Today, The defense for PFC. Bradley Manning delivered its opening statement in his trial.

David Coombs, Manning’s defense lawyer, opened with an account of an incident that occurred in Iraq on December 24, 2009. An American military convoy was moving through and a vehicle with five civilians moved to the side of the road to get out of the way.

A roadside bomb went off and missed the convoy but injured all five civilians in the car. One civilian died en route to the hospital.

On a hot summer day, hundreds of supporters of Pfc. Bradley Manning gathered outside the gates of Fort Meade in Maryland, where Manning’s trial is scheduled to begin on June 3. They came on Saturday from cities on the east coast and other parts of the United States to show their support for someone they consider to be not only a whistleblower but also a hero.

The government had previously indicated it would present all evidence related to all charges, regardless of the fact that Pfc. Bradley Manning pled guilty to some of the offenses he faced. But, in military court today, a military prosecutor informed the judge that the government would not be making a case that Manning committed the greater offense alleged in relation to the disclosure of a diplomatic cable from the US embassy in Reykjavik, Iceland.

A final pretrial hearing in the court martial of Pfc. Bradley Manning is being held today at Fort Meade in Maryland. Decisions on how to handle testimony from classified witnesses during the trial, which begins on June 3, are expected.

This week, another pretrial hearing is taking place at Fort Meade in the court martial of Pfc. Bradley Manning, the soldier who the United States military is prosecuting for disclosing information to WikiLeaks. It begins today and will take place over a period of at least two days. Except, for this hearing, the public will only be able to witness the first hour or so of proceedings and then the rest of the pretrial hearing will be a closed session without the press or public present.

Pfc. Bradley Manning is in military court at Fort Meade for another pretrial motion hearing. The hearing will be dealing with evidentiary issues and there may be a ruling on whether the government has to prove the enemy received information indirectly from Manning in order to prove he “aided the enemy.”

I covered this issue during the previous motion hearing. It was surreal because the defense was arguing the prosecution did not have to present evidence to prove the charge and was pushing for a lower threshold while the prosecution was arguing it did have to present this information. That switch occurred because the prosecutors want to present evidence that Osama bin Laden allegedly received digital media containing Iraq and Afghanistan war logs and State Department cables that he allegedly requested.

Just over one year ago, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) sent a letter to the military judge presiding over Pfc. Bradley Manning’s court martial that decried the “lack of openness” in proceedings. It condemned the fact that “documents and information filed in the case” were “not available to the public anywhere.” It complained about the failure to give the public proper “notice of issues to be litigated in the case.”

The US Army did not respond appropriately to the letter.

Former executive editor and current columnist of the New York Times has published an op-ed on Bradley Manning. Keller, who was executive editor when WikiLeaks obtained information from Manning and partnered with the newspaper to publish the disclosures, outlines what he believes could have happened.

WikiLeaks has documents on a February 2010 incident involving Iraqi Federal Police arrests and the detention and possible torture of opponents of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, according to a report by Philip Dorling for the Australian newspaper, The Age.

Frequently throughout the long and drawn out process that has become the court martial of Pfc. Bradley Manning, reporters covering proceedings have complained or expressed frustration about the lack of access to court records. But, finally, the military has decided to allow a smidgen of transparency in the court martial to possibly avoid a major First Amendment ruling in a military appeals court that could find the United States military should be granting the press and public access to court martial records in the same way the press and public have access to federal court records.