E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Patrick Semansky / AP
Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, right, is escorted from a security vehicle outside a courthouse in Fort Meade, Md., for a pre-trial hearing.
FORT MEADE, Md. -- A U.S. military judge on Friday refused a defense request to dismiss 10 of 22 counts against Pfc. Bradley Manning, the U.S. soldier accused of leaking hundreds of thousands of documents to the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks.
Manning's defense attorneys argued that the government used unconstitutionally vague language when charging him with eight counts of unauthorized possession and dissemination of the classified information.
The judge, Col. Denise Lind, found that the language was neither unconstitutionally vague nor substantially over-broad, denying the defense motion to dismiss.
The court's second finding was not quite as cut and dry against the defense. Manning's attorneys contend the two counts that he exceeded both his authorization and usage of the military intranet system is also vague and should be dismissed.
While Lind denied the motion to dismiss the charges, she agreed with a previous ruling in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that calls for a very narrow reading of a statute that applies to the charge. She raised the burden of proof for the government when it eventually prosecutes Manning on this charge at his trial.
Lind told the government that it will have to present strong evidence that Manning exceeded his authorized access in order to prove this charge in his trial. Since this is still a pre-trial hearing, the government prosecutors can still dismiss the charges themselves, or even alter them, before the trial ever begins.
The judge also announced that the defense requested additional time before Manning's trial begins, and the prosecution did not object. So, while the trial was likely to be in late September and early October, the judge now says to expect it to begin in either November or in January. Pre-trial motions set for the end of June, end of July and end of August will all stay as scheduled though, Lind said.
David House, friend and supporter of Bradley Manning, the army PFC who was accused of leaking confidential information to Wikileaks, talks with MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan about new evidence which shows that the leaked information in question did not, in fact, have any negative effect on national security.
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.
Lind’s rulings came in the third day of a three-day pre-trial hearing. Manning’s lawyers were seeking government damage-assessment reports to prepare their defense. They also were seeking to have 10 of the 22 counts against Manning dismissed.
Earlier: Bradley Manning lawyers quiz State Department officials about WikiLeaks fallout
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- Oil boom brings wealth and waste to North Dakota
- Man using Zimmerman's old cell phone number gets threatening call
- 3 men found shot dead in car near Columbia University in New York
- Did Canada's alleged cannibal killer Luka Magnotta strike in LA?
- Video: Siblings late to school 160 times
- How hidden camera confession helped clear high school football star
Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
We've learned so much from Wikileaks that has shed light on the shameful actions of the US Government. Thank you Bradley Manning for sacrificing your freedom to expose their treachery. Your are a True Patriot. I pray the "friend" that ratted on Manning has tortured nightmares for the rest of his life.
Nonsense. Are we really to leave it to every individual analyst's personal opinion whether the documents they are charged with keeping secret are deserving? If he discovered some nefarious information incriminating wrongdoing within the government structure, there are many ways to properly whistleblow and communicate that information without taking it upon himself to distribute classified documents in wholesale fashion.
Gary: agreed. Also, refer to my post #4 below.
@ Gary
Well said. A traitor is a traitor. You take an oath of service, you keep it. Otherwise, you pay the price.
Nothing Manning provided to Wikileaks exposed any wrongdoing on the part of anyone. That is not to say that other things Wikileaks published from other sources did not, but nothing that exposed any wrongdoing came from Manning. And please stop making Manning out to be some kind of hero who did what he did for the good of the country. Manning did what he did because he was upset over the breakup with his gay lover and at least partly blamed DADT for this. His release of the classified material was an attempt on his part to get even with the military for DADT and to vent his frustration over his breakup. There was no altruistic motive here, it was a childish, immature act by a childish, immature person who was throwing a temper tantrum. The release of the classified diplomatic cables caused great embarrassment for our State Department and diplomats from numerous countries around the world, but did not reveal any wrongdoing. What as revealed were private, personal, frank assessments of other foreign leaders and diplomats that were important to our diplomats in order to know how to deal with the different people and personalities that they must confront on a daily basis. The fear of having these confidential assessments released again has made it much more difficult for our diplomats to get these frank assessments that they need to make their jobs easier and diplomatic efforts more successful. It may seem trivial to some, but this loss of trust will have a major impact on diplomatic relations for many years to come. Other documents that were released to Wikileaks by Manning concerned US intelligence gathering efforts and assets in various parts of the world. While the US government will not openly admit it because to the fall out it would cause, these leaks resulted in the death of at least one intelligence asset in Afghanistan as well as the rest of this assets family. The release of these intelligence documents has hampered our ability to recruit new intelligence sources because they fear that another leak like this could result either directly or indirectly in the disclosure of their identities, which could get them killed. The leak of these intelligence documents will hurt our ability to gather intelligence in some of the most dangerous parts of the world for many years. This is the damage that was done by this temper tantrum of Manning's. However, it does not matter whether or not you believe a word of what I have posted. Manning illegally released classified government documents. This is a major criminal act that warrants serious prison time whether or not the release did any actual damage and no matter what his motivations were. The extent of the damage done may have an impact on the length of his sentence but it has no bearing on the determination of guilt or innocence. Even if there were no adverse effects, the unauthorized release of classified information is a serious crime.
