Judge sides with US in Manning document dispute

[struggle4progress]

Source: Associated Press

By JESSICA GRESKO

WASHINGTON -- A federal judge in Baltimore said Wednesday she's satisfied for now with measures the military has taken to release documents related to Army Pfc. Bradley Manning's court-martial in the Wikileaks case.

Lawyers for the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights and other groups, including The Associated Press, have complained for more than a year that court documents related to the military case were being released too slowly, if at all. Earlier this month, however, the Army put the vast majority of the documents online. The Army also promised to be forthcoming with the documents as Manning's trial, which began June 3, continues at Maryland's Fort Meade. The documents are being posted for the public and press on an Internet site.

But lawyers for the center said they weren't satisfied. One argued in court Monday that the Army's turnaround time to release new documents - a goal of one to two days - was too long for journalists covering the trial. He also objected to redactions and sought access to transcripts or audio recordings of past proceedings.

But on Wednesday, the judge in the case, Ellen L. Hollander, sided with the Army. In a 42-page ruling she wrote of the lag time in releasing documents that there was "no indication that such a brief delay is unreasonable." And she said she wouldn't order the Army to speed up the release transcripts and audio of past proceedings because it would be "a serious and unwarranted interference in the operation of the court-martial." She also agreed certain redactions were appropriate ...


Read more: http://www.lakewyliepilot.com/2013/06/19/1951895/judge-sides-with-us-in-manning.html

[freshwest]

1. Oops, misread. Thought the title was 'judge sides with Manning.' I get the reasoning by both sides.

When does Manning get to testify or argue his case, anymore than he did with his opening statements?

That's all I've heard. Thanks for the link, but I don't have time to read a ton of boring stuff, which I'm sure the majority of these documents will turn out to be.

My usual disclaimer applies:

Not military, not an attorney and don't work for the government. Meh.

[railsback]

2. Not quite sure what Manning's defense would be

[freshwest]

4. The same as many here make for him, a higher power.

He fits the traditional martyr model. Early Christians were thrown to the lions for God and while some consider them to have been deranged, they've been lauded as heroes for centuries. Manning threw himself on the sword for international law, or other things.

In the end, the play we're being exposed to is of a martyr slaughtered by eternally evil, all powerful bad guy. The only defense is the higher power one, but it will dressed up in good language.

He broke his oath and the law and is convinced, as his followers are, that his oath means nothing, neither does the law. Those don't matter in a case.

Sorry for rambling and may not be answering in the context you are asking. My disclaimer is above, of course.

It just doesn't matter, minds are made up, rules, regulations and even the details don't mean much to public opinion.

[railsback]

6. Yea, that isn't going to work

The court doesn't care wether he's a 'crusader'. They only care wether he knowingly released classified materials, which he's admitted to. Motive is moot. Which, of course, explains the defense's argument that Manning did what he did because of being mentally distraught over his sexuality. To watch Manning's defense defend him in such a manner doesn't exactly fit the meme of martyrdom, but like you said, people's minds are already made up. They'll twist and bend it to their liking.

[freshwest]

7. I didn't think that was their main defense, though, and to many, it makes him twice the victim.

Of being discriminated against, which has been taken up by some, and then that he was doing a noble thing for all mankind. I do see him as a victim. I think he was used by the 1% to rain bullshit through an association of wealthy gadflies who have made a fortune off of media notoriety.

Manning is young and praised as being highly intelligent because of his IT skills, although most ITs see themselvs that way, no matter what it means generally. They have a comraderie from their profession, even though there are some I know who are not well rounded personalities.

So there is something lacking there, but it's not fatal in their profession. I've worked in fields with crews where it was clear that our ability to solve problems in technical matters through logic were all that mattered. The fact was, if we'd been locked up a room all day we'd have likely killed each other. There's nothing wrong with being specialized, but it can give tunnel vision.

He may possibly be immature, troubled or naive. But what I'd read of his first statements indicate he knew very well what he was doing was illegal, but there is that higher law at work routine that some people get caught up. He gave all the moral reasons in lofty language.

I won't ascribe such negativity to him as some who have done they did for the 'greater good.' Such as the killer of George Tiller, who, to this day, still has many fans. He says he was proud of what he did, and would do it again. I'm sure Manning would do it this again if he could, since it fits his vision of how the world works.

It's hard to separate the emotions of his case from the Bush wars, by which this country has been transformed. I am not a truther, but I don't think invading Iraq was the solution to the world we are stuck in now, due to networking, population and the relentless move to stake out territory.

If the problem is solely due to the actions of the USA, we can be blamed for any crime. Anything we do is wrong. Some think we are omnipotent because of military power. I don't.

I believe real power is economic, or manufacturing, but even that is changing. The real power will be knowledge of things most people will never know, and with specialization giving some people opportunity and not others, it's just tearing things apart.

Okay, off I went. Maybe I should go off to bed now, haha. Have a good night.

[ZombieHorde]

8. "They'll twist and bend it to their liking."

Sure, but so will the court, and anyone else with an opinion.

[struggle4progress]

3. CCR and AP sued in Federal court to force the court-martial to release transcripts and other

documents faster; the judge declined to interfere

[freshwest]

5. I get that. It doesn't seem like they could release them faster. Media wants a script for ratings.

This is not scripted, it is not a show trial, a secret inquistion nor is it a kangaroo court. This is the real deal, where those whose professions have strict rules of evidence, discovery allowable testimony and rebuttal are the order of the day. That takes time and review.

This is actually a man's life at stake here, even if the death penalty isn't part of it, his freedom is. Not entertainment or profit for anyone. The media lost credibility for reporting news years ago.

They are about their owners' political agenda and nothing else. And whatever money they can snag out of this, but I think their owners' agenda are not about the chump change they'd get.

If staying in media came from market share and ratings, Phil Donahue would still be on the air. If advertising money mattered, he'd be off the air. That's not what's really going on.

Their owners agenda is to destroy the Democratic Party for 2014 and 2016. Grand Theft USA is worth a lot more and gives them better returns.

Their right to pitch a fit over this is not about informing the public, or justice. And I'm sure there will be plenty of edits and distortions in the coverage.

The reporters and media are the most corrupted, anti-democratic 'little d' entity in this country, IMO. They tell news that is often not even new, in order to make their bosses keep paying their lying asses.

In plainer language they suck so bad I have no sympathy for them losing.

Thanks for keeping us updated.