Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Security The Courts Your Rights Online

Why Whistleblowers Can't Get a Fair Trial 441

Posted by samzenpus
from the I-fought-the-law dept.
phantomfive writes "'Seven whistleblowers have been prosecuted under the Obama administration,' writes Jesselyn Radack, a lawyer who advised two of them. She explains why they can't get a fair trial. In the Thomas Drake case, the administration retroactively marked documents as classified, saying, 'he knew they should have been classified.' In the Bradley Manning case, the jury wasn't allowed to see what information was leaked. The defendants, all who have been charged with espionage, have limited access to court documents. Most of these problems happen because the law was written to deal with traitorous spies, not whistleblowers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why Whistleblowers Can't Get a Fair Trial

Comments Filter:
  • One and the same (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Akratist (1080775) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @09:11AM (#46044961)
    When a government is corrupt, dishonest, and incompetent, then a whistleblower and a spy are essentially the same thing, as they threaten the positions and livelihoods of the corrupt, dishonest, and incompetent politicians and bureaucrats who comprise it.
    • by Gaygirlie (1657131) <(gaygirlie) (at) (hotmail.com)> on Thursday January 23, 2014 @09:17AM (#46045001) Homepage

      I don't quite agree. I get what you mean, but a whistleblower releases information to those who it isn't supposed to go in order to improve the security their country and the lives of their fellow countrymen, whereas spies release information to those who it isn't supposed to go in order to undermine the security of said country. While the methods and results may even be the same the intent is different.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 23, 2014 @09:29AM (#46045071)

        In the Thomas Drake case, the administration retroactively marked documents as classified, ...

        Going back retroactively to MAKE someone a criminal is an act of corruption and injustice.

        Son of bitch. I hated Bush and now Obama. Will there ever be a President that I can respect?

        • by cyborg_zx (893396) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @09:38AM (#46045109)

          Will there ever be a President that I can respect?

          The system does not seem designed to allow that.

        • Re:One and the same (Score:4, Interesting)

          by jbmartin6 (1232050) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @09:45AM (#46045165)

          Will there ever be a President that I can respect?

          I hope not, that would lull you into a false sense of security.

          • I concur; there is a reason for a 4 year term, and a max of 2 terms. And none of the reasons have anything to do with enjoying the elected office.
        • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 23, 2014 @09:46AM (#46045179)

          Vote third party. That's the only way it will ever happen.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by jythie (914043)
            No, voting 3rd party does not actually help. It, unfortunately, is tightly integrated into the problem and contributes to the very effect proponents claim it counters. Voting 3rd party is for people who have a great deal of idealism but a poor grasp of math, politics, or history.
            • by PRMan (959735)
              Yes, because the American party system has ALWAYS been Republicans and Democrats. And has never had a party rise up to replace one of them. A third party has NEVER succeeded... EVER! :roll eyes:
            • Re: One and the same (Score:5, Interesting)

              by AthanasiusKircher (1333179) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @11:53AM (#46046477)

              Voting 3rd party is for people who have a great deal of idealism but a poor grasp of math, politics, or history.

              ... or for people who do not feel that they, in good conscience, could actually support either of the candidates being offered by the two major parties.

              Keep in mind that a significant percentage of people who vote 3rd party might otherwise stay home and not vote at all. If they choose to vote for a 3rd-party candidate, they are not altering the outcome of the race between the two parties, since otherwise they wouldn't be participating at all. You can argue that their choice is irrational, but if they don't actually see a significant difference between the two major parties (which is increasingly difficult to see on many issues outside of "hot-button" social issues), they may not feel like they could support either one. Would you rather that they simply stayed home and not express their voice at all?

              The key thing often forgotten by those who argue against anyone ever voting for a 3rd party is that they somehow think that all voters are "owned" by the 2 major parties. And if someone chooses to vote for a 3rd party, they are somehow "taking votes away" from a major party candidate.

              Here's a newsflash: LOTS of people DON'T VOTE. Some are just lazy, but others simply can't be bothered to make a "choice" between two candidates when they like neither one of them. If a 3rd-party guy comes along and excites them enough to get that person to vote, no vote was "stolen" from any major party.

