Manning’s Defense Moves to Defend Right to Discuss ‘Harm’ from Alleged Leaks in Court - FDL

[WillyT]

Manning’s Defense Moves to Defend Right to Discuss ‘Harm’ from Alleged Leaks in Court
By: Kevin Gosztola - FDL
Thursday July 12, 2012 11:01 am

<snip>

The defense for Pfc. Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of releasing classified information to WikiLeaks, has moved to stop the prosecution from preventing Manning from using evidence of “harm” as part of his defense. The move is in response to a motion military prosecutors filed in March that would block Manning’s defense from referencing key damage reports in court.

A motion filed by the defense, which is to be argued in court during the upcoming July 16 hearing, requests Judge Col. Denise Lind deny the prosecution’s motion because it is overly broad, evidence of harm (or lack thereof) would be relevant to the impeachment of witnesses, lack of harm goes to element of charged offenses and whether damage was caused or not could influence whether he was convicted of causing “injury” to the United States.

As the motion contends, the government has to prove whether Manning had “reason to believe” the “charged information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” That means they have to demonstrate he knew the information “could be used” for “prohibited purposes.” Members of the panel that hear Manning’s case should “be entitled to consider whether harm actually occurred, so as to test the reasonableness” of “Manning’s belief that this information could not cause damage to the United States.”'

It shows a part of the defense’s legal argument will be that if Manning did leak the material, he did it selectively:

The Defense should be permitted to argue that, by virtue of his expertise and training, PFC Manning knew which documents and information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation. PFC Manning had access to a great deal of very sensitive information that, if disclosed, could have caused damage to the United States. By selecting the information that he allegedly did, PFC Manning deliberately chose information that could not cause damage to the United States. The reasonableness of his belief that the information could not cause damage is buttressed by the damage assessments which say that the leaks did not cause damage to the United States. In short, the Defense submits that the damage assessments confirm that PFC Manning did not have ”reason to believe” that the information could cause damage to the United States or be used to the advantage of a foreign nation. <emphasis added>

Manning’s defense lawyer David Coombs appeared to test this argument during a previous motion hearing in April. Then Coombs had not seen damage assessment reports from the Department of State, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)/Information Review Task Force (IRTF), the Department of Homeland Security, and 25 of 63 governmental agencies that conducted a review for the Office of Director of National Intelligence (ODNI)/Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive (ONCIX). Military prosecutors were still successfully withholding this information.

According to the motion, the defense claims their suspicions have been confirmed. Assessments read include factual statements, such as “no sources were compromised because all sources were referred to by initials, not names.” The assessments also “contain qualified statements concerning possible harm from the release of the charged information. For example, “If X happens, then it could cause harm to our efforts to achieve certain outcome.”

The motion indicates the next flashpoint for struggle...

<snip>

More: http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/07/12/mannings-defense-moves-to-defend-right-to-discuss-harm-from-alleged-leaks-in-court/

[struggle4progress]

1. "... by virtue of his expertise and training, PFC Manning knew which documents and information could

be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation ..."

IMO, the alleged scope of the release (perhaps 750K documents) would rather undermine Manning's claim to have deliberated carefully about the actual releases

Moreover, the military is unlikely to adopt the view that a PFC can freely choose which sensitive documents to release, based on his personal judgment of the likely consequences of release

[WillyT]

2. Maybe... But Then You Broach The Matter Of Whether It's National Security, Or Embarrassment...

Last edited Thu Jul 12, 2012, 09:42 PM - Edit history (1)

The video of our military murdering media and locals, cannot be considered National Security...

But it sure can be considered... at the very least... "Embarrassing".

And I have NO problem with that footage coming to our attention.

After all... WE paid for that massacre.