Judge unimpressed with Bradley Manning’s latest list of complaints
posted at 2:31 pm on June 10, 2012 by Jazz Shaw
When we last checked in on the adventures of Bradley Manning, the attorney for the accused traitor was attempting to get half of the charges against him thrown out. He apparently felt that bringing charges against the lad for allegedly revealing hundreds of thousands of classified documents was … umm… unfair. Or something.
So how did that work out for them? In the eyes of the judge, not so well.
Bradley Manning has failed to persuade a military judge to throw out half of the counts against him in a pre-trial hearing before his court martial for allegedly leaking hundreds of thousands of state secrets to WikiLeaks.
Colonel Denise Lind, presiding over the proceedings at Fort Meade in Maryland, rejected a defence motion that 10 of the 22 counts against the US soldier should be dismissed. The decision leaves Manning facing a possible sentence of life in military custody for allegedly having been the source of the WikiLeaks publications that included war logs from Afghanistan and Iraq, video footage of a US helicopter attack on civilians and diplomatic cables from around the world.
It wasn’t a total loss for his attorney, David Coombs, though, because he seems to have the judge at least raising some questions about two of the charges. Coombs claimed that the charges of having “exceeded authorized access” in downloading documents from the secret military computer network were invalid because part of Manning’s job was to search through various intelligence data and look for patterns. The judge appears to be at least somewhat sympathetic to this claim.
Manning’s defence team objected to that more expansive interpretation of the term “authorised access”, arguing that he was clearly permitted to use the computer network and that his purpose for doing so was irrelevant to the charge. The judge agreed with that legal interpretation, but said she did not have sufficient evidence to dismiss the two counts.
Her nuanced ruling, however, puts the onus on the prosecution to up its game in pressing these two counts at trial.
In the end, all that this maneuver accomplished was yet another delay in the beginning of the actual Court Martial while the judge schedules additional pretrial hearings to explore these complaints. The real trial may now be pushed back as far as January. It also shows precisely how careful the judge is being, making sure that nobody can claim that Manning didn’t get each and every opportunity to present the best defense possible.
As far as I’m concerned, Coombs needs to drop these legal parlor games, muster the best defense he can manage and move on to trial. There is simply no way that the military is going to throw this case out on a technicality and send Manning home. We’re not talking about a soldier getting drunk and stealing Navy’s mascot during the football game or sneaking off base when he’s supposed to be on watch. This is Aiding the Enemy during a time of war, and there is going to be a trial. The fact that his client is most likely not going to be facing a firing squad is already a small miracle, so Coombs should count his lucky stars and get on with it.
Besides, this latest delay has changed precisely nothing in terms of Manning’s situation. He’s still going to be locked up at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas under maximum security until the Court Martial concludes. I remain convinced that Coombs seems particularly ill suited for this case.
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Their is no other god……except the government.
–Progressives.
PappyD61 on May 9, 2013 at 8:48 AM
So where does Maj. Nidal Hassan fit into this?
gryphon202 on May 9, 2013 at 8:51 AM
Sky pilots beware…times have changed.
It is no longer “Onward Christian Soldiers…” It is become “Nahnu Jund Allāh Jund Al-watan.“
coldwarrior on May 9, 2013 at 8:53 AM
Ed, anybody who has served in the military could have told you this without the need of a follow-up.
The real issue here is who gets to define “forcibly.” Clearly something like mandatory Bible study would be considered forced proselytizing but what about mentioning Christ during the prayer at a retirement ceremony? There is a real danger here that is covered up by going to the extremes. The left hates faith and is looking to slowly eradicating it from the military and nobody is going to convince me otherwise. Just wait until the first chaplains are kicked out of the service because they refuse to preside over sodomite fuax-marriage rites in a military chapel.
Happy Nomad on May 9, 2013 at 8:57 AM
They are backing off the trial balloon they floated due to massive push back. But the seed has been planted.
tommyboy on May 9, 2013 at 9:00 AM
Why bring up a military officer who merely went postal on a crowd of soldiers? That was an instance of workplace violence. The 13 killed and 30 wounded are not even eligible for the Purple Heart because, you know, that would mean they were attacked by a Muslim…. in Texas.
Happy Nomad on May 9, 2013 at 9:00 AM
Don’t buy it or they wouldn’t have Mikey Weinstein “consulting” them..
melle1228 on May 9, 2013 at 9:04 AM
27 comments or bust!
