Coverage abounds of the recently filed appeal of PFC manning at the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, here (AP via Army Times), here (ABC News), here (AP via Stars&Stripes), and here (Wired)–yes, some of that is naval gazing.
Here is a link to the brief, all 209 pages, which features what it presents (at 34-44) as a seeming circuit split on application of “exceeds authorized access” in the one specification of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(1) (the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)). The first argument doesn’t seem like a strong attack on the pre-trial punishment violations that Judge Lind remedied by awarding 112 days of additional pre-trial confinement credit. And the RCM 1001(b)(4) argument is interesting in alleging that the parade of testimony concerning the potential impact of the leaks made by PFC Manning was not “directly relating to or resulting from the offenses”–though the argument focuses on “resulting from” and fails to discuss what the broader phrase “relating to” means.
It is difficult for me to comment on the legal and factual sufficiency arguments, but feel free to speculate if you have more information about the evidence than I do (or even if you don’t, which will likely happen).