General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Kafkaesque trial of Bradely Manning: UPDATE at end of thread...
Last edited Wed Jun 6, 2012, 07:01 PM - Edit history (1)
Coombs comments sarcastically: "The defence believes that no defence discovery request would ever be 'just right' to satisfy Goldilocks."
When the defence asked to see "damage assessments" or "investigations" that the government had carried out into the likely impact of WikiLeaks, he was told none existed.
After much effort was expended, Coombs managed to get the government to admit that what he should have asked for – according to its vocabulary – was "working papers".
"By morphing, distorting and constantly changing definitions, the government is trying to 'define' itself out of producing relevant discovery," Coombs complains. "It cannot be permitted to do this."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/03/bradley-manning-lawyer-government-documents
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
sudopod
(5,019 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)byeya
(2,842 posts)"The Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy . . . trial . . . ."[1] The Clause protects the defendant from delay between the presentation of the indictment or similar charging instrument and the beginning of trial." (from Wiki)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The defense wanted more time to prepare, so they waived his 6th amendment rights.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)defense filed a demand for a speedy trial. That was a year and a half ago.
Speedy Trial Update
On 9 January 2011, the defense filed a demand for speedy trial with the Government. PFC Manning has been in pretrial confinement since 29 May 2010. Since 12 July 2010, the case has been on Government requested excludable delay under R.C.M. 707(c). This delay request by the Government was approved by the court-martial convening authority.
http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2011/01/speedy-trial-update.html
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)require a "speedy trial." Theoretically, rights in the Constitution cannot be superseded by the UCMJ. But I get hazy on how this plays itself out in practice.
loose wheel
(112 posts)Bradley Manning was on a SIPRNET connected computer. Every keystroke he made, every action he took, and every file he copied was recorded by a archive drive connected to that network. At the time, if you had access to that network, it was a gentlemen's agreement that one did not go where one did not belong on that network.
Bradley Manning went into places he should not have gone and copied the information. At some point that information was passed to Wikileaks. The government knows exactly what was copied, the problem is that information that was sensitive and hasn't come out isn't in our best interest to have as public knowledge.
What damage has it done? The State Department diplomatic back channel was compromised, and that is where a lot of things happen. Foreign governments could not talk to the United States in confidence that it would not become public knowledge. That item alone has undoubtedly killed people who did not have to die. That's just one thing. It's probably enough.
Bradley Manning is simply not a good actor. He is no folk hero or iconoclast. His acts of taking and transmitting the information seems to have been nothing more than a fit of pique. He attacked female soldiers in at least one known instance prior to this. He was on his way to being removed from the Army under conditions less than honorable. This action compromised the national security of the United States for multiple reasons.
His lawyer can ask for a show of damage all he wants. The problem is Bradley Manning consented to being observed when he was given his clearance and everytime he logged into that network. He was observed by the network to have removed classified information. At least some of this information has been observed to have been released to the public. That is the government's case plain and simple.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)as Kafkaesque are ridiculous. For a prosecution to be "Kafkaesque", it would have to be at the least somewhat surprising that the act itself is prosecutable.
Anyone in the military doing what Manning did would absolutely expect to be prosecuted and in exactly the way it has been happening.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)the arrest and prosecution of Daniel Ellsberg after he leaked the Pentagon Papers.
Had you been around at the time, you would have no doubt been just fine with what Nixon's Justice Department (and subsequently his illegal Plumbers unit) did to Ellsberg.
snot
(10,493 posts)Luminous, don't let 'em get you down. Your efforts are helpful and appreciated.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)How, pray tell, are we the people to know who to vote for if we don't know what they're doing?
loose wheel
(112 posts)Ambassadors say one thing in public, but have always used intermediaries and back channels to talk to other governments. Often a country has a public position that may seem hardline because of it's public or it's neighbors may make any othe public position untenable. Whether it was the Romans and the Persians, the British and the French, or the United States and the Soviet Union. The ability to speak freely to the leadership of another country has always proven to be crucial.
Maybe the Iranian government wants to tell the United States and Israel that despite all of it's saber rattling, they are far more concerned with the Pakistan's nuclear weapons and Saudi Arabian aggression than with wiping out Israel. No problem, just pass a message to US diplomats, right? Well, thanks to Bradley Manning, wrong. Now Iran doesn't trust the US to keep that little secret. That might be important, right?
Your argument of no secrets is the same as announcing the date of 6 June 1943 as the date of the Normandy landings ahead of time, or perhaps making a press release that the Yorktown had left Pearl Harbor and was underway for the ocean northeast of Midway Island in June 1942.
Every nation, no matter a democracy or a monarchy, has always had some secrets it needed to keep. There is a reason that diplomatic messages were treated as secret. Some nations that may not want to approach the US publicly were able to do so privately. That is what Bradley Manning undermined and revealed.
Remember when North Korea shelled that South Korean island? Remember what wikileaks had revealed shortly before that? The Chinese were willing to accept a unified Korea under the South Korean government, with certain conditions, according to diplomatic cables released by wikileaks. What are the chances that the North Korean government was upset and decided to shell the South to express their dispproval?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)you missed the date of the invasion of Normandy. It was not "1943", but 1944, on June 6. Please report this to your government supervisor.
Obvious astro-turfer is obvious.
Bradley Manning is charged on probable cause, which I do agree exists. It is, however, un-American and deeply disappointing, that anyone in the government outside the immediate prosecution team is advertising that they believe he is guilty outside the courtroom. He is innocent until proven guilty and entitled to a fair trial.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)fought Hitler along a 2,000-mile front. Really pissed Stalin off and he was probably right to be pissed.
Way to serve that poster! Bravo!
loose wheel
(112 posts)I would expect the AG to say he expects that he will return a guilty verdict. I would also expect that the defense attorney to say that they will be able cast reasonable doubt on the government's evidence.
Please note, I state my opinion. I believe it to be reasonable based on the evidence and knowledge that I have. I am not ruling out changing my opinion if the facts indicate something else.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)and my calling you out, Mr. 9 whole posts, was to point out that you are likely, in my opinion, a paid astro-turfer of the US government out to ruin the defendant's right to a fair and impartial trial with a presumption of innocence. It is wrong for the government to do that and for a person to take money from the government to do that.
It might be that isn't actually the case, but my charge against you isn't the government bringing a criminal charge, but my long experience that brand new posters with an axe to grind in a properly multi-paragraphed posts on a very specific subject are astro-turfers.
I don't need the government telling me what to think, even if it tries to do so anonymously.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
pacalo
(24,721 posts)That the military has any court proceeding at all is a sham -- if we are to believe those who defend the military way; that soldiers are not to speak out against wrong under any circumstances.
