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:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Comment pages: 1 2

Hasn’t she been executed yet?

OmahaConservative on June 10, 2012 at 2:33 PM

…no lotion?

KOOLAID2 on June 10, 2012 at 2:34 PM

They’re just stalling until the lame duck pardons.

cthulhu on June 10, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Federal Pound Him in the A…. prison is what he needs…

ted c on June 10, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Hasn’t she been executed yet?

OmahaConservative on June 10, 2012 at 2:33 PM

My first thought, too.

My second thought: I’m hope Manning has a cellmate with the size and disposition of either Maggot or Jefferson from The Dirty Dozen.

BuckeyeSam on June 10, 2012 at 2:42 PM

…like Hasan of the Fort Hood shootings…another swift and speedy trial!

KOOLAID2 on June 10, 2012 at 2:42 PM

I really hope this worm goes to trial, gets convicted, and whatever the court can do to this traitor is the max!

On the issue of military trials, it seems that Ft. Hood pos rop type terrorits murderer has gotten himself a beard and this is causing problems with his trial?

Please judges finally put this beyond American to trial and give him his gals for what he did! May all his gals look like h thomas!

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/accused-fort-hood-gunmans-beard-postpones-court-hearing/
L

letget on June 10, 2012 at 2:44 PM

May all his gals look like h thomas!
L

letget on June 10, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Lolz…

OmahaConservative on June 10, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Where is Tail-gunner Joe when you need him?

Rio Linda Refugee on June 10, 2012 at 2:51 PM

A firing squad is too good for this traitor…..seems to be a lot of that turning the back on this country especially some politicians if you know what I mean

crosshugger on June 10, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Teh Ghey…!

Seven Percent Solution on June 10, 2012 at 2:53 PM

At cthulhu

He can’t get a “pardon” until he’s convicted, can he?

Gravel Gertie on June 10, 2012 at 2:56 PM

It’s funny,I’m unimpressed with him too.

docflash on June 10, 2012 at 2:56 PM

They’re just stalling until the lame duck pardons.

cthulhu on June 10, 2012 at 2:35 PM

As much as a socialist, military hating, country hating preezy as this guy is…no way.

Not even he is that tone deaf.

cozmo on June 10, 2012 at 2:57 PM

(warning: heartless comment dead-ahead)

I really wish they’d make an example out of this person.

Gravel Gertie on June 10, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Actually, he has only one decision to make — Whether to be shot or hung. Then we need to decide what to do with his lawyers.

Old Country Boy on June 10, 2012 at 3:00 PM

It would probably be better to execute him for treason, before he serves his multiple life terms — save the taxpayers some buck, just sayin’.

KenInIL on June 10, 2012 at 3:01 PM

As much as Manning is guilty as sin and will undoubtedly be convicted, you seem to misunderstand what a defense attorney is: a zealous representative for the client!

Not to make your life more convenient.

If the attorney cast doubt on two of the charges, they’re doing their job.

Mitchell Heisman on June 10, 2012 at 3:08 PM

It would probably be better to execute him for treason, before he serves his multiple life terms — save the taxpayers some buck, just sayin’.

KenInIL on June 10, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Sadly the politicians that run the armed forces today do not know what it takes to keep our country safe.

Rio Linda Refugee on June 10, 2012 at 3:08 PM

My second thought: I’m hope Manning has a cellmate with the size and disposition of either Maggot or Jefferson from The Dirty Dozen.

BuckeyeSam on June 10, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Or Ian McShane (in character) from Deadwood.

Ugly on June 10, 2012 at 3:08 PM

If guilty. Hang him high.

Bmore on June 10, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Not literally of course.

Bmore on June 10, 2012 at 3:11 PM

Think he had it in for America?

Vindictive, unpatriotic, a slave to his personal ideology?

The perfect Obama voter. Liberal Taliban.

Speakup on June 10, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Hang him high.

Bmore on June 10, 2012 at 3:10 PM

For a little levity…

(great movie, btw)

Ugly on June 10, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Actually, he has only one decision to make — Whether to be shot or hung. Then we need to decide what to do with his lawyers.

Old Country Boy on June 10, 2012 at 3:00 PM

We should thank his lawyers, unless of course you hate and despise America’s Founding Fathers who were so adamant in their beliefs that every individual be presumed innocent until proven guilty that their expressed thoughts on the subject were, “Better one hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man is falsely convicted.”

SWalker on June 10, 2012 at 3:15 PM

“Better one hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man is falsely convicted.”

SWalker on June 10, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Are you putting forth the proposition that this spurm burping punk is innocent?

Rio Linda Refugee on June 10, 2012 at 3:24 PM

sp….unk

Just, eeeww…

Anyway,

Sometimes it’s “tough to swallow” the great blessing we have here of being innocent until proven guilty. I know it chafes sometimes, when the guy is so obviously guilty, but it’s a principle and if I’m ever arrested, I will be greatfull for it.

