Deep Politics Forum
The persecution and prosecution of Bradley Manning - Printable Version

+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/Forum-Deep-Politics-Forum)
+--- Forum: Seminal Moments of Justice (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/Forum-Seminal-Moments-of-Justice)
+--- Thread: The persecution and prosecution of Bradley Manning (/Thread-The-persecution-and-prosecution-of-Bradley-Manning)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

The persecution and prosecution of Bradley Manning - Peter Lemkin - 16-12-2011

Bradley Manning hearing updates

Continuing coverage from Fort Meade, Maryland, where a pre-trial hearing is taking place for the Wikileaks suspect Bradley Manning

Activists hold signs in support of Bradley Manning, whose pre-trial hearing gets under way in Fort Meade, Maryland. Photograph: Jacquelyn Martin/AP

10.11am: Manning supporters are sitting in the public gallery remaining silent, during the opening session. They were warned by the investigating officer at the start that they will be removed if they interupt the hearing.

Manning himself has been taking notes intermittently. He was asked by Almanza a series of procedural questions.

"Yes sir", he replied in a quiet voice on being asked if he understood the charges, his entitlement to representation and whether he was satisfied with his counsel.

10.05am: The hearing has just opened with a dramatic statement by Bradley Manning's civilian lawyer, David Coombs. In effect, he's demanded that the presiding judge known in an Article 32 hearing like this as the investigating officer takes himself off the hearing because he is biased and a stooge of the defence department.

Coombs turned tails on the court and started cross-examining the judge in astonishing scenes. The lawyer gave four reasons why the invesigating officer, Lt Col Paul Almanza, should recuse himself.

First, Almanza has worked since 2002 as a prosecutor for the US department of defence, in which time he's prosecuted about 20 cases. Coombs argued that that puts Almanza into a conflict of interest, because the defence department is involved in the on-going criminal investigation into Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.

"You have been at the Department of Justice since 2002, by your own admission you have prosecuted 20 cases. And the DoJ has an on going investigation in this case.

Mr Coombes added: "If the Department of Justice got their way, they would get a plea in this case, and get my client to be named as one of the witnesses to go after Julian Assange and Wikileaks."

Second, Coombs complained about the way his desired list of defence witnesses was rebutted by the judge. The prosecution, he said, asked for 20 witnesses and was granted every one.

By contrast, Coombs asked for 48 witnesses and had only two approved. "Two out of 48!" he exclaimed. "In a case in which the government has charged [Manning] with aiding the enemy which carries the maximum sentence right now of death!"

He added: "A reasonable person would see the investigation officer as biased", he added in regards to the witness list.

Third, Coombs complained that he had asked for the entire Article 32 hearing to be conducted in private, but the judge had again rebutted the request. He said that media reporting of the proceedings would prejudice the minds of any future jurors in a full court-martial.

Fourth, he protested that he was not allowed to call witnesses who would challenge the nature of the material that was leaked to WikiLeaks and question the harm that it caused the US national interest.

"Why are we here a year and a half later?" the lawyer asked. "The government has asked for delay after delay after delay."

Coombs said that Almanza's decision to allow unsworn statements about the WikiLeaks documents, against the wishes of the defence, was a clear breach of the Rules of Court-Martial that governs the Article 32 hearing. He said, referring to WikiLeaks, that "all of this has been leaked, and a year and a half later this is what you are doing? What's the damage? What's the harm?"

He concluded: "We request that you consider this motion and after doing so recuse yourself in this case."

Faced with this extraordinary bombardment directed against himself, Almanza has now called a break in the proceedings to consider whether he should remove himself from the judge's seat. We knew this hearing was going to be strange, but already this has entered the realm of the surreal.

Manning himself has been in court listening to all this. He has short brown hair, is wearing slightly Joe 90-style dark-rimmed glasses, and military fatigues.

10.02am: The full charge sheet for Manning was released for the first time before the start of proceedings. It includes a total of 23 counts against the soldier, the most serious of which is that Manning knowingly gave "intelligence to the enemy, though indirect means".

The idea that WikiLeaks constituted an "enemy", or a conduit to an enemy of the US state, will in itself be subject of much debate and legal argument. A second charge follows a similar theme and accuses of Manning of causing information to be published "having knowledge that intelligence published on the internet is accessible to the enemy".

Manning is charged with passing information from a secure database containing more than 250,000 records belonging to the US government a reference to the US embassy cables that were published by WikiLeaks through a group of international newspapers including the Guardian in November 2010.

Another count refers to the first act of publication by WikiLeaks in February 2010 of a US embassy cable known as Reykjavik-13.

