Too Much Secrecy: Press Ask The Court To Open Up Bradley Manning Court Martial

from the how-we-got-into-this-mess dept

Fri, Sep 7th 2012 5:15am — Mike Masnick

As the case against Bradley Manning moves forward, the government is doing what it always seems to do: trying to keep everything secret. However, over 30 news organizations have now asked the armed forces appeals court to open up, allowing public access to motions, briefs and written rulings associated with the case. The military's response has been that the only way the press should be able to access such documents (which are regularly available via things like PACER in the civilian court system) is through filing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, which can take a long time, and are all too often ignored. Of course, it's the over aggressive attempts to keep information secret that may have resulted in this case even existing in the first place, as Manning allegedly believed that the over-classification of documents was harming US interests.

This Court should find that such an arrangement is uncon-stitutional. More than thirty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized a presumptive right of access to criminal proceed-ings. See Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 573 (1980) (plurality opinion). As discussed below, the Court has reiterated its holding repeatedly, and the nation’s military courts have applied the same reasoning to extend this right of public access to courts-martial. Amici recognize that various interests, including the need to protect national security information, may justify sealed records in certain circumstances. They do not, however, general-ly justify complete secrecy. In fact, previous disputes about claims of national security have been litigated in the open: “Briefs in the Pentagon Papers case and the hydrogen bomb plans case were available to the press, although sealed appendices discussed in detail the documents for which protection was sought.”

Hopefully the court recognizes the significant public interest here and makes such documents public by default.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: bradley manning, docket, foia, freedom of information, journalism, secrecy
Companies: wikileaks

46 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Zos (profile), 7 Sep 2012 @ 5:34am

i'm pretty sure we've moved past that. Given that we're now in an age where even the very interpretation of the laws is now secret.

never going to happen, just like we'll never see the assange indictment, or the evidence against kim.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Spork (profile), 7 Sep 2012 @ 5:55am
  
  Re:
  ditto. just like we will never see any of the real documents related to Roswell (60+years IIRC)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2012 @ 6:27am
  
  Re:
  And if any of this falls through (the indictments or trials) the government can just lie and say that they don't have the evidence.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2012 @ 6:54am
    
    Re: Re:
    lie?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2012 @ 7:02am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That's the thing, you'll never know.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2012 @ 7:11am

no way is the government or the military gonna release any of the 'evidence' over Manning's arrest and detention. if they did, it would be obvious that they had no right to hold him how they have for the time they have. make themselves look like the villains? never gonna happen!! and if Obama gets re-elected, be prepared for more of the shit, lies and removal of freedoms we have been going through this term!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dennis deems, 7 Sep 2012 @ 7:13am
  
  Re:
  No matter who is elected, be prepared for more of the shit, lies and removal of freedoms we have been going through since 1980
  
  Fixed that for you
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gregg, 7 Sep 2012 @ 7:11am

The news organizations of the world have all gone soft. The public has all gone soft. You are all Pawns or Prawns...both are not good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
average_joe (profile), 7 Sep 2012 @ 7:30am

Of course, it's the over aggressive attempts to keep information secret that may have resulted in this case even existing in the first place, as Manning allegedly believed that the over-classification of documents was harming US interests.

Apologist much? Classified information is supposed to be kept secret. That's the whole point of it being classified. Individual soldiers don't get to decide which classified information should be released to the public. I don't care what he "allegedly believed." You really won't anyone responsible for what they do with a computer, will you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 7 Sep 2012 @ 7:53am
  
  Re:
  Can it be classified if everyone knows it? Is it rational to make it as though the leak had never occurred?
  
