Report from Bradley Manning’s hearing, 2/27/13

Closed session deals with classified information, Judge Lind rules on the defense’s over-classification witnesses, and the Department of Defense finally publishes legal filings

By Nathan Fuller, Bradley Manning Support Network. February 27, 2013.

Judge Denise Lind. Sketch by Clark Stoeckley, Bradley Manning Support Network.

Judge Denise Lind. Sketch by Clark Stoeckley, Bradley Manning Support Network.

A pretrial hearing for PFC Bradley Manning at Fort Meade, MD, ended early for the press and public today, as the court moved to a closed session in the afternoon to litigate how to handle classified information during trial. Prosecutors intend to call 141 witnesses during the trial, and they expect testimony from 73 of those to include classified information.

The defense proposes to substitute, redact, or summarize the classified material, or to use code words to refer to secret names, dates, or places. But the government argues that 33 of its witnesses will discuss material too complex to be summarized or referred to by code, and it requests closing the sessions for those portions of their testimony. Judge Denise Lind challenged that assertion, agreeing with the defense that she needs to know more about what the witnesses will discuss before deciding to close future sessions.

Judge Lind continued to argue for keeping the courtroom open as much as possible during trial, saying the parties should exhaust all alternative methods before closing sessions. She asked for just one of the government’s witnesses to come to a pretrial hearing, to give a test run that would inform how to handle the remainder of the witnesses at trial. The government objected to this, but said it’d submit a formal response to the judge’s request later.

When it became clear that litigation couldn’t continue without more information, Judge Lind ordered a closed session for after lunch, so the government could privately explain to the defense and judge in more detail what it expects witnesses to divulge. The parties could then explore potential alternatives to closing the court during trial.

Prosecutors said they might be able to remove witnesses from their list after discussion of Bradley Manning’s plea, depending on what’s revealed. Tomorrow, Bradley and Judge Lind will have a ‘colloquy,’ or a discussion in which she asks him questions about the plea he’s offering and issues surrounding it.

The plea gives Bradley an opportunity to take responsibility for releasing some documents to WikiLeaks while opposing the way that the government has charged him. He submitted a statement supplementing the plea to Judge Lind, we learned yesterday. The colloquy gives him a chance to explain some of his reasoning at greater length. For instance, his statement to the court is said to explain that Bradley hoped that the Iraq War Logs release would ‘spark a domestic debate on the role of our military and foreign policy in general.’ 

Defense witnesses and evidence regarding over-classification

Judge Lind largely granted a government motion that prevents PFC Bradley Manning’s defense from calling witnesses to testify regarding U.S. over-classification. The defense wants to call witnesses who could explain that some of the documents Bradley is accused of releasing could not be reasonably expected to incur harm to the U.S. The defense says the witnesses could discuss rampant over-classification – i.e. needlessly making documents secret (which the Support Network wrote about in January 2012) – to give context for Bradley’s state of mind at the time of the disclosures.

But the judge did say she’d take judicial notice of two of the defense’s proposed adjudicative facts. She took notice of the fact that Congress made findings in section two of the Reducing Over-Classification Act (though not of the act itself). Therein, Congress found that the so-called 9/11 Commission determined that “security requirements nurture over-classification and excessive compartmentation of information among agencies.”

Furthermore, Congress said,

“The 9/11 Commission and others have observed that the over-classification of information interferes with accurate, actionable, and timely information sharing, increases the cost of information security, and needlessly limits stakeholder and public access to information.”

Judge Lind also said that she would take notice of statements from J. William Leonard, director of the Information Security Oversight Office, if proven relevant. For example, Leonard has discussed findings of an ISOO study, concluding that only 64% of documents they studied were properly classified.

Even though many of the defense’s witnesses weren’t accepted, these judicially noticed facts can help the defense prove that Bradley knew that over-classification was a serious problem in the military and that releasing the documents he did would not harm the U.S.

Some court documents are finally available

The biggest news of the day may have come from outside the proceedings, as the Department of Defense announced that it’s made 84 judicial orders and rulings in Bradley Manning’s court martial publicly available online, and will continue to release filings. The release comes after over a year of protest from journalists and activists demanding access to basic court documents. Reporters and lawyers have said Bradley’s proceedings have had less press access than secretive military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay. Journalists covering the case have long complained that the lack of public filings makes covering the case extremely difficult, not least because Judge Lind reads her lengthy rulings too quickly to transcribe.

The move may be an effort to circumvent the lawsuit levied by the Center for Constitutional Rights seeking public access to the documents. When Judge Lind rejected that, the CCR appealed to the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces for a First Amendment ruling that would ensure press access to filings in all U.S. courts martial. The appeals court has yet to rule on the CCR’s suit.

The Support Network has previously pressured the military to make documents public when Judge Lind refused to. In October, hundreds of supporters flooded Fort Meade’s public affairs office phone lines with calls for an open trial.

Still, the vast majority of the 30,000 pages in Bradley’s case remain unavailable. The Washington Post’s Julie Tate called the DoD’s announcement “an important symbolic step toward long-awaited transparency in the case.” Speaking to the Guardian, the CCR’s president emeritus Michael Ratner criticized the DoD for releasing only a tiny portion of the legal filings.

9 thoughts on “Report from Bradley Manning’s hearing, 2/27/13

  1. The hero is in PRISON for 3 years and the criminals act with impunity! What a backwards system. Do we have hope for justice from such a system? I certainly HOPE so! LET HIM GO! He did the RIGHT thing. Such courage should be rewarded.

  2. This poor young man was seeking truth and has been tortured by a country that promotes innocence until proven guilty. Let him be free. I am ashamed of the us’ s treatment

    • Although “innocent until proven guilty” sounds nice, it is not even the reality for ordinary people. Everyone is treated as guilty until proven innocent, and I can tell you this from first-hand experience. But hey……here we sit at the computer, not doing crap about it. The content don’t deserve anything.

  3. what the means of CRIMINAL if this is TRANSPARENT or OPAQUE, please tell me about it, it’s called the TRAP’S ? ! ? !

  4. Please do not hold him in prison no more,Hes done more than his TIME n TORTURED,Please move forward in time We as a nation have created so much KARMA w tortureing the Human Race,Let there be PEACE Mr President,Who really wins we the People or the Evil around us?Please make the Change!But you FIRST,

  5. What a travesty of justice this proceeding has become. Can it be redeemed?
    Only if the judge rules what has become most obvious:

    1. The trial timeline has grossly abused Manning’s right to a speedy trial.
    2. Denial of defense witnesses has put the defense into a no-win situation before the trial even begins.
    3. The accused has been a victim of gross pre-trial punishment and torture.
    4. There has been unlawful command influence more than once, dooming the detainee’s chances for a fair unbiased trial.
    5. Judge Lind’s rulings have unfairly removed from acceptable trial evidence every winning point the defense has made during the hearings.

    Bradley Manning has been saddled with a show trial and has already served an odious tortured pretrial punishment of 3 years! The judge needs to acknowledge all of the above, and drop all charges or sentence him to time served if these proceedings are to regain any appearance of fairness.

  6. People can see who’s for real and who’s a fake at Brad’s hearings. Government perception managers are trying to make him look alone and powerless against the State. The corporate media wait outside the courtroom for hours to get pics of Brad in handcuffs, surrounded by big guards. I yelled at them to take our picture as we left yesterday. It’s clear what’s going on.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>