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
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, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. 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. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —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.