Gravel Gertie on June 10, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Military judges have very little credibility. See, for just one example, the trial of LTC Lakin, which would make a Kangaroo Court judge blush.

VorDaj on June 10, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Unlike Obama, Manning revealed nothing that got anyone killed.

VorDaj on June 10, 2012 at 3:37 PM

One rope with two nooses for Nidal Hasan and Bradley Manning, thrown over a single crossbeam.

Save money and show some military efficiency.

profitsbeard on June 10, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Hasn’t she been executed yet?

OmahaConservative on June 10, 2012 at 2:33 PM

I say send IT to TX and let cozmo take care of IT.

SparkPlug on June 10, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Hang him high.

Bmore on June 10, 2012 at 3:10 PM

But we get to torture him fist right?

SparkPlug on June 10, 2012 at 3:41 PM

“Better one hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man is falsely convicted.”

SWalker on June 10, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Are you putting forth the proposition that this spurm burping punk is innocent?

Rio Linda Refugee on June 10, 2012 at 3:24 PM

No. I am putting forth the argument that until he is actually convicted he is presumed innocent, and as such fully deserving of the best legal representation available. Furthermore, that the lawyers representing him are exercising their legal, moral and ethical obligations to our Republic by representing him in the most aggressive manner possible and until it is shown that they have abused the ethical constraints paced upon them by the judicial system, should be considered as honorable individuals.

If you feel the need to sacrifice your essential liberties for a little temporary security, then I pity you. I prefer living not in a totalitarian and repressive police state, but in a republic predicated upon the freedom and liberty of the individual.

I have little doubt that Bradley Manning is guilty of treason, and in my personal opinion should not only be convicted of it, but placed in front of a firing squad once convicted. That said however, I do not condone and outright refuse to convict his lawyers of the crime of treason, or suggest that any sanction personal or professional be levied against them for their presenting an aggressive defense of their client, nor should they be disparaged or attacked in any way shape or form for agreeing to defend him.

SWalker on June 10, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on June 10, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Thank you, this is exactly what I was trying to express. John Adam’s (one of my hero’s) expressed it far more eloquently and effectively than I could ever hope to.

SWalker on June 10, 2012 at 3:45 PM

I remain convinced that Coombs seems particularly ill suited for this case.

Disclosure required: What is you background, Jazz?

CorporatePiggy on June 10, 2012 at 3:47 PM

(warning: heartless comment dead-ahead)

I really wish they’d make an example out of this person.

Gravel Gertie on June 10, 2012 at 2:58 PM

.
I’m quite certain that somewhere there is someone who is really big-time major league offended by your TOTALLY heartless comment.
.
.
.
But it ain’t me ! : )

listens2glenn on June 10, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Federal Pound Him in the A…. prison is what he needs…

ted c on June 10, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Um, you do know he’s gay? Pretty sure that’s what he wants.

msupertas on June 10, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Unlike Obama, Manning revealed nothing that got anyone killed.

VorDaj on June 10, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Prove that about Manning’s treason.

(The Obama Administration’s effect is clearer- as with Biden’s revelation about Seal Team 6, etc.,- but will result in nothing beyond a hefty pension when he is ejected from office this November.)

profitsbeard on June 10, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Bradley Manning should be rendered deceased when he is found guilty of his treason and global sabotage. I would also call for Death By Bunga — but to Bradley Manning that would be a treat and more like a send-off parade and he’d enjoy it immensely.

FlatFoot on June 10, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Disclosure required: What is you background, Jazz?

CorporatePiggy on June 10, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Jazz will see this again and studiously ignore it. :X

CorporatePiggy on June 10, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Has he tried the Obama did it too defense?

ConcealedKerry on June 10, 2012 at 4:17 PM

America’s Founding Fathers who were so adamant in their beliefs that every individual be presumed innocent until proven guilty that their expressed thoughts on the subject were, “Better one hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man is falsely convicted.”

JFTR, Sir William Blackstone (as in Blackstone’s Ratio) was a Brit, not an American “founding father”. That’s from his treatise “Commentaries on the Laws of England”.

s_dog on June 10, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Prove that about Manning’s treason.

profitsbeard on June 10, 2012 at 3:52 PM

So in your mind it is up to me to prove that he is not guilty of treason, and death penalty level treason?

Are you French? Russian? North Korean? Are you a Kangaroo?

Was I suppose to prove Dreyfus not guilty?

Was I also suppose to prove LTC Lakin not guilty?

Am I also supposed to prove that Zimmerman is not guilty of murder?

Anything else, Queen of Hearts?

VorDaj on June 10, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Hang him high.

Bmore on June 10, 2012 at 3:10 PM

But we get to torture him fist right?

SparkPlug on June 10, 2012 at 3:41 PM

When he is dead, you can fight over who gets to eat his liver and heart.