Bishop on May 9, 2013 at 9:07 AM
The heat got too hot for them, so they backed their plans down…for now.
kingsjester on May 9, 2013 at 9:14 AM
A poster here summed it up last week … (paraphrased) …
Gay — out and proud
Christianity — don’t ask, don’t tell
Paul-Cincy on May 9, 2013 at 9:19 AM
The watch for violations of the right of religious expression needs to continue.
22044 on May 9, 2013 at 9:21 AM
Coke and Christianity are OK..of course…Don’t ban anything.
We can just do a “big gulp” type regulation, yea, that’s the ticket! Legislate civility or a reasonable limit.
This preaching limit is redolent of second amendment limits.
Does every tradition or sacred object have a bull’s eye painted on it lately — or is it me?
I would be a lot more comfortable if it were not for the smell of Christian and traditional faith bashing I keep getting a whiff of in so many places. I keep feeling that it starts with the media and top officials and they just don’t want to come out and say what is really on their minds.
WAS THIS REALLY A PROBLEM?
I doubt it.
IlikedAUH2O on May 9, 2013 at 9:21 AM
Mormon missionaries at my door don’t bother me half as much as gays in bars.
Darn! Now I just lost my pass for cool left coast parties….hope the attentive ones are busy with the early showers in rehab.
IlikedAUH2O on May 9, 2013 at 9:25 AM
Remain vigilant especially when you have like likes of Mikey Weinstein whose sole area of expertise is denigrating Christianity.
AH_C on May 9, 2013 at 9:29 AM
Hhhmmm… “forcibly” can have different contexts. I too had a negative initial reaction to the DOJ policy. In discussing this with some friends, I remembered a personal incident that moved this into a much grayer area for me.
Twenty some years ago I was a young college student on ROTC scholarship. Being a “military brat” it seemed like a good path. Unfortunately, the command structure in that unit was (I didn’t know until much later) far different, bordering on abusive, than the typical ROTC command eventually leading to disciplinary action for the active duty personnel running it. So, I am not writing this claiming it to be typical, but merely as a way in which “forcibly” can have a different meaning in a military structure.
During an intensive 2 week pre-semester “boot camp” at a local military base, we were there for 2 Sundays. We did the basic boot camp stuff, PT, marching, tear gas chamber, obstacle course, cleaning baracks, polishing shoes and brass, etc. On Sunday mornings we were offered an option – attend Sunday ecumenical services or clean the barrack’s bathroom. Needless to say, all of us 18-19 year olds atttended church services.
We certainly weren’t forced in the conventional sense, however, we were certainly coerced. Who wouldn’t want to put on kahkis and sit in church rather than don dungarees and scrub the head? I’m not suggesting that this particular type of coersion is happening regularly or even today, but I have heard friends tell of not dissimilar events in the regular military in the 80s.
I have no idea if it was events such as that leading to the DOJ pronouncement, something vastly different or just the general anti-Christianity of so many in this administration. However, I do think that there may be another side to this story that has not been articulated or complaints about some specific events or command that led to it. At this point, I’m going to keep a more open mind about it until/unless there is some evidence, at least anecdotal, that this is in some way restricting service members normal practice of their faith.
deepdiver on May 9, 2013 at 9:29 AM
You may be hanging out in the wrong bars.
tommyboy on May 9, 2013 at 9:31 AM
To a certain degree and in particular to this conversation I would agree.
However, the problem lies in trying to reconcile religious freedom with the social changes that force leaders are so fond of. This is especially pertinent to homosexuality.
For example, if one believes according to their religion that homosexuality is wrong (please take notice I mean morally wrong, not a hateful response or discriminatory) how does their “freedom” to believe that comport with the “freedom” of one to be homosexual? How does that affect unit cohesion and dilute the overall mission? Will my religious views affect an ability to be promoted? Will I be socially castigated by the CoC for not being a “team player” by adhering to matters of faith?
While I love my brother in a biblical sense, I may disagree with him on such matters. That disagreement manifest itself in not wanting to room with him or being exposed to his lifestyle. So is my “religious freedom” which is under-girded by moral tenets still protected and respected?
This is just one of the complexities and issues which are tangential. It also aptly displays why a military force is no place for social experimentation.
Marcus Traianus on May 9, 2013 at 9:36 AM
What is the social experiment? People keep using that phrase, but I don’t think it applies here.
segasagez on May 9, 2013 at 9:49 AM
That word was only in there for PR. To a leftist, “forcibly” means all sorts of weird things that a normal person would never connect with the actual word.
