At Bradley Manning Pre-Trial Defense Attorney Asks That Presiding Officer Recuse Himself

A defense attorney for Pfc. Bradley Manning opened his pre-trial hearing Friday with a surprise demand that the investigating officer recuse himself on grounds that he is biased against Manning, who is charged with leaking a trove of government secrets to WikiLeaks. According to The Washington Post, the attorney, David E. Coombs, made the charge against Lt. Col. Paul Almanza, who is presiding over the hearing to determine whether Manning should face a court-martial. Almanza is a career prosecutor with the U.S. Justice Department, which has an open investigation into WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange’s role in the leak. In a dramatic move, Coombs argued that even the mere appearance of bias dictates that Almanza should remove himself from the proceeding. He listed several reasons, punctuating his arguments with gestures and turning to face the audience, which includes members of Manning’s family. Coombs tried to make the case that Almanza has already shown he is partial toward the prosecution, allowing only two of the defense’s 38 requested witnesses to appear. Almanza declined to close a portion of the proceeding that Coombs had asked be closed to avoid prejudicing the case against Manning, who was an Army intelligence analyst. Almanza, Coombs argued, allowed unsworn statements from government witnesses to be considered over the defense team’s objections. “Any of those individually would [suggest] you recuse yourself,” Coombs said. “Collectively, they mandate it,” adding, “A reasonable person would say, clearly in this case, the investigating officer is biased." The openly gay Manning, 23, is making his first public appearance since being detained in Baghdad in May 2010. He sat calmly, without expression, at the defense table, occasionally fiddling with a pen. He wore Army fatigues and prison-issue dark-rimmed glasses. He watched Coombs intently. Ultimately, it is up to Almanza to decide whether to recuse himself, legal experts said. Coombs also criticized the prosecution’s repeated request for delays to determine what material was classified and what damage it had caused to national security. The delays were approved by the Military District of Washington convening authority, or the military officer who ultimately will decide whether to send Manning to trial. Several of the defense witnesses that Coombs had wanted to call were prepared to testify that the national security harm from the leaked material was minimal, Coombs said. Yet Almanza declined to allow them to appear, Coombs said. “A year and a half later, this is what are we doing? Where’s the damage? Where’s the harm? That’s what the defense wanted to get at today in this hearing, yet you again ruled today, ‘no, I’m not going to hear that.’ ” Manning faces charges of aiding the enemy, which could carry a death penalty or life in prison, as well as violating the Espionage Act by causing government intelligence to be published on the Internet and several lesser charges. The Army has said it will not seek the death penalty, but aiding the enemy still could carry a life sentence if the case goes to trial and the convening authority decides to let that charge stand. Michael J. Navarre, a military law expert and former lieutenant commander in the Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps, said it was unlikely that Almanza would recuse himself. “Unless there are facts connecting the investigating officer to the actual Manning case, the fact that he works within the overall Department of Justice is unlikely to cause him to recuse himself or the convening authority to want to remove him,” Navarre said.