NOTE The following text is a quote:
www.defense.gov//News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=116073
Motion Hearing Opens for Alleged Document Leaker
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service
FORT MEADE, Md., April 24, 2012 – The judge in the case against Army Pfc. Bradley Manning is expected to rule tomorrow on procedural issues that could have a major impact on his trial — including whether the court should dismiss all charges against the alleged classified document leaker.
Army Col. Denise Lind, the judge, presided over the first of what is expected to be three days of oral arguments during a motion hearing here.
During today’s proceedings, Manning’s defense team argued today that the government was overzealous in pursuing its case against him and should throw out all 22 charges against him. The defense, led by civilian attorney David Coombs, urged Lind today to dismiss all charges against Manning “with prejudice” — meaning that they can’t be reinstated later.
Manning, a 24-year-old military intelligence analyst, sat silently in the courtroom today, wearing his Army service uniform, between Coombs and his new military defense attorney, Army Capt. Joshua Tooman.
He is charged with charged with what officials believe is the biggest intelligence leak in U.S. history. Manning allegedly leaked hundreds of thousands of military and diplomatic documents to the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks, in turn, released thousands of these documents, including classified records about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, on its website.
Manning was arrested at Forward Operating Base Hammer near Baghdad, Iraq, May 25, 2010. The former 10thMountain Division soldier is accused of installing unauthorized software onto government computers to extract classified information, unlawfully downloading it, improperly storing it, and transmitting the data for public release and use by the enemy.
The specific charges, as outlined on his charge sheet, include aiding the enemy; wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the Internet, knowing that it is accessible to the enemy; theft of public property or records; transmitting defense information; and fraud and related activity in connection with computers. The charges include violation of Army Regulations 25-2 “Information Assurance” and 380-5 “Department of the Army Information Security Program.”
Manning’s defense team accused the prosecution today of dragging its feet in turning over key documents it needs to provide an adequate defense, in violation of both military and federal law. Coombs claimed the military is hiding behind the fact that other government agencies — and not the Defense Department — possess many of these materials as an excuse not to share them with the defense.
Speaking for the prosecution, Army Maj. Ashden Fein told the judge today those materials, which he emphasized aren’t within control of military authorities, have been reviewed and will be turned over to the defense as soon as appropriate approval is granted.
Coombs also pressed today for access to grand jury-related documents regarding the case that military authorities have access to, including grand jury testimony. Lind said she will rule on that request tomorrow.
But Coombs argued that the time this process and the additional reviews will require — which he said essentially will restart the entire discovery process — would prevent Manning from receiving the speedy trial he is guaranteed by law. For this reason, Coombs said the entire case should be dismissed.
Much of today’s proceedings focused on damage that resulted from Manning actions, and whether it should be pertinent to the government’s case against him.
Coombs and Tooman argued in motions filed last week that Manning shouldn’t be accused of causing harm not able to be proven or quantified.
The prosecution told the court the charges against Manning should be weighed based on his actions and not their results until the case moves to sentencing. Lind said the government plans to present basic information about damages resulting from Manning’s activities at that point, balancing it against national defense interests.
Lind emphasized that the prosecution already has presented some evidence of these damages to the defense. Broadening the requirements for these disclosures too widely threatens to “graymail” this and future court cases, he said, essentially using the threat of disclosing national secrets to manipulate legal proceedings.
As a compromise measure, Lind directed the government, including the State Department and CIA, today to submit damage assessments by May 18, and said she will review them herself to determine their relevance to the case.
The Obama administration and Defense Departments have claimed that WikiLeaks’ publication of the classified documents put deployed U.S. forces at increased risk.
Aiding the enemy under Article 104 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice is a capital offense; however, the prosecution team has said it won’t recommend the death penalty, a legal official said.
If convicted of all charges, Manning would face a maximum punishment of life in prison. He also could be reduced to E-1, the lowest enlisted grade, face a total forfeiture of all pay and allowances and dishonorable discharge, officials said.
Manning’s trial date has not yet been scheduled.
Before adjourning today, Lind scheduled a closed-door session tomorrow morning with the prosecution and defense teams, with the court to begin at 10 a.m. Today’s proceedings were broadcast via closed-circuit TV to a media operations center at Fort Meade.