JS in SD = you must have been on serious drugs when all the rotten stuff the USG was doing that were leaked.
"This is a major criminal act that warrants serious prison time whether or not the release did any actual damage and no matter what his motivations were."
You need to be put in jail whether you did something criminal or not to see how YOU like it!
He is nothing but a 'true' traitor period. He didn't care for one second the ramifications any of those documents might have on his comrades in action.
I will never "thank" Bradley Manning for being a FAILURE as a soldier and being a FAILURE as a man. He went through extensive training on handling classified and sensitive information for his MOS including how to report wrongdoing without compromising that material.
Instead of doing his job and duty, Private Manning compromised sensitive information, placing the Soldiers he served with, the Soldiers I served with (and trained) and civilians brave enough to cooperate with Coalition forces against Islamists in Afghanistan and Iraq AT RISK. Nothing noble about that. I believe Manning deserves a long stretch at Leavenworth or the Supermax to think about his failings along with all the people he betrayed and I'm glad this judge seems to agree !!
2BCT 1AD OIF 05-06 OIF 08-09
How is video of the US Military murdering an American Journalist in cold blood going to affect our National Security?
I agree with your first sentence.Go back to the start.He did NOT do this for patriotic reasons.He did NOT do this to help the american people.He did it because he was mad about DADT.In other words he was/is a little bitch.Execute him,or at least life in prison.
Lawyers continue to find the "new low." Unconstitutionally vague language. Were do these people come up with crap like this.
I'm not sure why it has been almost 2 years and this jerk isn't permanently in jail and forgotten.
And to Implacable:
im·plac·a·ble/imˈplakəbəl/
Adjective: Unable to placated.
Its clear that you goals and objectives are unattainable - and useless.
Implacable Patriot: I invite your attention to Articles 793 and 794 of Title 18, United States Codes. These are two of the statutes under which Manning is charged. Article 793 carries a penalty of up to ten years in prison. Article 794 carries a penalty of up to life and, in time of war, death. Read the two articles; they aren't very long. They are, however, rather explicit. They also totally invalidate your argument.
He's guilty of theft, treason, sedition, and violating the military oath.
He's guilty of exposing the massive corruption, treason & duplicity of the US Government.
You forgot Dereliction of Duty and Violating a Lawful Order (his training which taught him how to report wrongdoing without compromising sensitive information), John.
The boys in Leavenworth are going to love this 'sweety'
What about intelligence leaks coming from the White House? Is Obama going to jail?
(Strange how this lead story is no where to be found on MSNBC.)
He should be the "Bell of the Ball" in Leavenworth. Good riddens to this traitor.
It's "Good Riddance" (but close enough and point taken)...
The absurdity of trying to absolve Manning of wrongdoing. I could list quite a few articles of the UCMJ that Manning could have violated that would result in a Bad Conduct Discharge, depending on how the military wants to proceed. That any of the information is classified makes this a little more than just Bad Conduct.
Hat off to the Judge, Manning is a traitor and should be treated as such.
Just a question, what happened to the pilot of the helicopter who killed the Reuter's reporter, and shot at his kids? Did he go before the court? I may have missed it...
Who cares scumbag?
So killing civilians and trying to hide it doesn't dishonor the uniform? But telling the American public the truth does? How does that work?
Why has this sniveling little traitor not yet been executed?
Hang him
The US is making a big deal over this because Manning was in the Army. What about the White House crew that has been leaking the same sort of information? If it is wrong for an Army person to leak classified information then it is wrong for a civilian and ALL should be treated equally. Personally, I do not see the need for all the fuss. The people ought to be glad someone told us what our government is doing secretly and we ought to be on the Government's case , not the guys who leaked the information. We have strange priorities in our country.
The content of the documents seams to be in some dispute and I do not have time to read all of it to be sure. In truth, it doesn't matter. If it was merely information that was inconvenient to the government to have it exposed, he had no business doing so and should be convicted. If it was information involving criminal acts, there were legal and authorized means for him to conduct his whistle-blowing, and without evidence of him having utilized those means, he should still be convicted.
As much as I detest him, I don't know that giving aid to the enemy is a suitable charge. Whether a misguided crusader or a petulant boy after a bad breakup, I don't think the enemy truly factored into his intent. Also, he did not release information directly to Al-Qaeda operatives, he released it to wikileaks. What wikileaks does with the information is the responsibility of Mr. Assange. If Mr. Assange ever once set foot on any American soil during the time that the information provided by Manning was available through wikileaks, I think giving aid and comfort to the enemy is a very suitable charge for him, and worth pursuing his extradition.