SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Colonel Denise Lind ruled that general issues of motive were not relevant to the trial stage of the court martial. Photograph: Patrick Semansky/AP
Exposing US War Crimes or Not, Judge Denies Manning's Whistleblower Defense
Prosecution highlights 'government's unprecedented targeting of whistleblowers'
Jan 18, 2013
In a significant--but not unexpected-- blow to his defense, a military judge has ruled that Bradley Manning's attorney may not argue that Manning's motive in releasing documents and the damning video "Collateral Murder" to WikiLeaks was to call attention to US war crimes.
Manning's lawyer, David Coombs, has said he would argue that Manning did not knowingly damage US interests, but instead would make a case that Manning was a whistleblower and acted in good faith in releasing the information, including the video documenting the shooting and killing of 11 individuals--including a Reuters photographer and small children--by American troops.
Manning, who on Friday served his 966th day in prison without trial, is scheduled for a June court martial on charges that he allegedly released confidential documents and videos relating to the Afghan and Iraq wars to WikiLeaks. Coombs said the whistleblower argument was key to his defense.
The Guardian reports that Colonel Denise Lind "ruled that general issues of motive were not relevant to the trial stage of the court martial, and must be held back until Manning either entered a plea or was found guilty, at which point it could be used in mitigation to lessen the sentence."
Lind also ruled that Coombs may not present evidence that the documents released to WikiLeaks caused little or no damage to US national security.
Coombs will be able to raise that evidence when addressing the specific charge of aiding the enemy, as FiredogLake's Kevin Gosztola points out, "in order to prove he did not know passing information to WikiLeaks would result in 'dealing with the enemy.'"
And The Guardian adds:
Lind's ruling means that some of the most impassioned statements by Manning about why he embarked on the massive transfer of information to WikiLeaks will now not be heard at trial. In the course of a now famous web chat he had with the hacker-turned-informer Adrian Lamo, Manning wrote : "information should be free / it belongs in the public domain / because another state would just take advantage of the information ... try and get some edge / if its out in the open ... it should be a public good."
Last week, prosecutors said that if Manning had released documents to The New York Times instead of WikiLeaks, they would still charge him with aiding the enemy. Never before has a soldier been jailed for releasing information to the media.
The Los Angeles Times subsequently published an editorial criticizing "the federal government's unprecedented targeting, in recent years, of whistleblowers and those who leak to the press," and calling the charge of aiding the enemy "excessive."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
In a significant--but not unexpected-- blow to his defense, a military judge has ruled that Bradley Manning's attorney may not argue that Manning's motive in releasing documents and the damning video "Collateral Murder" to WikiLeaks was to call attention to US war crimes.
Manning's lawyer, David Coombs, has said he would argue that Manning did not knowingly damage US interests, but instead would make a case that Manning was a whistleblower and acted in good faith in releasing the information, including the video documenting the shooting and killing of 11 individuals--including a Reuters photographer and small children--by American troops.
Manning, who on Friday served his 966th day in prison without trial, is scheduled for a June court martial on charges that he allegedly released confidential documents and videos relating to the Afghan and Iraq wars to WikiLeaks. Coombs said the whistleblower argument was key to his defense.
The Guardian reports that Colonel Denise Lind "ruled that general issues of motive were not relevant to the trial stage of the court martial, and must be held back until Manning either entered a plea or was found guilty, at which point it could be used in mitigation to lessen the sentence."
Lind also ruled that Coombs may not present evidence that the documents released to WikiLeaks caused little or no damage to US national security.
Coombs will be able to raise that evidence when addressing the specific charge of aiding the enemy, as FiredogLake's Kevin Gosztola points out, "in order to prove he did not know passing information to WikiLeaks would result in 'dealing with the enemy.'"
And The Guardian adds:
Lind's ruling means that some of the most impassioned statements by Manning about why he embarked on the massive transfer of information to WikiLeaks will now not be heard at trial. In the course of a now famous web chat he had with the hacker-turned-informer Adrian Lamo, Manning wrote : "information should be free / it belongs in the public domain / because another state would just take advantage of the information ... try and get some edge / if its out in the open ... it should be a public good."
Last week, prosecutors said that if Manning had released documents to The New York Times instead of WikiLeaks, they would still charge him with aiding the enemy. Never before has a soldier been jailed for releasing information to the media.
The Los Angeles Times subsequently published an editorial criticizing "the federal government's unprecedented targeting, in recent years, of whistleblowers and those who leak to the press," and calling the charge of aiding the enemy "excessive."
In a significant--but not unexpected-- blow to his defense, a military judge has ruled that Bradley Manning's attorney may not argue that Manning's motive in releasing documents and the damning video "Collateral Murder" to WikiLeaks was to call attention to US war crimes.
Manning's lawyer, David Coombs, has said he would argue that Manning did not knowingly damage US interests, but instead would make a case that Manning was a whistleblower and acted in good faith in releasing the information, including the video documenting the shooting and killing of 11 individuals--including a Reuters photographer and small children--by American troops.
Manning, who on Friday served his 966th day in prison without trial, is scheduled for a June court martial on charges that he allegedly released confidential documents and videos relating to the Afghan and Iraq wars to WikiLeaks. Coombs said the whistleblower argument was key to his defense.
The Guardian reports that Colonel Denise Lind "ruled that general issues of motive were not relevant to the trial stage of the court martial, and must be held back until Manning either entered a plea or was found guilty, at which point it could be used in mitigation to lessen the sentence."
Lind also ruled that Coombs may not present evidence that the documents released to WikiLeaks caused little or no damage to US national security.
Coombs will be able to raise that evidence when addressing the specific charge of aiding the enemy, as FiredogLake's Kevin Gosztola points out, "in order to prove he did not know passing information to WikiLeaks would result in 'dealing with the enemy.'"
And The Guardian adds:
Lind's ruling means that some of the most impassioned statements by Manning about why he embarked on the massive transfer of information to WikiLeaks will now not be heard at trial. In the course of a now famous web chat he had with the hacker-turned-informer Adrian Lamo, Manning wrote : "information should be free / it belongs in the public domain / because another state would just take advantage of the information ... try and get some edge / if its out in the open ... it should be a public good."
Last week, prosecutors said that if Manning had released documents to The New York Times instead of WikiLeaks, they would still charge him with aiding the enemy. Never before has a soldier been jailed for releasing information to the media.
The Los Angeles Times subsequently published an editorial criticizing "the federal government's unprecedented targeting, in recent years, of whistleblowers and those who leak to the press," and calling the charge of aiding the enemy "excessive."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.