PDA

View Full Version : The persecution and prosecution of Bradley Manning



Peter Lemkin
12-16-2011, 03:34 PM
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.

Peter Lemkin
12-16-2011, 09:00 PM
3392Prophets 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 not—if you want to—if you really want to pin it down to somebody, I would thank Bradley Manning … But if one courageous soldier hadn’t—allegedly—done what he had done, if he hadn’t done this, it—who 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

Peter Lemkin
12-16-2011, 09:18 PM
double deleted - sorry.

Peter Lemkin
12-18-2011, 08:40 AM
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

Peter Lemkin
12-19-2011, 11:30 AM
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.”

Peter Lemkin
12-20-2011, 07:24 AM
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.1
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."2 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.3 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.4
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 (http://action.firedoglake.com/page/m/5958d3f9/459aa523/622a643a/3dc649c6/2604268704/VEsD/) to catch up on Kevin's superb coverage if you haven't already.

1. Bradley Manning Pre-Trial Hearing: Live Blog, Day 4. (http://action.firedoglake.com/page/m/5958d3f9/459aa523/622a643a/3dc649c7/2604268704/VEsB/) 12/19/2011, The Dissenter.
2. Army Lt. Dan Choi Pinned to Ground, Thrown Off Base Before Manning Trial. (http://action.firedoglake.com/page/m/5958d3f9/459aa523/622a643a/3dc649c4/2604268704/VEsO/) 12/19/2011, FDL News Desk.
3. Manning Defense Files Motion Requesting Article 32 Officer Recuse Himself. (http://action.firedoglake.com/page/m/5958d3f9/459aa523/622a643a/3dc649c5/2604268704/VEsP/) 12/16/2011, The Dissenter.
4. Investigative Officer Refuses to Compel Two Key Witnesses to Testify at Manning Hearing. (http://action.firedoglake.com/page/m/5958d3f9/459aa523/622a643a/3dc6493a/2604268704/VEsHBQ/) 12/18/2011, The Dissenter.

Magda Hassan
12-20-2011, 01:58 PM
The Case Against Alleged WikiLeaks Supplier Bradley Manning Takes a Strange Turn By Alexis Madrigal

Dec 19 2011, 2:44 PM ET 6 (http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/12/the-case-against-alleged-wikileaks-supplier-bradley-manning-takes-a-strange-turn/250216/#disqus_thread) http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/science/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 (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/cables-match-laptop-manning/), 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/

Magda Hassan
12-20-2011, 02:13 PM
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 (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-24/us/wikileaks.guantanamo_1_wikileaks-documents-detainees-classified-military-files?_s=PM:US).
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 (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/chat-log-on-manning-computer/) 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/

Peter Lemkin
12-20-2011, 07:30 PM
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

Peter Lemkin
12-21-2011, 06:19 PM
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.

Peter Lemkin
12-21-2011, 07:36 PM
(PFC Bradley Manning being escorted into a courthouse in Ft. Meade, MD.
Bradley Manning’s pre-trial hearing began at 9:00 AM on Friday, December 16. 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
Day 5:
Today was the prosecution’s final day to call witnesses.
Prosecution Witness Testimony: Jirhleah Showman
Jirhleah Showman was a fellow intelligence analyst of PFC Manning’s, but has been out of the Army since July 2011. She testified over the telephone.
Showman testified about FSE Milliman having to fix PFC Maning’s computer at least twice a week. When asked about her and PFC Manning’s training, she said they learned “how to be an all-source analyst, how to handle, disseminate, and destroy classified information and what impact improper dissemination of classified information would have on the country.”
Showman said that PFC Manning was removed from the Brigade on May 9 after assaulting her. She said he punched her in the face unprovoked and displayed other uncontrollable behaviors. Showman stated she had gone to their supervisor MSG Adkins on multiple occasions to tell him PFC Manning was not fit for deployment or a security clearance, and needed counseling and discipline.
A second event was described by Showman in which PFC Manning had flipped a table and caused a computer to break. Showman said that PFC Manning had also told her he regularly felt paranoid. A third incident was also described where PFC Manning was screaming and salivating after being approached for waking up late. According to Showman, PFC Manning said he could not handle messing up.
The 2007 Apache helicopter video (“Collateral Murder”) was located on Showman’s computer. She testified that she had viewed it for no specific reason, along with other videos. Showman says that she and 3 or 4 other soldiers viewed the video, which is how PFC Manning would have seen it. The other soldiers who watched it would ask why the van in the video was fired upon, but there was no discussion about “Rules of Engagement.”
Prosecution Witness Testimony: Staff Sergeant Peter Bigelow
SSG Peter Bigelow worked with PFC Manning in the supply room, where he was transferred after being removed from the SCIF. He testified via telephone from a NATO base in Italy.
PFC Manning is believed to have used SSG Bigelow’s laptop, as well as another computer located in the supply room. It was suggested in court that PFC Manning used SSG Bigelow’s laptop to search for information on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. When questioned about this, SSG Bigelow said he had never heard of Julian Assange.
Prosecution Witness Testimony: Special Agent David Shaver
SA David Shaver returns again to testify after being present on both the 3rd and 4th days of the hearing.
He readdressed searching Jason Katz’ computer for a video of the Granai Airstrike. SA Shaver testified that the video found on Katz’ computer was not of the Airstrike. Katz seemed to be in the process of trying to decrypt the video file.
SA Shaver also testified that the chat logs from Adrian Lamo’s and PFC Manning’s computers were the same except for a few network connectivity issues that appeared.
Prosecution Witness Testimony: Special Agent Antonio Edwards
SA Antonio Edwards is an investigator for the CCIU and works for the Army CID.
He first became involved in this case when he was contacted via email by Mr. Chet Uber, who said he was aware of an individual in contact with an US Army intelligence analyst who was sending information to WikiLeaks. SA Edwards was then put in contact with Lamo.
SA Edwards said Lamo acted as a confidential informant for the Army CID, but that he was not given any other money than “reasonable expense reimbursement.”
(Adrian Lamo being escorted into the courthouse for PFC Bradley Manning's hearing. 3417
Prosecution Witness Testimony: Adrian Lamo
Before taking the stand, SA Edwards described Adrian Lamo’s role as a government informant. He was in this position from July 2010 until “three to four months ago.”
Lamo described being contacted on AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) by someone with the handle ‘bradass87.’ He also said he received emails from someone at the 10th Mountain Division, which was PFC Manning’s unit. Lamo testified that he confirmed these were from PFC Manning after receiving a friend request from him on Facebook. Lamo says he was given a username and password to the Army portal, but never used it because he thought it would be a crime.
Lamo testified to providing a 500GB hard drive, a net book, and two thumb drives to a special agent, though he was unable to state who he gave it to exactly.
The prosecution asked if Lamo had Asperger’s syndrome, which Lamo responded to affirmatively. He said he’s been successfully treated with medication and his current state is the same as that when he reported PFC Manning. Lamo’s history of hacking and his status as a convicted felon was also described.
The defense questioned Lamo about many specifics of the chat logs between him and PFC Manning. When asked if PFC Manning had been looking for guidance in his situation, Lamo responded that it seemed he was looking to brag about what he’d done.
Prosecution Witness Testimony: Troy Bettencourt
Troy Bettencourt had previously testified Saturday. He agreed with the defense’s case that the Army failed in its handling of PFC Manning.
PFC Bradley Manning’s Reaction to the Hearing
Bill Hennessey, the man who has been doing the courtroom illustrations for this hearing, had this to say about PFC Manning:
"He is very controlled and pays close attention to the proceedings. The only I have really seen him react was on the first day of proceedings when they said the penalty for this case was potentially the death penalty. I think it really struck him. He really sunk in his chair.”


The hearing resumes tomorrow at 9AM with the defense calling witnesses.
Article:
http://wlcentral.org/node/2386

Magda Hassan
12-23-2011, 01:24 PM
So much for justice being seen to be done....

The WikiLeaks saga is centered on issues of government transparency and accountability, but the public is being strategically denied access to the Manning hearing, one of the most important court cases in our lifetime.
About the Author Rainey Reitman (http://www.thenation.com/authors/rainey-reitman) Rainey Reitman, a steering committee member of the Bradley Manning Support Network, reported live from Manning’s...










Related Topics Bradley Manning (http://www.thenation.com/section/Bradley-Manning) Daniel Choi (http://www.thenation.com/section/Daniel-Choi) Nathan Fuller (http://www.thenation.com/section/Nathan-Fuller) Private First Class (http://www.thenation.com/section/Private-First-Class) Social Issues (http://www.thenation.com/section/Social-Issues) Technology (http://www.thenation.com/section/Technology) Trial (http://www.thenation.com/section/Trial) United States (http://www.thenation.com/section/United-States) journalist (http://www.thenation.com/section/journalist) officer (http://www.thenation.com/section/officer)




Twenty-four year old Private First Class Bradley Manning is facing life in prison or even the death penalty for leaking hundreds of thousands of documents about US wars and diplomacy to the whistle-blower website WikiLeaks. Some of the documents in question are now posted online and have been the fodder for news articles and public discussion about world politics for well over a year. This case will show much about the United States’ tolerance for whistle-blowers who show the country in an unflattering light. Are we a nation that tolerates criticism and values transparency? Or are we willing to crack down on whistleblowers of conscience? Unfortunately, the military is taking steps to block access by the media and the public to portions of the trial, robbing the world of details of this critically important trial.
No full transcript available
The details of Bradley Manning’s prosecution aren’t making their way into the public domain in large part because there is no full transcript being made public. During a recess from the hearing, I questioned a Public Affairs Officer who refused to provide his name about when a transcript would be made available. He said that it would likely be three to four months before any transcript would be available to the public—long after the media interest had faded.
Computers and recording devices denied
The government has denied any recording devices, audio or video, to be in the media center or the courtroom. This is particularly galling because the government has ample ability to record the proceedings in full and make them publicly available; in fact, the proceedings are being recorded and livecast to the media center where reporters under the strict supervision of Public Affairs Officers are taking frantic notes.
Journalists are forbidden from connecting to the Internet, making the possibility of live tweeting and live blogging challenging. The government allowed a mere 20 members of the public into the hearing. Spectators were denied laptops, meaning the only way for the public to get notes on the pretrial hearing is by scribbling notes on paper.
Media access denied or rescinded
When Nathan Fuller applied for a press pass to attend the hearing and take notes from the media center, his request was granted—and then rescinded. Among other things, Fuller is an intern with the Bradley Manning Support Network, a coalition of individuals and organizations working to cover the financial costs of Manning’s defense and educate the public about the issues involved. On Monday, I asked the Public Affairs Official at the hearing what criteria was used to assess whether someone qualified as a journalist for the purposes of receiving a press pass, and he said he did not know. I asked how many other individuals had been denied press passes to the hearing, and he again replied that he didn’t know. I asked how many other individuals had received press passes only to have them rescinded and got the same non-response. He didn’t know if there was a phone number to someone who would have the answers to these questions. I asked my questions again on Tuesday, and the Public Affairs Officer still knew nothing—except that he wouldn’t have an answer for my questions that day.
Overflow theater closed down even when people barred from courtroom
On the first day of the hearing, individuals who were not among the first twenty to arrive at the hearing were given access to a theater across the street. While recording devices were not allowed, this theater offered individuals the flexibility to enter and leave at will. As a result, there was access to cars where laptops and cell phones were stored, which facilitated reporting on the hearing. The theater also provided a way for individuals who were late to the hearing to be able to sit down and start watching the proceedings right away, instead of waiting in an empty trailer for an hour or more for the first recess. This is particularly important because there were long lines to have vehicles inspected to gain entrance to the base, and there was no published schedule for when the hearing would begin, making lateness a frequent occurrence.
After the second day, however, the overflow theater was closed down. I spoke to a military representative who said the theater was closed down because the courtroom wasn’t full. It is true that Saturday the courtroom was not at spectator capacity, but that was the day of the public rally protesting the prosecution of Bradley Manning, so it’s not surprising there were fewer people in the court. The courtroom was at capacity on Tuesday and two individuals who had driven in from Occupy DC were denied entrance because there were not enough available seats. Nonetheless the military still refused to open the theater.
No accommodations for disabled and elderly access
If you’ve got a small bladder, poor hearing or can’t handle stairs, then forget about attending Manning’s trial. I was particularly sad to see famed Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg struggling to hear the proceedings. I spoke to the military police and urged them to open the public theater so that individuals like Ellsberg could sit closer to the sound system. I was rebuffed.
Access denied
Manning’s pretrial hearing is being held at Fort Meade in Maryland. Individuals who want to drive on base have to undergo a lengthy inspection of their vehicle, often waiting in line for a long period of time. And sometimes even waiting in line won’t get you in: Lt. Daniel Choi, a veteran and outspoken advocate for ending the military’s discriminatory policies toward LGBT servicemembers, was held at the entrance at length. The military personnel at the entrance to the base took issue with Lt. Choi’s military uniform and delayed him entering base for some time. Though he eventually passed through security, Choi was there only briefly before being removed from the base, his uniform ripped and his wrist injured as he was forcibly evicted. The military, which did not charge him, accused him of “heckling,” though no witnesses saw any evidence of untoward behavior on Choi’s part.
Lt. Choi spoke out against the Manning trial during an interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQx63-JduXU&feature=youtu.be&a) with Keith Oblermann. "You don’t have to be in the military to understand this is a show trial," he said, "This is a farce of justice and being in that courtroom this weekend, I don’t think that America has had lower moments.”
The long delay at the entrance caused Choi to arrive late at the courtroom, and because the theater was closed he was unable to watch much of the proceedings.
While the documents attributed to Manning have been widely dispersed and are the subject of many news articles, the government insisted on shutting the public and the media out of large portions of the hearing. On the third day of the trial, the investigating officer decided to accommodate the prosecution’s request for a closed hearing for a portion of the next day. The investigating officer found that the information had been properly classified and that the need to maintain that classification outweighed the value of a public and open trial. But the public, who has had access to the WikiLeaks releases for well over a year, was not given an opportunity to object. The only one who did object was the defense team of Bradley Manning, to no avail. No explanation was provided regarding what information would be reviewed in the closed portion of the trial. And notably, the investigating officer allowed “relevant government agencies” to remain even as the public was ousted, without providing any information on what agencies were considered relevant.
No media organizations have yet contested the right to have access to the closed portions of the proceedings.
Wikileaks Thrown Out
Among those thrown out of the courtroom during the closed portions of the hearing were attorneys for the whistleblower website WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks had petitioned for guaranteed access to the hearing, and had sent in an attorney who had the highest level of secret security clearance. The Center for Constitutional Rights, which is representing Assange and WikiLeaks, is appealing their right to access the trial. In a press release, CCR Legal Director Baher Azmy said, “As counsel for WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, we must be given access to these proceedings. The lack of transparency that has been a hallmark of the military’s prosecution of Private Manning to date also serves to obscure his abusive conditions of confinement.” Assange and his lawyers are also concerned about the threat of an extradition request from the US on matters raised in Private Manning’s proceedings.
At its heart, the Bradley Manning trial is about secrecy, about understanding how our own government as a world power operates in complex international waters, about debating the sacrifices we’re willing to make to advance our interests. Whatever interests the military may have in conducting its case against Manning behind closed doors, we as a society cannot tolerate attempts to rob us of knowledge of the court proceedings. This trial will change the history of our country; I only hope we get to be in the room when it happens.
http://www.thenation.com/article/165336/government-blocks-access-bradley-mannings-hearing

Peter Lemkin
12-23-2011, 03:48 PM
The Trial is shaping up to be as fair as all that has led up to it. America is a moral and legal monster now...there simply are not other words for it. :poketongue: We simply have no fair legal system anymore - and even less so in the military - no sense of fairness, at all, in anything.

Peter Lemkin
12-23-2011, 07:36 PM
JUAN GONZALEZ: The military pretrial hearing for alleged Army whistleblower Bradley Manning concluded yesterday. Lawyers made their closing arguments following the testimony of just two witnesses for the defense. Prosecution lawyers called a total of 21 witnesses. The pretrial hearing was held in Fort Meade, Maryland, and lasted seven days, to determine whether Manning should face a court-martial for allegedly leaking classified video and diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks.

In closing arguments, the defense said the government had failed to help the emotionally troubled soldier, while the prosecution argued the document release had helped al-Qaeda, showing a video in which a recruiter for the militant group referred to WikiLeaks and urged followers to, quote, "take advantage of the wide range of resources available today on the Internet."

AMY GOODMAN: The defense urged the investigating officer to reduce the charges against Manning. The 24-year-old soldier currently faces 22 separate counts of distributing state secrets and aiding the enemy. Both witnesses who appeared for the defense were military comrades who testified about Manning’s alleged erratic behavior and the lax security environment on the Baghdad computer system he used. The court is expected to take several weeks to render a decision regarding a possible court-martial.

To find out more about the case, we go to Washington, D.C., to talk to Kevin Gosztola. He was present at Manning’s pretrial hearing. Gosztola writes for "The Dissenter" and blogs at Firedoglake.

Kevin, welcome to Democracy Now! Can you please explain the last few days—we followed it every day—of the pretrial military hearing, that looks very much like it’s leading to a court-martial of Bradley Manning?

KEVIN GOSZTOLA: Right. In the last few days, we had the closing arguments, and so we heard from the defense. And the defense basically came out and presented their closing argument, and they did the best that they could with the evidence that they were permitted to present. The investigative officer or the prosecution only allowed two witnesses to take the stand.

And so, what they were left with is condemning the government for overcharging Bradley Manning, and they said they were overreaching. He suggested that the original classification authorities for this classified information that Bradley Manning is accused of releasing actually take the stand and be put under oath next time, because they keep saying that there is a risk to national security, and he would like to see them go under oath, and they would probably perjure themselves if they did. He was specifically talking about putting people like Geoff Morrell and Hillary Clinton under oath. And then he just went on, and he talked about Bradley Manning and some of the problems that he was experiencing in the military and how he had literature about transsexuals in the military.

Sharply contrasting was the prosecution, which, as you said in your opening, suggested that Bradley Manning helped al-Qaeda, because he released information to WikiLeaks, and he knew, based on his experience as an intelligence analyst, that this would in fact happen, because he was trained to protect the information, and he was aware that WikiLeaks was looking for information. They had a most-wanted list. But he was a guiding light, and they said that he helped harvest the information.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Now, Kevin, on this issue of the overcharging on the 22 counts for which Manning faces up to 150 years in prison, if convicted, the prosecution is alleging there were 22 separate incidents in which he violated state secrets?

KEVIN GOSZTOLA: Well, no. There’s not 22 separate incidents. There’s only maybe about six or seven, when you break it down. But they’re attaching charges, additional charges, to each of the documents. So, for example, he’s alleged to have released the Iraq War Logs and Afghanistan War Logs, the United States State embassy cables, the Reykjavik cable, the Garani video of a Farah incident in Afghanistan, the "Collateral Murder" video, etc. And then, for each of those, there is a set of specifications that go along with leaking those pieces of information. And so, they’re saying that he downloaded unauthorized software to his computer in order to make transfers to WikiLeaks. And they’re saying that he had unauthorized information on his computer that he downloaded. And then, of course, the transfer of the information out to WikiLeaks is a charge, as well.

AMY GOODMAN: You said they presented their case based on the restrictions. What were the restrictions for the defense, Kevin?

KEVIN GOSZTOLA: Well, I would begin by mentioning that the investigative officer, Paul Almanza, was objected by the defense. The defense wanted him to recuse himself on the first day. And part of the problem that they had was that he has a background with the Department of Justice, which also has an investigation into WikiLeaks right now. And the defense’s fear—and it looks like it could be happening here, especially if Manning is charged and is going to get life without parole—they’re worried that Bradley Manning is going to be—they think they’re going to try to flip Bradley Manning to go against WikiLeaks. And so, that was part of the issue.

The other issue was that the prosecution would not allow these witnesses. So they had a list of 48 witnesses. Ten of them happened to be on the prosecution’s list. There were 38 witnesses then that they were trying to call on their own accord. And those were all denied. Thirty-six of them were denied. And so, they ultimately had two witnesses that were able to speak. And so, what happened is, you’ve got people who were watching, wondering why nobody from Quantico is taking the stand to discuss his pretrial confinement. And you’ve also—were wondering why the defense’s case was so weak. Well, the answer is because that the government and this investigative officer, Almanza, did basically everything they could to ensure that only a few bits of evidence were able to be entered into the record to support the defense’s argument for Bradley Manning.

AMY GOODMAN: Adrian Lamo is one of those who testified. He’s the former hacker who last year informed the U.S. military authorities of his conversations with Private Bradley Manning in Iraq. In internet chats with Lamo using a pseudonym, Manning allegedly disclosed he was providing materials to WikiLeaks founder and editor-in-chief Julian Assange. Lamo testified at the hearing. Prior to his testimony this week, he appeared on Democracy Now! and said that Bradley Manning’s leaks had the potential to harm the United States. This is what he said.

ADRIAN LAMO: I don’t believe that you can directly say that a single person has or has not been harmed by the leaks. It’s like saying whether or not a death is attributable to smoking or whether the person would have developed cancer naturally. The leaks have the real potential to do harm or hazard. And then, additionally, they still do long-term damage to U.S. diplomacy with other countries, which in turn weakens our international position.

AMY GOODMAN: And folks can go to the website democracynow.org to see, hear, read the full interview with Adrian Lamo. Kevin Gosztola, what did he say on the stand? And your response to what he says here?

KEVIN GOSZTOLA: Right. So when Adrian Lamo took the stand, he was basically put on the stand to explain his role as a confidential informant for the United States government. And we learned specific details, just before his testimony, from an agent who took the stand and described that relationship, which began some time, they said, in the end of May or the first part of June. There was physical contact. And so, Adrian was on the stand, and basically he was brought up to explain his conversations in the chat logs.

And the highlight, I think, of the cross-examination is that Coombs, from the defense, confronted Adrian Lamo on this opening of the chats, where he offers journalistic protection, or he says, "I’m a minister, and you could consider this as a confession." And then, also, he was pushed on this fact that just a number—just one day into the chat logs, he actually made contact, he tipped off the authorities to the fact that he was engaged with this intelligence analyst. And then he proceeded to have chats for the next few days. And Coombs pressed him extraordinarily on this fact that he was trying to incriminate Bradley Manning and that he was also trying to egg him on to share all these details about what he had done.

And so, as you read these chat logs, you can see him saying things about the U.S. State embassy cables that just make it so that’s really what the government had to decide that they were going to detain Bradley Manning and then ultimately seize all of his property. So it became—it’s abundantly clear that without the chat logs, the government could not have investigated Bradley Manning.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And also, in Lamo’s testimony, when did his communication with Manning begin in relationship to the WikiLeaks disclosures?

KEVIN GOSZTOLA: They began—I mean, it was like May 21st that they start talking, that Lamo and Manning start having conversations.

AMY GOODMAN: What were you most surprised by, Kevin, as you sat through this pretrial hearing for the past week?

KEVIN GOSZTOLA: Well, I mean, I don’t want to be too meta and talk about my experience as being part of the media pool, but I couldn’t help but notice that whenever I went on base, I was being escorted, and then the media was being secluded in this location on the military base. And while the public affairs representatives for the military were very polite and helpful in what we were trying to do, I did speak to some people who were from the public who attended the hearing, and they told me that, wow, they really treat you so strictly. I mean, you have to be escorted everywhere, and you have to go everywhere with some—you had to be in a van. And they really didn’t want us to wander around. And we had a lot of restrictions while we were on the base. And some of them are normal restrictions that you have with a courtroom, but they really were worried, I think, as to the sort of stories that the media was going to produce about the trial.

And that also had to do with why they scheduled the hearing in such a manner so that it happened on a weekend. I mean, the pool was significantly reduced on Saturday and Sunday. We had gone from about 70 people, I would say, down to maybe 30 to 35 members of the media who were actually covering the trial, because it’s the weekend, and they didn’t want to do any work. And so, I’d say the government made a calculated decision to schedule this hearing, and they also scheduled it very close to the holidays. And so, I think that, in the end, there is less media coverage overall in the United States because of where they put the hearing.

And then, I would say that the final thing that really struck me about this hearing is how they presented the evidence—the government—and actually linked Bradley Manning to aiding al-Qaeda. I mean, that essentially is criminalizing national security journalism, if you really work this thing out, because what they’re saying is anybody who puts this information on the internet—if you do a report on a drone strike, if you do a report on anything related to military operations, and then al-Qaeda reads it, then you could be accused of aiding the enemy.

AMY GOODMAN: Kevin Gosztola, I want to thank you for being with us, writes for "The Dissenter" blog at Firedoglake. He attended Manning’s pretrial hearing in Fort Meade, Maryland.

Peter Lemkin
12-24-2011, 03:06 PM
3422*Myself pictured with Daniel Choi on December 18, 2011, who was also in attendance that day at Fort Meade, MD. You can watch him describe the abuse he experienced at Fort Meade, MD the next day Monday, December 19, 2021 on democracynow.org. He was reportedly thrown to the ground, handcuffed, had his rank ripped off his uniform, and was forcibly ejected from the pretrial proceedings.
I sat next to or near Daniel Choi in the courtroom on both Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning. I can tell you that I only saw Daniel Choi behaving in a respectful manner during the proceedings or while the court was at recess, both in the gallery or on the premises. I can also tell you that the Federal Police Officers began watching the public in attendance more overtly, even hanging around to watch us outside the security perimeter of the courthouse, after Daniel Choi showed up on Saturday.
In fact unlike Friday all day, and Saturday morning, when Daniel Choi was not in the public gallery, Bradley Manning exited with armed soldiers through the public gallery when recesses were called or at the end of the day.
Starting Saturday afternoon, after Daniel Choi showed up, the public was told to leave the gallery before the guards would even move Bradley Manning, or Bradley Manning was exited through the back.
In fact, after the morning's proceedings on December 18, 2011, I moved to a back row on the defense side of the gallery, and away from Daniel and the others who were talking at a recess. I did this in order to collect myself for the task of transcription.
From my new position, I watched one unidentified, caucasian, middle-aged man in a dark suit wearing glasses with dark curly hair - stand and lean against the middle pew on the prosecution side of the gallery - 3 feet away from Daniel Choi and a little back. This man watched Daniel - never once lifting his eyes from Choi for about five minutes, until he caught me looking at him watching Choi in a like manner to himself. He then looked over at one of the soldiers guarding the proceeding, who was dressed in a similar military uniform as Daniel. They both raised their eyebrows at each other.
I had arrived at the Fort Meade, MD courthouse at 8:00 a.m. on December 18, 2011. The following 32 pages of typed transcript were taken by hand and may contain errors, misspellings of names, and or may be incomplete.
Please send any corrections or amendments to carwinb@hushmail.com.
The Investigation Officer is Lt. Col. Paul Almanza, an Army Reserve lieutenant colonel and Justice Department prosecutor.
Prosecution is Captain Ashden Fein,, Captain Joe Morrow, and Captain Angel Overgaard,
Defense is Mr. David Coombs,, Major Matthew Kemkes, and Captain Paul Bouchard. ,
Previous Coverage:
Day 1
Day 2
Day began with prosecution and defense teams exiting the courtroom together (possibly to meet in chambers, they exited together through the back). At one point, a member of the prosecution returned and spoke to the gallery – both behind the defense and prosecution tables to tell the public that it would be 5 more minutes.
[If I am not mistaken, and I may well be, one matter had been left open and awaiting prosecution’s response. It may have been regarding the defense’s request regarding a written response from prosecution about the information that the US government had, and particularly the FBI, remember that on Day 2 the defense, and Coombs in particular:
Defense (Coombs): What exactly does the government have? One. Does it exist? Two. Do they have authorization? If you deem it irrelevant, it does not stop at trial counsel. I would like that to go on record…and disclose the State Department, FBI, and DOJ.
I am not sure if this was the matter being discussed by defense and prosecution. The previous night prosecution had asked for more time for review regarding a matter...]
[Defense arrives. Prosecution arrives. IO calls the hearing to order. Speech to gallery on “decorum and dignity” of the courtroom. ]
[First witness. Captain Casey Fulton. In person. Sword in.]
Prosecution: Current job?
Fulton: Officer in charge of Squadron Intelligence.
Prosecution: What do you do?
Fulton: Multiple Intel collection...analysis.
Prosecution: Are you an Intelligence Officer?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: That what you do?
Fulton: All Source Intel.
Prosecution: How long?
Fulton: Six years.
Prosecution: Training?
Fulton: Officer’s basic courses...then, military Intel courses.
Prosecution: What was your previous position?
Fulton: Assistant Officer in charge as Lt. Platoon Leader....Brigade Officer in charge SL...Brigade Assistant.
Prosecution: How many times have you been deployed?
Fulton: Two times. Afghanistan from 2007 to 2008, and Iraq from 2009 to 2010. I arrived in Iraq in 2009, was deployed in October.
Prosecution: Why did you arrive so close?
Fulton: ...just graduated.
Prosecution: What were your duties?
Fulton: S2...Intel Security for deployment operations order...instruction ordered to get in country...lay down of threat for the environment.
Prosecution: When did you first meet PFC Manning?
Fulton: September of 2009.
Prosecution: How did you meet him?
Fulton: Ask in the shop who knew about the threat in Iraq...I was directed to PFC Manning...told he had a good idea...
Prosecution: What do you mean?
Fulton: According to the person who directed me to him, he (Manning) had a better understanding than the others.
Prosecution: In your experience was that true?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: What were his duties?
Fulton: All Source Analyst.
Prosecution: What is that?
Fulton: Gathered different Intel, disciplines, and filtered together...
Prosecution: So “All Source”...?
Fulton: ...pull together.
Prosecution: How does one become an “All Source”?
Fulton: Higher score, TOP SECRET clearance...
Prosecution: What are the requirements for TOP SECRET clearance...?
Fulton: Background investigation...US citizen...
Prosecution: Why do 35 Foxes have TOP SECRET clearance?
Fulton: Because in order to...they have to be able to pull information from different class levels.
Prosecution: Are you familiar with their training?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: What is operational training?
Fulton: How basic things you may do can compromise security. For example, if you post a picture of you on base on FaceBook, although your intent might not be to compromise security, the enemy can use the information against US forces.
Prosecution: 35 Foxes learn that?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: What is infosec?
[Defense OBJECTION. Coombs walks right up to the witness booth past prosecution at the center podium, and begins questioning Fulton.]
Defense (Coombs): Have you ever been an instructor of 35 Foxes?
Fulton: No. But, I have assisted in their training.
Defense: Ten day trainings?
IO to Prosecution: Do you have any additional questions to lay foundation?
Prosecution: How many new junior enlisted soldiers?
Fulton: At least seven currently...and I don’t know who else arrived.
Prosecution: Out of those ten, any receive AIT at your unit?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: Did they receive other training?
[Defense OBJECTION. Leading. IO OVERRULES.]
Prosecution: So any training they would receive from AIT?
Fulton: Correct.
Prosecution: What is infosec?
Fulton: Basically means information...both classified and non classified management.
Prosecution: Can you be more specific?
Fulton: How to collect, mark, and destroy.
Prosecution: What do you mean by ‘marked’?
Fulton: TOP SECRET is top secret...SECRET has certain caveats...UNCLASSIFIED...CONFIDENTIAL.
Prosecution: Can you give me an example?
Fulton: UNCLASSIFIED has a green mark top and bottom...SECRET...top and bottom.
Prosecution: How about in a digital system?
Fulton: Same way...
Prosecution: As part of infosec training, what is presumption...?
[Defense OBJECTION. Re: Training. IO OVERRULES.]
Prosecution: So as part of training what is taught about what a soldier is to presume?
Fulton: Unauthorized disclosure.
Prosecution: Why?
Fulton: ...responsibility there is of no unauthorized disclosure of authorized info...
Prosecution: Why?
Fulton: Because if it's marked CLASSIFIED, it is CLASSIFIED.
Prosecution: Is it the job of the analyst to determine classification?
Fulton: No. If it is marked CLASSIFIED, assume it is CLASSIFIED.
Prosecution: Why is that?
Fulton: (She pauses. Throughout the prosecutions questioning of her, she takes very long pauses to answer her questions. Like she has to search for answers.) Because that is done by someone in authority.
Prosecution: You have authority?
Fulton: No.
Prosecution: Anyone in your group?
Fulton: No.
Prosecution: : Has to be appointed by the Secretary of the Army. Is that so?
Fulton: I believe so.
Prosecution: [Missed question]
Fulton: There is an ability to chat with other analysts...pulls database...provides map like diagram...personality based.
Prosecution: What does it pull from?
Fulton: Sydney. That has become the database everyone uses.
Prosecution: Everyone?
Fulton: Military and other defense agencies.
Prosecution: Is Sydney just an Intel platform?
Fulton: I don’t really think so. That is all I use it for.
Prosecution: Human Intel, Tack raps (Signal Intel reports), Significant Activity (SigActs) reports...Those reports have classification marks?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: How would you know that documents are classified?
Fulton: Marks. [She explains marks.]
Prosecution: When you pull...is it in a database...?
Fulton: Say again.
Prosecution: A dual user interface...does it require fields, or is it a blank slate...? [Alexa O’Brien note: Prosecution searches for a way to explain the User Interface intelligibly. He uses Microsoft Word as an example of a ‘blank slate’ ...in my opinion his question was stated very unclearly...]
Fulton: I think fields.
Prosecution: Is there a classification field?
Fulton: I don’t know.
Prosecution: What sort of fields exist?
Fulton: Assassinations. Threats...
Prosecution: Dust worm procedures...?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: What is that?
Fulton: When military are kidnapped.
Prosecution: Grid quadrants?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: Sources of Intel provided to members of Army in Iraq?
Fulton: There could be...[She then asks...] Are you talking about Sydney or Significant Activity?
Prosecution: Is there a difference?
Fulton: So Sydney contains types...
Prosecution: So positions of US forces is contained in the data...?
[Defense OBJECTION. Also, Fulton is speaking with pauses and very low volume. IO says, her answer sounded like, “Maybe.”]
Prosecution: Does the Sydney database contain information of the coordinates of US forces?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: Between 2009 and 2010 how US forces reacted to IED attacks?
Fulton: Yes.
[Defense OBJECTION. Relevance.]
Defense: PFC Manning is not charged with Sydney database...and as I understand...no SigActs...
[IO SUSTAINS...”briefly” Defense (Coombs) gets up and walks over to witness booth past prosecution who is standing at the center podium in the courtroom.]
Defense: Sydney database has a lot of info...SigActs are a small part?
Fulton: I would say small.
Defense: SigActs won’t have source names?
Fulton: Depends on how it is written.
Defense: So the SigActs that my client is charged with...whole bunch...not other stuff?
[An argument between Defense and Prosecution ensues over what PFC Manning is charged with and how relevant Prosecution’s questions are...Defense or Prosecution says, (I am unclear who) “He is charged with Sydney-Iraq and SigAct-Iraq...” (This needs verification as to who is speaking)]
Prosecution: Charge Sheet... Spec 4, Charge 2... Compromise Iraq database... 382,000 documents...
Defense: Maybe prosecution can state what documents are, all SigActs.
[IO gets impatient with Defense. IO OVERRULED.]
Prosecution: So we are talking about different types of information...December 2009 to January 2010...different indirect fire methods, techniques, tactics, and procedures...?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: ...for enemy attacks?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: Different techniques for IED attacks?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: Different techniques for rescue?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: When we stated...talk about the system? What is Intelink?
Fulton: It is a system.
Prosecution: Where do you find it?
Fulton: On SIPRnet.
Prosecution: How is it used?
Fulton: Where you would try to find information...not readily available.
Prosecution: What type of information would come back?
Fulton: PowerPoint presentations, reports, word documents which would be reports...
Prosecution: Was that undertaken by 35 Foxes on a daily basis?
Fulton: Maybe not.
Prosecution: Weekly?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: When you arrived in Iraq what were your duties?
Fulton: Doing all analysis of future threat.
Prosecution: What kind?
Fulton: When creating a future operations order...in order to help the commander, you need you need to understand what they are going to do first.
Prosecution: What kinds of things do you want to know?
Fulton: Everything you can know about the enemy.
Prosecution: Did 35 Foxes help?
Fulton: Yes. They are comprehensive projects in a condensed timeline. Easier to shop out (research parts)...
Prosecution: Who relied on these products?
Fulton: The commander.
Prosecution: Can you give an example? How would you give a question and get an answer from a 35 Fox?
Fulton: If we had a fire threat...use D6 to search all indirect fire threats to lay info of in operational environment...then take all human reporting...pull HUMINT (Human Intelligence) and the enemy threat network: Which routes? How they travel? Where they store munitions? And then would direct assets on the ground for collection of Intelligence...to disruption zones...enemy locations or prevent attacks.
Prosecution: Disruption zones?
Fulton: Enemy intends to disrupt but not to defeat.
Prosecution: Overlays?
Fulton: Taking information and overlaying it on top of each other.
Prosecution: Sit temp (I am not certain this was the slang)?
Fulton: Situational locations of the enemy.
Prosecution: Cache locations?
Fulton: Cache?
[Prosecutor apologizes for mispronouncing cache with two syllables.]
Fulton: Where they store munitions.
Prosecution: How would 35 Foxes get the information?
Fulton: ...pull from Sydney...most came from Sydney.
Prosecution: Would a person not familiar with the system be able to pull information?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: Why?
Fulton: Because it has to be filtered. For example. Query-Tree uses bullion logic...combination of words...otherwise superfluous...same with Sydney, needs to be filtered.
Prosecution: If you relied on “All Source” they would have to pull it through...?
Fulton: Correct.
Prosecution: When did you become an Intel officer?
Fulton: Late January.
Prosecution: Mission?
Fulton: To provide best threat product to commander. Our focus was election security.
Prosecution: When?
Fulton: March.
Prosecution: Main focus March 2010 Fob Hammer?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: Other focuses?
Fulton: Before that?
Prosecution: Day to day?
Fulton: Disrupt enemy operations.
Prosecution: Where was your office?
Fulton: In SCIF.
Prosecution: What is “SCIF”?
Fulton: Specialized Compartmentalized Information (She pauses.) I do not know.
[Indeed, Fulton does not know that SCIF stands for “Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility”]
Prosecution: What does it stand for?
Fulton: Good question.
Prosecution: Did Manning work in the SCIF?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: Your office was in the SCIF?
Fulton: Yes...Back room was (indecipherable) signals.
Prosecution: What is NIPRnet?
Fulton: Up to SECRET.
Prosecution: Did any “All Source” analysts have access to higher access?
Fulton: No.
Prosecution: ...ability to discuss?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: Highest level you could access was SECRET?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: Requirement to burn CDs?
Fulton: The reason for the ability to burn CDs was to share information with Iraqis. It was part of the mission.
Prosecution: Allowed for any other means?
Fulton: No.
Prosecution: While deployed with second brigade...(indecipherable, maybe “description”)...of general security?
Fulton: Don’t release info to family. Don’t go on FaceBook.
Prosecution: What about infosec?
[Defense OBJECTION. (Indecipherable “Indec.” Unsure of IO’s ruling.]
Prosecution: Were computers on shared network accessed by “All Source”?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: Classification?
Fulton: Secret.
Prosecution: What were rules of pulling information off network?
Fulton: (She asks) Accessing?
Prosecution: Yes.
Fulton: There weren’t any restrictions because it was a shared network. It was easier to move information back and forth.
Prosecution: Rules for pulling information off?
Fulton: No way you would pull off information that wasn’t pertinent.
Prosecution: What makes it appear classified?
Fulton: That it is on a classified system or a machine that is classified. If there is information on a classified system, once something is on a classified system, assumed classified and cannot put on an unclassified...
Prosecution: How was authorization for the Second Brigade tech...maintain (indecipherable)?
Fulton: Don’t know.
Prosecution: Pull to a personal computer?
Fulton: ...Because that is unauthorized disclosure.
Prosecution: Is that something 35 Foxes would know?
Fulton: At minimum they signed SF312 a Non Disclosure Agreement. They also have been trained.
Prosecution: Is that supervised one hundred percent of the time?
Fulton: Impossible.
Prosecution: Why?
Fulton: Because of limited amount of supervision.
Prosecution: What do you rely on?
Fulton: That they have understanding of their job and take pride in their work.
Prosecution: What were Manning’s strengths?
Fulton: He was very good at compiling data.
Prosecution: Can you give me an example?
Fulton: I had him work with D6...laying human Intel onto a map...He could import and export Excel spreadsheets...So looking at number of spreadsheets...easier to use excel than input one at a time.
Prosecution: How often?
Fulton: Occasionally.
Prosecution: Would he have to have an understanding of the data?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: Full time duties?
Fulton: Violent extremist threat...
Prosecution: Based on that, was there a reason for him to be investigating GTMO SOPs?
Fulton: No. Not regarding Iraq.
Prosecution: A reason for him to be searching for Iceland?
Fulton: No.
Prosecution: For Julian Assange on SIPRnet?
Fulton: No.
Prosecution: 15, 6 investigation?
Fulton: No.
Prosecution: SJA Web site?
Fulton: No.
Prosecution: Pulling all the data from the Sydney Afghanistan database?
Fulton: No.
Prosecution: Were you aware of the 2007 Apache video?
Fulton: Schulman was playing on personal computer before April 1 (Needs verification that it was on her personal computer.)
Prosecution: She had it on SIPRnet system?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: So a classified system?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: When did you become aware?
Fulton: Not sure. It wasn’t exactly...didn’t really know until Manning was arrested.
Prosecution: Did you ever have a conversation about the video?
Fulton: I asked group if they had seen the video, and how that would affect us if it became public in a deployed environment. Manning said, “No. That is the same video on our shared drive.” I said no, it is shorter. I would have to compare...last verbal conversation
Prosecution: Did you have non-verbal conversation about the video?
Fulton: He sent email with two video clips, one of the Apache video, both side by side.
Prosecution: Was the video released through the Internet the one on your shared drive?
Fulton: That was the indication. Not sure.
Prosecution: Email is on SIPRnet?
Fulton: Yes. SIPRnet
Prosecution: Captain Fulton, were you aware of an Army investigation related to that video?
Fulton: Not sure.
[Defense cross-examines the witness.]
Defense (Coombs): Became part...2009?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Your duty was Assistant S2?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Deploy as S2 Plans Officer?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): You worked out of the SCIF on operation orders for election security?
Fulton: Yes.
[Alexa O’Brien note: Coombs would often use this style for cross-examination of witnesses. He would conduct a recap narrative-like, easy going exchange, which required a simple yes or no. More often, simply yes to his line of argument. He did this in the way a dog might urinate on a neighborhood fence, and not in a rude manner. He simply made the story his, so you forgot the prosecutors’ in his retelling. Coombs also used his intellect as much as he used physical space in the courtroom. In a confident and graceful manner, he simply asserted himself between the nervous prosecutors and the show dog IO, the way a real alpha defense lawyer like Coombs could.]
Defense (Coombs): Election security, helping the commander make decisions?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Mission was related to elections?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Product was important?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Election security was the main mission?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): You were not in the chain of command, your relationship with Manning was merely counseling?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): One soldier you relied on was Manning?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Manning was good for putting projects together?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Knew how to use excel, and could plot data points?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): NDMP...heavy Intel...you needed his assistance for steps?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): ...lengthy and robust?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Asked him to create data-maps and slides?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): He completed them in a timely manner?
Fulton: Yes
Defense (Coombs): Assigning him frequently?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): ...primary mission?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Did a lot of work from November 2009 to 2010 that had to be completed in a timely manner?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): You would go to him because he was good with computers?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Go to him because he was interested in the topics?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Sometimes he would find information for you based on discussions you had had?
Fulton: Yes. [Her voice got softer as Coombs line of questions continued, and I got the feeling she exhibited compassion (perhaps ‘like’) for Manning.]
Defense (Coombs): Exciting to have someone like Manning?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Didn’t believe he was a good analyst?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): ...because they needed to grow?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Not like being an analyst is an easy thing?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): He was still learning?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): So because he was still learning, he was just tasked to get the data?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Then you would do analysis?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Your way of training was to ask questions?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Not surprising, you would even go through the data, even though he was not an analyst (Need verification. I think this is where he asked her if she would go through the data with Manning.)?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Person who was Staff Sergeant (indecipherable, I wrote phonetically Ballard)...?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): People in the SCIF listen to music?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Soldiers would pull the music from the shared drive and put on the D6?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): That was common?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Not acceptable?
Fulton: What do you mean?
Defense (Coombs): Should they have had music on the shared drive? So no one ever told you music was a violation?
Fulton: No.
Defense (Coombs): So they would pulled the music from the shared drive and put it on players, that ok?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): If people watched movies they purchased from Iraqi nationals, pirated versions, was that ok?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): There were games on the shared drive, soldiers played those games on the D6?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): D6 machines used primarily for...?
Fulton: Analysis.
Defense (Coombs): mIRC chat as a baseline?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): In fact, mIRC chat was installed on your machine as an executable desktop application?
Fulton: I think so.
[Defense (Coombs) explains that the program ran from the desktop and was executable. Downloaded and installed.]
Defense (Coombs): And you needed it, because it helped you communicate. As you also believed Google Earth was part of the program (of tools)?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): It was installed as a desktop application?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): And you would use Google Earth?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Did you see Manning talk to Adkins prior to the incident with Schulman?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): What did you see?
Fulton: Manning was upset and sitting on the floor.
Defense (Coombs): Arms around his knees, would it be correct to say he was curled up in a ball on the floor?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): That is not common, is it?
Fulton: No.
Defense (Coombs): Did you speak to -- to find out what was going on?
Fulton: No.
Defense (Coombs): Were you present with the incident with Schulman?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): You had released Schulman, but you brought her back?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): You were looking for information, and no one could find it, Manning had tried to find it, and you needed the information?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): So you had instructed someone go and wake Schulman up?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): And Schulman was irritated?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): you had your back to --- because you were on the phone...and you heard Schulman was irritated with PFC Manning?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): And she was irritated because he was playing a game?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): You knew Manning had already looked for the information?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): You heard Manning say, “You need to calm down,” to Schulman...with Schulman on the ground...(I did not write down the entire question, may have been two questions)?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): She had said he had struck her, and she had a red mark on her face?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): You told Adkins that --- needed to be taken from him...needed to go to behavioral specialist because that was the standard response?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Why?
Fulton: What do you mean? When you have an interaction like that between soldiers...I wanted him removed...especially in a deployed environment...you want to find out what is wrong.
Defense (Coombs): Did you feel that a ‘derog’ was necessary?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Derog, his security clearance suspended, revoked?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Derog...call into question of whether they should have security clearance...some examples of reasons for derog are: Behavioral...lying to superiors...?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): So obviously...derog process makes sure you track negative actions?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Soldiers and leaders have a responsibility to report behavioral issues with people who have security clearances?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): So especially security persons had a responsibility for security clearance?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): And, it was Adkins duty to report...?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): So if a soldier exhibited behavior that was untrustworthy or if a soldier exhibited mental problems...?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Where you aware of the Manning Padgett incident?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): 2009 end of ...deployment ? (not clear from my notes.)
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Based on a conversation with Adkins, what were your thoughts on the derog, you agreed?
Fulton: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): How quickly can a persons access be pulled?
Fulton: Immediately.
Defense (Coombs): Once a soldier is ‘derog’ed’ do they have access?
Fulton: No.
[Prosecution re-examines Captain Casey Fulton]
Prosecution: Captain Fulton, after Manning assaulted -- he was removed from the SCIF on May 7, 2010?
Fulton: I don’t know. (She may have added, “In May...” I believe she was saying she was not sure of exact date.)
Prosecution: Did he receive averse action?
Fulton: Yes.
Prosecution: All soldiers, and especially 35 Foxes …. not to disclose?
Fulton: Yes.
[Defense re-examines the witness.]
Defense: Your clearance is dependent on, ongoing behavior?
Fulton: Yes.
[Captain Fulton is excused. Recess. IO calls next witness. Master Sgt. Paul Adkins. In person. Sworn in by prosecution.]
Prosecution: ...your name...?
Adkins: I invoke my Article 31 rights.
IO: Are there any questions that you could be asked will not cause you to invoke Article 31 completely.
Adkins: No.
[Defense (Coombs) OBJECTION.. Cites case law and argues that Article 31 did not apply to an Article 32 hearing.]
Defense (Coombs): We believe this is an inappropriate (I wrote in my notes indecipherable “966. Cas. Dec.”)...does not apply at Article 32 hearing...administrative appellate matter, not a criminal matter...RCN704E convening authority (he is urging them) grant him immunity, and compel him to testify.
Prosecution: We will not do this.
IO: I find that this witness is unavailable.
[Next witness. Warrant Officer 1 Kyle Balonek. Via Telephone.]
Balonek: On my behalf of my attorneys advice, I invoke my right to remain silent.
IO: Are there any questions we could ask you that you would not invoke Article 31 rights.
Balonek: No.
[Defense OBJECTION. Refers to previous reason.]
IO: Thank you Mr. Balonek. I find that this witness is not available.
[Next Witness. Sergeant Madaras. Via telephone. Sworn in by prosecution.]
Prosecution: Are you in an area where you can speak freely?
Madaras: Yes.
Prosecution: No notes?
Madaras: Yes.
Prosecution: How do you know PFC Manning?
Madaras: Met at Fort Drum...deployed to Iraq.
Prosecution: When?
Madaras: Sometime in 2008...in the smoking area.
Prosecution: MOS?
Madaras: 35 Fox Intel Analyst.
Prosecution: Manning?
Madaras: 35 Fox Intel Analyst.
Prosecution: Do you remember what you learned?
Madaras: Learned how to do military symbols...how to present a PowerPoint...how to use multi--(indecipherable) workstation...
Prosecution: What did you learn about the classification system?
Madaras: Its importance...and the different classifications.
Prosecution: What did you learn about classification?
Madaras: Proper clearance and access.
Prosecution: Learn about publishing information on the Internet?
Madaras: Not that I recall.
Prosecution: Arrived at … 2010 (missed question)?
Madaras: (missed answer)
Prosecution: What did you learn...?
Madaras: D6 class...August of 2008.
Prosecution: What other classes...?
Madaras: Some mainly military writing style classes...
Prosecution: What did you learn about the D6...?
Madaras: ...like using a map...built stuff onto it to present to audience...?
Prosecution: Anything else...?
Madaras: JRTC rotations (either Madaras or Manning) wasn’t sure if he was with JRTC Afghanistan.
Prosecution: what did you do?
Madaras: Simulation.
Prosecution: Did you work with Manning (at Fort Drum. They were also on opposite shifts in Iraq.)?
Madaras: He worked day, and I worked night.
Prosecution: Did you deploy with him?
Madaras: ...left in 2009. PFC showed up a few weeks later.
Prosecution: Where did you work?
Madaras: Brigade SCIF Fob Hammer.
Prosecution: Where did Manning work?
Madaras: Same.
Prosecution: What was your job?
Madaras: Shia team analyst.
Prosecution: Manning?
Madaras: Same. I worked day, and he worked night. Then we switched.
Prosecution: The two of you shared a work station...?
Madaras: Yes...just times where we shared...(he says there were two computers)...Dell 6300...
Prosecution: And the second?
Madaras: Alienware.
Prosecution: Did you often use the Alienware?
Madaras: Towards the end. Manning he did. Before that the Dell.
Prosecution: What was the mission of the Brigade?
Madaras: Support … (indecipherable).
Prosecution: What did you do...?
Madaras: Read reports, link together to get...(indecipherable)
Prosecution: Did you share products with Manning?
Madaras: Majority of the time, Manning did not complete projects.
Prosecution: What programs did you use?
Madaras: Intelink, Arc map, Sydney Iraq...
Prosecution: So, you personally used Intelink?
Madaras: Yes, M’am.
Prosecution: On those two computers, ever search for Iceland? (Prosecution goes on with a list...) Retention? Birgitta Jónsdóttir? CENTCOM? Reykjavik? WikiLeaks? Julian Assange?
Prosecution: Ever use Intellipedia?
Madaras: Yes.
Prosecution: What would you search for?
Madaras: Terrorists groups...um like Shia groups.
Prosecution: Ever use PFC Manning’s user profile?
Madaras: No.
Prosecution: Did your computer ever operate out of the ordinary?
Madaras: Yes. I would leave shift the computer would be working fine, come in and it would be crashing a lot. Consistently had problems, would have to get Mr. Allan Lomens (sp.) to reimage.
[Defense cross-examines the witness.]
Defense (Coombs): We have spoken before on the telephone. You met Manning first in 2008?
Madaras: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): In the smoking area?
Madaras: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): He could tell he was interested in US politics?
Madaras: He use to talk about his workplace...NVC...politicians would come in...
Defense (Coombs): Both JRTC in 2009?
Madaras: Yes.
Defense: Opposite shifts?
Madaras: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Was PFC Manning in charge of fixing computers? Knew how to work on computers?
Madaras: I don’t know if he was “in charge” of computers.
Defense (Coombs): You said he always knew how to fix computers? (Missed Madaras answer.)
Defense (Coombs): At training did receive any training on not placing executable files on the desktop?
Madaras: No.
Defense (Coombs): Worked as an Intel analyst...?
Madaras: Shia group.
Defense (Coombs): In this situation you worked day and Manning work nights?
(I missed two questions.)
Defense (Coombs): You said many times Manning did not complete his work?
Madaras: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): ...but you are not sure if he was tasked with other work?
Madaras: Yes. That happened sometimes.
Defense (Coombs): During deployment did you see any outburst from Manning...?
Madaras: Saw.... (indecipherable).
Defense (Coombs): Did you see the event where Manning was asked to move a projector?
Madaras: Was getting ready for the shift change. Know...(indecipherable) asked Manning to do it...tried to calm him down...took him outside.
Defense (Coombs): Was he counseled in writing?
Madaras: No.
Defense (Coombs): Ever removed?
Madaras: No.
Defense (Coombs): ...one or two occasions...put weapons in rack and then...anyone...is that appropriate conduct for soldiers?
Madaras: No, Sir.
Defense (Coombs): Ever see Manning become non-responsive?
Madaras: ...Adkins called his name and he would just stare.
Defense (Coombs): Unit members felt PFC would do harm to himself?
Madaras: Um...no.
[Prosecution OBJECTION. Defense explains he wants Madaras to tell the court what he knows.]
Defense (Coombs): Were you afraid that PFC Manning would do harm to himself?
Madaras: I did not have that fear. There were some people who were worried.
Defense (Coombs): Did Manning have any friends?
Madaras: ...saw him talking to Sadler (sp.) Never saw him talking with others...maybe not directly. We would always see him running at night and say, “What is he doing...?”
[IO OBJECTION. Defense OBJECTION to IO. Cites RCN40(5, H, or S)18. Heated response from Defense.]
Defense (Coombs): The IO should not be allowed to ask questions as part of my discovery. My right is separate from what you determine as relevant.
IO: I ask that you keep it to what he knows.
Defense (Coombs): Was Manning an outcast?
Madaras: I don’t know if he was picked on...separated himself.
Defense (Coombs): Listen to music on shared drive that was played on the D6?
Madaras: Yes, Sir.
Defense (Coombs): Playing videogames on D6A)?
Madaras: Games that were already on the system.
Defense (Coombs): You said your machine was always broken...if you have too much information on the desktop of your D6A machine it might crash, right?
Madaras: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): When someone’s machine was running slow, Manning would try to fix it?
Madaras: Not that I know of.
Defense (Coombs): Did D6A have mIRC chat?
Madaras: He did have it installed.
Defense (Coombs): You thought mIRC was mission critical - running as an executable?
Madaras: If that is what it does, Sir.
Defense (Coombs): You thought it allowed you to do your job?
Madaras: Yes...communicate with other units.
Defense (Coombs): So if someone wanted to add information to a D6 machine how would you go about doing that?
Madaras: I don’t know.
Defense (Coombs): And that is because you don’t know much about computers...
Madaras: Yes, Sir.
[I am not certain if the prosecution re-examined Madaras, I have a note regarding prosecution asking him about the non disclosure agreement soldiers signed. Witness is excused permanently.]
The rest of Day 3 was observed by Rainy Reitman, from EFF and posted on the Bradley Manning Support Web Site. Time did not permit me to stay due to a long drive back to New York City and work related responsibilities. I had to reluctantly leave Fort Meade, MD.
Article:
http://wlcentral.org/node/2390