VorDaj on June 10, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Just to throw a cat among the pigeons… From an interesting law review piece (n Guilty Men) by Alexander Volokh:

The story is told of a Chinese law professor, who was listening to a British lawyer explain that Britons were so enlightened, they believed it was better that ninety-nine guilty men go free than that one innocent man be executed. The Chinese professor thought for a second and asked, “Better for whom?”

s_dog on June 10, 2012 at 4:30 PM

When he is dead, you can fight over who gets to eat his liver and heart.

VorDaj on June 10, 2012 at 4:23 PM

No, we should save them for when Cheney needs them for his next transplant.

/

kim roy on June 10, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Doesn’t David Coombs realize that Bubba is in love and is waiting?

GarandFan on June 10, 2012 at 4:37 PM

America’s Founding Fathers who were so adamant in their beliefs that every individual be presumed innocent until proven guilty that their expressed thoughts on the subject were, “Better one hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man is falsely convicted.”

JFTR, Sir William Blackstone (as in Blackstone’s Ratio) was a Brit, not an American “founding father”. That’s from his treatise “Commentaries on the Laws of England”.

s_dog on June 10, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Yes, it was Blackstone, however, as any educated in American history individual should know, The Founding Fathers based America’s legal Jurisprudence system on Blackstone more than anyone else. And many of them did in fact specifically reference that quote when discussing the nature of American’s legal system.

Both Benjamin Franklin and President John Adam’s are well documented as having quoted that maximum.

SWalker on June 10, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Just to throw a cat among the pigeons… From an interesting law review piece (n Guilty Men) by Alexander Volokh:

The story is told of a Chinese law professor, who was listening to a British lawyer explain that Britons were so enlightened, they believed it was better that ninety-nine guilty men go free than that one innocent man be executed. The Chinese professor thought for a second and asked, “Better for whom?”

s_dog on June 10, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Having quoted n Guilty Men by Volokh you should have been well aware of the frequency that America’s Founding Father’s quoted that particular Blackstone Quote. You should likewise be equally aware that Blackstone when making that quote, was in fact quoting Moses Maimonides, who in turn it can be argued was paraphrasing the Roman Emperor Trajan.

SWalker on June 10, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Death to whistle blower who allowed the American people to find out about the war crimes committed in their name! TRAITOR!!!!

RightXBrigade on June 10, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Federal Pound Him in the A…. prison is what he needs…

ted c on June 10, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Um, you do know he’s gay? Pretty sure that’s what he wants.

msupertas on June 10, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Yeah because that’s what every straight female wants as well. Can you introduce me to your wife??

RightXBrigade on June 10, 2012 at 5:21 PM

We should thank his lawyers, unless of course you hate and despise America’s Founding Fathers who were so adamant in their beliefs that every individual be presumed innocent until proven guilty that their expressed thoughts on the subject were, “Better one hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man is falsely convicted.”

SWalker on June 10, 2012 at 3:15 PM

You can preach the ethics of our legal system to me when his lawyers work pro bono and anonymously. When the tax payers pay for their services and/or some marxist support group, then thay ain’t working for the good of the legal system but for the good of their current and future revenues. There ain’t no competant lawyers on your side unless they get paid.

Do you know why sharks dont eat lawyers?- professional courtesy.

Old Country Boy on June 10, 2012 at 5:25 PM

RightXBrigade on June 10, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Um, okay.

Anyway, it’s good that the trial is taking a slow and steady pace. The amount of politics in it now (the automatic rejection of Execution) is more than enough.

Manning will be tried. The evidence represented and by his own admission proves what he did. His reasons are between him and the court. I think he will have little chance of convincing a military tribunal that he disobeyed illegal orders and that his actions were necessary.

However there is no doubt he was the source. His lawyers *could* argue about “when was war declared” vs the War Powers Act, but if the prosecution shows (easily enough) that his actions lead to deaths of those that worked directly or indirectly for the USG, he’s toast.

Frankly, a guilty verdict with a DP outcome should be the case, more likely he will be sent to Leavenworth but, IMHO, Guantanamo Bay Supermax/Resort should suffice.

After all, you should stick with your comrades that you support.

BlaxPac on June 10, 2012 at 5:30 PM

We should thank his lawyers, unless of course you hate and despise America’s Founding Fathers who were so adamant in their beliefs that every individual be presumed innocent until proven guilty that their expressed thoughts on the subject were, “Better one hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man is falsely convicted.”

SWalker on June 10, 2012 at 3:15 PM

You can preach the ethics of our legal system to me when his lawyers work pro bono and anonymously. When the tax payers pay for their services and/or some marxist support group, then thay ain’t working for the good of the legal system but for the good of their current and future revenues. There ain’t no competant lawyers on your side unless they get paid.

Do you know why sharks dont eat lawyers?- professional courtesy.

Old Country Boy on June 10, 2012 at 5:25 PM

You have surrendered your essential liberties for false and temporary security. Those who indoctrinated you into Marxism without your even knowing would be savoring this moment if they knew of it.

It matters not the slightest what the motives of the lawyers are, only that they abide by the laws and ethics of the legal system. Your utterly imbecilic notion that lawyers should only altruistically practice law is the epitome of Marxist indoctrination.

First off, it is their ethical and legal obligation to aggressively seek the best possible outcome for their client, lawyers both can be and routinely are disbarred for failing in this obligation.

Secondly, it is their profession, it’s what they do to pay their mortgages, feed their families and provide for their families futures. America is a CAPITALIST Society. To suggest that they should not be looking out for their current and future revenues is an insult to the very fabric of American society. It is a 100 percent pure Marxist notion.

According to your blog, you are an engineer, do you work for free? Have you spent you entire career altruistically providing all of your services for zero compensation? He11 no you haven’t, you don’t just expect to get paid, you demand it. For you to advocate that anyone else provide their professional services for free is utterly hypocritical. It is Karl Marx’s assertion “From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs” made 100 percent personal.

Face it dude, if that really is your attitude, then you are a Marxist and you don’t even know it.

SWalker on June 10, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Any chance we might see Manning hung by the neck until dead? That’s the only just outcome.

DaMav on June 10, 2012 at 6:01 PM

SWalker you have an inflated sense of the value of lawyers. Engineers usually create wealth; lawyers can only shuffle it around.

DaMav on June 10, 2012 at 6:06 PM

SWalker you have an inflated sense of the value of lawyers. Engineers usually create wealth; lawyers can only shuffle it around.

DaMav on June 10, 2012 at 6:06 PM

You are profoundly mistaken, I can’t stand lawyers, I think a large percent of them are sleaze bags. It is the system that our founding father set up that was designed to protect the individual from the power of the State that I am hopelessly in love with.

Remove the presumption of innocence and the right to competent legal representation from our legal system and we become a totalitarian repressive police state overnight.

As vile and disgusting as I find a large percentage of lawyers to be, I understand the purpose and role they play in our Republic, and while I believe that a large percentage of lawyers are sleaze bags I also know that their is a large percentage of them that are not. Just as every individual accused of a crime is required to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, so individuals who practice an honorable profession should be afforded that same basic right.

SWalker on June 10, 2012 at 6:24 PM

SWalker you have an inflated sense of the value of lawyers. Engineers usually create wealth; lawyers can only shuffle it around.

DaMav on June 10, 2012 at 6:06 PM

I also suggest you try reading President John Adam’s argument for why he represented Captain Preston. It is at the very heart of this discussion.

SWalker on June 10, 2012 at 6:27 PM

SWalker on June 10, 2012 at 5:57 PM

If you saw my blog then you know I’ve done some of my share. The lawyers on this case are not doing it out of a desire to right the evi wrongs of the justice system but because 1) it pays more and 2) they can get their name out there in the really big circles. It used to be the law that lawyers couldn’t advertize. That meant that the only way they could get their name out there was either stumbling on the really big case or, more readily, running for political office where their names could be on all the little signs stuck in everybody’s lawn.

Please note that not long prior to John Adams’ statement, lawyers were not allowed in the early colonys, because they were so despicable and everybody hated them. Today, if you have noticed, you don’t need a lawyer unless another lawyer has previously gotten into the act. Also, there is nothing in The Constitution about lawyers being provided free for those who can’t pay. That is a supreme court thingy. But since the defense lawyer is a right, it must be paid for just like condoms, abortions, obama’s airplane trips, union pensions, etc. Come to think of it, isn’t being a lawyer, who benefits from laws, and a member of a legislature, who writes laws, a conflict of interest.

And since I have stood eyeball to eyeball with machine gun bearing marxists, I think I know more about what a marxist is than you.

Old Country Boy on June 10, 2012 at 7:17 PM

SWalker on June 10, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Absolutely correct. And well-said.

Solaratov on June 10, 2012 at 7:26 PM

SWalker on June 10, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Maxim.

Sorry.

Solaratov on June 10, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Not even he is that tone deaf.

cozmo on June 10, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Yes he is.

Oldnuke on June 10, 2012 at 7:46 PM

And since I have stood eyeball to eyeball with machine gun bearing marxists, I think I know more about what a marxist is than you.

Old Country Boy on June 10, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Appeal to authority logic fallacy, clearly rational thought is not at work in your argument. Merely having stood eyeball to eyeball with an armed adversary does not equal understanding the political ideology of that adversary. It only indicates that you have stood eyeball to eyeball with an armed adversary.

The lawyers on this case are not doing it out of a desire to right the evi wrongs of the justice system but because

It’s almost never about righting the evil wrongs of the justice system, that you would think it is merely displays the degree to which you fail to understand the legal system. The legal system isn’t about righting wrongs or evil’s, it is about the uniform application of a codified social contract on acceptable behavior.

