Article 32

On the Manning Art. 32, Court Secrecy & Nat. Sec. Cases

I somehow stumbled into an article for The Nation by Rainey Reitman entitled Access Blocked to Bradley Manning’s Hearing. To make a long story short, in a Twitter exchange today with Ms. Reitman and Kevin Gosztola of Firedoglake (who has done yeoman’s work covering the Manning hearing), I questioned some of the statements and inferences made in Ms. Reitman’s report. She challenged me to write on the subject, so here I am.

First, Ms. Reitman glibly offered to let me use her work as “foundation” to work off of. Quite frankly, not only was my point not originally to particularly go further; my point, in fact, was that her foundation was deeply and materially flawed.

Reitman starts off with this statement:

The WikiLeaks saga is centered on issues of government transparency and accountability, but the public is being strategically denied access to the Manning hearing, one of the most important court cases in our lifetime.

While the “WikiLeaks saga” is indeed centered on transparency and accountability for many of us, that simply is not the case in regard to the US Military prosecution of Pvt. Bradley Manning. The second you make that statement about the UCMJ criminal prosecution of Manning, you have stepped off the tracks of reality and credibility in court reportage and analysis. The scope of Manning’s Article 32 hearing was/is were the crimes detailed in the charging document committed and is there reason to believe Manning committed them. Additionally, in an Article 32 hearing, distinct from a civilian preliminary hearing, there is limited opportunity for personal mitigating information to be adduced in order to argue for the Investigating Officer to recommend non-judicial punishment as opposed to court martial trial. That is it. There is no concern or consideration of “transparency and accountability”, within the ambit suggested by Ms. Reitman, in the least.

Calling the Manning Article 32 hearing “one of the most important court cases in our lifetime” is far beyond hyperbole. First off, it is, for all the breathless hype, a relatively straight forward probable cause determination legally and, to the particular military court jurisdiction it is proceeding under, it is nothing more than that. The burden of proof is light, and the issues narrow and confined to that which is described above. The grand hopes, dreams and principles of the Manning and WikiLeaks acolytes simply do not fit into this equation no matter how much they may want them to. Frankly, it would be a great thing to get those issues aired in this country; but this military UCMJ proceeding is not, and will not be, the forum where that happens.

Moving on, Reitman raises the specter of “the death penalty” for Manning. While the death penalty remains a technical possibility under one of the charges, the prosecution has repeatedly stated it will not be sought and, after all the statements on the record in that regard, there is simply no reason to embellish otherwise. Reitman next states:

This case will show much about the United States’s tolerance for whistleblowers who show the country in an unflattering light.

No, it most certainly will not. In fact, the Manning criminal military prosecution has nothing whatsoever to do with “whistleblowers”. Despite the loose and wild eyed use of the term “whistleblower” in popular culture, not to mention by supporters of Bradley Manning, the concept Continue reading

Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz Assange: How 'The Guardian' Milked Edward Snowden's Story http://t.co/Huq3W6ZeZl Say what you will about Assange, this is excellent takedown
33sreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @onekade I really want Lindsey to stay in long enough for humor in the first few founds of GOP Reality Show. But doubt he can @Ali_Gharib
1mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @charlie_simpson Tho before I do either I'm going to have to Sort. The. Boxes. Which may be holding me back, I admit. @NC_Prime
16mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV @cocktailhag I would think it's somewhere similar to the frequency of spontaneous combustion of humans.
16mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @charlie_simpson Almost re-read 100 Years of Solitude when Garcia Marquez died. Thinking of re-reading Crime & Punishment now. @NC_Prime
17mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @NC_Prime I'm going on 13 years since I left academics, can count fiction I've read on my fingers. @charlie_simpson
20mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @NC_Prime Then there are those of us who got a PhD in Lit & stopped reading fiction altogether forever. MOAR WAR HISTORY! @charlie_simpson
23mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Bingo. Perfect question https://t.co/BK030c92ej
24mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @AllThingsHLS Iran has to BE there for there to be conflict. Iran could just leave the Saudis to disaster themselves at rate they're going.
25mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @armandodkos Remember: NYT fired Jill Abramson in favor of Baquet hackiness,
28mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @Ali_Gharib: At least Mark Kirk cares about Iranian-Americans. The just-plain-old Iranians, he wants to starve.
29mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @stephenlemons @RealSheriffJoe A robot drone assassination attempt.
34mreplyretweetfavorite
April 2015
S M T W T F S
« Mar    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930