How the Manning Court Martial Will Proceed

[MineralMan]

Courts Martial are actually very efficient processes. They go straight to the heart of the offence for which an accused is being tried. Extraneous evidence that has nothing to do with the facts of that are almost never admitted. So, here's about what will happen, as questions that will be asked, in a step by step order:

1. Is the defendant subject to the UCMJ?
2. Did the defendant hold a security clearance?
3. Had the defendant been fully informed of the penalties for unauthorized release of classified information?
4. Did the defendant have access to the information in question?
5. Did the defendant in fact access the information in question?
6. Was the defendant aware of the classified status of the information in question?
7. Did the defendant hand over the information in question to a third party or parties?
8. Was that third party authorized to receive the information in question?
9. Did the defendant know that the third party was not authorized to receive the information in question?
10. Is the defendant of sound mind and capable of understanding right from wrong?


If the answers to those questions are all Yes, then Manning will be convicted. Nothing beyond those questions is pertinent to the case, and will not be part of the proceedings. It is just that simple. The law is clear and simple as well. Arguments that would justify the actions will not be admitted. They're irrelevant to the law that the defendant is accused of violating.

Note: The above is my opinion of how things will proceed. See my signature line.

[RandomThoughts]

1. Selected application of law.

I don't know about his case, but were the wrongs exposed in those cables prosecuted? If they are correct, by evaluation of just legal system.

That makes it not about law.

And to say so is an attempt to invoke authority not with a system, and by the actions of that system, probably against it.


I am due beer and travel money, and many experiences.

[MineralMan]

3. That's irrelevant to the case.

Judgment regarding the contents of the documents has no bearing on the law. The law simply prohibits transferring classified documents to people not authorized to receive them. The content of the documents is irrelevant to that law. Having held a high-level security clearance, that law was very carefully explained to me while I was in the USAF, as were the penalties for violating it. I signed a document to the effect that I understood both. Military personnel who have access to classified materials get that briefing and sign that document. It will, no doubt be presented.

Proper laws are simple in their form. Poor laws are not simple.

[RandomThoughts]

8. It invalidates the authority of those that claim to be able to prosecute.

If they do not uphold justice, they can not make the claim that it is by law.


And I am still due beer and travel money and many experiences, so they have no claim to use the concepts of law, justice, or compassion, and have to admit it is done by edict, not justice or law.

[MineralMan]

11. You are incorrect, I'm afraid.

You're talking about philosophy, not law, and especially not the UCMJ.

[RandomThoughts]

42. You presume law has meaning, without a bases.

If the philosophical argument is wrong, then by definition it is not law, but use of some arbitrary power by edict.

My point is not what they might do, or might be capable of doing.

It is the difference of what they claim to do, and what they actually do.

It is about showing what they are, not trying to make them do something else, what they do is their choice.

Although again it is about the conceptual argument around the issue, not any one persons situation.


And I am due beer and travel money and many experiences.

[MineralMan]

45. Well, as a realist, for me, what is, is.

Anyone can say something is not law, but they may find themselves subject to it. Not all law is correct, but it often remains law. Those who insist that the law is incorrect may still find themselves imprisoned by that incorrect law.

Ideals are a wonderful thing. I hold many of them. It is a mistake, however, to believe that ideals held are necessarily the reality of the society of the holder of those ideals.

The thing is often only seen by its shadow, while the thing itself remains invisible. I think Plato said that, more or less, or at least has it attributed to him.

I can address ideals, but generally address realities. I am addressing realities in this thread.

[RandomThoughts]

50. If you say it is not correct.

Then it is not law, it is an edict used for a different reason then justice and order.

And why would Imprisonment change the right of an argument if imprisonment came from an unjust situation.

You are arguing what could happen, not what should happen.

How can you help a society with no concept of what should be, and only doing by what some system might already do.


You are claiming you are ruled by any power, weather just or not, without any concept of right or wrong.



The reality is, if everyone thought as you did, then it might help them, but how would it make anything better?

It also fits with appeasement and cowardliness, if you would do wrong, or submit to wrong to avoid something like some wrongful hardship done to you.

[MineralMan]

54. Since we do not share the same definition of the word "law,"

this discussion is impossible. Good day to you.

[RandomThoughts]

55. We don't need the same definition.

I contend your definition is to give appeasement based on presumed authority without thinking if right or wrong.

