whatever fantasy world Hedges inhabits.

His motives for the cable leaks is irrelevant to his guilt or innocence--motive can be a mitigant at sentencing, but that's it.

[xchrom]

9. du rec.

[Solly Mack]

12. K&R