Military Rule of Evidence 505

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
emptywheel @adambonin I'd say a POTUS debate but they'd look good by comparison, I guess.
1mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @adambonin Why not make them face off in skills neither is good at, like all good reality shows?
1mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV Aaand there are now a ton of SD Police on motorcycles. Moving on to previously planned destination...
3mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV Previous tweet: this is a demonstration against Border Patrol violence.
5mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel How can something as cutthroat as the Spelling Bee end in a tie? It's not right.
5mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @PhoenixWomanMN: @bmaz And the media cheerfully went along with it.
34mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Status of GOP linchpins of BS well known 10-15 years ago: 1) Sadaam/Iraq had no threatening WMD's 2) Hastert was doing more than "wrasslin"
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Guess it's no surprise from a GOP party that cravenly puts up malignant actors such as Chris Christie + Joe Arpaio as having "family values"
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz The Best of Times: When holier than thou GOP Congress went from Gingrich to Bob Livingston to Denny Hastert while demagoguing about Clinton
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @downwithtyranny @_ShannonINC Although, as true as that is, the sparseness of the original is also pretty endearing in a different way.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
May 2015
S M T W T F S
« Apr    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31