The chinese menu that is the Manning defense strategy
The Bradley Manning espionage case is headed for trial. It actually started yesterday with Manning refusing to enter a plea, if that doesn’t give you an indication of how this trial will go. He also declined to choose the type of trial (panel or judge) he would get.
The Military Times/Associated Press gives us a run down of the defense strategy which looks like a Chinese menu…pick one from column A, one from column B;
Defense lawyers say Manning was troubled and shouldn’t have had access to classified material.
Manning’s lawyers countered that others had access to Manning’s workplace computers in Iraq. They say he was in emotional turmoil, partly because he was a gay soldier while U.S. armed forces still barred gays from serving openly. The defense also claims Manning’s apparent disregard for security rules during stateside training and his increasingly violent outbursts after deployment were red flags that should have prevented him from having access to classified material. They also contend that the material WikiLeaks published did little or no harm to national security.
So to boil it down to it’s essence; He didn’t do it, someone else did, the Army shouldn’t have let him near classified information, so he couldn’t do it, Manning’s attitude, because he was gay in the military, caused him to [not] do it, and so what if he did do it?
That’s brilliant. It should be entertaining to watch the defense team twist themselves into pretzels. The Washington Post wrote that the trial might not begin until August;
Manning’s defense attorney, David E. Coombs, sought Thursday to set a trial date for the court martial in June, arguing that his client has spent 635 days in pretrial detention. The prosecution said that although it would be ready for trial by April, a reasonable trial calendar would have the proceedings begin on Aug. 3.
Well, if the defense team hadn’t been delaying the open-and-shut case, the little turd would already be serving his sentence.
Category: Shitbags
The defense legal strategy looks like it is seeking to frontload mitigating arguments into the merits phase of the trial. What that means is that everybody knows Manning is guilty. So the fight is all about sentencing. Frontloading is a tactic where the defense basically introduces the sad, sob story to the panel members when they are determining guilt. They will, of course, find him guilty, but may have it in their minds that he’s not horribly “evil”, etc. Then during the sentencing phase, the defense will do it all over again, with the hope that the panel members will factor that into its sentencing (as well as the notion that Manning wouldn’t be a danger anymore).
On a second front after he is found guilty, the defense will seek to significantly reduce Manning’s sentence through what is called confinement credit. This is where we will hear all the evil, horrible things that happened to Manning (from the defense point of view), which could garner him some significant credit toward his sentence. For example, the one-blanket thing could get him four days off of his sentence for every one day in confinement.
So the defense strategy is sound. Between the sympathy factor and confinement credit, they are trying to see to it that Manning serves the lowest amount of time possible, as opposed to fighting this solely on guilt.
I apologize for the unsolicited legal analysis.
That dual strategy of claiming I didn’t do it, but if I did do it, I did it because of ____ always bothered me about the law. I get you have to put forth the best defense, but I think it should be required to be consistent with one set of facts. The sort of bifucated approach strikes me as going against the principles of justice.
But JAGC is right, this is all about the sentencing.
JAGC: Don’t apologize for providing expert analysis. I prefer to read such things from people in the legal community like you, TSO, Susan, etc. than from barracks lawers (yes, I spelled it that way on purpose) that seem to pop up in defense of treasonous assholes like Manning.
In my opinion, the sentencing for Manning should be life in front of a firing squad. But that’s just me.
JAGC: I have no problem with being lenient here, or even with credit for time served. In fact, I’d have no problem with him getting one day – for each classified document he is found to have disclosed to unauthorized persons. To be served consecutively, of course.
As I recall, the number of documents he disclosed to unauthorized recipients is approximately 250,000.
I believe that would put his potential parole date, using the usual 1/3 of sentence served rule, at somewhere around 2240 AD, even with 4:1 credit for time served.
Okay, sorry you didn’t get enough of mommy’s love as a child, Bradley. Now step out back where the nice man can put two in your brain stem.
NHSparky: unfortunately, I’ve read published accounts that the Army – for some reason I can’t quite understand – has taken the death penalty off the table. So a needle or firing squad ain’t gonna happen.
I wonder what type / or if a pre-trial agreement is being negotiated right now. It would be interesting to know if the prosecution is open to it or the defense is betting completely on the Court Martial.
In every Court Martial I had, the pre-trial agreement was always a better final outcome for Soldier than the Judges penalty.
I will admit I am ignorant of the finer points of the UCMJ, but this defense seems a strategy designed to lose, nor do I see anything that would cause me (or any other rational person) to grant any form of leniency.
He had hardship? Really. raise your hands if you ever had hardship with a significant other because of service. I’m pretty sure all of you who’ve spent more than day one in the military you’ve lost a gf bf or other to having military constraints placed on you.
What I don’t get is why the death penalty was taken off the table. Or why Treason wasn’t added to the list of charges.
I would be interested in knowing what’s being done to the chain of command for allowing this guy access to this information?
Intel analysts typically have access to classified information. The little drama queen abused his clearance.
Doc Bailey: for a treason conviction, the US Constitution explicitly requires either two witnesses to the same act or admission of the crime in open court. That would have made proving treason virtually impossible IMO. But UCMJ Art 104, Aiding the Enemy, carries the same possible maximum sentence – and IMO is almost certainly provable in Manning’s case.
Dunno why the death penalty wasn’t kept as an option. But I can live with him getting serious time at USDB-Leavenworth instead.
The defense states “he was in emotional turmoil, partly because he was a gay soldier while U.S. armed forces still barred gays from serving openly” however I have read in some accounts that everyone in the chain of command knew he was gay. If his commander had prevented him from doing his job and having access to classfied materials because he “was in emotional turmoil” would we now be looking at a discrimination lawsuit claiming that he was unfairly kept from doing his job?
Hondo–So a needle or firing squad ain’t gonna happen.
But a cellmate beating his bitch ass to death? Wouldn’t be the first time.
NHSparky: could happen, yes. And I’d lose no sleep over his worthless ass if it does.
If I had to make a wild, uneducated guess, they took treason out of the charges to prevent Manning from getting the death penalty.
Soft hands somewhere do not want to be responsible for euthanizing this walking fungus.
PintoNag: Manning’s charged with Aiding the Enemy (UCMJ Art 104), which also carries the death penalty as a possible sentence.
Dunno why they ruled out the death penalty, but that’s not why.
“but this defense seems a strategy designed to lose”. I’ve seen it a lot Doc. Now, when he’s convicted, his new lawyers will appeal on the grounds of ineffective counsel, I think. I don’t even know if that’s an option in trial by court martial, but I’ve seen a lot of it, seemingly on purpose, on the civilian side.
Was’nt 50 years ago, if he would have pulled this stunt, he would have been tried and convicted and stood against the wall at sunrise. Now we’re gonna see the Gay Defense, as though that has any f’ing thing to do with it ! And if Obummer loses in Nov, i expect a pardon as well. If they can drag the trial out till we get a new president , then maybe not.