Inside a Military Court Hearing: How the Government Is Railroading Bradley Manning

[Are_grits_groceries]

The WikiLeaks/Bradley Manning debacle provides us with a startling example of how brutally the US government treats those brave enough to provide even a glimpse of the machinations of its imperial assault on the rest of the world. Manning and the whistleblower web site WikiLeaks are credited with providing information that helped precipitate earthshaking historic events, including the Arab Spring and the recent withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. More notably, Manning and WikiLeaks are also credited with (and criminally accused of) release of the so-called "Collateral Murder" video footage of the slaughter of Reuters reporters and other civilians by the US military in Baghdad. For his alleged role in this "crime," Manning is enduring one of the most aggressive legal prosecutions in American history.
<snip>
Under usual circumstances, Military Rules of Evidence (MRE) establish a low threshold of relevance for turning over evidence to defendants.[1] "[M]ilitary law has been preeminent, zealously guaranteeing to the accused the right to be effectively represented by counsel through affording every opportunity to prepare his case by openly disclosing the Government's evidence."[2] In its request to compel production of evidence, Manning's attorneys explained: "To ensure that R.C.M. 405 and 703 will have meaning at trial, 'each party shall have adequate opportunity to prepare its case and equal opportunity to interview witnesses and inspect evidence.... The accused is entitled to inspect both exculpatory and inculpatory evidence."[3]

This standard requires the government to turn over relevant items that are within its control, even if that evidence is not already in its immediate possession. The prosecution and defense, "shall have equal opportunity to obtain witnesses and evidence,"[4] and the "prosecutor will be deemed to have knowledge of and access to anything in the possession, custody, or control of any federal agency participating in the same investigation of the defendant."[5]

Despite these requirements, the Investigating Officer (IO) in Manning's Article 32 hearing, Lt. Col. Paul Almanza, denied most defense requests for witnesses, as well as requests for the production of inculpatory and exculpatory evidence in the possession of the government. Almanza is a civilian reservist and senior prosecutor in the Department of Justice (DOJ). During the first day of the Article 32 hearing, Manning's attorney made an impassioned motion for his recusal. Citing the conflict of interest in light of the DOJ's ongoing investigation of Manning and WikiLeaks, as well as his regular employment as a Justice Department prosecutor, Manning's attorney David Coombs made the point that Almanza's role as IO raised issues of apparent conflict of interest. Coombs also pointed to Almanza's pre-hearing decisions to exclude nearly all defense witnesses. Almanza refused the invitation to step down and also denied a motion to stay the proceedings until an appellate body considered the issue of bias. The Article 32 hearing then immediately proceeded forward.
<snip>
http://truth-out.org/news/item/8297-inside-a-military-court-hearing-how-the-government-is-railroading-bradley-manning?tmpl=component&print=1

Justice? MEH!
They can't afford to allow a trial that follows standards to go forward.
They want to connect Assange to Manning. That has been their aim from the beginning.

[JDPriestly]

1. Obaminable.

[The Wizard]

2. Manning exposed American war crimes

and the callous disregard Americans have for other cultures. Picking off journalists on the ground from a helicopter using a machine gun with exploding rounds does not constitute courage, but rather cowardice, and that makes our military look less than heroic and yes criminal.
Manning is required by military law to expose war crimes, and as such was upholding the Geneva Convention Accords that the U.S. is party to, despite the machinations of the Bush cartel. The previous Administration was rampant with war criminals that, to date, are enjoying the fruits of their ill gotten gains without consequence.

[xchrom]

3. Du rec. Nt

[qazplm]

4. a misunderstanding of the military process

1. the article 32 hearing is a probable cause hearing. There is no state in the union where the defense gets massive discovery at a probable cause hearing.

2. Yes, the military discovery rules are very open and favorable to the defense, moreso than state or federal systems. However, it does not really begin until referral which comes AFTER the article 32 process.

3. The military discovery rules applicable to an article 32 hearing come from rule for court-martial 405, and they are limited, as is the right to production of witnesses (must be available, and generally must be within 100 mile radius).

Again, you generally don't see witnesses produced by the government at a civilian probable cause hearing. Mr. Coombs, formerly MAJ Coombs, is following the time honored custom of trying to push the envelope for discovery at an article 32 hearing, that almost never works because the rules don't require it.