Skip to main content

View Diary: Manning Gets Secret Hearing to Determine How Much of Trial for Disclosing Secrets Will Be Secret (67 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not quite sure about this. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thestructureguy, TooFolkGR

    The relevant statute is 10 USC § 949p–6 (Procedure for cases involving classified information) which requires that a judge hold an in camera (closed to the public) hearing for determining to what extent classified material will appear in the trial, what needs to be done in private, what can be safely redacted, etc. when requested by a formal declaration of the possibility of disclosure (which is what happened here.)  I don't see any evidence that this is unprecedented, given that the statute outlines this procedure pretty clearly.

    That being said, so much of the Manning trial has been frustratingly secretive and, as far as I can tell, off the rails as far as the unusual circumstances of his detention have gone.  Your diary is (as usual) a bit of a mess, but I second this quote you pulled from the NYTimes:

    People can disagree about what should happen to government employees who do the leaking, but it makes sense that such a fundamental question be debated with as much sunlight as possible.
    Amen to that.

    Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

    by pico on Tue May 07, 2013 at 11:00:26 AM PDT

    •  the problem with this case is that manning (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      reginahny, erush1345

      dumped hundreds of thousands of unscreened data files - those are the issue - what was classifed - what has to be held from public eye - that can't be determined in an open hearing...

      AND that is the crux of the case against manning.

      people like jesselyn, people with an underlying agenda, only muddy the waters by attempting to torque this to fit her own personal grudge agenda based on her releasing sealed court documents to a reporter.

      if she can vindicate others who do the same, perhaps she feels this will somehow vindicate her own serious lack of judgement and ethics.

      i'd like to see a discussion of the manning issue lead by someone who isn't already tainted and who doesn't push a narcissistic viewpoint as a shell to what is happening.

      sadly, due to her self-involvement in this issue, i'm thinking many of us who would like to participate more in the discussion of the manning trial are simply avoiding it.

      negative impact from a biased poster has those effects, imho.

      EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

      by edrie on Tue May 07, 2013 at 12:49:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  For what it's worth: (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        erush1345, edrie, reginahny

        1. With the caveat that this is an informal, I-don't-have-all-the-evidence comment, I think Manning is probably guilty, and probably will be found guilty;
        2. I think the circumstances of his detention have been unjustifiable and troubling, and ought to be publicized as much as possible;
        3. My beef with Jesselyn isn't her advocacy or her motivations, but the consistent and sometimes misleading sloppiness of her work, and that's as far as I want to take it.

        Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

        by pico on Tue May 07, 2013 at 01:48:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (158)
  • Community (74)
  • Elections (45)
  • Bernie Sanders (43)
  • Environment (43)
  • 2016 (41)
  • Hillary Clinton (36)
  • Spam (35)
  • Culture (35)
  • Republicans (34)
  • Climate Change (32)
  • Media (32)
  • Civil Rights (28)
  • Labor (27)
  • Congress (26)
  • Law (25)
  • Education (24)
  • Science (24)
  • Texas (23)
  • Barack Obama (22)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site