Lindi has summarised the main points from this week’s hearing.
Main issues from the hearings seem to be:
That, on the insistence of the Judge, the prosecution are finally having to produce disclosure (they call it discovery) on the various govt ‘damage assessments’ on the effects of the leaks, and in the process of arguing back and forth about this it became clear (including to the Judge) that they were both prevaricating and also being ‘misleading’ on what they had/had not done about this. Here’s a quote from Kevin Gosztola:
The judge asked the prosecution what percentage of this file had been disclosed. The prosecutors said fifty percent of 8,800 pages from 636 documents in the FBI investigation had been turned over. When the judge followed up moments later, the prosecutors gave the exact number of pages and documents in the entire file: 42,135 pages total, 3,475 documents. “So we’re not nearly at 50 percent are we?” the judge asked.
That because the prosecution have so far failed to provide this disclosure in spite of defence requests going back to Oct 2010, they have been given further time to produce it, which, in turn, now means Brad’s trial date will not now be until at least Nov; more likely later – Jan was also mentioned.
That the prosecution, again playing ‘word games’, had not disclosed that they would have FBI witnesses in the trial.
Another quote from Kevin:
Additionally, the prosecutors then lied about whether they would have an FBI witness during the trial. They had said they would not have a witness testify from the FBI. During questioning, they indicated they would and it would be on a piece of the assessment. If they would have a witness testify, they would have to turn over the assessment. Coombs noted to the judge that they just said they would call a witness. The judge tried to confirm this fact. The prosecution answered, “You asked if I would call an FBI agent, not the FBI.
That the Judge has not allowed the defence’s motion to remove 10 charges (Coombs wanted them removed on the grounds of either duplication, being too broad in reference to be valid or being a misreading of the statute) but the discussion has probably raised the bar of ‘proof’ on these.
That there would be another motion hearing on 25 June.
People are discussing the irony of the latest (plainly intentional) leaks from the White House which are widely speculated to be designed to enhance Obama’s profile by demonstrating a hard line on national defence, and how the putting back of the trial means its contentiousness for Obama will not be such an issue during the election campaign. It is being pointed out how the government is perpetuating the secrecy, even through this trial, which is the very stuff of the issue.
More quotes from Kevin:
The secrecy games by the prosecution in Bradley Manning’s court martial and the selective leaking and war on whistleblowing by the Obama administration all serves one purpose: it protects people who have been involved in rendition, torture, warrantless wiretapping and other illegal acts of corruption from accountability. It makes it possible for bureaucratic institutions to press on without interference from a public that might demand the government change how it is operating and stop violating people who wish to call attention to mass corruption in the US government.