Other news from the hearing

artappraiser — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 22:12:32 +0000

In reply to Military decrees media access to Manning’s hearing is a privilege, not a right

Other news from the hearing (the new media restrictions are mentioned in the last two paragraphs of the article:)

Army Judge Raises Burden in Private’s Trial on Leaks
By Charlie Savage, New York Times, April 10/11, 2013

FORT MEADE, Md. — The military prosecutors seeking to have Pfc. Bradley Manning convicted of violating the Espionage Act over his release of secret government files to WikiLeaks will face an additional burden at his court-martial under a ruling on Wednesday by a military judge.

The judge, Col. Denise Lind, ruled at a pretrial hearing that prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Private Manning had “reason to believe” that the files could be used to harm the United States or to aid a foreign power. Prosecutors had contended that they should be required to prove only that he willfully disclosed defense-related files to win a conviction under the spying law.

Private Manning’s trial is scheduled to begin in June [....]

Private Manning has already pleaded guilty to 10 charges, exposing himself to up to 20 years in prison. But the plea was not part of any deal with the government, and prosecutors are pressing forward with trying to win a conviction on more serious charges — including aiding the enemy and multiple counts of violating the Espionage Act — that could result in a sentence of life without parole.

The Espionage Act outlaws giving military-related information to someone who is not authorized to receive it. The provision under which Private Manning was charged has two clauses. One covers documents, like code books, and requires only proof of willful disclosure. The other covers generic “information” and also requires proof that the person who released it had reason to believe that it could cause harm.

The Espionage Act charge against Private Manning quotes the “reason to believe” language. Thus, Colonel Lind said, the “government elected to charge the communications” under the second provision, and so prosecutors must prove his awareness that his actions would result in harm.

A military legal spokesman argued that the decision may make little difference because the judge previously ruled that Private Manning’s motive — whether he thought of himself as trying to help society — was irrelevant to whether he intentionally broke the law. The fact that many of the documents were classified, he said, was a reason for Private Manning to believe that their disclosure could cause harm.

But Steven Aftergood, a government secrecy specialist with the Federation of American Scientists, said that it could be difficult in practice to separate whether someone had a malicious motive from whether someone had reason to believe that a disclosure would harm the country. He said the ruling imposed a more demanding standard on prosecutors.

“Their job will be harder than it would have been had the judge ruled otherwise,” he said.

Also on Wednesday, Colonel Lind ruled that prosecutors, in seeking to show that Private Manning was guilty of “aiding the enemy,” would be allowed to present evidence that some of the files were obtained by Osama bin Laden.[....]

A handful of pretrial issues remain [....]

?To say the judge wasn?t

A Guy Called LULU — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:04:50 +0000

In reply to Military decrees media access to Manning’s hearing is a privilege, not a right

“To say the judge wasn’t happy with what happened is an understatement,” she [a military spokesperson] said. “Police yourselves. If there is another violation, everyone feels the pain, not just certain individuals.” The announcement comes in response to last month’s publication of an audio recording of Bradley Manning’s statement in court taking responsibility for releasing documents to WikiLeaks.

Michael Ratner, president emeritus for the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), called the idea that media access isn’t a right “one of the more foolish and dangerous propositions I have ever heard.”

He continued:

It’s one I would have hoped we would never hear in this country regarding press and public access to criminal cases. Calling access a “privilege” is to say it can be taken away at the whim of the judge. That befits a dictatorship not a democracy. Access to criminal proceedings including pretrial hearings is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, a right that can be limited only in the most extreme of circumstances. The Manning trial is already a travesty of First Amendment violations. This just compounds its utter unfairness.

dagblog - Comments for "Military decrees media access to Manning’s hearing is a privilege, not a right"

Other news from the hearing

?To say the judge wasn?t