Bradley Manning is now being allowed to move among other military prisoners, according to the Pentagon. Photograph: AP

10.00am: Bradley Manning will be seen in public for the first time since he was arrested in Iraq in May 2010 for allegedly leaking hundreds of thousands of secret US state documents to WikiLeaks.

Security will be exceptionally some say bizarrely tight at the opening on Friday of the pre-trial hearing of the WikiLeaks suspect at Fort Meade in Maryland. Though a small number of seats in the military courtroom have been reserved for members of the public, rigid reporting restrictions will be in place that will prevent any live coverage of the proceedings.

The army has come under criticism for taking so long to bring Manning to trial, and faces further questions over how it is conducting the start of deliberations. The hearing is a preliminary stage, known as an Article 32, equivalent to a civilian pre-trial hearing and is designed to assess whether the US soldier should be sent to a full court-martial.

Manning was charged in March with 37 counts relating to the leaking of hundreds of thousands of secret documents to WikiLeaks from secure US databases that he allegedly accessed while working as an intelligence officer at the Forward Operating Base Hammer outside Baghdad. The documents included Afghan and Iraq war logs, a trove of US embassy cables from around the world and video footage of a US helicopter fatally firing on a group of civilians in Iraq including two Reuters employees.

It was the largest leak of US state secrets in history and Manning faces a maximum sentence of life in custody with no chance of parole. Technically he could also face the death penalty on the count of "aiding the enemy", but prosecutors have made clear they will not seek the ultimate punishment.

Supporters of the soldier will be outside Fort Meade at noon to protest against his prosecution, and a further rally will be held at the military base on Saturday to mark Manning's 24th birthday. Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers on the Vietnam war, will be addressing the protesters.

The persecution and prosecution of Bradley Manning - Peter Lemkin - 16-12-2011

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3392[/ATTACH]Prophets have existed since ancient times. Religions and cultural traditions from time immemorial have acknowledged their existence. Traditionally, prophets were seen as those who play a role of forecasting epochal change in society through their messages and insight.
In moments of crisis, people look for prophets. With expanding environmental degradation, political corruption and deepening economic turmoil, where can we find prophets in this modern age of crisis?
Many regard prophets as those who see the future and receive a vision. Yet, there is more to acting prophetically than this.
Prophets can be found in unexpected places. In a combat zone, where life and death converge, one can be closest to the threshold between past and future. The acts of war resisters, veterans and soldiers who from out of their moral convictions choose not to carry on killing or support war can be seen as prophetic.
There are soldiers who refused to be deployed as a result of a moral awakening. They stand at a threshold between a certain reality and the potential to transform it. It is like the voice of Dr. King was speaking to the core of their being when he said:
Cowardice asks the question, Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' But conscience asks the question, Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but because conscience tells one it is right.
These people found the strength and courage within to act out of hope rather than fear, choosing to break the chain of command coming from the past to live up to a higher vision what humans ought to be. They remind us how what we often call conscience is a call from the future, a gentle tapping on the shoulder.

At the 2008 Winter Soldier event, Jon Turner testified about his experiences of the routine killing of innocent people in Iraq and other war crimes. He spoke about his choice to follow a different path, "I am sorry for the things that I did. I am no longer the monster that I once was".
More recently, former US solider Ethan McCord began speaking out about the incident in the "Collateral Murder" video released by WikiLeaks in 2010. He grabbed a little girl from amidst the carnage and ran for help. Later that day as everyone ignored what had happened, McCord could not. He recounted his experience.:
I went to my room to try to the clean the children's blood from my uniform. Fighting back tears from what I'd seen, my emotions were taking over; the very thing that the army taught us not to do in war, I was doing. My humanity and love for the human race was overcoming everything they taught me.