              Contrary to popular belief, candidates actually need to EARN their votes. They don't come by default to them just because Democratic voters always vote Democrat or whatever. Lots of registered Democrats don't vote at various times, and other times they will vote Republican or even for some other party.

              There's a reason why "get out the vote" campaigns are so critical to elections -- it's that many people are not even motivated enough to support a major-party candidate by getting off their butt and going to the local polling place. For many of those people, who otherwise might not vote at all, the major parties have not succeeded in convincing them of anything -- they didn't EARN those votes.

              If such people come out and vote for a 3rd-party candidate they actually believe in, they are making a positive contribution to the process: and they should be applauded for it, not told that they are simply stupid or ignorant.

              • by dissy (172727)

                The key thing often forgotten by those who argue against anyone ever voting for a 3rd party is that they somehow think that all voters are "owned" by the 2 major parties. And if someone chooses to vote for a 3rd party, they are somehow "taking votes away" from a major party candidate.

                I've never understood that line of reasoning.

                Voting 3rd party is akin to "stealing" votes from the two major parties exactly the same as me purchasing a bag of potato chips is "stealing" that money from the entertainment industry.

                If someone wishes to claim I was "stealing" my own vote which is mine to do with as I please, then let them step up to the plate first and allow me to dictate how they spend their vote. Otherwise it's nothing more than hypocritical to demand the same of me.

                As you already mentioned

              • by Lost Race (681080) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @04:58PM (#46050205)

                IMHO the best reason to vote for a minor party candidate is to send a message to the major parties: If you move in the direction of this minor party, you might get my vote next time.

            • by Common Joe (2807741) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @12:04PM (#46046585) Journal

              No, voting 3rd party does not actually help. It, unfortunately, is tightly integrated into the problem and contributes to the very effect proponents claim it counters. Voting 3rd party is for people who have a great deal of idealism but a poor grasp of math, politics, or history.

              Then what do you suggest? Let's tally: Voting 3rd party does not help, Voting for the current two parties does not help; Trying to get into the current 2 parties and work it from the inside does not help. What's next up on the list? Are you advocating rebellion? Historically, that doesn't tend to work too well either.

              I see no good option. They're all ugly. So far, voting 3rd party seems to be the best of bad options I can come up with.

              So, what is your solution? I'm all ears for that option that actually does help and give us a net gain instead of eroding our freedoms and taking away our wealth and equality.

            • by DuckDodgers (541817) <keeper_of_the_wolf@@@yahoo...com> on Thursday January 23, 2014 @12:24PM (#46046839)
              I agreed with your line of thinking for almost 20 years, but I no longer do.

              The lesser of two evils argument is a big deal. I support abortion rights. I support separation of Church and State with respect to marriage (give any two adults that want legal marriage rights those rights, or give no two adults those legal marriage rights, don't selectively define who can and can't have them based on religious law). I support social welfare programs. I support a tax system that shifts the tax burden into a purely progressive system - which is not what we have now, because of the differences between the income tax and the capital gains tax. The Democratic Party supports those things, the Republican Party does not, so the Democrats are my lesser of two evils. But both parties are hopelessly corrupt.

              The current surveillance without court oversight and indefinite detention of terror suspects without court oversight was started under a Republican President and majority Republican Congress and perpetuated by a Democrat President with a majority Democrat progress.

              The Democrats that made me one of the hopeful in 2008 are trying to block, trap, and prosecute the whistleblowers that Obama promised to protect in his campaign. There was a Slashdot article when that statement was removed from the Obama campaign websites a few months ago.

              No Child Left Behind was the last serious attempt to reform education on a national level, and it was bipartisan and undoubtedly started with the best of intentions, but it takes money away from schools that need it most, gives money to schools that need it least, buries teachers in paperwork, and sucks the love of learning out of kids by grilling them with standardized tests.

              The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards to save the environment by increasing fuel economy are a token gesture meant to appear like action without doing anything - the US uses 70% of its petroleum per year on transportation, but that's not all personal passenger vehicles - commercial vehicles aren't subject to any similar big jumps in fuel economy standards. A big chunk of the energy and other natural resources used in the country is used by businesses, and in many cases it's cheaper to deal with inefficient energy use on an ongoing basis than to make a big one time investment in more efficient equipment and then either pay interest on the loans you made to get it or deal with the opportunity costs associated with investing in efficiency instead of something else. CAFE is a classic case of "make it look like you're doing something!"