  I also find it interesting that you think Mike or, well, anyone here thinks that being on a computer automagically absolves anyone of guilt. It doesn't. However, it is relatively difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt to link a person with an offence from a computer (barring, of course, stupidity of some sort.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 7 Sep 2012 @ 9:40am
    
    Re: Re:
    Just pointing out that yet again someone breaks the law with a computer and Mike defends them. It's a pattern.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 7 Sep 2012 @ 9:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No, you weren't. You are claiming something that is simply not accurate. It's amusing, really.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- arcan, 7 Sep 2012 @ 7:54am
  
  Re:
  so a government document saying some guy doesn't like donuts can be classified ultra top we will kill you if you stand in the same building secret? (it was an example...) also where does this condone torture, and all the other human rights violations that have occurred? are you going to have the US break the geneva conventions for some guy releasing documents that never should have been that highly classified in the first place?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 7 Sep 2012 @ 9:47am
    
    Re: Re:
    I want every person who has access to classified materials to follow the rules or else pay the price. Nothing excuses what he (allegedly) did. If he had evidence of criminal acts, he should have reported them appropriately.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That One Guy (profile), 7 Sep 2012 @ 2:14pm
      
      Cynicism or experience talking...
      Let's see, considering the criminal acts would have been committed by highly ranked/placed military/government officials, who exactly should he have reported it to?
      
      Report it to his superiors in the military? It get's buried and he gets court marshaled.
      
      Report it to the government? It get's buried and he gets court-marshaled.
      
      Keep in mind the info he leaked made a lot of very highly placed people in the government/military look very stupid (at best), so all of those affected would have done everything they could to see that none of it saw the light of day had he tried going that route.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 7 Sep 2012 @ 2:19pm
        
        Re: Cynicism or experience talking...
        I don't know much about military whistleblowing, but I do know that it's protected. See, e.g.:
        
        http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/1034
        
        http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres /pdf/705006p.pdf
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        arcan, 7 Sep 2012 @ 7:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Cynicism or experience talking...
        i would point out that if serious stuff gets out about an officer that would ruin their career. their options are either let them do it and guaranteed career loss. or stop it and possible career loss. see the choice?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        arcan, 7 Sep 2012 @ 7:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Cynicism or experience talking...
        also you never addressed the points about the US torturing bradley manning under "suicide-prevention" claims
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 7 Sep 2012 @ 9:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Cynicism or experience talking...
        Uhh, business and government based whistleblowing is(I believe) also supposed to be protected, but that hasn't stopped the government or private businesses from doing their best to crush anyone who makes them look bad via it.
        
        'Supposed to' is meaningless, all that matters is what's actually practiced, and these days whistleblowing of any sort is very much not treated as a protected activity.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2012 @ 9:19am
  
  Re:
  Yes, AJ, whistleblowers release information that is not supposed to be made public. That's kind of, you know, the point.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 7 Sep 2012 @ 9:37am
    
    Re: Re:
    Did he follow the protocols for whistleblowing and exhaust all other avenues? Or did he just take the law into his own hand? Honest question. I'm curious too if you think it's OK for soldiers entrusted with classified information to decide for themselves which information to make public. I don't. And please explain how all the information he released related to wrongdoings that were covered up. Do you really think all of the hundreds of thousands of documents exposed cover ups? Give me a break. This is a punk who got caught betraying his country, and he deserves whatever he gets.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rekrul, 7 Sep 2012 @ 9:27am
  
  Re:
  Apologist much? Classified information is supposed to be kept secret. That's the whole point of it being classified. Individual soldiers don't get to decide which classified information should be released to the public. I don't care what he "allegedly believed." You really won't anyone responsible for what they do with a computer, will you?
  
  There is a big difference between making something classified to protect lives and the working of the government and making something classified to cover up illegal activities.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 7 Sep 2012 @ 9:39am
    
    Re: Re:
    Nonsense. There are protocols for reporting suspected criminal acts. And those protocols don't include becoming a criminal yourself and betraying your nation by releasing hundreds of thousands of classified materials. I hope they make an example of him.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 7 Sep 2012 @ 9:47am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Do you honestly think there is any other legitimate avenue in the US government lately?
      
      Because if you do, I have a continent to sell you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 7 Sep 2012 @ 9:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, I do. I have lots of family and friends in the military and government, and they all are open and honest people who do the right thing and see that others do too. I don't really understand your point. Duty and honor means the world to them. He could have reported the crimes he thought he had evidence of. Did he not even try to follow protocol? Or did he download hundreds of thousands of classified documents, knowing that it was a crime, and then publish them for all to see?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 7 Sep 2012 @ 11:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        HE DID NOT PUBLISH THEM.
        