Those dissidents took courageous steps to change the course of history. For them, the connection to the future is not to be experienced passively, like having visions given to them; instead they may have felt they should be active participants in manifesting it.
Prophets access a present moment where both the past and potential of the future co-exist. They choose one reality out of multiple potentialities. In this regard, the strength of prophets really lies in their courage to choose hope over fear, stepping into unknown territory to bring forth a vision of a kind of future that is imagined through their high ideals.
A similar prophetic act can live in the conviction and actions of whistle-blowers. If alleged whistle-blower Bradley Manning was the one that leaked the documents released by WikiLeaks, perhaps he too had glimpsed events that have not yet taken place.
In his alleged chat logwith Adrian Lamo before the US diplomatic cables were released, Manning shared his anticipation:
(12:52:33 PM) bradass87: Hilary Clinton, and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack when they wake up one morning, and finds an entire repository of classified foreign policy is available, in searchable format to the public…=L
(1:11:54 PM) bradass87: and… its important that it gets out … i feel, for some bizarre reason
(1:12:02 PM) bradass87: it might actually change something
He might have seen the future where deep transformation is in the making and how the world might change for the better. If allegations are true and the chat logs are genuine, Manning took huge personal risks to step into that future as participant in making this vision happen. He didn't just passively wait for someone to change the world.
(02:21:18 AM) bradass87: and god knows what happens now ….
(02:22:27 AM) bradass87: hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms
(02:23:06 AM) bradass87: if not… than we're doomed
(02:23:18 AM) bradass87: as a species
Between fear and hope he weighed in on hope, on the human potential to do good over against the greed, despair and cynicism of humanity. He expressed his simple faith in ordinary people. It seems he genuinely believed that if this information would become available, an effective portion of global society would take action and demand justice, and on some level he was right.
Prophets spark hope for deep change. Whether Manning is really the source of those documents or not, he has already changed the course of human history. The Occupy Movement is spreading like wildfire and is a sign that the world is catching up to his courage to take hold of the future. For many he has become a symbol of the lowly David that stood up to the corporate-military complex Goliath.
Michael Moore recently acknowledged that the action of alleged whistle-blower Bradley Manning triggered the Occupy Movement:
It's not a magazine from Vancouver. It's notif you want toif you really want to pin it down to somebody, I would thank Bradley Manning … But if one courageous soldier hadn'tallegedlydone what he had done, if he hadn't done this, itwho knows? But it was already boiling just beneath the surface, and it just needed somebody to get it going.
He is a prophet, a hero incarcerated without due process, stripped naked and treated inhumanely. In every age and society, prophets were perceived as a threat to illegitimate power and were attacked or ridiculed.
In a recent article; Bradley Manning Finally Gets a Hearing, Kelley B. Vlahos gave a thorough update on the life of this courageous young man. She concludes with the thought that what happened to him could happen to any one of us:
Which is why when they say we are all Bradley Manning,' they mean it. In many ways this is not just about one man, but a machine that has gotten way ahead of our ability to understand or accept it.
On one hand, this is true and people need to face this harsh reality. Yet, "We are all Bradley Manning" also indicates something else. It indicates the power to access a future that intrinsically resides in each of us and that we can tap into our own prophetic voice within, as he did.
Manning had a certain faith in ordinary people and chose to act prophetically for humanity. Do we hear his voice and see what he saw as human potential? Can we find faith in the actions of ordinary people like Manning did?
In seeking a progressive path to the prophetic voice, journalism professor Robert Jensen said, "It is time for each of us to take responsibility for speaking in the prophetic voice." [1] He reminds us how "we don't need a prophet- we need prophets, ordinary people who are willing to tap into the prophetic voice that is within us all."[2]
Perhaps, we are now like many other prophets that came in times of crisis, standing at a similar critical time of decision in history. As Bradley Manning's court day is imminent this Dec 16, are we caught by the distraction of Christmas holidays? Who among us will hear the words of prophets and respond to this call from the future?
Notes:
1. Jensen, R. (2009). All my bones shake: Seeking a progressive path to the prophetic voice. Brooklyn: Soft Skull Press. p. 143.
2. Jensen, p. 161.
Article:
http://wlcentral.org/node/2380

The persecution and prosecution of Bradley Manning - Peter Lemkin - 16-12-2011

double deleted - sorry.

The persecution and prosecution of Bradley Manning - Peter Lemkin - 18-12-2011

Statement to USA Authorities on Bradley Manning's Birthday

Statement from the 50 people who have gathered outside the USA Embassy, Reykjavik, Iceland 17th of December 2011 to show Bradley Manning solidarity on his 24th Birthday delivered to the USA Ambassador to Iceland.

Today marks the second birthday Private Bradley Manning spends in jail. He is accused of having leaked secret documents to WikiLeaks of unprecedented proportions exposing serious war crimes and how the general population in the USA and around the world have been lied to in relation to the war waged in their name.

It is obvious that Manning will not get a fair trial. The USA president Mr Obama has prior to Manning even being brought to court claimed he was guilty. Obama also said that Manning could not go unpunished the way Ellsberg, the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers, once did, because the two cases are too different. Ellsberg, who sees Manning as following in his footsteps, cannot accept this assessment. He only agrees with the president on one point: Manning disclosed secret information, he says, but "all of the pages that I released were top secret."

The US government celebrated the release of the 'Pentagon Papers' on the Vietnam War as a sign of its openness. The truth, however, is that President Barack Obama has taken a much tougher line on whistleblowers than his predecessors. It is though timely to remind him that blowing the whistle on war crimes is not a crime.

