Kudos to mistermix for sorting the domain registration issue!
The recent hearings in PFC Bradley Manning’s court-martial concluded on Wednesday. I was waiting for some clarification from a lawyer I know before posting but he’s as snowed under as ever so I’m going to run with what I have. Any errors are mine, and not his. Two sources of information, both coming through the Washington Post, here. One appears to be a staff writer, and another is from the Associated Press. I’ll leave it to you to figure out why two different stories on the same event run in two different parts of the paper and why they couldn’t just link their own writer’s work in the other section. And they can’t figure out why they aren’t making money.
The Military Judge, COL Denise Lind, has ruled that PFC Manning may introduce evidence of his motive and evidence regarding the government’s determination of damage, but only in the sentencing phase of the trial, if that occurs. Military Courts-Martial are conducted in two phases, a “findings phase” where the Court determines whether or not the government can prove that all of the elements of the offenses charged were committed by the accused, and in the event of a guilty verdict in that phase, a “sentencing phase” where the Court determines the sentence. Essentially, Judge Lind decided that Manning would not be allowed to enter evidence into the record about his motive in the findings phase because under military law, motive is not an element of the crime. Motive is, however, a matter of extenuation or mitigation to be taken at sentencing. Judge Lind also ruled that Trial Counsel (the prosecution) must prove that PFC Manning knew that the information he was giving to Wikileaks would end up in the hands of the enemy. It would not be enough to show that he was merely reckless.
She also set the next hearing for February 26th, to rule on a Defense motion for dismissal of charges under Article 10, UCMJ. Mr. Coombs, PFC Manning’s counsel, has argued that the 930+ days of confinement violate Article 10 and the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a speedy trial. The Trial Counsel argued that there have been various events that have caused the trial clock (which has 120 days maximum) to “stop tolling” which I assume to mean pause or hold.