The Pentagon is a stinkhole full of idiots like ol’ General Casey, whose reaction to the Ft Hood terrorist attack was to say,
“As great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well.”
These are the sorts of morons who are going to be interpreting what “forcibly” means – and you will be amazed at what they come up with. Just remember, Ft Hood wasn’t a terrorist attack, even though the self-proclaimed jihadi was screaming “Allahu ackbar” while he gunned down Americans and had indicated his displeasure with all things non-muzzie for YEARS before. Ft Hood was “workplace violence” … and you’re going to trust this same crew to reasonably interpret what “forcibly” means? LOL.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 9, 2013 at 9:51 AM
The social experiment is that instead of creating unit cohesion and a team; the military is not segmented into special interest groups which defeats the whole purpose of unit cohesion.
Don’t think there isn’t special interest groups see racial and gender quotas in the military.. See the constant powerpoint presentations and EO classes.
melle1228 on May 9, 2013 at 10:06 AM
Not really, Ed. The question that is unanswered is: why this sudden and urgent crackdown now?
When this administration declares there’s a new crisis that needs fixing right now, I think we’ve all learned enough not to let what they do slide, much less lend them any support. Never let a crisis go to waste, y’know. Or just manufacture a crisis when it serves an end.
whatcat on May 9, 2013 at 10:33 AM
Eventually those progressives are gonna run into a bit of a problem with their muslim allies in regard to that concept.
hawkeye54 on May 9, 2013 at 10:58 AM
Even worse, these assclowns who disgrace the uniform they wear are taking their orders from Mikey Weinstein, a particularly nasty and virulent anti-Christian hatemonger. He terms a Christian discussing faith as “being spiritually raped by fundamentalist Christian religious predators”.
whatcat on May 9, 2013 at 11:20 AM
Don’t worry. When they’re in the foxholes, they will convert.
Hucklebuck on May 9, 2013 at 11:56 AM
What is “undue pressure?”
That simple question makes a huge difference. We’ve already seen a PR person for the Air Force define “making someone uncomfortable” as the standard for proselytization.
Yes, there’s a balance that needs to be kept. Saying something about your belief in God or the need to believe in God may well make someone “uncomfortable,” but that is not sufficient reason to label it proselytization or call it “over the line.”
Behind the story, there is a power struggle going on. Weinstein and others like him want to redefine what started as a simple standard to prevent coercion by superiors into a strict “zero tolerance” type standard to prevent even a chaplain from encouraging someone to become a Christian.
What’s hard to read here is whether the Air Force is simply trying to clarify the rules without actually changing them, or whether they’re trying to change the rules by interpretation while pretending nothing has changed.
But it’s clear enough that some, at least, are trying to turn “proselytization” into a dirty word implying coercion where it has not typically had that meaning.
In Christian doctrine, it’s simply known as the Great Commission. And you can’t tell a chaplain to take the position that conversion to Christianity is off-limits without trampling religious freedom.
There Goes the Neighborhood on May 9, 2013 at 3:17 PM
I believe the term “social experiment” refers to the fact that no one knows how unit cohesion will be affected and other consequences of the decision to change the policy on open homosexuality in the military, but they’re doing it anyway.
A fairly straightforward point, but it runs afoul of the push to mainstream homosexuality at all costs, regardless of consequences known or unknown.
In this case, the consequence is the natural conflict between homosexuality and religious freedom. Note that the question is not whether homosexuality is permitted, but whether Christians who believe it is sinful will be permitted to continue to believe that.
There Goes the Neighborhood on May 9, 2013 at 3:30 PM
I’d like it if NO Christians were in the military. None. Nada.
Let every other religion/NON-religion (ie -atheist) go sign up and protect the country……..
and die for it.
Why should Christians always be the ones at the front of the lines and then have to be mocked, given few or little support at home when they do make it home?
LET others do it, get stigmatized, and leave the Christians alone. They’ll eventually need to do a draft because those “other” religions or “non-religions” won’t fill all the slots. Watch the uproar then.
athenadelphi on May 9, 2013 at 3:32 PM
Obama Administration Allowed Radical Cleric to Curse US Navy SEAL Heroes at Their Funeral Services (Video & Transcript)
Pole-Cat on May 9, 2013 at 4:39 PM
They didn’t “float” anything. This was a fabricated story from the get-go. It was just the FRC trying to portray Christians as victims.
Mark Jaquith on May 9, 2013 at 5:07 PM