The USA Army has come under fire for keeping Manning under detention for 18 months without trial, as well as the conditions of his detention. Since his confinement, Manning has become a symbol of free speech. We second the demands of the Bradley Manning Support Network whom have pushed for his release and the dropping of all charges against him.

Posted by Birgitta Jónsdóttir at 8:57 PM

The persecution and prosecution of Bradley Manning - Peter Lemkin - 19-12-2011

FT. MEADE, Maryland One of Bradley Manning's officers in Iraq testified Sunday that after WikiLeaks published the "Collateral Murder" video that Manning allegedly passed to the organization, he sent her links to the video to show her that it was the same one stored on the military's classified network.

Capt. Casey Fulton, the government's first witness on the third day of the hearing, testified that she had asked the analysts in her unit if they had seen the video and what they thought of it.

Manning later approached her in person and told her it was the same video that was on the Defense Department's SIPRnet, a shared classified network that Manning's brigade, and others, used for gathering data and conducting analysis.

Fulton said she told him, "No way, that's not the same video. It's definitely shorter in duration" from the military video. She told him she would have to view the two videos side-by-side to verify if they were the same.

Manning subsequently sent her an email with two links to two video clips one to the video stored on SIPRnet, the other to the video published by WikiLeaks. The exchange shows how familiar Manning was with the video and highlights the extended interest he had in it, after WikiLeaks published it.

Another witness testified on Saturday that after WikiLeaks published the video, Manning contacted his aunt, Debora Van Alstyne, asking how the public was reacting to publication of the video. Manning's friend, Tyler Watkins, told Wired.com last year that Manning had also contacted him last year after the video was published, asking again how the public was reacting to the video.

In logged chats with former hacker Adrian Lamo, Manning was clear that the point of the leaking was to change people's minds about the war and the U.S. government:

(02:24:58 AM) bradass87: the reaction to the video gave me immense hope… CNN's iReport was overwhelmed… Twitter exploded…

(02:25:18 AM) bradass87: people who saw, knew there was something wrong

(02:26:10 AM) bradass87: Washington Post sat on the video… David Finkel acquired a copy while embedded out here

(02:26:36 AM) bradass87: [also reason as to why there's probably no investigation]

(02:28:10 AM) bradass87: i want people to see the truth… regardless of who they are… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public

UPDATE 12 noon Eastern

During the course of the government's direct examination of Fulton, prosecuting attorney Capt. Ashden Fein asked Fulton if, in the course of his work, Manning had a need to conduct searches on SIPRnet for certain keywords "GITMO SOP," "Julian Assange," "WikiLeaks" or whether he had reason to visit a specific part of the CENTCOM web site. Fulton replied "no" in all cases.

Another witness, fellow intelligence analyst Sgt. Chad Madaras, was later asked similar questions. Madaras and Manning shared computers at Forward Operating Base Hammer in Iraq, where they were deployed together. Madaras worked the day shift, and Manning mostly served on the night shift.

The government asked if Madaras had ever used their computers to search for some of the same terms, as well as the term "JTF GITMO" or the name "Birgitta Jonsdottir," or if he had ever used the Net Centric Diplomacy Database. Madaras replied "no" in each case.

The implication of the questioning seemed to be that the government had found forensic evidence that Manning's workstation computers had been used to search these terms, though there was no testimony that stated this directly.

Birgitta Jonsdottir is the name of an Icelandic politician who worked with WikiLeaks to edit the "Collateral Murder" video before the organization published it in April 2010. The Net Centric Diplomacy Database, is a database that stored 250,000 U.S. State Department cables that Manning is alleged to have downloaded and passed to WikiLeaks. CENTCOM is also significant, because Manning allegedly obtained an Army video from a CENTCOM web site and passed it to WikiLeaks.

Following Fulton's testimony, two government witnesses invoked their right to silence under Article 31 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The two witnesses, Sergeant First Class Paul Adkins and Warrant Officer 1 Kyle J. Balonek, were dismissed by the court, despite objections from defense attorney David E. Coombs.

Adkins's testimony would have been significant to the defense's case because he is the only soldier known to have been demoted as a result of an internal Defense Department investigation into the Army's handling of Manning.

Adkins had been a master sergeant at FOB Hammer in Iraq and had been responsible for the security of the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) where Manning worked on classified information. In testimony with other witnesses yesterday, it was revealed that Adkins had failed to pass information up the chain of command about behavioral problems that Manning had exhibited on a number of occasions both before his deployment to Iraq and in the period around Dec. 2009, when he is alleged to have begun his major leaking activity.

