The Defense has filed four additional motions on behalf of PFC Manning. It is the Defense’s hope that these filings will be available publicly prior to the upcoming Article 39(a) hearing. However, if the redacted motions are not available, the following will provide a general understanding of what Defense motions are being addressed on April 24th through 26th:
1) Motion to Dismiss the Article 104 Offense: This is the offense alleging that PFC Manning indirectly gave intelligence information to the enemy. The Defense is requesting the Court to either dismiss the Article 104 offense for failing to state an offense or determine that the term “indirectly,” as used in Article 104, is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments and renders Article 104 substantially overbroad in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution;
2) Motion to Dismiss Specification 1 of Charge II: This is an offense where the Government has alleged PFC Manning “wrongfully and wantonly caused to be published on the Internet intelligence belonging to the United States government, having knowledge that intelligence published on the Internet is accessible to the enemy.” The Defense is requesting the Court to dismiss the offense for failure to state a cognizable offense under Article 134 because as currently drafted, the offense is preempted by Article 104. In the alternative, the Defense is requesting the Court to dismiss the offense since that alleged conduct must be charged under Article 92 (a violation of a general regulation) and not Article 134.
3) Motion to Dismiss Based Upon Unreasonable Multiplication of Charges: The Defense is requesting the Court to dismiss and/or consolidate several specifications because, as charged by the Government, they constitute an unreasonable multiplication of charges. The Defense submits that the Government has unreasonably multiplied the charges against PFC Manning by charging violations of multiple provisions of Title 18 of the United States Code for conduct that should only be charged, if at all, as a violation of one provision of Title 18. Additionally, the Defense argues that the Government has unreasonably multiplied the charges against PFC Manning by breaking down single transactions into multiple specifications each.
4) Defense Renewal of Motion to Compel Discovery of Computers: The Defense is requesting the Court to amend its order requiring the Government to conduct searches on specifically identified computers for unauthorized software.
*5) Defense Motion to Dismiss all Charges With Prejudice: The Defense is requesting the Court to dismiss all Charges in the case with prejudice due to discovery violations by the Government. The Defense filed this motion with the Court on March 15th.