              The War on Drugs against marijuana is the latest form of the make-work programs under FDR's New Deal. Employ some people (DEA and associated prosecutors, plus lots of prison staff) and keep other people out of the work force (drug offenders in prison). We should have just put the pot heads to work digging ditches, spent the rest of the money funding free rehab clinics for any citizen, and saved ourselves a lot of heartache - and it's taken too damn long for the federal view of a substance clearly less dangerous in all respects than alcohol to change.

              Our freedoms are eroding, our education is failing, our veterans are suffering, and the middle class is shrinking. These clowns are all either incompetent to fix it or too busy profiting from the problems. I will still support a local candidate that's Democrat or Republican based on the person. But on the national level, I will be voting third party, even if I think that third party is looney, because the other two parties are Sauron and Saruman trading jokes between Mordor and Isengard while the world burns.
            • Re: One and the same (Score:5, Interesting)

              by dkleinsc (563838) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @12:33PM (#46046937) Homepage

              Voting for a third party can make a real difference, actually, and thinking otherwise is also demonstrating a poor grasp of US history:
              1. An upstart single-issue party in the 1860's ran a not-very-prominent Congressman for President, and won. The party in question implemented the policy proposal they had organized around, dramatically changing the nature of the country.

              2. A popular president who was disillusioned with the policies of his own party split off and formed his own party in 1912. He didn't win an unprecedented third term for the presidency, but his party elected a bunch of people to state offices and the US House. More importantly, many of the policies advocated by that party, previously considered political non-starters, were implemented in many of the states where the party had significant following, and a later president (more on him in a moment) implemented quite a few of those policies on the national level.

              3. In the 1930's, the president who implemented the 1912 party's policies was able to convince his party to go along with it in part because they were supported by a third party that was winning hundreds of thousands of votes and some local elections in key states.

              When you look at the history of third parties, generally speaking the credible threat of a third party challenge forces the major party that the third party is most like to adopt enough of that third party's positions to keep the voters who are considering bolting to the third party. Otherwise, the only competition the two major parties have is each other, and they can between the two of them take any issue completely out of public consideration by simply agreeing between the two of them that a particular policy is acceptable to both of them.

              For a recent example of this, look at the Patriot Act - there was nobody to vote for that actually opposed it, so it was going to happen regardless of what the pesky voters thought. Had there been credible third-party threats opposing the move (e.g. Greens or Libertarians), then sitting Republicans would be worried that they might lose because enough people voted Libertarian to let the Democrat win, while sitting Democrats would be worried that they might lose because enough people voted Green to let the Republican win.

            • Why should I be forced to vote for the lesser of two evils? If I do, I only keep them in power by perpetuating the status quo.

              If I vote third party, and tell others to do the same, hopefully at some future date enough momentum is built up to at least force the two major parties to take heed and change their tune a bit to win back the voters bleeding off.

          • by kasperd (592156)

            third party.

            That term is itself a symptom of broken system. The system is designed in a way where a rational voter cannot have more than two options to choose from. If you vote for one of the two established options, you have a chance of influence over which of the two will win. If you vote for anybody else, one of the two established candidates still wins, and your vote had no influence over which of them.

            Usually some voters will think both options suck so much, it is not worthwhile voting for any of th

            • If you vote for one of the two established options, you have a chance of influence over which of the two will win. If you vote for anybody else, one of the two established candidates still wins, and your vote had no influence over which of them.

              Except when the third-party candidate wins. Seriously -- it happens in local and state elections, and even occasionally for Congressional office. Contrary to popular belief, the president is not the only politician in America. And -- while they are infrequent -- there are plenty of examples where 3rd-party candidates were elected to other offices.

              Usually some voters will think both options suck so much, it is not worthwhile voting for any of them. [snip] For a start, I don't know how many of them realize they are putting the choice of a winner in the hands of other voters

              Except when the third-party candidate wins. See above.

