Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Lawyer Charges Feds Withholding Evidence Favorable to Bradley Manning

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 09:55 AM
Original message
Lawyer Charges Feds Withholding Evidence Favorable to Bradley Manning
http://tech.scoople.it/feds-withholding-evidence-favora...

November 29, 2011
Feds Withholding Evidence Favorable to Bradley Manning, Lawyer Charges

From: CNET, Threat Level.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This story provided by Scoople.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bradley Manning's attorney has suggested that the hundreds of megabytes of U.S. government data his client allegedly handed to WikiLeaks didn't really harm national security after all. A new document filed in Manning's criminal case provides an early glimpse at the defense's legal strategy in advance of a preliminary hearing on December 16. 1

"The defense has repeatedly requested the below discovery in this case, but the government has consistently responded with a blanket denial of the defense request," Coombs wrote in the partially redacted filing. 2

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TransitJohn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
1. +1, recced to zero. eom
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
2. GASP -- they wouldn't do that...
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. I know
doesn't this just stretch the imagination? :think:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. ...
:spray: indeed!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MisterP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. and if they do, it HAS to be "stay-behinds" Rove! Cheney! Rove! Cheney!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
5. I can see that maybe that makes a difference at sentencing
But does anyone know if it would change the nature of the charges or the requirements for a conviction?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scuba Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Reporting a crime is not a crime. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. I suppose that's a defense position, but that seems to be a non sequitur to the ref article
Whether or not the release caused damage, would be something separate from whether the information released exposed one or more criminal activities. The article referred to is very brief and only addresses damage caused by the release of information.

That seems to suggest that the amount and kind of the damage caused (next to none) is in some way a relevant issue for the defense.

I wonder, how so?

It's my general understanding that a defense is mounted to counter the prosecution's attempt to demonstrate that the issues central to a criminal charge have been met.

I am wondering if anyone knows whether the quantity or quality of the damage caused by an unauthorized release of information is really an issue under the law that Manning is accused of violating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Huey P. Long Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
6. kr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MNBrewer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
7. Bradley Manning treatment in custody concerns MEPs
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/29/bradley-man... >

"The MEPs said internal investigations into Manning's treatment in custody, which included solitary confinement for up to 23 hours a day, inspections by officers every five minutes from 5am onwards and removal of his clothes, had been marred by "clear conflicts of interest".

They call for US authorities to grant Juan Mndez, the UN special rapporteur on torture, access to Manning.

Mendez has made repeated requests for access to the military base where Manning is held, all of which have been refused by US authorities."



All this from the Transparent President!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
9. No one is actually surprised, are they? Manning remains an example of what we do with moral people
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Smarmie Doofus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
10. Mea culpa. I accidentally unrecced it.
Someone make it up for me... will ya?

Re. the post: the government is, has been, and will always BE full of shit re. this case.

>>>"The defense has repeatedly requested the below discovery in this case, but the government has consistently responded with a blanket denial of the defense request," Coombs wrote in the partially redacted filing. >>>


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. remember how many years they denied the effects of agent orange?
Or the exposure of troops to chemical weapons in the gulf war (gulf war disease)? In particular, if the Pentagon says something, you can figure it's not true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 18th 2014, 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC