Judge bars UN official as WikiLeaks case witness

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

Judge bars UN official as WikiLeaks case witness
By DAVID DISHNEAU
Associated Press
Published: Thursday, July 19, 2012 at 1:13 p.m.
Last Modified: Thursday, July 19, 2012 at 1:13 p.m.

A military judge is barring the United Nations' torture investigator from testifying about the pretrial detention of a U.S. Army private charged with leaking classified information.

Col. Denise Lind ruled during a pretrial hearing Thursday at Fort Meade, Md. She said Juan Mendez' testimony is irrelevant to whether Pfc. Bradley Manning's nine months in maximum-security confinement at a Marine Corps brig amounted to illegal punishment.

The court will hear arguments on that issue next month.

Mendez accused the United States last year of violating U.N. rules by refusing him unfettered access Manning. The soldier is charged with aiding the enemy by passing classified documents to WikiLeaks.


Read more: http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20120719/APA/1207190622

[hack89]

1. Good. nt

[JDPriestly]

2. By what measure do we assess whether a person is tortured if not by an international standard?

This is not a matter on which we get to set our own standard. There are international codes on this.

[hack89]

6. The US does use international standards

they were made part of domestic law. US domestic law is not interpreted in US courts by foreign diplomats.

[snot]

7. Might the UN investigator not be able to testify to facts relevant to the application of that law?

[hack89]

10. He never visited Manning. He has no first hand knowledge.

so what exactly does he have to add? He is not needed to interpret US domestic laws and regulations.

[struggle4progress]

3. GI Largely Barred From Discussing WikiLeaks Harm

By DAVID DISHNEAU Associated Press
FORT MEADE, Md. July 19, 2012 (AP)

A military judge is largely prohibiting an Army private from presenting evidence at trial that the mountain of classified information he's accused of giving to the website WikiLeaks did little harm to U.S. interests.

Col. Denise Lind ruled Thursday during a pretrial hearing at Fort Meade, Md., for Pfc. Bradley Manning. He's charged with aiding the enemy by sending hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables and war logs to the secret-spilling website.

Lind agreed with prosecutors that the extent of any damage is irrelevant to the charges ...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/lawyers-argue-harm-military-wikileaks-case-16809308

[askeptic]

5. Amazing - amount of damage irrelevent on Aiding Enemy charge?

Un - effing-believable. If there was no damage, there was no aid! This is a kangaroo court - the outcome has already been determined. We have become parodies of our former selves.

[struggle4progress]

9. At which UCMJ article are you looking?

A section 104 violation "without proper authority, knowingly ... gives intelligence to ... the enemy, either directly or indirectly" requires only that the communication be issued, deliberately, even if indirectly: it requires inquiry into neither intent, content, or method of the communication nor receipt by the enemy

If Manning were merely accused of sending Wikileaks menus from his company mess halls for a week, of course, Manning's counsel might have quietly worked out some deal, in which everyone hemmed and hawed and shuffled papers and found some way for Manning's military career to end quietly

But Manning is accused of making available, in general and indiscriminate fashion, a large volume of purportedly sensitive materials not intended for public circulation, and prosecutors will adopt the view that any reasonable person might foresee that these materials, under such conditions, could fall into the possession of enemies of the United States

Manning's counsel might indeed take the stance, that the government should establish that release of some material actually posed some definite risk, but the courts are likely to defer to the opinions of any government witness who asserts positively that release posed some risk -- perhaps in part because we traditionally do not allow PFCs to make such determinations on their own and perhaps in part because of the indiscriminate nature of the release and the large volume of materials released

[struggle4progress]

4. ... Manning's lawyer said he planned to file a 100-page motion arguing his client suffered

illegal detention conditions while awaiting his court-martial ...

But the judge rejected a request from Manning to have United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Juan Mendez appear as a witness. Prosecutors had argued that Mendez's testimony was not relevant as he never visited Manning during his detention at Quantico ...

The judge also ruled on Thursday that prosecutors have to meet a defence request to produce in court a tear-proof smock, blanket and mattress similar to those issued to Manning during his detention at Quantico ...

‘Manning’s treatment should shock you’
July 20 2012 at 01:07am
By Dan De Luce
http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/manning-s-treatment-should-shock-you-1.1345403

[snot]

8. Note, the article says "he was placed under less restrictive conditions after

he was evaluated by mental health professionals" after being transferred to Fort Leavenworth. But he had been evaluated by the army's own mental health professionals repeatedly while still at Quantico, who had recommended that he NOT be held in solitary -- but their recommendations were ignored.