I contend it is better to see a higher concept in what a law should be.


And yes it was a good day.

[MineralMan]

58. Discussion is useless without some shared definitions.

See ya around.

[RandomThoughts]

59. Actually we were discussing how you define it.

And how I define it.

So it is that very conversation that has meaning, are you able to understand that?


the difference of how we define it shows much of the difference in the view of the topic.


If you can't understand that, it is fascinating, I would presume you are blocking the truth of the statement from reaching yourself, and blocking the self evaluation it would create.

If you really cant understand that comment.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Military Justice: "Lead the guilty man in for a fair trial and sentencing."

Unless things have changed radically since I was wasting 4 years in the Marine Crotch.

[MineralMan]

5. It seems that way, sometimes, it's true.

However, it's not, really. Most often people don't face court martial without abundant evidence of their guilt. The military has other ways of disciplining its members when such evidence is not complete. Courts martial are far less common than court cases in the civilian world, so there's usually adequate evidence before one is brought into the picture.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. One big difference is trial by one's peers.

The gulf separating officers and the working stiffs is immense. There is no "jury" just a single or group of officers. Also, as far as I know, "defense" counsel is selected by the court rather than the individual. To say it's "different" is to ignore the obvious weight the accuser has over the accused. Guess what happens when "Captain so-and-so says..vs..Private so-and-so says.."?

[PavePusher]

22. Cout-martial juries for enlisted personnel are composed of both officers and enlisted.

Juries for officers are officer-only, IIRC.

I sat on a C-M jury last year, in a murder case. Interesting, educational experience that I hope I never have to do again.

[MineralMan]

24. Yup. The enlisted person has peers on the jury panel.

Thanks for answering.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. As I recall, Summary Courts-Martials are conducted by one officer.

One step up from an Article 15 - also conducted by one officer, usually the CO.

[MineralMan]

36. Yes. But this will be a General Court Martial, no doubt.

Different situation.

Here's a rundown on the three types of courts martial:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courts-martial_in_the_United_States

This case will require a General Court Martial.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. No doubt.

It will be interesting to see what the "convening authority" (presumably Manning's CO))does with the verdict and sentencing. He/she could reduce the charges or reduce the sentence. Or, even dismiss the charges.

[MineralMan]

41. I have no idea what the end result will be. Truly.

I know that someone is charged. I know the general way these things are handled. What the the result is unknown. I'm sure we'll all be following the process closely.

I don't expect the process to happen quickly, either. A lot of patience is going to be needed, I'm pretty sure.

[PavePusher]

26. Self-delete, double post. n/t

[PavePusher]

31. If a defendent does not like their appointed lawyer, they can request/petition for a new one.

They can also hire a civilian lawyer if they wish, that may be a good or bad idea, depending on circumstances.

[izquierdista]

56. It's not Captain so-and-so

That would be Commander in Chief So-and-so being the accuser.

[leftstreet]

4. When's the trial date? n/t

[MineralMan]

6. Hasn't been announced. There are hearings that will take place

before that. Sort of like a civilian Grand Jury, they will examine the evidence that will be submitted by the prosecution to see if there is enough evidence to convict if it is not successfully countered by the defense. Very similar to how a Grand Jury operates. If they find that the evidence would be sufficient, then a date for the court martial will be set.

[leftstreet]

7. When are the hearings scheduled?

[MineralMan]

9. I don't know. The information that Manning has been found

to be competent to stand trial was just released. I suppose they haven't set that date yet. I'm sure we'll find out. The defense filed for that competency determination, which is why this hasn't already taken place. That process is now complete. There could be other defense filings, though, that could further delay things. I don't know the details of that.

[leftstreet]

12. Oh. I thought you were posting because something was happening n/t

[MineralMan]

16. Nope. I'm posting what will probably happen, based on

my understanding. It is an opinion, as are all my posts. See my signature line.

[tekisui]

10. What statute(s) are you using? What charge(s)?

Link?

[MineralMan]

14. I don't have the links, nor the UCMJ section numbers.

I remember my briefing on this, and what I was briefed on covers this situation.

[tekisui]

17. If you don't have the charges or statutes, your questions are

irrelevant.

[MineralMan]

19. It's a process.

It's my opinion of how things will proceed. What I post on DU is my opinion. See my signature line. Your opinion may differ.

