Bradley Manning hearing – updates

FORT MEADE, Md. - A defense lawyer for Bradley Manning, the Army private accused in the most famous leak of government secrets since the Pentagon Papers, began a frontal attack during Private Manning’s first court appearance here on Friday morning, claiming that the Army’s investigating officer at the evidentiary hearing was biased and should recuse himself from the case.


The lawyer, David Coombs, said that Lt. Col. Paul Almanza, the investigating officer who works as a Justice Department prosecutor in civilian life, was preventing the defense from calling witnesses to show that little harm was done by the disclosure of hundreds of thousands of confidential documents provided to WikiLeaks.


All this stuff has been leaked, Mr. Coombs said. A year and a half later, wheres the danger? Wheres the harm?


Colonel Almanza declined to remove himself from the case, saying he did not currently supervise criminal cases in his job at the Justice Department, which involves child abuse and obscenity, not national security. He said he had no involvement in a separate federal criminal investigation of WikiLeaks.


Mr. Coombs appealed the recusal decision to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals and asked the court to halt the hearing until it could rule. A decision on a possible postponement could come as early as Saturday, when testimony is scheduled to resume at 10 a.m.


The opening day in the Bradley Manning hearing has ended earlier than expected, before the reading of opening statements.


Following a stop-start day of legal arguments, presiding officer Lt Col Paul Almanza called time on Friday's proceedings at 3.30pm – just a few minutes after the court had reconvened after a succession of adjournments.


The decision was met by a collective groan in the media annex by journalists who had hoped that opening arguments would begin.


Prior to adjourning the hearing for a final time, Almanza again laid out his reasoning behind his remaining as the presiding judge following a defence motion for him to recuse himself.


He told the court that his work at the Department of Justice did not extend into matters regarding Manning's case, and as such he would not be perceived as being biased by a reasonable onlooker.


Before breaking off the session until 10am tomorrow, Almanza again asked the accused if he understood the charges against him and his rights as a defendant. Manning replied: "yes sir". He decline an invitation to have the full charges read aloud.


"Bradley Manning, you're a hero," one man shouted from the public gallery after court was adjourned. The defendant remained motionless in his chair, not reacting to the outburst by the grey-haired man sitting a few rows behind him.


The accused whistle-blower will return to court on Saturday, his 24th birthday.


So the first day of the Bradley Manning "article 32 hearing" has ended, raising the question: what, if anything, have we learned from it?


Let's start on a selfish note: how it's been from a reporter's perspective. From that angle the pre-trial hearing has fully lived up to its reputation of being an incredibly slow and stuttering process. The court spent more time in recess today than it did in live session. David Coombs, Manning's lawyer, ridiculed the conditions in which the hearing is being conducted, casting his eye around the sparse and depressingly dingey court room and saying: "This courtroom is beautiful! This hearing is part of the military justice system  is this the best you can do?"


In the morning, we were treated to the surreal sight of a military officer dressed in fatigues – the investigating officer Paul Almanza - being given a thorough grilling by Coombs dressed in civvies (mind you, Coombs himself comes from a military background so it's all relative). That aside, all we really achieved today was the clearing of the decks before the witnesses begin to be presented to court on Saturday.


Delve a little deeper, though, and what Manning and his defence team did today could prove highly significant. They suggested that the prosecution process is biased and compromised. By pointing out that Lt Colonel Paul Almanza is employed by the Department of Justice, the same department that is currently going after Julian Assange and WikiLeaks in a criminal investigation, they implied that Manning was being made the fall-guy in the US government's pursuit of bigger fish.


That's a theme that we can expect Manning and his legal team to elaborate for us in the days to come.