iStandWithBrad

Yes.

Bradley's defense attorney is arguing that at the time Bradley selected documents for release, he was focusing on what he hoped the public could gain from them. He is also arguing that Bradley thought he was being selective in what documents he chose, and that he knew they didn't mention sources by name. From the transcript of the defense's opening argument:

"At the time that PFC Manning selected this information that he believes he was selective. He had access to literally hundred of millions of documents as an all-source analyst, and these were the documents he released. And he released these documents because he was hoping to make the world a better place. He was 22 years old. He was young. He was a little naive in believing that the information that he selected could actually make a difference. But he was good intentioned in that he was selecting information that he hoped would make a difference.

He wasn't selecting information because it was wanted by WikiLeaks. He wasn't selecting information because of some 2009 most wanted list. He was selecting information because he believed that this information needed to be public. At the time that he released the information he was concentrating on what the American public would think about that information, not whether or not the enemy would get access to it, and he had absolutely no actual knowledge of whether the enemy would gain access to it. Young, naive, but good intentioned."

To address your second question, they have not yet discussed whether or not anyone has died because of the release of classified information. The court has ruled in favor of the prosecution that for purposes of finding PFC Manning guilty or innocent of the charge of "Aiding the enemy" it is unnecessary to show whether any damage was done to the national security of the U.S., because PFC Manning would not necessarily have known that at the time of his actions. However, this is likely to be discussed during the sentencing phase of the trial, after convictions.

To address your third question, there also has not been discussion of benefits to journalists from releasing the information. This also is more likely to be discussed during the sentencing portion of the trial, after he is found innocent or guilty of the remaining charges. We expect the sentencing portion to begin in 4-6 weeks.

Well, I can't say there is a general mood, since I'm sure the defense and prosecution feel very differently about this case. Journalistic coverage from the media room has been across the board, but many people still consider this a case which carries a lot of political importance.

The Washington Post sent out an article this week about how many members of the public attending the trial wear "Truth" t-shirts to show their support for PFC Manning's actions, although on the first day the military required them to turn them inside out, which MPs (military police) said related to concerns about propaganda.

The defense also issued a statement on Sunday thanking supporters and activists for their work, so they are not exactly shunning those who support what Manning did.

PFC Manning is very likely to get several years in prison at this point, but after three years in prison his attorney has indicated that he is happy his trial is starting, so I'd say the defense is still maintaining some hope that Manning will not receive a maximum sentence.

Maybe what has struck me the most personally is when the military prosecution showed a slide in part of their argument this week, that had been part of a powerpoint presentation used to train young Army intelligence analysts. In it, the Army trainer identified the Iraq War as a major terrorist recruitment tool. When you consider that the Army itself recognizes the Iraq War as a terrorist recruitment tool, and that Manning allegedly was trying to start a debate about the Iraq War, and is now being charged with "Aiding the enemy" himself, there are some layers of complexity and irony in this case.

Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, "Aiding the enemy" will be charged under the following circumstances:

“Any person who—

(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or

(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.”

PFC Manning is being charged under the second clause, where it says "indirectly". From the way the law is written, I would say sending a Victoria's Secret catalog to Bin Laden counts as direct communication, and the answer to your question depends on whether you had authority to send the catalog, or to communicate with Bin Laden in any other way. It sounds like you could be charged with "Aiding the enemy" for any unauthorized communication.

I was only conveying what has been said in the courtroom.