A military judge overseeing pretrial hearings in the Bradley Manning case refused to dismiss the charges against the former Army intelligence analyst Tuesday, according to reports, but ordered that the accused WikiLeaker will be granted a 112-day sentencing credit for mistreatment he received by Marine guards while imprisoned in 2009 and 2010.
In pretrial hearings held in November and December, Manning's attorney, David E. Coombs, argued that the government subjected his client to unlawful pretrial punishment during his incarceration at the Marine Corps brig in Quantico, Virginia, and asked the court to dismiss the charges against his client based on the treatment, or at a minimum give Manning extra credit for time served at Quantico.
Army Col. Denise Lind, the military judge in the case, chose the latter option, shaving 16 weeks off any sentence Manning eventually faces for allegedly leaking more than a million U.S. military and diplomatic documents to the secret-spilling site WikiLeaks. The government had argued that Manning is only entitled to have seven days cut from his ultimate sentence.
Manning, who turned 25 years old last month, faces 22 charges, the most serious accusing him of aiding the enemy. That's based on the government's theory that providing documents to WikiLeaks and having them published on the internet aided al-Qaida, which has access to the internet. The charge carries a possible life sentence or death penalty. Prosecutors have said they will not seek the death penalty, which leaves Manning facing a maximum possible life sentence -- a judgement that would obviously make the 112-day credit moot.
Coombs reportedly countered this week that his client didn't just dump documents to WikiLeaks, but carefully chose only the documents that wouldn't harm the U.S. or aid the enemy.
At issue in Manning's pre-trial confinement were conditions at the Marine Corps' brig, where Manning was housed between July 29, 2010 and April 20, 2011. Evidence presented in court showed a pattern of harsh treatment: Manning was placed on suicide and prevention of injury watch for months, despite recommendations from psychiatrists that he be taken off that status; he was kept in solitary confinement in his cell for more than 23 out of 24 hours a day; he was was forced to sleep without a comfortable blanket and had his slumber disrupted repeatedly during the night by guards; and on at least one occasion he was forced to stand naked for morning count.
The government argued that Manning's treatment was justified by odd and disruptive behavior he exhibited, including lack of communication and indications that he might commit suicide -- Manning admitted fashioning a noose shortly after his arrest. The government also argued that Manning had multiple opportunities to complain about his treatment at the time if he had wanted to, but didn't.
Coombs countered that Manning was trapped in a Catch-22 where whatever he said or did was interpreted by the military as proof that he was suicidal and disruptive and used to justify their treatment of him. He also showed that some of the signs that the military took that Manning might harm himself were simply cynical statements he made in response to unreasonable treatment he received.
"Being watched or viewed almost as a zoo animal for that period of time has to weigh on somebody's psyche," Coombs said during the proceedings.
Coombs filed complaints against the brig's treatment of his client in Dec. 2010 and sent a number of letters in an effort to get Manning's POI status changed. It was in part the noise that Coombs made over his client's treatment, as well as the media attention it brought, that got the military to transfer Manning out of Quantico and to a more suitable prison at Ft. Leavenworth in Kansas, where his treatment dramatically changed for the better.
In her ruling, Lind said that the intent of authorities at Quantico was not to punish Manning but to ensure his safety and security.
Manning has indicated an interest in pleading guilty to some of the charges against him. Last November the military judge accepted the terms under which Manning proposed to plead guilty to seven of the 22 charges he's facing.
The seven offenses together carry a total maximum prison term of 16 years in prison. Manning didn't formally submit a plea; he was simply seeking approval from the court that the terms under which he contemplated entering a plea were acceptable. Coombs explained the move by saying that his client was willing to accept responsibility for some of the lesser included offenses against him, but not the charges as they stand in whole.
The move is known as “pleading by exceptions and substitutions."
In other questions debated at the hearing on Tuesday, the defense and prosecution argued over whether Manning's motives in providing sensitive documents to WikiLeaks could be admissible as part of his defense and whether the publication of the leaked documents on the WikiLeaks web site and through multiple media outlets, including the New York Times, constituted aiding the enemy.
"Publishing information in a newspaper [can] indirectly convey information to the enemy," prosecutor Capt. Angel Overgaard said Tuesday during the pretrial hearing, according to Politico. Courts in the past had recognized that this could equate to aiding the enemy.
Coombs argued that the court precedents cited by the government dated back to the U.S. Civil War and said the government has to prove that Manning knew he was aiding the enemy, not just that documents he leaked indirectly aided the enemy. He also argued that his client's motives for leaking documents is relevant to whether or not he provided WikiLeaks with intelligence that could aid the enemy.
Manning said in online chats with former hacker Adrian Lamo that he gave the documents to WikiLeaks because he wanted the public to know the truth about the war and be able to determine if the military had engaged in wrongdoing. Coombs said he planned to call Lamo as a witness at Manning's trial in March. Coombs insisted in court that Manning had no evil intent and was selective in the documents he gave WikiLeaks to avoid endangering troops. Coombs argued that this point should be permissible in court.
But prosecutors want to preclude a discussion of Manning's motives from the trial, arguing that his motives were irrelevant to determining whether or not he committed the crimes.
"If somebody stole a loaf of bread to feed her family, she still stole the loaf, even though her motives were good," Captain Angel Overgaard, told the court, according to the Guardian.
Manning's non-jury trial is currently scheduled to take place March 6.
