1.
How Today's Ruling in the Bradley Manning Case Could Adversely Affect
Journalists and Whistleblowers https://
pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2013/07/h
ow-todays-aiding-enemy-ruling-bradley-mannings-case-could-affect-journalists-and
<https://t.co/ZZTmiBRxB0>
*
*
2. *WikiLeaks* @wikileaks
<https://twitter.com/wikileaks>17m<https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/357932167512334337>
Once again it is confirmed that Bradley
#Manning<https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Manning&src=hash>'s
trial is little but a show trial.
#wikileaks<https://twitter.com/search?q=%23wikileaks&src=hash>
#freebrad <https://twitter.com/search?q=%23freebrad&src=hash>
http://www.bradleymanning.org/news/trial-report-day-nineteen
Judge refuses to dismiss Aiding the Enemy and Computer Fraud charges
against Manning: trial report, day 19
digg
[image: submit to reddit] <http://www.reddit.com/submit>
By Nathan Fuller, Bradley Manning Support Network. July 18, 2013.
[image: Defense lawyer David Coombs and Pfc. Bradley Manning, drawn by
Debra Van
Poolen]<http://www.bradleymanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Coombs-and-Manning-paying-attention.jpg>
Defense lawyer David Coombs and Pfc. Bradley Manning, drawn by Debra Van
Poolen
Ruling on two defense motions to direct not-guilty verdicts, Judge Denise
Lind refused to throw out the aiding the enemy and Computer Fraud charges
against Pfc. Bradley Manning. The defense filed the motions at the
conclusion of the governments case, before it began with its own
witnesses, arguing that the government had failed to provide evidence to
support its charges. Rules for Court Martial instruct the judge for this
type of motion to view the evidence in a light most favorable to the
prosecution. The judge ruled that the evidence the government provided was
sufficient to not throw out the charges at this time, but at her final
verdict she will weigh both government and defense evidence and could still
find Manning not guilty.
Judge Lind said that the prosecution established that in his training as an
intelligence analyst, Manning learned that the enemy uses the Internet to
attempt to obtain classified information and to keep such information
secret. He plotted U.S. military activity, she said the government proved,
and knew that the enemy would attempt to do the same. That evidence, she
ruled,*could* tend to establish that Manning knew he was dealing with the
enemy. (See here for why that evidence is weak, circumstantial, and
therefore could set an extremely dangerous
precedent<http://www.bradleymanning.org/featured/surprising-lack-of-evidence-against-manning-confirms-over-prosecution>
.)
For the computer fraud charge, she ruled that the government established
that Manning used unauthorized software (the automated downloading program
Wget), and that her court instructions dictate that restrictions on access
include manner of access. This evidence was enough, when viewed (per her
instructions) in a light most favorable to the government, to not dismiss
the charge at this time.
*Stealing government property charges*
The parties then litigated the defenses other to motions to direct
not-guilty verdicts, on the charges that Manning stole government property.
The defense argues, as laid out
here<http://www.bradleymanning.org/press/update-71313-mannings-defense-replies-to-governments-last-ditch-and-schizophrenic-arguments>,
that the government mischarged Manning in saying that he stole databases
instead of saying the stole copies of some of the records in a database and
the information contained within.
The first distinction is that Manning took copies, not original records,
and therefore never deprived the government of the information. The second
is that Manning stole records, and the information within, not the full
databases themselves. He didnt take the infrastructure that makes the
database searchable and interconnected, so when the government worked to
establish the value (the federal statute requires the stolen property be
worth more than $1,000) of the database and cost of producing it, they were
proving what they charged but not what Manning ever had in his
possession. Defense lawyer David Coombs used the analogy of stealing
merchandise from WalMart: if he stole a sweater, he wouldnt be charged
with stealing WalMart. Even if he took all of the merchandise in WalMart,
he wouldnt be charged with stealing the bricks and mortar of the store,
and the value of the employees wouldnt be used to prove the charge, as the
government has essentially done in this case.
The government contends that it charged correctly, and that information
contained in a record is inherent within that record. Prosecutor Capt. Von
Elton said that charging Manning with a thing of value put him on notice
that he would be charged with the information within. He also said that the
distinction regarding copies doesnt apply, because digital records can
exist in multiple locations simultaneously, which the defense disagreed
with thereafter.
*Recess, rebuttal*
**After the lunch recess, the government will put on its rebuttal case, as
outlined last
week<http://www.bradleymanning.org/news/arguments-over-defense-motions-to-dismiss-rebuttal-case-on-thursday-trial-report-day-18>
.
*Ill update this post later today.*
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:laamn-unsubscr...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:laamn-subscr...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:laamn-dig...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:laamn-ow...@egroups.com?subject=laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:la...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/laamn@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
laamn-dig...@yahoogroups.com
laamn-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
laamn-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