Also, there is nothing in The Constitution about lawyers being provided free for those who can’t pay. That is a supreme court thingy.

Sorry, you are mistaken.

Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence

The addition of free legal counsel for those unable to afford it is the indisputable and logical extension of the premiss that any right that you cannot exercise is a right that you do not have. Therefore in order to fulfill the Sixth Amendment provision for the right of counsel it is by the Sixth Amendment’s requirement a necessity that the courts provide free counsel to those unable to afford it otherwise by requiring them to face a court without that counsel they would be forcible depriving them of that right to counsel.

Sorry, your argument just don’t hold any rational or logical basis.

SWalker on June 10, 2012 at 7:58 PM

SWalker on June 10, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Maxim.

Sorry.

Solaratov on June 10, 2012 at 7:31 PM

ROTFLMAO… Opps…

SWalker on June 10, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Jazz,

With all due respect, framing the story as the “adventures of Bradley Manning” trivializes the PROSECUTION of Bradley Manning, an American traitor.

Manning did real harm to the nation. Could we please not fall into the defense’s claim that this was nothing more than a lark to impress his boyfriend? Calling treason an adventure does just that.

Happy Nomad on June 10, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Any chance we might see Manning hung by the neck until dead? That’s the only just outcome.

DaMav on June 10, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Death penalty is off the table (not that I agree with that choice). My guess it is political. No way that some gay PFC is going to be put to death for treason without serious questions how the bastard was able to get away with what he did.

These are serious questions that should be asked but would be overlooked if capital punishment was possible. Personally, I still want some of Manning’s chain-of-command to be called out for their failures.

Happy Nomad on June 10, 2012 at 8:11 PM

Something is totally lost here. Maj. Hasan is being held under military confinement. Nobody noticed this guy hadn’t shaved after a few days? Nobody got suspicious? Why didn’t the judge demand that he shave and return the next day. Or……………is it considered an insult to demand a Muslim shave in order to comply with the standards demanded by his employer, the U,S, Army. Nobody forced him to enlist.

Is the military judge on Obama’s watch list?

What the hell has happened to reason. Has this administration tainted the water?

crankybutt on June 10, 2012 at 8:26 PM

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.

Oh, no! How dare an attorney defend his client!

Give me a break. Most of the charges against him are bs and should be dropped, such as anything related to aiding and abetting the enemy. Jazz, apologist for Big Brother government, can always be expected to give and support its point of view.

Dante on June 10, 2012 at 8:27 PM

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.

I remain convinced that Coombs seems particularly ill suited for this case.

Disgusting opinions.

Dante on June 10, 2012 at 8:29 PM

Are you putting forth the proposition that this spurm burping punk is innocent?

Rio Linda Refugee on June 10, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Of some of the charges, yes.

Dante on June 10, 2012 at 8:31 PM

The addition of free legal counsel for those unable to afford it is the indisputable and logical extension of the premiss that any right that you cannot exercise is a right that you do not have. Therefore in order to fulfill the Sixth Amendment provision for the right of counsel it is by the Sixth Amendment’s requirement a necessity that the courts provide free counsel to those unable to afford it otherwise by requiring them to face a court without that counsel they would be forcible depriving them of that right to counsel.
Sorry, your argument just don’t hold any rational or logical basis.

SWalker on June 10, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Nothing in the sixth amendment says the people of The United States must, by logical extension, provide free legal councel to a defendment. That concept is a product of the Warren court (I think) in the 1960′s. The amendment states that the defendent may not be denied councel. Doesn’t say that the state must provide it. Up until those days, the defendents had to have the money or work out an accomodation. The same argument is used tp provide for abortions and condoms. If somebody can’t afford to exercise a right, the rest of us must pay for it. Like Janis Joplin sang “Somebody buy me a Mercedes Benz” My keyboard is undergoing a CF so I can’t go any further.

Old Country Boy on June 10, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Prove that about Manning’s treason.

profitsbeard on June 10, 2012 at 3:52 PM

So in your mind it is up to me to prove that he is not guilty of treason, and death penalty level treason?

Are you French? Russian? North Korean? Are you a Kangaroo?

Was I suppose to prove Dreyfus not guilty?

Was I also suppose to prove LTC Lakin not guilty?

Am I also supposed to prove that Zimmerman is not guilty of murder?

Anything else, Queen of Hearts?

VorDaj on June 10, 2012 at 4:20 PM

I think you misunderstood.

I mean: prove that Manning’s acts DID NOT result in people getting killed, since you claim they did not.

I’ve read that agents died in Yemen, etc. thanks to his disclosures.

Manning will be judged either guilty or not guilty of releasing top secret information on the evidence of things he has admitted releasing.

He could get off on a mentally incompetent ruling even if the evidence is that he released top secret info, though.

If found guilty, he should be hanged as a traitor. But he won’t.