Peter Lemkin
12-29-2011, 10:05 AM
This month new and incriminating details have come to light about a secret meeting of high-level Quantico officials that took place on January 13, 2011, resulting in Manning's illegal punitive pretrial confinement.
On March 2, 2011, PFC Bradley Manning, then confined under Maximum custody and Prevention of Injury Watch (POI) at Quantico, where he had been since July 29, 2010, was told that his Article 138 request to be placed under Medium custody and removed from harsh and punitive pretrial confinement was denied by Daniel J. Choike, Quantico base commander (pictured at the left).
The continued placement of Manning under such terms and conditions, indeed the exacerbation of his illegal pretrial confinement in March, when he was stripped every evening and forced to stand at attention naked every morning until his unexpected transfer to Fort Leavenworth on April 20, 2011, happened despite numerous cited evaluations by brig personnel, including brig psychiatrists, who recommended his removal from Maximum Custody and POI Status.
Defense had filed the original Article 138 request on January 19, 2011, one day after Manning was placed under "suicide risk", which resulted in his remaining in his cell for 24 hours a day and being stripped of all clothing with the exception of his underwear. His eyeglasses were also removed, which left him, as he describes in "total blindness". According to defense documents, the stripping and interrogation that Manning endured was videotaped by the Quantico facility.
Manning recounts his harassment and placement under "suicide risk" on the January day protests were held outside Quantico here.
On April 19, a day before Bradley Manning's unexpected transfer to Fort Leavenworth, defense reported finding out about the January 13, 2011 secret high-level meeting, and suspected their knowledge of the meeting may have led to the Department of Defenses' about-face on Manning's illegal pretrial confinement:
"The defense recently received reliable reports of a private meeting held on 13 January 2011, involving high-level Quantico officials where it was ordered that PFC Manning would remain in maximum custody and under prevention of injury watch indefinitely. The order to keep PFC Manning under these unduly harsh conditions was issued by a senior Quantico official who stated he would not risk anything happening "on his watch." When challenged by a Brig psychiatrist present at the meeting that there was no mental health justification for the decision, the senior Quantico official issuing the order responded, "We will do whatever we want to do." Based upon these statements and others, the defense was in the process of filing a writ of habeas corpus seeking a court ruling that the Quantico Brig violated PFC Manning's constitutional right to due process. See United States ex. rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 74 S.Ct. 499 (1954) (violation of due process where result of board proceeding was predetermined); United States v. Anderson, 49 M.J. 575 (N.M. Ct. Crim. App. 1998) (illegal punishment where Marine Corps had an unwritten policy automatically placing certain detainees in MAX custody). The facts surrounding PFC Manning's pretrial confinement at Quantico make it clear that his detention was not "in compliance with legal and regulatory standards in all respects" [link added] as maintained at the Pentagon press briefing. (Source: David Coombs, Why Was PFC Manning Moved to Fort Leavenworth?)
Earlier this month Manning's defense had submitted a list of witnesses they requested for the Article 32 pretrial hearing that concluded last week. Further details about the secret high-level meeting and the former Security Battalion Commander in charge of Quantico, Col. Robert G. Oltman (pictured at the left), were contained under witness 46:
XXXXXXXXXX He will testify that during a meeting early in January of 2011, the [former] Security Battalion Commander in charge of the Quantico Brig. XXXXXXXXXX [ Col. Robert G. Oltman], clearly stated to the Brig Staff that, "I will not have anything happen to Manning on my watch... So, nothing is going to change... He won't be able to hurt himself and he won't be able to get away, and our way of making sure of that is that he will remain on Maximum Custody and POI indefinitely." He will testify that one of the other Brig psychiatrists, XXXXXXXXXX then said, "You know Sir, I am concerned because if you are going to do that, maybe you want to call it something else because it is not based upon anything from behavioral health." In response, XXXXXXXXXX will testify that XXXXXXXXXX said, "We will do whatever we want to do. You make a recommendation and then I have to make a decision based upon everything else." XXXXXXXXXX will testify that XXXXXXXXXX then said "Well then don't say it is based upon mental health. You can say Maximum Custody, and just don't put that we [behavioral health] are somehow involved in this." XXXXXXXXXX replied, "Well, that is what we are going to do." XXXXXXXXXX will testify that he spoke with others at the Brig to see if they knew why the Brig was so heavy handed on PFC Manning. He will testify that the others at the Brig told him that they have never seen anything like this before. XXXXXXXXXX will testify that others told him that they were afraid to speak out about the situation given the concern of what would happen as a result of any complaint about PFC Manning's treatment.(Source: Defense Article 32 Witness List)
Under witness 47:
XXXXXXXXXX He will testify that neither the Quantico Brig Commander, XXXXXXXXXX [Colonel Daniel J. Choike], nor the [former] Security Battalion Commander, XXXXXXXXXX [Col. Robert G. Oltman] gave him any reason for maintaining the Prevention of Injury precautions other than stating it was for PFC Manning's safety. He will testify that XXXXXXXXXX intimated that he was receiving instruction from a higher authority on the matter but did not say who was providing this direction. XXXXXXXXXX will testify that he knew that the higher base authorities had frequent (sometimes weekly) meetings to discuss PFC Manning. XXXXXXXXXX will testify that he gave weekly status reports stating that he felt the POI precautions were unnecessary. XXXXXXXXXX will testify that he recalls a meeting with XXXXXXXXXX where he stated that PFC Manning would remain in his current status Maximum Custody and POI unless and until he received instructions from higher authority to the contrary. XXXXXXXXXX cannot recall XXXXXXXXXX exact word, but he does recall that XXXXXXXXXX made it clear that nothing would change with PFC Manning regardless of his behavior of the recommendations of behavioral health. (Source: Defense Article 32 Witness List)
Article 13 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice states: "No person, while being held for trial, may be subjected to punishment or penalty other than arrest or confinement upon the charges pending against him, nor shall the arrest or confinement imposed upon him be any more rigorous than the circumstances required to insure his presence, but he may be subjected to minor punishment during that period for infractions of discipline."
On his blog, David Coombs has hinted at or explicitly stated that he intends to file an Article 13 regarding Manning's illegal and punitive pretrial confinement at Quantico. See June 21, 2011; April 19, 2011; and December 21, 2010
On November 22, 2011, defense also filed the following request for the production of evidence of the Quantico video of Manning being stripped and interrogated:
"On January 18, 2011, defense was notified that PFC Manning at the direction of XXXXXXXXXX, was placed in suicide risk. This decision was made over the recommendations of XXXXXXXXXX and the defense appointed XXXXXXXXXX. When PFC Manning was being ordered to surrender his clothes as part of the unnecessary suicide risk, the Brig made the decision to videotape this event along with an interrogation of PFC Manning by XXXXXXXXXX and others. On 19 January 2011, the defense filed a preservation of evidence request with the government and a request for the production of the video. The government has yet to respond to the defense request. The defense believes the video will support PFC Manning's claim of unlawful pretrial punishment." (Source: Manning Defense Request for Evidence)
Further, David House says he has been asked by Manning's attorney not to make public assessments on his friend's deterioration while at Quantico. (Source: democracynow.org)
David Coombs also requested a "[c]opy of all audio and video surveillance of the visitation booths at Quantico, Virginia when individuals, including defense team members, met with PFC Manning. The defense also requests a copy of all audio and video surveillance of the visitations rooms at… Fort Leavenworth when individuals including defense team members, met with PFC Manning." (See 8e of Manning Defense Request for Evidence)
Article:
http://wlcentral.org/node/2391

Albert Doyle
12-29-2011, 04:57 PM
Manning is an American hero who should be freed from the clutches of those Homeland Security Nazis. Time to make that happen in America soon. They don't represent us.

Peter Lemkin
12-29-2011, 06:53 PM
Manning is an American hero who should be freed from the clutches of those Homeland Security Nazis. Time to make that happen in America soon. They don't represent us.

The Prez has already passed judgment (guilty) on him, and he is obviously going to get about as unfair a legal 'deal' as they can manage. Most in Europe think of him [to the extent they know of him] as a whistleblower of official crimes and coverups, and thus not guilty of much serious. Not sure what most Americans think. Your statement above will certainly get a gold star next to your name in the DHS files.:nono:

Peter Lemkin
01-24-2012, 09:47 AM
2012-01-22 Chronology of charges the US government alleges against #Manning
Submitted by Alexa O'Brien on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 17:30
Analysis United States Wikileaks trials Bradley Manning


This is a chronological list of charges against Bradley Manning alleged by the US government. They are derived from the July 5, 2010 original charge sheet and the March 1, 2011 charge sheet.

The charges from the original charge sheet are below in italics, and grouped beneath corresponding charges from the latest March 1, 2010 charge sheet.
11/01/09 - 05/27/10 Gave US intel to enemy by indirect means. (Article 104, SPEC)
11/01/09 - 05/27/10 Caused the publishing of US intel on Internet, knowing accessible to enemy on Internet (Article 134, SPEC 1)
11/01/09 - 05/27/10 Wrongfully storing classified info. (Article 92, SPEC 4)
11/01/09 - 03/08/10 Bypass security mechanism. (Article 92, SPEC 1)
11/01/09 - 01/08/10 Unauthorized possession, transmit Garani airstrike. (Article 134, SPEC 11)
12/31/09 - 01/05/10 Steal, covert to use for self or by another 380,000 records CIDNE Iraq DB (Article 134, SPEC 4)
12/31/09 - 02/09/10 Unauthorized possession, transmit >20 records CIDNE Iraq DB (Article 134, SPEC 7)
12/31/09 - 01/08/10 Steal, covert to use for self or by another 90,000 CIDNE AFGHAN DB (Article 134, SPEC 6)
12/31/09 - 02/09/10 Unauthorized possession, transmit > 20 records CIDNE AFGHAN DB (Article 134, SPEC 5)
02/11/10 - 04/03/10 Add unauthorized software to SIPRNet. (Article 92 SPEC 2)
02/15/10 - 04/05/10 Unauthorized possession, transmit 12 July Baghdad air strike. (Article 134, SPEC 2)
Original Charge Sheet: 11/19/09 - 04/05/10 Unauthorized access SIPRNet, obtain 12 July Baghdad air strike. (Article 134, SPEC 5)
Original Charge Sheet: 11/19/09 - 04/05/10 Unauthorized access SIPRNet, obtain, transmit 12 July Baghdad air strike. (Article 134, SPEC 2)
Original Charge Sheet: 11/19/09 - 04/05/10 Unauthorized possession, transmit 12 July Baghdad air strike. (Article 134, SPEC 1)
Original Charge Sheet: 11/19/09 - 05/27/10 Introduce 12 July Baghdad air strike onto personal computer. (Article 92, SPEC 1)
02/15/10 - 02/18/10 Exceed authorized access, obtain on SIPRNet, transmit Reykjavik 13. (Article 134, SPEC 14)
Original Charge Sheet: 01/13/10 - 02/19/10 Unauthorized access SIPRNet, obtain Reykjavik 13. (Article 134, SPEC 3)
Original Charge Sheet: 01/13/10 - 02/19/10 Unauthorized access SIPRNet, obtain Reykjavik 13. (Article 134 SPEC 6)
02/15/10 - 03/15/10 Unauthorized access, obtain on SIPRNet, transmit DOD counter-intelligence Memo against WikiLeaks. (Article 134, SPEC 15)
03/08/10 Steal, covert to use for self or by another > 700 GTMO memoranda. (Article 134, SPEC 8)
03/08/10 - 05/27/10 Unauthorized possession, transmit > 3 GTMO memoranda. (Article 134, SPEC 9)
03/22/10 - 03/26/10 Unauthorized possession, transmit classified memo by US intel agency. [DoD counter-intelligence against WikiLeaks memo?] (Article 134, SPEC 3)
Original Charge Sheet: 11/19/09 - 05/27/10 Unauthorized access on SIPRNet obtain classified DoD PPT (Article 134, SPEC 8)
03/28/10 - 05/04/10 Steal, covert to use for self or by another 250,000 DoS Net Centric DB. (Article 134, SPEC 12)
03/28/10 - 05/27/10 Exceed authorized access, obtain on SIPRNet, transmit >75 DoS cables. (Article 134, SPEC 13)
Original Charge Sheet: 11/19/09 - 05/24/10 Unauthorized access, obtain, transmit 50 DoS cables. (Article 134, SPEC 4)
Original Charge Sheet: 11/19/09 - 05/27/10 Unauthorized access SIPRNet, obtain 150,000 DoS cables. (Article 134, SPEC 7)
Original Charge Sheet: 11/19/09 - 05/27/10 Introduce 50 DoS cables onto personal computer. (Article 92, SPEC 2)
Original Charge Sheet: 11/19/09 - 05/27/10 Introduce classified DoD PPT onto personal computer. (Article 92, SPEC 3)
04/11/10 - 05/27/10 Unauthorized possession, transmit >5 classified records relating to Farah province, Afghanistan. (Article 134, SPEC 10)
05/04/10 Add unauthorized software to SIPRNet. (Article 92, SPEC 3)
Original Charge Sheet: 11/19/09 - 04/03/10 Add unauthorized software to SIPRNet. (Article 92, SPEC 4)
05/11/10 - 05/27/10 Unauthorized use of information system. (Article 92, SPEC 4)
05/11/10 - 05/27/10 Steal, convert to use for self or another Microsoft Outlook Global Address List Iraq. (Article 134, SPEC 16)

Magda Hassan
02-04-2012, 09:16 AM
Please share this far and wide.
A companion video for "Almost Gone" -- a new song by legendary singer-songwriter Graham Nash and musician James Raymond (son of David Crosby) -- is being released today in support of accused U.S. Army whistleblower Bradley Manning. The free download is available on Nash's website (www.grahamnash.com) and the Bradley Manning Support Network site www.bradleymanning.org.

The release is timed to Manning's first judicial hearing scheduled for December 16th, following more than 17-months in custody, including a year in solitary confinement that Amnesty International has characterized as "harsh and punitive."

Visually, the Almost Gone video is punctuated with bold graphics, disturbing images and harsh facts. Its release is scheduled to precede Manning's pre-trial hearing on December 16, which is the day before his 24th birthday. The Bradley Manning Support Network has named the following day, December 17, its International Day of Solidarity (http://events.bradleymanning.org/). PFC Manning, an Army intelligence analyst who had been stationed near Baghdad, was arrested in May 2010 under suspicion of leaking classified information, including a video showing the killing of civilians, to the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks.

Nash and Raymond composed the song "Almost Gone (The Ballad of Bradley Manning)" during this spring's US tour of Crosby-Nash, and the new recording serves as the music bed for the video; it features an impassioned lead vocal by Nash, a two-time Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inducted (Crosby, Stills & Nash, and The Hollies). "Bradley Manning is a hero to me," he sings, acknowledging Manning's role in making public videos and documents that shed light on such as issues as the true number and cause of civilian casualties in Iraq, human rights abuses by U.S.-funded contractors and foreign militaries, and the role that spying and bribes play in international diplomacy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAYG7yJpBbQ&feature=share

Peter Lemkin
02-07-2012, 09:20 AM
Bradley Manning for Nobel Peace Prize?

Published: 06 February, 2012, 21:49

AFP Photo / Paul J. Richards
(22.3Mb) embed video

TAGS: Crime, Internet, USA, WikiLeaks

Bradley Manning, the US soldier accused of passing secret materials to Wikileaks, has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

*The nomination was proposed by The Movement of Icelandic Parliament, which asserts that revelations produced by the documents Manning allegedly exposed “have helped to fuel a worldwide discussion about America’s overseas engagements, civilian war casualties, imperialistic manipulations, and rules of engagement.”

RT spoke to one of the members of The Movement, MP Birgitta Jonsdottir.

She said the group “wanted to raise awareness about the situation with Private Bradley Manning, whom way too few people know of.”

“It is extremely important that we honor the whistleblowers of our world,” she said, so people will not be silenced from performing their civic duty “by reporting on crimes, be it corporate, state or military.”

Jonsdottir believes Manning has as much chance to win the prize as any other nominee.

But, Icelandic MP said, the decision on a Nobel Peace Prize is a very politicized matter, “because peace – just like war – is a very political issue.”

Manning was arrested in May 2010 on suspicion of having passed classified materials to WikiLeaks. After a pretrial hearing concluded last month, it was announced that the case would be tried in a military court.

Manning faces 22 charges of violating the military code, from theft of records to aiding the enemy.

If found guilty, he could face life in prison or execution. The soldier has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

*Clark Stoeckley, an artist who has dedicated much of his work to the Manning case, believes that “he will probably be one of the highest vote-getters for this Nobel Peace Prize,” and he hopes Manning wins.

Stoeckley also believes winning the prize will dramatically improve Manning’s situation, because “it will be hard to keep him in prison after winning prize like that.”

Christer Forslund
02-08-2012, 08:29 PM
Bradley Manning, the US soldier accused of passing secret materials to Wikileaks, has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

*The nomination was proposed by The Movement of Icelandic Parliament, which asserts that revelations produced by the documents Manning allegedly exposed “have helped to fuel a worldwide discussion about America’s overseas engagements, civilian war casualties, imperialistic manipulations, and rules of engagement.”

This is of course well meant. But as you stated in post # 18:


The Prez has already passed judgment (guilty) on him, and he is obviously going to get about as unfair a legal 'deal' as they can manage.

So we may have one Nobel Peace Prize winner utterly adverse to another Nobel Peace Prize winner.

Maybe Manning will be proud enough to refuse to accept that Prize?

Magda Hassan
03-04-2012, 02:59 AM
Stratfor “Source” James Casey Leaves FBI (http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2012/03/01/stratfor-source-james-casey-leaves-fbi/)


One of the “sources” that Stratfor chief Fred Burton queried for information about Wikileaks was “a senior FBI Hqs agent and former DSS agent” with the email jimcasey58@aol.com.
They were evidently quite close. In October of 2007 Burton sent along Stratfor’s Terrorism Intelligence Report for review by jimcasey58@aol.com, and this was the reply (http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/368059_fw-terrorism-intelligence-report-security-contractors-in.html) forwarded to other Stratfor employees:

From: jimcasey58@aol.com [mailto:jimcasey58@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 4:43 PM
To: burton@stratfor.com
Subject: Re: Terrorism Intelligence Report – Security Contractors in Iraq:
Tactical — and Practical — Considerations
Good Stuff Fred! I can just picture you and I strapping on a big ‘ol one
and leading a Blackwater team into a dangerous motorcade! OK, so maybe
the most dangerous thing we do is cut in line at Starbucks. We’re
too old (and smart) for this other shit. Jim

In October 2010, jimcasey58@aol.com sent an email to Burton (http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/379356_re-wikileaks-plans-major-announcement-within-hours-as.html) on the announcement that the Pentagon was anticipating a “massive Iraq war leak”:

From: James Casey
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 14:39:34 -0400
To:
Subject: Re: WikiLeaks plans ‘major’ announcement within hours as Pentagon
braces for massive Iraq war leak
This is why………..even though the FBI is always the first to be
criticized for not playing nice-nice in the sandbox………….the
concept of “widely sharing of information” is not always a great idea.
For a number of years I have used the very example of “a slick sleeved
private, siting in a tent in Baghdad, looking at thousands of classified
reports on SIPRNET”, as a bad way to business. Even I didn’t think that
was going to be the exact scenario that has played out with this WikiLeaks
fiasco. Maybe everybody at the DNI and DHS who have been pimping the
“share by rule, withhold by exception,” concept for the last nine years
will change their tune a little, and acknowledge that “need to know” is
still a valuable idea.

Sounds exactly like the defense being pursued by Bradley Manning’s attorneys at the moment.
Burton considered jimcasey58@aol.com a source, probing him for inside information. On 11-27-2010 (http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/369305_wikileaks-.html), Burton sent an email with the subject line “Wikileaks”:
Jim: How bad will the next round be? Got any idea?
Burton clearly felt jimcasey58@aol.com was his own little Wikileaks window into the DoJ. So on 1-26-2011 (http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1112549_fw-ct-assange-manning-link-not-key-to-wikileaks-case-.html) when Burton sent an email to secure@stratfor.com saying he had intelligence that the DoJ had a “sealed indictment” on Assange, you have to wonder where it came from.
Now I’m thinking, might as well put the email address “jimcasey58@aol.com” through a search and see what comes up. Lo and behold, there’s only one non-Stratfor related hit: a Collier County, Florida bid solicitation (http://bid.colliergov.net/bid/default.asp?id=E0B5CCBB-AF8E-4D1E-8731-64590679921D&show=planholder) for “Security Consultant,” starting on January 26, 2012 and ending on February 1, 2012:
http://static1.firedoglake.com/30/files/2012/03/collier1.jpg (http://static1.firedoglake.com/30/files/2012/03/collier1.jpg)

James M. Casey, LLC
James Casey
1370 Fryston Street
Suite 100
Jacksonville, FL 32259
(571) 246-7249
Jimcasey58@aol.com

What is James M. Casey, LLC? Glad you asked. Because the Florida Times-Union (http://jacksonville.com/business/2012-02-29/story/working-first-coast-private-investigator-fbi-background) has an article datedyesterday that tells us 25 year FBI veteran James Casey is retiring from the FBI that very day to start his own business: James M. Casey, LLC:
http://static1.firedoglake.com/30/files/2012/03/Casey-LLC2.jpg (http://static1.firedoglake.com/30/files/2012/03/Casey-LLC2.jpg)

After 25 years of service in the FBI and four as the special agent in charge of the Jacksonville Division, James Casey is leaving to start his own business — in investigations.

The 53-year-old Casey steps down from running the Jacksonville operation today. On Thursday, he begins his new gig in the private sector running James M. Casey, LLC, Intelligence/Diligence/Risk, a firm designed to look into corporate and government programs that could involve white collar crime and compliance issues.
Casey acknowledged he’ll be a one-man operation at his office that will be located in the EverBank Building, 501 Riverside Ave., in Jacksonville. But he will work with several contractors and specialize in security and investigative services.
Casey leaves a career in law enforcement that included details in 2004 and 2005 with the National Security Council in Washington, where he served under Condoleezza Rice when she was National Security Advisor.
Casey said he’s proud of his government work but he’s looking forward to the civilian enterprise.

Just in case you were wondering who at the FBI was leaking to Stratfor, the dots are all connected for you: Nobody. Because James Casey is gone from the FBI. Retired. Poof! Worried that they gave him the boot because he was singing like a canary to Stratfor, and they didn’t want to launch an internal leak investigation? Well there’s a Florida county government site that lists Casey as a bidder on a contract that ended a month ago.
No doubt it’s just another coincidence that Wikileaks says it released the first Stratfor email with Burton citing his DoJ intel on Assange on January 29 (http://static1.firedoglake.com/30/files/2012/03/BurtonAssange.jpg). (Note on 3/2: trying to confirm if this is a Wikileaks typo or if it was released and embargoed on 1/29 – jh).
And I’m sure the appearance of the Times-Union article only two days after the big Stratfor email dump is yet another coincidence. It will certainly be a Reader’s Digest “was my face red!” moment when reporter Drew Dixson finds out that the subject of his puff piece was the FBI agent sending emails to Stratfor about Wikileaks who was all over the news — and he missed it!
Moral of the story: Bradley Manning gets charged with “aiding the enemy” for potentially leaking information that was available on the SIPRNET to hundreds of thousands of people. This guy gets a gold watch and no investigation for potentially leaking the existence of a sealed DoJ indictment of Julian Assange that I imagine almost nobody knew about.

If I were Bradley Manning’s lawyer I’d be putting James M. Casey, LLC on my witness list pronto. He seems to be the chatty type.
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2012/03/01/stratfor-source-james-casey-leaves-fbi/

Peter Lemkin
03-07-2012, 12:56 PM
March 5th, 2012
by William Blum
www.killinghope.org
The Saga of Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, and Wikileaks, to be put to ballad and film

"Defense lawyers say Manning was clearly a troubled young soldier whom the Army should never have deployed to Iraq or given access to classified material while he was stationed there ... They say he was in emotional turmoil, partly because he was a gay soldier at a time when homosexuals were barred from serving openly in the U.S. armed forces." (Associated Press, February 3)

It's unfortunate and disturbing that Bradley Manning's attorneys have chosen to consistently base his legal defense upon the premise that personal problems and shortcomings are what motivated the young man to turn over hundreds of thousands of classified government files to Wikileaks. They should not be presenting him that way any more than Bradley should be tried as a criminal or traitor. He should be hailed as a national hero. Yes, even when the lawyers are talking to the military mind. May as well try to penetrate that mind and find the freest and best person living there. Bradley also wears a military uniform.

Here are Manning's own words from an online chat: "If you had free reign over classified networks ... and you saw incredible things, awful things ... things that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC ... what would you do? ... God knows what happens now. Hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms. ... I want people to see the truth ... because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public."

Is the world to believe that these are the words of a disturbed and irrational person? Do not the Nuremberg Tribunal and the Geneva Conventions speak of a higher duty than blind loyalty to one's government, a duty to report the war crimes of that government?

Below is a listing of some of the things revealed in the State Department cables and Defense Department files and videos. For exposing such embarrassing and less-than-honorable behavior, Bradley Manning of the United States Army and Julian Assange of Wikileaks may spend most of their remaining days in a modern dungeon, much of it while undergoing that particular form of torture known as "solitary confinement". Indeed, it has been suggested that the mistreatment of Manning has been for the purpose of making him testify against and implicating Assange. Dozens of members of the American media and public officials have called for Julian Assange's execution or assassination. Under the new National Defense Authorization Act, Assange could well be kidnaped or assassinated. What century are we living in? What world?

It was after seeing American war crimes such as those depicted in the video "Collateral Murder" and documented in the "Iraq War Logs," made public by Manning and Wikileaks, that the Iraqis refused to exempt US forces from prosecution for future crimes. The video depicts an American helicopter indiscriminately murdering several non-combatants in addition to two Reuters journalists, and the wounding of two little children, while the helicopter pilots cheer the attacks in a Baghdad suburb like it was the Army-Navy game in Philadelphia.

The insistence of the Iraqi government on legal jurisdiction over American soldiers for violations of Iraqi law — something the United States rarely, if ever, accepts in any of the many countries where its military is stationed — forced the Obama administration to pull the remaining American troops from the country.

If Manning had committed war crimes in Iraq instead of exposing them, he would be a free man today, as are the many hundreds/thousands of American soldiers guilty of truly loathsome crimes in cities like Haditha, Fallujah, and other places whose names will live in infamy in the land of ancient Mesopotamia.

Besides playing a role in writing finis to the awful Iraq war, the Wikileaks disclosures helped to spark the Arab Spring, beginning in Tunisia.

When people in Tunisia read or heard of US Embassy cables revealing the extensive corruption and decadence of the extended ruling family there — one long and detailed cable being titled: "CORRUPTION IN TUNISIA: WHAT'S YOURS IS MINE" — how Washington's support of Tunisian President Ben Ali was not really strong, and that the US would not support the regime in the event of a popular uprising, they took to the streets.

Here is a sample of some of the other Wikileaks revelations that make the people of the world wiser:

In 2009 Japanese diplomat Yukiya Amano became the new head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which plays the leading role in the investigation of whether Iran is developing nuclear weapons or is working only on peaceful civilian nuclear energy projects. A US embassy cable of October 2009 said Amano "took pains to emphasize his support for U.S. strategic objectives for the Agency. Amano reminded the [American] ambassador on several occasions that ... he was solidly in the U.S. court on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program."
Russia refuted US claims that Iran has missiles that could target Europe.
The British government's official inquiry into how it got involved in the Iraq War was deeply compromised by the government's pledge to protect the Bush administration in the course of the inquiry.
A discussion between Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh and American Gen. David H. Petraeus in which Saleh indicated he would cover up the US role in missile strikes against al-Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen. "We'll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours," Saleh told Petraeus.
The US embassy in Madrid has had serious points of friction with the Spanish government and civil society: a) trying to get the criminal case dropped against three US soldiers accused of killing a Spanish television cameraman in Baghdad during a 2003 unprovoked US tank shelling of the hotel where he and other journalists were staying; b )torture cases brought by a Spanish NGO against six senior Bush administration officials, including former attorney general Alberto Gonzales; c) a Spanish government investigation into the torture of Spanish subjects held at Guantánamo; d) a probe by a Spanish court into the use of Spanish bases and airfields for American extraordinary rendition (= torture) flights; e )continual criticism of the Iraq war by Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero, who eventually withdrew Spanish troops.
State Department officials at the United Nations, as well as US diplomats in various embassies, were assigned to gather as much of the following information as possible about UN officials, including Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, permanent security council representatives, senior UN staff, and foreign diplomats: e-mail and website addresses, internet user names and passwords, personal encryption keys, credit card numbers, frequent flyer account numbers, work schedules, and biometric data. US diplomats at the embassy in Asunción, Paraguay were asked to obtain dates, times and telephone numbers of calls received and placed by foreign diplomats from China, Iran and the Latin American leftist states of Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia. US diplomats in Romania, Hungary and Slovenia were instructed to provide biometric information on "current and emerging leaders and advisers" as well as information about "corruption" and information about leaders' health and "vulnerability". The UN directive also specifically asked for "biometric information on ranking North Korean diplomats". A similar cable to embassies in the Great Lakes region of Africa said biometric data included DNA, as well as iris scans and fingerprints.
A special "Iran observer" in the Azerbaijan capital of Baku reported on a dispute that played out during a meeting of Iran's Supreme National Security Council. An enraged Revolutionary Guard Chief of Staff, Mohammed Ali Jafari, allegedly got into a heated argument with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and slapped him in the face because the generally conservative president had, surprisingly, advocated freedom of the press.
The State Department, virtually alone in the Western Hemisphere, did not unequivocally condemn a June 28, 2009 military coup in Honduras, even though an embassy cable declared: "there is no doubt that the military, Supreme Court and National Congress conspired on June 28 in what constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup against the Executive Branch". US support of the coup government has been unwavering ever since.
The leadership of the Swedish Social Democratic Party — neutral, pacifist, and liberal Sweden, so the long-standing myth goes — visited the US embassy in Stockholm and asked for advice on how best to sell the war in Afghanistan to a skeptical Swedish public, asking if the US could arrange for a member of the Afghan government to come visit Sweden and talk up NATO's humanitarian efforts on behalf of Afghan children, and so forth. [For some years now Sweden has been, in all but name, a member of NATO and the persecutor of Julian Assange, the latter to please a certain Western power.]
The US pushed to influence Swedish wiretapping laws so communication passing through the Scandinavian country could be intercepted. The American interest was clear: Eighty per cent of all the internet traffic from Russia travels through Sweden.
President of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy told US embassy officials in Brussels in January 2010 that no one in Europe believed in Afghanistan anymore. He said Europe was going along in deference to the United States and that there must be results in 2010, or "Afghanistan is over for Europe."
Iraqi officials saw Saudi Arabia, not Iran, as the biggest threat to the integrity and cohesion of their fledgling democratic state. The Iraqi leaders were keen to assure their American patrons that they could easily "manage" the Iranians, who wanted stability; but that the Saudis wanted a "weak and fractured" Iraq, and were even "fomenting terrorism that would destabilize the government". The Saudi King, moreover, wanted a US military strike on Iran.
Saudi Arabia in 2007 threatened to pull out of a Texas oil refinery investment unless the US government intervened to stop Saudi Aramco from being sued in US courts for alleged oil price fixing. The deputy Saudi oil minister said that he wanted the US to grant Saudi Arabia sovereign immunity from lawsuits
Saudi donors were the chief financiers of Sunni militant groups like Al Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban, and Lashkar-e-Taiba, which carried out the 2008 Mumbai attacks.
Pfizer, the world's largest pharmaceutical company, hired investigators to unearth evidence of corruption against the Nigerian attorney general in order to persuade him to drop legal action over a controversial 1996 drug trial involving children with meningitis.
Oil giant Shell claimed to have "inserted staff" and fully infiltrated Nigeria's government.
The Obama administration renewed military ties with Indonesia in spite of serious concerns expressed by American diplomats about the Indonesian military's activities in the province of West Papua, expressing fears that the Indonesian government's neglect, rampant corruption and human rights abuses were stoking unrest in the region.
US officials collaborated with Lebanon's defense minister to spy on, and allow Israel to potentially attack, Hezbollah in the weeks that preceded a violent May 2008 military confrontation in Beirut.
Gabon president Omar Bongo allegedly pocketed millions in embezzled funds from central African states, channeling some of it to French political parties in support of Nicolas Sarkozy.
Cables from the US embassy in Caracas in 2006 asked the US Secretary of State to warn President Hugo Chávez against a Venezuelan military intervention to defend the Cuban revolution in the eventuality of an American invasion after Castro's death.
The United States was concerned that the leftist Latin American television network, Telesur, headquartered in Venezuela, would collaborate with al Jazeera of Qatar, whose coverage of the Iraq War had gotten under the skin of the Bush administration.
The Vatican told the United States it wanted to undermine the influence of Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez in Latin America because of concerns about the deterioration of Catholic power there. It feared that Chávez was seriously damaging relations between the Catholic church and the state by identifying the church hierarchy in Venezuela as part of the privileged class.
The Holy See welcomed President Obama's new outreach to Cuba and hoped for further steps soon, perhaps to include prison visits for the wives of the Cuban Five. Better US-Cuba ties would deprive Hugo Chávez of one of his favorite screeds and could help restrain him in the region.
The wonderful world of diplomats: In 2010, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown raised with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton the question of visas for two wives of members of the "Cuban Five". "Brown requested that the wives (who have previously been refused visas to visit the U.S.) be granted visas so that they could visit their husbands in prison. ... Our subsequent queries to Number 10 indicate that Brown made this request as a result of a commitment that he had made to UK trade unionists, who form part of the Labour Party's core constituency. Now that the request has been made, Brown does not intend to pursue this matter further. There is no USG action required."
UK Officials concealed from Parliament how the US was allowed to bring cluster bombs onto British soil in defiance of a treaty banning the housing of such weapons.
A cable was sent by an official at the US Interests Section in Havana in July 2006, during the runup to the Non-Aligned Movement conference. He noted that he was actively looking for "human interest stories and other news that shatters the myth of Cuban medical prowess". [Presumably to be used to weaken support for Cuba amongst the member nations at the conference.]
Most of the men sent to Guantánamo prison were innocent people or low-level operatives; many of the innocent individuals were sold to the US for bounty.
DynCorp, a powerful American defense contracting firm that claims almost $2 billion per year in revenue from US tax dollars, threw a "boy-play" party for Afghan police recruits. (Yes, it's what you think.)
Even though the Bush and Obama Administrations repeatedly maintained publicly that there was no official count of civilian casualties, the Iraq and Afghanistan War Logs showed that this claim was untrue.
Known Egyptian torturers received training at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia.
The United States put great pressure on the Haitian government to not go ahead with various projects, with no regard for the welfare of the Haitian people. A 2005 cable stressed continued US insistence that all efforts must be made to keep former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide, whom the United States had overthrown the previous year, from returning to Haiti or influencing the political process. In 2006, Washington's target was President René Préval for his agreeing to a deal with Venezuela to join Caracas's Caribbean oil alliance, PetroCaribe, under which Haiti would buy oil from Venezuela, paying only 60 percent up front with the remainder payable over twenty-five years at 1 percent interest. And in 2009, the State Department backed American corporate opposition to an increase in the minimum wage for Haitian workers, the poorest paid in the Western Hemisphere.
The United States used threats, spying, and more to try to get its way at the crucial 2009 climate conference in Copenhagen.
Mahmoud Abbas, president of The Palestinian National Authority, and head of the Fatah movement, turned to Israel for help in attacking Hamas in Gaza in 2007.
The British government trained a Bangladeshi paramilitary force condemned by human rights organisations as a "government death squad".
A US military order directed American forces not to investigate cases of torture of detainees by Iraqis.
The US was involved in the Australian government's 2006 campaign to oust Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare.
A 2009 US cable said that police brutality in Egypt against common criminals was routine and pervasive, the police using force to extract confessions from criminals on a daily basis.
US diplomats pressured the German government to stifle the prosecution of CIA operatives who abducted and tortured Khalid El-Masri, a German citizen. [El-Masri was kidnaped by the CIA while on vacation in Macedonia on December 31, 2003. He was flown to a torture center in Afghanistan, where he was beaten, starved, and sodomized. The US government released him on a hilltop in Albania five months later without money or the means to go home.]
2005 cable re "widespread severe torture" by India, the widely-renowned "world's largest democracy": The International Committee of the Red Cross reported: "The continued ill-treatment of detainees, despite longstanding ICRC-GOI [Government of India] dialogue, have led the ICRC to conclude that New Delhi condones torture." Washington was briefed on this matter by the ICRC years ago. What did the United States, one of the world's leading practitioners and teachers of torture in the past century, do about it? American leaders, including the present ones, continued to speak warmly of "the world's largest democracy"; as if torture and one of the worst rates of poverty and child malnutrition in the world do not contradict the very idea of democracy.
The United States overturned a ban on training the Indonesian Kopassus army special forces — despite the Kopassus's long history of arbitrary detention, torture and murder — after the Indonesian President threatened to derail President Obama's trip to the country in November 2010.
Since at least 2006 the United States has been funding political opposition groups in Syria, including a satellite TV channel that beams anti-government programming into the country.

