 |
USA Edition | Today Is Monday, May 20, 2013 |
|---|
Serving The Public Interest Without Fear Or Prejudice
|
|---|
|
|
Newsroom Magazine's principal mission is to credibly and responsibly inform readers about the world in which we live.
Skeptical Editing
What we present as fact is to the best of our knowledge true and sufficiently revealed to be relied upon.Relevancy
What we publish is selected based on its news value and/or its national or global relevance to responsible citizens and those who seek to govern them.Probity
What we publish is chosen to provide meaningful insight into, or clearer perspective about the world in which we live.Fidelity To Fact
The foundations upon which our mission rest are fairness, accountability, responsibility and fidelity-to-fact.Public Interest
Serving the public interest without fear or prejudice rests upon our collective commitment to a clearly defined code of ethics, and consistently applied journalistic standards and editorial practices.The journalistic mechanisms by which we stand and to which we commit our reputation are credibility, relevancy and probity.
Searchable Repository
Fulfillment of our mission rests, in part, on Newsroom Magazine's searchable and globally visible repository of everything we publish.Our mission requires that we record and index reports, findings and official statements about the role of government(s) in the world in which we live that are based upon editorial selection predicated upon credibility, relevancy and probity.
Governmental Content
To fully understand what government is doing, or failing to do, depends on a broad range of information about world and national issues and events. We focus on national and international stories -- most of which are related to U.S. government actions, decisions, legislation, regulation and military matters.Spin And Propaganda
Government generated news and information is no more forthright, or accurate, or fair, or complete than any other source of information whose content is intended to support, explain or spin a single viewpoint. Governmental news releases, statements or testimony is by definition propaganda -- no matter how much substantive information surrounds it.Information That Matters
Newsroom Magazine does not edit or modify government provided information, but we do consciously select and publish content that contains explicit information worthy of being permanently visible online.What Government Says Matters
While our editors seek to publish government-sourced information for its factual foundations we knowingly publish, from time to time, governmental materials that are egregiously overstated, highly politicized, slanted to administration policy, or simply foolish or misguided.Unvarnished Reality
What we publish is intended to provide the reader an unfiltered glimpse of government. We offer neither support for that which is best, nor criticism of that which is not. Our job is to validate that the source materials published by Newsroom Magazine are legitimate government delivered information.The government, department, agency, or authority to which the content is attributed is solely responsible for the credibility, accuracy and fairness of what they said and how they said it.
World Wide Reference
Being an on-line publication means that the immense indexing capabilities inherent in our database(s) makes our content a repository of news and information that is easily accessible by anyone, anywhere and any time.Responsible Adults, Skeptical Editing, Thoughtful Commentary
Those who form, select, edit, oversee, manage and/or author Newsroom Magazine content are charged with fulfilling our mission by way of a narrative, opinion, commentaries, essays, editorials, news analysis, and stories about the human condition and/or the American Experience.Supplemental Content
Narrative content published by Newsroom Magazine is supported, when and where appropriate, by utility resources including definitions of terms or words that appear in both narrative and news content and/or logical definitions and constructs.Newsworthy Content
In fulfillment of our mission we pledge to be responsible, credible and journalistically sound so that we might deliver newsworthy information and materials including that which reveals government in its own words absent fear or prejudice.
Army Col. Denise Lind, the judge presiding over three days of motion hearings here, scheduled the trial to begin Sept. 21 and continue through Oct. 12.
Washington
Alleged Document Leaker’s Trial Set For September
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press ServiceFORT MEADE, Md., April 26, 2012 – Army Pfc. Bradley Manning will go to trial this fall to face charges that he leaked hundreds of thousands of classified documents in what’s believed to be the largest intelligence leak in U.S. history.
Army Col. Denise Lind, the judge presiding over three days of motion hearings here, scheduled the trial to begin Sept. 21 and continue through Oct. 12.
