Manning’s maximum potential sentence reduced to 90 years; sentencing in closed session: trial report, day 28

By Nathan Fuller, Bradley Manning Support Network. August 6, 2013. 

Bradley Manning (Photo credit: Patrick Semansky/Associated Press)

Bradley Manning (Photo credit: Patrick Semansky/Associated Press)

Though the majority of her ruling sided with prosecution arguments, military judge Col. Denise Lind granted in part a defense motion to merge some of the specifications against Pfc. Bradley Manning for sentencing, reducing the maximum sentence he could receive from 136 to 90 years in confinement. 

The defense proposed combining the theft of the Iraq and Afghan War Logs (contending that those occurred at the same time), the theft and computer fraud of the State Department cables (because computer fraud was committed in order to download them), and combining the theft and transmission of the war logs (as the government has previously argued that the theft occurred under the “knowingly converted” theory when the documents were sent to WikiLeaks). It also moved to merge charges that Manning committed computer fraud with the Army regulation violation, because both involved introducing the unauthorized ‘Wget’ to his work computer.

While Judge Lind ruled against merging for findings, she did rule to merge several for sentencing. She merged two Espionage specifications for transmission of the Iraq and Afghan SigActs, the theft and transmission of the Guantanamo Bay Detainee Assessment Briefs (DABs), and the theft and fraudulent downloading of the State Dept. cables and GTMO DABs.

This combines several separated ten-year offenses, reducing Manning’s maximum potential prison term by 46 years. 

Update: Thanks to Kevin Gosztola, for scanning and posting a copy of the ruling here.

Judge allows government to present testimony on future harm 

In a second ruling, Judge Lind ruled largely in favor of the government, against the defense’s motion to limit the scope of “aggravating evidence” allowed during sentencing.

Under Rule for Court Martial 1001(b)(4) (emphasis mine),

The trial counsel may present evidence as to any aggravating circumstances directly relating to or resulting from the offenses of which the accused has been found guilty. Evidence in aggravation includes, but is not limited to, evidence of financial, social, psychological, and medical impact on or cost to any person or entity who was the victim of an offense committed by the accused and evidence of significant adverse impact on the mission, discipline, or efficiency of the command directly and immediately resulting from the accused’s offense. 

In its motion, the defense had moved to prevent ‘chain of events’ testimony, to avoid blaming Manning for a never-ending string of damage;  “could cause damage” testimony, to prevent speculative testimony on harm that hasn’t happened and might never happen; and “use of resources” testimony, to prevent holding Manning responsible for costs that don’t cover “the specific harm caused by the defendant.”

The judge ruled broadly that each of these do constitute proper aggravating evidence as they result “directly” from Manning’s actions, with the notable caveat that she will disregard Amb. Michael Kozak’s opinion on the diplomatic cables release’s “chilling effect,” as it was speculative. She said that proceeding forward will require “fact-specific” inquiries: the defense can continue to object after each witness, the government will respond, and then the judge will rule on what she will consider proper evidence. 

Closed court for discussion of U.S. / Pakistan relation 

Maj. Gen. Michael Nagata, from the Pentagon’s Joint Staff and formerly of the Office of Defense Representative Pakistan (ODRP), is testifying in a closed session about how WikiLeaks’ release of State Department diplomatic cables affected U.S. relations with Pakistan. 

In a brief open session, Maj. Gen. Nagata testified that the U.S. had been “predictably benefiting from a great deal of gratitude & goodwill” in Pakistan in the latter half of 2010, after providing a “great deal” of humanitarian aid after the massive flood that submerged 20% of Pakistan’s land mass underwater. 

Maj. Gen. Nagata said that the U.S. relationship with Pakistan had been on a “very positive trajectory” in October and November of 2010, though not without “friction” or other problems. He said this was because the Pakistani military was becoming “increasingly aware” that “violent extremists” were becoming an “existential threat” and realized that they needed U.S. help. 