Peter Lemkin
03-08-2012, 07:15 PM
President Obama feels your Constitutional right to due process can be what ever secret 'process' he makes up.
This week, US Attorney General Eric Holder outlined the administration's supposed legal authority to secretly target US citizens for execution without ever notifying them of the accusations against them, officially charging them with a crime or offering them the opportunity to respond. Since the whole world is a battlefield in the vague 'war on terror,' the only due process afforded to someone who has been targeted for extrajudicial execution is a secret 'review' by the executive branch.
Just as the public demanded the release of the Bush Administration's Torture Memos to expose the ludicrous rationale behind their secret torture program, we too must demand to know the legal rationale for a program that allows our president to unilaterally choose to deprive someone of life and liberty - without the victim even being charged with a crime.
Holder's speech was a cheap attempt to feign transparency without actually releasing the legal memos that define the administration's execution policy.1 We need your help to demand the Obama administration release these memos immediately. Can you please sign our petition demanding the Obama administration release the Execution Memos?
Sign our petition demanding the Obama administration produce the internal memos and legal justification for their targeted execution program. (http://action.firedoglake.com/page/m/5958d34a/459ac811/6242c113/3dc64b4c/1449000261/VEsF/)
Click here to sign: http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/release-the-memo (http://action.firedoglake.com/page/m/5958d34a/459ac811/6242c113/3dc64b4c/1449000261/VEsC/)
The administration's refusal to even outline this non-judicial 'due process' that allows US citizens to be secretly put on a kill list is beyond troubling to say the least.
As Salon writer Glenn Greenwald put it:

...the 'process' which Eric Holder yesterday argued constitutes "due process" as required by the Fifth Amendment before the government can deprive of someone of their life: the President and his underlings are your accuser, your judge, your jury and your executioner all wrapped up in one, acting in total secrecy and without your even knowing that he's accused you and sentenced you to death, and you have no opportunity even to know about, let alone confront and address, his accusations; is that not enough due process for you?2 The ACLU, New York Times and others have been suing the Obama administration for months in hopes of securing the release of the Execution Memos, but as one of the least-transparent administrations in recent history, they have repeatedly blocked their release.3
If left unchallenged, this secretive program could continue to expand under Obama and future presidents, and further erode America's most basic principles of justice. Without the memos we do not know exactly how far the Obama administration believes this unprecedented power extends. We need your help to build a groundswell of pressure to force the release of any and all legal justification for the targeted killings program so there can be an open debate in this country about our president's unilateral authority to kill.
Sign our petition demanding the Obama administration produce the internal memos and legal justification for their targeted killing program. (http://action.firedoglake.com/page/m/5958d34a/459ac811/6242c113/3dc64b4c/1449000261/VEsD/)
This is a serious and dangerous precedent, and anyone who took issue with the Bush Torture Memos should be even more concerned about this latest power grab by the president. I hope you'll join us in fighting to release these memos.
Deepest Thanks,
Brian Sonenstein
Director of Online Activism,
Firedoglake.com
1. Holder's Regressive Defense of Targeted Killings (http://action.firedoglake.com/page/m/5958d34a/459ac811/6242c113/3dc64b4d/1449000261/VEsA/), Kevin Gosztola, FDL's Dissenter, 3/6/2012.
2. Attorney General Holder defends execution without charges (http://action.firedoglake.com/page/m/5958d34a/459ac811/6242c113/3dc64b42/1449000261/VEsB/), Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com, 3/6/2012.
3. The Worst Administration on FOIA (http://action.firedoglake.com/page/m/5958d34a/459ac811/6242c113/3dc64b43/1449000261/VEsO/), Kevin Gosztola, FDL's Dissenter, 3/5/2012.

Magda Hassan
03-10-2012, 09:19 AM
Malice v. Nobility

Scooter Libby v. Bradley Manningby SAUL LANDAU
After 9/11, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, a Yale graduate with a law degree from Columbia, and fellow neo cons plotted to twist and invent “intelligence” data to convince the public that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, so as to build a case for invading Iraq.
From 2001 to 2005, Libby served as Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs, Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States and Assistant to President George W. Bush.
Libby and fellow neo cons stressed Bush’s dubious claim that “the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” (2003 State of the Union Address)
Cheney repeated that Saddam Hussein was “trying once again to produce nuclear weapons” in March. (“Meet the Press”)
The CIA was asked to investigate. Joe Wilson a former US Ambassador and expert on Africa got chosen for the mission. His wife, Valery Plame, worked as a covert CIA operator.
Wilson dismissed the “yellow-cake tale”. His New York Times op ed (“What I Didn’t Find In Africa, July 6, 2003) suggested the Bushies had invented pretexts for the Iraq war.
Libby and fellow war plotters Karl Rove and Richard Armitage, not satisfied by their success in making war, wanted to punish their Washington enemies. They leaked Plame’s name to the mischievous columnist Robert Novak — to punish her husband, Wilson. Novak’s story ended her CIA career, and exposed her agents and contacts.
A jury later convicted Libby of obstruction of justice and perjury around the case. A judge sentenced him to 30 months in prison, and fined him $250,000. Bush, months later, commuted his term. But no one got charged with plotting to distribute false information to lure the public to war. The New York Times had even helped the campaign by publishing the lies as news stories on its front page.
Count the Bush cabal’s accomplishments: thousands of dead US military personnel and contractors, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis; hundreds of thousands wounded, physically and mentally – here and there. Iraq remains broken. 13000 Iraqis died violently last year. W. Bush destroyed Iraq’s integrity. His profligate war spending vastly increased the national debt. His definitive biography might be called: “Lying The Nation Into War.”
Libby served some months in prison. But the neo con gang should be called simply “cons” – as in convicts. Most of them got great jobs instead.
In November 2005, a Marine Corps unit killed 24 unarmed Iraqi men, women and children in Haditha, Iraq. Investigators determined all died from multiple gun shot wounds at close range — apparently as payback for an Iraqi rebel attack on a US convoy in which a Marine Corporal died – the mini My Lai of Iraq.
This January 24 a US military judge handed down harsh sentences. Squad leader, Staff Sgt. Frank G. Wuterich, pleaded guilty of war crimes and received a maximum of 90 days in prison and a reduction in pay and rank. He served no time in the brig. One Marine was acquitted; six others had their cases dropped. (Dirk Adriaensens, Truthout, February 28, 2012)
No US official has been charged for the massive number of civilian deaths in Iraq, or for lying as a pretext for war. Who remembers the Nuremberg laws?
Now look at Private Bradley Manning’s ordeal. He had access to and allegedly released — to Julian Assange of Wikileaks — hundreds of thousands of secret documents. These documents exposed not secrets vital to our enemy, but lies, corruption and crimes by US officials and those of other countries. Manning’s defense team stresses that what Wikileaks published wasn’t or shouldn’t have been secret.
Manning did however embarrass US officials by exposing their illegal, stupid, selfish and downright inane activities. If he illegally distributed those documents, why doesn’t the Justice Department charge the New York Times and other newspapers that gleefully distributed this supposedly classified (mortifying) material? One video Manning allegedly released spread virally. US helicopter gunship members get orders to fire on Iraqis because one (a Reuters cameraman) might have a weapon (a video camera). We witness from the camera mounted on the gun the massacre of a group of men near the cameraman, and then of others who subsequently arrive to help the wounded, including a child in a van. Humanitarian behavior in Iraq? Who invited us there?
Was this classified because Iraqis didn’t know our troops did such things – or because it disgraces our military?
With vindictiveness aforethought the military held Manning for months in solitary confinement – often naked with the light on all night — in the Quantico Virginia Marine Base. Solitary “crushes your spirit and weakens your resistance more effectively than any other form of mistreatment.” (John McCain, on his two years of solitary confinement in Vietnam)
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, The Center for Constitutional Rights, the ACLU and the New York Times concluded that solitary confinement constitutes torture, designed to break a person. The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture tried to investigate Manning’s prison conditions. The military refused his request for an unmonitored visit.
The 24 year-old Manning faces 22 charges, including “aiding the enemy.” If convicted, the government will call for life imprisonment, unless Manning implicates Julian Assange in the “conspiracy” to expose the “secret” sins of US national security. Members of the Icelandic Parliament have nominated Manning for a Nobel Peace Prize. Let’s help him win it – as a free man.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/03/09/scooter-libby-v-bradley-manning/

Albert Doyle
04-22-2012, 03:25 PM
At what point does the persecution of Manning get traction and start working against the government that is jailing him? At some point it has to click with the public that Manning is being jailed because he stood up against a war crime torture government. At what point does this start to backfire?


Manning, a proud hero to many Americans, is currently rotting in jail as we talk and enjoy our coffee. At what point does the government try to come up and stand in front of the American public with Manning around its neck like an Albatross?

Peter Lemkin
04-22-2012, 05:12 PM
At what point does the persecution of Manning get traction and start working against the government that is jailing him? At some point it has to click with the public that Manning is being jailed because he stood up against a war crime torture government. At what point does this start to backfire?


Manning, a proud hero to many Americans, is currently rotting in jail as we talk and enjoy our coffee. At what point does the government try to come up and stand in front of the American public with Manning around its neck like an Albatross?

Given the current status of Sheeple ignorance and MSM/Intel Propaganda, I would NOT hold my breath!......I think life in prison awaits him with NOT much bleating from the sheeple!....[sadly]. Assange, if the get him, will be executed. IMHO [Such is the advanced state of the fascism]! Folks, the 'system' has NO checks and balances - it is corrupt to the CORE and needs only one thing - a complete REVOLUTION and its overthrow! [peacefully]

Magda Hassan
07-04-2012, 01:31 AM
Bradley Manning Support Network Under Investigation By U.S. Army (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/01/1105027/-Bradley-Manning-Support-Network-Under-Investigation-By-U-S-Army)bybarrettbrown (http://www.dailykos.com/user/barrettbrown)Follow (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/01/1105027/-Bradley-Manning-Support-Network-Under-Investigation-By-U-S-Army#?friend_id=14897&is_stream=1)


The Bradley Manning Support Network is under investigation by the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, as revealed by a copy of a Freedom of Information Act request response (http://www.scribd.com/doc/98775790/Army-CID-Bradley-Manning-Support-Network-Letter). In this case, the request for records pertaining to the activist umbrella group was denied, but the reason for the denial - that "an active investigation is in progress with an undetermined completion date" - is obviously news in and of itself, which is presumably why none of the infotainment outlets posing as news organizations have reported on the development thus far.

As of 1:30 PM CST, the FOIA scan indicating that a network of activists who advocate on behalf of a celebrated accused whistleblower are being pursued by a branch of the U.S. military has not been mentioned by a single news organization with a web presence. Searching Google News brings up nothing; searching Google itself brings up two blogs with what we may presume to be very little reach (building up an audience has less to do with quality than it does with packaging, which is why Thomas Friedman is so popular). Quite possibly there will be mentions of all this by tomorrow in at least a few more places - but having spent years working in the media, analyzing the media, and sometimes being covered by the media, it wouldn't surprise me if coverage were relegated to a handful of specialist sites and perhaps Wired (which itself does some of the best and most crucial reporting on such issues as the NSA Utah Data Center only to have its revelations ignored by general outlets in favor of Secret Service prostitution scandals).
Complaints of this sort are often brushed off by journalists with the more "respectable" outlets with the response that everyone has their pet issue that they believe deserves special attention. In this case, such an excuse wouldn't hold water, nor does today being Sunday serve to explain away the complete absence of coverage thus far. Back in early 2010, when the Wikileaks Twitter account put forth a series of messages to the effect that one of its volunteers had been stopped and questioned and that others were being aggressively pursued by agents of the State Department, there was zero coverage of the incident at all. And the claims of state interference weren't exactly dubious; just a few days prior, Wikileaks had released Pentagon documents that proved the U.S. military was already considering how best to disrupt the organization. Back then, Wikileaks just wasn't on the radar of the U.S. media on the whole. Only later in the year would editors collectively agree that Wikileaks was indeed maybe some sort of big deal - soon after which it collectively decided that it was easier and more fun to ask probing questions about whether or not Julian Assange thinks highly of himself than it was to look through the actual documents that were providing to the world. And of course it became not only clear, but abundantly and repeatedly clear, that a number of covert operations were in the works against Wikileaks and individuals close to it. At any rate, they would eventually agree that this strange new transparency group was shaping up to be a major story, but only long after it had become obvious. Its notability having been eventually established even by the American media reckoning, there's no viable excuse on "Sorry, We Don't Agree That's Notable" grounds for that incident to have been entirely ignored. It's just hard to look back at that day and make the case that it didn't represent a massive failure on the part of the media to see a story coming, even when plenty of other observers saw it quite clearly.
There's probably more at play here than simply groupthink. In both the Wikileaks/State Department incident and the incident I'm bitching about this time, the story was only apparent to the extent that one kept an eye on certain Twitter feeds, particular reddit sections, and other relatively newfangled venues of the sort that didn't exist ten years ago and which still have attached to them certain vaguely disreputable, quasi-comical connotations in the minds of countless producers and editors. Meanwhile, more and more stories of the sort that clearly merit coverage can be expected to emanate from these allegedly unconventional nooks and crannies, the info itself having been placed on Scribd or pastebin or some other such thing instead of delivered in a press release or spoken at a podium by some well-paid liar. At some point, those whose profession calls upon them to be aware of what's happening are going to have to learn to contend with how much of those happenings are now happening on online thingamajigs with silly names.
To be fair, some professionals of that sort have indeed learned how much data can be gleaned from well-executed examinations of social networking platforms. Unfortunately, most of them work in the surveillance and intelligence sectors of government agencies or private contractors (http://wiki.echelon2.org/wiki/Main_Page)tors, rather than newsrooms, and are engaged in keeping tabs on such parties as the Bradley Manning Support Network.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/01/1105027/-Bradley-Manning-Support-Network-Under-Investigation-By-U-S-Army

Albert Doyle
07-12-2012, 09:03 PM
Bradley Manning still rots in jail while we let him...

Magda Hassan
07-21-2012, 04:09 AM
UN torture expert banned from testifying at Bradley Manning hearings



Published: 21 July, 2012, 01:55


It’ll be another month before accused WikiLeaks contributor Bradley Manning is back before a military judge, but his supporters say a fair trial is still far away. The Army has denied the requests to have a UN official at the next round of hearings.


During Thursday’s pretrial hearing at Ft. Meade outside of Washington, D.C., the military justice presiding over the case pertaining to Private First Class Bradley Manning’s alleged leaking of sensitive documents challenged two of the defense’s requested witnesses. Along with rejecting Lt. Col. Dawn Hilton, commander of the Joint Regional Correctional Facility (JRCF) at Fort Leavenworth, Army Col. Denise Lind also told Manning’s attorneys that a torture expert from the United Nations would be barred from presenting testimony.
David Coombs, the civilian attorney representing PFC Manning, had requested that Juan Mendez, the UN’s special rapporteur on torture, be allowed to present during the next round of hearing. Those motions, scheduled to begin in late August, will involve discussions involving the nine months Manning spent in solitary confinement at the Quantico Marine Brig. in Virginia. Mendez has previously argued that the conditions that Manning was subjected to were considered torturous under the UN’s guidelines, but Col. Lind will not allow him to be questioned before the court.
In the midst of an investigation into the military’s treatment of Manning last year, Mendez told The Guardian that he was “deeply disappointed and frustrated by the prevarication of the US government with regard to my attempts to visit Mr. Manning.” Mendez had attempted to meet with Manning in private while he was held in solitary confinement without being charged with a crime. When Mendez finished his report on behalf of the UN this year, he concluded (http://rt.com/usa/news/manning-cruel-treatment-un-torture-383/)that the military’s treatment of Manning was beyond unreasonable.
"The special rapporteur concludes that imposing seriously punitive conditions of detention on someone who has not been found guilty of any crime is a violation of his right to physical and psychological integrity as well as of his presumption of innocence," Mendez wrote.
"I conclude that the 11 months under conditions of solitary confinement (regardless of the name given to his regime by the prison authorities) constitutes at a minimum cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of article 16 of the convention against torture,” Mendez told the Guardian this past March. “If the effects in regards to pain and suffering inflicted on Manning were more severe, they could constitute torture.”
During this week’s hearings, Col. Lind said that prosecutors could not present evidence of any harm posed on Manning during his imprisonment because it was irrelevant to whether or not his nine-months of confinement was illegal. The court has also dismissed motions that would focus on the harm, or lack thereof, that the leaks caused. The Pentagon argues that shifting the case to concentrate on the degree of any damage done would be confusing, but that attorneys could allude to it through witnesses once the actual trial is underway.

Manning faces life in prison if found guilty of aiding an enemy, a charge the military has introduced in response to accusations that the serviceman sent classified information, including thousands of diplomatic cables, to Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks site. Earlier this week, Mr. Coombs argued that the charge implies that Manning would have aided the enemy simply by sending intelligence to a third-party. Had he been tried as a terrorist, argued Coombs, the court would be more lenient on his client.
“In a prosecution of a terrorist under Offense 26, the Government would be required to prove that the terrorist knowingly and intentionally aided the enemy,” Coombs told the court this week. “It defies all logic to think that a terrorist would fare better in an American court for aiding the enemy than a US soldier would.”
Despite the court’s call to bar the UN’s Mendez from testifying during the pretrial hearing, Mr. Coombs has insisted that he will file a 100-page motion that discusses the torturous conditions his client was held under while at Quantico — all without charge. The document, says Coombs, will “shock the conscience of the court.”
"I was stripped of all clothing with the exception of my underwear. My prescription eyeglasses were taken away from me and I was forced to sit in essential blindness,” Manning told a military attorney last year.
Speaking to the Guardian last January, David House of the Bradley Manning Support Network said that the serviceman seemed “catatonic” when he visited to him at Quantico.
Amnesty International’s UK campaign director, Tim Hancock, has also called the military’s treatment of Manning“cruel, inhuman and degrading,” and, in November 2011, 50 members (http://rt.com/usa/news/european-manning-us-bradley-511/)of the European Parliament urged the United States government to intervene in the imprisonment.
"We certainly do not understand why an alleged whistleblower is being threatened with the death penalty, or the possibility of life in prison. We also question whether Bradley Manning's right to due process has been upheld, as he has now spent over 17 months in pre-trial confinement,” the MPs wrote.
Mr. Coombs argues that the military court has yet to prove if — and how — the accusations Manning is charged with damaged national security.
http://rt.com/usa/news/bradley-manning-torture-un-727/

Jan Klimkowski
07-21-2012, 11:31 AM
During Thursday’s pretrial hearing at Ft. Meade outside of Washington, D.C., the military justice presiding over the case pertaining to Private First Class Bradley Manning’s alleged leaking of sensitive documents challenged two of the defense’s requested witnesses. Along with rejecting Lt. Col. Dawn Hilton, commander of the Joint Regional Correctional Facility (JRCF) at Fort Leavenworth, Army Col. Denise Lind also told Manning’s attorneys that a torture expert from the United Nations would be barred from presenting testimony.

The whole point of a military tribunal rather than a public courthouse is to keep the dirty linen stuffed away and hide any inconvenient truths.

American Justice circa 2012 continues to abide by these dishonourable traditions.

Magda Hassan
07-25-2012, 11:41 AM
WikiLeaks Diplomatic Cables FOIA Documents
In June 2011, the ACLU filed suit (http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-v-department-state-wikileaks-foia-lawsuit-complaint) against the State Department to enforce a FOIA request (http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-v-department-state-wikileaks-foia-request) seeking 23 embassy cables previously disclosed by WikiLeaks. The agency released redacted versions of 11 and withheld the other 12 in full. Learn more » (http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-v-department-state)
The five excerpts below show the government’s selective and self-serving decisions to withhold information. Because the leaked versions of these cables have already been widely distributed, the redacted releases provide unique insight into the government’s selective decisions to hide information from the American public.
Place your mouse over the redacted sections to see what the government is hiding. Scroll to the bottom of the page to access redacted versions of all 11 cables released by the government and links to the full cables published by WikiLeaks.


05THEHAGUE1876
http://www.aclu.org/files/images/natsec/aclu_doc.jpg (http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/natsec/wikileaksfoia/05THEHAGUE1876.pdf) http://www.aclu.org/files/images/natsec/wiki_doc.jpg (http://wikileaks.org/cable/2005/07/05THEHAGUE1876.html)



http://www.aclu.org/files/images/natsec/05THEHAGUE1876_re.jpg (http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/natsec/wikileaksfoia/05THEHAGUE1876.pdf)
In the document above, the government discloses discussions that paint the United States in a positive light while withholding embarrassing critiques of American policy. In this cable from the U.S. embassy in The Hague, Dutch Foreign Minister Bernard Bot’s praise for U.S.-Dutch relations was released, but the details of Dutch disapproval of the handling of Guantánamo detainees remain classified as a matter of national security.



06THEHAGUE2282
http://www.aclu.org/files/images/natsec/aclu_doc.jpg (http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/natsec/wikileaksfoia/06THEHAGUE2282.pdf) http://www.aclu.org/files/images/natsec/wiki_doc.jpg (http://wikileaks.org/cable/2006/10/06THEHAGUE2282.html)



http://www.aclu.org/files/images/natsec/06THEHAGUE2282_re.jpg (http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/natsec/wikileaksfoia/06THEHAGUE2282.pdf)
In the document above, the government selectively reveals points of agreement with foreign officials while hiding opinions critical of the U.S. In another cable from the U.S. embassy in The Hague, an entire paragraph relating to “Detainees/ Guantánamo” is redacted, including publicly-available information about Dutch condemnation of secret CIA prisons. But diplomatic opinions about concern over North Korea and Iran—areas of agreement with the United States—were released. (The abbreviation “GONL” refers to the Government of the Netherlands).



06BERN141
http://www.aclu.org/files/images/natsec/aclu_doc.jpg (http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/natsec/wikileaksfoia/06BERN141.pdf) http://www.aclu.org/files/images/natsec/wiki_doc.jpg (http://wikileaks.org/cable/2006/01/06BERN141.html)



http://www.aclu.org/files/images/natsec/06BERN141_re.jpg (http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/natsec/wikileaksfoia/06BERN141.pdf)
In the document above, the government withholds publicly-available information about discredited programs. A cable from the U.S. embassy in Bern hides Swiss disapproval of rendition flights as well as Italian allegations against CIA agents for the kidnapping of Abu Omar in Milan, both of which were widely reported and on the public record.



06LISBON2365
http://www.aclu.org/files/images/natsec/aclu_doc.jpg (http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/natsec/wikileaksfoia/06LISBON2365.pdf) http://www.aclu.org/files/images/natsec/wiki_doc.jpg (http://www.wikileaks.org/cable/2006/10/06LISBON2365.html)



http://www.aclu.org/files/images/natsec/06LISBON2365_re.jpg (http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/natsec/wikileaksfoia/06LISBON2365.pdf)
In the document above, the government withholds descriptions of obvious public opinion and foreign law. In this cable from the U.S. embassy in Lisbon, the government redacted description of backlash in Portugal against allowing the U.S. to use Portuguese airspace when transporting Guantanamo detainees back to their countries of origin. The government seems to be trying to hide the unsurprising insight that past illegal actions by the U.S.—specifically, the government’s rendition and black-site prison program—continue to complicate the United States’ relationships with foreign governments. (The abbreviation “GOP” refers to the Government of Portugal).



08LONDON2651
http://www.aclu.org/files/images/natsec/aclu_doc.jpg (http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/natsec/wikileaksfoia/08LONDON2651.pdf) http://www.aclu.org/files/images/natsec/wiki_doc.jpg (http://wikileaks.org/cable/2008/10/08LONDON2651.html)



http://www.aclu.org/files/images/natsec/08LONDON2651_re.jpg (http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/natsec/wikileaksfoia/08LONDON2651.pdf)
In the document above, the government selectively withholds widely-known information about politically sensitive policies. In this cable from the U.S. embassy in London, the government redacted an entire paragraph about the U.S. government’s use of Predator drones to kill people on Pakistani soil. While U.S. officials routinely endorse the use of Predator drones off the record, they continue to formally deny the United States’ role in drone attacks. However, information about the use of drones in Pakistan has received sustained and widespread coverage in the press.


LEARN MORE:
ACLU v. Department of State: WikiLeaks FOIA (http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-v-department-state)
April 12, 2011 FOIA Request (http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-v-department-state-wikileaks-foia-request)
June 9, 2011 Complaint (http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-v-department-state-wikileaks-foia-lawsuit-complaint)
October 21, 2011 Response from State Department (http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-national-security/october-21-2011-state-department-letter-responding-wikileaks-foia)




Cable ID
Full Text Released by WikiLeaks
Cables Released to the ACLU by State Department


07MADRID1805
wikileaks.org/cable/2007/09/07MADRID1805.html (http://wikileaks.org/cable/2007/09/07MADRID1805.html)
Withheld in full


09MADRID347
wikileaks.c4ss.org/cable/2009/04/09MADRID347.html (http://wikileaks.c4ss.org/cable/2009/04/09MADRID347.html)
Released in part (http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/natsec/wikileaksfoia/09MADRID347.pdf)


09MADRID392
wikileaks.org/cable/2009/04/09MADRID392.html (http://wikileaks.org/cable/2009/04/09MADRID392.html)
Released in part (http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/natsec/wikileaksfoia/09MADRID392.pdf)


09MADRID440
wikileaks.org/cable/2009/05/09MADRID440.html (http://wikileaks.org/cable/2009/05/09MADRID440.html)
Released in part (http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/natsec/wikileaksfoia/09MADRID440.pdf)


09TUNIS415
wikileaks.org/cable/2009/06/09TUNIS415.html (http://wikileaks.org/cable/2009/06/09TUNIS415.html)
Withheld in full


07TRIPOLI943
wikileaks.org/cable/2007/11/07TRIPOLI943.html (http://wikileaks.org/cable/2007/11/07TRIPOLI943.html)
Withheld in full


08OTTAWA918
wikileaks.org/cable/2008/07/08OTTAWA918.html (http://wikileaks.org/cable/2008/07/08OTTAWA918.html)
Withheld in full


10LUXEMBOURG5
wikileaks.org/cable/2010/01/10LUXEMBOURG5.html (http://wikileaks.org/cable/2010/01/10LUXEMBOURG5.html)
Released in part (http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/natsec/wikileaksfoia/10LUXEMBOURG5.pdf)


05PARIS3118
wikileaks.org/cable/2005/05/05PARIS3118.html (http://wikileaks.org/cable/2005/05/05PARIS3118.html)
Released in part (http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/natsec/wikileaksfoia/05PARIS3118.pdf)


05PARIS1699
wikileaks.org/cable/2005/03/05PARIS1699.html (http://wikileaks.org/cable/2005/03/05PARIS1699.html)
Released in part (http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/natsec/wikileaksfoia/05PARIS1699.pdf)


08LONDON1412
wikileaks.org/cable/2008/05/08LONDON1412.html (http://wikileaks.org/cable/2008/05/08LONDON1412.html)
Withheld in full


06DUBLIN1020
wikileaks.org/cable/2006/09/06DUBLIN1020.html (http://wikileaks.org/cable/2006/09/06DUBLIN1020.html)
Withheld in full


06LISBON2365
http://www.wikileaks.org/cable/2006/10/06LISBON2365.html
Released in part (http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/natsec/wikileaksfoia/06LISBON2365.pdf)


10SANAA4
wikileaks.org/cable/2010/01/10SANAA4.html (http://wikileaks.org/cable/2010/01/10SANAA4.html)
Withheld in full


08LONDON2651
wikileaks.org/cable/2008/10/08LONDON2651.html (http://wikileaks.org/cable/2008/10/08LONDON2651.html)
Released in part (http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/natsec/wikileaksfoia/08LONDON2651.pdf)


09RIYADH670
wikileaks.org/cable/2009/05/09RIYADH670.html (http://wikileaks.org/cable/2009/05/09RIYADH670.html)
Withheld in full


06BERN141
wikileaks.org/cable/2006/01/06BERN141.html (http://wikileaks.org/cable/2006/01/06BERN141.html)
Released in part (http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/natsec/wikileaksfoia/06BERN141.pdf)


06BERN1804
wikileaks.org/cable/2006/09/06BERN1804.html (http://wikileaks.org/cable/2006/09/06BERN1804.html)
Withheld in full


10ROME174
wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/10ROME174.html (http://wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/10ROME174.html)
Withheld in full


05THEHAGUE1876
wikileaks.org/cable/2005/07/05THEHAGUE1876.html (http://wikileaks.org/cable/2005/07/05THEHAGUE1876.html)
Released in part (http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/natsec/wikileaksfoia/05THEHAGUE1876.pdf)


06THEHAGUE2282
wikileaks.org/cable/2006/10/06THEHAGUE2282.html (http://wikileaks.org/cable/2006/10/06THEHAGUE2282.html)
Released in part (http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/natsec/wikileaksfoia/06THEHAGUE2282.pdf)


07BERLIN242
wikileaks.org/cable/2007/02/07BERLIN242.html (http://wikileaks.org/cable/2007/02/07BERLIN242.html)
Withheld in full


08ISLAMABAD3586
wikileaks.org/cable/2008/11/08ISLAMABAD3586.html (http://wikileaks.org/cable/2008/11/08ISLAMABAD3586.html)
Withheld in full



http://www.aclu.org/wikileaks-diplomatic-cables-foia-documents

Magda Hassan
07-25-2012, 11:45 AM
The US government has seriously lost the plot re the cables still being 'classified'. Maintaining a legal fiction is one thing but this is a complete divorce from reality.

Magda Hassan
08-15-2012, 01:19 PM
Accused: the men who tortured Bradley Manning… dismissal of charges document here in fullPOSTED BY ANONYMOUS (https://darkernet.wordpress.com/author/melbourneone/) ⋅ AUGUST 11, 2012 ⋅
ASSANGE (https://darkernet.wordpress.com/tag/assange/)
http://darkernet.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/wpid-bradleymanning11.jpg?w=750“I conclude that the 11 months under conditions of solitary confinement (regardless of the name given to his regime by the prison authorities) constitutes at a minimum cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of article 16 of the convention against torture,” Juan Mendez, UN special rapporteur on torture.Below, Darker Net reveals the names of those accused of the torture of Bradley Manning. In the meantime, the legal team representing Manning, charged with leaking war crimes, are requesting that all charges raised against him are dismissed given that for several months he was subjected to torture. The submission concludes, as a result of “flagrant violation” of Manning’s “constitutional rights,” the judge should dismiss all charges with prejudice or, at minimum, grant “meaningful relief in the form of at least 10-for-1 sentencing credit for the 258 days PFC Manning inappropriately spent in the equivalent of solitary confinement.”Here is the full 110 page motion (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_zC44SBaZPoQ2hLa21jNlM0WmM/preview?pli=1#) for dismissal of charges.More details from The Dissenter – click here (http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/08/10/defense-motion-details-horrific-conditions-bradley-manning-was-subjected-to-at-quantico/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter).
http://darkernet.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/wpid-james_averhart-9773645_std1.jpg?w=750James Averhart

Accused 1. James AverhartThe officer in charge of Manning’s incarceration at Quantico and who ordered he be tortured was Quantico’s Brig Commander, James Averhart. He gave orders to put Manning into solitary confinement while detained on charges awaiting trial. Manning spent 23 hours a day in a cell and wore a smock so abrasive he acquired fabric burns from it. Manning’s bedding articles, smock and related evidence are being submitted to the court for review of pre-trial punishment conditions levied against the whistleblower. Bradley Manning: “On 18 January 2011, over the recommendation of Capt. Hocter and the defense psychiatrist, Capt. Brian Moore, Averhart placed me under suicide risk. The suicide risk means that I sit in my cell for 24 hours a day. I am stripped of all clothing with the exception of my underwear. My prescription eyeglasses are taken away from me. I am forced to sit in essential blindness with the exception of the times that I am reading or given limited television privileges. During those times, my glasses are returned to me. Additionally, there is a guard sitting outside my cell watching me at all times.” The stripping and interrogation that Manning endured was videotaped (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B_zC44SBaZPoZTE0YTkxMDctMGM5ZC00NzFjLTk4NGM tNzY4NjcwNzQyZWE0&hl=en_US) by the Quantico facility.
http://darkernet.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/wpid-col-choike1.jpg?w=750Daniel J Choike

Accused 2. Daniel J ChoikeOn March 2, 2011, Manning, then confined under Maximum custody and Prevention of Injury Watch (POI) at Quantico, where he had been since July 29, 2010, was told that his Article 138 request to be placed under Medium custody and removed from harsh and punitive pre trial confinement was denied by Daniel J. Choike, Quantico base commander.
http://darkernet.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/wpid-colrobertg-oltman1.jpg?w=750Robert G Oltman

Accused 3. Col. Robert G OltmanWhen challenged by a Brig psychiatrist that there was no mental health justification for the torture, Colonel Robert Oltman responded, “We will do whatever we want to do”.Litany of torturePFC Manning was placed in a cell directly in front of the guard post to facilitate his constant monitoring.
PFC Manning was awoken at 0500 hours and required to remain awake in his cell from 0500 to 2200 hours.
PFC Manning was not permitted to lie down on his rack during the duty day. Nor was PFC Manning permitted to lean his back against the cell wall; he had to sit upright on his rack without any back support.
Whenever PFC Manning was moved outside his cell, the entire facility was locked down.
Whenever PFC Manning was moved outside his cell, he was shackled with metal hand and leg restraints and accompanied by at least two guards.
From 29 July 2010 to 10 December 2010, PFC Manning was permitted only 20 minutes of “sunshine call.” Aside from a 3-5 minute shower, this would be the only time PFC Manning would regularly spend outside his cell. During this sunshine call, he would be brought to a small concrete yard, about half to a third of the size of a basketball court. PFC Manning would be permitted to walk around the yard in hand and leg shackles, while being accompanied by a Brig guard at his immediate side (the guard would have his hand on PFC Manning’s back). Two to three other guards would also be present observing PFC Manning. PFC Manning would usually walk in figure-eights or some other pattern. He was not permitted to sit down or stay stationary.
Initially, Brig guards provided PFC Manning with athletic shoes without laces which would fall off when he attempted to walk.
PFC Manning elected to wear boots instead because at least the boots would stay on when he walked.
From 10 December 2010 onward, PFC Manning was permitted a one hour recreation call. At this point, the Brig authorized the removal of his hand and leg shackles and PFC Manning was no longer required to be accompanied by a Brig guard at his immediate side. Although PFC Manning was technically “permitted” to use exercise equipment at the gym, most of this equipment was unplugged or broken down. In addition, depending on the guards, they would not permit him to use certain types of equipment (e.g. the chin up bar). So as to avoid any problems with the guards, PFC Manning would usually walk around the room as he had during his sunshine calls. Three or four guards would be monitoring PFC Manning during his recreation call.
PFC Manning was only authorized non-contact visits. The non-contact visits were permitted on Saturdays and Sundays between 1200 and 1500 hours by approved visitors. During these visits, he would have to wear his hand and leg restraints.
PFC Manning was required to meet his visitors in a small 4 by 6 foot room that was separated with a glass partition. His visits were monitored by the guards and they were audio recorded by the Brig. The recording equipment was added by Army CID after PFC Manning’s transfer to the Quantico Brig.
PFC Manning was only permitted non-contact visits with his attorneys. During these visits, he was shackled at the hands and feet.
PFC Manning was not permitted any work duty.
PFC Manning was subject to constant monitoring; the Brig guards were required to check on him every five minutes by asking him some variation of, “are you okay?” PFC Manning was required to respond in some affirmative manner. Guards were required to make notations every five minutes in a logbook.
At night, if the guards could not see him clearly, because he had a blanket over his head or he was curled up towards the wall, they would wake PFC Manning in order to ensure that he was okay.
At night, only some of the lights would be turned off. Additionally, there was a florescent light in the hall outside PFC Manning’s cell that would stay on at night. PFC Manning was required to receive each of his meals alone in his cell. He was only permitted to eat with a spoon.
There were usually no detainees on either side of PFC Manning. If PFC Manning attempted to speak to those detainees that were several cells away from him, the guards would order him to stop speaking.
PFC Manning originally was provided with a standard mattress and no pillow. PFC Manning tried to fold the mattress to make a pillow so that he could be more comfortable when sleeping. Brig officials did not like this, so on 15 December 2010 they provided him with a suicide mattress with a built-in pillow. This built-in pillow was only a couple of inches high and was not really any better than sleeping on a flat mattress.
PFC Manning was not permitted regular sheets or blankets. Instead he was provided with a tear-proof security blanket. This blanket was extremely coarse and irritated PFC Manning’s skin. At first, PFC Manning would get rashes and carpet burns on his skin from the blanket. Eventually, his skin became accustomed to the coarseness of the blanket and he got fewer rashes. The blanket did not keep PFC Manning warm because it did not retain heat and, due to its stiffness, did not contour to his body.
PFC Manning was not allowed to have any personal items in his cell.
PFC Manning was only allowed to have one book or one magazine at any given time to read. If he was not actively reading, the book or magazine would be taken away from him. Also, the book or magazine would be taken away from him at the end of the day before he went to sleep.
For the last month of his confinement at Quantico, PFC Manning was given a pen and five pieces of paper along with his book. However, if he was not actively reading his book and taking notes, these items would be taken away from him.
PFC Manning was prevented from exercising in his cell. If he attempted to do push-ups, sit-ups, or any other form of exercise he would be forced to stop. When PFC Manning went to sleep, he was required to strip down to his underwear and surrender his clothing to the guards.
PFC Manning was only permitted hygiene items as needed. PFC Manning would have to request toilet paper every time he wanted to go to the bathroom; at times, he had to wait for guards to provide him with toilet paper.
There was no soap in his cell. PFC Manning requested soap to wash his hands after using the bathroom; guards would sometimes get the soap, and sometimes not.
PFC Manning was not permitted to wear shoes in his cell.
PFC Manning was initially only permitted correspondence time for one hour a day; after 27 October 2010, this was changed to two hours per day.
Also:
From 18 January 2011 until 20 January 2011, PFC Manning was forced to strip down to his underwear during the day.
From 18 January 2011 until 20 January 2011, PFC Manning was forced to sleep naked at night.
From 18 January 2011 until 20 January 2011, PFC Manning’s eyeglasses were taken away from him.
From 18 January 2011 until 20 January 2011, PFC Manning was not permitted out of his cell and was on 24-hour suicide watch.
From 2 March 2011 until 6 March 2011, PFC Manning was forced to surrender all his clothing at night and sleep naked.
From 2 March 2011 until 6 March 2011, PFC Manning was forced to surrender his eyeglasses during the day and at night.
After 6 March 2011, his eyeglasses were returned to him during the day, but continued to be removed from him at night.
On 3 March 2011 until 6 March 2011, PFC Manning forced to stand naked at parade rest where he was in view of multiple guards.
From 7 March 2011 onward, PFC Manning was required to wear a heavy and restrictive suicide smock which irritated his skin and, on one occasion, almost choked him.More details from the blog (http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2012/08/unlawful-pretrial-punishment-motion_10.html) of the law offices of David Coombs, Manning’s defense lawyer.Posted from the darker net via Android.
https://darkernet.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/accused-the-men-who-tortured-bradley-manning-dismissal-of-charges-document-here-in-full/

Magda Hassan
08-30-2012, 01:08 PM
US 'withheld' emails on WikiLeaks suspect: defense
(AFP) – 1 day ago
FORT MEADE, Maryland — Lawyers for the US soldier on trial for passing a trove of classified documents to WikiLeaks on Tuesday accused the government of withholding emails about his pre-trial detention.
The defense team for Private Bradley Manning, who could be jailed for life for "aiding the enemy" over the WikiLeaks incident, said top officers had put their concerns about negative publicity ahead of their client's fair treatment.
The emails relate to the conditions that the 24-year-old trooper was held in at a Quantico brig in Virginia, where he was sent after a spell in a US military jail in Kuwait following his arrest when on duty in Iraq in 2010.
Manning's civilian lawyer David Coombs told a pre-trial hearing that 84 emails were released to the defense team in July last year, before it emerged that 1,290 other messages had not been passed on to him.
The government "chose to let these emails collect dust somewhere," Coombs said on the first day of the three-day hearing at a military base in Fort Meade, Maryland, 30 miles (48 kilometers) from the US capital.
The emails are "material to the defense" of Manning, Coombs told the hearing, before it emerged in open court that military prosecutors handed around 600 such messages to Manning's lawyers on Monday, ahead of the hearing.
"It is the defense position that the government has been playing word games," Coombs said, implying that the messages were held back because the government had contrived a deliberately narrow definition of their relevance to the trial.
After his detention at Quantico from July 2010 to April 2011, which sparked an uproar from rights activists, Manning was transferred to a prison at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas, where he was placed under less restrictive conditions.
The soldier's lawyers argue that Manning was mistreated after his arrest, breaching his rights. If the court finds he was abused, the case could potentially be thrown out, or any eventual sentence reduced.
Defense and prosecution lawyers have repeatedly clashed over what documents are pertinent in the case, with Manning's counsel accusing the government of hiding information that could help their client.
The court heard Tuesday that the emails went as high up the chain as General George Flynn, the then commanding general of the US Marine Corps, who had insisted that Manning be placed on suicide watch, according to Coombs.
Top officers at Quantico regularly sent emails to Flynn informing him of Manning's detention conditions, which the defense says were unnecessarily harsh.
The military "kept Manning in maximum POI (prevention of injury)" custody "because they didn't want any negative publicity," Coombs said.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gD6xe7RqDSd0n1EVv4TgEPuXSgLQ?docId=CNG.677e9 5caa20e7ef9cb7d89c2e0d9b497.411

Peter Lemkin
08-30-2012, 05:43 PM
The US government has seriously lost the plot re the cables still being 'classified'. Maintaining a legal fiction is one thing but this is a complete divorce from reality.

Yeah, that divorce was a real 'Las Vegas special' ['two for one']. They've completely lost touch with all reality [after decades of divorce from morality, legality, truth, justice, compassion, due process......and all those other namby-pamby things good fascists would abhor].

I have a few documents I got from NARA [from insiders; deep insiders!] that the 'regular' NARA not only won't give me; but says they don't even have!.....so it is in keeping with keeping redacted documents that anyone can get on the internet, anywhere in the world [except perhaps on the MICs intranet]. This is the kind of 'joke' we now live with, posing as a government. Amerikan 'exceptionalism', indeed!

Carsten Wiethoff
11-12-2012, 08:09 AM
From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20264826



Bradley Manning 'offers guilty plea' in Wikileaks case

The plea offer is the first sign Manning will admit leaking thousands of secret documents
The alleged source of the Wikileaks revelations has offered to plead guilty to lesser offences than those with which he is charged, says his lawyer.
US Army Private Bradley Manning faces a life sentence if found guilty at his Maryland court martial of aiding the enemy - one of 22 charges he faces.
His lawyer David Coombs made the offer at a pretrial hearing on Wednesday.
The offer is the first sign he will admit leaking secret Afghanistan and Iraq war reports and diplomatic cables.
But it suggests he will not plead guilty to aiding enemies of the US (identified by prosecutors as al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula), violating federal espionage and computer laws - charges for which he could face life in prison if found guilty.