        There is evidence that, when reported by Manning to his superior officers, he was not permitted to act on the knowledge. Knowledge that military laws were being ignored by some personnel.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 7 Sep 2012 @ 11:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The evidence appears to be pretty damning (if wikipedia is accurate): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bradley_Manning#Prosecution_evidence
        
        Do you have any cite for the notion that he tried to report things but was thwarted?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 7 Sep 2012 @ 12:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, it appears I was misinformed on that one. I'm sorry.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 7 Sep 2012 @ 1:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It wikipedia, so I don't give it too much weight. No worries though.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - art guerrilla (profile), 7 Sep 2012 @ 9:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      none sense
      u r an idjit and a propaganda victim, it really is useless to 'argue' with an authoritarian who is incapable of thinking for themselves, and capitulates TOTALLY to big brother...
      
      YOU -and your like- are one of the major reasons why we sliding down the fascist rabbit hole, but you are not self-aware enough -or able to believe in your own -albeit limited- powers of reasoning, and give Big Daddy total authority...
      you are a tool and a fool, and while i wouldn't generally care that much, you are FAR too representative of the type of NON thinking that authoritarians engage in...
      
      why do you hate freedom ? ? ?
      (more to the point: why are you afraid of freedom ?)
      
      art guerrilla
      aka ann archy
      art guerrilla at windstream dot net
      (i -or virtually any techdirt regular- *could* educate you, but the story of teaching a pig how to sing comes to mind...)
      eof
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2012 @ 1:53pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Man aj, I'm kind of glad you weren't around during the founding of the United States of America. You'd have been the first one to say, "Get 'em up against the wall." In regards to George Washington and all the others.
      
      Sheesh.
      
      Or should I say, "Nonsense. There are protocols for discussing suspected abuses of power. And those protocols don't include becoming a criminal yourself and betraying your nation by releasing hundreds of thousands of tea bags. I hope they make an example of them." Wow, that worked almost perfectly.
      
      Like I said, good thing you weren't around then. Or heck, good thing you weren't around in the early 1960s during the free rights movement. Peacefully marching in the streets?! How dare they! Someone take a fire hose to them! Don't they know there are protocols to follow to get others to recognize that the color of your skin has no bearing on what rights may or may not be granted to you?! Rawr!
      
      And might I add, don't trot out the "I know people in the military who'd never do this and would follow orders... blah blah blah". That's a horrible thing to say. I mean "just follow orders" works when convenient, right? But when it was used at Nuremburg, no sirree bob. That just won't do.
      
      Do you read what you write? You sound like a fanatical extremist. And that's not even close to okay.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 7 Sep 2012 @ 2:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nuremburg? Godwin for the win!
        
        Look, I just think that punks who violate their oath to this country should pay for their crimes. You apparently OK with a free for all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse (profile), 7 Sep 2012 @ 2:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not really, but standing up for the Constitution and one's own morals is to be admired. Perhaps not always agreed with, but still admired. But suggesting that someone breaking the law in order to bring justice for those with no power should be raped and pillaged (far afield, I know) is more than a little disgusting.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
corwin155 (profile), 7 Sep 2012 @ 7:40am

fascists
Under Corporate One world Government
Only Families who were billionaires Pre-1850 may Rule
Freedom is what you can afford , and you cant afford shxt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
arcan, 7 Sep 2012 @ 7:55am

anyone think we should classify everything as national insecurity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anon E Moose, 7 Sep 2012 @ 8:50am

I'm just one of the trees (i.e., pls. don't taz me bro)
How many years has this guy been in prison (and tortured... stress... cold isolation)? Two? Three? Before a trial!!! This is the (new) Amerikan way. Punish before a trial. Even the prez said he was guilty (justifying his "unusual" treatment). No need for judicial proceedings (bring on the drones). The old Russia had their Potemkin Village (sp?), a "pretend" village with false fronts to fool the visitors. The new USSA has a pretend democracy and judicial system in our Lets Pretend civilized democracy, with a dog a pony show every four years to elect (chose one: bad or worse). What a life (got job? Got liberty?).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2012 @ 10:48am
  