We don’t know much about what Maj. Gen. Nagata will discuss in the closed session. Prosecutors indicated they intended to elicit testimony regarding his role in the ODRP from 2009 and 2011 and the impact that WikiLeaks’ releases had. The defense did not cross-examine him in an open session, but with other witnesses has worked to show that the relations at issue were already fraught.

The defense may do the same with Pakistan. The United States has been conducting covert drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004. Last week, the Bureau for Investigative Journalism reported on new revelations regarding the U.S.’s use of drones in Pakistan to strike worshippers in mosques, mourners grieving at funerals, and rescuers retrieving the dead.

Col. Julian Chesnutt in open court for ten minutes

The Defense Intelligence Agency’s Attache in Pakistan from November 2010 to October 2012, Col. Julian Chesnutt is now testifying in a closed session after he was questioned in open court for just ten minutes. As former military advisor to the U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan, he will testify about the impact of WikiLeaks’ release of U.S. diplomatic cables

6 thoughts on “Manning’s maximum potential sentence reduced to 90 years; sentencing in closed session: trial report, day 28

  1. NSA is guilty of criminal espionage. MANNING NOT GUILTY OF criminal ESPIONAGE, according to espionage act: “whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defence with intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States..” “(e) whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, note, or information, relating to the national defence, through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be list, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both.” “Section 2
    Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury or the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicated, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to, or aids, or induces another to, communicate, deliver or transmit, to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly and document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defence, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than twenty years..”

    anyone who illegally searches/seizes documents/pcs/videos/pety non survival items(manning didnt do, nsa did) shouldnt be arrested, should be banned from gov jobs, and maybe sml fine.
    tax payer $ shuold be better spent going after mruders/tortures or helping the poor, instead of overpunishing.
    no one who hasnt touched someone agianst their will, kidnapped, physcially trapped, physcially abuse/neglected, murdered, tortured, disarmed, or physcially directly endangered someone(ex pointing a gun at someone), shuld go to life in prison.

    UCMJ: 894. Art. 94. Mutiny or sedition
    (a) Any person subject to this chapter who-
    (1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, REFUSES, in concert with any other person, TO obey orders or otherwise DO HIS DUTY OR CREATES any VIOLENCE OR DISTURBANCE is guilty of mutiny; (2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition; (3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a FAILURE TO suppress or REPORT a mutiny or sedition.
    (b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or FAILURE TO suppress or REPORT a mutiny or sedition shall be punished…as a court-martial may direct.

    Manning was given access to classified documents as a military intelligence analyst-hes not a spy.
    “regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.”-constitution of the united states.
    only criminals say exposeing/leaking evidence of crimes puts security at risk, because it put’s criminals at risk of being fired or arrested.
    allowing criminals who spy on entire non-gov w/o their permit, or murders who kill innocents, to go unpunished puts everyone at risk.
    gov admitted manning leaks didnt put anyone at risk.
    manning wasnt wreckless or indiscriminate, he didnt leak all the info he could have leaked.
    letting gov hypocritically spy on everyone, overclassify and cover up its crimes puts everyone at risk.

  2. As a former Army Sergeant myself, I am on the fence regarding Pfc Manning’s leaks of classified information. On one side, I can see how disclosure of military strategies and classified intelligence can potentially endanger the lives of soldiers on the ground. On the other, war crimes, corruption, and flat out lies by our government should be uncovered as the powers that be who covered this up are the true traitors who need to be punished by the full extent of the law.

  3. Do we really reach the point where we need to spend tons of money to spend so many weeks in a courtroom, to reduce a “potential sentence” from 136 to 90 years on a 25 yo human being ?

    Has this human world reached so much stupidity and nonsense ?

    Human emptiness has no limit, but we’ll certainly reach it very soon !

  4. Why is the military not doing their job, and that’s saving our country from our CORRUPT government? Bradley seems to be the only one that has any common sense what so ever. Bradley has been been left behind by his fellow soldiers.

Leave a Reply

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