Bradley Manning's lawyer demands sentence cut

[struggle4progress]

Source: Guardian

David Coombs is demanding that at least seven years be cut from any sentence the US soldier might be given
Ed Pilkington
guardian.co.uk
Monday 3 September 2012 17.54 EDT

... The legal pleading by David Coombs, Manning's chief lawyer, was disclosed in a new motion to the military court that is hearing the soldier's court martial that he posted on his blog on Monday . The motion discloses in heavily redacted form some of the information the defence has gleaned in recent weeks about the way the soldier was treated while he was held for almost 10 months in solitary confinement at the military brig in Quantico marine base in Virginia in 2010/11.

Coombs argues that a stash of about 700 emails that have been disclosed to the defence reveal that military commanders in the brig completely ignored the professional advice of psychiatrists and other medical experts who had examined Manning and found him at no risk to himself and others ...

On the back of the new information, Coombs has refined his demand to the military court in a reflection perhaps of his growing confidence in the evidence that he has amassed. He has repeated his call that in the light of Manning's alleged mistreatment at Quantico all 22 charges against him should be dropped, but he now adds that at very least the soldier should have 10 days lopped off any sentence for each of the 265 days he was held in harsh conditions at Quantico. That amounts to just over seven years.

Coombs argues in the motion that Manning's military captors were more concerned about the possible media firestorm that might ensue should the soldier attempt to kill himself than they were about treating him properly ...


Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/03/bradley-manning-lawyer-demands-sentence-cut?newsfeed=true

[Angleae]

1. Life minus 7 years is still life.

[go west young man]

2. So you've already got him sentenced huh?

[Lurks Often]

3. The brig commander(s) were between a rock and a hard place,

if they listened to the "professional advice of psychiatrists and other medical experts who had examined Manning and found him at no risk to himself and others" and Manning intentionally hurts himself, their careers are over and there would be a lot of people yelling he was killed to shut him up.

[randome]

4. Individual judgment should come into play, too.

It's pretty obvious to me that Manning was deeply disturbed. I didn't need to consult with experts to know that.

What he did is stupid and criminal. But the Army should share some culpability for putting him within reach of classified information. That seems like a no-brainer to me. It shouldn't matter what kind of a risk to himself or others he was or was not.

[msanthrope]

5. Well, you've hit on the flaw in the defense case...apparently, Manning was disturbed enough to leak

information in support of Al Qaeda. But he wasn't so disturbed upon being captured and told he was facing imprisonment that he wanted to commit suicide.

That's a hard sell.

[ljm2002]

6. "disturbed enough to leak information in support of Al Qaeda"... WTF?

WTF is that supposed to mean? He leaked information that was damaging to the reputation of the U.S., that is undeniable. It was highly damaging to the reputation of the U.S. because among other things, it clearly showed our troops committing war crimes.

Also, you say "he wasn't so disturbed upon being captured and told he was facing imprisonment that he wanted to commit suicide" ... Yet his treatment for the first 18 months of imprisonment was based upon the premise that he did indeed want to commit suicide. Hence the solitary confinement and enforced nakedness.

That's a hard sell.

[msanthrope]

7. Dude--that's the charge against him. That he helped Al-Qaeda. That's why he's facing life.

The prosecutor has to prove that charge, but it survived the Article 32 hearing. (It's one of 22 charges.)

As to your second paragraph, well, let me clarify---the DEFENSE argument seems to be

1) Bradley Manning was suffering under extreme stress due to his gender identity disorder, and that's why he leaked what he did. (the defense to the charges, per the Article 32 hearing.)Article here on this defense.


2) Bradley Manning was not so stressed that he would have hurt himself upon capture and finding out that he was facing a life charge--therefore the terms of his stay at Quantico were unjust. (the Article 13 motion, due for argument October 5.)



It's a hard sell to argue both stances on the mental health of one's client.

[ljm2002]

8. Dude, that may be the charge against him...

...but it is certainly not a part of the defense argument. Therefore it can hardly contradict another plank of the defense's position.

[msanthrope]

9. The mental stress due to gender identity disorder most certainly is the defense to the charge--

I included a pretty good article about how the defense presented at the Article 32.

It's not the defense I would have presented. But Coombs is apparently using it.

FYI--I don't know if you've noticed, but the defense is not going with 'Bradley is innocent' as its theme.

[ljm2002]

10. Your exact claim was:

"Well, you've hit on the flaw in the defense case...apparently, Manning was disturbed enough to leak

information in support of Al Qaeda. But he wasn't so disturbed upon being captured and told he was facing imprisonment that he wanted to commit suicide.

That's a hard sell."

So your claim is that the defense says he "was disturbed enough to lead information in support of Al Qaeda". Which clearly is NOT anything that the defense claims. You to on to say this contradicts another part of their argument.