A large part of the defense strategy is to show that had the Army responded to Manning's behavioral problems correctly, he should never have been deployed to Iraq in the first place or should have had his security clearance revoked early on his deployment both of which would have made it impossible for him to obtain the documents he allegedly leaked to WikiLeaks.

The other witness who invoked his right to silence, Warrant Officer 1 Kyle Balonek, was supervisor during the day shift at the SCIF. Manning had worked for a time on the day shift and sometimes worked on research products for Balonek.

UPDATE 1:05pm

Proceedings in the court this morning continued in a contentious manner between defense attorney Coombs and the proceeding's equivalent of a judge, Investigating Officer Capt. Paul Almanza. At one point, when the IO tried to stop a line of questioning with a witness, questioning the relevancy. Coombs abruptly walked to the defense table and grabbed a book containing Article 32 procedural rules and brandished it to Almanza.

"I would caution the investigating officer as to case law," he said, adding that the defense should be given wide latitude in questioning to obtain evidence.

"The IO should not arbitrarily limit cross-examination, " he said. "I am not going off into the ozone layer about this. . . I should be allowed to ask questions about what this witness saw so I can have this testimony under oath as part of discovery."

The persecution and prosecution of Bradley Manning - Peter Lemkin - 20-12-2011

Today marks Day 4 of Manning's Article 32 hearing, and it could continue for several more days -- but the government's influence over the trial is already becoming apparent.[SUP]1[/SUP]
Lt. Dan Choi, who was forcibly banned from Fort Meade today while trying to attend Bradley's hearing, argues that if the allegations are true, Manning's actions "were not only in the interest of his unit, but also in the interest of the country."[SUP]2[/SUP] Choi adds, "He was the only soldier in the chain of command to do the right thing, so that's why we have to support him."
At the start of his hearing, Bradley Manning's attorney David Coombs requested Investigating Officer Paul Almanza recuse himself from the case because of his ties to the Justice Department and their ongoing investigation of Wikileaks.[SUP]3[/SUP] The US government and Almanza both believed he was not biased and refused to remove him from presiding over the hearing.
We knew that a fair trial would not come easy from the beginning. The government blocked all but 10 of the witnesses requested by the defense without explanation. The 10 witnesses approved for questioning by the defense were the same 10 witnesses requested by the prosecution as well. IO Almanza has also allowed witnesses to submit unsworn statements without appearing in court, which is not allowed under military law.[SUP]4[/SUP]
This is just the tip of the iceberg -- so much more has been covered in this hearing and I highly encourage you to visit http://dissenter.firedoglake.com to catch up on Kevin's superb coverage if you haven't already.

1. Bradley Manning Pre-Trial Hearing: Live Blog, Day 4. 12/19/2011, The Dissenter.
2. Army Lt. Dan Choi Pinned to Ground, Thrown Off Base Before Manning Trial. 12/19/2011, FDL News Desk.
3. Manning Defense Files Motion Requesting Article 32 Officer Recuse Himself. 12/16/2011, The Dissenter.
4. Investigative Officer Refuses to Compel Two Key Witnesses to Testify at Manning Hearing. 12/18/2011, The Dissenter.

The persecution and prosecution of Bradley Manning - Magda Hassan - 20-12-2011

The Case Against Alleged WikiLeaks Supplier Bradley Manning Takes a Strange Turn

By Alexis Madrigal

Dec 19 2011, 2:44 PM ET 6 [Image: manning_615.jpg]
The military hearing that will determine whether Bradley Manning will receive a court martial for his alleged role in leaking documents to WikiLeaks took a strange turn. In a courthouse in Fort Meade, Maryland, a prosecution witness testified that he found thousands of State Department cables on Manning's computer, but those cables did *not* match those released by WikiLeaks.

If the cables found on Manning's computer don't match the ones WikiLeaks has, the defense can argue that Julian Assange's outfit may have had a different source for the documents. Wired's Kim Zetter was in the courtroom and filed a report on this dramatic moment, which could become a lynchpin of the defense's case.