              Also, sometimes in a voting situation, "abstain" is actually a valid option. It's not a cop-out. Some

        • Re:One and the same (Score:5, Informative)

          by SirGarlon (845873) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @09:51AM (#46045239)

          Going back retroactively to MAKE someone a criminal is an act of corruption and injustice.

          It's also explicitly against the US Constitution: Article I, Section 9 [heritage.org]. The folks who wrote that document knew all the tricks in the tyrant's book -- from personal experience.

          Of course, classified information is not a law, it's classified by executive order. I would point out that executive orders did not exist when the Constitution was written, and should not give the President a free pass to do what Congress is expressly forbidden from doing. By waving his hands and chanting "national security," the President places himself above the law and the Constitution. Again.

          • Re:One and the same (Score:5, Informative)

            by i kan reed (749298) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @10:38AM (#46045691) Homepage Journal

            It's actually because the espionage act defines things that "apparently should" be classified as protected under law too. It's a bad law, but it's not the same as ex post facto.

            • Re:One and the same (Score:4, Interesting)

              by ebno-10db (1459097) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @10:48AM (#46045783)

              But was the jury told that the material was classified, or that it "apparently should" have been classified? Even telling the jury that it was classified after the fact is unacceptably prejudicial. Was defense allowed to point out that the material wasn't classified at the time that the alleged act occurred? If not, then it's the same as an ex post facto law.

        • by geogob (569250) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @10:04AM (#46045369)

          The sad part is where you seem think the president has anything to do with this, or, for that matter, anything to say about this.

          • by _Sharp'r_ (649297) <sharper@booksun[ ... m ['der' in gap]> on Thursday January 23, 2014 @10:19AM (#46045523) Homepage Journal

            Because the people involved in the prosecutions and classifications don't report up to him as the head of the executive branch? Because he doesn't have an absolute pardon power to pardon anyone he likes? You'd blame the CEO of a company for what his company does. In this case the President has way more legal power to intervene than a CEO would in a similar situation. Heck, after President Obama's recent stint of just changing laws with only a fig leaf of legal basis beyond he said so, presumably his administration thinks he can just unilaterally declare they weren't enforcing the law in these particular types of cases.

            • by geogob (569250)

              That's exactly the point. They report to him what they want him to here... he bases his decision on these information. Without omniscience, he is just a pawn of the permanent government. He has the power to do a lot of thing, most of them he cannot do for different reasons. Furthermre, he can only exercise his power based on the information he has at hand.

              The only thing a president might be able to do about this, is place the right people at the right jobs to be sure he gets the correct (and sufficient) inf

              • Irrelevant. The president is in charge of the executive branch, and is thus accountable for everything that happens in it. Harry Truman used to say that, and accepted responsibility for everything.

                If the president became aware of this after it happened, he can issue a presidential pardon, and assure that it doesn't happen again. Getting a new AG would be a good start. Do you believe that any of these things have, or will, happen?

                If you want the big job, you get the big responsibility too. No excuses.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I don't quite agree. I get what you mean, but a whistleblower releases information to those who it isn't supposed to go in order to improve the security their country and the lives of their fellow countrymen, whereas spies release information to those who it isn't supposed to go in order to undermine the security of said country. While the methods and results may even be the same the intent is different.

        The Rosenbergs were executed as spies (and I have no particular beef with their classification as such) because they released information to the Russians about the atomic program in order to restore a balance of power, thus aiding the security of the United States. Just by means that the government did not agree to.

        As long as it is the government stance that "security" is tantamount to "being able to squash everybody else like a bug" (and yes, that's basically the NSA approach as well), it is hard to disti

      • by Sarten-X (1102295)

        True, but that doesn't matter much. In a court, "noble cause" isn't really a defense (some exceptions apply).

        By the time a trial court sees a case, the law is effectively fixed. At that point, the only questions are whether the defendant intentionally committed a crime. For whistleblowers, the fact of the matter usually is that yes, they intentionally broke the law. Snowden and Manning knowingly released classified materials with a reasonable expectation that foreign agencies would get access to them. Plain

    • by TWiTfan (2887093) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @09:38AM (#46045119)

      When a government is corrupt, dishonest, and incompetent, then a whistleblower and a spy are essentially the same thing

      That's why I get such a kick out of it when these idiots get on TV and call Snowden a traitor because he didn't "go through the proper channels," as if the very agency he was ratting on was going to give him a fair hearing and not throw his ass in prison as a spy/hacker/traitor immediately.