[tekisui]

25. What good is your opinion on a fact-based trial?

You gave the impression that these would be the standards, the elements of the court martial, yet you just admitted that they came from nothing but your opinion?

Worthless OP.

[MineralMan]

29. I gave what I believe would be the process.

That's based on a broad understanding of how the UCMJ operates. But, thanks for your opinion regarding the value of my post. All opinions are welcome on DU.

If you have information that differs from my description of the process, a process which I have observed, then I encourage you to post it.

[tekisui]

32. The burden is on you for making the claim.

For it to be relevant, you would have to start with what he is actually being charged with. Look at the language of the statute to see what questions and what evidence will actually be introduced.

An opinion on something like this is completely irrelevant. If you don't even know what the charge will be, how can you guess the questions of importance?

[MineralMan]

34. Actually, I can post my opinion without that. It happens all the

time on DU. People post opinions on all sorts of things here without fully supporting them with citations. I have just done that. You can ask me for such citations. You can refute what I have written, too. I have stated my opinion.

I have just updated the OP with a note to make that more clear. I guess people don't read signature lines. What I write here is my opinion. Unless I quote someone or otherwise provide third party information, it is always my opinion. That's why I wrote the signature line. I assume that what you write is your opinion, unless you say otherwise. We all have one.

[tekisui]

44. I get that it is your 'opinion'. Do you get that your opinion when

in relation to legal standards is irrelevant?

It's like having an opinion on gravity.

[MineralMan]

46. OK. How do you think this case will play out?

You've heard my description. The floor is yours. Mine is based on observation and study of courts martial. I'm certainly interested in your interpretation.

[tekisui]

48. It would take some research to make a statement.

I would need to know the specific charges under the specific statute. Any comment before knowing that would be meaningless.

[MineralMan]

51. You'll probably have to wait for the Article 32 hearing for that.

Here's an interesting analysis of laws that apply to classified information, from the jamesmadisonproject.org:

http://www.jamesmadisonproject.org/files/Navy%20Litigating%20Classified%20Cases/Chapter%20Eight%20-%20Charges%20in%20Classified%20Information%20and%20National%20Security%20Cases.pdf

Here's another interesting article, more specifically about the Manning case, with links to numerous references. I recommend this:

http://court-martial.com/ucmj-and-espionage/

Finally, here's an official list of the initial charges. These will be refined in the Article 32 hearing.:

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2010/07/manning070510.pdf

[tekisui]

52. Cool. If I have time this weekend, I will dive in.

[MineralMan]

53. I've been rumbling through that stuff off and on for a while now.

Look out, though...you'll get sucked in and led all over the Internet. It is fascinating. I'm not writing without having done my research. It's just that I'm not going to document everything to write a brief OP about what I think will happen. Too much work for not much benefit. Good luck with your reading, if you have time for it.

[KansDem]

15. Say, MineralMan, how would these questions apply to the Plame outing?

Let's start with No. 1--"Is Bush subject to the UCMJ?" He was, after all, the CoC...

[MineralMan]

20. I do not know the answer to that question.

It's a complicated one, and would end up before the Supreme Court. It is unclear whether a President is subject to the UCMJ. I don't believe that question has ever been answered, nor brought forward in a case.

[KansDem]

23. Thanks!

Might make for a very interesting Supreme Court case, if not a movie! :hi:

[MineralMan]

28. I suspect such a case will never be brought.

But it would make for a very interesting case. I can't really imagine a situation where a President would ask an Attorney General to investigate a former President with an eye toward prosecution. It would be a constitutional crisis, I'm very sure. That's why Bush will never be tried in the US for anything. It's just not going to happen.

[MineralMan]

49. After you asked that, I went out and did some research.

The answer about the President being subject to the UCMJ hasn't really been addressed. Opinion is that a former President can be charged and tried under other laws, though. There's a pile of opinion out there that originated during and after the Clinton administration, and it generally seems that a former President could be charged under normal laws. The pardon of Nixon that covered all crimes he might have committed while in office seems to add credence to that. Why pardon someone who isn't subject to the law.

