February 23 marks the 1000th day in which alleged WikiLeaks whistleblower, 24-year-old US Army intelligence officer Bradley Manning, has been jailed by US authorities without trial.
A pre-trial hearing in January in the case of Manning, concluded that his defence would be restricted to arguing motive during his trial, scheduled for June 3.
Manning has been accused of leaking thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks, which revealed a wide range of US war crimes, as well as evidence of corruption and lying by a range of governments.
said Manning is 鈥渁ccused of releasing the Collateral Murder video, that shows the killing of unarmed civilians and two Reuters journalists, by a US Apache helicopter crew in Iraq. He is also accused of sharing the Afghan War Diary, the Iraq War Logs, and a series of embarrassing US diplomatic cables.
鈥淭hese documents ... illuminated such issues as the true number and cause of civilian casualties in Iraq, along with a number of human rights abuses by U.S.-funded contractors and foreign militaries, and the role that spying and bribes play in international diplomacy.
鈥淕iven the war crimes exposed, if PFC Bradley Manning was the source for these documents, he should be given a medal of honor.鈥
The US government, however, responded to the leaked evidence of serious US crimes by charging Manning with several offences, alleging that he 鈥渁ided the enemy鈥. Judge Army Colonel Denise Lind鈥檚 January 17 ruling, like previous rulings in Manning鈥檚 case, remains unavailable to the public. Information can only be gleaned from reporters who were present at the hearings.
Kevin Gosztola, a journalist who has been diligently covering Manning鈥檚 case, was present at the hearings. He said the ruling means the defence cannot discuss whether Manning had 鈥済ood faith鈥 when arguing against charges that he 鈥渨rongfully and wantonly cause[d] to be published on the internet intelligence belonging to the United States government鈥.
Nor can the defence use the argument in relation to charges where the government has to prove he had 鈥渞eason to believe such information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation鈥.
However, the defence can discuss motive when addressing charges that Manning aided the enemy, to put the case that he did not know passing information to WikiLeaks would constitute 鈥渄ealing with the enemy鈥.
It will also be allowed for sentencing, in which case he will have already been found guilty of very serious crimes that carry the potential for life imprisonment, or even potentially the death penalty. The question of motives could, at best, be used only to appeal for leniency in sentencing.
Manning鈥檚 defence team hoped to argue that he had the motive to 鈥渟elect information he believed could not be used by the enemy to harm the US鈥. However, the judge ruled that Manning鈥檚 subjective conclusions were 鈥渋mmaterial鈥.
This means that what Manning believed when carrying out the alleged offences will not be considered, only what is 鈥渙bjective鈥. As Gosztola points out: 鈥淲hat would an objective person know about classified information that would be kept secret for twenty-five years?鈥
The ruling also closed off the defence鈥檚 attempt at having damage assessment reports allowed in the trial. These are reports conducted by US security agencies that investigated damage caused by the leaked documents.
The reports concluded that there was no or very little harm caused, so the government prosecutors are eager to keep the reports out of the trial. Lind determined that Manning could not have known what measures agencies of government would have taken to mitigate damage so such evidence was not relevant.
These rulings greatly limit the defence鈥檚 line of argument. Gosztola described the primary line of defence for Manning as 鈥渙dd鈥. Defence will argue that the military let Manning down by not practising good information security and also pointing to Manning鈥檚 mental health issues and claiming that the military was derelict in providing care.
This is a 鈥渓itigious鈥 defence, he says, which isn鈥檛 actually aimed at saying Manning is not guilty, but rather trying to get the charges thrown out.
The hearing has also renewed interest in how the final judgement will impact the mainstream press鈥 publication of the leaks.
Scott Shane in the New York Times quoted an exchange where 鈥淐olonel Lind, the judge, asked a prosecutor a hypothetical question: If Private Manning had given the documents to The New York Times rather than to WikiLeaks, would he face the same charges?鈥 The prosecutor answered yes.
The NYT, along with many other mainstream publications, published hundreds of the documents that Manning allegedly leaked to WikiLeaks. The Justice Department continues its investigation into whether WikiLeaks head Julian Assange and his associates can be charged over publishing secret US cables.
Hearings also considered the defence鈥檚 charge that Manning鈥檚 rights had been violated due to unjustified delay of the trial. If the judge rules in the defence鈥檚 favour, there is the potential for the charges to be dropped.
Manning was first jailed on May 27, 2010. The defence put forward examples of when they believed the government had failed to act or acted improperly.
Defence and the judge seemed to agree that there was no case in military justice history that took so long to go to trial. If the defence succeeds in pushing this argument, all the charges against Manning could be dismissed due to the speedy trial violations. Lind is due to make her ruling before the next hearing begins on February 26.
Meanwhile, Manning languishes in solitary confinement in Fort Levenworth, Kansas. The Bradley Manning Support Network reports events are being planned around the world, including the US, Germany, Canada, Britain and Italy on February 23, to mark Manning鈥檚 1000th day of jail.
[For more information, visit www.bradleymanning.org.]
br>