Magda Hassan
11-23-2012, 06:49 AM
Leniency for Generals, Jail Time for Whistleblowers
by Nathan Fuller (http://original.antiwar.com/author/nfuller/), November 22, 2012
Print This (http://original.antiwar.com/nfuller/2012/11/21/leniency-for-generals-jail-time-for-whistleblowers/print/) | Share This (http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20)

It’s no secret that the powerful in America are frequently immune to prosecution for committing far worse crimes than those by the powerless. Bush administration torturers are on book tours while torture whistleblowers are on trial. Wall Street executives are counting their bonuses while foreclosed homeowners are packing their bags. Life’s not fair.
That’s one reason why it was so startling to see Gen. David Petraeus resign upon learning the FBI had discovered his extramarital affair with biographer Paula Broadwell. Surely, the director of the accountability-free, drone-happy CIA could sleep around as he pleased and not fear a fellow government agency would rat him out, right?
Ah, the unexpected pleasures of the ever-growing security state. It turns out the FBI found out that Petraeus shared more than a bed with Broadwell — likely his emails, rife with classified information, too, though he claims that Broadwell got the information from officials in Afghanistan. And this administration hates nothing more than the unintended release of classified information: despite anonymously leaking favorable-but-Top Secret information to The New York Times on a weekly basis, the Obama administration has tried to use the Espionage Act to convict whistleblowers more often than all previous administrations combined.
But not so fast. Gen. Petraeus is still their man, with a reputation to uphold. So when President Obama was asked about the potential security breach, he said (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/2012/11/14/lawmakers-probe-widening-generals-scandal/EjqBDD9Nk2LHJh7TlsO29L/story.html), “I have no evidence at this point, from what I’ve seen, that classified information was disclosed that in any way would have had a negative impact on our national security.”
The statement is crafted to appear interested in the good of national security, to appear to put America’s safety first. But the subtext says much more: There may have been a classified disclosure that didn’t impact national security at all, or that did so positively, but that isn’t a problem.
These comments directly contradict government arguments in a much bigger ongoing investigation: that of WikiLeaks and Pfc. Bradley Manning. Cutting off Manning’s ability to argue that he was a whistleblower, who knew that the information WikiLeaks released wouldn’t bring harm to national security but instead would properly inform the American citizenry, the government prosecution has fully precluded discussion (http://www.bradleymanning.org/updates/update-71912-govt-denies-bradley-ability-to-use-lask-of-harm-in-defense-next-hearing-to-focus-on-illegal-treatment) of whether or not WikiLeaks’ releases brought harm to national security from the trial. Even conceding that WikiLeaks’ release of hundreds of thousands of documents may not have harmed national security, the government says the effect is irrelevant to Manning’s guilt or innocence.
But Gen. Petraeus — or any of the other high-ranking officials who leak Top Secret information, a classification level higher than anything Pfc. Manning is accused of releasing — will not be held to this standard.
This is the chilling effect on whistleblowing: share classified information with a biographer selling books by glorifying your war-making, and your president assures the press that you’ve caused no harm; share crimes, uncounted civilian casualties, and corporate backroom dealing with your fellow taxpaying citizens, and you face a potential life sentence in prison, not to mention nine months of confinement abuse (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/12/bradley-manning-cruel-inhuman-treatment-un), an extensively delayed trial (http://www.bradleymanning.org/news/government-to-argue-speedy-trial-doesnt-apply-to-bradley-veterans-to-rally-in-support), and your president’s declaring you guilty (http://www.bradleymanning.org/news/salon-com-obama-speaks-on-manning-and-the-rule-of-law) before trial.
Time and again, Bradley Manning is stepped on so the military can discipline dissent and discourage those he might inspire. Meanwhile, the prurient press is more curious about Petraeus’s sex life than the growing security state and the whistleblowers trying in vain to stop it before it consumes us all. We cannot afford to abide this double standard any longer.
http://original.antiwar.com/nfuller/2012/11/21/leniency-for-generals-jail-time-for-whistleblowers/

Peter Lemkin
11-30-2012, 07:21 PM
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Bradley Manning, the U.S. Army private accused of leaking hundreds of thousands of classified documents to the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks, has testified in a courtroom for the first time since he was arrested in May 2010. Speaking Thursday at a pretrial proceeding, Manning revealed the emotional tumult that he experienced while imprisoned in Kuwait after his arrest in 2010, saying, quote, "I remember thinking, ’I’m going to die.’ I thought I was going to die in a cage."

As part of his testimony, Manning stepped inside a life-sized chalk outline representing the six-by-eight-foot cell he was later held in at the Quantico base in Virginia, and he recounted how he would tilt his head to see the reflection of a skylight through a tiny space in his cell door.

Manning could face life in prison if convicted of the most serious of 22 counts against him. His trial is expected to begin in February. He has offered to plead guilty to a subset of charges that could potentially carry a maximum prison term of 16 years.

On Thursday, Democracy Now! spoke about Manning’s case with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who is currently residing inside the Ecuadorean embassy in London, where he sought refuge nearly six months ago.

JULIAN ASSANGE: What is happening this week is not the trial of Bradley Manning; what is happening this week is the trial of the U.S. military. This is Bradley Manning’s abuse case. Bradley Manning was arrested in Baghdad, shipped over and held for two months in extremely adverse conditions in Kuwait, shipped over to Quantico, Virginia, which is near the center of the U.S. intelligence complex, and held there for nine months, longer than any other prisoner in Quantico’s modern history. And there, he was subject to conditions that the U.N. special rapporteur, Juan Méndez, special rapporteur for torture, formally found amounted to torture.

There’s a question about who authorized that treatment. Why was that treatment placed on him for so long, when so many people—independent psychiatrists, military psychiatrists—complained about what was going on in extremely strong terms? His lawyer and support team say that he was being treated in that manner, in part, in order to coerce some kind of statement or false confession from him that would implicate WikiLeaks as an organization and me personally. And so, this is a matter that I am—personally have been embroiled in, that this young man’s treatment, regardless of whether he was our source or not, is directly as a result of an attempt to attack this organization by the United States military, to coerce this young man into providing evidence that could be used to more effectively attack us, and also serve as some kind of terrible disincentive for other potential whistleblowers from stepping forward.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s Julian Assange, founder and editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, now under political asylum in Ecuador’s London embassy. He was speaking about Bradley Manning, the U.S. Army private accused of leaking hundreds of thousands of classified documents to Assange’s website, WikiLeaks. Manning testified Thursday at this pretrial proceeding for the first time since he was arrested more than two years ago.

For more. we’re joined by Michael Ratner. He’s president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a lawyer for Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, and he just got back from attending the pretrial hearing of Bradley Manning yesterday at Fort Meade.

Michael, describe the scene in the courtroom.

MICHAEL RATNER: You know, it was one of the most dramatic courtroom scenes I’ve ever been in. I mean, for days we’ve been waiting to see whether Bradley Manning was going to testify, and it’s testimony about the conditions he was held in really for almost two years, but certainly the part in Kuwait and Quantico. And we didn’t have—we’ve seen him in the courtroom, but we didn’t see him ever take the stand. So we’re sitting in this small courtroom. There’s all of these guys in these formal-dress blue uniforms. I mean, they look like those Custers or Civil Wars with those little things on their shoulders, epaulets. And then, all of a sudden, we come back from lunch, and David Coombs, Bradley’s lawyer, says, "Bradley Manning will come to the stand."

And you could have heard—I mean, the room was just mesmerized by what was going to happen next. And he says to Bradley, "I know you may be a little nervous about this. I’ll ease you into it." When Bradley opened his mouth, he was not nervous. I mean, he was—the testimony was incredibly moving, emotional roller coaster for all of us, but particularly, obviously, for Bradley and what he went through. But it was so horrible what happened to him over a two-year period. But he described it in great detail in a way that was articulate, smart, self-aware. I mean, he knew what was going on. He tried to make it so that they wouldn’t keep him on the suicide risk, they wouldn’t keep him on preventive injury status, where he didn’t have clothes and all of that. And he couldn’t do it. And he kept trying it, and they kept lying to him. And it was really dramatic.

What came out—what it began with was really his arrest in late May of 2010. He was almost immediately taken to Kuwait. And that’s where—really where they got him in a way that really, for a period of time, almost destroyed him. They put him into cages that he described as eight-by-eight-by-eight. There were two cages. He said they were like animal cages. They were all—they were in a tent alone, just these two cages, side by side. One of them had whatever possessions he may have had; one of them, he was in, with a little bed for a rack and a toilet, dark, in this cage for almost two months. He was taken out for a short while and then, without explanation, put back in the cage, meals in the cage, etc., all of that.

And then—wait until you hear this. They would wake him at night at 11:00 p.m., 10:00 or 11:00, and his day—or night—was all night, and he was allowed to go back to sleep at 12:00 or 1:00, noon, the next day. So when we think about what happened to people at Guantánamo or sensory deprivation or what McCoy says in his books on torture, what are they trying to do except destroy this human being?

And he said, "For me, I stopped keeping track. I didn’t know whether night was day or day was night. And my world became very, very small. It became these cages. And I’m person," he said—this was really, I thought—all of us really were interested in it. He said, "I’m someone who likes current events. I take a broader view of the world." And he gave an example of the oil spill in the Gulf. And he said, you know, "When that ended," and he said, "my world all of a sudden was totally confined to these cages." And that was almost two months in Kuwait, something that none of us really knew about for this period. And he went on to talk about then what happens when he went to Quantico.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And Michael, you’re describing a person who was the exact opposite of some of the portraits of him that have come out from some supposed supporters of his, but also people who have had grudges against him, of being an unstable—an emotionally unstable person. The sense that you got of how intelligent and how clear he was about what was happening to him?

MICHAEL RATNER: Even one of the psychiatrists who testified and who was one of the psychiatrists who said this guy should never have been put on prevention of injury or suicide risk when he was at Quantico—that was right after Kuwait—said he’s highly intelligent. And you could see that. And the image was just at the—as you’re saying, Juan, was the opposite of what I would have thought going in there, of this sort of—of this person who couldn’t make their way in the world, of who just, you know, was unable to really function. This person was articulate, strong, self-aware, as I said, and it was—and very sympathetic. I mean, very sympathetic. And not even a shade that he shaded anything, not anything close to, you know, mendacity, lies, nothing. This was incredible testimony.

AMY GOODMAN: The psychiatrist who treated Bradley Manning while he was in prison at Quantico Marine brig testified on Wednesday that commanders there consistently ignored his medical advice and continued to impose harsh restrictions on Bradley Manning, even though he posed no risk of suicide. Captain William Hoctor said he treated prisoners at Guantánamo but had never encountered military officials so unwilling to heed his medical advice. He testified and said, "I had been a senior medical officer for 24 years at the time, and I had never experienced anything like this. It was clear to me they had made up their mind on a certain cause of action, and my recommendations had no impact," he said. Michael Ratner?

MICHAEL RATNER: No, yesterday when I was in court, they put up another—they put another psychiatrist on, the defense did, Ricky Malone, who had been head of like—very substantial psychiatrist, head of Walter Reed at some point, in forensic psychology. And he said essentially the same thing. He said, "I went in there. I treated Bradley Manning. I gave him, you know, a sleep medication when he needed sleep. And I went to the person who ran that brig, and I kept saying he does not have to be on POI," that’s short for preventive injury, "he doesn’t have to be on suicide risk watch."

AMY GOODMAN: And explain what that means when he’s put on those.

MICHAEL RATNER: Right, I’m glad you asked that, because this was so dramatic. They showed a video at some point at the trial of what—of where Bradley Manning was kept. And he’s kept—there’s no natural light. If he presses his face to the screen—it’s not really bars, it’s like a square screen—he could see the reflection of light on the floor at the end of the hall. Immediately across from his cell is the observation booth that looks right into him, so even if he goes to the bathroom and sits on the toilet, they see everything he does. There’s a bright light on him—again, sensory stuff, if you look at that—24 hours a day.

They show in the video, when they—when they actually—something happens where they decide they’re going to put him—he’s always on POI, but they’re going to put him back on suicide risk. And they showed the video of—it’s videoed—of him passing his clothes through the mail, through the little hatch, out of the prison. And then, that—

AMY GOODMAN: Like a mail slot.

MICHAEL RATNER: Like a mail slot. And that night, he’s standing there stark naked. They only show you the top, but he’s standing there stark naked in front of these really beefy, big marines in camouflage. That’s the scene you see.

And then there’s another video showing, asking—he’s trying to ask, "Why am I here? What did I do wrong?" And they’re lying to him. One of them says—one of them, who’s—you know, who’s playing like Mutt and Jeff, he’s saying, "Well, you’re a great—if I had a hundred, you know, defendants like you—or prisoners like you, it would be—you know, I would be great." They’re lying to him all the time.

And what comes out, because as that video—as that clip you read, Amy, of the psychiatrist, is that it never happens, really never happens, that the head of a brig disregards psychiatric information like they were given about Bradley Manning. And here they did. And so, the question you have to ask yourself is, where was that order coming from? We know there was a three-star general involved. How much did it go up to the Pentagon?

AMY GOODMAN: Who was the three-star general?

MICHAEL RATNER: I don’t remember his name.

AMY GOODMAN: And this is, of course, all under President Obama.

MICHAEL RATNER: Right. Right, that’s correct. I mean, this was—and that cell, when he’s in that cell—I mean, when we talk about the light on, when he sleeps on that little bunk and his—he’s facing—he has to face the light so they can observe him. If he turns over to avoid the light, they come in, and they wake him up. That’s night. Day—what happens during the day? He’s in that cell 23-and-a-half hours a day, maybe 20 minutes of what they call sunshine exercise, which is just nothing. And what can he do? Because he’s on duty, supposedly, he has to either stand or he can sit on that metal bunk with his feet on the ground and can’t lean against anything. That’s 10 or 15 hours a day of what you have to call sensory deprivation.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And Michael, I’d like to ask you about—given that he’s been under these conditions now for two-and-a-half years, it’s not surprising that he would be attempting to try to negotiate some kind of a plea deal on a reduced sentence. Could you talk about that part, that aspect of what happened with the court?

MICHAEL RATNER: Yeah, yeah. Let me back up on that for one second, because he was in Kuwait 'til end of July 2010. He then was taken to Quantico ’til April or so of 2011. That's the nine months that this hearing is really about and whether the charges should be dismissed because of the serious misconduct and torture and cruel treatment by the government.

So, then he was taken to Leavenworth. And just as an illustration of how he did not have to be treated like he was treated at Quantico, they put on the head of Leavenworth brig by telephone yesterday, and she said, "Well, as soon as he got here, he went right into medium security." And that’s the best you can do when you’re pretrial. Then, you mix with the population. You get—you get all your hygiene items.

There’s a scene in this—in this—and he talks—where he has to actually beg for a piece of toilet paper. He has to stand in front—at Quantico, stand there with no shirt on, with his boxers, and said, whatever, "Corporal something, this is Corporal Manning, or Private First Class Manning, can I have a piece of toilet paper?" And he has to stand there at attention, while he’s begging for a piece of toilet paper.

Your question, Juan, what the lawyer has said, David Coombs, the lawyer for Bradley Manning, has said, they are trying to force Bradley Manning into testifying if he knows anything, which we—you know, probably falsely, because we don’t think there’s anything there—but against my client, Julian Assange. They are trying to break Bradley Manning.

What’s remarkable is that he still has this incredible dignity after going through this. But I think all these prison conditions were—sure, they were angry at Bradley Manning, but in the face of that psychiatric statement, that this guy shouldn’t be kept on suicide risk or POI, they’re still keeping him in inhuman conditions, you can only ask yourself—they’re trying to break him for some reason. The lawyer, David Coombs, has said it’s so that he can give evidence against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.

AMY GOODMAN: So this pretrial hearing, where does it lead? There—he is talking about these conditions that many have said amount to torture. What could it lead to?

MICHAEL RATNER: Well, the lawyer, David Coombs, has asked for two things. He said, "I’ve asked for dismissal of all the charges, because the government essentially has dirty hands." They can’t do this to people and still go charge them with crimes. And that has happened rarely, but it has happened, where the government engages in such bad conduct that they’re saying, even if it’s not about the truth of what happened and the facts, we’re going to get rid of the case.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And he’s also asked for 10 days’ credit for every day that he was held in those kind of conditions?

MICHAEL RATNER: Right. So he’s held, I think, some 293 days. He would get credit for almost—you know, a number of years off his sentence. In the end, he’s asked for 10 for one, understanding that he may not win ultimate dismissal.

But what it also really did is it showed us how this government—and when Julian Assange said yesterday on your show, Amy, this is really about the U.S. being on trial, that’s what this is. This is how the U.S. treats—treats people who, in my view, have taken heroic actions around disclosing secrets of this government.

AMY GOODMAN: And what does this possible plea mean, where he admits that he gave documents to WikiLeaks but will not plead guilty to aiding the enemy?

MICHAEL RATNER: Right, I want to explain it as simply as I can.

AMY GOODMAN: And we only have 30 seconds.

MICHAEL RATNER: OK, I’ll do it. OK, what it means is—he said, "I’ll accept responsibility for mishandling of documents." Potential sentence, the judge said, is 16 years. If the judge accepts the plea, the prosecutor does not have to. Or the prosecutor can accept the plea but can still prove that he aided the enemy and try and get a more severe sentence.

So the question here is going to be, is the prosecutor going to stop at the 16 years maximum sentence, or is the prosecutor going to go on and try and get Bradley Manning life? My opinion, of course, is the prosecutor ought to stop. Bradley Manning, you know, is someone who has disclosed some of the most important secrets of our government having to do with torture and wars and U.S. complicity in human rights violations.

Peter Lemkin
12-01-2012, 08:34 AM
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Bradley Manning, the U.S. Army private accused of leaking hundreds of thousands of classified documents to the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks, has testified in a courtroom for the first time since he was arrested in May 2010. Speaking Thursday at a pretrial proceeding, Manning revealed the emotional tumult that he experienced while imprisoned in Kuwait after his arrest in 2010, saying, quote, "I remember thinking, ’I’m going to die.’ I thought I was going to die in a cage."

As part of his testimony, Manning stepped inside a life-sized chalk outline representing the six-by-eight-foot cell he was later held in at the Quantico base in Virginia, and he recounted how he would tilt his head to see the reflection of a skylight through a tiny space in his cell door.

Manning could face life in prison if convicted of the most serious of 22 counts against him. His trial is expected to begin in February. He has offered to plead guilty to a subset of charges that could potentially carry a maximum prison term of 16 years.

On Thursday, Democracy Now! spoke about Manning’s case with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who is currently residing inside the Ecuadorean embassy in London, where he sought refuge nearly six months ago.

JULIAN ASSANGE: What is happening this week is not the trial of Bradley Manning; what is happening this week is the trial of the U.S. military. This is Bradley Manning’s abuse case. Bradley Manning was arrested in Baghdad, shipped over and held for two months in extremely adverse conditions in Kuwait, shipped over to Quantico, Virginia, which is near the center of the U.S. intelligence complex, and held there for nine months, longer than any other prisoner in Quantico’s modern history. And there, he was subject to conditions that the U.N. special rapporteur, Juan Méndez, special rapporteur for torture, formally found amounted to torture.

There’s a question about who authorized that treatment. Why was that treatment placed on him for so long, when so many people—independent psychiatrists, military psychiatrists—complained about what was going on in extremely strong terms? His lawyer and support team say that he was being treated in that manner, in part, in order to coerce some kind of statement or false confession from him that would implicate WikiLeaks as an organization and me personally. And so, this is a matter that I am—personally have been embroiled in, that this young man’s treatment, regardless of whether he was our source or not, is directly as a result of an attempt to attack this organization by the United States military, to coerce this young man into providing evidence that could be used to more effectively attack us, and also serve as some kind of terrible disincentive for other potential whistleblowers from stepping forward.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s Julian Assange, founder and editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, now under political asylum in Ecuador’s London embassy. He was speaking about Bradley Manning, the U.S. Army private accused of leaking hundreds of thousands of classified documents to Assange’s website, WikiLeaks. Manning testified Thursday at this pretrial proceeding for the first time since he was arrested more than two years ago.

For more. we’re joined by Michael Ratner. He’s president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a lawyer for Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, and he just got back from attending the pretrial hearing of Bradley Manning yesterday at Fort Meade.

Michael, describe the scene in the courtroom.

MICHAEL RATNER: You know, it was one of the most dramatic courtroom scenes I’ve ever been in. I mean, for days we’ve been waiting to see whether Bradley Manning was going to testify, and it’s testimony about the conditions he was held in really for almost two years, but certainly the part in Kuwait and Quantico. And we didn’t have—we’ve seen him in the courtroom, but we didn’t see him ever take the stand. So we’re sitting in this small courtroom. There’s all of these guys in these formal-dress blue uniforms. I mean, they look like those Custers or Civil Wars with those little things on their shoulders, epaulets. And then, all of a sudden, we come back from lunch, and David Coombs, Bradley’s lawyer, says, "Bradley Manning will come to the stand."

And you could have heard—I mean, the room was just mesmerized by what was going to happen next. And he says to Bradley, "I know you may be a little nervous about this. I’ll ease you into it." When Bradley opened his mouth, he was not nervous. I mean, he was—the testimony was incredibly moving, emotional roller coaster for all of us, but particularly, obviously, for Bradley and what he went through. But it was so horrible what happened to him over a two-year period. But he described it in great detail in a way that was articulate, smart, self-aware. I mean, he knew what was going on. He tried to make it so that they wouldn’t keep him on the suicide risk, they wouldn’t keep him on preventive injury status, where he didn’t have clothes and all of that. And he couldn’t do it. And he kept trying it, and they kept lying to him. And it was really dramatic.

What came out—what it began with was really his arrest in late May of 2010. He was almost immediately taken to Kuwait. And that’s where—really where they got him in a way that really, for a period of time, almost destroyed him. They put him into cages that he described as eight-by-eight-by-eight. There were two cages. He said they were like animal cages. They were all—they were in a tent alone, just these two cages, side by side. One of them had whatever possessions he may have had; one of them, he was in, with a little bed for a rack and a toilet, dark, in this cage for almost two months. He was taken out for a short while and then, without explanation, put back in the cage, meals in the cage, etc., all of that.

And then—wait until you hear this. They would wake him at night at 11:00 p.m., 10:00 or 11:00, and his day—or night—was all night, and he was allowed to go back to sleep at 12:00 or 1:00, noon, the next day. So when we think about what happened to people at Guantánamo or sensory deprivation or what McCoy says in his books on torture, what are they trying to do except destroy this human being?

And he said, "For me, I stopped keeping track. I didn’t know whether night was day or day was night. And my world became very, very small. It became these cages. And I’m person," he said—this was really, I thought—all of us really were interested in it. He said, "I’m someone who likes current events. I take a broader view of the world." And he gave an example of the oil spill in the Gulf. And he said, you know, "When that ended," and he said, "my world all of a sudden was totally confined to these cages." And that was almost two months in Kuwait, something that none of us really knew about for this period. And he went on to talk about then what happens when he went to Quantico.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And Michael, you’re describing a person who was the exact opposite of some of the portraits of him that have come out from some supposed supporters of his, but also people who have had grudges against him, of being an unstable—an emotionally unstable person. The sense that you got of how intelligent and how clear he was about what was happening to him?

MICHAEL RATNER: Even one of the psychiatrists who testified and who was one of the psychiatrists who said this guy should never have been put on prevention of injury or suicide risk when he was at Quantico—that was right after Kuwait—said he’s highly intelligent. And you could see that. And the image was just at the—as you’re saying, Juan, was the opposite of what I would have thought going in there, of this sort of—of this person who couldn’t make their way in the world, of who just, you know, was unable to really function. This person was articulate, strong, self-aware, as I said, and it was—and very sympathetic. I mean, very sympathetic. And not even a shade that he shaded anything, not anything close to, you know, mendacity, lies, nothing. This was incredible testimony.

AMY GOODMAN: The psychiatrist who treated Bradley Manning while he was in prison at Quantico Marine brig testified on Wednesday that commanders there consistently ignored his medical advice and continued to impose harsh restrictions on Bradley Manning, even though he posed no risk of suicide. Captain William Hoctor said he treated prisoners at Guantánamo but had never encountered military officials so unwilling to heed his medical advice. He testified and said, "I had been a senior medical officer for 24 years at the time, and I had never experienced anything like this. It was clear to me they had made up their mind on a certain cause of action, and my recommendations had no impact," he said. Michael Ratner?

MICHAEL RATNER: No, yesterday when I was in court, they put up another—they put another psychiatrist on, the defense did, Ricky Malone, who had been head of like—very substantial psychiatrist, head of Walter Reed at some point, in forensic psychology. And he said essentially the same thing. He said, "I went in there. I treated Bradley Manning. I gave him, you know, a sleep medication when he needed sleep. And I went to the person who ran that brig, and I kept saying he does not have to be on POI," that’s short for preventive injury, "he doesn’t have to be on suicide risk watch."

AMY GOODMAN: And explain what that means when he’s put on those.

MICHAEL RATNER: Right, I’m glad you asked that, because this was so dramatic. They showed a video at some point at the trial of what—of where Bradley Manning was kept. And he’s kept—there’s no natural light. If he presses his face to the screen—it’s not really bars, it’s like a square screen—he could see the reflection of light on the floor at the end of the hall. Immediately across from his cell is the observation booth that looks right into him, so even if he goes to the bathroom and sits on the toilet, they see everything he does. There’s a bright light on him—again, sensory stuff, if you look at that—24 hours a day.

They show in the video, when they—when they actually—something happens where they decide they’re going to put him—he’s always on POI, but they’re going to put him back on suicide risk. And they showed the video of—it’s videoed—of him passing his clothes through the mail, through the little hatch, out of the prison. And then, that—

AMY GOODMAN: Like a mail slot.

MICHAEL RATNER: Like a mail slot. And that night, he’s standing there stark naked. They only show you the top, but he’s standing there stark naked in front of these really beefy, big marines in camouflage. That’s the scene you see.

And then there’s another video showing, asking—he’s trying to ask, "Why am I here? What did I do wrong?" And they’re lying to him. One of them says—one of them, who’s—you know, who’s playing like Mutt and Jeff, he’s saying, "Well, you’re a great—if I had a hundred, you know, defendants like you—or prisoners like you, it would be—you know, I would be great." They’re lying to him all the time.

And what comes out, because as that video—as that clip you read, Amy, of the psychiatrist, is that it never happens, really never happens, that the head of a brig disregards psychiatric information like they were given about Bradley Manning. And here they did. And so, the question you have to ask yourself is, where was that order coming from? We know there was a three-star general involved. How much did it go up to the Pentagon?

AMY GOODMAN: Who was the three-star general?

MICHAEL RATNER: I don’t remember his name.

AMY GOODMAN: And this is, of course, all under President Obama.

MICHAEL RATNER: Right. Right, that’s correct. I mean, this was—and that cell, when he’s in that cell—I mean, when we talk about the light on, when he sleeps on that little bunk and his—he’s facing—he has to face the light so they can observe him. If he turns over to avoid the light, they come in, and they wake him up. That’s night. Day—what happens during the day? He’s in that cell 23-and-a-half hours a day, maybe 20 minutes of what they call sunshine exercise, which is just nothing. And what can he do? Because he’s on duty, supposedly, he has to either stand or he can sit on that metal bunk with his feet on the ground and can’t lean against anything. That’s 10 or 15 hours a day of what you have to call sensory deprivation.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And Michael, I’d like to ask you about—given that he’s been under these conditions now for two-and-a-half years, it’s not surprising that he would be attempting to try to negotiate some kind of a plea deal on a reduced sentence. Could you talk about that part, that aspect of what happened with the court?

MICHAEL RATNER: Yeah, yeah. Let me back up on that for one second, because he was in Kuwait 'til end of July 2010. He then was taken to Quantico ’til April or so of 2011. That's the nine months that this hearing is really about and whether the charges should be dismissed because of the serious misconduct and torture and cruel treatment by the government.

So, then he was taken to Leavenworth. And just as an illustration of how he did not have to be treated like he was treated at Quantico, they put on the head of Leavenworth brig by telephone yesterday, and she said, "Well, as soon as he got here, he went right into medium security." And that’s the best you can do when you’re pretrial. Then, you mix with the population. You get—you get all your hygiene items.

There’s a scene in this—in this—and he talks—where he has to actually beg for a piece of toilet paper. He has to stand in front—at Quantico, stand there with no shirt on, with his boxers, and said, whatever, "Corporal something, this is Corporal Manning, or Private First Class Manning, can I have a piece of toilet paper?" And he has to stand there at attention, while he’s begging for a piece of toilet paper.

Your question, Juan, what the lawyer has said, David Coombs, the lawyer for Bradley Manning, has said, they are trying to force Bradley Manning into testifying if he knows anything, which we—you know, probably falsely, because we don’t think there’s anything there—but against my client, Julian Assange. They are trying to break Bradley Manning.

What’s remarkable is that he still has this incredible dignity after going through this. But I think all these prison conditions were—sure, they were angry at Bradley Manning, but in the face of that psychiatric statement, that this guy shouldn’t be kept on suicide risk or POI, they’re still keeping him in inhuman conditions, you can only ask yourself—they’re trying to break him for some reason. The lawyer, David Coombs, has said it’s so that he can give evidence against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.

AMY GOODMAN: So this pretrial hearing, where does it lead? There—he is talking about these conditions that many have said amount to torture. What could it lead to?

MICHAEL RATNER: Well, the lawyer, David Coombs, has asked for two things. He said, "I’ve asked for dismissal of all the charges, because the government essentially has dirty hands." They can’t do this to people and still go charge them with crimes. And that has happened rarely, but it has happened, where the government engages in such bad conduct that they’re saying, even if it’s not about the truth of what happened and the facts, we’re going to get rid of the case.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And he’s also asked for 10 days’ credit for every day that he was held in those kind of conditions?

MICHAEL RATNER: Right. So he’s held, I think, some 293 days. He would get credit for almost—you know, a number of years off his sentence. In the end, he’s asked for 10 for one, understanding that he may not win ultimate dismissal.

But what it also really did is it showed us how this government—and when Julian Assange said yesterday on your show, Amy, this is really about the U.S. being on trial, that’s what this is. This is how the U.S. treats—treats people who, in my view, have taken heroic actions around disclosing secrets of this government.

AMY GOODMAN: And what does this possible plea mean, where he admits that he gave documents to WikiLeaks but will not plead guilty to aiding the enemy?

MICHAEL RATNER: Right, I want to explain it as simply as I can.

AMY GOODMAN: And we only have 30 seconds.

MICHAEL RATNER: OK, I’ll do it. OK, what it means is—he said, "I’ll accept responsibility for mishandling of documents." Potential sentence, the judge said, is 16 years. If the judge accepts the plea, the prosecutor does not have to. Or the prosecutor can accept the plea but can still prove that he aided the enemy and try and get a more severe sentence.

So the question here is going to be, is the prosecutor going to stop at the 16 years maximum sentence, or is the prosecutor going to go on and try and get Bradley Manning life? My opinion, of course, is the prosecutor ought to stop. Bradley Manning, you know, is someone who has disclosed some of the most important secrets of our government having to do with torture and wars and U.S. complicity in human rights violations.

Peter Lemkin
12-04-2012, 08:16 PM
Bradley Manning: A Window Into The American Soul
By Paul Craig Roberts
OpEdNews Op Eds 12/4/2012 at 12:07:35

Liberty consists of government being ruled by law and citizens having control over law. This was the way our founding fathers set up the US Constitution. It is the Constitution that defines the United States. Every member of the government and the armed forces swears allegiance to the Constitution -- not to the government or to the president or to a political party or to an ideology -- to defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic.

Today the emphasis needs to be on the Constitution's domestic enemies in "our own" government. America's foreign enemies are miniscule. But the domestic enemies are legion. America's enemies consist, with whistleblower exceptions, of the entire US government, both executive branch, legislative branch (with possibly a dozen exceptions), and judicial branch (with few exceptions).

The three branches of our government have united to destroy US civil liberties in the name of a hoax, "the war on terror." Even if the US were over-run with terrorists, how could they harm us more than our government has harmed us by destroying the US Constitution?

If you don't believe that the US Constitution has been destroyed by Republicans and Democrats alike, read my book co-authored with Lawrence M. Stratton, The Tyranny Of Good Intentions, and the five articles whose URLs are provided below.

Bradley Manning, a member of the US military, complied with his oath of office, with the US Military Code, with the Nuremberg standards set by the US government, with the strictures expressed by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the George W, Bush administration, and with his own conscience. Manning, allegedly (we will never know), released to WikiLeaks the video of the US military murdering two journalists and a dozen innocent people walking down a street.

After the murder of these people by the US military playing video games with live people, a father with two young children stopped his van to help the survivors crawling in the street. The US military, due to either blood-lust, incompetence, or total evil, killed the father and sent high caliber bullets into the bodies of the two small children.

The murderers then blame the father for bringing children into the combat zone created by the incompetence or evil of the US troops, who obviously get their jollies from murdering people. TV cameras are claimed to be weapons and justifications for murdering 15 people.

Subsequently, a few people, whom the video shows to be unarmed, walk into a building.

The US troops claim the unarmed people have weapons and RPGs and send three hellfire missiles into the building. The US troops then report that all the "targets" are dead.

Any real patriotic American who saw this video would be compelled to release it. If Manning released it to Wikeleaks, then Manning is the most morally responsible American alive. What has Manning's moral conscience cost him?

It has cost Manning 900 days held incommunicado illegally by the US government. President John F. Kennedy's presidency lasted 1,000 days. Manning was held and tortured for almost the entire length of Camelot.

And the US government has gotten away with it.

Americans don't care. It is not them. They are too stupid to understand that once law is gone, they can be next.

In their desire to punish Manning, US military and civilian authorities failed to realize that the lesson for soldiers is that crimes against humanity will not be punished, but those who reveal the crimes will be punished.

On November 29, Bradley Manning testified in federal court about his illegal confinement and torture by the US government. Manning's testimony was not covered by the US media. The New York Times, in Chris Floyd's words, "contented itself with a brief bit of wire copy from AP, tucked away on page 3."

In contrast, the British Guardian covered Manning's testimony in detail in two stories 68 paragraphs long. The British people are informed of the US government's crimes against humanity in violation of international law and US law, but not the American people.

A formal United Nations investigation into the illegal, brutal and inhuman treatment of Bradley Manning denounced his treatment as "cruel and inhuman." The US State Department spokesman, Col. P.J. Crowley, resigned after publicly protesting Manning's illegal and inhuman treatment by the US government.

The presstitute media was silent.

Constitutional attorney Glenn Greenwald concludes that "the US establishment journalists have enabled the government every step of the way." The presstitutes hold "themselves out as adversarial watchdogs, but nothing provokes their animosity more than someone who effectively challenges government actions."

Greenwald praises Bradley Manning who "has bestowed the world with multiple vital benefits. But as his court martial finally reaches its conclusion, one likely to result in the imposition of a long prison term, it appears his greatest gift is this window into America's political soul."

The window into America's political soul reveals total evil. The US government constitutes Satan's Chosen People. Nothing else can be said for those who rule and oppress us.

Keith Millea
12-04-2012, 09:29 PM
The US troops claim the unarmed people have weapons and RPGs and send three hellfire missiles into the building. The US troops then report that all the "targets" are dead.


I'm sorry but I have to keep countering this claim.That video clearly shows that there was at least one rifle and one RPG in that group of people.I do not consider these deaths to be murder, but instead,the deadly circumstances and results of "WAR ITSELF".

That innocent people died in this video is a regular consequence of any WAR.Sadly,that's the nature of the beast.

That those fly-boys got their jollys off on killing those people was a disgrace to the Army,if not also,their very own soul.

FWIW

Peter Lemkin
12-04-2012, 09:42 PM
The US troops claim the unarmed people have weapons and RPGs and send three hellfire missiles into the building. The US troops then report that all the "targets" are dead.


I'm sorry but I have to keep countering this claim.That video clearly shows that there was at least one rifle and one RPG in that group of people.I do not consider these deaths to be murder, but instead,the deadly circumstances and results of "WAR ITSELF".

That innocent people died in this video is a regular consequence of any WAR.Sadly,that's the nature of the beast.

That those fly-boys got their jollys off on killing those people was a disgrace to the Army,if not also,their very own soul.

FWIW

I saw a show in which they interviewed someone who was on the ground there and witnessed the whole thing from the ground. He said it was right next to a Mosque and the Mosque had armed guards, who he felt was the men with the weapons [supposed].. were allowed to have, and known to have, armed guards at the/that Mosques there and then.

Keith Millea
12-04-2012, 09:57 PM
I saw a show in which they interviewed someone who was on the ground there and witnessed the whole thing from the ground. He said it was right next to a Mosque and the Mosque had armed guards, who he felt was the men with the weapons [supposed].. were allowed to have, and known to have, armed guards at the/that Mosques there and then.
Again,these are the kind of things that unfortunetly happen as a consequence of WAR ITSELF.

There were US troops with Bradley fighting vehicles heading towards this group of people.There was an RPG launcher sighted.They could make no other decision about what to do.They had to take out the RPG.

Yeah,I know it sucks......

Adele Edisen
01-10-2013, 12:11 AM
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33573.htm


Military Judge Recognizes What Many Progressives Denied: Bradley Manning Was Mistreated

The ruling is but the latest repudiation of claims from Obama supporters that Manning was treated fairly and justly

By Glenn Greenwald

"With respect to Private Manning, I have actually asked the Pentagon whether or not the procedures that have been taken in terms of his confinement are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards. They assure me that they are." - Barack Obama, White House Press Conference, March 10, 2011.

January 09, 2013 "The Guardian' -- Few if any articles that I've written produced as much backlash as my 15 December 2010 column reporting on the oppressive and inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning's detention, the first time that story was reported. The anger at my article primarily came not from right-wing venues but from the hardest-core Obama supporters, who (as they always do since 20 January 2009) reflexively defended the US government. Led by former Obama campaign press aide and now MSNBC contributor (the ultimate redundancy) Joy Reid, these particularly fanatical Democratic partisans literally adopted the anti-Manning rhetoric from the further right-wing precincts and repudiated the liberal tradition of defending whistleblowers and opposing oppressive detention conditions - all in order to insist that Manning was being treated exactly how he should be (this warped reaction was far from unanimous, as many progressives protested Manning's treatment).

Since then, an internal investigation by the Marine Corps - which operates the brig in which he was held - found that Manning's jailers violated their own policies in imposing oppressive conditions. The Obama administration's own State Department spokesman, PJ Crowley, denounced the detention conditions as "ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid" and was then fired as a result. Amnesty International called for protests over Manning's treatment. The UN's highest torture official formally concluded after an investigation that the US government was guilty "of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment towards Bradley Manning" and "that the US military was at least culpable of cruel and inhumane treatment in keeping Manning locked up alone for 23 hours a day over an 11-month period in conditions that he also found might have constituted torture" - exactly what I reported at the end of 2010.

And now, on Tuesday, the military judge presiding over Manning's court-martial found, as the Guardian's Ed Pilkington reports, "that he was subjected to excessively harsh treatment in military detention" and is thus entitled to a reduction of his sentence if he is found guilty. Pilkington notes:

"[The military judge's] ruling was made under Article 13 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice that protects prisoners awaiting trial from punishment on grounds that they are innocent until proven guilty. The recognition that some degree of pre-trial punishment did occur during the nine months that the soldier was held in Quantico marks a legal victory for the defence in that it supports Manning's long-held complaint that he was singled out by the US government for excessively harsh treatment."

This is far from a real victory for Manning. He was seeking dismissal of all charges, or a far greater sentencing reduction, based on claims of unlawful detention. And the judge, while accepting some, rejected many of his claims of abuse on the grounds that there was no intent to punish him before trial. But that's hardly surprising: this is, after all, a military judge presiding over a case where an Army Private is accused of "aiding and abetting al-Qaida." The entire proceeding is stacked against Manning: a military judge presiding over a military tribunal in this case is about the least objective and trustworthy arbiter on these questions.

That's why this ruling is so significant: even the military judge recognized that, in multiple ways, the treatment of Manning was unfair, excessive and illegal. Politico's Josh Gerstein explains:

"The decision is a significant victory for Manning's defense and a vindication for human-rights groups that complained the intelligence analyst was being treated unfairly. The ruling also runs counter to President Barack Obama's statement at a March 2011 news conference that Manning's treatment at the brig was 'appropriate.'"

Amazingly, Obama's defense of Manning's treatment - repudiated even by this military judge - came less than a week after the New York Times first reported that brig officials had begun stripping Manning of all his clothing and forcing him to remain naked.

The willingness of some of Obama's most devoted followers to justify all this and lash out at critics surprised even me, and underscored just how blindly supportive they are no matter how extreme and odious the behavior. As Charles Davis detailed in an excellent analysis at Salon last April, these Obama-defending progressives - in order to attack Manning and defend his detention conditions - copied almost verbatim the playbook used by Nixon officials to malign Daniel Ellsberg and anyone else who exposed wrongdoing on the part of the US government. Just as Bush followers did for years with the controversy over torture, these Democratic partisans alternated manically between denying that these oppressive conditions existed, justifying their use, and mocking concerns over them.

John Cole, one of President Obama's most steadfast supporters (and a former Army soldier), repeatedly condemned the abusive treatment of Manning, and in doing so, continually provoked the scorn of his Obama-supporting readers. Yesterday, after reading news of the military judge's decision, Cole sarcastically wrote:

"I don't understand how this is possible. What kind of commie liberal is this judge? Is she from Code Pink? For months, when I said he was being abused, all the keyboard commandos assured me that military protocol was being followed and that if they didn't abuse him like this and keep him naked and without his glasses, if he killed himself firebaggers like me would blame Obama.

"Many of you internet tough guys continued with this line of invective even when the DOD Inspector General said he was being treated not in accordance with rules. . . .

"Anyone with half a f****** brain could tell he was being treated differently than any other person in custody at Quantico, and the reason for it was he had embarrassed the Brass and the National Security State.

"For alleged liberals, there's not a dimes worth of difference between many of you and [Bush torture advocate] Marc Thiessen."

Watching self-proclaimed progressives attack and malign a courageous whistleblower, while defending the US military's patently abusive detention practices and steadfastly defending the government's extreme secrecy powers, is one of the most potent symbols of the Obama presidency.

An equally potent symbol is that at the very same time that Bradley Manning is prosecuted and threatened with life in prison for exposing serious war crimes, a government official who supported if not participated in those war crimes is being promoted to CIA director. This takes place in the same week when, as FAIR put it on Monday, "the only person to do time for the CIA's torture policies [John Kiriakou] appears to be a guy who spoke publicly about them, not any of the people who did the actual torturing.

As usual, those who commit serious crimes in government are not punished but rather rewarded. Only those who expose those crimes are punished. That's the story of Bradley Manning, and what makes it all the more remarkable and telling are the hordes of Democrats who have spent several years justifying and cheering for this.

Adele

Peter Lemkin
02-05-2013, 09:46 PM
celandic MP Birgitta Jonsdottir announced Friday she plans to visit Bradley Manning, the jailed U.S. Army Private currently on trial for his alleged role in the Wikileaks scandal.

Jónsdottir became a central figure in the Wikileaks case after admitting in the spring of 2009 to helping the group get hold of a secret video of American soldiers shooting at civilians in Baghdad from a helicopter. The U.S. Department of Justice named her in its probe against Wikileaks, and has been able to legally force social networking website Twitter to hand over personal information from her account as a result of the investigation.

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has said he first spoke to Jónsdottir in late 2009, according to Iceland Review. The parliamentarian admitted she got him into the U.S. embassy in Reykjavik in December 2009 as a “prank.”
Pfc. Bradley Manning

Jónsdottir has refused to leave Iceland out of fears she will be arrested by U.S. authorities, despite a 2011 letter released by the U.S. Justice Department stating she is welcome to America and is not part of any criminal investigation.

“The best legal assistance available in North America” has been helping her fight the case, Jósdottir said in a press statement. She plans to meet with them when she visits pfc. Manning in April.

Jónsdottir told RÚV on Friday that the FBI had hacked into her personal computer between May and October of 2011, accessing personal files, e-mails and other information.

Last week, it was revealed that Icelandic Home Secretary Ögmundur Jónasson kicked out a group of FBI agents who came to Iceland to investigate the Wikileaks operation back in 2011.

Jónsdottir has been a parliamentarian since 2009, when she and three others were elected to office representing the grassroots Citizens’ Movement. The other party members were film director Þráinn Bertelsson, economist Þór Saari, and editor Margrét Tryggvadóttir. Differences arose and Bertelsson left the party in 14 August 2009, and the remaining three members regrouped as The Movement.

Adele Edisen
02-25-2013, 05:32 AM
Bradley Manning: 1,000 Days in Detention and Secrecy Still Reigns
By Ed Pilkington

Such is the Alice-in-Wonderland world of the Bradley Manning trial. Why does it
matter?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34071.htm [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001r_mp0ddKse_G1Xmpgw003-9P23AnCvMVZiUNDkylfekbuCpqo1652cjuGTF6XL0DsfckmbRX 84GQHez2lNy8MATWykWSSSsRzTrApTgbnZFbbP3IJ2ROtr7dcU V9PBJKg6sQKiqyUwO2ADOohGMEhd5c5youQjeJ]

Bradley Manning: 1,000 Days in Detention and Secrecy Still Reigns

The WikiLeaks suspect's prosecution has been conducted with a complete absence of transparency – with worrying implications

By Ed Pilkington

February 24, 2013 "Information Clearing House" - (The Guardian) - On Saturday Bradley Manning will mark his 1,000th day imprisoned without trial. In the course of those thousand days, from the moment he was formally put into pre-trial confinement on 19 May 2010 on suspicion of being the source of the WikiLeaks disclosures, Manning has been on a long and eventful journey.

It has taken him from the desert of Iraq, where he was arrested at a military operating base outside Baghdad, to a prison tent in Kuwait. From there he endured his infamous harsh treatment at Quantico Marine base in Virginia, and for the last 14 months he has attended a series of pre-trial hearings at Fort Meade in Maryland, the latest of which begins next week.

For the small band of reporters who have tracked the prosecution of Private First Class Manning, the journey has also been long and eventful. Not in any way comparable, of course; none of us have been ordered to strip naked or put in shackles, and we have all been free to go home at night without the prospect of a life sentence hanging over us.

But it's been an education, nonetheless. Though we are a mixed bag – a fusion of traditional outlets such as the Washington Post and Associated Press and new-look bloggers such as Firedoglake and the Bradley Manning support network – we have been thrown together by our common mission to report on the most high-profile prosecution of an alleged leaker in several decades.

There's something else that binds us – disparate though our reporting styles and personal politics might be – and that's the daily struggle to do our jobs properly, confronted as we are by the systemic furtiveness of the US government. It's an irony that appears to be lost on many of the military lawyers who fill the courtroom at Fort Meade. A trial that has at its core the age-old confrontation between a government's desire for confidentiality and the public's need to know, is itself being conducted amid stringent restrictions on information.

