Manning's release 'put Central Command in crisis mode'

[struggle4progress]

Reuters
August 10, 2013, 2:10 am
By Tom Ramstack

FORT MEADE, Maryland (Reuters) - U.S. soldier Bradley Manning's release of secret files to WikiLeaks compelled military leaders to assign a crisis team to identify and warn anyone potentially put at risk by the leak, a high-ranking Navy officer testified on Friday.

The testimony by Rear Admiral Kevin Donegan, operations director of the U.S. Central Command from 2010 to 2012, came as the prosecution wraps up its case in the sentencing phase of Manning's court-martial ...

He added that "there was absolutely an impact" on the U.S. government from the released diplomatic cables ...

The court then went into a closed session to hear classified information from Donegan ...

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/18438734/mannings-put-central-command-in-crisis-mode/

[Cha]

1. So this will be admissable?

thanks struggle

[struggle4progress]

2. The judge to date has ruled that any claims of harm from Manning's release

must be sufficiently proximate to the release

So I think Lind tossed testimony -- that a particular Taliban murder in Afghanistan, which the Taliban said resulted from their reading of Wikileaks material, was a harm attributable Manning -- because the prosecution witness agreed the victim's name did not appear in the released documents. This seems reasonable, since Manning is entitled to trial on factual evidence rather than speculation

Similarly, I think Lind tossed testimony earlier this week -- that the State Department cables release had reduced willingness abroad to discuss matters freely with US personnel, as people became unsure of the confidentiality of such communications -- because the witness's testimony was insufficiently probative. This also seems reasonable: it could be unfair to Manning to allow imprecise government testimony of the form "Some people told us they couldn't talk to us anymore because they didn't trust us to keep their identities secret, but I can't tell you who, because I have to protect the confidentiality of those conversations," since there's no way to cross-examine such testimony

I don't know how the judge will regard recent testimony along the lines "Trying to understand the damage, that could result from the leaks, cost us time and manpower." That seems to me an obvious harm proximate to the releases

[Cha]

3. thank you, struggle. You've been on this from

the beginning and helping me to understand what is actually going on.

[struggle4progress]

4. Take everything I say with a shake of salt, cuz I'm only reading the papers,

and they aren't always terribly accurate

[Cha]

5. Okay. :)