Officer overseeing Manning hearing denies bias - Marine Corps News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Marine Corps Times

Officer overseeing Manning hearing denies bias

FORT MEADE, Md. — In the first court appearance of alleged WikiLeaker Pfc. Bradley Manning on Friday, the presiding officer in the military evidentiary hearing denied a motion by the Army private’s lawyer that the officer recuse himself for bias.

Lt. Col. Paul Almanza rejected lawyer David E. Coombs’ claim that Almanza’s civilian job at the Department of Justice biased him against Manning; Almanza said his job had nothing to do with Manning or WikiLeaks.

He also denied a move by Manning’s attorney to suspend the hearing while seeking to appeal Almanza’s decision to continue the case.

“I do not believe a reasonable person knowing all the circumstances would be led to the conclusion that my impartiality would be reasonably questioned,” Almanza said. “I thus deny the defense request.”

The evidentiary hearing is to determine whether Manning will face a court-martial for charges he aided the enemy by leaking hundreds of classified military and diplomatic documents from Army computers in Iraq.

Almanza said he holds a legislative and policy role with DOJ’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section and is on military leave while he presides over Manning’s case. Coombs said that this job was reason enough to step aside and noted DOJ has a pending case against WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange.

Almanza disagreed, saying at one point, “My purview does not include national security or anything that related to this case.”

Coombs said he plans to appeal Almanza’s denial to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals at Fort Belvoir, Va. The appeals court may rule on the action, called an extraordinary writ, before proceedings begin Saturday.

If it does not grant the writ, the prosecution will proceed to present its evidence and likely call witnesses to testify.

Almanza and Army prosecutors supported Coombs’ request to have a verbatim transcript of the day’s proceedings prepared for the appeal.

Before a day of stop-and-start proceedings in which attorneys dealt with Amanza’s request, Manning, 23, made his first public appearance. Wearing an Army camouflage uniform and dark-rimmed glasses, he was attentive during the hearing, frequently spoke with Coombs during breaks and mostly kept his hands folded.

A pew behind the defense table is allotted for the defense, but it was unclear whether any members of Manning’s family were present.

He spoke in court to answer a series of questions from Almanza, who inquired whether Manning was satisfied with his counsel: Coombs and his military attorneys Maj. Matthew Kemkes and Capt. Paul Bouchard. To each question Manning responded, “Yes, sir.”

After the proceedings completed for the day, a spectator reportedly called out, “Bradley Manning, you’re a hero.” Though Manning is allowed to interact with spectators, he did not appear to respond.

The Article 32 hearing at Meade is intended to yield a recommendation to Army Maj. Gen. Michael S. Linnington, commander of the Military District of Washington, on whether Manning should be court-martialed or be dealt with in some other way. Linnington could choose other courses, including applying an administrative punishment or dismissing some or all of the 22 counts against Manning.

If his case goes to trial and he is convicted, Manning could face life in prison. The government has said it would not seek the death penalty.

Coombs has sought to build a case that appears to rest in part on an assertion that the government’s own reviews of the leaks concluded that little damage was done.

Earlier in the proceedings, Coombs faulted Almanza for rejecting 36 out of the 48 witnesses Coombs requested, including witnesses he referred to as the “original classification authorities” who first decided to classify as secret the material WikiLeaks published.

“Let’s put witnesses on the stand,” Coombs said. “Why is this stuff classified? Why is it going to cause harm?”

The Pentagon determined in August 2010 that the initial leaks had not compromised intelligence sources or practices, although it said the disclosures could still cause significant damage to U.S. security interests.

An internal Army investigation has resulted in the service disciplining 15 Army personnel.

The Article 32 hearing is similar in some respects to a civilian grand jury hearing. However, the attorneys are permitted to cross-examine witnesses and may make requests for evidence. The investigating officer is expected to weigh evidence presented inside the courtroom and a summarized transcript before he makes a decision, which is not expected immediately.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.