Continued from page 1

Manning’s lawyer asserts that the documents’ release did little actual harm.

Last month, 54 members of the European Parliament signed a letter to the U.S. government raising concerns about Manning’s 18-month pretrial confinement.

Manning’s supporters planned to maintain a vigil during the hearing and were organizing a rally for Saturday. By midday, about 50 protesters had assembled outside the main entrance, and a few dozen protesters marched down a road along the base carrying neon orange signs that read, “The Bradley Manning Support Network.”

Army Maj. Gen. Michael S. Linnington, commander of the Military District of Washington, could choose other courses aside from court-martial, including applying an administrative punishment or dismissing some or all of the 22 counts against Manning.

The Manning case has led to a debate over the broader issue of whether the government’s system for classifying and shielding information has grown so unwieldy that it is increasingly vulnerable to intrusions.

Absent from the Meade proceedings will be Assange, who runs WikiLeaks from England. He is fighting in British courts to block a Swedish request that he be extradited to face trial over rape allegations.

A U.S. grand jury is weighing whether to indict Assange on espionage charges, and WikiLeaks is straining under an American financial embargo.

The materials Manning is accused of leaking include hundreds of thousands of sensitive items: Iraq and Afghanistan war logs, State Department cables and a classified military video of a 2007 American helicopter attack in Iraq that killed 11 men, including a Reuters news photographer and his driver.

Manning, who turns 24 on Saturday, was detained in Iraq in May 2010 and moved to a Marine Corps brig at Quantico, Virginia, in July. Nine months later, the Army sent him to the military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, after a series of claims by Manning of unlawful pretrial punishment.

When it filed formal charges against Manning in March 2011, the Army accused him of using unauthorized software on government computers to extract classified information, illegally download it and transmit the data for public release by what the Army termed “the enemy.”

The first large publication of the documents by WikiLeaks in July 2010, some 77,000 military records on the war in Afghanistan, made global headlines. But the material provided only limited revelations, including unreported incidents of Afghan civilian killings as well as covert operations against Taliban figures.

In October 2010, WikiLeaks published a batch of nearly 400,000 documents that dated from early 2004 to Jan. 1, 2010. They were written mostly by low-ranking officers in the field cataloging thousands of battles with insurgents and roadside bomb attacks, plus equipment failures and shootings by civilian contractors. The documents did not alter the basic outlines of how the war was fought.

A month later, WikiLeaks released hundreds of thousands of State Department documents that revealed a hidden world of backstage diplomacy, including candid comments from world leaders.

It took months for the Army to reach the conclusion that Manning was competent to stand trial. In the meantime Manning’s civilian lawyer, 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.

Associated Press writer Matthew Lee contributed to this report.