None of the transcripts of the court martial procedure have been released to us. No government motions to the court have been published. David Coombs, Manning's lead lawyer, has had to plead to be allowed to post his defence motions, and when he has been granted permission he has often been forced to redact the documents to an almost comical degree.

The most egregious example of this over the past 1,000 days was the moment in January when the military judge, Colonel Denise Lind, issued her ruling in an Article 13 motion brought by Manning's defence. This was the complaint that the soldier, while at Quantico, had been subjected to a form of pre-trial punishment that is banned under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

It was an important moment in the narrative arc that is the Bradley Manning trial. Technically, Lind had the power to dismiss all charges against the soldier; she could have, though none of us expected that she would, let him walk out of that court and into freedom. (In the end she knocked 112 days off any eventual sentence).

The accusations contained in the Article 13 also went to the heart of the defence case that Manning has singled out for unfair and at times brutal treatment. During the testimony, Manning himself gave evidence, standing inside a 6ft by 8ft (180cm by 240cm) box that had been drawn on the floor of the courtroom to replicate the dimensions of his cell. He recalled such humiliating details as the routine he was required to follow when he needed toilet paper. Standing to attention at the front bars of his cell, he was ordered to shout out to the guards who kept him under 24-hour observation: "Lance Corporal Detainee Manning requests toilet paper!"

So my fellow reporters and I awaited with intense interest Lind's judgment, though also with some trepidation. We'd sat through the spectacle of Lind reading out to the court her rulings, and it wasn't a pleasant experience. The judge has a way of reading out her decisions at such a clip that it is almost impossible to take them down even with shorthand or touch typing.

In the event, Lind spent an hour and a half without pause reading out a judgment that must have stretched to 50 pages, at a rate that rendered accurate reporting of it diabolically difficult. No copy of the ruling has – then or now – been made available to the public, presumably on grounds of national security, even though every word of the document had been read out to the very public that was now being withheld its publication.

Such is the Alice-in-Wonderland world of the Bradley Manning trial. Why does it matter? It matters to Bradley Manning. The soldier is facing charges that carry the stiffest punishment available to the state short of killing him. (They could technically do that to him too, but the prosecution has made clear it will not seek the death penalty). If found guilty of the most serious charge – "aiding the enemy" – he could be confined to military custody for the rest of his life with no chance of parole, a prospect that makes the past 1,000 days look like a Tea Party.

The least Manning deserves is stringent fairness in his prosecution, and stringent fairness cannot exist in the absence of openness and transparency. As a British appeal court judge wrote in a recent case brought by the Guardian to protest against excessive courtroom secrecy: "In a democracy, where power depends on the consent of the governed, the answer must lie in the transparency of the legal process. Open justice lets in the light and allows the public to scrutinise the workings of the law, for better or for worse."

There's a much bigger reason why the cloak-and-dagger approach of the US government to this trial should be taken seriously. America doesn't seem to have woken up to this yet, but the prosecution of Bradley Manning poses the greatest threat to freedom of speech and the press in this country in at least a generation.

The "aiding the enemy" count essentially accuses Manning of handing information to Osama bin Laden as a necessary consequence of the act of leaking state secrets that would end up on the internet. When one of the prosecution lawyers was asked whether the government would still have gone after Manning had he leaked to the New York Times instead of WikiLeaks, she unhesitatingly replied: "Yes".

If that's not a threat to the first amendment, then what is? This prosecution, as it is currently conceived, could have a chilling effect on public accountability that goes far beyond the relatively rarefied world of WikiLeaks.

That's something worth contemplating as Bradley Manning enters his second 1,000 days sitting in a cell. Looked at this way, we're sitting in the cell with him.

Copyright The Guardian

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

Silenced (Scenes from a new documentary film about whistleblowers - available on original URL page - AE)

Adele

Peter Lemkin
02-25-2013, 06:05 AM
Most Americans just don't want to see how far toward tyranny and a police state America has come [already over the 'line', IMO] - Obama being President, notwithstanding. He has continued, and in some areas exceeded, Bush's excesses and drive toward an End Of America. Manning is a good 'canary in the coal mine' with which to watch this - but they are everywhere, if one will only look. We've had our Reichstag moment [911], having been softened up by the long list of assassinations and covert ops, propaganda before....what comes next, unless the People together say 'NO MORE", will be very ugly indeed. Cry my beloved County....for she is headed in all the wrong directions...fast. They want to make whistleblowing on crime and unconstitutionality punishable by death or life in prison under harsh treatment. Those who do the crimes for the Banksters and National Security State get rewarded. Very sad and very sick. Very apt on what is [not] going on is Hedges' book 'Death of the Liberal Class'.

Magda Hassan
02-25-2013, 06:18 AM
I guess the right to a quick and speedy trial doesn't apply to the military? Like many things.

Peter Lemkin
02-25-2013, 07:34 AM
I guess the right to a quick and speedy trial doesn't apply to the military? Like many things.

I beg to differ, Magda, Bin Laden and all those 'hit' by killer drones had exceptionally speedy 'trials'. :hitler: So quick were they, evidence and any defence was dispensed with....only the sentence was 'pronounced'. Very efficient.

Peter Lemkin
02-26-2013, 08:35 AM
The Uniform Military Code of Justice says quite clearly, "charges against an accused must be dismissed if they are not brought to trial within 120 days of the earlier of preferral, pretrial confinement, or recall to active duty..." That means Manning's right to a speedy trial has in fact been violated approximately 8 times over.

One might reasonably argue that, based on the government's approach to this case over the past few years, respecting Manning's rights was never a priority. Constant delays by the prosecution have kept him behind bars in torturous conditions for years while effectively limiting his access to justice.

Peter Lemkin
03-01-2013, 09:40 AM
‘Manning’s pleas prove he is a hero’
Published time: March 01, 2013 07:37 http://rt.com/op-edge/manning-pleads-guilty-hero-650/
Birgitta Jónsdóttir, member of the Icelandic parliament, will travel to the USA in protest of Bradley Manning’s 1,000th day in prison without trial. (Photo from www.bradleymanning.org)
Download video(83.23 MB)

Bradley Manning’s statements during his guilty plea prove that he is hero who truly deserves the Nobel Peace prize, Icelandic MP Birgitta Jonsdottir told RT, stressing that the mainstream media cannot afford to ignore his case.

Birgitta Jonsdottir nominated Manning for a Nobel Peace prize after he shed light on a long history of "corruption, war crimes, and imperialism by the United States in its international dealings."

She also helped with producing the notorious Collateral Damage video that Manning admitted to have leaked, even though it was not classified.

In an interview with RT Jonsdottir pointed out that WikiLeaks, the whistleblowing website, was the only media outlet willing to take the files Manning had in his possession, for which he is now being prosecuted. In his guilty plea Manning revealed that he had approached mainstream corporate press outlets like The New York Times and the Washington Post with materials of “enormous value to the American public” - but they ignored his submissions.

RT: Why do you think Private Manning deserves a Nobel?

BJ: Because he dared to do what many others need to do, and that is to blow the whistle on war crimes and to basically bring into the comfort of our homes the horrors of war and what people have gone through. And I do not think it would have mattered to him which nationality was doing the crime.

And I’m really pleased with the result of his statement today, and it is obvious that his intention was never to aid the enemy but to inform the general public in the United States and all the other countries that have been involved with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq what is really going on in our name in order to try to stop it.

And just from what I’ve heard from the statements, the only thought that I have in my mind is this person is a hero.

Pfc. Bradley E. Manning is escorted from a hearing, on February 28, 2013 in Fort Meade, Maryland. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images/AFP)
Pfc. Bradley E. Manning is escorted from a hearing, on February 28, 2013 in Fort Meade, Maryland. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images/AFP)

RT: Will his actions ever be recognized?

BJ: I think so, yeah. I’ve been following his case ever since I heard about it for the first time in the news, and I’ve co-produced the Collateral Murder video in order to make sure that it would be brought to the general public, because I felt obliged to do that.

And from seeing the development of the attention to his case, both in the United States and globally, that has been radically changing. In a sense it is a relief for me to hear him plead guilty to leaking this particular video, so I know I may not be harming his case by saying that what he did was indeed what he did, because I did know.

RT: The Pentagon bowed to pressure from human rights groups and posted over 80 unpublished rulings on Manning's trial. How much of a breakthrough is that?

BJ: I think that in general, this case has shown us the influence and the ability of individuals to transform our world. Manning is one of these people, and all the activists that had made sure that he would not just be forgotten in jail.

And now finally the mainstream media in the United States can’t ignore his story and what he has been going through.

And I think it is very important and of course, it is incredible to hear that he had tried to take this to other media before he tried to get it to WikiLeaks and that WikiLeaks was the only place that would actually acknowledge the significance of the documents that he was handing over.

Peter Lemkin
03-01-2013, 04:11 PM
AMY GOODMAN: For the first time, 25-year-old U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning has admitted to being the source behind the largest leak of state secrets in U.S. history. More than a thousand days after he was arrested, Manning testified Thursday before a military court. He said he leaked the classified documents to the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks in order to show the American public the "true costs of war."

Reading for over an hour from a 35-page statement, Manning said, quote, "I believed that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information ... this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general." He added, quote, "I believed that these cables would not damage the United States. However, I believed these cables would be embarrassing." He said he took the information to WikiLeaks only after he was rebuffed by The Washington Post and The New York Times.

At the pretrial hearing at Fort Meade military base in Maryland, Manning pleaded guilty to reduced charges on 10 counts, which carry a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. But even if the judge accepts the plea, prosecutors can still pursue a court-martial on the remaining 12 charges. The most serious of those is aiding the enemy and carries a possible life sentence.

Over the course of the hearing, Bradley Manning took responsibility for leaking the so-called "Collateral Murder" video of an Apache helicopter attack in Iraq; some U.S. diplomatic cables, including one of the early WikiLeaks publications, the Reykjavik cable; portions of the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs; some of the files on detainees in Guantánamo; and two intelligence memos.

For more, we’re joined by Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights, lawyer for Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. He has just returned from attending that pretrial hearing last night for Bradley Manning.

Michael Ratner, welcome back to Democracy Now! Well, this is explosive. Bradley Manning stands in court and accepts responsibility for releasing the documents, says he is guilty of doing that.

MICHAEL RATNER: It was one of the more moving days I’ve ever spent in a courtroom. You’ve heard from Bradley Manning once before, which was when he testified about the torture that happened to him. I was crying through that. This was amazing. I mean, he actually didn’t stand; he sat at the defense table. And he read his 35-page statement, which, sadly, we do not have a copy of, even though there’s nothing classified about that statement. And hopefully we’ll get it, because that is something that should be taught in every school in America.

He went through each of the releases that he took responsibility for, that you mentioned on the air, and he told us why he did it. And in each case, you saw a 22-year-old, a 23-year-old, a person of incredible conscience, saying, "What I’m seeing the United States do is utterly wrong. It’s immoral. The way they’re killing people in Iraq, targeting people for death, rather than working with the population, this is wrong." And in each of these—each of these statements tells you about how he was doing it politically.

AMY GOODMAN: Remind us of how he did this. He was actually serving in Iraq as a soldier.

MICHAEL RATNER: Yes, he was a soldier. He was in—and he goes through that in his statement. He’s an intelligence analyst. And one of the things he worked with, what were called "significant activities reports," which are the daily logs of what’s happening in Iraq and, attached to it, of course, in Afghanistan. And as he read those, I think he became appalled by what he saw: the killings, the targeted assassinations, the fact that people didn’t want the United States there, the fact that we weren’t really helping the country or helping individuals. And he said he wanted to lift the fog of war from it. And he got in touch with various organizations, including WikiLeaks. And that, he talks about. He talks about that. And—

AMY GOODMAN: Explain. He actually said he didn’t go to WikiLeaks first.

MICHAEL RATNER: No, that’s correct. He first—he had these documents on a disk that he eventually took out of—took out of the special secure room. He actually came to the United States with it. That’s the Iraq war logs and the Afghan war logs. And he tried to get it to The New York Times and The Washington Post. He calls up The Washington Post, has a five-minute discussion with somebody there.

AMY GOODMAN: Does he know who?

MICHAEL RATNER: He doesn’t recall who, or at least didn’t say it. He doesn’t take it—he said they don’t take him seriously, and then he feels he can’t get that. He calls the public editor at The New York Times and leaves a message on the answering machine of the public editor and doesn’t get a call back. He’s then thinking about: "How am I going to get this critical information out? Because I think what the U.S. is doing should be debated in the United States. We’re killing people without cause, essentially."

And then, he has already known about WikiLeaks, because he was aware of WikiLeaks in part because of their release of the text messages or the SMSes from the World Trade Center phones that were there on 9/11. So he’s aware of WikiLeaks. He’s in some communication, by chat or otherwise, with WikiLeaks. And they point him to a site where he can upload, upload the documents.

One interesting point on that is what he mentions about WikiLeaks. Some papers have reported that he said he believes he was in communication with Julian Assange. He actually says it could have been Julian Assange, it could have been someone he calls "Daniel Schmitt," which is probably Daniel Domscheit-Berg from Germany. And he says—and it also says it could have been someone high up in WikiLeaks. He really doesn’t know. And he says, "Whatever I did in this case, I did because I wanted to do it. I was not pressured to do it. I made the decision to do it." So he tries these other media, and ultimately he sees that WikiLeaks has a way of uploading documents that’s anonymous, that he doesn’t know who’s on the other end, and they don’t know who’s on his end.

AMY GOODMAN: He also said he was motivated by the Reuters FOIAs, right? Freedom of the Information Act requests to get the—what came to be known as the "Collateral Murder" video.

MICHAEL RATNER: I mean, when we can get the transcript and put out the quotes of what he said, on that "Collateral Murder" video, which he saw the Reuters journalists killed, then he saw them attack the van that was trying to rescue people, in which children were injured, and he said, "What I heard them say in that helicopter as they were shooting was incredible bloodlust." "Bloodlust," that’s what he said.

AMY GOODMAN: During that pretrial hearing on Wednesday, let’s talk about this, Michael. Bradley Manning spoke about the "Collateral Murder" video of an Apache helicopter attack in Iraq and admitted for the first time being the source of the leaked tape. Manning said, quote, "The most alarming aspect of the video to me was the seemingly delightful bloodlust the aerial weapons team happened to have." He added, the soldiers’ actions, quote, "seemed similar to a child torturing ants with a magnifying glass," describing the video as "war porn," saying the crew’s "lack of concern for human life" and "concern for injured children at the scene" greatly bothered him. So, this is the video—it was shot July 12th, 2007—that Manning referenced. It shows U.S. forces killing 12 people, including two Reuters employees. Now, this video is taken by the U.S. military Apache helicopter. It is the camera that’s mounted within the helicopter. You hear the soldiers in the helicopter joking, cursing. And it is showing a target on the men who are walking in an area of Baghdad known as New Baghdad below. Among them, an up-and-coming Reuters videographer named Namir Noor-Eldeen and his driver, Saeed Chmagh.

U.S. SOLDIER 1: I have individuals with weapons.

U.S. SOLDIER 2: You’re clear.

U.S. SOLDIER 1: Alright, firing.

U.S. SOLDIER 3: Let me know when you’ve got them.

U.S. SOLDIER 2: Let’s shoot. Light ’em all up.

U.S. SOLDIER 1: Come on, fire!

U.S. SOLDIER 2: Keep shootin’. Keep shootin’. Keep shootin’. Keep shootin’.

U.S. SOLDIER 4: Hotel, Bushmaster two-six, Bushmaster two-six, we need to move, time now!

U.S. SOLDIER 2: Alright, we just engaged all eight individuals.

AMY GOODMAN: Reuters driver Saeed Chmagh survived that initial attack. He’s seen trying to crawl away as the helicopter flies overhead. U.S. forces open fire again when they see a van pulling up. The van comes to evacuate the wounded, like Saeed Chmagh.

U.S. SOLDIER 2: The bodies.

U.S. SOLDIER 1: Where’s that van at?

U.S. SOLDIER 2: Right down there by the bodies.

U.S. SOLDIER 1: OK, yeah.

U.S. SOLDIER 2: Bushmaster, Crazy Horse. We have individuals going to the scene, looks like possibly picking up bodies and weapons.

U.S. SOLDIER 1: Let me engage. Can I shoot?

U.S. SOLDIER 2: Roger. Break. Crazy Horse one-eight, request permission to engage.

U.S. SOLDIER 3: Picking up the wounded?

U.S. SOLDIER 1: Yeah, we’re trying to get permission to engage. Come on, let us shoot!

U.S. SOLDIER 2: Bushmaster, Crazy Horse one-eight.

U.S. SOLDIER 1: They’re taking him.

U.S. SOLDIER 2: Bushmaster, Crazy Horse one-eight.

U.S. SOLDIER 4: This is Bushmaster seven, go ahead.

U.S. SOLDIER 2: Roger. We have a black SUV—or Bongo truck picking up the bodies. Request permission to engage.

U.S. SOLDIER 4: Bushmaster seven, roger. This is Bushmaster seven, roger. Engage.

U.S. SOLDIER 2: One-eight, engage. Clear.

U.S. SOLDIER 1: Come on!

U.S. SOLDIER 2: Clear. Clear.

U.S. SOLDIER 1: We’re engaging.

U.S. SOLDIER 2: Coming around. Clear.

U.S. SOLDIER 1: Roger. Trying to—

U.S. SOLDIER 2: Clear.

U.S. SOLDIER 1: I hear ’em—I lost ’em in the dust.

U.S. SOLDIER 3: I got ’em.

U.S. SOLDIER 2: Should have a van in the middle of the road with about 12 to 15 bodies.

U.S. SOLDIER 1: Oh yeah, look at that. Right through the windshield! Ha ha!

AMY GOODMAN: That is the video that WikiLeaks, when releasing it, dubbed "Collateral Murder," of the July 12, 2007, attack. In that van, by the way, were two children who were critically wounded. Saeed Chmagh was killed. That is the video that we played first when it was released and also interviewed Julian Assange at the time here in the United States, interestingly. Michael Ratner with us, who is Julian Assange’s attorney. So this video Bradley Manning got in downloading, because it’s a U.S. military video, that Reuters, which had asked repeatedly for it, never got until WikiLeaks released it, to know the last seconds of their employees’ lives.

MICHAEL RATNER: Not only did Reuters never get it, Amy, CENTCOM, which is I guess the central part of the Army, basically said, "We don’t think we have the video." And yet, everybody that was in the room with Bradley Manning, everybody knew about the video. It was one of many, many videos. He says in this video—and he said it in court—he said, "What was amazing is, when they—after they hurt these children in the van," he said, "they showed no remorse for the children. And when they saw someone crawling on the ground, they said, 'I hope he picks up a gun,' essentially, 'because we can kill him then.'" So, these people—this was really here a 22- or 23-year-old man watching this. Most people would have said, "Well, I’ll just get through the Army, and that’ll be it." He didn’t, and he’s a hero for that, because what he did is he acted on his moral conscience, and he exposed what the—the war crimes the U.S. was doing.

AMY GOODMAN: So, what does this mean right now? Bradley Manning has pleaded guilty to uploading the largest trove of state secrets in U.S. history to WikiLeaks, which then released them. What does he face exactly?

MICHAEL RATNER: Well, he faces a possible 20 years in prison. But the problem here, military is different than our regular courts in the U.S., which is to say that the plea does not have to be accepted by the government or by the judge—

AMY GOODMAN: So why would he have agreed to plead guilty?

MICHAEL RATNER: —or by the prosecutor, really. He did what’s called a "naked plea." His hope, I think, is that when the government sees this and also the support he’ll get for acknowledging what he did and also the reasons and the moral reasons why he did it and the political reasons he did it, that the government won’t go on and try and prove aiding the enemy and the more serious espionage charges. What he really pleaded to was doing actions that were prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the military, by giving documents to someone not authorized or a group not authorized to get them. So he faces 20 years. I think he did it because he was otherwise facing, and he still could be facing, life imprisonment, if not the death penalty. So they’re trying to figure out—

AMY GOODMAN: Because? Life imprisonment for?

MICHAEL RATNER: For espionage, as well as the death penalty.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, what about this charge, aiding the enemy?

MICHAEL RATNER: Well, that’s the—

AMY GOODMAN: What is the case for it?

MICHAEL RATNER: Well, that’s the craziest. I mean, that’s just saying, because he gave documents to WikiLeaks and they were published by WikiLeaks — and they were published by The New York Times, I should say, and The Guardian and Der Spiegel — that al-Qaeda read those documents, and therefore WikiLeaks was essentially the transmittal means he used to get documents to al-Qaeda. So that the enemy there is al-Qaeda; some would say the enemy is even WikiLeaks, according to the U.S. government. But that’s the claim. It seems like a completely spurious, ridiculous claim. You can go after The New York Times for that every time it publishes and someone from a, quote, "terrorist" group reads those documents. So it’s a nonsensical claim.

But he was facing life. And he made this statement that—you know, I just want to say that whatever people’s images were of Bradley Manning from the newspapers, which have reported on this, you know, disturbed human being, this disturbed individual, this man gave a political statement that should be read, I think, by every American and should certainly be taught in every one of our schools on what the moral obligations are of people in the military to stop, really, a killing machine of the United States.

AMY GOODMAN: And what does this mean for Julian Assange? You’re his attorney. You were just recently there once again in London in the Ecuadorean embassy, where he is holed up and granted political asylum by Ecuador but can’t leave the embassy or Britain, the British authorities, will arrest him. The significance of this, Julian Assange, who believes the grand jury empaneled here could indict him for espionage and is afraid of being extradited here?

MICHAEL RATNER: Well, there are two things that came out. One is, I would say that Bradley Manning’s testimony put WikiLeaks and Julian Assange in the same place that The New York Times would be or The Guardian, which is to say he gave documents or uploaded them to a website that is the equivalent of—you know, with The New York Times getting information about warrantless wiretapping from someone in the U.S. National Security Agency. So I think, in that sense, it tells us that the U.S. should get off his back, that Julian Assange should be getting the support of The New York Times and The Guardian and Der Spiegel, which used all of these—which used all of these documents. So I think it’s actually, in that sense, helpful to Julian Assange.

On the other hand, there were two people who were identified to me as members—as lawyers on the grand jury that’s sitting in—that’s sitting in Virginia. Two of the prosecuting attorneys were there in the court.

AMY GOODMAN: Yesterday, at the pretrial hearing of Bradley Manning.

MICHAEL RATNER: Yes, yes, yes.

AMY GOODMAN: So they’re there, and you’re there, Assange’s attorney.

MICHAEL RATNER: They’re there, and I’m there. I didn’t have a chance to meet them, because they don’t come out and mix with the rest of us. They’re on the government’s side with—surrounded by camouflaged people. But they were there. And so, that tells us that that grand jury is still active and going on, and that they are still after Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. When I say "they," the U.S. government. But for some reason, they’re thinking they can distinguish that from The New York Times and The Guardian. I don’t think they can. And I think it’s—you know, to me, it’s outrageous that The New York Times and The Guardian have not supported one of the people they worked with in revealing these documents.

Peter Lemkin
03-04-2013, 04:59 PM
The WORST POSSIBLE, at this time in this case, has happened [a warning for anyone who thinks we are not in a time of full-blown neo-fascism!]; the Court has REJECTED Manning's plea - and has announced it will prosecute him for aiding the enemy, which carries a life sentence minimally - or death, maximally. Heil Obama and the National Security State! :hitler: I think with this, I've lost my last faint hope that there is anyway short of total Revolution to save America.

Peter Lemkin
03-05-2013, 08:47 AM
by Birgitta Jónsdóttir

February 1st 2013 the entire parliamentary group of The Movement in the Icelandic Parliament, the Pirates of the EU; representatives from the Swedish Pirate Party, the former Secretary of State in Tunisia for Sport & Youth nominated Private Bradley Manning for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Following is the reasoning we sent to the committee explaining why we felt compelled to nominate Private Bradley Manning for this important recognition of an individual effort to have an impact for peace in our world. The lengthy personal statement to the pre-trial hearing February 28th by Bradley Manning in his own words validate that his motives were for the greater good of humankind.

Read his full statement

Our letter to the Nobel Peace Prize Committee Reykjavík, Iceland 1st of February 2013

Dear Norwegian Nobel Committee,

We have the great honour of nominating Private First Class Bradley Manning for the 2013 Nobel Peace Prize.

Manning is a soldier in the United States army who stands accused of releasing hundreds of thousands of documents to the whistleblower website WikiLeaks. The leaked documents pointed to a long history of corruption, war crimes, and a lack of respect for the sovereignty of other democratic nations by the United States government in international dealings.

These revelations have fueled democratic uprisings around the world, including a democratic revolution in Tunisia. According to journalists, his alleged actions helped motivate the democratic Arab Spring movements, shed light on secret corporate influence on the foreign and domestic policies of European nations, and most recently contributed to the Obama Administration agreeing to withdraw all U.S.troops from the occupation in Iraq.

Bradley Manning has been incarcerated for more then 1000 days by the U.S. Government. He spent over ten months of that time period in solitary confinement, conditions which expert worldwide have criticized as torturous. Juan Mendez, the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, has repeatedly requested and been denied a private meeting with Manning to assess his conditions.

The documents made public by WikiLeaks should never have been kept from public scrutiny. The revelations – including video documentation of an incident in which American soldiers gunned down Reuters journalists in Iraq – have helped to fuel a worldwide discussion about the overseas engagements of the United States, civilian casualties of war and rules of engagement. Citizens worldwide owe a great debt to the WikiLeaks whistleblower for shedding light on these issues, and so we urge the Committee to award this prestigious prize to accused whistleblower Bradley Manning.

We can already be reasonably certain that Bradley Manning will not have a fair trial as the head of State, the USA President Mr. Barack Obama, stated over a year ago on record that Manning is guilty.

Sincerely,

Birgitta Jónsdóttir, Member of Parliament for the Movement, Iceland

Christian Engström, Member of the European Parliament for the Pirate Party, Sweden

Amelia Andersdottir, Member of the European Parliament for the Pirate Party, Sweden

Margrét Tryggvadóttir, Member of Parliament for the Movement, Iceland

Þór Saari, Member of Parliament for the Movement, Iceland

Slim Amamou, former Secretary of State for Sport & Youth (2011), Tunisia

Peter Lemkin
03-06-2013, 07:53 PM
This statement was read by Private First Class Bradley E. Bradley at a providence inquiry for his formal plea of guilty to one specification as charged and nine specifications for lesser included offenses. He pled not guilty to 12 other specifications. This rush transcript was taken by journalist Alexa O’Brien at the Article 39(a) session of United States v. Pfc. Bradley Manning on February 28, 2013 at Fort Meade, MD, USA.
Judge Lind: Pfc. Manning you may read your statement.

Pfc. Bradley Manning: Yes, your Honor. I wrote this statement in the confinement facility. The following facts are provided in support of the providence inquiry for my court martial, United States v. Pfc. Bradley E. Manning.
Personal Facts.

I am a twenty-five year old Private First Class in the United States Army currently assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, HHC, US Army Garrison (USAG), Joint Base Myer, Henderson Hall, Fort Meyer, Virginia.

My [missed word] assignment I was assigned to HHC, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, NY. My primary military occupational specialty or MOS is 35 Foxtrot intelligence analyst. I entered active duty status on 2 October 2007. I enlisted with the hope of obtaining both real world experience and earning benefits under the GI Bill for college opportunities.

Facts regarding my position as an intelligence analyst.

In order to enlist in the Army I took the Standard Armed Services Aptitude Battery or [ASVAB?]. My score on this battery was high enough for me to qualify for any enlisted MOS positon. My recruiter informed me that I should select an MOS that complimented my interests outside the military. In response, I told him that I was interested in geopolitical matters and information technology. He suggested that I consider becoming an intelligence analyst.

After researching the intelligence analyst position, I agreed that this would be a good fit for me. In particular, I enjoyed the fact that an analyst could use information derived from a variety of sources to create work products that informed the command of its available choices for determining the best course of action or COA’s. Although the MOS required working knowledge of computers, it primarily required me to consider how raw information can be combined with other available intelligence sources in order to create products that assisted the command in it’s situational awareness or SA.

I accessed that my natural interest in geopolitical affairs and my computer skills would make me an excellent intelligence analyst. After enlisting I reported to the Fort Meade military entrance processing station on 1 October 2007. I then traveled to and reported at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri on 2 October 2007 to begin basic combat training or BCT.

Once at Fort Leonard Wood I quickly realized that I was neither physically nor mentally prepared for the requirements of basic training. My BCT experience lasted six months instead of the normal ten weeks. Due to medical issues, I was placed on a hold status. A physical examination indicated that I sustained injuries to my right soldier and left foot.

Due to those injuries I was unable to continue ‘basic’. During medical hold, I was informed that I may be out processed from the Army, however, I resisted being chaptered out because I felt that I could overcome my medical issues and continue to serve. On 2[8 or 20?] January 2008, I returned to basic combat training. This time I was better prepared and I completed training on 2 April 2008.

I then reported for the MOS specific Advanced Individual Training or AIT on 7 April 2008. AIT was an enjoyable experience for me. Unlike basic training where I felt different from the other soldiers, I fit in did well. I preferred the mental challenges of reviewing a large amount of information from various sources and trying to create useful or actionable products. I especially enjoyed the practice of analysis through the use of computer applications and methods that I was familiar with.

I graduated from AIT on 16 August 2008 and reported to my first duty station, Fort Drum, NY on 28 August 2008. As an analyst, Significant Activities or SigActs were a frequent source of information for me to use in creating work products. I started working extensively with SigActs early after my arrival at Fort Drum. My computer background allowed me to use the tools of organic to the Distributed Common Ground System-Army or D6-A computers to create polished work products for the 2nd Brigade Combat Team chain of command.

The non-commissioned officer in charge, or NCOIC, of the S2 section, then Master Sergeant David P. Adkins recognized my skills and potential and tasked me to work on a tool abandoned by a previously assigned analyst, the incident tracker. The incident tracker was viewed as a back up to the Combined Information Data Network Exchange or CIDNE and as a unit, historical reference to work with.

In the months preceding my upcoming deployment, I worked on creating a new version of the incident tracker and used SigActs to populate it. The SigActs I used were from Afghanistan, because at the time our unit was scheduled to deploy to the Logar and Wardak Provinces of Afghanistan. Later my unit was reassigned to deploy to Eastern Baghdad, Iraq. At that point, I removed the Afghanistan SigActs and switched to Iraq SigActs.
“I… stated I had information that needed to be shared with the world. I wrote that the information would help document the true cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

As and analyst I viewed the SigActs as historical data. I believed this view is shared by other all-source analysts as well. SigActs give a first look impression of a specific or isolated event. This event can be an improvised explosive device attack or IED, small arms fire engagement or SAF engagement with a hostile force, or any other event a specific unit documented and recorded in real time.

In my perspective the information contained within a single SigAct or group of SigActs is not very sensitive. The events encapsulated within most SigActs involve either enemy engagements or causalities. Most of this information is publicly reported by the public affairs office or PAO, embedded media pools, or host nation HN media.
As I started working with SigActs I felt they were similar to a daily journal or log that a person may keep. They capture what happens on a particular day in time. They are created immediately after the event, and are potentially updated over a period of hours until final version is published on the Combined Information Data Network Exchange. Each unit has it’s own Standard Operating Procedure or SOP for reporting recording SigActs. The SOP may differ between reporting in a particular deployment and reporting in garrison.
In garrison a SigAct normally involves personnel issues such as driving under the influence or DUI incidents or an automobile accident involving the death or serious injury of a soldier. The reports starts at the company level and goes up to the battalion, brigade, and even up to the division level.

In deployed environment a unit may observe or participate in an event and a platoon leader or platoon sergeant may report the event as a SigAct to the company headquarters and the radio transmission operator or RTO. The commander or RTO will then forward the report to the battalion battle captain or battle non-commissioned officer or NCO. Once the battalion battle captain or battle NCO receives the report they will either (1) notify the battalion operations officer or S3; (2) conduct an action, such as launching a quick reaction force; or (3) record the event and report and further report it up the chain of command to the brigade.

The reporting of each event is done by radio or over the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network or SIPRNet, normally by an assigned soldier, usually junior enlisted E-4 and below. Once the SigAct is recorded, the SigAct is further sent up the chain of command. At each level, additional information can either be added or corrected as needed. Normally within 24 to 48 hours, the updating and reporting or a particular SigAct is complete. Eventually all reports and SigActs go through the chain of command from brigade to division and division to corp. At corp level the SigAct is finalized and [missed word].

The CIDNE system contains a database that is used by thousands of Department of Defense–DoD personel including soldiers, civilians, and contractors support. It was the United States Central Command or CENTCOM reporting tool for operational reporting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Two separate but similar databases were maintained for each theater– CIDNE-I for Iraq and CIDNE-A for Afghanistan. Each database encompasses over a hundred types of reports and other historical information for access. They contain millions of vetted and finalized directories including operational intelligence reporting.

CIDNE was created to collect and analyze battle-space data to provide daily operational and Intelligence Community (IC) reporting relevant to a commander’s daily decision making process. The CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A databases contain reporting and analysis fields for multiple disciplines including Human Intelligence or HUMINT reports, Psychological Operations or PSYOP reports, Engagement reports, Counter Improvised Explosive Device or CIED reports, SigAct reports, Targeting reports, Social and Cultural reports, Civil Affairs reports, and Human Terrain reporting.

As an intelligence analyst, I had unlimited access to the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A databases and the information contained within them. Although each table within the database is important, I primarily dealt with HUMINT reports, SigAct reports and Counter IED reports, because these reports were used to create a work-product I was required to published as an analyst.

In working on an assignment I looked anywhere and everywhere for information. As an all-source analyst, this was something that was expected. The D6-A systems had databases built in, and I utilized them on a daily basis. This simply was–the search tools available on the D6-A systems on SIPRNet such as Query Tree and the DoD and Intellink search engines.

Primarily, I utilized the CIDNE database using the historical and HUMINT reporting to conduct my analysis and provide a back up for my work product. I did statistical analysis on historical data including SigActs to back up analysis that were based on HUMINT reporting and produce charts, graphs, and tables. I also created maps and charts to conduct predictive analysis based on statistical trends. The SigAct reporting provided a reference point for what occurred and provided myself and other analysts with the information to conclude possible outcome.

Although SigAct reporting is sensitive at the time of their creation, their sensitivity normally dissipates within 48 to 72 hours as the information is either publicly released or the unit involved is no longer in the area and not in danger.

It is my understanding that the SigAct reports remain classified only because they are maintained within CIDNE– because it is only accessible on SIPRnet. Everything on CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A to include SigAct reporting was treated as classified information.

Facts regarding the storage of SigAct Reports.

As part of my training at Fort Drum, I was instructed to ensure that I create back ups of my work product. The need to create back ups was particularly acute given the relative instability and reliability of the computer systems we used in the field during deployment. These computer systems included both organic and theater provided equipment (TPE) D6-A machines.

The organic D6-A machines we brought with us into the field on our deployment were Dell [missed word] laptops and the TPE D6-A machines were Alienware brand laptops. The [M90?] D6-A laptops were the preferred machine to use as they were slightly faster and had fewer problems with dust and temperature than the theater provided Alienware laptops. I used several D6-A machines during the deployment due to various technical problems with the laptops.

With these issues several analysts lost information, but I never lost information due to the multiple backups I created. I attempted to backup as much relevant information as possible. I would save the information so that I or another analyst could quickly access it whenever a machine crashed, SIPRnet connectivity was down, or I forgot where the data was stored.
When backing up information I would do one or all of the following things based on my training:
[(1)] Physical back up. I tried to keep physical back up copies of information on paper so that the information could be grabbed quickly. Also, it was easier to brief from hard copies of research and HUMINT reports.
(2) Local drive back up. I tried to sort out information I deemed relevant and keep complete copies of the information on each of the computers I used in the Temporary Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility or T-SCIF, including my primary and secondary D6-A machines. This was stored under my user profile on the desktop.
[(3)] Shared drive backup. Each analyst had access to a ‘T’ drive– what we called ‘T’ drive shared across the SIPRnet. It allowed others to access information that was stored on it. S6 operated the ‘T’ drive.
[(4)] Compact disk rewritable or CD-RW back up. For larger datasets I saved the information onto a re-writable disk, labeled the disks, and stored them in the conference room of the T-SCIF. This redundancy permitted us to not worry about information loss. If the system crashed, I could easily pull the information from a secondary computer, the ‘T’ drive, or one of the CD-RWs.
If another analysts wanted to access my data, but I was unavailable she could find my published products directory on the ‘T’ drive or on the CD-RWs. I sorted all of my products or research by date, time, and group; and updated the information on each of the storage methods to ensure that the latest information was available to them.
During the deployment I had several of the D6-A machines crash on me. Whenever one of the computer crashed, I usually lost information but the redundancy method ensured my ability to quickly restore old backup data and add my current information to the machine when it was repaired or replaced.

I stored the backup CD-RW with larger datasets in the conference room of the T-SCIF or next to my workstation. I marked the CD-RWs based on the classification level and its content. Unclassified CD-RWs were only labeled with the content type and not marked with classification markings. Early on in the deployment, I only saved and stored the SigActs that were within or near operational environment.

Later I thought it would be easier to just to save all of the SigActs onto a CD-RW. The process would not take very long to complete and so I downloaded the SigActs from CIDNE-I onto a CD-RW. After finishing with CIDNE-I, I did the same with CIDNE-A. By retrieving the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A SigActs I was able to retrieve the information whenever I needed it, and not rely upon the unreliable and slow SIPRnet connectivity needed to pull. Instead, I could just find the CD-RW and open up a pre-loaded spreadsheet.

This process began in late December 2009 and continued through early January 2010. I could quickly export one month of the SigAct data at a time and download in the background as I did other tasks.

The process took approximately a week for each table. After downloading the SigAct tables, I periodically updated them, by pulling the most recent SigActs and simply copying them and pasting them into the database saved on the CD-RW. I never hid the fact that I had downloaded copies of both the SigAct tables from CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A. They were stored on appropriately labeled and marked CD-RW, stored in the open.
I viewed this the saving copies of CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A as for both for my use and the use of anyone within the S2 section during the SIPRnet connectivity issues.

In addition to the SigAct tables, I had a large repository of HUMINT reports and Counter IED reports downloaded from CIDNE-I. These contained reports that were relevant to the area in and around our operational environment in Eastern Baghdad and the Diyala Province of Iraq.

In order to compress the data to fit onto a CD-RW, I used a compression algorithm called ‘bzip2′. The program used to compress the data is called ‘WinRAR’. WinRAR is an application that is free, and can be easily downloaded from the internet via the Non-Secure Internet Relay Protocol Network or NIPRnet. I downloaded WinRAR on NIPRnet and transfered it to the D6-A machine user profile desktop using a CD-RW. I did not try to hide the fact that I was downloading WinRAR onto my SIPRnet D6-A machine or computer.
With the assistance of the bzip2 algorithm using the WinRAR program, I was able to fit All of the SigActs onto a single CD-RW and relevant HUMINT and Counter ID reports onto a separate CD-RW.
Facts regarding my knowledge of the WikiLeaks Organization or WLO.

I first became vaguely aware of the WLO during my AIT at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, although I did not fully pay attention until the WLO released purported Short Messaging System or SMS messages from 11 September 2001 on 25 November 2009. At that time references to the release and the WLO website showed up in my daily Google news open source search for information related to US foreign policy.

The stories were about how WLO published about approximately 500,000 messages. I then reviewed the messages myself and realized that the posted messages were very likely real given the sheer volume and detail of the content.

After this, I began conducting research on WLO. I conducted searched on both NIPRnet and SIPRnet on WLO beginning in late November 2009 and early December 2009. At this time I also began to routinely monitor the WLO website. In response to one of my searches in 2009, I found the United States Army Counter Intelligence Center or USACIC report on the WikiLeaks organization. After reviewing the report, I believed that this report was possibly the one that my AIT referenced in early 2008.

I may or may not have saved the report on my D6-A workstation. I know I reviewed the document on other occasions throughout early 2010, and saved it on both my primary and secondary laptops. After reviewing the report, I continued doing research on WLO. However, based upon my open-source collection, I discovered information that contradicted the 2008 USACIC report including information that indicated that similar to other press agencies, WLO seemed to be dedicated to exposing illegal activities and corruption.

WLO received numerous award and recognition for its reporting activities. Also, in reviewing the WLO website, I found information regarding US military SOPs for Camp Delta at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and information on the then outdated rules of engagement for ROE in Iraq for cross-border pursuits of former members of Saddam Hussein [missed word] government.

After seeing the information available on the WLO website, I continued following it and collecting open sources information from it. During this time period, I followed several organizations and groups including wire press agencies such as the Associated Press and Reuters and private intelligence agencies including Strategic Forecasting or Stratfor. This practice was something I was trained to do during AIT, and was something that good analysts were expected to do.

During the searches of WLO, I found several pieces of information that I found useful in my work product in my work as an analyst, specifically I recall WLO publishing documents related to weapons trafficking between two nations that affected my OP. I integrated this information into one or more of my work products.

In addition to visiting the WLO website, I began following WLO using Instand Relay Chat or IRC Client called ‘XChat’ sometime in early January 2010.

IRC is a protocol for real time internet communications by messaging and conferencing, colloquially referred to as chat rooms or chats. The IRC chat rooms are designed for group communication discussion forums. Each IRC chat room is called a channel– similar to a Television where you can tune in or follow a channel– so long as it is open and does not require [missed word].

Once you [missed word] a specific IRC conversation, other users in the conversation can see that you have joined the room. On the Internet there are millions of different IRC channels across several services. Channel topics span a range of topics covering all kinds of interests and hobbies. The primary reason for following WLO on IRC was curiosity– particularly in regards to how and why they obtained the SMS messages referenced above. I believed that collecting information on the WLO would assist me in this goal.

Initially I simply observed the IRC conversations. I wanted to know how the organization was structured, and how they obtained their data. The conversations I viewed were usually technical in nature but sometimes switched to a lively debate on issue the particular individual may have felt strongly about.
Over a period of time I became more involved in these discussions especially when conversations turned to geopolitical events and information technology topics, such as networking and encryption methods. Based on these observations, I would describe the WL organization as almost academic in nature. In addition to the WLO conversations, I participated in numerous other IRC channels acros at least three different networks. The other IRC channels I participated in normally dealt with technical topics including with Linux and Berkley Secure Distribution BSD operating systems or OS’s, networking, encryption algorithms and techniques and other more political topics, such as politics and [missed word].

I normally engaged in multiple IRC conversations simultaneously–mostly publicly, but often privately. The XChat client enabled me to manage these multiple conversations across different channels and servers. The screen for XChat was often busy, but its screens enabled me to see when something was interesting. I would then select the conversation and either observe or participate.

I really enjoyed the IRC conversations pertaining to and involving the WLO, however, at some point in late February or early March of 2010, the WLO IRC channel was no longer accessible. Instead, regular participants of this channel switched to using the Jabber server. Jabber is another internet communication [missed word] similar but more sophisticated than IRC.

The IRC and Jabber conversations, allowed me to feel connected to others even when alone. They helped pass the time and keep motivated throughout the deployment.

Facts regarding the unauthorized storage and disclosure of the SigActs.

As indicated above I created copies of the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A SigAct tables as part of the process of backing up information. At the time I did so, I did not intend to use this information for any purpose other than for back up. However, I later decided to release this information publicly. At that time, I believe and still believe that these tables are two of the most significant documents of our time.

On 8 January 2010, I collected the CD-RW I stored in the conference room of the T-SCIF and placed it into the cargo pocket of my ACU or Army Combat Uniform. At the end of my shift, I took the CD-RW out of the T-SCIF and brought it to my Containerized Housing Unit of CHU. I copied the data onto my personal laptop. Later at the beginning of my shift, I returned the CD-RW back to the conference room of the T-SCIF. At the time I saved the SigActs to my laptop, I planned to take them with me on mid-tour leave and decide what to do with them.

At some point prior to my mid-tour, I transfered the information from my computer to a Secure Digital memory card from my digital camera. The SD card for the camera also worked on my computer and allowed me to store the SigAct tables in a secure manner for transport.

I began mid-tour leave on 23 January 2010, flying from Atlanta, Georgia to Reagan National Airport in Virginia. I arrived at the home of my aunt, Debra M. Van Alstyne, in Potomac, Maryland and quickly got into contact with my then boyfriend, Tyler R. Watkins. Tyler, then a student at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts, and I made plans for me to visit him him Boston, Massachusetts [missed word].
I was excited to see Tyler and planned on talking to Tyler about where our relationship was going and about my time in Iraq. However, when I arrived in the Boston area Tyler and I seemed to become distant. He did not seem very excited about my return from Iraq. I tried talking to him about our relationship but he refused to make any plans.

I also tried to raising the topic of releasing the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A SigAct tables to the public. I asked Tyler hypothetical questions about what he would do if he had documents that he thought the public needed access to. Tyler really didn’t have a specific answer for me. He tried to answer the questions and be supportive, but seemed confused by the question in this context.

I then tried to be more specific, but he asked too many questions. Rather than try to explain my dilemma, I decided to just drop the conversation. After a few days in Waltham, I began to feel really bad. I was over staying my welcome, and I returned to Maryland. I spent the remainder of my time on leave in the Washington, DC area.

During this time a blizzard bombarded the mid-atlantic, and I spent a significant period of time essentially stuck in my aunt’s house in Maryland. I began to think about what I knew and the information I still had in my possession. For me, the SigActs represented the on the ground reality of both the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I felt that we were risking so much for people that seemed unwilling to cooperate with us, leading to frustration and anger on both sides. I began to become depressed with the situation that we found ourselves increasingly mired in year after year. The SigActs documented this in great detail and provide a context of what we were seeing on the ground.

In attempting to conduct counter-terrorism or CT and counter-insurgency COIN operations we became obsessed with capturing and killing human targets on lists and not being suspicious of and avoiding cooperation with our Host Nation partners, and ignoring the second and third order effects of accomplishing short-term goals and missions. I believe that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information contained within the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A tables this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general as [missed word] as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan.