  Re: I'm just one of the trees (i.e., pls. don't taz me bro)
  Wonder what they'd do if independent parties started threatening the two-headed coin flip that is the two-party system? Declare that "only members of the two original parties can run for office"? (and then when someone tries to run under the Whig Party, lock 'em up anyway)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
relghuar, 7 Sep 2012 @ 8:52am

Hopefully...
Off topic: is it just me, or is the word "hopefully" terribly overused in techdirt articles?
I don't mean it as an insult to techdirt authors, or suggestion to find another word, just an observation of the trend - often there's not much else that can be said on the discussed topic.
Well... Hopefully, in the future we won't have to say "hopefully" so often! ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Spork (profile), 7 Sep 2012 @ 1:24pm

what ever happened
to the right to a fair and speedy trial by a jury of your peers? Being detained for three years without a trial hardly constitutes a fair and speedy trial. Oh wait; now I remember: thanks to the NDAA and PATRIOT acts,we lost those right to the greedy retards of Wall Street and Big Brother. somebody PLEASE let me beat the Sh*t (and money) out of them so we can finally progress out of the political dark ages reminiscent of the Salem witch trials we have regressed into (I'm looking at you, Koch Brothers, MPAA, etc) and into the FRIGGIN 21st Century.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andrew D. Todd, 9 Sep 2012 @ 3:45am

A Comparison.
On 20 July 1944, Colonel Claus Schenk, Count von Stauffenberg, attempted to assassinate Adolph Hitler with a bomb concealed in a briefcase. Stauffenberg was one of a group of German officers who had become alarmed, both at the evils of the Nazi regime, and at the disasters it had plunged Germany into. The bomb missed, and Stauffenberg was subsequently shot. Many of his co-conspirators were hanged with piano wires.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claus_von_Stauffenberg

average_joe would disapprove of Stauffenberg, of course. At any rate, by comparison, Bradley Manning seems a model of restraint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- average_joe (profile), 9 Sep 2012 @ 5:01am
  
  Re: A Comparison.
  That's a fairly extreme example. I have no trouble with the notion of anyone murdering Adolf Hitler in 1944. Are you suggesting that the wrongdoing that Manning exposed was on the same level as Hitler? Give me a break. Manning could have followed protocol and blown the whistle internally. Did he even try? And you still haven't accounted for the hundreds of thousands of classified materials that he did release that didn't show any kind of wrongdoing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 9 Sep 2012 @ 9:33am
    
    Re: Re: A Comparison.
    But Staffenberg broke the law. How can you defend that Joe?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - average_joe (profile), 9 Sep 2012 @ 10:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re: A Comparison.
      Easy. 'Cause I'm not the robot you think me to be. Put me in a room with Hitler in 1944 and I'd murder him myself.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Andrew D. Todd, 9 Sep 2012 @ 3:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: A Comparison.
        Aber sie sind kein Deutscher, nicht Wahr?
        
        It's always easier to think of the other country as the bad guys, and to be wise after the fact. What "average joes" did in this country, the United States, during the Second World War was to round up the Japanese-Americans, and steal their belongings in the process. In short, they behaved pretty much like average Germans. So why would you have been any different? Even after the war, even after the exploits of the (mostly Hawaiian) Japanese-American 442nd regiment in Italy and France, there was still racism. I was reading Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston's _Back to Manzanar_ (1972). She was about seven when she was put in a camp, and later, in the late 1940's, the Girl Scouts rejected her for being Japanese-American.
        
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Wakatsuki_Houston
        
        Come to that, there was a massive race-riot in Detroit in 1943, between Polish-Americans and African-Americans, fighting over jobs among other things, and the Army had to be sent in to restore order. Then there were the "Zoot Suit" riots in San Diego (Whites, mostly naval personel, on Hispanic).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - nasch (profile), 9 Sep 2012 @ 3:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: A Comparison.
        So under what circumstances is it OK to break the law?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
bonne mutuelle dentaire, 7 May 2013 @ 6:02am

Je suis 100% d accord, j'appr�cie votre style. J'ai vraiment appreci� de lire cette article. Continuez�!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]