The defense will get to decide if the case will be heard by a judge alone, by a jury to consist of all officers, or by a mixed panel that includes one third enlisted members from within Manning’s current command, the Army’s Military District of Washington.
During the hearings, Lind rejected the defense’s argument yesterday that all 22 charges against him Manning should be dismissed.
Today, she also upheld the most serious charge against him, that he aided the enemy by disclosing classified military and diplomatic documents material to the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks, in turn, released thousands of these documents, including classified records about military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, on its website.
Lind specified today that the prosecution must prove that Manning disclosed the data with a clear understanding that the enemy would have access to it.
The decision followed three days of oral arguments, with the discussion centered largely on Manning’s intent in disclosing the classified documents and what damage resulted.
The defense, led by civilian counsel David Coombs, argued that Manning never intended to aid the enemy when he provided the information to WikiLeaks.
The government called Manning’s intent immaterial and said he should be tried based solely on his actions. “Why he did something isn’t relevant,” Army Maj. Ashden Fein, the lead prosecutor, told the judge. What is relevant at this point, he said, is what Manning actually did and how he did it.
Aiding the enemy under Article 104 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice is a capital offense; however, the prosecution team has said it won’t recommend the death penalty, a legal official said.
The maximum sentence Manning could receive, if found guilty of the charge, is life in prison.
He also could be reduced to E-1, the lowest enlisted grade, face a total forfeiture of all pay and allowances and dishonorable discharge, officials said.
Lind upheld other lesser charges against Manning, rejecting the defense’s claim the government imposed “unreasonable multiplication of charges,” essentially piling on duplicate charges for the same acts. She said she found no evidence that the prosecution exaggerated Manning’s criminality or otherwise “overreached” in compiling charges against him.
The judge did, however, leave the door open for combining charges in the event that Manning is found guilty and the case moves into the sentencing phase. This could reduce the length of any sentence imposed, a military legal official explained.
The defense team reiterated its call for the government to provide assessments of damages actually caused by the disclosures, calling this information critical to its case. Coombs argued today that the government’s failure to provide a full accounting of harm done demonstrates that the disclosures actually had minimal impact.
Fein said the burden of proving actual damages isn’t the government’s responsibility, and that that information, should it be considered at all, should be reserved until sentencing.
Lind did not say when she will rule on the defense’s request for damage assessments. She said she will review these documents personally to determine if the defense team should have access to them.
The judge also has yet to consider a new prosecution request to reconsider her directive that the State Department share its interim damage assessment report findings.
Lind ruled yesterday that the prosecution does not have to provide the defense team transcripts of federal grand jury testimony regarding the WikiLeaks case. Although the FBI has been involved in the WikiLeaks investigation, the judge said the military has no authority to release the FBI information.
Manning sat emotionless in the courtroom wearing his Army service uniform during the three days of oral arguments. He followed the proceedings closely, periodically jotting notes on a yellow pad or leaning toward Coombs or his new military defense attorney, Army Capt. Joshua Tooman, to whisper a comment or peek at a document.
The 24-year-old military intelligence analyst was arrested at Contingency Operating Base Hammer near Baghdad, Iraq, May 25, 2010. A former 10th Mountain Division soldier, he is accused of installing unauthorized software onto government computers to extract classified information, unlawfully downloading it, improperly storing it, and transmitting the data for public release and use by the enemy.
The specific charges, as outlined on his charge sheet, include aiding the enemy; wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the Internet knowing that it is accessible to the enemy; theft of public property or records; transmitting defense information; and fraud and related activity in connection with computers. The charges include violation of Army Regulations 25-2 “Information Assurance” and 380-5 “Department of the Army Information Security Program.”
Manning has not issued a plea on these charges.
Along with the trial dates, Lind scheduled additional hearings related to the case: June 6 to 8; July 16 to 20; Aug. 27 to 31; and Sept. 19 to 20. The hearings will focus on specific elements related to each charge to ensure a common understanding as both sides prepare their cases, as well as other procedural items.