Special Agent David Shaver, a forensic investigator with the Army's Computer Crimes Investigations Unit, testified Sunday that he'd found 10,000 U.S. diplomatic cables in HTML format on the soldier's classified work computer, as well as a corrupted text file containing more than 100,000 complete cables...
But Shaver said none of the documents that he found on Manning's computer matched those that WikiLeaks published.
Shaver wasn't asked how many cables he compared to the WikiLeaks cables. In re-direct examination, however, he noted that the CSV file in which the cables were contained was corrupted and suggested this might indicate that it had not been possible to pass those cables to WikiLeaks for this reason. The defense objected to this assumption, however, noting that Shaver could not speculate on why the cables were not among those released by WikiLeaks.
The revelation is a bit confusing, but it could be the first chink in the prosecution's forensic case against Manning.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/12/the-case-against-alleged-wikileaks-supplier-bradley-manning-takes-a-strange-turn/250216/

The persecution and prosecution of Bradley Manning - Magda Hassan - 20-12-2011

FT. MEADE, Maryland A day after a government forensic expert testified that he'd found thousands of diplomatic cables on the Army computer of suspected WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning, he was forced to admit under cross-examination that none of the cables he compared to the ones WikiLeaks released matched.
Special Agent David Shaver, a forensic investigator with the Army's Computer Crimes Investigations Unit, testified Sunday that he'd found 10,000 U.S. diplomatic cables in HTML format on the soldier's classified work computer, as well as a corrupted text file containing more than 100,000 complete cables that had been converted to base-64 encoding.
Six months after Manning was arrested for allegedly leaking documents to WikiLeaks, the site began publishing 250,000 U.S. diplomatic cables that ranged in date from December 1966 to the end of February 2010. But Shaver said none of the documents that he found on Manning's computer, and that he then compared to those that WikiLeaks published, matched the WikiLeaks documents.
Shaver wasn't asked how many cables he compared to the WikiLeaks cables, or which dates those cables had, he just said he matched "some of them." In re-direct examination, however, he noted that the CSV file in which the cables were contained was corrupted and suggested this might indicate that it had not been possible to pass those cables to WikiLeaks for this reason. The defense objected to this assumption, however, noting that Shaver could not speculate on why the cables were not among those released by WikiLeaks.
The cross-examination of Shaver focused on establishing that there might have been legitimate reasons for the State Department cables to be on Manning's computers, since intelligence analysts were given access to them to do their job. One of Manning's superiors testified earlier in the hearing that he had sent a link to Manning and other analysts directing them to the location where they could find the cables.
The defense also established that it's possible Manning's computer could have been used by someone else it was already established in previous testimony that he shared his work computers with another soldier and also raised questions about the possibility that other soldiers knew Manning's password and therefore could have logged into his computer using his credentials and user profile.
In addition to the State Department cables found on Manning's computer, Shaver also testified Sunday that he'd found links between evidence on Manning's laptop and two other WikiLeaks releases: the so-called "Collateral Murder" Apache helicopter video and Gitmo prisoner assessments.
Last April, WikiLeaks began publishing a trove of more than 700 Guantanamo Bay prisoner assessment reports.
Shaver discovered scripts for Wget a web-scraping tool on Manning's computer that pointed to a Microsoft SharePoint server holding copies of the Gitmo documents. He ran the scripts to download the documents, then downloaded the ones that WikiLeaks had published, compared them and found they were the same, Shaver testified.
He also said he found two copies of the Apache video on Manning's work computer in unallocated space.
But Shaver was forced to admit on Monday that he was not aware that soldiers in the secure facility Manning worked in had been viewing that controversial video and talking about in December 2009, months before WikiLeaks published it. That, the defense seemed to suggest, would explain why a copy might be on Manning's computer.
A second government forensic witness, a private contractor named Mark Johnson who works for Mantech International, testified that he examined the forensic image of Manning's personal laptop, a Macbook Pro. On that computer he discovered chat logs of conversations that Manning allegedly had with former hacker Adrian Lamo. Johnson revealed that the Adium chat program was installed on Manning's computer and was used to conduct the chat with Lamo.
In a screen shot of the chat log shown in court, Manning's name was completely spelled out, as opposed to Lamo's version of the chat logs which the hacker gave authorities in May 2010 and showed Manning's chats under the name Bradass87.
Manning's former roommate at Forward Operating Base Hammer also testified on Monday to say that he and Manning shared a room from October 2009, when they first deployed to Iraq, up until the time Manning was arrested in May 2010.
Specialist Eric Baker, a military police officer, said that he and Manning rarely talked. But he told the court that Manning "used the computer quite often" and said that when he'd wake up in the middle of the night Manning would be on the computer. He never saw what was on Manning's screen, he told the court
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/cables-match-laptop-manning/