      • by kilfarsnar (561956) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @10:57AM (#46045873)

        When a government is corrupt, dishonest, and incompetent, then a whistleblower and a spy are essentially the same thing

        That's why I get such a kick out of it when these idiots get on TV and call Snowden a traitor because he didn't "go through the proper channels," as if the very agency he was ratting on was going to give him a fair hearing and not throw his ass in prison as a spy/hacker/traitor immediately.

        And they're wrong anyway. Snowden did go through proper channels. He was ignored or told to mind his business. That's always the way it goes when one goes through proper channels. I don't think I have ever heard of a case where a person discovers wrongdoing, goes to his superior about it and has his superior actually take meaningful action.

        It makes perfect sense, if you think about it (which is why the folks on TV get it wrong). Any given program has been conceived, discussed and agreed upon by people at a high level. They have run the scenarios and considered the outcomes and consequences. Now some staffer comes along and tells them that what they are doing is likely illegal and certainly creepy. They're going to listen to him and take his concerns seriously? Of course not! They're going to tell him to shut up. But the folks on TV will say Snowden should have gone through proper channels, as though he would have gotten any traction. They're either serving an agenda or depressingly naive.

    • by Sockatume (732728)

      Why do we say when someone who turns their back on a company, or even most government agencies, they're a whistleblower; but when they do the same to the military, or the intelligence apparatus, they are said to have betrayed the country itself?

      • Re:One and the same (Score:4, Interesting)

        by kilfarsnar (561956) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @11:03AM (#46045943)

        Why do we say when someone who turns their back on a company, or even most government agencies, they're a whistleblower; but when they do the same to the military, or the intelligence apparatus, they are said to have betrayed the country itself?

        Because it serves to conflate the interests of the military or intelligence agencies with that of the country as a whole. People are less likely to view them poorly when it is axiomatic that the CIA (or whomever) is working in the best interests of the United States. They overthrew an elected government? Must be okay, since they're only trying to look out for us.

    • by davecb (6526)
      That also applies to police and courts who threaten the positions and livelihoods of the corrupt.
  • by rmdingler (1955220) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @09:17AM (#46044997)
    Labels such as traitor or revolutionary hero are interchangeable, depending on how things work out.

    Washington, Adams, Franklin, Hancock, et al would've been hung as traitors if the Brits had quashed the American rebellion.

    Bucking the system is courageous for a reason.

    • by gstoddart (321705)

      Washington, Adams, Franklin, Hancock, et al would've been hung as traitors if the Brits had quashed the American rebellion.

      History is written by the victors.

      -- Winston Churchill

    • by DrLang21 (900992) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @10:04AM (#46045381)
      That's why there are supposed to be legal protections for whistleblowers. These cases are not supposed to even get past the court hearing. However, they made a stupid exception for anything dealing with national security, which is where the most egregious corruption can occure.
      • They also then proceeded to define pretty well everything involving any part of the government anywhere in the world as dealing with national security...
  • Traitorous spies? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Vintermann (400722) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @09:18AM (#46045015) Homepage

    Traitorous spies? No, that is false. The law was written to deal with socialists advocating isolationism in WWI [wikipedia.org].

    • by Arker (91948) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @11:18AM (#46046093) Homepage

      And not just socialists, right wing opponents of war were not treated notably better.

      The espionage act has been used against real spies on occasion, but more often it has been used as a stick against dissenters.

  • by Connie_Lingus (317691) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @09:18AM (#46045017) Homepage

    its laughable for people to think anyone who challenges deep political and financial power structures are going to 1. somehow be rewarded or applauded for their efforts or 2. get some sort of "fair trial" (whatever that really means in our current legal system) where a positive outcome for the WB would encourage others to follow suit. ...and for those who think otherwise...sorry to tell you...it was your parents putting the money under the pillow, not the tooth fairy :((

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 23, 2014 @09:27AM (#46045051)

    As an outsider (not a US Citizen) I laugh everytime I read an account of how persecuted US citizens are.

