Lawyer Charges Feds Withholding Evidence Favorable to Bradley Manning

[G_j]

http://tech.scoople.it/feds-withholding-evidence-favorable-to-bradle

November 29, 2011
Feds Withholding Evidence Favorable to Bradley Manning, Lawyer Charges

From: CNET, Threat Level.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This story provided by Scoople.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bradley Manning's attorney has suggested that the hundreds of megabytes of U.S. government data his client allegedly handed to WikiLeaks didn't really harm national security after all. A new document filed in Manning's criminal case provides an early glimpse at the defense's legal strategy in advance of a preliminary hearing on December 16. 1

"The defense has repeatedly requested the below discovery in this case, but the government has consistently responded with a blanket denial of the defense request," Coombs wrote in the partially redacted filing. 2

[TransitJohn]

1. +1, recced to zero. eom

n/t

[xchrom]

2. GASP -- they wouldn't do that...

:eyes:

[G_j]

3. I know

doesn't this just stretch the imagination? :think:

[xchrom]

4. ...

:spray: indeed!

[MisterP]

12. and if they do, it HAS to be "stay-behinds" Rove! Cheney! Rove! Cheney!

[HereSince1628]

5. I can see that maybe that makes a difference at sentencing

But does anyone know if it would change the nature of the charges or the requirements for a conviction?

[Scuba]

8. Reporting a crime is not a crime. n/t

[HereSince1628]

11. I suppose that's a defense position, but that seems to be a non sequitur to the ref article

Whether or not the release caused damage, would be something separate from whether the information released exposed one or more criminal activities. The article referred to is very brief and only addresses damage caused by the release of information.

That seems to suggest that the amount and kind of the damage caused (next to none) is in some way a relevant issue for the defense.

I wonder, how so?

It's my general understanding that a defense is mounted to counter the prosecution's attempt to demonstrate that the issues central to a criminal charge have been met.

I am wondering if anyone knows whether the quantity or quality of the damage caused by an unauthorized release of information is really an issue under the law that Manning is accused of violating.

[Huey P. Long]

6. kr

[MNBrewer]

7. Bradley Manning treatment in custody concerns MEPs

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/29/bradley-manning-concerns-mep-letter>

"The MEPs said internal investigations into Manning's treatment in custody, which included solitary confinement for up to 23 hours a day, inspections by officers every five minutes from 5am onwards and removal of his clothes, had been marred by "clear conflicts of interest".

They call for US authorities to grant Juan Méndez, the UN special rapporteur on torture, access to Manning.

Mendez has made repeated requests for access to the military base where Manning is held, all of which have been refused by US authorities."



All this from the Transparent President!!!

[saras]

9. No one is actually surprised, are they? Manning remains an example of what we do with moral people

[Smarmie Doofus]

10. Mea culpa. I accidentally unrecced it.

Someone make it up for me... will ya?

Re. the post: the government is, has been, and will always BE full of shit re. this case.

>>>"The defense has repeatedly requested the below discovery in this case, but the government has consistently responded with a blanket denial of the defense request," Coombs wrote in the partially redacted filing. >>>

[G_j]

13. remember how many years they denied the effects of agent orange?

Or the exposure of troops to chemical weapons in the gulf war (gulf war disease)? In particular, if the Pentagon says something, you can figure it's not true.