The persecution and prosecution of Bradley Manning - Peter Lemkin - 20-12-2011

Bradley Manning's pre-trial hearing began at 9:00 AM on Friday, December 16 and it is expected to continue until December 23. It must be noted that this is not a trial but a hearing to decide whether or not there are reasonable grounds to charge PFC Manning and continue with a court-martial hearing. That being said, there will be no "guilty" or "not guilty" verdict at the end of these hearings.
Journalists who were allowed to sit in on the hearings were warned of "regular blackouts" while the court went in to private session.
There are a total of 34 counts against PFC Manning, the most serious of which is UCMJ Article 104, "Aiding the Enemy."
Defense: Mr David Coombs, Major Matthew Kemkes, Captain Paul Bouchard
Prosecution: Captain Ashden Fein, Captain Joe Morrow, Captain Angel Overgaard
Investigative Officer: Lieutenant Colonel Paul Almanza
(Bradley Manning being escorted from a military vehicle at Ft. Meade, MD. Photo: AP/Patrick Semansky)
Day 4:
At the end of yesterday's hearing, LTC Almanza permitted the Government's request to remove journalists and members of the public from viewing portions of today's hearing. Coombs' objected to this, but no further action was taken.
Today's hearing did not resume at the scheduled 9AM, due to meetings with LTC Almanza and the prosecution and defense.
Prosecution Witness Testimony: Special Agent David Shaver
Shaver had testified yesterday about searching PFC Manning's computers and was cross-examined by the defense today.
Shaver said he found an SD card in PFC Manning's aunt's house which contained 100,000 Combined Information Data Network Exchange (CIDNE) reports from Iraq and Afghanistan as well as some photos and videos of PFC Manning. These files were located in unallocated space, which means they had most likely been deleted. Two .csv files were found, one containing 91,000 CIDNE reports from Afghanistan, and the other containing 400,000 CIDNE reports from Iraq. Both were unlocked with the password "TWink1492!!," which was also PFC Manning's log-in password to his MacBook. A text file was also found which contained the following, according to Wired:
"Items of historical significance of two wars Iraq and Afghanistan Significant Activity, Sigacts, between 00001 January 2004 and 2359 31 Dec 2009 extracts from CSV documents from Department of Defense and CDNE database. These items have already been sanitized of any source identity information.
"You might need to sit on this information for 90 to 180 days to best send and distribute such a large amount of data to a large audience and protect the source.
"This is one of the most significant documents of our time removing the fog of war and revealing the true nature of 21st century asymmetric warfare.
"Have a good day."
Prosecution Witness Testimony: Specialist Eric Baker
SPC Baker served with a military police detachment and was PFC Manning's roommate in Iraq. He testified that with PFC Manning very often, and that PFC Manning was often on the computer. He said that he never used PFC Manning's MacBook Pro.
When questioned by the defense, SPC Baker said that early on PFC Manning had said things which led him to believe PFC Manning was gay, and from then on talked to him only when necessary.
Prosecution Witness Testimony: Mark Johnson
Mark Johnson is a digital forensics contractor for ManTech International who works for the US Army Criminal Investigation Command (CCIU). He did forensic testing on PFC Manning's personal MacBook Pro laptop.
Johnson testified about finding Adium, an instant messaging program, on PFC Manning's computer along with chat logs between him and a person using the handle "dawgnetwork@jabber.ccc.de," whom Johnson believed to be Julian Assange. Another handle was on PFC Manning's buddy list, "pressassociation@jabber.ccc.de," which was associated with two names, Julian Assange and Nathaniel Frank. Johnson said it was odd for someone to assign two names to one alias. Johnson spoke of yet another set of chatlogs, this time between PFC Manning and Eric Schmiedl, assumed to be a photographer, where PFC Manning admits to being the sound of the "Collateral Murder" video.
Johnson also testified about another text file being found with contact information for "MR JULIAN ASSANGE" which listed an Icelandic telephone number.
CPT Morrow, one of PFC Manning's defense lawyers, asked about one of the charges related to releasing the Army's Global Address List (GAL), which contained email addresses for all soldiers based in Iraq. Johnson testified that he had found a task instruction on the computer about obtaining the GAL, as well as Exchange-formatted email addresses, but said there was no evidence of this being released.
PFC Manning Supporters Hassled
During a recess Daniel Ellsberg, famous for leaking the Pentagon Papers, approached PFC Manning to introduce himself, but was quickly escorted out of the courtroom. He was later allowed to return.
Meanwhile, former Army Lieutenant Dan Choi was arrested at Fort Meade for what the Army says was "creating a disturbance." Choi says he was simply calling out to SSG Leo. His rank was ripped off and he was escorted off the base.

