some updates, and discussion of evidence

The full chat logs between Manning and Lamo are out. These are the ones Wired allegedly had but quoted piecemeal. For that matter, I still wonder if the logs are a true record or a work of fiction or something in between — until it’s subjected to the Military Rules of Evidence on authenticity I’m accepting the logs only as alleged. Glenn Greenwald has the story here. The full chat logs might be crucial to showing Manning’s alleged criminal intent, criminal acts, and possible conspiracy theories. Or debunking Lamo’s credibility. And all that’s assuming that these logs are admissible.

(See the Mil. R. of Evid. on admissibility of documents and evidence here in the 900- and 1000- series Rules. Just submitting evidence isn’t enough; in essence, the prosecution (or defense) must show that the evidence is what it purports to be, is relevant and is authentic.)

On another matter of evidentiary law, same Rules: they also don’t accept testimony on its face but do provide tests of the witnesses’ credibility — and they can be impeached (Rule 600-series). A survey of Glenn’s articles on Manning, Lamo, and what we know of the chat logs — and what’s been said about them since then — turns up a lot of inconsistencies. That could make for some interesting testimony at Manning’s court-martial. And it is Lamo who must testify to the chats, as well as authenticate the chat logs. Both his testimony and autentication are subject to impeachment. Here is one scenario:

MILITARY JUDGE: Your witness.

Q. Mr. Lamo, we have a statement by Glenn Greenwald in which you told Greenwald one thing in that interview, but the full chat transcript doesn’t back you up. Does this mean that you had no basis for making that assertion at the time? Or that this court can’t trust anything you say on the stand now?

A. Depends on how you read the chat logs.

Q. Uh-huh. A log that this court can read with great interest, for instance, your confidentiality assurances to the defendant. Did you promise Manning confidentiality and then rat him out to the Government?

A. Um — I — I think I’d better plead the 5th Amendment on that.

STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE. Objection. Rule 301.

Q. Entrapment is not a crime under Federal or military law, your Honor. Prosecution will have to show later that entrapment wasn’t a factor in this investigation, however.

MJ. Overruled. Witness will answer.

Q. Did you or didn’t you?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, in June, you told New York magazine, “When Lamo was arrested, he’d been offended by the government prosecution– ‘criminalizing curiosity,’ he called it. Now he was offended by Manning. “He’s a traitor at best,” Lamo said.” [holds up copy of magazine]. Did you say that?

A. Er, yes.

Q. And did you tell Greenwald in 2010, I refer to his interview, “Well, in that case, I regret that statement. I don’t think he’s a traitor. I think. He did something not too different from what I did: break the law to accomplish what he believed to be a good purpose, and I apologized to a judge in tears for that, and I would be a hypocrite if I didn’t still believe that it was wrong now.”

STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE: Objection, facts not in evidence.

Q. Your Honor, here is the case file for the New York Times 2002 hacking trial, which we will come to.

MJ. Overruled.

Q. Now, do you think the Defendant is a traitor, something the Army has not charged him with at all? Or that he acted “in good purpose?”

A. Uhhh ….

Q. Or can this court put any weight on anything you say? Including what year this is or what planet you’re on?

* * *

[much later]

Q. I’m through with the witness, your honor.

MJ. [to MPs] Take the witness out. And clean him up.

Q. Since this was the main witness, I move for dismissal.  . . .

Sidebar: The Atlantic has already published another armchair-psychiatric look at Manning‘s purported life and proclivities, using the full chat logs. Silly reading. New York Magazine also has a recent profile of Manning out. Greenwald’s reaction to the latter, which includes a pro-Manning testimonial by one of the soldiers in the Collateral Murder video, is still worth a read.