However, the question about the UCMJ is not one I could find any discussion about in a short time. However, since the President and his actions fall under the Constitution, I'm betting that a President isn't subject to the UCMJ, but to federal law. I don't know, though, and I don't think it's been argued in any real way. While the President is constitutionally the Commander-in-Chief, he doesn't hold an actual rank in the military while in office. I'm pretty sure he's separate from the military, while commanding it. It would be a very, very interesting thing to see play out, though, and would undoubtedly involve the SCOTUS very quickly.

Thanks for raising that interesting question. Now, I'll probably spend some more time looking for more opinion on it.

[Scuba]

18. Doesn't matter. The Commander in Chief said he's guilty. What officer is going to overule him?

[MineralMan]

21. The court martial panel will decide, based on the evidence

presented. I don't know if Manning is guilty or not. Neither does President Obama. He misspoke, and should not have said that. It's a question for the court.

[Freddie Stubbs]

57. The Commander in Chief did not say that

President Obama said that Manning broke the law, but he did not say that he was guilty. There is a big difference.

[gratuitous]

27. Isn't that nice?

I am assured over and over by the military types that disobeying illegal orders is an option always available to our star-spangled fightin' men and women. But a nicely constricted court martial, coupled with a punitive pre-trial detention illegal under the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions relieves the military of any culpability for issuing and carrying out illegal orders. Sweet deal.

And, when the victims of our crimes against humanity come back to visit righteous retribution, I'm sure that none of us will mind paying for these crimes perpetrated by others, because we lack the wherewithal to hold accountable those responsible. Lucky for us we can always say that those "terrorists" hate us for our freedom, which will justify another round of crimes against humanity.

[MineralMan]

33. The only orders that are in question here are the orders that

prohibit disclosure of classified materials to unauthorized persons. I doubt anyone would find such orders illegal. You're talking about the content of the materials, which is not the issue.

There are channels by which someone can present evidence in classified materials that show evidence of illegal actions. But those channels do not involve foreign nationals receiving classified materials. The only thing broken here was the law against transferring classified materials to unauthorized persons.

[gratuitous]

38. Of course not

The military decides what is and isn't at issue, and by excluding any evidence of its own wrongdoing, makes sure that its war crimes stay out of a court of law. Well, there are courts and there are courts. Some of them follow regular rules of procedure, evidence and witness testimony. But our military has unilaterally determined that it won't submit to any other regular authority, so irregular, ad hoc authorities, who may not be quite so scrupulous about following any recognized rules of procedure or even rendering judgment against the actual perpetrators, will visit retribution on (probably) whoever they can reach that is or represents the actual perpetrators.

And we the people, who will be the ones most likely in line to bear the brunt of that, can do nothing to hold our own government and military accountable for their crimes, because that would be lookin' backwards to the past instead of forward to the future. But we can lock up and torture anyone who exposes these crimes. History will not judge us kindly, and we won't deserve it.

[MineralMan]

39. It sounds like you have no experience with how courts martial

operate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courts-martial_in_the_United_States

[Phoenix63]

35. Doesn't make it right.

Lots of things are against the law.

Have you ever opened an umbrella on the street? Illegal in Alabama.

Have you ever flirted with a woman in public? Illegal in Arkansas. Also it's legal to beat your wife in Ark, but only once a month.

Ever commit a "lewd act" while unmarried? Illegal in Florida.

Wanna be an atheist and hold public office? Not in Texas, it's illegal.

Own Dildo's? More than one in Alabama is illegal. More than 6 in Texas.

Homosexual "behavior"? Illegal in Texas. Luckily it's only a misdemeanor.

Like sex? In North Carolina it's illegal to have sex in any position other than missionary and you must have the shades drawn.

I could do this all day, there are thousands of laws on the books that could put almost anyone in jail. It doesn't make them right.

[MineralMan]

37. I'm not arguing whether it's right or wrong. I'm saying

what is likely to happen, based on my own knowledge. The question you raise is out of the scope of what I wrote.

[Vinnie From Indy]

43. What experience do you have inside the UCMJ?

Are you an attorney?

Cheers!

[MineralMan]

47. I am not an attorney. I have no direct experience of

UCMJ proceedings, in that I have never participated in one. I have, however observed a few courts martial and made myself familiar with the UCMJ. I have many interests, and explore those interests to whatever level I can reach before moving on to other interests. Thanks for asking.

My opinion of what the process will be in this court martial is based on my observations and study.