The hearing will continue at 9AM tomorrow.
Article:
http://wlcentral.org/node/2385

The persecution and prosecution of Bradley Manning - Peter Lemkin - 21-12-2011

Last week, after an astounding 567 days in prison, Bradley Manning - the US Army private accused of leaking the WikiLeaks documents - finally began his pre-trial hearing.In the year and a half since he has been in jail, Manning has been severely mistreated by his jailers, has been assumed guilty by the president and now potentially faces life in jail. Yet the "crime" he is accused of is something many US officials do with regularity: leak classified information in the public interest to news organisations.When Manning was held at Quantico military base earlier this year, he was shamefully subjected to extremely harsh, even torturous, conditions. He was forced to sit alone in his cell for 23 hours a day, was barred from exercise or socialising with other inmates, and stripped naked at night - all despite showing no behavioural problems.Over 250 law professors, including President Obama's Constitutional law professor at Harvard Law School, Laurence Tribe, signed a letter calling the treatment of Manning illegal, unconstitutional and possibly torture. Former State Department spokesman PJ Crowley, the State Department's lead critic of WikiLeaks, was even forced to resign when he called the treatment of manning "ridiculous and counter-productive and stupid".Around the same time President Obama was defending Manning's treatment, he was also publicly stating that Manning "broke the law" - despite not being convicted of any crime. Many legal observers found the remarks inappropriate and potentially "unlawful command influence". As Salon's Glenn Greenwald asked, "How can Manning possibly expect to receive a fair hearing from military officers when their Commander-in-Chief has already decreed his guilt?"The government should have to answer for its statements and treatment of Manning in court no matter what his alleged crime, but the government's own assessments of the disclosures and similar acts makes its reaction that much worse.According to Manning's lawyer, the White House, State Department, and Defence Department have each conducted secret reviews of the WikiLeaks disclosures. Each review found the disclosures did not damage national security. Reportedly, the reviews conclude the facts revealed in the WikiLeaks disclosures were "either dated, represented low-level opinions or [were] already known because of previous public disclosures". The government has so far refused to release the alleged studies, even though they could potentially impact Manning's case."How can Manning possibly expect to receive a fair hearing from military officers when their Commander-in-Chief has already decreed his guilt?"- Glen GreenwaldOf course, anyone who has been paying attention already knew that the government's hysteria over the disclosures has been wildly exaggerated from the beginning. Officials have quietly, but consistently, admitted they cannot point to single person who has died because of the WikiLeaks disclosures, despite constantly claiming WikiLeaks was putting "hundreds of lives at risk".Misleading the public in order to shut down WikiLeaksMore than a year ago, when asked for the Pentagon's official response amidst calls for WikiLeaks to be labelled a terrorist organisation and the alleged leaker to be charged with treason, then-Secretary of Defence Robert Gates said the disclosures were "embarrassing" and "awkward", but downplayed any real damage.When then-State Department spokesman PJ Crowley was publicly saying the disclosures created "substantial damage", State Department officials were privately admitting the disclosures were "embarrassing but not damaging". Reuters reported that "the administration felt compelled to say publicly that the revelations had seriously damaged American interests in order to bolster legal efforts to shut down the WikiLeaks website and bring charges against the leakers."In other words, they were lying to help their case against Manning.At the same time, the documents have provided the public a much-needed window into US affairs that is increasingly and ludicrously secret, and the most consequential foreign policy event that WikiLeaks did influence - the democratic revolution in Tunisia - was an event the US State Department applauded. Unfortunately, Manning's lawyer has been severely restricted in raising questions such as "Why is this information classified in the first place?" As Denver Nicks wrote in the Daily Beast, "By truncating the conversation, the state has robbed the public of a unique opportunity to learn about the secrecy system operating in its name and on its dime."It's important to note that the regular leaking of classified information by high-ranking US officials has continued unabated - and unpunished - since Manning has been in jail. In the past year, US officials have leaked non-WikiLeaks related classified information to many of the US' most established news publications about Afghanistan, Pakistan, Russia, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Iran, China and others. Much of the information is likely classified at a higher level than anything Manning is accused of leaking.Just two weeks ago, "several US officials" anonymously leaked classified information to Bloomberg News about the drone - one of the most classified in the US arsenal - that crashed in Iran. US officials did the same for the Associated Press the day before.The sole leak investigation involving a high-ranking official is that of former CIA general counsel John Rizzo, whose only mistake was apparently speaking on-the-record about the same drone program. But as National Journal reported, the investigation will most likely end not with life in prison, but "with some sort of formal reprimand, and possibly a financial penalty such as a decrease in his government pension".It's clear the US has lost more because of its treatment of Manning - and the extreme double standard it has held him to - than because of any crime he allegedly committed.Trevor Timm is an activist and blogger for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. He specializes in free speech issues and government transparency.