Till then, he is just an admitted leaker of top secret information accused of treason.

profitsbeard on June 10, 2012 at 8:40 PM

How long does it take to try a man? Or a Manning, in this case? Just get on with it for crying out loud.

The army has had a guy in custody for two years after he muredered a bunch of soldiers in broad daylight on a military base in Texas while screaming “Allahu akbar!” numerous times. I don’t care very much about that wretch either, but our enemies must laugh at us for our seeming inability to deal with crimes like murder, treason, and espionage.

spiritof61 on June 10, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Like Janis Joplin sang “Somebody buy me a Mercedes Benz”

The lyric is “Oh, Lord, won’t you buy me” not “Somebody buy me”. Makes quite the difference to your point.

Dante on June 10, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Two grandkids playing with my computer. My keybaord id fubar.

That should be “Lord won’t you buy me” not “somebody buy me”. Since I have a right to a Mercedes Benz under the Constitution, who and I can’t afford one, who is going to buy me one so I can exercise that right.

Old Country Boy on June 10, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Dante on June 10, 2012 at 8:42 PM

I was so frustrated by the time I got there I screwed it up. By thje time I was able to get out of that comment, you cought me. I knew it. I wasn’t fast enough.

Warning–DO NOT LET GRANDSON GEEKS TOUCH YOUR COMPUTER. I learn something every day!

Old Country Boy on June 10, 2012 at 8:47 PM

Nothing in the sixth amendment says the people of The United States must, by logical extension, provide free legal councel to a defendment. That concept is a product of the Warren court (I think) in the 1960′s. The amendment states that the defendent may not be denied councel. Doesn’t say that the state must provide it. Up until those days, the defendents had to have the money or work out an accomodation. The same argument is used tp provide for abortions and condoms. If somebody can’t afford to exercise a right, the rest of us must pay for it. Like Janis Joplin sang “Somebody buy me a Mercedes Benz” My keyboard is undergoing a CF so I can’t go any further.

Old Country Boy on June 10, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Again, you are mistaken.

Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to

This is an absolutely explicate statement. Like it or not, it’s right there. Anyone unable to afford competent legal counsel, by virtue of not having competent counsel, is therefore unable to “Enjoy the right to“. To bind them over for trial, or present them before a judge in a court of law without them exercising their Sixth Amendment Right, would in fact be to deprive them of that Sixth Amendment Right.

Since the Court system is legally bound by the Sixth Amendment to ensure that any individual brought before them on criminal charges has their Sixth Amendment Constitutional Right’s observed and protected, to quote the sixth amendment, “Enjoy the right to” the court is in effect barred from bringing legal charges against anyone who cannot afford competent legal counsel, unless they, the court provide that competent legal counsel.

The supreme court affirmed this as early as 1932 in Powell v. Alabama 287 U.S. 45. What has to be understood, is that the SCOTUS has not granted one single Constitutional Right in the entire history of the United States. The sole Purpose of the Supreme Court of the United States of America is to decide whether legislation passed by Congress or decisions rendered by lower Courts meet the threshold of adhering to the United States Constitution.

When the SCOTUS Affirmed the sixth Amendment in Powell v. Alabama, they were not creating a new right they were stating uncategorically that that right had existed all along. And that when the State of Alabama failed to provide that counsel they were violating Powell’s Sixth Amendment Constitutional right, which Powell had always had.

Sorry to hear about your keyboards convenient Catastrophic Failure.

SWalker on June 10, 2012 at 9:18 PM

That should be “Lord won’t you buy me” not “somebody buy me”. Since I have a right to a Mercedes Benz under the Constitution, who and I can’t afford one, who is going to buy me one so I can exercise that right.

Old Country Boy on June 10, 2012 at 8:44 PM

EPIC FAIL. Show me where the US Constitution guarantees you the right to a Mercedes Benz. It does not, what it guarantees you to, is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It never guarantees you that you will achieve happiness, only your right to pursue it.

SWalker on June 10, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Dante on June 10, 2012 at 8:42 PM

The pursuit of happiness is the Declaration of Independence not the constitution. But if it were, a Mercedes Bens would make me very happy and my lack of money does not allow me to pursue it. As I am sure free condoms would make Ms. Fluke ( and a whole bunch of guys) very happy but I don’t think I need to pay for them unless I get in on the action. “The accused shall enjoy the right to” doesn’t mean I have to pay for it. In olden days, accuseds were often taken before magistrates and tried without councel at the whim of the magistrate, even if they could afford one. This provision was included to preclude that.

I am obviously wrong about the date and court of the decision establishing this, but you don’t seem to understand – Since all rights not enumerated herein (in the Consititution), or delegated to the states, are reserved to the people. When the Supreme Court “officially” recognizes one of rights, do I have to pay for it? Where does that end? Sort of the same question wiggling around on the mandate.

Old Country Boy on June 10, 2012 at 9:44 PM

When the Supreme Court “officially” recognizes one of rights, do I have to pay for it? Where does that end? Sort of the same question wiggling around on the mandate.

