Lawyer's release of names defended(@Gitmo)

[maddezmom]

Source: McClatchy

Navy lawyers dueled over whether a counterpart at Guantánamo spilled national security secrets by revealing names of war-on-terror captives.
BY CAROL ROSENBERG
[e-mail]
NORFOLK, Va. - Attorneys for a Navy lawyer facing up to 24 years in military prison for mailing a list of Guantánamo detainee names to a civil liberties group -- inside a Valentine -- argued at his court-martial Monday that the document wasn't secret and its disclosure did not endanger national security.

Lt. Cmdr. Matthew Diaz, 41, a Navy JAG or judge advocate general, faces five charges ranging from unlawfully releasing classified material to conduct unbecoming an officer.

''This case deals with the deliberate, intentional, conscious release of classified information,'' the prosecutor, Navy Lt. James Hoffman, told a jury of seven Navy officers at the week-long trial's opening here at Naval Station Norfolk.

Defense attorneys countered that the material wasn't marked ''SECRET'' on the computer screen or on the printout, drawn from a Guantánamo database that contains intelligence on war-on-terror captives.



Read more: http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/17226676.htm

[sinkingfeeling]

1. I hope that this brave Lt. Cmdr. will be found 'not guilty'.

[rmgarrette64]

2. Why?

Come on now, he mailed it secretely inside a Valentine. That's a pretty good clue that he knew he was doing something wrong. He's being charged with releasing classified information, which tells me that the list probably was, actually, classified.

I might agree with him that it shouldn't be, but just going and breaking the laws is not something we should condone. There are procedures to challenge classification, and since this LtCmd is a lawyer, I'd presume he knows that. He's in the military. Disobeying an illegal order is one thing, but nothing here appears to have been illegal orders.

From the little bit that was in the article (as always, I'm assuming there's not more to the story - I'm open to changing my mind if more info comes out) I'd expect him to be convicted, and that's what should happen.

R. Garrett

[Peace Patriot]

3. You might be right if Bush, Cheney, Gonzo & Cabal hadn't built an illegal prison

and held people in it without charge, and tortured them.

Sounds to me like you're with Nuremberg crowd--"just following orders."

His COMMANDERS were grossly violating the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions as ratified by Congress--federal law! And they still are. What right do they have to prosecute him, when, a) his lawyer says the material wasn't classified (and a defense of conscience, and whistleblower status, pertain even if it was), and b) his commanders were/are committing gross violations of the law, which compared to any technicality about "classification," are far, far more serious--they are war crimes.

Military officers are sworn to uphold the Constitution and the UCMJ. If he breaks a minor law to expose war crimes that go to the heart of the Constitution and the UCMJ, is it right to have to the real criminals prosecuting him?

His prosecution is a gross miscarriage of justice.

[sinkingfeeling]

4. I second that. He should be given 'whistle blower' protection. It's only by that un-Constitutional

Patriot Act that it's secret who is being held indefinitely, without charges, in places like Gitmo.

[Solly Mack]

5. k/r