    Even in Soviet Russia at the height of the cold war russians had rights. (It's interesting reading the real account of life in russian from people who lived it not the propaganda)

    Chinese citizens have more rights than you do (as long as they stay within the political party rules) and the law is mostly clear with clearly defined rules and laws.

    The US system of laws and bylaws is so convluded that the Avg person commits 3 felonys a day ("http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/three-felonies-a-day-how-the-feds-target-the-innocent#axzz2rEA3eW6J)

    USA's Tax law along is almost 4 million pages long.
                                                                                    Implied
    Welcome to the Land of the ^ free

    • by TWiTfan (2887093)

      Even in Soviet Russia at the height of the cold war russians had rights.

      Yeah, but they didn't have blue-jeans--which, Ronald Reagan assured me, made them very oppressed! They also couldn't travel around without papers, unlike in the U.S. where you're free to travel around anywhere--as long as you have a driver's license, proof of citizenship, Social Security Number, proof of insurance, and car registration.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Wow, I grew up in south america as well and I have lots of colleagues from Russia. I am living in the UK now.

      How many lies in few sentences. It is so easy to find the truth. Just compare the number of people that immigrated to the USA with the number that emigrated from the USA and you will see how much it is a fallacy.

  • by l2718 (514756) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @09:49AM (#46045219)
    The link is to a news story behind the Wall Street Journal's paywall; I think such stories should be reconsidered. Such situations are acceptable with posts on science, which often link both to a popular-science write-up and to the original journal article: probably those readers with the expertise to read the original literature are subscribers. Links to ordinary news stories should follow the same policy: if there must be a link to a paywalled story, a link to a generally accessible version should be expected as well.
  • by IamTheRealMike (537420) <mike@plan99.net> on Thursday January 23, 2014 @09:50AM (#46045223) Homepage

    Pretty sure that those things are not problems to do with how these specific laws are written, they're fundamental flaws in the trial process and thus the judiciary itself. If such basic rules are being ignored then by definition you wouldn't know if an accused person was actually a traitorous spy or not, would you, because the system would be unable to come to any trustworthy conclusion.

  • Hope and Change (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DNS-and-BIND (461968) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @10:01AM (#46045345) Homepage

    "As Americans, we can take enormous pride in the fact that courage has been inspired by our own struggle for freedom, by the tradition of democratic law secured by our forefathers and enshrined in our Constitution. It is a tradition that says all men are created equal under the law and that no one is above it."

    "Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones weâ(TM)ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek."

    "Iâ(TM)m in this race not just to hold an office, but to gather with you to transform a nation."

    "Change doesnâ(TM)t come from Washington. Change comes to Washington."

    Now watch me get modded down for using Obama's own words against him. Remember, citizens, report suspicious subversive activity immediately!

  • 7 out of 100 ... would tell me that the those 7 _did_ do something odd

    7 out of 7 ... okay let's get paranoid.

    7 out of 5 ... NSA at work?

  • There is a continuum from objection to whistleblowing to traitor, not a stark line. How many whistleblowers have there been in the last decade who have indicated waste, fraud, and abuse that exists in the 2 million people who form the federal government? In terms of dangerous or classified documents leaked to the public, where do these 7 stand wrt quantity, sensitivity, and content related to those who were not prosecuted?

    Without this data, the fine article is merely clickbait.

  • So Don't Convict (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @10:17AM (#46045505) Homepage Journal

    In the Bradley Manning case, the jury wasn't allowed to see what information was leaked.

    When you're on a jury, you have a duty to both the accused and your nation to consider evidence fairly, within Constitutional constraints. Being prevented from seeing evidence would, to me, be all the reason necessary to give a verdict of 'not guilty.'

    All accused American citizens have a right to confront their accusers and the evidence presented against them, in a fair and speedy trial conducted within due process. Period, end of story; don't like it? Amend the Constitution or GTFO.

    • In a military trial the term jury doesn't mean what it does in the real world. The jury is hardly the defendant's peers. Manning knew this and went for a trial by the judge only.

The degree of technical confidence is inversely proportional to the level of management.

Working...