Old Country Boy on June 10, 2012 at 9:44 PM

I suggest perhaps you try reading the US constitution again then. Here, start with this.

Article 1 Section 8.

Section 8

1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And

18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Sorry, it’s pretty cut and dried. Congress was very specifically tasked with levying taxes to pay for the execution of (To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.) the United States Constitution. Since the Sixth Amendment is indisputably covered by clause 18 of section 8 of Article 1 of the US Constitution arguing about it simple makes you look, well, less than educated.

SWalker on June 10, 2012 at 10:05 PM

He dispersed Secret information to an agency that made it public. In doing so he has endangered every man and woman currently deployed and in harms way. No brainer. Finish the trial as it is his right as a soldier and an American. Then waste no time in carrying out his execution.

hawkdriver on June 10, 2012 at 10:11 PM

“Better one hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man is falsely convicted.”

SWalker on June 10, 2012 at 3:15 PM

By the same token, better that a 100 treasonous soldiers die rather than a single innocent soldier suffer because of their actions.

hawkdriver on June 10, 2012 at 10:16 PM

SWalker on June 10, 2012 at 10:05 PM

I don’t think that I am so less educated then to confuse the Declaration of Independence with The Constitution. Your arguments are based on assumptions not in evidence. I think this is boring everybody and is presumptious on patience of the Hot Air staff and readers.

Buh bye

Old Country Boy on June 10, 2012 at 10:16 PM

“Better one hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man is falsely convicted.”

SWalker on June 10, 2012 at 3:15 PM

By the same token, better that a 100 treasonous soldiers die rather than a single innocent soldier suffer because of their actions.

hawkdriver on June 10, 2012 at 10:16 PM

I have no problem with that. My Great-great-grandfather, my great-grandfather, my grandfather, my father, my step-father and two of my Brothers served honorably, In my personal opinion, Manning should have been tried by a military Tribunal while still in Iraq and if and when found guilty, executed in Iraq.

Some damned fool decided for political reason to bring him back home for that, and now we have this clusterfark going on. Since he is here, on American soil and no longer physically on a battlefield, there are i’s to be dotted, and t’s to be crossed. Better that we dot those i’s and cross those t’s than abolish our Republic by ignoring our own laws.

SWalker on June 10, 2012 at 10:41 PM

SWalker on June 10, 2012 at 10:05 PM

I don’t think that I am so less educated then to confuse the Declaration of Independence with The Constitution. Your arguments are based on assumptions not in evidence. I think this is boring everybody and is presumptious on patience of the Hot Air staff and readers.

Buh bye

Old Country Boy on June 10, 2012 at 10:16 PM

What you think is pretty much irrelevant, moreover, you presume to speak for others for whom you have no right or privilege to speak, which, by the way, is a true example of an assumption based on fact’s clearly not in evidence.

SWalker on June 10, 2012 at 10:53 PM

Some damned fool decided for political reason to bring him back home for that, and now we have this clusterfark going on. Since he is here, on American soil and no longer physically on a battlefield, there are i’s to be dotted, and t’s to be crossed. Better that we dot those i’s and cross those t’s than abolish our Republic by ignoring our own laws.

SWalker on June 10, 2012 at 10:41 PM

All long as doesn’t entail the mockery of even considering the conditions and complaints that Coombs keeps throwing at the court.

hawkdriver on June 10, 2012 at 10:57 PM

All long as doesn’t entail the mockery of even considering the conditions and complaints that Coombs keeps throwing at the court.

hawkdriver on June 10, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Coombs is doing his job, my objections are not with him doing anything and everything within the framework of what is legally and ethically possible to defend Bradley Manning to the utmost of his abilities. That is what he is required by law to do.

My objections and anger are reserved for Bradley Manning and for the a$$hole politicians who have sought to politicize this event for political gain.

One of the weaknesses of being a nation of laws and principals, i.e. a Republic, is that those very same laws and principals can be used by unscrupulous people against you.

SWalker on June 10, 2012 at 11:20 PM

Coombs is doing his job,

His objections are baseless and frivilous.

my objections are not with him doing anything and everything within the framework of what is legally and ethically possible to defend Bradley Manning to the utmost of his abilities. That is what he is required by law to do.

I think you are at least to a small extent conflating civil and military judicial proceedings. Becasue this was brought back to The States doesn’t make it a civilian proceeding.

My objections and anger are reserved for Bradley Manning and for the a$$hole politicians who have sought to politicize this event for political gain.

Not my concern.

One of the weaknesses of being a nation of laws and principals, i.e. a Republic, is that those very same laws and principals can be used by unscrupulous people against you.

