Manning Case: 'Judge Orders US To Turn Over WikiLeaks Damage Reports' - AFP

[WillyT]

Judge orders US to turn over WikiLeaks damage reports
By Dan De Luce (AFP) – 6 hours ago

<snip>

FORT MEADE, Maryland — A military judge presiding over the case of WikiLeaks suspect Bradley Manning ordered prosecutors Tuesday to provide reports by US agencies assessing the damage caused by the WikiLeaks website.

The decision came at a pre-trial hearing after defense lawyers accused prosecutors of failing to turn over relevant documents that could help their client, an Army private accused of turning over a massive trove of classified data to WikiLeaks. The judge, Colonel Denise Lind, said she would review the reports from the CIA, the FBI and other agencies to determine whether the documents were pertinent to Manning's defense.

The damage reports, including those from the CIA, the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Deparmtent, could cast doubt on prosecutors' claims that the exposure of classified documents on the WikiLeaks site had devastating or lethal results.

Lind granted a request to allow the State Department to argue before the court why its damage assessment should not be handed over. "Let's see what the State Department provides," Lind said. The judge also ordered prosecutors to scan hard drives from computers from Manning's unit in Iraq to look for specific software.

Defense lawyers had demanded access to the hard drives, as they believe a search will show that other soldiers were downloading unauthorized software, including chat services and games, on purportedly secure computers.

<snip>

More: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ilBjdIz1WY7GNXOKETgYjWNmIAAg?docId=CNG.0377153363f317a1957edd3f66f6244b.201

[Mnemosyne]

1. And Darth, JR, et al, walk freely. K&R

[EFerrari]

2. We paid a million for Cheney's heart.

We let Curveball walk.

Brad, we paid for him to be abused in solitary.

[Mnemosyne]

3. It can sure get discouraging at times, can't it?!

Karma is. That's the hope I hold onto.

[EFerrari]

10. Maybe if we can hold the truth, we can do the rest of it, too.

[Luminous Animal]

4. About this, I am pleased.

[Luminous Animal]

5. And the twitter universe is largely overlooking this:

The judge also ordered prosecutors to scan hard drives from computers from Manning's unit in Iraq to look for specific software.

Which is pretty fucking important.

[msanthrope]

6. Because it's not important.

Really, it's not....when you argue that 'x' soldier downloaded WoW, but didn't get charged, but your soldier downloaded crap from Julian Assange and did get charged, then you have pretty much gone past the guilt phase and are in to sentencing mitigation.

As for allowing the damage reports....well, the judge has agreed to look at them. She hasn't agreed to turn them over to the defense. And allowing the State Department to file a brief in this matter means that Mr. Manning is not going to trial this summer.....

Finally....the grand jury request is laughable, and a sign of desperation.

[Luminous Animal]

7. Downloaded crap FROM Julian? What does that even mean?

[msanthrope]

9. I suggest you read the charges...and understand that Mr. Manning is charged, specifically,

in part, with getting software from Assange (via certain wikileaks contacts in Boston), and placing it on SIPRNet and also, running specific searches on SIPRNet at the behest of Assange in violation of Article 92.

At the Article 32 hearing, the government provided enough specific evidence to move these charges forward. Mr. Manning was really bad at covering his tracks, apparently.

Being familiar with the specifics of the charges is helpful.

edited to add...the important legal argument, however, is the 'aiding the enemy' charge. Everything else is secondary.

[Luminous Animal]

11. Oh, I've read the charges. They do not mention Assange or Wikileaks.

[msanthrope]

12. The Article 32 did, as sufficiency to the elements of the crimes

charged. And the defense provided no plausible refutation to any of the evidence regarding violation of Article 92.

So, I would suggest knowing the specifics of the charges, and knowing how the testimony presented at the Article 32 provided the standard required to advance those charges.

Mr. Manning is in mitigation mode, which is overall a smart strategy.

[Luminous Animal]

13. Please post the text of the specific CHARGES against Manning that refer to Assange or Wikileaks

both or either.

[msanthrope]

14. As I have suggested to you, if you read the charges, and follow along the specifics proved to the

standard required at the Article 32, you will have your answers.

I will not do your googling for you, nor will I explain basic civics or crim. pro. to you because I would prefer to pay you the compliment of assuming that someone who defends Mr. Manning knows the specific elements of the crimes charged against him.

If you do not understand why the charges in violation of Article 92 involve Mr. Manning's interactions with Mr. Assange, then I respectfully suggest to you that you review the record of testimony offered at the Article 32. When you are more familiar with the specifics of the case, I think you will ask better legal questions.

[Luminous Animal]

15. Ahahaha! Nice. Because you can't. Because neither are mentioned in the charges.

Oh well.

[msanthrope]

16. Well, no. Neither is Al Qaeda, and yet, Mr. Manning is charged with aiding them.

You know the 'aiding the enemy charge?' Al Qaeda is not specifically named. And yet, the specific elements of the charge presented at the Article 32 indicate that Mr. Manning is charged with helping AlQaeda.

I find it interesting you insist on a process argument rather than the actual evidence presented at the 32.

The defense tried that, too. And that's why the prosecution got every single charge they wanted.

[Luminous Animal]

17. Your words: "Mr. Manning is charged, specifically...with getting software from Assange

... and also, running specific searches on SIPRNet at the behest of Assange."

Nope. Mr. Manning is charged with no such things. And you know it.

[msanthrope]

18. As I've suggested, understanding crim pro a little better might

prevent what seems to be a failure to understand that the government has an obligation to detail the elements of the charges against you.

So, I can charge you to the minimum required to get an arrest warrant and hold you in jail.

But then I have an obligation to tell you and the court what the elements of the charges are...that gets done in a hearing (and discovery).

For example, I can charge Jerry Sandusky with IDSI under PA Con St. 3123. My charge document can be bare bones..a recitation of the statute. I can get an arrest warrant off of that. But I am obligated to detail those charges (who, what, where, etc.) as the case moves through the system. Jerry Sandusky is therefore charged (you can use the word 'accused' if you like it better) with specific acts (AR) on specific people as proof to the elements.

I'm not really sure why you are picking a seemingly semantic fight???

[msanthrope]

8. So Manning isn't going to trial until the Fall, then, based on defense motions....

By the time the judge looks at reports, and then makes her rulings, and it is appealed, and by the time the State Department gets finished, it will be the Fall.


Which tells me this--Manning isn't happy with the plea deal offered him, and wants to spend as much time avoiding trial....