I also believed the detailed analysis of the data over a long period of time by different sectors of society might cause society to reevaluate the need or even the desire to even to engage in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations that ignore the complex dynamics of the people living in the effected environment everyday.

At my aunt’s house I debated what I should do with the SigActs– in particular whether I should hold on to them– or expose them through a press agency. At this point I decided that it made sense to try to expose the SigAct tables to an American newspaper. I first called my local news paper, The Washington Post, and spoke with a woman saying that she was a reporter. I asked her if the Washington Post would be interested in receiving information that would have enormous value to the American public.

Although we spoke for about five minutes concerning the general nature of what I possessed, I do not believe she took me seriously. She informed me that the Washington Post would possibly be interested, but that such decisions were made only after seeing the information I was referring to and after consideration by senior editors.

I then decided to contact [missed word] the most popular newspaper, The New York Times. I called the public editor number on The New York Times website. The phone rang and was answered by a machine. I went through the menu to the section for news tips. I was routed to an answering machine. I left a message stating I had access to information about Iraq and Afghanistan that I believed was very important. However, despite leaving my Skype phone number and personal email address, I never received a reply from The New York Times.

I also briefly considered dropping into the office for the Political Commentary blog, Politico, however the weather conditions during my leave hampered my efforts to travel. After these failed efforts I had ultimately decided to submit the materials to the WLO. I was not sure if the WLO would actually publish these SigAct tables [missed a few words]. I was concerned that they might not be noticed by the American media. However, based upon what I read about the WLO through my research described above, this seemed to be the best medium for publishing this information to the world within my reach.

At my aunts house I joined in on an IRC conversation and stated I had information that needed to be shared with the world. I wrote that the information would help document the true cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the individuals in the IRC asked me to describe the information. However, before I could describe the information another individual pointed me to the link for the WLO web site online submission system. After ending my IRC connection, I considered my options one more time. Ultimately, I felt that the right thing to do was to release the SigActs.

On 3 February 2010, I visited the WLO website on my computer and clicked on the submit documents link. Next I found the submit your information online link and elected to submit the SigActs via the onion router or TOR anonymizing network by special link. TOR is a system intended to provide anonymity online. The software routes internet traffic through a network of servers and other TOR clients in order to conceal the user’s location and identity.

I was familiar with TOR and had it previously installed on a computer to anonymously monitor the social media website of militia groups operating within central Iraq. I followed the prompts and attached the compressed data files of CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A SigActs. I attached a text file I drafted while preparing to provide the documents to the Washington Post. It provided rough guidelines saying ‘It’s already been sanitized of any source identifying information. You might need to sit on this information– perhaps 90 to 100 days to figure out how best to release such a large amount of data and to protect its source. This is possibly one of the more significant documents of our time removing the fog of war and revealing the true nature of twenty-first century asymmetric warfare. Have a good day.’

After sending this, I left the SD card in a camera case at my aunt’s house in the event I needed it again in the future. I returned from mid-tour leave on 11 February 2010. Although the information had not yet been publicly by the WLO, I felt this sense of relief by them having it. I felt I had accomplished something that allowed me to have a clear conscience based upon what I had seen and read about and knew were happening in both Iraq and Afghanistan everyday.

Facts regarding the unauthorized storage and disclosure of 10 Reykjavik 13.

I first became aware of the diplomatic cables during my training period in AIT. I later learned about the Department of State or DoS Net-centric Diplomacy NCD portal from the 2/10 Brigade Combat Team S2, Captain Steven Lim. Captain Lim sent a section wide email to the other analysts and officer in late December 2009 containing the SIPRnet link to the portal along with the instructions to look at the cables contained within them and to incorporate them into our work product.

Shortly after this I also noticed the diplomatic cables were being reported to in products from the corp level US Forces Iraq or US-I. Based upon Captain Lim’s direction to become familiar with its contents, I read virtually every published cable concerning Iraq.

I also began scanning the database and reading other random cables that piqued my curiosity. It was around this time– in early to mid-January of 2010, that I began searching the database for information on Iceland. I became interested in Iceland due to the IRC conversations I viewed in the WLO channel discussing an issue called Icesave. At this time I was not very familiar with the topic, but it seemed to be a big issue for those participating in the conversation. This is when I decided to investigate and conduct a few searches on Iceland and find out more.

At the time, I did not find anything discussing the Icesave issue either directly or indirectly. I then conducted an open source search for Icesave. I then learned that Iceland was involved in a dispute with the United Kingdom and the Netherlands concerning the financial collapse of one or more of Iceland’s banks. According to open source reporting much of the public controversy involved the United Kingdom’s use of anti-terrorism legislation against Iceland in order to freeze Icelandic access for payment of the guarantees for UK depositors that lost money.

Shortly after returning from mid-tour leave, I returned to the Net Centric Diplomacy portal to search for information on Iceland and Icesave as the topic had not abated on the WLO IRC channel. To my surprise, on 14 February 2010, I found the cable 10 Reykjavik 13, which referenced the Icesave issue directly.
The cable published on 13 January 2010 was just over two pages in length. I read the cable and quickly concluded that Iceland was essentially being bullied diplomatically by two larger European powers. It appeared to me that Iceland was out of viable options and was coming to the US for assistance. Despite the quiet request for assistance, it did not appear that we were going to do anything.

From my perspective it appeared that we were not getting involved due to the lack of long term geopolitical benefit to do so. After digesting the contents of 10 Reykjavik 13 I debated whether this was something I should send to the WLO. At this point the WLO had not published or acknowledged receipt of the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A tables. Despite not knowing that the SigActs were a priority for the WLO, I decided the cable was something that would be important. I felt that I would be able to right a wrong by having them publish this document. I burned the information onto a CD-RW on 15 February 2010, took it to my CHU, and saved it onto my personal laptop.
I navigated to the WLO website via a TOR connection like before and uploaded the document via the secure form. Amazingly, when WLO published 10 Reykjavik 13 within hours, proving that the form worked and that they must have received the SigAct tables.

Facts regarding the unauthorized storage and disclosure of the 12 July 2007 aerial weapons team or AW team video.

During the mid-February 2010 time frame the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division targeting analysts, then Specialist Jihrleah W. Showman discussed a video that Ms. Showman had found on the ‘T’ drive.

The video depicted several individuals being engaged by an aerial weapons team. At first I did not consider the video very special, as I have viewed countless other war porn type videos depicting combat. However, the recording of audio comments by the aerial weapons team crew and the second engagement in the video of an unarmed bongo truck troubled me.

As Showman and a few other analysts and officers in the T-SCIF commented on the video and debated whether the crew violated the rules of engagement or ROE in the second engagement, I shied away from this debate, instead conducting some research on the event. I wanted to learn what happened and whether there was any background to the events of the day that the event occurred, 12 July 2007.
Using Google I searched for the event by its date by its general location. I found several new accounts involving two Reuters employees who were killed during the aerial weapon team engagement. Another story explained that Reuters had requested for a copy of the video under the Freedom of Information Act or FOIA. Reuters wanted to view the video in order to understand what had happened and to improve their safety practices in combat zones. A spokesperson for Reuters was quoted saying that the video might help avoid the reoccurrence of the tragedy and believed there was a compelling need for the immediate release of the video.
Despite the submission of the FOIA request, the news account explained that CENTCOM replied to Reuters stating that they could not give a time frame for considering a FOIA request and that the video might no longer exist. Another story I found written a year later said that even though Reuters was still pursuing their request. They still did not receive a formal response or written determination in accordance with FOIA.

The fact neither CENTCOM or Multi National Forces Iraq or MNF-I would not voluntarily release the video troubled me further. It was clear to me that the event happened because the aerial weapons team mistakenly identified Reuters employees as a potential threat and that the people in the bongo truck were merely attempting to assist the wounded. The people in the van were not a threat but merely ‘good samaritans’. The most alarming aspect of the video to me, however, was the seemly delightful bloodlust they appeared to have.

The dehumanized the individuals they were engaging and seemed to not value human life by referring to them as quote “dead bastards” unquote and congratulating each other on the ability to kill in large numbers. At one point in the video there is an individual on the ground attempting to crawl to safety. The individual is seriously wounded. Instead of calling for medical attention to the location, one of the aerial weapons team crew members verbally asks for the wounded person to pick up a weapon so that he can have a reason to engage. For me, this seems similar to a child torturing ants with a magnifying glass.

While saddened by the aerial weapons team crew’s lack of concern about human life, I was disturbed by the response of the discovery of injured children at the scene. In the video, you can see that the bongo truck driving up to assist the wounded individual. In response the aerial weapons team crew– as soon as the individuals are a threat, they repeatedly request for authorization to fire on the bongo truck and once granted they engage the vehicle at least six times.

Shortly after the second engagement, a mechanized infantry unit arrives at the scene. Within minutes, the aerial weapons team crew learns that children were in the van and despite the injuries the crew exhibits no remorse. Instead, they downplay the significance of their actions, saying quote ‘Well, it’s their fault for bringing their kid’s into a battle’ unquote.

The aerial weapons team crew members sound like they lack sympathy for the children or the parents. Later in a particularly disturbing manner, the aerial weapons team verbalizes enjoyment at the sight of one of the ground vehicles driving over a body– or one of the bodies. As I continued my research, I found an article discussing the book, The Good Soldiers, written by Washington Post writer David Finkel.

In Mr. Finkel book, he writes about the aerial weapons team attack. As, I read an online excerpt in Google Books, I followed Mr. Finkel’s account of the event belonging to the video. I quickly realize that Mr. Finkel was quoting, I feel in verbatim, the audio communications of the aerial weapons team crew.
It is clear to me that Mr. Finkel obtained access and a copy of the video during his tenue as an embedded journalist. I was aghast at Mr. Finkel’s portrayal of the incident. Reading his account, one would believe the engagement was somehow justified as ‘payback’ for an earlier attack that lead to the death of a soldier. Mr. Finkel ends his account by discussing how a soldier finds an individual still alive from the attack. He writes that the soldier finds him and sees him gesture with his two forefingers together, a common method in the Middle East to communicate that they are friendly. However, instead of assisting him, the soldier makes an obscene gesture extending his middle finger.

The individual apparently dies shortly thereafter. Reading this, I can only think of how this person was simply trying to help others, and then he quickly finds he needs help as well. To make matter worse, in the last moments of his life, he continues to express his friendly gesture– only to find himself receiving this well known gesture of unfriendliness. For me it’s all a big mess, and I am left wondering what these things mean, and how it all fits together. It burdens me emotionally.

I saved a copy of the video on my workstation. I searched for and found the rules of engagement, the rules of engagement annexes, and a flow chart from the 2007 time period– as well as an unclassified Rules of Engagement smart card from 2006. On 15 February 2010 I burned these documents onto a CD-RW, the same time I burned the 10 Reykjavik 13 cable onto a CD-RW. At the time, I placed the video and rules for engagement information onto my personal laptop in my CHU. I planned to keep this information there until I redeployed in Summer 2010. I planned on providing this to the Reuters office in London to assist them in preventing events such as this in the future.

However, after the WLO published 10 Reykjavik 13 I altered my plans. I decided to provide the video and the rules of engagement to them so that Reuters would have this information before I re-deployed from Iraq. On about 21 February 2010, I described above, I used the WLO submission form and uploaded the documents. The WLO released the video on 5 April 2010. After the release, I was concern about the impact of the video and how it would been received by the general public.

I hoped that the public would be as alarmed as me about the conduct of the aerial weapons team crew members. I wanted the American public to know that not everyone in Iraq and Afghanistan are targets that needed to be neutralized, but rather people who were struggling to live in the pressure cooker environment of what we call asymmetric warfare. After the release I was encouraged by the response in the media and general public, who observed the aerial weapons team video. As I hoped, others were just as troubled– if not more troubled that me by what they saw.

At this time, I began seeing reports claiming that the Department of Defense an CENTCOM could not confirm the authenticity of the video. Additionally, one of my supervisors, Captain Casey Fulton, stated her belief that the video was not authentic. In her response, I decided to ensure that the authenticity of the video would not be questioned in the future. On 25 February 2010, I emailed Captain Fulton, a link to the video that was on our ‘T’ drive, and a copy of the video published by WLO that was collected by the open source center, so she could compare them herself.
Around this time frame, I burned a second CD-RW containing the aerial weapons team video. In order to made it appear authentic, I placed a classification sticker and wrote Reuters FOIA REQ on its face. I placed the CD-RW in one of my personal CD cases containing a set of ‘Starting Out in Arabic CD’s.’ I planned on mailing out the CD-RW to Reuters after our re-deployment, so they could have a copy that was unquestionably authentic.
Almost immediately after submitting the aerial weapons team video and rules of engagement documents I notified the individuals in the WLO IRC to expect an important submission. I received a response from an individual going by the handle of ‘ox’– at first our conversations were general in nature, but over time as our conversations progressed, I accessed this individual to be an important part of the WLO.
Due to the strict adherence of anonymity by the WLO, we never exchanged identifying information. However, I believe the individual was likely Mr. Julian Assange [he pronounced it with three syllables], Mr. Daniel Schmidt, or a proxy representative of Mr. Assange and Schmidt.

As the communications transfered from IRC to the Jabber client, I gave ‘ox’ and later ‘pressassociation’ the name of Nathaniel Frank in my address book, after the author of a book I read in 2009.
After a period of time, I developed what I felt was a friendly relationship with Nathaniel. Our mutual interest in information technology and politics made our conversations enjoyable. We engaged in conversation often. Sometimes as long as an hour or more. I often looked forward to my conversations with Nathaniel after work.

The anonymity that was provided by TOR and the Jabber client and the WLO’s policy allowed me to feel I could just be myself, free of the concerns of social labeling and perceptions that are often placed upon me in real life. In real life, I lacked a closed friendship with the people I worked with in my section, the S2 section.

In my section, the S2 section supported battalions and the 2nd Brigade Combat Team as a whole. For instance, I lacked close ties with my roommate to his discomfort regarding my perceived sexual orientation. Over the next few months, I stayed in frequent contact with Nathaniel. We conversed on nearly a daily basis and I felt that we were developing a friendship.

Conversations covered many topics and I enjoyed the ability to talk about pretty much everything, and not just the publications that the WLO was working on. In retrospect that these dynamics were artificial and were valued more by myself than Nathaniel. For me these conversations represented an opportunity to escape from the immense pressures and anxiety that I experienced and built up through out the deployment. It seems that as I tried harder to fit in at work, the more I seemed to alienate my peers and lose respect, trust, and support I needed.
Facts regarding the unauthorized storage and disclosure of documents related to the detainments by the Iraqi Federal Police or FP, and the Detainee Assessment Briefs, and the USACIC United States Army Counter Intelligence Center report.
On 27 February 2010, a report was received from a subordinate battalion. The report described an event in which the Federal Police or FP detained 15 individuals for printing anti-Iraqi literature. On 2 March 2010, I received instructions from an S3 section officer in the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division Tactical Operation Center or TOC to investigate the matter, and figure out who the quote ‘bad guys’ unquote were and how significant this event was for the Federal Police.

Over the course of my research I found that none of the individuals had previous ties to anti-Iraqi actions or suspected terrorist militia groups. A few hours later, I received several [playlist?] from the scene– from this subordinate battalion. They were accidentally sent to an officer on a different team on the S2 section and she forwarded them to me.
These photos included picture of the individuals, pallets of unprinted paper and seized copies of the final printed material or the printed document; and a high resolution photo of the printed material itself. I printed up one [missed word] copy of a high resolution photo– I laminated it for ease of use and transfer. I then walked to the TOC and delivered the laminated copy to our category two interpreter.

She reviewed the information and about a half and hour later delivered a rough written transcript in English to the S2 section. I read the transcript and followed up with her, asking her for her take on the content. She said it was easy for her to transcribe verbatim, since I blew up the photograph and laminated it. She said the general nature of the document was benign. The document, as I had sensed as well, was merely a scholarly critique of the then current Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

It detailed corruption within the cabinet of al-Maliki’s government and the financial impact of his corruption on the Iraqi people. After discovering this discrepancy between the Federal Police’s report and the interpreter’s transcript, I forwarded this discovery to the top OIC and the battle NCOIC. The top OIC and the overhearing battle captain informed me that they didn’t need or want to know this information anymore. They told me to quote “drop it” unquote and to just assist them and the Federal Police in finding out, where more of these print shops creating quote’ anti-Iraqi literature’ unquote.

I couldn’t believe what I heard and I returned to the T-SCIF and complained to the other analysts and my section NCOIC about what happened. Some were sympathetic, but no one wanted to do anything about it.

I am the type of person who likes to know how things work. And, as an analyst, this means I always want to figure out the truth. Unlike other analysts in my section or other sections within the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, I was not satisfied with just scratching the surface and producing canned or cookie cutter assessments. I wanted to know why something was the way it was, and what we could to correct or mitigate a situation.

I knew that if I continued to assist the Baghdad Federal Police in identifying the political opponents of Prime Minister al-Maliki, those people would be arrested and in the custody of the Special Unit of the Baghdad Federal Police and very likely tortured and not seen again for a very long time– if ever.
Instead of assisting the Special Unit of the Baghdad Federal Police, I decided to take the information and expose it to the WLO, in the hope that before the upcoming 7 March 2010 election, they could generate some immediate press on the issue and prevent this unit of the Federal Police from continuing to crack down in political opponents of al-Maliki.
On 4 March 2010, I burned the report, the photos, the high resolution copy of the pamphlet, and the interpreters hand written transcript onto a CD-RW. I took the CD-RW to my CHU and copied the data onto my personal computer. Unlike the times before, instead of uploading the information through the WLO website submission form. I made a Secure File Transfer Protocol or SFTP connection to a file drop box operated by the WLO.

The drop box contained a folder that allowed me to upload directly into it. Saving files into this directory. Allowed anyone with log in access to server to view and download them. After uploading these files to the WLO, on 5 March 2010, I notified Nathaniel over Jabber. Although sympathetic, he said that the WLO needed more information to confirm the event in order for it to be published or to gain interest in the international media.

I attempted to provide the specifics, but to my disappointment, the WLO website chose not to publish this information. At the same time, I began sifting through information from the US Southern Command or SOUTHCOM and Joint Task Force Guantanamo, Cuba or JTF-GTMO. The thought occurred to me– although unlikely, that I wouldn’t be surprised if the individuals detainees by the Federal Police might be turned over back into US custody– and ending up in the custody of Joint Task Force Guantanamo.

As I digested through the information on Joint Task Force Guantanamo, I quickly found the Detainee Assessment Briefs or DABs. I previously came across the document’s before in 2009 but did not think much about them. However, this time I was more curious in this search and I found them again.

The DABs were written in standard DoD memorandum format and addressed the commander US SOUTHCOM. Each memorandum gave basic and background information about a detainee held at some point by Joint Task Force Guantanamo. I have always been interested on the issue of the moral efficacy of our actions surrounding Joint Task Force Guantanamo. On the one hand, I have always understood the need to detain and interrogate individuals who might wish to harm the United States and our allies, however, I felt that what we were trying to do at Joint Task Force Guantanamo.

However, the more I became educated on the topic, it seemed that we found ourselves holding an increasing number of individuals indefinitely that we believed or knew to be innocent, low level foot soldiers that did not have useful intelligence and would be released if they were still held in theater.
I also recall that in early 2009 the, then newly elected president, Barack Obama, stated that he would close Joint Task Force Guantanamo, and that the facility compromised our standing over all, and diminished our quote ‘moral authority’ unquote.

After familiarizing myself with the Detainee Assessment Briefs, I agree. Reading through the Detainee Assessment Briefs, I noticed that they were not analytical products, instead they contained summaries of tear line versions of interim intelligence reports that were old or unclassified. None of the DABs contained the names of sources or quotes from tactical interrogation reports or TIR’s. Since the DABs were being sent to the US SOUTHCOM commander, I assessed that they were intended to provide very general background information on each of the detainees and not a detailed assessment.

In addition to the manner in which the DAB’s were written, I recognized that they were at least several years old, and discussed detainees that were already released from Joint Task Force Guantanamo. Based on this, I determined that the DAB’s were not very important fro either an intelligence or a national security standpoint. On 7 March 2010, during my Jabber conversation with Nathaniel, I asked him if he thought the DAB’s were of any use to anyone.

Nathaniel indicated, although he did not believe that they were of political significance, he did believe that they could be used to merge into the general historical account of what occurred at Joint Task Force Guantanamo. He also thought that the DAB’s might be helpful to the legal counsel of those currently and previously held at JTF-GTMO.

After this discussion, I decided to download the data. I used an application called Wget to download the DAB’s. I downloaded Wget off of the NIPRnet laptop in the T-SCIF, like other programs. I saved that onto a CD-RW, and placed the executable in my ‘My Documents’ directory on my user profile, on the D6-A SIPRnet workstation.

On 7 March 2010, I took the list of links for the detainee assessment briefs, and Wget downloaded them sequentially. I burned the data onto a CD-RW, and took it into my CHU, and copied them onto my personal computer. On 8 March 2010, I combined the Detainee Assessment Briefs with the United States Army Counterintelligence Center reports on the WLO, into a compressed IP file. Zip files contain multiple files which are compressed to reduce their size.

After creating the zip file, I uploaded the file onto their cloud drop box via Secure File Transfer Protocol. Once these were uploaded, I notified Nathaniel that the information was in the ‘x’ directory, which had been designated for my own use. Earlier that day, I downloaded the USACIC report on WLO.
As discussed about, I previously reviewed the report on numerous occasions and although I saved the document onto the work station before, I could not locate it. After I found the document again, I downloaded it to my work station, and saved it onto the same CD-RW as the Detainee Assessment Briefs described above.

Although my access included a great deal of information, I decided I had nothing else to send to WLO after sending the Detainee Assessment Briefs and the USACIC report. Up to this point I had sent them the following: the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A SigActs tables; the Reykjavik 13 Department of State Cable; the 12 July 2007 aerial weapons team video and the 2006-2007 rules of engagement documents; the SigAct report and supporting documents concerning the 15 individuals detained by the Baghdad Federal Police; the USSOUTHCOM and Joint Task Force Guantanamo Detainee Assessment Briefs; a USACIC report on the WikiLeaks website and the WikiLeaks organization.

Over the next few weeks I did not send any additional information to the WLO. I continued to converse with Nathaniel over the Jabber client and in the WLO IRC channel. Although I stopped sending documents to WLO, no one associated with the WLO pressures me into giving more information. The decisions that I made to send documents and information to the WLO and the website were my own decisions, and I take full responsibility for my actions.

Facts regarding the unauthorized disclosure of Other Government Documents.
One 22 March 2010, I downloaded two documents. I found these documents over the course of my normal duties as an analysts. Based on my training and the guidance of my superiors, I look at as much information as possible.

Doings so provided me with the ability to make connections that others might miss. On several occasions during the month of March, I accessed information from a Government entity. I read several documents from a section within this Government entity. The content of two of these documents upset me greatly. I had difficulty believing what this section was doing.

On 22 March 2010, I downloaded the two documents that I found troubling. I compressed them into a zip file named blah.zip and burned them onto a CD-RW. I took the CD-RW to my CHU and saved the file to my personal computer.
I uploaded the information to the WLO website using the designated prompts.
Facts regarding the unauthorized storage and disclosure of the Net Centric Diplomacy Department of State Cables.

In late March of 2010, I received a warning over Jabber from Nathaniel, that the WLO website would be publishing the aerial weapons team video. He indicated that the WLO would be very busy and the frequency and intensity of our Jabber conversations decrease significantly. During this time, I had nothing but work to distract me.

I read more of the diplomatic cables published on the Department of State Net Centric Diplomacy. With my insatiable curiosity and interest in geopolitics I became fascinated with them. I read not only the cables on Iraq, but also about countries and events that I found interesting.

The more I read, the more I was fascinated with the way that we dealt with other nations and organizations. I also began to think the documented backdoor deals and seemingly criminal activity that didn’t seem characteristic of the de facto leader of the free world.

Up to this point,during the deployment, I had issues I struggled with and difficulty at work. Of the documents release, the cables were the only one I was not absolutely certain couldn’t harm the United States. I conducted research on the cables published on the Net Centric Diplomacy, as well as how Department of State cables worked in general.

In particular, I wanted to know how each cable was published on SIRPnet via the Net Centric Diplomacy. As part of my open source research, I found a document published by the Department of State on its official website.
The document provided guidance on caption markings for individual cables and handling instructions for their distribution. I quickly learned the caption markings clearly detailed the sensitivity of the Department of State cables. For example, NODIS or No Distribution was used for messages at the highest sensitivity and were only distributed to the authorized recipients.

The SIPDIS or SIPRnet distribution caption was applied only to recording of other information messages that were deemed appropriate for a release for a wide number of individuals. According to the Department of State guidance for a cable to have the SIPDIS [missed word] caption, it could not include other captions that were intended to limit distribution.

The SIPDIS caption was only for information that could only be shared with anyone with access to SIPRnet. I was aware that thousands of military personel, DoD, Department of State, and other civilian agencies had easy access to the tables. The fact that the SIPDIS caption was only for wide distribution made sense to me, given that the vast majority of the Net Centric Diplomacy Cables were not classified.

The more I read the cables, the more I came to the conclusion that this was the type of information that should become public. I once read a and used a quote on open diplomacy written after the First World War and how the world would be a better place if states would avoid making secret pacts and deals with and against each other.

I thought these cables were a prime example of a need for a more open diplomacy. Given all of the Department of State cables that I read, the fact that most of the cables were unclassified, and that all the cables have a SIPDIS caption.

I believe that the public release of these cables would not damage the United States, however, I did believe that the cables might be embarrassing, since they represented very honest opinions and statements behind the backs of other nations and organizations.

In many ways these cables are a catalogue of cliques and gossip. I believed exposing this information might make some within the Department of State and other government entities unhappy. On 22 March 2010, I began downloading a copy of the SIPDIS cables using the program Wget, described above.

I used instances of the Wget application to download the Net Centric Diplomacy cables in the background. As I worked on my daily tasks, the Net centric Diplomacy cables were downloaded from 28 March 2010 to 9 April 2010. After downloading the cables, I saved them on to a CD-RW.

These cables went from the earliest dates in Net Centric Diplomacy to 28 February 2010. I took the CD-RW to my CHU on 10 April 2010. I sorted the cables on my personal computer, compressed them using the bzip2 compression algorithm described above, and uploaded them to the WLO via designated drop box described above.

On 3 May 2010, I used Wget to download and update of the cables for the months of March 2010 and April 2010 and saved the information onto a zip file and burned it to a CD-RW. I then took the CD-RW to my CHU and saved those to my computer. I later found that the file was corrupted during the transfer. Although I intended to re-save another copy of these cables, I was removed from the T-SCIF on 8 May 2010 after an altercation.

Facts regarding the unauthorized storage and disclosure of Garani, Farah Province Afghanistan 15-6 Investigation and Videos.

[NB Pfc. Manning plead 'not guilty' to the Specification 11, Charge II for the Garani Video as charged by the government, which alleged as November charge date. Read more here.]

In late March 2010, I discovered a US CENTCOM directly on a 2009 airstrike in Afghanistan. I was searching CENTCOM I could use as an analyst. As described above, this was something that myself and other officers did on a frequent basis. As I reviewed the incident and what happened. The airstrike occurred in the Garani village in the Farah Province, Northwestern Afghanistan. It received worldwide press coverage during the time as it was reported that up to 100 to 150 Afghan civilians– mostly women and children– were accidentally killed during the airstrike.

After going through the report and the [missed word] annexes, I began to review the incident as being similar to the 12 July 2007 aerial weapons team engagements in Iraq. However, this event was noticeably different in that it involved a significantly higher number of individuals, larger aircraft and much heavier munitions. Also, the conclusions of the report are more disturbing than those of the July 2007 incident.
I did not see anything in the 15-6 report or its annexes that gave away sensitive information. Rather, the investigation and its conclusions were– what those involved should have done, and how to avoid an event like this from occurring again.

After investigating the report and its annexes, I downloaded the 15-6 investigation, PowerPoint presentations, and several other supporting documents to my D6-A workstation. I also downloaded three zip files containing the videos of the incident. I burned this information onto a CD-RW and transfered it to the personal computer in my CHU. I did later that day or the next day– I uploaded the information to the WL website this time using a new version of the WLO website submission form.

Unlike other times using the submission form above, I did not activate the TOR anonymizer. Your Honor, this concludes my statement and facts for this providence inquiry.

Peter Lemkin
03-07-2013, 08:04 AM
We Are Bradley Manning
Posted on Mar 3, 2013

By Chris Hedges

I was in a military courtroom at Fort Meade in Maryland on Thursday as Pfc. Bradley Manning admitted giving classified government documents to WikiLeaks. The hundreds of thousands of leaked documents exposed U.S. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as government misconduct. A statement that Manning made to the court was a powerful and moving treatise on the importance of placing conscience above personal safety, the necessity of sacrificing careers and liberty for the public good, and the moral imperative of carrying out acts of defiance. Manning will surely pay with many years—perhaps his entire life—in prison. But we too will pay. The war against Bradley Manning is a war against us all.

This trial is not simply the prosecution of a 25-year-old soldier who had the temerity to report to the outside world the indiscriminate slaughter, war crimes, torture and abuse that are carried out by our government and our occupation forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a concerted effort by the security and surveillance state to extinguish what is left of a free press, one that has the constitutional right to expose crimes by those in power. The lonely individuals who take personal risks so that the public can know the truth—the Daniel Ellsbergs, the Ron Ridenhours, the Deep Throats and the Bradley Mannings—are from now on to be charged with “aiding the enemy.” All those within the system who publicly reveal facts that challenge the official narrative will be imprisoned, as was John Kiriakou, the former CIA analyst who for exposing the U.S. government’s use of torture began serving a 30-month prison term the day Manning read his statement. There is a word for states that create these kinds of information vacuums: totalitarian.

The cowardice of The New York Times, El Pais, Der Spiegel and Le Monde, all of which used masses of the material Manning passed on to WikiLeaks and then callously turned their backs on him, is one of journalism’s greatest shames. These publications made little effort to cover Manning’s pretrial hearings, a failure that shows how bankrupt and anemic the commercial press has become. Rescuing what honor of our trade remains has been left to a handful of independent, often marginalized reporters and a small number of other individuals and groups—including Glenn Greenwald, Alexa O’Brien, Nathan Fuller, Kevin Gosztola (who writes for Firedog Lake), the Bradley Manning Support Network, political activist Kevin Zeese and the courtroom sketch artist Clark Stoeckley, along with The Guardian, which also published the WikiLeaks documents. But if our domesticated press institutions believe that by refusing to defend or report on Manning they will escape the wrath of the security and surveillance state, they are stunningly naive. This is a war that is being played for keeps. And the goal of the state is not simply to send Manning away for life. The state is also determined to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and try him in the United States on espionage or conspiracy charges. The state hopes to cement into place systems of information that will do little more than parrot official propaganda. This is why those with the computer skills to expose the power elite’s secrets, such as Aaron Swartz, who committed suicide in January, and Jeremy Hammond, who is facing up to 30 years in prison for allegedly hacking into the corporate security firm Stratfor, have been or are being ruthlessly hunted down and persecuted. It is why Vice President Joe Biden labeled Assange a “high-tech terrorist,” and it is why the Bradley Manning trial is one of the most important in American history.

The government has decided to press ahead with all 22 charges, including aiding the enemy (Article 104), stealing U.S. government property (18 USC 641), espionage (18 USC 793(e)) and computer crimes (18 USC 1030(a)(1))—the last notwithstanding the fact that Manning did not hack into government computers. The state will also prosecute him on charges of violating lawful general regulations (Article 92). The government has refused to settle for Manning’s admission of guilt on nine lesser offenses. Among these lesser offenses are unauthorized possession and willful communication of the video known as “Collateral Murder”; the Iraq War Logs; the Afghan War Diary; two CIA Red Cell Memos, including one entitled “Afghanistan: Sustaining West European Support for the NATO-Led Mission—Why Counting on Apathy Might Not Be Enough”; Guantanamo files; documents of a so-called Article 15-6 investigation into the May 2009 Garani massacre in Afghanistan’s Farah province; and a Department of Defense counterintelligence report, “WikiLeaks.org—An Online Reference to Foreign Intelligence Services, Insurgents, or Terrorist Groups?” as well as one violation of a lawful general order by wrongfully storing information.

Manning’s leaks, the government insists, are tantamount to support for al-Qaida and international terrorism. The government will attempt to prove this point by bringing into court an anonymous witness who most likely took part in the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan. This witness will reportedly tell the court that copies of the leaked documents were found on bin Laden’s computer and assisted al-Qaida. This is an utterly spurious form of prosecution—as if any of us have control over the information we provide to the public and how it is used. Manning, for substantial amounts of money, could have sold the documents to governments or groups that are defined as the enemy. Instead he approached The Washington Post and The New York Times. When these newspapers rejected him, he sent the material anonymously to WikiLeaks.

The short, slightly built Manning told the military court Thursday about the emotional conflict he experienced when he matched what he knew about the war with the official version of the war. He said he became deeply disturbed while watching a video taken from an Apache helicopter as it and another such craft joined in an attack on civilians in Baghdad in 2007. The banter among the crew members, who treated the murder and wounding of the terrified human beings, including children, in the street below as sport, revolted him. Among the dead was Reuters photojournalist Namir Noor-Eldeen and his driver, Saeed Chmagh. Reuters had repeatedly asked to see the video, and the Army had repeatedly refused to release it. [Click here to see the “Collateral Murder” video.]

“Using Google I searched for the event by its date and general location,” Manning said in reading from a 35-page document that took nearly an hour to deliver. “I found several new accounts involving two Reuters employees who were killed during the aerial weapon team engagement. Another story explained that Reuters had requested a copy of the video under the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA. Reuters wanted to view the video in order to be able to understand what had happened and to improve their safety practices in combat zones. A spokesperson for Reuters was quoted saying that the video might help avoid the reoccurrence of the tragedy and believed there was compelling need for the immediate release of the video.” [Alexa O’Brien, another journalist who attended Thursday’s proceedings, has provided a full transcript of Manning’s statement: Click here.]

“Despite the submission of the FOIA request, the news account explained that CENTCOM [Central Command] replied to Reuters stating that they could not give a time frame for considering a FOIA request and that the video might no longer exist,” Manning said. “Another story I found written a year later said that even though Reuters was still pursuing their request [the news organization] still did not receive a formal response or written determination in accordance with FOIA. The fact neither CENTCOM or Multi National Forces Iraq, or MNF-I, would not voluntarily release the video troubled me further. It was clear to me that the event happened because the aerial weapons team mistakenly identified Reuters employees as a potential threat and that the people in the bongo truck [van] were merely attempting to assist the wounded. The people in the van were not a threat but merely ‘good Samaritans.’ The most alarming aspect of the video to me, however, was the seemly delightful bloodlust they [the helicopter crew members] appeared to have.

“They dehumanized the individuals they were engaging and seemed to not value human life by referring to them as quote ‘dead bastards’ unquote and congratulating each other on the ability to kill in large numbers,” Manning said, speaking into a court microphone while seated at the defense table. “At one point in the video there is an individual on the ground attempting to crawl to safety. The individual is seriously wounded. Instead of calling for medical attention to the location, one of the aerial weapons team crew members verbally asks for the wounded person to pick up a weapon so that he can have a reason to engage. For me, this seems similar to a child torturing ants with a magnifying glass.

“While saddened by the aerial weapons team crew’s lack of concern about human life, I was disturbed by the response of the discovery of injured children at the scene. In the video, you can see the bongo truck driving up to assist the wounded individual. In response the aerial weapons team crew—as soon as the individuals are a threat, they repeatedly request authorization to fire on the bongo truck and once granted they engage the vehicle at least six times. Shortly after the second engagement, a mechanized infantry unit arrives at the scene. Within minutes, the aerial weapons team crew learns that children were in the van, and despite the injuries the crew exhibits no remorse. Instead, they downplay the significance of their actions, saying quote ‘Well, it’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle’ unquote.


“The aerial weapons team crew members sound like they lack sympathy for the children or the parents. Later in a particularly disturbing manner, the aerial weapons team verbalizes enjoyment at the sight of one of the ground vehicles driving over a body—or one of the bodies. As I continued my research, I found an article discussing the book ‘The Good Soldiers,’ written by Washington Post writer David Finkel. In Mr. Finkel’s book, he writes about the aerial weapons team attack. As I read an online excerpt in Google Books, I followed Mr. Finkel’s account of the event belonging to the video. I quickly realize that Mr. Finkel was quoting, I feel in verbatim, the audio communications of the aerial weapons team crew. It is clear to me that Mr. Finkel obtained access and a copy of the video during his tenure as an embedded journalist. I was aghast at Mr. Finkel’s portrayal of the incident. Reading his account, one would believe the engagement was somehow justified as ‘payback’ for an earlier attack that led to the death of a soldier. Mr. Finkel ends his account of the engagement by discussing how a soldier finds an individual still alive from the attack. He writes that the soldier finds him and sees him gesture with his two forefingers together, a common method in the Middle East to communicate that they are friendly. However, instead of assisting him, the soldier makes an obscene gesture extending his middle finger. The individual apparently dies shortly thereafter. Reading this, I can only think of how this person was simply trying to help others, and then he quickly finds he needs help as well. To make matters worse, in the last moments of his life he continues to express his friendly gesture—his friendly intent—only to find himself receiving this well known gesture of unfriendliness. For me it’s all a big mess, and I am left wondering what these things mean, and how it all fits together. It burdens me emotionally. …

“I hoped that the public would be as alarmed as me about the conduct of the aerial weapons team crew members. I wanted the American public to know that not everyone in Iraq and Afghanistan are targets that needed to be neutralized, but rather people who were struggling to live in the pressure cooker environment of what we call asymmetric warfare. After the release I was encouraged by the response in the media and general public who observed the aerial weapons team video. As I hoped, others were just as troubled—if not more troubled than me by what they saw.”

Manning provided to the public the most important window into the inner workings of imperial power since the release of the Pentagon Papers. The routine use of torture, the detention of Iraqis who were innocent, the inhuman conditions within our secret detention facilities, the use of State Department officials as spies in the United Nations, the collusion with corporations to keep wages low in developing countries such as Haiti, and specific war crimes such as the missile strike on a house that killed seven children in Afghanistan would have remained hidden without Manning.

“I felt that we were risking so much for people that seemed unwilling to cooperate with us, leading to frustration and anger on both sides,” Manning said. “I began to become depressed with the situation that we found ourselves increasingly mired in year after year. The SigActs [significant-acts reports of the Army] documented this in great detail and provide a context of what we were seeing on the ground.

“In attempting to conduct counterterrorism, or CT, and counterinsurgency, COIN, operations we became obsessed with capturing and killing human targets on lists and being suspicious of and avoiding cooperation with our host nation partners, and ignoring the second- and third-order effects of accomplishing short-term goals and missions. I believe that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information contained within the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A tables [a reference to military information] this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan.

“I also believed the detailed analysis of the data over a long period of time by different sectors of society might cause society to re-evaluate the need or even the desire to engage in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations that ignore the complex dynamics of the people living in the affected environment every day.”


It is certain that with this “naked” plea Manning will serve perhaps as much as 20 years in prison. The judge, Col. Denise Lind, who will determine Manning’s sentence, warned him that the government could use his admissions to build a case for the more serious charges. Manning faces 90 years if he is convicted on the greater charge of espionage, and he faces life if convicted of aiding the enemy. Military prosecutors have made it clear they are out for blood. They said they will call 141 witnesses, including 15 who will charge that Manning caused harm to national interests; 33 witnesses, the government claims, will discuss information so sensitive or secret that it will require closed court sessions. Four witnesses—including, it appears, a Navy SEAL involved in the bin Laden raid—will give testimony anonymously. Army Maj. Ashden Fein, the lead prosecution attorney, has told the court that the government witnesses will discuss issues such as “injury and death to individuals” that resulted from the WikiLeaks disclosures, as well as how the “capability of the enemy increased in certain countries.” The government is preventing Manning’s defense team from interviewing some of the witnesses before the trial.

When he was secretary of defense, Robert Gates said a Defense Department review determined that the publication of the Iraq War Logs and the Afghan War Diary had “not revealed any sensitive intelligence sources and methods.” In the trial, however, the government must prove only that the “disclosure could be potentially damaging to the United States” and need only provide “independent proof of at least potential harm to the national security” beyond mere security classification, writes law professor Geoffrey Stone.

The government reviews determined that the release of Department of State “diplomatic cables caused only limited damage to U.S. interests abroad despite the Obama administration’s public statements to the contrary,” according to Reuters. “We were told the impact [of WikiLeaks revelations] was embarrassing but not damaging,” a congressional official, briefed by the State Department, told Reuters. The “Obama 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,” the official told the news outlet. Government prosecutors, strengthening their case further, have succeeded in blocking Manning’s lawyers from presenting evidence about the lack of real damage caused to U.S. interests by the leaks.

Manning has done what anyone with a conscience should have done. In the courtroom he exhibited—especially given the prolonged abuse he suffered during his thousand days inside the military prison system—poise, intelligence and dignity. He appealed to the best within us. And this is why the government fears him. America still produces heroes, some in uniform. But now we lock them up.

The court has not yet issued an official text of Bradley Manning’s statement. Thanks to Alexa O’Brien for providing a transcript.

Peter Lemkin
03-12-2013, 06:38 AM
Osama bin Laden, Bradley Manning, & William Blum

Bradley Manning has the charge of “Aiding the enemy” hanging over his head. This could lead to a sentence of life in prison. As far as can be deduced, the government believes that the documents and videos that Manning gave to Wikileaks, which Wikileaks then widely distributed to international media, aided the enemy because it put US foreign policy in a very bad light.

Manning’s attorneys have asked the prosecution more than once for specific examples of how “the enemy” (whoever that may refer to in a world full of people bitterly angry at the United States because of any of many terrible acts carried out by the US government) has been “aided” by the Wikileaks disclosures. Just how has the enemy made use of the released material to harm the United States? The government has not provided any such examples, probably because what really bothers Washington officials is the embarrassment they have experienced before the world resulting from the documents and videos; which indeed are highly embarrassing even to genuine war criminals; filled with violations of international law, atrocities, multiple lies to everyone, revelations of gross hypocrisy, and much more.

So our splendid officials are considering putting Bradley Manning in prison forever simply because they’re embarrassed. Hard to find much fault with that.

But now the prosecutors have announced that a Navy Seal involved in the killing of Osama bin Laden is going to testify at the court martial that bin Laden possessed articles about the Wikileaks documents that Manning leaked. Well, there must be a hundred million other people in the world who have similar material on their computers. The question remains: What use did the enemy make of that?

The Iraqi government made use of the material, inducing them to refuse immunity to US troops for crimes committed in Iraq, such as the cold-blooded murders revealed by the Wilileaks videos; this in turn led the US to announce that it was ending its military engagement in Iraq. However, Manning was indicted in May 2010, well before the Iraqi decision to end the immunity.

In January, 2006 bin Laden, in an audio tape, declared: “If Bush decides to carry on with his lies and oppression, then it would be useful for you to read the book ‘Rogue State’ [by William Blum], which states in its introduction … ” He then went on to quote the opening of a paragraph I wrote (which appears actually in the Foreword of the British edition only, that was later translated to Arabic), which in full reads:

“If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize – very publicly and very sincerely – to all the widows and the orphans, the impoverished and the tortured, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. I would then announce that America’s global interventions – including the awful bombings – have come to an end. And I would inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the union but – oddly enough – a foreign country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims and repair the damage from the many American bombings and invasions. There would be more than enough money. Do you know what one year of the US military budget is equal to? One year. It’s equal to more than $20,000 per hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born.

“That’s what I’d do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I’d be assassinated.”

Thus, Osama bin Laden was clearly making use of what I wrote, and the whole world heard it. And I was thus clearly “aiding the enemy”. But I was not prosecuted.

The United States would like to prove a direct use and benefit by “the enemy” of the material released by Wikileaks; but so far it appears that only possession might be proven. In my case the use, and presumed propaganda benefit, were demonstrated. The fact that I wrote the material, as opposed to “stealing” it, is irrelevant to the issue of aiding the enemy. I knew, or should have known, that my criticisms of US foreign policy could be used by the foes of those policies. Indeed, that’s why I write what I do. To provide ammunition to anti-war and other activists.

Lauren Johnson
03-13-2013, 05:05 PM
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-ellsberg/bradley-manning-military-court-speech_b_2859353.html)
Here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-ellsberg/bradley-manning-military-court-speech_b_2859353.html) is legendary Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg’s reaction to the leaked recording:

Whoever made this recording, and I don’t know who the person is, has done the American public a great service. This marks the first time the American public can hear Bradley Manning, in his own voice explain what he did and how he did it.

After listening to this recording and reading his testimony, I believe Bradley Manning is the personification of the word whistleblower.

…For the third straight year, Manning has been nominated for the Noble Peace Prize by, among others, Tunisian parliamentarians. Given the role the WikiLeaks cables played in the Arab Spring, and their role in speeding up the end of the Iraq War, I can think of no one more deserving who is deserving of the peace prize.

He’s also deserving of the Congressional Medal of Honor. This medal, awarded by Congress–and not the executive branch–is given to military personnel, who during wartime, do what they should do for their country and their comrades, at the greatest risk to themselves.

Peter Lemkin
04-03-2013, 08:56 AM
Birgitta Jonsdottir, Icelandic MP who released the WikiLeaks video Collateral Murder, will visit the US on April 3rd despite legal threats. She said that she has held back from visiting the US long enough, and now she will go there and express support for Bradley Manning. Birgitta posted her agenda for the trip recently on her Facebook page. The agenda can also be found on www.bradleymanning.org.
Birgitta Jonsdottir - Agenda for the US visit, April 3rd through April 8th:
Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and filmmaker Michael Moore invite you,

On April 3rd, Icelandic Parliamentarian, activist WikiLeaks contributor and “poetician” Birgitta Jonsdottir is making her first visit to the United States since the release of the “Collateral Murder” video. This video is one of the most graphic and devastating pieces of journalism from the war in Iraq. Bradley Manning, who has now been in jail for over 1000 days without trial, leaked this video to raise awareness.

