It fits a pattern of what reporters and lawyers say is reflexive and sometime capricious withholding of information on the government’s part. In Private Manning’s case, the issue before the court — whether leaking classified documents can be cast as aiding the enemy — has profound civic implications. People can disagree about what should happen to government employees who do the leaking, but it makes sense that such a fundamental question be debated with as much sunlight as possible.

That is not what is happening in the court-martial of Private Manning, who has admitted to providing some 700,000 documents to WikiLeaks and has pleaded guilty to 10 counts in military court but still faces additional charges, including aiding the enemy.

It has made for rugged going for the reporters who serve as the eyes and ears for the rest of us. They can show up at court, but without timely documents that are routinely available in most other legal cases, they cannot really do their jobs.

For instance, Private Manning’s lawyers were in court on Feb. 26 asking for dismissal of the charges, arguing that after more than 1,000 days in custody, he had been deprived of his right to a speedy trial. In denying the request, Colonel Lind issued an order that was more than 20,000 words and had been prepared before the hearing. But no written copy was issued, forcing reporters to scribble furiously as she read it for two hours, trying to keep up.

More than three weeks later, a written copy is still not available. Another important public document, the order that granted Private Manning a reduction in sentence because of the conditions in which he was held, has yet to appear.