SWalker on June 10, 2012 at 11:20 PM

One of the weaknesses of being an objectivly magnanimous nation is that it tends to require needlessly dismissing obvious criminal behavior for the characterization of comments in The Constitution and Bill of Rights.

hawkdriver on June 10, 2012 at 11:37 PM

Coombs is doing his job,

His objections are baseless and frivilous.

my objections are not with him doing anything and everything within the framework of what is legally and ethically possible to defend Bradley Manning to the utmost of his abilities. That is what he is required by law to do.

I think you are at least to a small extent conflating civil and military judicial proceedings. Becasue this was brought back to The States doesn’t make it a civilian proceeding.

My objections and anger are reserved for Bradley Manning and for the a$$hole politicians who have sought to politicize this event for political gain.

Not my concern.

One of the weaknesses of being a nation of laws and principals, i.e. a Republic, is that those very same laws and principals can be used by unscrupulous people against you.

SWalker on June 10, 2012 at 11:20 PM

One of the weaknesses of being an objectivly magnanimous nation is that it tends to require needlessly dismissing obvious criminal behavior for the characterization of comments in The Constitution and Bill of Rights.

hawkdriver on June 10, 2012 at 11:37 PM

His objections are baseless and frivilous.

Regardless, it is still his job to present as aggressive of an defense as he possibly can.

I think you are at least to a small extent conflating civil and military judicial proceedings. Becasue this was brought back to The States doesn’t make it a civilian proceeding.

No, I fully understand that it is a “theoretically” 100 percent Military Justice matter. As it in fact should be, however, like it or not various Media outlets and politicians are politicizing it for political gain making a matter which shouldn’t even be open to public scrutiny a public spectacle.

SWalker on June 10, 2012 at 11:58 PM

SWalker on June 10, 2012 at 11:58 PM

There’s nothing theoretical about it. It is being conducted under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. It’s a military proceding.

hawkdriver on June 11, 2012 at 12:05 AM

“exceeded authorized access”

Huh. It’s all a matter of perspective then, I suppose. /

squint on June 11, 2012 at 12:38 AM

All of SWalker’s arguments are right on the money.

There is a famous play called “A Man For All Seasons” by Robert Bolt which was made into an Oscar winning film in 1966.

It is the story of Sir Thomas More – famous attorney, author, scholar, statesman, counselor to King Henry VIII of England, and ultimately conscientious dissenter who was imprisoned in the Tower of London and finally beheaded for his unwillingness to give his assent to the King’s divorce and remarriage.

In the Bolt play, Sir Thomas More is challenged by members of his own family to punish and imprison a man that they considered a “bad” man but he demurred stating he would give even the Devil himself the benefit of the law:

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

Bolt’s More is right:

We should give even the Devil the benefit of the law.

Those who denounce strict adherence to due process and condemn the lawyers who defend those we consider monsters such as Bradley Manning or Casey Anthony are fools.
Like More, for my own protection I demand that everyone, no matter what crime they’re accused of, receives a fair trial.
I don’t want to live in an unrestrained police state with a star chamber for a justice system.

single stack on June 11, 2012 at 12:54 AM

Drop the “ed”.

hawkdriver on June 11, 2012 at 12:56 AM

Drop the “ed”.

hawkdriver on June 11, 2012 at 12:56 AM

I think Mr. Morrissey would object!

profitsbeard on June 11, 2012 at 1:04 AM

single stack on June 11, 2012 at 12:54 AM

A differing opinion than yours doesn’t make one a fool. As a matter of fact, the name-calling tends to make me dismiss most of what one puts in a comment containing it.

But, I’m not arguing again due process. I didn’t read anyone here who ius. But the system is so twisted in the favor of the defendent, the victims invariably take a back seat to their rights. In this case, the entire US Military that this traitor endangered.

hawkdriver on June 11, 2012 at 1:07 AM

hawkdriver on June 11, 2012 at 12:56 AM

I think Mr. Morrissey would object!

profitsbeard on June 11, 2012 at 1:04 AM

Funny. But I think Mr Morrissey knows better.

(But just in case, don’t ban me Ed)

hawkdriver on June 11, 2012 at 1:09 AM

Don’t convict Manning. Give him a WH job fer cornsake they have openings for professional leakers!!!

Mr. Grump on June 11, 2012 at 7:40 AM

The argument that he had access to a computer network with classified information on it doesn’t mean he has a need to know to review or download those documents.

I’ve held a TS and higher clearance for over 40 years now and I don’t have a need to know everything. I may have access to sensitve war plans, but unless I am actively working issues with regard to a specific plan, I should not be accessing them.

Every document cannot be protected on a person by person basis. There are many situations where the honor system and the integrity of individuals is the first line of security.

And military intelligence data mining of diplomatic cables and friendly documents for pattern analysis is not a normal tasking. That sort of effort is reserved for intelligence collected on the enemy.

Of course, Bradley may believe that the US is the enemy and became confused about what data he should be analyzing, but that is not a valid defense.

BMF on June 11, 2012 at 8:03 AM

Comment pages: 1 2