On Friday April 5th, we invite you to an evening of art and discussion to sow the seeds of resistance against illegal imperialist wars, and to discuss the present state of free speech and freedom of the press. Your presence at Judson Memorial Church would send a clear signal that we the people value truth and stand against the unbelievable lack of ethics and accountability this, and other leaks, consistently reveal.

Doors will open at 5:30 PM, for two hours of drinks, refreshments, and artwork , including stills from Collateral Murder, art prints by Molly Crabapple, and Laura Poitras’s five-minute documentary.

Then at 8 PM, we’ll move to a discussion among Birgitta, independent journalist Alexa O’Brien, FireDogLake’s Kevin Gosztola, and FAIR media critic Peter Hart, moderated by Sam Seder.

See more information about their discussion here, and see how to bid on Molly Crabapple’s art prints of Bradley Manning here.

Birgitta and comrades will be speaking in order to raise awareness about Bradley and raise funds for his defense. Along with helping Bradley we would like to help the families in Iraq effected by this war crime, and Ethan McCord the soldier on the scene in the video who helped the injured children – he now has severe PTSD. In interest of sparking discussion and more shifts in awareness levels printed stills from the video will be on exhibit for the very first time.

Please come stand with Birgitta Jonsdottir and support hero Bradley Manning and the ethics and values he so clearly embodies.

Icelandic MP Birgitta Jónsdóttir

Peter Lemkin
04-04-2013, 03:12 PM
Iceland Member Of Parliament Birgitta Jonsdottir Has Arrived Safely In NYC Without Incident And Is Safe. A Warm Welcome From Anonymous USA.

Daniel Ellsberg and Michael Moore invite you to a Bradley Manning event with Birgitta Jonsdottir Bradley Manning Support Network

March 23, 2013. Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg invites you to a Bradley Manning event in New York CIty, on April 5, 2013, featuring Icelandic MP Birgitta Jonsdottir, who worked with WikiLeaks to publish the Collateral Murder video in 2010. Read here for information about the event, how to RSVP, and Birgitta's other events that week. ...

www.bradleymanning.org

Peter Lemkin
04-07-2013, 05:57 PM
A Bradley Manning event with Birgitta Jonsdottir, Icelandic MP - VIDEO
Saturday, 06 April 2013 11:44

"His message, his statement, is so powerful, and it feels to me that he is not broken. And that shows what an extraordinary person he is." said Birgitta Jonsdottir at the Bradley Manning event yesterday, and received an applause for the audience. She continued "And I truly think that one of the reasons that he is not broken is because he knows of all of us out here that are fighting for him".

Birgitta Jonsdottir, Wikileaks volunteer, member of the Icelandic Pirate Party and member of the Icelandic parliament, is currently in the US to show support for Bradley Manning. The Bradley Manning event was held yesterday at the Judson Memorial Church in New York, on Friday April 5th.

The description of the event is as follows:
Daniel Ellsberg and Michael Moore invite you to a Bradley Manning event with Birgitta Jonsdottir

On Friday April 5th, we invite you to an evening of art and discussion to sow the seeds of resistance against illegal imperialist wars, and to discuss the present state of free speech and freedom of the press. Your presence at Judson Memorial Church would send a clear signal that we the people value truth and stand against the unbelievable lack of ethics and accountability this, and other leaks, consistently reveal.

Doors will open at 5:30 PM, for two hours of drinks, refreshments, and artwork , including stills from Collateral Murder, art prints by Molly Crabapple, and Laura Poitras's five-minute documentary.

Then at 8 PM, we'll move to a discussion among Birgitta, independent journalist Alexa O'Brien, FireDogLake's Kevin Gosztola, and FAIR media critic Peter Hart, moderated by Sam Seder.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szUgQImKD1g&feature=player_embedded

Peter Lemkin
04-10-2013, 09:51 AM
Jónsdóttir: If Bradley Manning Had Leaked State Secrets in Iceland, He’d Have Been a Hero
By: Kevin Gosztola Tuesday April 9, 2013 10:29 am

Icelandic Parliament Member Birgitta Jonsdottir

Icelandic parliamentarian Birgitta Jonsdottir, who has been a target of the United States’ government’s wide investigation into WikiLeaks, visited the US to show her support for Pfc. Bradley Manning.

She was involved in the release of the “Collateral Murder” video of a 2007 Apache helicopter attack in Baghdad, Iraq, that was released just over three years ago. During her visit, she participated in multiple speaking events and spoke with US media interested in speaking with her.

Jonsdottir was here for five days. I participate in a panel event with her and others in New York City on Friday, April 5 (that can be viewed here).

I interviewed her while she was here. Part 1 of our interview was already published. Here is Part 2.

*

KEVIN GOSZTOLA: In being here in the United States and following how the Bradley Manning case is covered and taking notice of how the US population reacts to his case, what do you think about that in comparison to how people have reacted in Iceland or other countries?

BIRGITTA JONSDOTTIR, Icelandic MP: Many people say he’s a traitor and he should be killed and hung. I read it and it is very disturbing because it’s sort of a reflection of a mentality that I don’t think it is normal. It’s a very weird mentality—solution to a problem is to go and kill people or torture them or to waterboard them. It’s Middle Ages. It’s unacceptable in modern societies.

The only thing I have to say to people that claim this is that I understand that the government went into panic when the leaks were coming because they probably had no idea if it came from higher. They should have known, because according to what I have heard, he did not leak that was the highest classified stuff.

GOSZTOLA: Not top secret.

JONSDOTTIR: Right, it was Daniel Ellsberg who leaked that stuff. It is Ellsberg who is the hero and he was fortunate to not be in the military yet he was leaking to the general public stuff that people really needed to know about the government’s behavior in order to keep the government honest. I don’t see any difference except what Bradley Manning has been accused of doing is a lot less serious and people are saying he should die because of this.

I can understand that he might get some sentence. I understand that, but he’s served in prison for like more than a 1000 days and he’s been tortured. Isn’t that enough? Haven’t they gotten enough revenge? Do they want to pull out his teeth? Or put him in the electric chair? What sort of barbaric society thinks like this? And I don’t know anybody in the United States who thinks like this so I don’t really know where these people come from.

GOSZTOLA: This zeal, this wanting of death—it’s not in these countries that you’ve talked about?

JONSDOTTIR: In Iceland, we have much less prison sentences. We don’t use prisons to keep people, to forget about them. Or, we don’t use prisons—Even if you possess a little bit of drugs for your own use, you’re not really put in prison for that. We recognize that this war on drugs can never be won. And, we recognize that a prison should not be a storage place for problems. The biggest aim for someone to go to prison is get the person to get some sentence but the other thing is how to help that person assimilate back into society because it’s really expensive for society to have completely dysfunctional people coming out of prisons and these really long sentences here—This is not really traditional European. It’s more like Iran.

The way the prison sentences here are really high like what we’re seeing with Jeremy Hammond. Forty-five years in prison?

GOSZTOLA: And they want Barrett Brown to go to prison for 105 years.

What do you think about the idea that if Bradley Manning was not in the military there would not be so many calls for him to be put to death?

JONSDOTTIR: Do these people that request this—that the state becomes the executor—do they find it acceptable how many people have died in meaningless wars? What was the reason why the US went into Iraq? Oh, weapons of mass destruction. And like has the guy who lied to the UN actually been held accountable? Have the people we have seen with our own eyes committing war crimes, have they been held accountable? Or their superiors? Or the people pissing on dead people held accountable? Or raping children? Have they been held accountable?

The pride of military—You can be proud of your country, but you have to be proud for the right things. I used to look at the United States and was fascinated by many aspects of your society but they’re almost all gone. And now the world looks at the United States as similar to China.

I’d just encourage people to do everything in their power to turn it around and I know you can because you have so many brilliant, brilliant people in this country.

GOSZTOLA: In Iceland, if you had someone like Manning and there was this need to hold someone accountable for violations, would there be a zeal against that person similar to what exists in this country? There seems to be such lawlessness in this country. Is there a problem of rampant lawlessness in Iceland?

JONSDOTTIR: I have live most of my life in Iceland but I have also lived in the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and the UK. So, I have a fairly good perspective of how things are and I think the stronger the military establishment, the worst off the civic society will be.

In Iceland, we’re fortunate that we don’t have a military so we don’t ever have to teach our children how to kill a person. And, it makes a huge difference.

I’ve studied another society like this, the Tibetans. It’s just an entirely different mentality if you don’t have to indoctrine your children that it’s okay to kill people, that you have to have this absolute rigid loyalty to something you might feel to be wrong in your heart and I think it does something really bad to nations.

If Bradley Manning would have leaked this stuff in Iceland—Since we don’t have a military, if he would have leaked other sensitive state secrets that should have been in the public domain, like videos from police interrogations, he would be a hero.

GOSZTOLA: You would like people participate in the organization of actions during his trial. What can you say about your vision to have mass action in the US?

JONSDOTTIR: I would like to encourage anybody who has any time to spare to organize in his hometown an event that would be around the time or on the date when the trial starts. So, I would like people to show the “Collateral Murder” video or show it in halls or their homes. They can do guerrilla video. They can take photos if they see stencils, like “Blowing a Whistle is Not a Crime.” They can host readings, re-read his statement. They can show different documentaries but would need to upload to similar website like the Global Voices website.

I want to have larger events in three cities like New York, Washington, LA or San Francisco and then people upload that they’ve done an event on Tumblr or Twitter and we collect information on these events. We can send a strong message to Bradley Manning that we’ve not forgotten and we appreciate what he’s done. We are not going to accept that he will rot in jail for the rest of his life. Enough is enough.

David Guyatt
04-10-2013, 11:21 AM
Icelandic Parliament Member Birgitta Jonsdottir had better begin watching her back if you ask me.

Uncle Sam doesn't take kindly to politicians from other nations meddling in its own internal affairs.

Usually, it's too busy meddling in the internal affairs of other nations to notice, but this sort of coverage will draw it's eye.

Heart attacks, brain tumours, cancer and other suicide-ation techniques are part of its battery of political influence.

Peter Lemkin
04-10-2013, 05:52 PM
You can watch an extended interview with Birgitta Jonsdottir, done a day ago,part one here (http://www.democracynow.org/2013/4/8/icelandic_lawmaker_birgitta_jonsdottir_on_challeng ing), and part two here. (http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2013/4/8/birgitta_jnsdttir_on_criminalization_of_cyber_acti vists_bradley_manning_icelands_pirate_party_pt_2) I can only wish we had people in my government as good, honest, brave, and fighting for such a high level of Truth and Justice! She puts most in most Congresses and Parliaments to shame, IMHO.

Carsten Wiethoff
04-11-2013, 07:04 AM
From http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/hearing-for-gi-in-wikileaks-case-focuses-on-evidence-ruling-on-bin-laden-raid-pending/2013/04/10/f04255e8-a1ae-11e2-bd52-614156372695_story.html



By Associated Press, Apr 11, 2013 03:17 AM EDT
AP Published: April 10


FORT MEADE, Md. — A military judge cleared the way Wednesday for a member of the team that raided Osama bin Laden’s compound to testify at the trial of an Army private charged in a massive leak of U.S. secrets to the WikiLeaks website.
Col. Denise Lind ruled for the prosecution during a court-martial pretrial hearing for Pfc. Bradley Manning at Fort Meade, near Baltimore.

Prosecutors say the witness, presumably a Navy SEAL, collected digital evidence showing that the al-Qaida leader requested and received from an associate some of the documents Manning has acknowledged sending to WikiLeaks.
Defense attorneys had argued that proof of receipt wasn’t relevant to whether Manning aided the enemy, the most serious charge he faces, punishable by life imprisonment.
The judge disagreed.
“The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the intelligence is given to and received by the enemy,” Lind said.
The ruling means prosecutors can call the witness during the “merits,” or main, phase of the trial. They otherwise could have used his testimony only for sentencing purposes.
The witness has been publicly identified only as “John Doe” and as a Defense Department “operator,” a designation given to SEALs. Prosecutors say he participated with SEAL Team Six in their May 2011 assault on the compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in which the terrorist leader was killed. His testimony would help establish a chain of custody for the evidence from its recovery to its analysis by a computer expert.
Lind ruled later in the hearing that John Doe must testify in civilian clothing and “light disguise” in a closed session at an alternate, secure location to prevent disclosure of his identity or details of the mission. The disguise cannot obscure his demeanor, body movements and facial reactions.

Magda Hassan
06-30-2013, 07:47 AM
US v Pfc. Manning | Nicholas Murphy Unclassified Stipulation, 117 Charged State Dept Cables with LinksBy Alexa O'Brien (http://www.alexaobrien.com/) on June 27, 2013 9:51 PM |

The following cables were listed in the stipulation of testimony of Mr. Nicholas Murphy, Senior Advisor for the Office of Information Program (I.P.S.), Bureau of Administration at the Department of State. Murphy conducted a classification review of 117 cables charged against Manning under the Espionage Act - 18 U.S.C. 793(e).
There are 117 charged Department of State Cales or Telegrams. They are listed below. 96 cables, Murphy said, were classified CONFIDENTIAL in whole or part, and 21 are classified at SECRET in whole or in part.
I thank Joanne Michele (https://twitter.com/sabzbrach) and Data Porn Star (http://dataporn.tumblr.com/post/54058654532/manning) for helping me format this information with links.

09STATE92655 SECRETARY’S MEETING WITH HONDURAN PRESIDENT ZELAYA (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09STATE92655_a.html)
09STATE92657 JCIC-DIP-09-010: U.S. RESPONSE TO RUSSIAS START FORMAT 81 NOTIFICATION REGARDING INCOMPLETENESS OR INSUFFICIENT QUALITY OF THE RECORDING OF TELEMETRIC INFORMATION PROVIDED REGARDING THE TRIDENT II SLBM FLIGHT TEST OF DECEMBER 10, 2008 (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09STATE92657_a.html)
09TEGUCIGALPA891 TFH01: JUSTICE FOR MY ENEMIES: DE FACTO GOVERNMENT VIGOROUSLY PURSUES PROSECUTIONS AGAINST ZELAYA TEAM (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09TEGUCIGALPA891_a.html)
09TEGUCIGALPA892 PRO-COUP BUSINESSMAN CLAIMS LECH WALESA PLANS VISIT (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09TEGUCIGALPA892_a.html)
09SANTIAGO835 CHILE: Opposition Candidate Pinera Continues to Lead in Polls, But Faces Tight Second Round Against Frei (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09SANTIAGO835_a.html)
09SANTODOMINGO1017 SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE EMPHASIZES COMMITMENT TO JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AND COOPERATION ON EXTRADITIONS IN MEETING WITH CHARGE (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09SANTODOMINGO1017_a.html)
09STATE92632 AFGHANISTAN TRANSIT - REQUEST FOR GENERAL AUTHORIZATION (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09STATE92632_a.html)
09STATE92641 PERSUADING THE GOVERNMENT OF SRI LANKA ON FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09STATE92641_a.html)
09PRISTINA58 KOSOVO: CONTINUED PROGRESS, CHALLENGES AT KOSOVO PROPERTY AGENCY (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09PRISTINA58_a.html)
09RIYADH1156 SAUDI MINISTER OF STATE MADANI ON UAE, YEMEN, SAUDI-ARMENIAN RELATIONS (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09RIYADH1156_a.html)
09SANTIAGO831 Lagos on Honduras, Chilean elections (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09SANTIAGO831_a.html)
09SANTIAGO833 CHILEAN MFA DG IBARRA ON REGIONAL DEVELOPMENTS: RELATIONS WITH U.S. EXCELLENT, UNASUR STILL KEY FORUM (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09SANTIAGO833_a.html)
09LIMA1309 VRAE: GOP MOUNTS RESCUE OP FOR STRANDED SOLDIERS (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09LIMA1309_a.html)
09MEXICO2658 MEXICO ON UNRWA AT 60 - SPEAKING ROLE FOR ISRAEL (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09MEXICO2658_a.html)
09NEWDELHI267 AMBASSADOR PRESSES MENON TO IMPLEMENT CIVIL NUCLEAR COOPERATION WITH U.S. (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09NEWDELHI267_a.html)
09PARIS217 FRENCH FEEDBACK ON KOSOVO RECOGNITION STRATEGY (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09PARIS217_a.html)
09PRAGUE88 CZECH REPUBLIC: RESPONSE TO DEMARCHE ON DISCUSSION OF MEDVEDEV SECURITY PROPOSAL (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09PRAGUE88_a.html)
09BOGOTA2873 TWO MEMBERS OF THE AFRO-COLOMBIAN CAUCUS ARRESTED FOR PARAMILITARY TIES (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09BOGOTA2873_a.html)
09BRASILIA1112 BRAZIL MORE SUPPORTIVE OF U.S. ARAB-ISRAELI NEGOTIATIONS APPROACH BUT NO AID COMMITMENTS YET (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09BRASILIA1112_a.html)
09BRASILIA1113 AUGUST 4-5 VISIT OF U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR TO BRAZIL (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09BRASILIA1113_a.html)
09CARACAS1168 CHAVEZ UPS THE ANTE: THE CRIMINALIZATION OF PROTEST (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09CARACAS1168_a.html)
08KHARTOUM428 LIAR’S POKER: SUDANESE “CALL AND RAISE" ON USG NON-PAPER (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08KHARTOUM428_a.html)
09ADDISABABA1063 SCENESETTER FOR VISIT OF AMB. RICE TO ETHIOPIA (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09ADDISABABA1063_a.html)
09BAGHDAD2390 MALIKI ADVISOR SAYS PM UNLIKELY TO JOIN SHI’A COALITION; FEARS IRAN WILL FOMENT VIOLENCE IN RUN-UP TO ELECTION (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09BAGHDAD2390_a.html)
09BAMAKO85 IS THE REBELLION OVER? MALI BEATS BACK BAHANGA AND PREPARES FOR PEACE IN KIDAL (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09BAMAKO85_a.html)
07VILNIUS13 LITHUANIA STRUGGLING TO MEET SCHENGEN REQUIREMENTS (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07VILNIUS13_a.html)
08AMMAN535 AS NEW POLITICAL PARTY RULES LOOM, JORDANIAN POLITICIANS MANEUVER (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08AMMAN535_a.html)
08CAIRO569 ARAB LEAGUE’S HISHAM YOUSEF ON SUMMIT AND “YEMENI INITIATIVE" (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08CAIRO569_a.html)
08DARESSALAAM206 TANZANIA: MINISTER MEMBE BRIEFS AMBASSADOR GREEN ON COMOROS PLANS, ZIMBABWE ELECTIONS (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08DARESSALAAM206_a.html)
08KHARTOUM246 UNAMID COMMANDER: BUILDING UP WHAT WE HAVE SHOULD BE THE PRIORITY (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08KHARTOUM246_a.html)
07USUNNEWYORK573 U.S. OFFICIALS BRIEF UNSYG ON PRESIDENT’S CLIMATE CHANGE INITIATIVE, DISCUSS DARFUR (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07USUNNEWYORK573_a.html)
07USUNNEWYORK575 UPDATE ON UN EFFORTS TO SET UP LEBANON TRIBUNAL (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07USUNNEWYORK575_a.html)
07USUNNEWYORK578 RUSSIA TRASHES MINIMALIST KOSOVO DRAFT RESOLUTION (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07USUNNEWYORK578_a.html)
07VIENTIANE12 REPRESENTATIVE MCCOLLUM MEETS NATIONAL ASSEMBLY LEADERS (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07VIENTIANE12_a.html)
07SANSALVADOR1375 EL SALVADOR: CONCURRENCE WITH 1206 FUNDING PROPOSALS (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07SANSALVADOR1375_a.html)
07SANTODOMINGO28 DOMINICANS FIGHT CORRUPTION - MUCH BARK, LITTLE BITE, SHOOTING SNAFU WITH JUSTICE OFFICIALS (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07SANTODOMINGO28_a.html)
07SUVA18 FIJI UPDATE 1/8/07: INTERIM GOVERNMENT MINISTERS; CHAUDHRY TO FINANCE; INTERNATIONAL INFLUENCES; APPARENT MURDER IN RFMF CUSTODY (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07SUVA18_a.html)
07TUNIS47 SCENESETTER FOR VISIT OF DAS CARPENTER (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07TUNIS47_a.html)
07RANGOON22 THAN SHWE REPORTEDLY RETURNING TO BURMA (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07RANGOON22_a.html)
07REYKJAVIK203 Icelandic MFA announces inquiry into alleged CIA detainee flights (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07REYKJAVIK203_a.html)
07RIYADH21 DEMARCHE DELIVERED: SECURING REGIONAL BORDERS AGAINST INFLUX OF FOREIGN FIGHTERS AND WEAPONS TO SOMALIA (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07RIYADH21_a.html)
07RIYADH22 FOLLOW UP ON AL MANAR AND AL AKSA TELEVISION; ARMS FOR LEBANESE ARMED FORCES (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07RIYADH22_a.html)
07RIYADH23 SAG STATES NO HIGH-LEVEL ENGAGEMENT OF SYRIAN OFFICIALS (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07RIYADH23_a.html)
07NEWDELHI80 CONGRESS GOVERNMENT IN HIMACHAL PRADESH PASSES A RELIGIOUS CONVERSION BAN (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07NEWDELHI80_a.html)
07PANAMA1197 PANAMA POST: EDITION V (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07PANAMA1197_a.html)
07PANAMA1198 PANAMA: UIGHUR DEMARCHE DELIVERED TO 1ST VP AND FM (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07PANAMA1198_a.html)
07PARIS4722 GERMAN DIPLOMAT AT FRENCH MFA DESCRIBES CAUTIOUS, CONSTRUCTIVE RELATIONS (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07PARIS4722_a.html)
07PARIS4723 FRANCE AND THE WTO AG BIOTECH CASE (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07PARIS4723_a.html)
07LAPAZ1949 OPPOSITION POLITICIAN PHYSICALLY ATTACKS INDIGENOUS LEADER (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07LAPAZ1949_a.html)
07LIMA2400 PERU FACES A “TORNADO OF PROTESTS" (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07LIMA2400_a.html)
07MINSK1024 AMBASSADOR VISITS HOSPITALIZED YOUTH LEADER FEDARUK (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07MINSK1024_a.html)
07MOSCOW5824 U.S., RUSSIA, AND EUROPEAN COOPERATION: FIRST WE NEED TO REMOVE OBSTACLES (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07MOSCOW5824_a.html)
07MOSCOW5825 RUSSIAN ELITES AHEAD OF RULING PARTY CONFERENCE (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07MOSCOW5825_a.html)
07DHAKA24 AMBASSADOR AND BRITISH HIGH COMMISSION MET WITH SHEIKH HASINA REGARDING MILITARY COUP (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07DHAKA24_a.html)
07KABUL68 DETAINEE LEGAL FRAMEWORK: GOA REPRESENTATIVES CONVENE TO DISCUSS TEST CASES, REVIEW BOARD (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07KABUL68_a.html)
07KINGSTON25 JAMAICA: MALARIA UPDATE (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07KINGSTON25_a.html)
07KUALALUMPUR40 MALAYSIA STILL WAVERING ON BURMA RESOLUTION (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07KUALALUMPUR40_a.html)
07LAGOS719 NIGERIA: NEW RIVERS GOVERNOR REINVENTS HIMSELF BUT FACES CHALLENGES IN TRIBUNAL (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07LAGOS719_a.html)
07BRIDGETOWN23 GRENADA TRYING TO READ ST. LUCIA TEA LEAVES (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07BRIDGETOWN23_a.html)
07BUENOSAIRES1341 DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER LOOKING FOR BILATERAL RE-ENGAGEMENT (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07BUENOSAIRES1341_a.html)
07CARACAS2346 PDVSA CASH FLOW PROBLEMS (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07CARACAS2346_a.html)
07CARACAS35 CHAVEZ PRESSING AHEAD WITH A SINGLE “REVOLUTIONARY" PARTY (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07CARACAS35_a.html)
07BEIJING152 CHINA URGES UNITED STATES TO BAR MEDIA, PUBLIC EVENTS FOR CHEN SHUI-BIAN TRANSIT STOPS (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07BEIJING152_a.html)
07BEIRUT1958 LEBANON: CHRISTIAN LEADERS DISCUSS BG HAJJ ASSASSINATION, PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07BEIRUT1958_a.html)
07BOGOTA101 SCENESETTER FOR VISIT OF GENERAL PACE, CJCS (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07BOGOTA101_a.html)
07BOGOTA5118 ON-AGAIN, OFF-AGAIN PEACE TALKS WITH ELN SET TO RESUME JULY 14 (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07BOGOTA5118_a.html)
07BRATISLAVA665 SLOVAKIA: DCM REINFORCES KOSOVO, IRAN POINTS WITH DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07BRATISLAVA665_a.html)
07BAGHDAD63 IRAQ’S SUNNI VP DISCUSSES BAGHDAD SECURITY PLAN, MODERATE FRONT, SADDAM AND IRAN (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07BAGHDAD63_a.html)
07BAGHDAD64 COR FINANCE COMMITTEE CHAIR BEGINS 2007 BUDGET REVIEW (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07BAGHDAD64_a.html)
07BAGHDAD70 KURDISTAN PRESIDENT DISCUSSES OIL REVENUE SHARING, PRIVATE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT, RECONSTRUCTION AID (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07BAGHDAD70_a.html)
07BANGKOK111 AMBASSADOR PRESSES CNS SECRETARY GENERAL ON MARTIAL LAW (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07BANGKOK111_a.html)
07BASRAH3 AN AMERICAN KIDNAPPED IN BASRAH (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07BASRAH3_a.html)
07BAGHDAD56 PRT TIKRIT: DOES THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT’S REACH EXTEND TO SALAH AD DIN? (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07BAGHDAD56_a.html)
07BAGHDAD53 KURDISTAN PRESIDENT BARZANI DISCUSSES PESHMERGA, REGIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND MEDIA FREEDOM (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07BAGHDAD53_a.html)
07BAGHDAD42 MOI BOLANI SLOW TO DEVELOP REFORM PLAN (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07BAGHDAD42_a.html)
07BAGHDAD37 IRAQI POLITICAL LEADERS EMPHASIZE IMPORTANCE OF BAGHDAD SECURITY AND MODERATE FRONT, AT DINNER WITH DEFENSE SECRETARY GATES (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07BAGHDAD37_a.html)
07BAGHDAD36 AMBASSADOR’S JANUARY 5 MEETING WITH IRAQI PM ADVISOR AL-ASKARI (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07BAGHDAD36_a.html)
07BAGHDAD35 MALIKI’S GROWING WILLINGNESS TO TAKE ON JAM (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07BAGHDAD35_a.html)
07ASHGABAT1359 RUSSIAN DCM PLAYS UP GREAT GAME TO EXPLAIN U.S. INTERESTS IN TURKMENISTAN (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07ASHGABAT1359_a.html)
07ANKARA2468 TURKEY: POLITICAL REFORMS STALLED AS GOT FOCUSES ON NEW CONSTITUTION (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07ANKARA2468_a.html)
07ANKARA23 TURKEY: ERDOGAN IMPATIENT FOR U.S. ACTION AGAINST PKK (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07ANKARA23_a.html)
07ADDISABABA2197 (C-AL7-01035) ETHIOPIA: WFP OFFICIAL DISCUSSES ONLF AND COUNTERINSURGENCY IN OGADEN (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07ADDISABABA2197_a.html)
06TRIPOLI648 LIBYAN CENTRAL BANK ESTABLISHING NEW TRAINING INSTITUTE (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06TRIPOLI648_a.html)
06TRIPOLI645 LIBYAN DEMARCHE ON CHINA SUMMIT WITH AFRICAN NATIONS (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06TRIPOLI645_a.html)
06TAIPEI3830 MTAG: UNSCR 1718 AND EXPORT CONTROL (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06TAIPEI3830_a.html)
06SUVA489 FIJI UPDATE 11/13: GCC TRIES TO MEDIATE; NO STABLE OUTCOME IN SIGHT (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06SUVA489_a.html)
06SEOUL3885 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE KOH GUN ON NORTH KOREA, ALLIANCE AND DOMESTIC POLITICS (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06SEOUL3885_a.html)
06SEOUL3882 ROK TO ANNOUNCE POSITION ON PSI NOVEMBER 13, 2006 (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06SEOUL3882_a.html)
06RIYADH8811 UNPRECEDENTED MEETING BETWEEN USG AND SAG ON PETROLEUM INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06RIYADH8811_a.html)
06PRISTINA948 KOSOVO: PLANNING FOR POSSIBLE SERB REFUGEE MOVEMENTS POST-STATUS SHOWS GAPS IN ABILITY TO HANDLE LARGE MIGRATIONS (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06PRISTINA948_a.html)
06PRISTINA947 KOSOVO: UNMIK GETTING OUT OF THE RETURNS BUSINESS (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06PRISTINA947_a.html)
06MADRID2956 SPAIN: ACTIVE SUPPORT ON TURKEY/EU; WILL SEEK LEAST DAMAGING OPTION (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06MADRID2956_a.html)
06MADRID2955 SPAIN DOES NOT AGREE WITH KOSOVO TIMEFRAME (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06MADRID2955_a.html)
06KUWAIT4438 IRAQ DEBT FORGIVENESS: “A BLOODY, UPHILL BATTLE" (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06KUWAIT4438_a.html)
06KUWAIT4430 FREEDOM AGENDA: RUMBLINGS OF ANOTHER PARLIAMENT DISSOLUTION (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06KUWAIT4430_a.html)
06KATHMANDU3024 PM KOIRALA OPTIMISTIC ABOUT PROSPECTS FOR PEACE (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06KATHMANDU3024_a.html)
06KATHMANDU3023 GETTING A SECURITY COUNCIL MANDATE FOR NEPAL’S PEACE PROCESS (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06KATHMANDU3023_a.html)
06KABUL5435 PRT KHOST: NEW ABP COMMANDER OPTIMISTIC DESPITE DECIMATED/DEMORALIZED FORCE (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06KABUL5435_a.html)
06KABUL5421 PRT TARIN KOWT - GOVERNOR MONIB’S MILITIA (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06KABUL5421_a.html)
06KABUL5420 KARZAI ASKS QUESTIONS ABOUT ANP RANK REFORM (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06KABUL5420_a.html)
06COLOMBO1889 DEFENSE SECRETARY EXPRESSES CONCERN ABOUT POSSIBLE MAJOR LTTE ATTACK (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06COLOMBO1889_a.html)
06BELGRADE1681 ICTY ACTION PLAN SCORECARD, OCTOBER 2006 (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06BELGRADE1681_a.html)
06BEIRUT3703 LAHOUD REJECTS PATRIARCH’S CALL TO QUIT (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06BEIRUT3703_a.html)
06BEIRUT3604 FORMER PM MIKATI INSISTS HE SUPPORTS SINIORA (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06BEIRUT3604_a.html)
06BEIRUT3603 UN OFFICIALS ON COORDINATION, TRIBUNAL, OVERFLIGHTS, HIZBALLAH (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06BEIRUT3603_a.html)
06BAGHDAD4205 SCIRI LEADERS BEMOAN LACK OF STRONG SUNNI PARTNERS IN IRAQI GOVERNMENT (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06BAGHDAD4205_a.html)
06BAGHDAD2646 HUNGER STRIKE BY AD-DUJAYL DEFENDANTS (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06BAGHDAD2646_a.html)
06ALGIERS1961 SKIKDA RAMPING UP REFINING, LNG CAPACITY WITH EYE ON EUROPE (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06ALGIERS1961_a.html)
05ALGIERS1836 DESPITE SOME EARLIER CONCERNS, GOA TAKING POSITIVE STANCE ON LUGAR MISSION AND ITS AFTERMATH (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/05ALGIERS1836_a.html)
99ISLAMABAD495 PUBLIC DIPLOMACY: USAMA BIN LADIN (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/99ISLAMABAD495_a.html)
10REYKJAVIK13 LOOKING FOR ALTERNATIVES TO AN ICESAVE REFERENDUM (http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/10REYKJAVIK13_a.html)
These cables are not contained in the Cablegate publication by WikiLeaks:
10TOKYO627
10BRUSSELS382
10GENEVA347
10LIMA333
10PRETORIA636
10RABAT294
Document
Pages
Text




Zoom [/URL]







p. 1





p. 2





p. 3










« Page 1 of 18
»







Categories:

[URL="http://www.alexaobrien.com/secondsight/wikileaks/bradley_manning/"]Bradley Manning (http://www.alexaobrien.com/secondsight/wikileaks/bradley_manning/us_v_pfc_manning_charged_state_department_cables.h tml#),
WikiLeaks (http://www.alexaobrien.com/secondsight/wikileaks/)

Magda Hassan
07-03-2013, 02:52 AM
US government rests its case in Bradley Manning WikiLeaks trial

Admission that army has mislaid standard contract signed by private boosts defence hopes of having some charges dismissed

Ed Pilkington (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/edpilkington) at Fort Meade
guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/), Wednesday 3 July 2013 07.08 AEST

Army Pfc Bradley Manning is escorted out of a courthouse in Fort Meade, Maryland. Photograph: Jose Luis Magana/AP

The US government rested its case against the WikiLeaks (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/wikileaks) source,Bradley Manning (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/bradley-manning) on Tuesday, bringing to an end the prosecution phase of the most significant criminal trial of an official leaker in at least a generation.
In the fifth week of the trial proper (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/03/bradley-manning-trial-opens-wikileaks), and more than three years after Manning was arrested for leaking the largest stash of state secrets in US history, Major Ashden Fein closed the government's case (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/03/bradley-manning-wikileaks-trial-key-players) against the Army private. The defence case will start on Monday, beginning with a motion to have some of the 22 charges against Manning dismissed on the grounds of lack of evidence.
In the course of more than four weeks of intermittent testimony, the prosecution has hit a number of legal hurdles, including conflicting testimony and paucity of concrete evidence. The most embarrassing admission was that the Army had mislaid the standard contract Manning signed that laid out the terms of his access to classified information upon deployment to Iraq (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/iraq).
In defence cross-examination of a prosecution witness, it was revealed that the government had lost one copy of the Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) that Manning had signed and had routinely burned a second copy filled out by the soldier and all other members of his unit. The document is important as it clarifies whether or not the soldier exceeded the terms of the authorised access to secret documents through his work computer that he directly agreed to.
Manning's lead defence lawyer, David Coombs, is likely to use the missing documents as grounds for having some of the charges dismissed. The AUP could be relevant to charges that Manning knowingly exceeded authorised access to a secret internet network, that he obtained classified information without authorisation and that he violated the computer fraud and abuse act.
The government has struck other legal impediments in seeking to establish its main case – that Manning had a "general evil intent" to "aid the enemy" by passing valuable US secrets to WikiLeaks, knowing that they would reach al-Qaida and its affiliated terrorist organisations. Prosecution lawyers have tried to show that Manning's decision to transmit a vast trove of more than 700,000 state documents was calculated and premeditated and not, as the defence argues, provoked by some of the disturbing experiences he had in Iraq (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/03/bradley-manning-trial-opening-statements).
To that end, prosecutors told the court that Manning's first transmission of classified information began within days or weeks of his arrival at Forward Operating Base Hammer, outside Baghdad, in November 2009. They tried to link Manning to a copy of a video of a US airstrike earlier that year, on the village of Garani in the Farah Province of Afghanistan (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afghanistan), that was placed on to the computer of a systems administrator called Jason Katz at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Long Island in December.
But defence cross-examination of a key prosecution witness, special agent David Shaver, revealed that the Katz video did not match footage of the same Garani airstrike that was stored on Manning's workstation in Iraq. Manning indicated in earlier proceedings that he would admit to having leaked his copy of the Garani video in April 2010 – five months after he got to Iraq. But prosecutors refused to budge on their November 2009 timeframe, prompting Manning to plead not guilty to this count.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at Ecuador's embassy in London, where he has been for almost a year. Photograph: Facundo Arrizabalaga/EPAThe government has also encountered problems seeking to prove that the army private entered into a conspiratorial relationship with Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. Prosecutors have pointed to the 2009 "Most Wanted List" compiled by WikiLeaks (http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Draft:The_Most_Wanted_Leaks_of_2009), which identified the most significant secrets that a crowd-sourced list of experts wanted to see disclosed. The government alleges that the list was used by Manning as a menu that guided his trawling of secure intelligence databases for information to leak. But no evidence was presented to court that Manning had ever read the list, let alone adopted it, and its status remains purely circumstantial.
Similarly, the prosecution cited a WikiLeaks tweet from May 2010 (http://archive.is/xm1sq), in which the anti-secrecy organisation put out an appeal to its Twitter followers for as many military email addresses to be leaked as possible. The government alleges a link between that tweet and a list of tens of thousands of email addresses that was found on Manning's personal computer. Yet the soldier never transmitted the list to WikiLeaks, and no evidence has been presented to court that he saw the WikiLeaks tweet in the first place.
The most serious charge, aiding the enemy, carries a maximum sentence of life in custody without parole. In pre-trial hearings the judge, Colonel Denise Lind, ruled that to make the charge stick the government must prove that Manning knowingly gave intelligence information, via WikiLeaks, to al-Qaida and its affiliates, including al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. Crucially, Lind has set the prosecution the challenge of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Manning had "a general evil intent", in that he "had to know he was dealing, directly or indirectly, with an enemy of the US". The soldier cannot be found guilty if he acted "inadvertently, accidentally, or negligently".
Whether or not the prosecution succeeds in meeting that high bar set by Lind will have far-reaching implications, not just for Manning, whose fate depends on it, but also for the wider relationship in the US between government, whistleblowers and a free press. The Obama administration (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/obama-administration)has launched seven prosecutions under the Espionage Act (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/11/edward-snowden-defence), which Manning is also facing, more than double the number initiated by all previous presidents combined.
Manning has already pleaded guilty to lesser charges that carry a combined maximum sentence of 20 years. He has admitted to being the WikiLeaks source, and to acting in a way that was prejudicial to good order and discipline and that brought discredit upon the armed forces.
Such a substantial admission of responsibility has failed to satisfy military prosecutors, who are clearly determined to send a bold message that will give any would-be leaker pause. The aggression displayed by the US government has additional current significance given Edward Snowden's predicament as he attempts to avoid capture by US authorities (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/edward-snowden) to face Espionage Act charges for leaking National Security Agency state secrets.
Paradoxically, one of the most significant pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution to show that Manning had knowledge of the danger of his actions was a classified report that was among the trove he passed to WikiLeaks. The 32-page document was released by WikiLeaks in March 2010 (http://wlstorage.net/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf) and gave the conclusions of a major investigation by US counter-intelligence into WikiLeaks itself.
The government argues that having leaked the report, Manning must have been familiar with its content. The report states that WikiLeaks was a threat to the US army.
"The intentional or unintentional leaking and posting of US army sensitive or classified information to Wikileaks.org could result in increased threats to DoD personnel, equipment, facilities, or installations," the report said. "Such information could be of value to foreign intelligence and security services (FISS), foreign military forces, foreign insurgents, and foreign terrorist groups for collecting information or for planning attacks against US force, both within the United States (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/usa) and abroad."
​http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/02/bradley-manning-wikileaks-trial-government-rests?CMP=twt_gu

Magda Hassan
07-03-2013, 02:54 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzmc3FISFwU

Peter Lemkin
07-17-2013, 03:48 PM
Harvard Professor Testifies Manning Disclosures are a “High Point” in Journalism History By ADAM KLASFELD (http://www.constantinereport.com/author/adam-klasfeld/) / Courthouse News Service (http://www.constantinereport.com/publication/courthouse-news-service/)July 11th, 2013inShare
http://www.constantinereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/war-obama.jpg?w=307&h=200&crop=1



Praise for WikiLeaks as Manning Defense RestsFT. MEADE, Md. (CN) – Pfc. Bradley Manning’s disclosures to WikiLeaks mark one of the “high points” in the history of journalism, a Harvard professor testified Wednesday as the last defense witness in the landmark court-martial.Manning has freely admitted his responsibility for the largest intelligence leak in U.S. history: a more-than-700,000-file stash of battlefield reports from two war zones, diplomatic cables and footage of airstrikes on civilians.
Prosecutors claim that the 25-year-old soldier “aided the enemy” and committed espionage, theft and computer fraud through these disclosures.
Harvard professor Yochai Benkler countered that the soldier enriched the “Networked Fourth Estate,” a phrase that he coined in the subtitle of his paper, “A Free Irresponsible Press.”
The last witness to testify for the defense, Benkler is considered an academic authority in the evolution of media in the age of the Internet, and the most widely cited scholar on WikiLeaks.
His concept of a “networked” Fourth Estate describes not only how traditional journalism outlets use online resources, but how the Internet forced the newsgathering process to evolve.
The military judge, Col. Denise Lind, admitted him as an expert on this topic, for the first time in U.S. jurisprudence.
Benkler testified that neither Manning, nor anybody else, would have had any reason to consider WikiLeaks a terrorist-enabler before overheated rhetoric against it came from Washington.
In its early days, WikiLeaks set its sights on authoritarian regimes, publishing about the Chinese government’s use of “Green Dam” software, Benkler noted. The program had been billed as anti-pornography software, but it also censored political dissent.
Other early scoops included evidence of a tax shelter scam at the Swiss bank, Julius Baer; toxic waste dumping off the Ivory Coast by Trafigura, a Dutch multinational corporation; and extrajudicial killing by the Kenyan government.
The latter expose won WikiLeaks an award by Amnesty International and solidified its reputation as a whistle-blowing website, Benkler said.
As the accolades poured in, a Pentagon counterintelligence official wrote and published a paper, “WikiLeaks.org – An Online Reference to Foreign Intelligence Services, Insurgents, or Terrorist Groups?”
Prosecutors argue that Manning, who leaked this document, knew about the organization’s supposedly secret nature and threat.
But Benkler said that even the paper’s author, Michael Horvach, never answered that question. The paper meanwhile describes WikiLeaks and its employees in traditional journalistic terms like “staff writers,” “editors” and “analysis of documents,” the professor noted.
“These are the things that are at the very core of investigative journalism,” Benkler said.
Horvach’s concern about WikiLeaks, moreover, stemmed from the “false, simply mistaken” assertion that it does not authenticate its documents, Benkler added.
In reality, verification procedures at WikiLeaks have differentiated it from short-lived competitors like LiveLeaks, Benkler said.
Noting that WikiLeaks never issued a significant retraction, Benkler quipped: “Dan Rather, I’m sure, would like to say the same thing.”
Perhaps the most prominent of the Manning’s leaks is the footage of an Apache helicopter’s footage of a Baghdad airstrike that killed two Reuters employees, which WikiLeaks titled “Collateral Murder.”
By unveiling this at the venerable National Press Club, WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange signaled “a bridge between new media and old media,” Benkler said.
The professor pointed out that The New York Times, the Guardian and Der Spiegel, a German daily, coordinated with WikiLeaks in reporting on the Afghanistan and Iraq “war logs.”
This marked “a clear distinct component of what in the history of journalism we see as high points, where journalists are able to come in and say, here’s a system operating in a way that is obscure to the public and now we’re able to shine the light,” Benkler said. “That’s what WikiLeaks showed how to do for the networked public sphere.”
Around this period, statements by government officials “began to shift publicly” against the website. Then-Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen accused WikiLeaks of having blood on its hands, and Vice President Joe Biden called Assange “a high-tech terrorist.”
Newspapers that published the scoops meanwhile mostly avoided such condemnation.
“The wrath was reserved purely for WikiLeaks,” Benkler said.
With “Cablegate,” a compendium of more than 250,000 diplomatic cables Manning leaked, the rhetoric continued to heat up. One Fox News host called for the government to “illegally shoot” Assange, and New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman ranked “super-empowered individuals” like the WikiLeaks chief as a threat on par with China.
Some level heads remained as then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates called official reactions to the leaks “fairly significantly overwrought” in a letter to Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.
Benkler called the remark “an extraordinarily well-placed assessment.”
Manning’s lead attorney, David Coombs, said it was the bluster from Washington that put WikiLeaks on al-Qaida’s radar. U.S. officials found Afghan war logs and diplomatic cables during the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabod, Pakistan, trial evidence showed.
With its major leaker facing the potential of life imprisonment, and its editor-in-chief holed up in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, Benkler noted that the organization’s fate is uncertain.
“WikiLeaks might fail in the future because all of these events, but the model of some form of decentralized leaking that is secure technologically and allows for collaboration among different media in different countries – that’s going to survive, and somebody else will build it.
“But WikiLeaks played that critical role of that particular critical component of what muckraking and investigative journalism has always done,” he said, ending his direct examination.
One of the prosecutors, Capt. Joe Morrow, acknowledged that Benkler was a “distinguished academic and clearly a very smart man” as he tried to undermine the methods that behind the professor’s conclusions.
In his research, Benkler said that he perused “at least 700 articles” about WikiLeaks that he found on WestLaw.
When Benkler published a draft of “A Free Irresponsible Press” on his website, Assange sent him an annotated version with comments, information and requested corrections. Benkler said he followed every lead, without taking any annotation at face value.
Morrow suggested that Benkler did not apply enough skepticism to allegations of Manning’s solitary confinement in a Marine brig in Quantico, Va.
Manning’s nearly nine-month stay at Quantico, from July 29, 2010, to April 19, 2011, provoked international attention, as reports trickled out that he had been forced to spend more than 23 hours a day alone, ordered to strip and denied permission to exercise in his windowless, 6-by-8-foot cell.
Col. Lind found before trial that Manning had experienced “unlawful pretrial punishment,” but she refused to define his isolation as “solitary confinement” because it had been intended for his protection.
Benkler declined to be drawn into that debate when asked his view of the subject today.
“That was the information that was then available,” he said of Manning’s isolation.
Morrow also tried to make Benkler budge from his characterization of WikiLeaks as a legitimate and effective journalistic enterprise. Traditional critics of the website and its employees tend to cast them as activist, anti-secrecy absolutists that dump documents without regard to their individual news value.
The prosecutor touched upon all of these points, which Benkler rebuffed in turn.
Though he agreed there was a difference between journalism and activism, Benkler called reporting a “behavior” rather than an identity, and said that The Nation and Fox News push points of view while also presenting the news.
When Morrow asked whether journalists encouraged anonymity with their sources, the professor pointed to “Deep Throat,” who remained unknown to the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward even while providing clues to the Watergate puzzle.
The reception of the Iraq war logs also showed the news value to documents leaked en masse, Benkler added, pointing to a nonprofit organization that used them to challenge official estimates of casualty counts.
Morrow pressed that Assange, unlike a traditional editor-in-chief, used the language of espionage in describing the newsgathering process by calling his outlet “The People’s Intelligence Agency,” and speaking of “intelligence sources” and “outing a spy” in the organization.
Taking the remarks less literally, Benkler said that individuals within organizations vary in their conduct and their rhetoric.
The prosecutor finished with an attempt to call the professor’s neutrality into question. “Your views on the court-martial are very well-known,” Morrow said.
Benkler co-authored a New York Times op-ed “Death to Whistle-Blowers,” and wrote “The Dangerous Logic of the Bradley Manning Case” in The New Republic.
On redirect, Coombs had Benkler explain both pieces, which took issue with unique charges against Manning. The professor noted that the potential capital offense of “aiding the enemy” has not been charged for a leak to the press since the Civil War, and carries the specter of life imprisonment over the heads of future journalism sources.
The defense rested with Benkler’s testimony. Proceedings resume next week with oral argument on Manning’s attempt to dismiss several major charges, including aiding the enemy. Prosecutors revealed plans to present a rebuttal case before the parties move on to closing arguments.

