Under the Radar Blog Archives Select Date… August, 2020 July, 2020 June, 2020 May, 2020 April, 2020 March, 2020 February, 2020 January, 2020 December, 2019 November, 2019 October, 2019 September, 2019

Bradley Manning, media score court martial wins

The Army intelligence analyst charged with leaking hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks, Pfc. Bradley Manning, won a potentially significant ruling Wednesday when a military judge said she will require that for some charges prosecutors will have to prove that Manning acted with knowledge that what he was doing could harm U.S. national security.

The media (and the public) also scored a breakthrough by receiving a paper copy of Col. Denise Lind's four-page ruling just after it was issued during a pre-trial hearing at Ft. Meade, Md. The government has previously said reporters could only get such rulings by transcribing them in court or by requesting them under the Freedom of Information Act.

Lind ruled that in order to prove eight charges that Manning violated the Espionage Act by sending data to WikiLeaks, prosecutors will have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the Army soldier had "reason to believe" that the information he was sending could cause harm to the U.S. or help to a foreign country. Manning's defense has argued that he only distributed files he thought would do no such harm if disclosed.

Prosecutors said they did not believe such proof was necessary because the information in question was "tangible," a term which they said included the computer files Manning is accused of sending through the Internet to WikiLeaks. In 2006, a federal judge handling a case against two former employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee ruled that the government could punish an individual simply for giving tangible information to an unauthorized person, but that if the information was orally transmitted prosecutors would have to show that the defendant expected some harm to follow.

Lind found that while the computer files were tangible, the government's decision to charge Manning with passing information meant it had to prove the extra harm element regardless.

"Actual physical matter, not oral communication, was communicated," Lind wrote, notwithstanding the fact that the files were transmitted electronically. "The Government elected to charge the communications under the 'information clause.' That clause carries with it the 'reason to believe' scienter requirement. "The Government is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had reason to believe the communicated information could be used to the injury of the U.S. or to the advantage of any foreign nation."

The ruling could made the prosecution rethink their decision to proceed with the case despite Manning's guilty pleas to 10 charges that carry a potential total sentence of up to 20 years. So far, prosecutors have indicated they plan to seek to prove all the charges, including an aiding the enemy count that carries a potential life sentence.

When the Justice Department dropped the case against the two ex-AIPAC lobbyists in 2009, prosecutors cited that judge's rulings on intent as one reason the case was abandoned after several years of investigation and pre-trial motions.

Army prosecutors did win a ruling Wednesday that the government can present evidence that data Manning released made it to Al Qaeda, the Associated Press reported. That testimony may come from an anonymous SEAL Team Six member involved in the raid on Osama bin Laden's

Manning's court martial, which he has elected to face in front of Lind alone and not by the military equivalent of a jury, is set to begin in June.

One downside of Lind releasing one of her orders Wednesday on paper: it's easier to see a couple of errors: the judge quotes from the wrong subsection of the law at one point and appears, perhaps because of a typo, inaccurately summarizes judicial rulings after the AIPAC case.

h/t for the ruling to Alexa O'Brien