Please at least defend the argument you made in the first place.

[msanthrope]

11. Perhaps I was not clear--in facing the charge of supporting Al-Qaeda, the defense seems to be

arguing that Manning was suffering greatly from stress due to dealing with gender identity disorder.

This caused him to fail to appreciate that the leaking would support al-Qaeda. (therefore, negating an element of intent required by statute.)

I'm not saying the defense thinks he leaked to al-Qaeda, merely that that is the charge on the table that the prosecution has successfully passed to trial (assuming the October hearing doesn't mitigate that.)

Regardless of what you think Manning did, he is tasked with fighting the charges.

[ljm2002]

12. Thanks. Now, please tell me...

...why the fact that he was not suicidal weakens the defense's argument? Are you really suggesting that in order for one to claim stress, one must be suicidal?

I am not asking merely as a "gotcha" question. It's just that you seem to be saying, hey, they claim he was very stressed, and yet they also claim he was not suicidal, and those things contradict each other. Whereas it seems readily apparent to me that one can be highly stressed without wanting to commit suicide.

[hack89]

13. They have to thread the needle

make his mental state appear bad enough to rationalize the leaking while making it good enough to show he was not suicidal.

The danger is that in proving one side you also undermine your other argument. One out of two is not good enough - the defense has to be 2 out of 2.

[ljm2002]

14. Oh please.

My point I hope is obvious: no, you do not have to "thread the needle" to argue your client is highly stressed but not suicidal. There is no contradiction there, no needle threading required. Many people are highly stressed but not suicidal. There is no legal criterion requiring a person to be actually suicidal if they want to make an argument based on stress.

I do recognize they must provide evidence of stress. But to say that not being suicidal undermines such a claim is just ludicrous. That would be a very high bar indeed. Much like the witch trials of old, where if she could swim, she was guilty and must be burned at the stake; but if she drowned, she was innocent albeit dead so a lot of good it did her. In this case, if he had only tried to kill himself, then maybe we could take the defense claims seriously. And if he had succeeded, then we'd know he was stressed -- but then the point would be moot.

Anyway. If you know of any legal requirement that a person must be shown to be suicidal in order to successfully claim they are under stress, please do provide a citation to that effect.

[hack89]

16. Not a big deal

Manning will be found guilty - notice that "I didn't do it" is not part of his defense? Any defense that depends on mental state is risky as hell - the most likely jury response will be "I don't care how you felt - you broke the law.".

[msanthrope]

19. Oh, I don't think you are asking a 'gotcha' question--no, I think you go to the heart of the

argument....it IS possible to very stressed, but NOT suicidal....and that is what the defense must show. The problem is that Manning, in December of 2010, did qualify for POI status.....see page 5:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_zC44SBaZPoMzMyNWExZmUtZjEzMS00ZjM2LWE3OWMtM2I4NzY5NDNkMmFh/edit?hl=en&authkey=CMKgiogG

That he was held in MAX conditions is undisputed. What is disputed is whether it was appropriate to hold him on POI, and then, for a few weeks, suicide watch. The judge will have to determine if the statuses were changed as punishment, or as an overabundance of caution.

He was held in suicide watch for a few days in January of 2011, presumably after words with a guard, and right after his new charges came out. This was removed, but he remained on POI. Then in March of 2011 he was put on suicide watch after making a 'joke.'

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/03/ap-wikileaks-manning-lawyer-says-suicide-joke-led-to-stripping-030511

Of course...there had just been a brig suicide--

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/02/marine_quantico_brig_death_020410w

What has not been established is how much credence a brig commander is supposed to give a psychiatric assessment....for example, if, as in Manning's case, POI had been removed, and a suicide attempt had been successful, who gets the blame? The commander, or the shrink? And who has final say? The commander, or the shrink? Did the commander err by not listening to the shrinks, and did he exceed his authority. What was the intent behind it? Was it to punish, or did the commander simply not want to take the risk of anything going wrong? After all, he's just had a brig suicide, which is no easy feat.

Now, it's NOT the job of prison guards to decide if you are kidding or not when you joke about suicide. And it may not be the brig commander's job, either. Ultimately, the court may decide that all assessments aside, the commander has the repsonsibility and the authority to keep Manning safe....

Like I said, the defense lawyer is going to have to show that his client was stressed enough to commit the leaks, but not so stressed he was a danger to himself..and the brig commander erred in his judgment.

[Lurks Often]

15. What I heard was that the Army did not have enough people

with Manning's specific skill set to either discharge him early or leave him state side.


I get the impression that most people with Manning's specific skill set didn't want to enlist because they could make a lot more money as a civilian in the business sector.

[randome]

17. I had not heard that. Thanks.