The only way you're going to get a presentation of the government's case is from the court transcript; the prosecution isn't writing articles.
So the court is not releasing public transcripts, but some people organized to crowdfund an independent court recorder.
So here's the prosecution's closing arguments; they are VERY long and repetitive (I was there watching in person, I haven't yet read the transcripts) but burried in here is where you're going to find the prosecution's own presentation of their argument.
MOST of the CFAA stuff is probably in the afternoon session, but there might have been a bit at the end of the morning too.
Thank you. I don't quite know how to word this without sounding terrible but here goes. I find it weird that so many articles have been written by very passionate people about how this case has so many holes in it. What is odd is that there is no counterpoint provided by other passionate people about why this verdict is right. I've never seen news articles so one sided in favor of the defendant before with nothing in favor of the prosecution.
There are a variety of offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice that aren't crimes in the civilian world. Courts-martial tend to be nasty because of it.
Here's an example: Article 92 of the UCMJ - Failure to obey a lawful order [1]. This is a pretty broad Article, mostly because everyone is ordered to obey the UCMJ and other laws. So you get prosecuted for it in addition to your other crimes.
So, a person who gets arrested for DUI out in town is actually guilty of Article 92 in addition to Article 111 (Drunken or Reckless Driving).
To compound this, you also have Article 134, which specifies,
>>“Though not specifically mentioned in [the UCMJ], all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.”
So, this means that anything that can be proven to have a "detrimental effect on good order and discipline" is also punishable by court-martial. And that's a distinct crime from Article 92. So that guy who got a DUI? He's actually charged with three things - Article 111, Article 92, and Article 134. All for the same offense. And yes, he's punished for all three. Even nastier, there's no double jeopardy for 92 and 134 because they have no civilian versions. So, you can be tried under civilian court for DUI and lose your license and then lose your rank and pay under the UCMJ for the exact same crime with two different legal proceedings.
Now look at Bradley Manning's case, and you can pretty easily see that his actions could be punishable under these two Articles alone. And that's what they did. His guilt in these charges isn't even close to being in question.
Just? Personally, I think so, but I'm colored by my own views and experiences. Your opinion might differ. But it's most definitely legal and will beat appeal.
I know what you mean, although I'm not entirely sure it's true -- could it be sampling bias, are there lots of passionate anti-Manning articles out there, you just aren't seeing them in the places you are looking?
I'm not sure I agree with you that 'news articles' in general have been generally pro-Manning. In general, I think mainstream media has been pretty incompetent at covering this trial, generally ignoring it, and not doing a very good job of explaining it.
But, if there really are lots of passionate articles pro-Manning, but hardly any passionate anti-Manning articles... what do you think the explanation is?
It could also be that the government's case on the contested charges in particular really was bonkers. It's hard for someone to passionately defend it without seeming like a moron.
I do think it's notable that it's the government that decided not to make transcripts of this theoretically public trial available. The only reason you even have access to the prosecution's closing argument is because pro-Manning folks funded their own freelance court reporter.
It could definitely be sampling bias, but with that I'm not sure where any anti-manning articles would be posted in the first place. I thoroughly agree that mainstream media hasn't covered this case as much as it should have been. I'd argue this is just as important as the trayvon Martin case ( I mean the guy literally got away with manslaughter. I guess after thinking about it for a while, the reason people wouldn't be upset about this, thus all the pro-manning articles and nearly no anti-manning articles are a result of only hackers genuinely caring about the misapplication of these poorly worded and over stretched laws they used to "prove" manning guilty of "computer fraud" whatever the hell that is.
So the court is not releasing public transcripts, but some people organized to crowdfund an independent court recorder.
So here's the prosecution's closing arguments; they are VERY long and repetitive (I was there watching in person, I haven't yet read the transcripts) but burried in here is where you're going to find the prosecution's own presentation of their argument.
MOST of the CFAA stuff is probably in the afternoon session, but there might have been a bit at the end of the morning too.
(AM) https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/sites/default/files/07-25...
(PM) https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/sites/default/files/07-25...
try searching for 'wget' in the PM one. i also recommend searching for "VBA", that part was bonkers too.