NOTE The following text is a quote:
www.defense.gov//News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=116100
Alleged Document Leaker’s Trial Set for September
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service
FORT MEADE, Md., April 26, 2012 – Army Pfc. Bradley Manning will go to trial this fall to face charges that he leaked hundreds of thousands of classified documents in what’s believed to be the largest intelligence leak in U.S. history.
Army Col. Denise Lind, the judge presiding over three days of motion hearings here, scheduled the trial to begin Sept. 21 and continue through Oct. 12.
The defense will get to decide if the case will be heard by a judge alone, by a jury to consist of all officers, or by a mixed panel that includes one third enlisted members from within Manning’s current command, the Army’s Military District of Washington.
During the hearings, Lind rejected the defense’s argument yesterday that all 22 charges against him Manning should be dismissed.
Today, she also upheld the most serious charge against him, that he aided the enemy by disclosing classified military and diplomatic documents material to the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks, in turn, released thousands of these documents, including classified records about military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, on its website.
Lind specified today that the prosecution must prove that Manning disclosed the data with a clear understanding that the enemy would have access to it.
The decision followed three days of oral arguments, with the discussion centered largely on Manning’s intent in disclosing the classified documents and what damage resulted.
The defense, led by civilian counsel David Coombs, argued that Manning never intended to aid the enemy when he provided the information to WikiLeaks.
The government called Manning’s intent immaterial and said he should be tried based solely on his actions. “Why he did something isn’t relevant,” Army Maj. Ashden Fein, the lead prosecutor, told the judge. What is relevant at this point, he said, is what Manning actually did and how he did it.
Aiding the enemy under Article 104 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice is a capital offense; however, the prosecution team has said it won’t recommend the death penalty, a legal official said.
The maximum sentence Manning could receive, if found guilty of the charge, is life in prison.
He also could be reduced to E-1, the lowest enlisted grade, face a total forfeiture of all pay and allowances and dishonorable discharge, officials said.
Lind upheld other lesser charges against Manning, rejecting the defense’s claim the government imposed “unreasonable multiplication of charges,” essentially piling on duplicate charges for the same acts. She said she found no evidence that the prosecution exaggerated Manning’s criminality or otherwise “overreached” in compiling charges against him.
The judge did, however, leave the door open for combining charges in the event that Manning is found guilty and the case moves into the sentencing phase. This could reduce the length of any sentence imposed, a military legal official explained.
The defense team reiterated its call for the government to provide assessments of damages actually caused by the disclosures, calling this information critical to its case. Coombs argued today that the government’s failure to provide a full accounting of harm done demonstrates that the disclosures actually had minimal impact.
Fein said the burden of proving actual damages isn’t the government’s responsibility, and that that information, should it be considered at all, should be reserved until sentencing.
Lind did not say when she will rule on the defense’s request for damage assessments. She said she will review these documents personally to determine if the defense team should have access to them.
The judge also has yet to consider a new prosecution request to reconsider her directive that the State Department share its interim damage assessment report findings.
Lind ruled yesterday that the prosecution does not have to provide the defense team transcripts of federal grand jury testimony regarding the WikiLeaks case. Although the FBI has been involved in the WikiLeaks investigation, the judge said the military has no authority to release the FBI information.
Manning sat emotionless in the courtroom wearing his Army service uniform during the three days of oral arguments. He followed the proceedings closely, periodically jotting notes on a yellow pad or leaning toward Coombs or his new military defense attorney, Army Capt. Joshua Tooman, to whisper a comment or peek at a document.
The 24-year-old military intelligence analyst was arrested at Contingency Operating Base Hammer near Baghdad, Iraq, May 25, 2010. A former 10th Mountain Division soldier, he is accused of installing unauthorized software onto government computers to extract classified information, unlawfully downloading it, improperly storing it, and transmitting the data for public release and use by the enemy.
The specific charges, as outlined on his charge sheet, include aiding the enemy; wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the Internet knowing that it is accessible to the enemy; theft of public property or records; transmitting defense information; and fraud and related activity in connection with computers. The charges include violation of Army Regulations 25-2 “Information Assurance” and 380-5 “Department of the Army Information Security Program.”
Manning has not issued a plea on these charges.
Along with the trial dates, Lind scheduled additional hearings related to the case: June 6 to 8; July 16 to 20; Aug. 27 to 31; and Sept. 19 to 20. The hearings will focus on specific elements related to each charge to ensure a common understanding as both sides prepare their cases, as well as other procedural items.