Prosecution Claims ‘Proof’ Manning Knew He Was Aiding Enemy
Manning's Lawyer Urges Prosecution to Actually Provide Evidence
Adding to the embarrassing problems with the discovery phase of Pfc. Bradley Manning’s trial, government prosecutors today claimed to have “proof” that Manning knew he was directly aiding the enemy by releasing State Department documents to WikiLeaks.
The biggest problem with this claim is that, like so many others, they haven’t presented a shred of evidence to this effect, and Manning’s lawyer, David E. Coombs, once again complained that no such evidence was ever presented during discovery.
Judge Denise Lind has repeatedly criticized the prosecution for its mishandling of discovery, and has ordered them to provide more evidence and stop using “national security” as an excuse to keep putative proof secret.
The prosecutions charges in the past have mentioned al-Qaeda, but today’s claim did not. If actual proof does exist it could serious harm Manning’s case, but of course would also raise yet more concerns that the damning evidence is being kept from the defense.
Last 5 posts by Jason Ditz
- US Slams Russia's Missile Sales to Syria - May 17th, 2013
- Nine Killed, 70 Wounded in Bombings Near Kandahar - May 17th, 2013
- Envoy: Russia May Deploy Troops to Tajik-Afghan Border - May 17th, 2013
- Pentagon in Afghan Budget Crisis, Seeks to Shift $10 Billion in Funds - May 17th, 2013
- Nigeria Launching Massive Offensive Against Boko Haram - May 17th, 2013
mojo
July 16th, 2012 at 9:27 pm
The US government consists of Mafiosi, in reality everything within the circle is made of Mafioso belonging either to Zionism or the mafia before them or the one that is in charge, so they do what mafia do best, accusing you of everything if you don't cooperate, brake your legs if you say otherwise, kill you if you tell the truth and finally will keep you in jail accusing you that you knew. Democracy.., justice.., forget about it.
Anti_Govt_Rebel
July 16th, 2012 at 9:54 pm
Does anybody know if Manning can be sent letters of support or how to get his mailing address?
persnipoles
July 16th, 2012 at 10:12 pm
Quick Google; apparently as of March:
http://www.bradleymanning.org/news/update-3312-bradleys-...
Commander, HHC USAG
Attn: PFC Manning
239 Sheridan Ave, Bldg 417
JBM-HH, VA 22211
Yonatan
July 16th, 2012 at 10:50 pm
A witness called into the Grand Jury in session over the Wikileaks / Manning affair has released a transcript of what happened. Worth reading just to see how feeble the whole process is – at the moment.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/07…
Yonatan
July 16th, 2012 at 10:52 pm
Another thought – the phrase 'the enemy' is undefined, abstract. Who is 'the 'enemy' – the American people?
Shule
July 17th, 2012 at 12:23 am
The Pentagon has a point if they regard the good people of America and the rest of the world as their enemy.
Macroman
July 17th, 2012 at 3:34 am
Last paragraph, you want "seriously" instead of "serious."
Walter Cole
July 17th, 2012 at 4:54 am
Following the Manning case is like following the arrest and trial of an accused in the Soviet Union back in the cold war. Our establishment misses the good old days to the point of taking on the role of their sworn enemy, the Soviet Union.
Just how long is the judge going to give those numskulls (the US government) to come up with what they supposedly already have (proof that Manning knew he was aiding the enemy)? Whatever the proof is, the Sec of Defense, the Sec of State, and the President are on the record for having stated that no harm was done to national security.
Numskulls are consistantly numskulls.
Popsiq
July 17th, 2012 at 6:52 am
What about the first-person testimony of Whacky the patriot and Oxycontin kid? Can he not corroborate those charges?
Didn't the arch-traitor admit to him , on-line, by phone and in between casual BJs that he wanted to arm the bashi-bazouks and bring about the downfall of the 'greatest-armed -force-for-good-on-erth'?
the lion
July 17th, 2012 at 11:03 am
This case makes the antics of Judge Roy Bean seem like Jurisprudential enlightenment!
That the President and others have stated that no harm was done makes the prosecutions case a real problem! That is the Problem that the prosecution is trying to get around! They are failing dismally at it.
MoT
July 17th, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Amazing that after all of this time their "evidence" is as solid as the wind escaping Hillarys ass.
ouchosparks
July 17th, 2012 at 6:03 pm
Damn rules that ensure a fair trial. The government should just snuff the guy and have done with it. As a matter of fact, every tenth PFC should be snuffed too, for discipline and morale.
duglarri
July 17th, 2012 at 7:31 pm
The question "who is the enemy" is actually crucial to the case, and the fact is that it's obvious: the espionage act was clearly designed to apply to wartime- and only to wartime. Aiding the enemy, then, is a matter of aiding an enemy defined by what? A declaration of war. Absent a declaration of war, what do you have? Someone could be sending information to the British. Are they "the enemy?" What about sending equipment to the Muj when they were fighting the Soviets? Were they then "the enemy"? When did they start being "the enemy"? Obviously 9/11 put their position in question, but who exactly, and when?
And wasn't "the enemy" in Bradley Manning's time someone different- Iraqi insurgents? Who then switched sides, and took money and weapons from the US to fight the other enemy? When did they stop being the enemy? Before they got this "aid" or after?
More to the point, if "the enemy" is Al-Quaida, who is "aiding the enemy" more: someone who put some documents on the internet, or someone who sends them anti-tank rockets so they can fight the government of Syria?
The prosecution is trying to make "the enemy" anyone they say it is, proactively and retroactively.
The fact is that without a declaration of war there isn't actually any enemy under the terms of the act.
And that's what the defence should be.