E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Patrick Semansky / AP
Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, right, is escorted to a courthouse in Fort Meade, Md., Thursday.
Updated at 3:15 p.m. ET: FORT MEADE, Md. -- Two State Department officials testified Thursday morning in a military court that they took part in efforts to control damage after hundreds of thousands of secret U.S. documents were leaked to the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks.
Their testimony came in the second day of a three-day pre-trial hearing as Army Pfc. Bradley Manning’s defense team tried to compel the government to turn over damage assessment reports that resulted from the 2010 leaks. His lawyers also are seeking the dismissal of 10 of the 22 counts against Manning, accused of leaking the documents.
Manning's civilian attorney, David Coombs, cross-examined both State officials about the department’s response to the crisis.
Operations Center Director Rena Bitter testified that a working group formed Nov. 28, 2010 -- the day 220 redacted cables were published online and in international newspapers -- and operated 24/7 for three weeks. Embassies and consulates around the world assessed security risks in the wake of the leaks and submitted them to a chiefs of mission review group. In total, four damage control task forces were formed, Bitter said.
The former director of the Office of Management Policy Right Sizing and Information Policy, Marguerite Coffey, described on the stand her leadership role in the mitigation group created to study the policy flaws that contributed to the initial leak and the "extensive records" that the task force kept on file.
Both witnesses testified that they knew of an official State Department damage assessment report but had never seen it.
Manning, a 24-year-old Crescent, Okla., native, faces the possibility of life in prison if convicted of the most serious charge: aiding the enemy. He allegedly sent to the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks classified diplomatic cables and war logs downloaded from government computers while working as an intelligence analyst in Baghdad in late 2009 and early 2010.
Also Thursday morning, the military judge, Col. Denise Lind, denied a motion that would require the government to identify exculpatory evidence in the material it discloses to the defense. Citing a lack of United States Code of Military Justice precedent, Lind ruled that although the prosecution has an obligation to turn over “Brady material” to the defense, it is not required to provide the defendant with the location of the relevant information when it discloses evidence.
"Brady material" refers to evidence known to the prosecution that is favorable to the defense and material in establishing the defendant's guilt or innocence. The Supreme Court ruled in Brady v. Maryland that withholding this evidence violates the defendant's right to due process.
The pretrial hearing began Wednesday and is expected to conclude Friday.
Earlier: Military court tells US to give records to WikiLeaks suspect Bradley Manning
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- Crackdown on painkiller abuse fuels new wave of heroin addiction
- Jerry Sandusky trial: Many jurors have Penn State ties
- Judge grants Zimmerman another bond hearing
- Video: Sex offender running for school board post
- Dog gets starring role in study on what stresses killer whales
Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
Just put the little creep in GP and therte will soon be no need for Lawyers!
With all the recent "leaks" coming from the white house these days, don't you think its rather hypocritical to prosecute Manning?
Not at all. He is neither a whistleblower or a hero. If all allegations are true (which appears to have been admitted and only semantics are being argued), he is a coward and a traitor.
So its OK for Barry to leak Iran computer viruses for the purpose of promoting his elect-ability?
I think it was disgraceful, however you can't prosecute Manning when you are doing the same!
Incorrect. If the allegations are true, Manning did not whistleblow, which requires a targeted purpose. No, he blanket leaked absolutely everything he could get his hands on, without regard for the damage it could do to his fellow soldiers in harm's way and the welfare of their sources. Whether or not there was any actual damage is completely irrelevant, his actions were treasonous (if true) and detrimental to the lives of everyone cause he didn't care what was leaked.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/08/12130882-attorney-general-holder-names-2-prosecutors-to-investigate-possible-leaks?threadId=3438400&commentId=66928385#c66928385
I’m not defending Manning, I’m just saying you can’t prosecute him when you do the same thing! Where do you think that information came from? WHO benefits from the leaks?
Irrelevant. All violations of the law should be persecuted and investigated. Because one group hasn't been persecuted based on unproven allegations (no proof of who is leaking) does not mean every other leaker is protected from persecution.
Lock him up.
Throw away the key.
"Life in prison if convicted of the most serious charge: aiding the enemy."
You know (as an aside), I've noticed a lot of people on both sides who seem to ignore this one statement. Its pretty critical that people should refrain from passing total judgement on allegations that haven't been proven in court, yet the most vehement posters seem to ignore that.
I'm not saying you do, Mario (making sure since I quoted you), but people like Mark are doing so.
I was totally against this little tool until I read the leak that Obama actually lost Penn. and Ohio in 08 but cheated and won them,and McCain decided that people would riot if he pressed for the truth.
Do you have proof of this leak? Would be interesting to see.
Lets see the rest of that story, a la Paul Harvey (RIP).
The latest activity by Wikileaks dumped some 5 million emails and documents hacked from the database of Stratfor Intelligence. The emails reveal Democrats’ effort to steal the 2008 election.
Shocking revelations from a Wikileaks document dump show the Democrat Party committed a felony when it stuffed ballot boxes in Ohio and Philadelphia during the 2008 presidential election.
A memo further revealed that the so-called “Reverend” Jesse Jackson was paid a handsome figure to keep his mouth shut about candidate Obama, a man for whom he had little regard.
The same internal memo revealed that Obama’s campaign was taking Russian money surreptitiously. The memo:
From: Fred Burton [mailto:burton@stratfor.com
]
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 7:41 AM
To: secure@stratfor.com
Subject: Insight – The Dems & Dirty Tricks ** Internal Use Only – Pls Do
Not Forward **
** Internal Use Only – Pls Do Not Forward **
Please share footnotes and even better, URL/Link.
Thanks.
Mr. Today -
I looked further and found what you are refering to. I suspect some sources of bias in a subject like this so I kept looking to find several reports with bsically the same info but slightly different view. Enough that the reader can make his/her own evaluation.
http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/339396_re-insight-the-dems-and-dirty-tricks-internal-use-only-pls.html
http://ameristroika.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/stratfor-and-business-insider-dems-stuffing-ballot-boxes/
http://www.speroforum.com/a/JHJAYHFXYL12/71410-Did-Democrats-hack-the-2008-Obama-election
http://www.therightperspective.org/2012/04/23/dems-rigged-2008-election-wikileaks/
http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/stratfor-emails-show-democrats-stuffed-ballot-boxes-in-ohio-and-pennsylvania-in-2008/
http://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-stratfor-emails-democrats-tampered-with-2008-election-2012-4#ixzz1siAcDywj
I see what you're talking about, but I'm wondering what this proof is. It seems like its only allegations so far.
Mr. Well -
You suspicions might be like mine. I ain't sure. In court it would be hearsay, unless corroborated by the writer, or in some other way.
I have to wonder how many of these allegations are made every election without foundation, honestly. In addition, I remember some huge stink about voter fraud a long time ago, and when they did the research, they found that the actual number of voter fraud cases in 10 years was something like only in the double or triple digits, out of the billions of votes cast in that timeframe.