WikiLeaks case continues; Manning will get any sentence reduced because of mistreatment in confinement
A military judge refused Tuesday to toss out the case against WikiLeaks suspect Bradley Manning, but ruled that any sentence the Army private receives should be reduced by 112 days because of his mistreatment in confinement.
Manning's confinement at a military jail in Quantico, Va., was “more rigorous than necessary,” said Army Col. Denise Lind, the military judge presiding over the hearing at Fort Meade, Md. They “became excessive in relation to legitimate government interests.”
Nonetheless, she said, “dismissal of charges is not appropriate” and would be fitting only in the case of “outrageous” conduct.
Prospects for Lind dismissing the case were considered slim. Manning, an Oklahoma native who lived briefly in Potomac, Md., faces a court-martial in March on charges of leaking hundreds of thousands of sensitive government documents to the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks.
He faces 22 charges, including espionage and aiding the enemy, and could receive a life sentence.
The government conceded at a pretrial hearing last month that Manning had been improperly held on suicide watch for seven days and should receive seven days off any sentence.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Growth potential remains for online gambling
- Defense chief says U.S. can fly over South China Sea
- Navy divers to salvage remains of Confederate warship in Georgia
- Worries mount of unleashed ‘Taliban 5’
- Morgan settles lawsuit with Wal-Mart over crash
- IRS believes identity thieves are from Russia
- Nebraska lawmakers ban death penalty
- Lawyer argues in New York court that chimpanzees have same rights as humans
- Charged Baltimore officers seek change of venue
- Fossils point to relative of ‘Lucy’ species
- Administration finalizes, defends broader regulations under Clean Water Act