Albert Rossi
07-19-2013, 02:26 PM
http://warisacrime.org/content/manning-wins-peace-prize

Albert Rossi
07-19-2013, 03:27 PM
http://warisacrime.org/content/manning-wins-peace-prize

but see also:




http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/07/18/significance-of-military-judges-decision-to-not-acquit-bradley-manning-of-aiding-the-enemy (http://warisacrime.org/content/manning-wins-peace-prize)

Peter Lemkin
07-19-2013, 03:48 PM
http://warisacrime.org/content/manning-wins-peace-prize

but see also:




http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/07/18/significance-of-military-judges-decision-to-not-acquit-bradley-manning-of-aiding-the-enemy (http://warisacrime.org/content/manning-wins-peace-prize)

Yup! He's already been found GUILTY by the people he's blown the whistle on - and they hold all the jailer's keys and strings of power. IMO, sadly, his life is over...he will rot in prison the rest of his life, until the Revolution. Military Courts are much worst than the already horrible Civil Courts - they take orders and the order 'of the day' is whistleblowing=treason=death [life in prison, if they are forced into showing 'compassion']

Peter Lemkin
07-29-2013, 04:44 PM
AMY GOODMAN: After nearly two months of trial, a military judge will now consider the fate of Army Private Bradley Manning, accused of being behind the biggest leak of classified information in U.S. history. Prosecutors in Manning’s court-martial made their closing arguments Thursday, and the defense followed on Friday. The 25-year-old whistleblower is the first-ever defendant to face an "aiding the enemy" charge for leaking more than 700,000 documents to WikiLeaks and other news sources, which carries a potential life sentence in prison and could set a major precedent for future cases involving journalists. The judge in the case, Colonel Denise Lind, is now deliberating on the 21 charges Manning faces and has not said when she will rule.
Many of Manning’s supporters are calling for the convening authority on the case, Jeffrey Buchanan, to dismiss a potential guilty finding by Lind and reduce the whistleblower’s sentence. On Friday, protesters blocked the gates of Fort McNair in Washington, D.C., where Buchanan’s office is located.
JOHN PEPPER: I don’t think he’s claimed to be naive; I think he has claimed to have done the right thing. I don’t think the question is whether he was naive; I think the question is whether or not he did the right thing.


RACHEL ATWOOD: The very idea that he is being punished for coming out against war crimes and such cruelty by his fellow servicemen is—it’s really disturbing.

AMY GOODMAN: Over the weekend, protesters in dozens of cities around the world also held rallies to mark an international day of action calling for Manning’s release. Last Thursday, the Bradley Manning Support Network published a full-page ad in The New York Times that read in part, "We are American military veterans, artists, journalists, educators, homemakers, lawyers, and citizens. We live in red states and in blue states, in communities urban and rural. We ask you to consider the facts, and join us in declaring: Enough is enough. Free Bradley Manning now," the ad read, in part.
Well, for more, we’re joined from Fort Meade via Democracy Now! video stream by Alexa O’Brien, independent journalist who has been in the courtroom every day since the trial began. She is in her car in the parking lot outside the courtroom. O’Brien was the first to make transcripts of the proceedings publicly available when they weren’t being made available by the court. She was shortlisted for the 2013 Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism in Britain.
Here in New York, we’re joined by Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a lawyer for Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. Both were brought up repeatedly during the prosecution’s closing arguments. And Michael Ratner was also there for the opening and closing arguments in the Bradley Manning trial.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Michael, why don’t you start off by describing the scene in the courtroom on Thursday and Friday, and what, first, the prosecution laid out, and then the defense.
MICHAEL RATNER: You know, it’s a small courtroom. They make you wait a long time to get in. There’s 25 spectators only allowed in. There’s an overflow. You’re very close to Bradley Manning, I mean almost as close as I am to you, Amy, here. So it’s very small, compact. But it’s very, very intense.
And the prosecutor spent all of Thursday on his summation, and he wasn’t supposed to. And I’ll tell you why in a second, but it was an awful thing to sit there and listen to him basically smear and go through a diatribe about the character of Bradley Manning as well as the reasons he claims Bradley Manning did what he did, as well as go after my client, WikiLeaks, saying they’re not a journalist at all. It was a complete fantasy. But to sit there and painfully listen to these smears the entire day—you know, everything from "he’s a traitor" to "he did this for fame, he’s self-interested"—none of it is based on the evidence, none of it’s true. And that’s what David Coombs, Bradley Manning’s defense lawyer, pointed out on Friday.
But when I say it took the whole day—because here’s what happened. We were supposed to get both summations on Thursday, but I think the prosecutor purposely repeated things constantly—six-hour summation, seven-hour summation—so that the press that night—and it was the most press we had for a long time, 60-some press—would only put in his characterizations of Bradley Manning. It wasn’t until the next day when David Coombs really, utterly destroyed the idea that Bradley Manning was doing this for anything but the highest motives, to get information out to the American public about U.S. war crimes and U.S. criminality.
AMY GOODMAN: Alexa O’Brien, you have been there every day of this trial, including Sunday, as Denise Lind, the judge, was deliberating. On the closing days and the closing arguments, can you talk about how the reporters were being treated by the military?
ALEXA O’BRIEN: We have a new public affairs officer here at Fort Meade, and we had armed guards basically roaming the aisles of the media operation center. But even more than roaming the aisles, they were actually standing behind reporters, peering into our computers, coming every five minutes behind us. It was—it was quite a shocking behavior.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain—I was reading Charlie Savage’s piece (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/26/us/politics/closing-arguments-due-in-manning-leaks-case.html) in The New York Times, who described what was happening in the media center, talking about how the—let me see if I can find the words. "While Major Fein made his arguments, reporters watched the trial on a closed-circuit feed at the media center. Two military police officers in camouflage fatigues and armed [with holstered] handguns paced behind each row there, looking over the journalists’ shoulders, [which had not] happened during the trial. No explanation was given."
ALEXA O’BRIEN: You know, it’s interesting because I was here yesterday while the judge deliberated, and the commander came up to me—and I’m not allowed to name her, actually, or I could lose my press credentials. I can’t name any staff by their surname, etc. She told me that she was actually the media person responsible for all the images of Saddam Hussein’s capture and that those photographs were taken with her digital camera. So, she clearly understands how to manage the message. And that’s really central to this trial, is how Fort Meade has managed the message by the lack of public access to court documents, the subject matter expert, by the Military District of Washington, which is responsible for convening a fair and impartial trial for the accused, Bradley Manning. The first subject matter expert we had was a member of the prosecution. Nobody in the press pool knew that. It’s really what Mr. Ratner just spoke about, the fact that the prosecution wants to make sure that it makes the headlines, so it takes up a whole day of court and essentially squeezes any kind of press attention away from the defense. The fact of the matter is, is that if this trial were to be televised, if people could actually see Bradley Manning, see how earnest he is and how sincere a character and sympathetic a character he is, public opinion about this trial would change dramatically.
AMY GOODMAN: I mean, the fact that you’re at the headquarters of the National Security Agency, right—it’s right there at Fort Meade—and a military base, and talk about just the trouble you have with the Internet. And what is your ability to work? Describe what happens in the courtroom, in the media center. And can you go online at all there?
ALEXA O’BRIEN: We can no longer go online. The military—sorry, the Public Affairs Office here says it’s because of commercial Internet issues with Comcast. However, the fact of the matter is, is that we’re—we have to go outside in order to file. Let’s say something dramatic happens in the courtroom. We can’t tweet or publish anything, even send an email. We have to leave the media operations center, stand on the steps, open up our phone, which we’ve gotten out of our car, and then tweet something or, you know, email something or file something.
You know, we have to also look back. There was a period of almost eight months when it was just simply a small cadre of independent journalists, where we didn’t have a media operations center, where transcripts were pen and paper, and where we were trying to get out as much information as possible about a trial and motions related to aiding the enemy, whether or not the government was trying to craft an Official Secrets Act in this trial. It has been a completely surreal experience.
AMY GOODMAN: One of the court artists, you know, self-appointed, who drives a WikiLeaks truck, he was banned in these last few days from coming onto Fort Meade?
ALEXA O’BRIEN: Yeah, that had to do with his conduct. He did actually send an apology letter. I’ll let him speak more specifically, because I’m not completely briefed on exactly what specific conduct it was. It was related to his tweets about the prosecution—that, I know. He has been banned. The judge said she would reconsider it, because he sent this apology letter and explained himself. However, because he’s possibly banned from the base itself and not just the court-martial proceedings, it has yet to be determined what the garrison commander will do, whether or not he will actually sign the document banning Clark from the base itself, which would make the court-martial ruling sort of moot.
AMY GOODMAN: The artist—artist is named Clark Stoeckley.
I wanted to ask you, Alexa, during closing arguments Thursday, military prosecutor Major Ashden Fein accused Bradley Manning of betraying the nation, concluding: "He was not a whistleblower. He was a traitor," Fein said. He went on to say, "His mission, as an all intelligence analyst, was a special trust. But within weeks of arriving at Iraq, he abused and destroyed [this] trust with the wholesale, indiscriminate compromise of hundreds of thousands of classified documents. He delivered these documents ready made for use by an enemy via a platform he had long researched and come to know, WikiLeaks. He delivered these documents for notoriety."
Fein goes on to say that leaking to, quote, "established journalistic enterprise like The New York Times or Washington Post would be a crime," but that this did not happen. Major Fein argued that, quote, "[Pfc] Manning deliberately and intentionally disclosed his compromised information through WikiLeaks to the world knowing that WikiLeaks would release the information in the form they received it and that is ... exactly what happened in this case," so Fein said.
Alexa O’Brien, talk about the actual charges that Bradley Manning faces.
ALEXA O’BRIEN: Manning is charged with 22 charges. In the trial portion, or the merits trial, which was related to these offenses, he has pled to lesser included, and so the government accepted one of his pleas for the transmission of Reykjavik 13, a diplomatic cable related to the, basically, banking—banking corruption and ineptitude in Iceland. And so, he was only really tried on 21 charges in that portion. But the whole trial is 22 charges. If he’s convicted on the government’s case, he faces life plus 154 years. He has pled to 10 lesser included offenses of the Espionage Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. And so, he already is exposed to 20 years. The defense strategy has really been to offset any greater offense, to try to keep it to his plea to 10 lesser included, so that when they get into the sentencing phase of the trial, which is imminent, they can really actually try to mitigate his sentence down as much as possible.
AMY GOODMAN: Michael Ratner, you were there for the opening arguments. You went back a number of times and then were there for the closing arguments. Making the point that the prosecution used up a lot of time on Thursday, and so the big reports were on Friday, when the defense had not made its arguments, and then—isn’t really the prosecution’s problem, it’s the reporters who—half of them didn’t come back, and so they don’t have the defense’s view of things. Now, the prosecution called him an anarchist who was seeking to make a splash; he betrayed the U.S. trust. Could Bradley Manning face the death penalty, even if the prosecutors don’t ask for it from Denise Lind?
MICHAEL RATNER: Right, aiding the enemy does carry the death penalty. The judge, even though the prosecutors said they’re only going to go for life, or they won’t give him more than life, the judge can do what she wants, and she could give him the death penalty for that. That’s correct.
I mean, you know, the courtroom was really—it’s hard to describe how horrible that day of Thursday was, in some of the statements that you’re saying the judge said—that the prosecutor said, because there was no evidence of any of that. The idea that he was a traitor came from a witness who never wrote anything down, who clearly made it up after the fact, about something about his attitude toward the flag. The idea that he was doing it for fame was ridiculous, because, as David Coombs, the lawyer for Bradley Manning, pointed out, he tried to be anonymous the whole time. He tried to, quote, "cover his tracks." So how is he becoming famous from doing this?
And then, the defense went through three different times in which it was clear that Bradley Manning had the highest motives: before he even went to Iraq, that he wanted to save people, that he wanted to save fellow soldiers; when he’s there and talking to Lamo, Lamo is quoted as saying Bradley Manning is idealistic; and Manning is also quoted in that saying, "If you had seen the horrible things, horrible things that I’ve seen, would you just leave them on the Internet?"
Then, of course, after, he gives this incredible day of testimony as to why he leaked each of these sets of documents, from the Iraq War Logs to the "Collateral Murder" video. One of the most moving moments in the courtroom was on Friday, when they played excerpts of the "Collateral Murder" video. That’s the video in which you see the Apache helicopter people killing the Reuters journalists and then firing on the van that’s going to pick up the wounded people, and then firing again and again, and using language of basically saying, "We just got another target." And—
AMY GOODMAN: This was the attack in New Baghdad, Iraq, by a U.S. Apache helicopter on July 12th, 2007.
MICHAEL RATNER: Right, and you’ve shown it here a number of times. It’s one of the most moving things. And what David Coombs asked the judge to do is said, "Put yourself in the position of a 21-year-old soldier watching that video, and try and not remove yourself from what’s going on there." Nine people are killed in that video, nine people, that the implication was clear, unjustifiably killed, with incredible—
AMY GOODMAN: I think the total was 12, right? Including two Reuters employees, Namir Noor-Eldeen, the videographer, and his driver, Saeed Chmagh.
MICHAEL RATNER: It may be. They mentioned nine, but I think that’s certainly a number—I think he even said nine or more in that video. And he asked the judge to say, "Look at Bradley Manning and what he did with that video and why he did it. Don’t talk about it the way the government talks about it"—this is somehow releasing, you know, information about the angle of the helicopter or something, which was absurd, because most of the information, if not almost all of it, had come out about that helicopter attack, and it wasn’t even classified. But that was an incredibly stirring moment in which the judge—in which the prosecutor is trying to say these are Bradley Manning’s motives in doing it.
Now, one interesting aspect of this, of course, is the aiding the enemy charge. I just want to go to one point of it, because one of the reasons—and you mentioned it, in saying—they’re painting WikiLeaks in a certain way, because they want to say that Bradley Manning, by giving this to WikiLeaks, knew it would go up on the Internet, and WikiLeaks is a bad organization, it’s not a journalistic organization, and therefore—it’s nefarious, and therefore, when Bradley Manning did it, he did it with a motive, by giving it to WikiLeaks, that might have been different had he given it to The New York Times. Well, that was just smashed to bits by the prosecution—by the defendant, defense, first by a witness they had, Benkler from Harvard, who said WikiLeaks is a legitimate journalistic organization, there’s a role for organizations like WikiLeaks in doing this, and that—and that WikiLeaks doesn’t put out everything it gets. It actually has—is discreet about what it puts out. It’s had less than 1 percent of its documents put up have been somewhat, possibly, less inaccurate—less than 1 percent. That’s probably a better record than The New York Times. But the prosecution is trying to show Bradley Manning in a certain way and WikiLeaks in a certain way, as these two organizations that essentially want to undermine the United States, rather than the whistleblowing journalists they are.
AMY GOODMAN: We have to break and come back, and then I want to ask you, Alexa, about the witnesses that were called, and then talk about the implications of this for journalists, overall, in releasing information, and particularly look at this aiding the enemy charge. Alexa O’Brien is with us in her car outside the courtroom, because no other accommodation could be made to talk to her right now as the judge deliberates the verdict of Bradley Manning. Alexa O’Brien has been in that courtroom every day since the trial began, the first to make transcripts publicly available. And we’re joined by Michael Ratner, who is the attorney for Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. We’ll be back in a minute.
AMY GOODMAN: "Almost Gone," by Graham Nash, about Bradley Manning, a special song for the young man on trial right now. His fate is in the hands of the military judge. This is not a jury trial. I’m Amy Goodman. This is Democracy Now! We’re talking about Bradley Manning, the trial that just wrapped in closing arguments Thursday and Friday, now in the hands of Colonel Denise Lind at Fort Meade, which is the headquarters of the National Security Agency in Maryland. Our guests are journalist Alexa O’Brien, who spent every day in the courtroom from the beginning of the trial to the end—she’s sitting outside in her car now in order to be able to speak to us—we are also joined by Michael Ratner, attorney for Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights. He, too, has been attending the Bradley Manning trial, not every single day. But we also want to talk about the significance of how often WikiLeaks and Julian Assange were raised in this trial. Is this trial a preparation for a next stage? But, Alexa, talk about the list of witnesses and the significance of them, what you found most interesting.
ALEXA O’BRIEN: Are you talking about on the trial and the merits that we’ve just finished?
AMY GOODMAN: Yes.
ALEXA O’BRIEN: You know, here we have the government bringing out their original classification authorities, and these are government witnesses who will testify that the information Manning allegedly or admittedly leaked was national security information and that it was closely held. But what was really, really interesting is that, fundamentally, as defense has pointed out, these original classification authorities that are oftentimes the commanders of CENTCOM, Central Command, or Pacific Command or Patrick Kennedy, who’s the undersecretary for management at the Department of State, they will—they have a vested interest in essentially saying that their classification determinations of the information was actually accurate. So, this is an important point, because we have to understand: Manning is not on trial for actual harm; he’s on trial for probable harm. So the government brought out witnesses that essentially testified to those two criminal elements.
But they also tried to bring out witnesses that were going to say that Bradley Manning was a bad soldier or that he was, you know, as Mr. Ratner had said, a traitor. But really, except for Showman, who the defense impeached her credibility of her testimony when she said that Manning, you know, said he didn’t have any loyalty to the flag when she tapped her shoulder and the flag on her uniform. They’ve all said that Manning was one of the best analysts, that he was the go-to analyst, that he was a hard worker. Something that was interesting in defense closing arguments is they said that the government can’t have it both ways. They can’t say that Manning was lazy because he was, you know, working all night trying to exfiltrate information and that he was also the go-to analyst, using disjointed logic depending on which charge or which aspect they were trying to essentially assert in court.
In terms of the defense, we had one of the most—really, a historic elocution by a law professor, Yochai Benkler, who was the defense expert on WikiLeaks, who talked to the judge in a very candid manner about the threat to the delicate balance between the national security reporting and the First Amendment, if she found Manning guilty of aiding the enemy. One of the important things that we have to remember is aiding the enemy, Article 104, is one of the two violations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice that applies to any person. So it’s beyond Manning’s duty as a soldier. This is about really every citizen in the United States.
AMY GOODMAN: And, Alexa, the ability to get information out—I mean, what you started doing in this trial, for people to understand how closely held the information was, that you were the one providing the public with transcripts at the beginning. Explain why the court wasn’t doing this.
ALEXA O’BRIEN: The court—this is a military court-martial. And Judge Colonel Denise Lind believed—it was her contention—and Mr. Ratner and CCR, you know, filed suit in respect to this—she felt that there was no legal—First Amendment legal precedent for public access to the court documents. So what she would do is read these really long, mile-a-minute recitations of the motions into the court record and then deprive us of a media operations center, so that we had to actually scribble these things down in our notebooks.
And we’re not talking about just merely the trial of Bradley Manning, as important as it is. We’re talking about setting legal precedent for the future of national security reporting and also whistleblowers—and also, really, even beyond that, just simply people using the Internet, communicating in legally protected speech, First Amendment rights, because the government is asserting in this case that, essentially, the enemy uses the Internet, and so if you publish intelligence or you aid the enemy with whatever is classified as intelligence, which in this case only has to be true and useful to the enemy—that’s the definition; it doesn’t have anything to do with classified information—that you could be brought up on the charge of aiding the enemy. So, it’s very important that we—we should have had access to these public records. And I think it tells you—it leans more towards a long record of Colonel Denise Lind being deferential to the government, the prosecution, and doing whatever she can to help them manage this trial and the public perception about it.
AMY GOODMAN: Michael Ratner, actually, Denise Lind, the judge, is going to move out of her position after this, isn’t she?
MICHAEL RATNER: Yeah, she’s been given, apparently, from a Washington Post report, a appellate judge job, the higher court, which I found pretty extraordinary. I don’t know whether it’s—I don’t think it’s necessarily illegal, but it does—it’s interesting to me that she’s going upstairs during the very trial that’s going on, and given that promotion. And it reminded me when the Ellsberg judge, the judge in Daniel Ellsberg’s case, the federal judge, during Ellsberg’s trial on espionage was offered to be the head of the FBI, secretly, by the Nixon administration. And, of course, there was a huge stink. I don’t see any stink so far in any of the media about the fact that Denise Lind, the judge, is being offered to a higher position. And then, think about the higher position. She’s sitting up there on the court when the Bradley Manning conviction is going to be, assuming there’s—well, there’s a conviction because he’s already pleaded to 10 counts—is going to be reviewed. She won’t sit on it, but her fellow judges are going to be sitting there, and are they going to want to reverse one of their fellow judges? So, it—basically, it stinks, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: On the issue of aiding the enemy, what would you like to add to what Alexa said?
MICHAEL RATNER: Well, you know, in some way it’s the most serious charge, because it’s life, if not even death. But the government’s theory is what really is awful here. It’s basically saying you can aid the enemy by putting information up on the Internet that’s intelligence, doesn’t classified, and because the enemy reads the Internet, you can be accused of aiding the enemy. So that—which is a death penalty. That ends whistleblowing. What person is going to actually start whistleblowing and giving information to the media if they can get the death penalty?
But it also puts the journalist or publisher in the middle, indirectly, according to the government, of aiding the enemy. Now, they claim, well, WikiLeaks is different. But that—but they also understand, and the government understands, that WikiLeaks, The New York Times, The Washington Post, anybody in the middle there indirectly could be accused of aiding the enemy. And it’s part and parcel, of course, of the war on whistleblowers and publishers that’s going on. And the two that are really relevant to aiding the enemy are what happened with James Risen recently—he was the reporter who was trying to say he doesn’t have to testify because of reporter’s privilege in the case of—in the Sterling case having to do with—
AMY GOODMAN: Well, explain. James Risen is a well-known New York Times reporter who wrote a book, and this has to do with Iran. And explain what the court’s decision was recently.
MICHAEL RATNER: Right. And the court’s decision is he has no First Amendment right not to testify, no reporter’s privilege not to testify.
AMY GOODMAN: In implicating Sterling in the trial as being the whistleblower.
MICHAEL RATNER: That’s—and the language of the court should be a warning to every single publisher and journalist out there. It says Risen is the only eyewitness; he’s inextricably involved in the crime; without him, the crime would not have occurred. So this is saying that the journalist who is reporting on a whistleblower is actually inextricably involved with the crime. Think about what message that sends every publisher in the country about using sources for their stories. It’s a terribly serious problem. It’s one that, you know, makes me very upset that people aren’t now seeing that and coming to the defense of WikiLeaks, which is being put into that—into that position.
AMY GOODMAN: WikiLeaks, for a moment, let’s just talk about that. I was reading that quote of the prosecutor saying that Bradley Manning deliberately and intentionally disclosed compromised information through WikiLeaks to the world, knowing WikiLeaks would release the information in the form they receive it, and that’s exactly what happened in this case. What about the emphasis on Julian Assange and WikiLeaks in the court-martial of Bradley Manning?
MICHAEL RATNER: You know, I’ve sat there stunned every day I’ve gone to the courtroom. Julian Assange was mentioned 10 times in the morning of the prosecution’s opening, WikiLeaks 20, 30 times. I don’t even know. So, there’s two things going on here. One is they want to use WikiLeaks as a nefarious organization to paint Bradley Manning as somehow having a bad intent by the two coming together. But secondly, they’re obviously trying to paint in the public mind, and obviously what they’ve been doing at the Justice Department is to—is the next stone that will be unturned here or uncovered here is probably the prosecution of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. We think it’s very likely. There’s already an indictment of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. And you could look at this trial as the setup, really, for getting Julian Assange and—Julian Assange indicted on this indirect aiding the enemy, etc.
AMY GOODMAN: Alexa O’Brien, before we leave you right there in the parking lot of the headquarters of the National Security Agency, where you are awaiting the verdict, explain what the schedule is, what will happen now with the judge, and why this is even a judge trial, not a jury trial.
ALEXA O’BRIEN: Manning opted to be tried by the military judge alone. He had the option of a panel of officers and enlisted personnel. If you look at the pretrial record, typically—also, first, if you look at just the history and—jury trials tend to be more partial to the accused. But here we have an accused who is gay in the military, and there is evidence of a struggle with gender identity while he’s in Iraq. The defense was concerned that Bradley Manning couldn’t get a fair trial with a panel of officers and enlisted personnel, firstly.
And secondly, I think that the defense strategy has really been to have the same judge that they could educate over the course of 18 months about very important ideas, like access as it relates to exceeding authorized access under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Also, while the statement that Bradley Manning made in February isn’t admissible at trial, where he pled to 10 lesser included offenses, she’s aware that he made this statement. A jury would not have been aware of that. So there are very important, strategic aspects to choosing Judge Lind alone.
MICHAEL RATNER: On that one issue—Alexa is right, those are the reasons. But also, the jury in a military case is appointed by the convening authority, who is the general in charge of the proceedings, and it’s not taken randomly by choice from a pool.
AMY GOODMAN: Alexa O’Brien, the best place where people can go to get your reports, the transcripts, alexaobrien.com (http://www.alexaobrien.com/)?
ALEXA O’BRIEN: Yes.

Magda Hassan
07-29-2013, 10:30 PM
I've been getting most of the best coverage of Manning trial by Alexa O'Brien. She has been a dedicated observer and recorder of history unfolding and a staunch supporter of Manning and whistle-blowers. She has attended the proceedings every day and kept us all up to date. The judge will announce the verdict at 1pm.

http://www.alexaobrien.com/secondsight/wikileaks/bradley_manning/us_v_pfc_manning_break_down_on_the_imminent_verdit c.html



US v. Pfc. Manning | Breakdown on the imminent Verdict

By Alexa O'Brien (http://www.alexaobrien.com) on July 29, 2013 5:53 PM | Tweet (https://twitter.com/share)

Pfc. Bradley Manning is charged with 22 offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He pled to 10 lesser included offenses and currently faces up to 20 years. Manning will face life plus 154 years in a military prison if convicted on the prosecution's case.
The presiding military judge, Col. Denise Lind, will announce her findings on Manning's guilt or innocence at 1:00 p.m. EST on Tuesday, July 31. Below is a breakdown on how the judge could rule on the verdict.
Unlike a federal criminal trial, where sentencing occurs after the creation of a pre-sentencing report, if Manning is convicted of any of the charges, a sentencing case will commence immediately. During the sentencing case, both defense and the prosecution will present evidence, call witnesses, and make arguments about appropriate punishment.
The maximum sentences (http://www.alexaobrien.com/us_v_pfc_manning_charge_dates_versus_plea_dates_gr aphic.html) for the charged offenses are outlined in the Manual for Courts-Martial and Lind's previous court rulings.
Since the court ruled that motive and actual damage (or 'lack of damage') evidence was not relevant at trial (except to prove circumstantially that Manning was cognizant of the fact that the enemy used the WikiLeaks website), evidence of Manning's intent and the impact of the leaks will finally be heard by the court at sentencing.
It remains to be seen, however, how much of the sentencing phase of this trial will be open to the public, since the government is expected to elicit testimony from these 13 classified sentencing witnesses in closed sessions or in classified stipulations.
For more information on 13 closed sentencing witnesses go, here (http://www.alexaobrien.com/secondsight/wikileaks/bradley_manning/us_v_pfc_manning_names_and_information_for_the_exp ected_closed_session_of_classified_stipulation_dur ing_sentencing.html). For more information on the three classified damage assessments that will be used during sentencing, go here (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/16/journalism-on-trial-as-bradley-manning-case-nears-moment-of-truth.html).
The Charges
Military prosecutors charged Private First Class Bradley Manning on March 1, 2011 with violating three Articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (U.C.M.J):


Charge I: 'Aiding the Enemy' under Article 104
Charge II: 16 separate offenses under General Article 134
Charge III: 5 offenses of Article 92 'Failure to obey order or regulation'

The 16 separate offenses under Charge II General Article 134 include:



1 specification for 'Wanton Publication of Intelligence on the Internet'
8 specification of the Espionage Act-- 18 U.S.C. 793(e)
2 specification of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act-- 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(1)
5 specification of 'Stealing U.S. Government Property'-- 18 U.S.C. 641


The five separate offenses of Charge III Article 92 or a 'failure to obey order or regulation' include:



attempting to bypass a network of information security system mechanism
adding unauthorized software to a Secret Internet Protocol Router Network on two separate occasions
using an information system in a manner other than its intended purpose
wrongfully storing classified information


Guilty or Innocent
Aiding the Enemy
Manning could be found guilty or innocent of aiding the enemy.
If he is found guilty he faces life in prison.
Wanton Publication
Manning could be found guilty or innocent of "Wanton Publication of Intelligence".
If he is found guilty, he faces up to two years in prison.
Espionage
Manning pled guilty to seven lesser included offenses of the Espionage Act for "unauthorized possession" and "willful communication" of:


an unclassified video of a 7 July 2007 Apache air strike known as Collateral Murder
2 classified CIA Red Cell Memos
more than 25 classified records from the Iraq War Logs
more than 25 classified records from the Afghan War Diary
more than three classified records from the GTMO Files
5 classified records pertaining to the Garani air strike in May 2009, and
a United States Army Counterintelligence Center 2008 Report on WikiLeaks


Manning pled not guilty to an eighth violation of the Espionage Act for an unclassified video of a May 2009 U.S. bombing in the Farah Province of Afghanistan, known as the Garani video.
Manning could be found guilty of the greater offense for the eight Espionage Act charges. If convicted on the greater offense, the maximum punishment of 10 years each.
Manning is not likely to be found innocent for the seven offenses that he pled to a lesser included offense for. NB Despite Manning's plea, Lind must still "find" Manning guilty for each crime.
The maximum punishment for each lesser included offense for "unauthorized possession" and "willful communication" is 2 years. So, he is already exposed to 14 years for his LIO plea for seven Espionage Act charges.
Manning pled not guilty to the eighth offense under the Espionage Act for the Garani video. So, Manning still could be found innocent, guilty of the greater offense, or guilty of the lesser included offense for the "unauthorized possession" and "willful communication" of the Garani video. See more on the Garani airstrike, here (http://www.alexaobrien.com/secondsight/wikileaks/bradley_manning/prosecutors_garni_air_strike_video_bombs_in_court. html).
Manning could also be found guilty to a lesser included offense for each of the eight Espionage Act offenses for 'attempt'.
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
Manning also pled guilty to the lesser included offense of two charges under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for 'knowingly accessing' and 'willfully communicating' 117 U.S. Department of State Cables. He is exposed to four year on that plea to the LIO.
TMilitary prosecutors accepted Manning's plea to the lesser included offense for "knowingly accessing" and "willfully communicating" a State Department cable known as Reykjavik 13.
Military prosecutors moved forward on the greater offense, despite Manning's plea, for "exceeding authorized access" for 116 diplomatic cables. Manning could be found guilty of the greater offense or guilty on his plea to the lesser included offense.
He will not likely be found innocent for the two charges under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, because of his plea to LIO.
If convicted of the greater offense for the 117 diplomatic cables, he faces up to 10 years in prison. If found guilty of his plea to the lesser included offense, he could face up to two years in prison. He can also be found guilty of the lesser included offense of attempt for the 117 diplomatic cables.
Stealing USG Property
Manning pled not guilty to "stealing, purloining, or knowingly converting" five government databases containing records for the Iraq War Logs, the Afghan War Diary, the GTMO Files, Cablegate, and the Global Email Address List from the U.S. Forces- Iraq SharePoint Exchange Server.
Manning could be found innocent or guilty of each of the five offense as charged. He would face up to ten years if convicted on the greater offense for each databases (Iraq War Logs, the Afghan War Diary, the GTMO Files, NetCentric Diplomacy, and the Global email Address List).
Manning could also be found guilty on a lesser included offense for attempt or if military prosecutors fail to establish the value of each of the five databases at more than $1000.
NB If convicted of the lesser included offense (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/676418-20120719-ae-219-ruling-lesser-included-offense.html#document/p2/a109759) for "stealing, purloining, or knowingly converting" the Department of State NetCentric Diplomacy database, Manning faces five years maximum punishment, because it is a non-military database.
Amended Charge Sheet
In a recent controversial legal maneuver (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/740102-20130724-ae-614-defense-motion-for.html), Lind ruled (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/740103-20130724-ae-613-supplemental-ruling-defense.html) military prosecutors could change the charge sheet after both defense and the prosecution had rested their cases-- nineteen months into the proceedings, on July 24.
Military prosecutors conceded after the close of evidence at trial that Manning did not steal the entire database for three charge offenses of stealing the CIDNE-Iraq (Iraq War Logs) and the CIDNE-Afghanistan (Afghan War Diary) databases and the US Forces-Iraq Microsoft Outlook Global Address List. The Court ruled the databases were equivalent to the records contained within them. Defense has moved the Court to reconsider its ruling. The judge is expected to rule on the defense motion for reconsideration prior to announcing her verdict.
Failure to Obey a Lawful General Regulation
Manning pled guilty to one of five offenses charged under Article 92 for a failure to obey a lawful general regulation" for wrongfully storing classified information. He is not likely to be found innocent on his plea to that offense, and faces up to two years.
Manning could also be found innocent or guilty of four other offenses under Article 92, and could be convicted of up to two years for each offense he is found guilty of.
The Charges, Manning's Plea, and Maximum Punishment (Sortable)
Go here for a sortable list (http://www.alexaobrien.com/us_v_pfc_manning_charge_dates_versus_plea_dates_gr aphic.html) of the charges and Manning's plea and their maximum punishments.
http://www.alexaobrien.com/secondsight/images/pic-sort-charges.jpg (http://www.alexaobrien.com/us_v_pfc_manning_charge_dates_versus_plea_dates_gr aphic.html)

Categories:



Bradley Manning (http://www.alexaobrien.com/secondsight/wikileaks/bradley_manning/),
WikiLeaks (http://www.alexaobrien.com/secondsight/wikileaks/)

Magda Hassan
07-30-2013, 11:49 AM
Bradley Manning trial judge increased press security "because of repeat violations of the rules of court”

Xeni Jardin (http://boingboing.net/author/xeni_jardin) at 6:02 pm Thu, Jul 25, 2013


Col. Denise Lind, the Judge in the Bradley Manning military trial. Pic by Clark Stoeckley (twitter: @wikileakstruck).

Huffington Post reporter Matt Sledge (https://twitter.com/mgsledge‎) read my Boing Boing post earlier today about reports from the Bradley Manning trial (http://boingboing.net/2013/07/25/journalists-at-bradley-manning.html) of dramatically-increased security measures for press. Those measures including armed military police standing behind journalists at their laptops, snooping on their screens.
He reports that the new, oppressive security measures were ordered directly by the judge because reporters were violating court rules (which no one can find a copy of), and carrying "prohibited electronics." For this, the government needs armed military police standing right behind reporters as they type, in the media room.
Matt says:

I've covered civil and criminal cases in federal and state courts (including a terrorism trial (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/manssor-arbabsiar-sentencing_n_3360535.html)), and the Manning court martial for eight months, and I haven't run into an atmosphere quite as tense as today. Here's the latest: the Military District of Washington told me in a statement that the new security measures are coming straight from the judge, and in response to "repeat violations of the rules of the court both in the courtroom and the media operations center." No elaboration on what those were.

A snip from Matt's HuffPo item (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/25/bradley-manning-trial-security_n_3654516.html?1374788000):

Col. Denise Lind, the judge overseeing the case, ordered the increased security measures "because of the repeat violations of the rules of the court both in the courtroom and the media operations center with regard to broadcasting and electronics," the Military District of Washington said in a emailed, unsigned statement. "The Military Police are to screen personnel to ensure no one is bringing prohibited electronics into the building and to ensure compliance with the rules of the court."
I presume Col. Lind is referring in part to the leaked audio of Bradley Manning's statement before the court (http://boingboing.net/2013/03/12/leaked-audio-of-bradley-mannin.html), which Freedom of the Press Foundation received from an anonymous source and published online (https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2013/03/fpf-publishes-leaked-audio-of-bradley-mannings-statement).
Armed military police peering over journalists' shoulders, no Internet access in the remote media room, Army staff frisking everyone for phones -- those weren't the only obstacles for reporters covering the trial today. The military also refused to publish key documents the government used to build its closing argument.
Read the rest at Huffpo: "Army Ramps Up Security For Bradley Manning Trial's Closing Arguments (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/25/bradley-manning-trial-security_n_3654516.html?1374788000)"
Related Boing Boing posts:
• "Journalists at Bradley Manning trial report hostile conditions for press (http://boingboing.net/2013/07/25/journalists-at-bradley-manning.html)"
• "Closing arguments in Bradley Manning court-martial paint Wikileaks source as glory-seeking traitor (http://boingboing.net/2013/07/25/closing-arguments-in-bradley-m.html)"

Creepy having armed MPs in camo patrolling behind each row of reporters & looking over shoulders as we take notes on Manning trial today
— Charlie Savage (@charlie_savage) July 25, 2013 (https://twitter.com/charlie_savage/statuses/360476427977625600)

http://boingboing.net/2013/07/25/bradley-manning-trial-judge-in.html

— POLICIES —


Please read our Terms of Service (http://boingboing.net/tos), Privacy Policy (http://boingboing.net/privacy), and Community Guidelines (http://boingboing.net/community). Except where indicated, Boing Boing is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/)

Jan Klimkowski
07-30-2013, 05:42 PM
Huffington Post reporter Matt Sledge read my Boing Boing post earlier today about reports from the Bradley Manning trial of dramatically-increased security measures for press. Those measures including armed military police standing behind journalists at their laptops, snooping on their screens.


I'm sure Faux News will be rooting for a uniformed Volkland Security goon to fizz some pepper spray in the faces of any journalist displaying the tiniest fragment of independent thought.

They've probably got the orange jumpsuit and unmarked plane on standby too...

Peter Lemkin
07-30-2013, 06:02 PM
Bradley Manning verdict: guilty of most charges but not 'aiding enemy'

Bradley Manning faces maximum 130-year sentence
Convicted of most charges against him at Fort Meade
Not guilty of most serious 'aiding the enemy' charge

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/7/30/1375190490591/d4e47eff-79de-4e6d-a693-272776fa1c70-620x372.jpegBradley Manning is escorted to a security vehicle outside a courthouse in Fort Meade, Maryland, on Monday 29 July 2013. The judge will rule on Manning's case on Tuesday.
7m ago (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/30/bradley-manning-trial-verdict-live#block-51f7fe3ce4b0ab658af25a00)
Manning family issue statement

The family of Bradley Manning has issued a statement to the Guardian giving their reaction to today’s verdict. The statement is written by Manning’s US-based aunt, who has asked to remain anonymous, speaking on behalf of the soldier’s family:
While we are obviously disappointed in today’s verdicts, we are happy that Judge Lind agreed with us that Brad never intended to help America’s enemies in any way. Brad loves his country and was proud to wear its uniform.
We want to express our deep thanks to David Coombs, who has dedicated three years of his life to serving as lead counsel in Brad’s case. We also want to thank Brad’s Army defense team, Major Thomas Hurley and Captain Joshua Tooman, for their tireless efforts on Brad’s behalf, and Brad’s first defense counsel, Captain Paul Bouchard, who was so helpful to all of us in those early confusing days and first suggested David Coombs as Brad’s counsel. Most of all, we would like to thank the thousands of people who rallied to Brad’s cause, providing financial and emotional support throughout this long and difficult time, especially Jeff Paterson and Courage to Resist and the Bradley Manning Support Network. Their support has allowed a young Army private to defend himself against the full might of not only the US Army but also the US Government.


14m ago (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/30/bradley-manning-trial-verdict-live#block-51f7fc8be4b0d24361173d5c)
Colonel Denise Lind, the military judge presiding over the court
martial of the US soldier, delivered her verdict in curt and pointed
language, writes Ed Pilkington from Fort Meade:
“Guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty,” she repeated over and over, as the reality of a prolonged prison sentence for Manning on top of the three years he has already spent in detention dawned.
The one ray of light in an otherwise bleak outcome for the Army private was that he was found not guilty of the single most serious charge against him - that he knowingly “aided the enemy”, in practice al-Qaida, by disclosing information to the WikiLeaks website that in turn made it accessible to all users including enemy groups. Lind’s decision to avoid setting a precedent by applying the swingeing “aiding the enemy” charge to an official leaker will invoke a sigh of relief from news organisations and civil liberties groups who had feared a guilty verdict would send a chill across public interest journalism.
Lind also found Manning not guilty of having leaked an encrypted copy of a video of a US airstrike in the Farah province of Aghanistan in which many civilians died. Manning’s defence team had argued vociferously that he was not the source of this video, though the soldier did admit to later disclosure of an unencrypted version of the video and related documents.
The judge also accepted Manning’s version of several of the key dates in the WikiLeaks disclosures, and took off some of the edge from other less serious charges. But the overriding toughness of the verdict remains: the soldier was found guilty in their entirety of 17 out of the 22 counts against him, and of an amended version of four more.
Once the counts are cumulatively added up, the prospects for the Army private are bleak. Barring reduction of sentence for mitigation, which becomes the subject of another mini-trial dedicated to sentencing that starts tomorrow, he will face a substantial chunk of his adult life in military custody.
The consequences for Manning, and for the wider world of whistleblowing and official leaking in the digital age, will take time to sink in.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/7/30/1375206751870/c9ed3fa6-6c59-4824-b8ff-4259de35f9c4-460x276.jpegBradley Manning's defense attorney David Coombs and Coomb's wife Tanya Monestier arrive at court for the verdict in Manning's military trial at Fort Meade, Maryland. Photograph: Gary Cameron/Reuters
Updated 10m ago

20m ago (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/30/bradley-manning-trial-verdict-live#block-51f7fb18e4b0d24361173d5b)
Summary

Bradley Manning has been found not guilty of aiding the enemy but still faces up to 130 years in prison after being found guilty on several counts of theft and espionage.
The military judge hearing the case, Army Col Denise Lind, gave her verdict at 1pm on Tuesday. The aiding the enemy charge was the most serious, as it carried a maximum sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.
However Manning could still face an effective life sentence after being convicted on numerous other counts. He was found guilty of five charges of theft and five charges of espionage as well as other offenses. His convictions carry a maximum sentence of up to 130 years in prison.
Manning's sentencing hearing will begin tomorrow.

Peter Lemkin
07-30-2013, 06:43 PM
CCR Condemns Manning Verdict, Questions Future of First Amendment



NEW YORK - July 30 - Today, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) released the following statement in response to the verdict in the trial of Bradley Manning:
While the "aiding the enemy" charges (on which Manning was rightly acquitted) received the most attention from the mainstream media, the Espionage Act itself is a discredited relic of the WWI era, created as a tool to suppress political dissent and antiwar activism, and it is outrageous that the government chose to invoke it in the first place against Manning. Government employees who blow the whistle on war crimes, other abuses and government incompetence should be protected under the First Amendment.

We now live in a country where someone who exposes war crimes can be sentenced to life even if not found guilty of aiding the enemy, while those responsible for the war crimes remain free. If the government equates being a whistleblower with espionage or aiding the enemy, what is the future of journalism in this country? What is the future of the First Amendment?

Manning’s treatment, prosecution, and sentencing have one purpose: to silence potential whistleblowers and the media as well. One of the main targets has been our clients, WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, for publishing the leaks. Given the U.S. government’s treatment of Manning, Assange should be granted asylum in his home country of Australia and given the protections all journalists and publishers deserve.

We stand in solidarity with Bradley Manning and call for the government to take heed and end its assault on the First Amendment.

The Center for Constitutional Rights represents WikiLeaks and Julian Assange in the U.S. and filed a case (http://www.ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/center-constitutional-rights-et-al.-v.-chief-judge-lind) challenging the lack of transparency around the Manning trial on behalf of itself and a diverse group of media figures: Glenn Greenwald, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!, The Nation and its national security correspondent Jeremy Scahill, and Wikileaks and its publisher, Julian Assange. Also included are Kevin Gosztola, co-author of Truth and Consequences: The U.S. vs. Bradley Manning and a civil liberties blogger covering the Manning court martial, and Chase Madar, author of The Passion of Bradley Manning and a contributing editor to The American Conservative. Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School is co-counsel with CCR in that case, along with Bill Murphy and John J. Connolly of Zuckerman Spaeder LLP’s Baltimore office.