Kevin Gosztola elaborates on the transparency lawsuit in Bradley Manning’s trial. Gosztola joins several other media figures and civil liberties advocates in calling for court documents in Bradley Manning’s case to be made public. He explains how the lack of a transcript or official records makes reporting on Bradley’s hearings has been extremely difficult:

What the public should realize is no court filings means that reporters in the courtroom or Media Operations Center (MOC) at Fort Meade have one chance to get something down accurately. I have one opportunity to transcribe with all the proper context necessary for the public to understand what happened in key instances during the court proceedings. This is not easy because I have to scramble to keep up with the judge, who reads all court filings into the record to compensate for the fact that the government thinks sunlight is the best poison and not the best disinfectant.

He continues, explaining that this military secrecy is right in line with the prosecution’s withholding of basic evidence from the defense:

Virtually all media (not just alternative or independent media) find the secrecy in these proceedings to be problematic. I find the secrecy to be reprehensible.

The government has already withheld evidence the defense has demanded access to concerning the alleged harm done by the leaks. The government’s legal justification for this maneuver is hard to discern when there is no record to reference. All the press and public can rely on to understand the government’s position is Manning’s defense lawyer David Coombs who, not surprisingly, is going to be opposed to the government obstructing his access to evidence.

Secrecy makes it likely Manning’s trial will be improper and unfair. As a soldier who is accused of one of the biggest leaks or security breaches in history, Manning deserves a trial that is much more open.

The Guardian’s Ed Pilkington quotes the Support Network’s Jeff Paterson and gives background on the transparency lawsuit as well:

Members of the Bradley Manning support network who have attended each of his pre-trial hearings have castigated the “outrageous obfuscations” of the Obama administration over the trial. “Why has the administration spent two years trying to hide basic facts from the defense, the press and the American people?” said Jeff Paterson, a co-founder of the network.

The only documents that have emerged from the proceedings so far are those that have been published by Manning’s defence lawyer, David Coombs, on his blog. Coombs has consistently protested about the lack of transparency in the conduct of the court-martial.

RT covered the legal petition also.

David Coombs publishes more defense motions ahead of June 6-8 hearing, despite continued government secrecy. While the prosecution and military judge Denise Lind keep court documents secret and essential evidence hidden from trial, defense lawyer David Coombs is publishing all defense motions on his blog that the government will allow. He published five new motions for the next hearing at Fort Meade, June 6-8:

The Defense filed the following five motions with the Court on May 10, 2012:

1)  Defense Motion to Compel Discovery #2;
2)  Defense Motion to Dismiss Specifications 13 and 14 of Charge II for Failure to State an Offense;
3)  Defense Motion for Instructions on Lesser Included Offense;
4)  Defense Motion to Dismiss Specifications 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 15 of Charge II; and
5)  Defense Motion to Compel Identification of Brady Materials.

The Associated Press reports further on the defense motion to dismiss 10 of the 22 charges:

 The defense contends the government used unconstitutionally vague language in eight counts charging Manning with unauthorized possession and disclosure of classified information. The motion specifically targets the government’s use of the phrases, “relating to the national defense” and “to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.”

Both phrases are so sweeping in their scope that they fail to provide the accused with fair warning of what conduct is prohibited, the defense said.

The other two charges the defense is moving to dismiss allege that Bradley exceeded his authorized computer access.

Send your photo today!