Sunday, June 02, 2013

Hejira


Bradley Manning's court-martial is finally scheduled to begin tomorrow.  Monday April 5, 2010,  WikiLeaks released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7, 2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August 2010 that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." In March, 2011, David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) reported that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took place in December. At the start of this year, there was an Article 32 hearing and, February 3rd, it was announced that the government would be moving forward with a court-martial. Bradley has yet to enter a plea. The court-martial was supposed to begin before the November 2012 election but it was postponed until after the election so that Barack wouldn't have to run on a record of his actual actions.  Independent.ie adds, "A court martial is set to be held in June at Ford Meade in Maryland, with supporters treating him as a hero, but opponents describing him as a traitor."  February 28th, Bradley told the court he was the whistle blower who provided WikiLeaks with the documents.



Arthur MacMillan (Pakistan's The Nation) provides this background on Bradley:

 Born in Crescent, Oklahoma to an American father and a Welsh mother who later divorced, Manning had an aptitude for computers from an early age and reportedly created his first website when he was only 10 years old.
At the age of 17 Manning got a job with a software company in Oklahoma City, only to be fired four months later.
He then migrated to computer hacking, attending events filled with other hackers, a paradoxical prelude to the high-level security clearance he obtained when he became a military intelligence analyst in a warzone.
"I am the type of person who always wants to figure out how things work. And as an analyst, this always means I want to figure out the truth," Manning said in his pre-trial testimony at the Fort Meade military base near Washington.
His gender identity issue - Manning enlisted despite the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on gays in the military at the time -- led to problems. As at school, peers bullied and ridiculed him.
Commanders judged him ill-suited to military life and during training, he was recommended for discharge. But his technical skills were perfectly suited to becoming an intelligence analyst and the decision was overturned.

Ellen Nakshima and Julie Tate (Washington Post) note, "He faces 22 charges, including a military charge of aiding the enemy, which could send him to prison for life without parole. He is also charged with violating the Espionage Act, a 1917 law created to try spies and traitors, which carries severe penalties." Of the 22 charges, BBC News notes, he's already pled guilty to ten. Annemarie Hvidberg (Daily Press) adds, "With this partial guilty plea, the maximum penalty is from 162 to 154 years in prison. The court martial, expected to last until August 23, is expected to attract a daily gathering of support to the military base at Fort Meade."  The length of trial is also noted by AFP, "Although dozens of reporters are covering the trial, which is expected to last 12 weeks, some evidence will be given behind closed doors for national security reasons."  Sky News also states 12 weeks.


  AFP maintains that "the US Army private recently admitted he was the source of the WikiLeaks disclosures and he appears certain to be found guilty."

I'm not big on predictions and I would beg to differ with AFP except for one main thing -- 12 weeks?

The court-martial will hear testimony for 12 weeks?

If that is indeed correct, Bradley's lost.

Press TV notes:

 Over 3,000 protesters gathered outside the huge Fort Meade military and intelligence installation in the US State of Maryland on Saturday in solidarity with Manning, flashing signs reading, “Bradley Manning: Jailed for exposing war crimes.”
Demonstrations were also held on Saturday and Sunday in more than a dozen other countries worldwide, including Canada, France, Germany and South Korea, to protest Manning’s trial in a military court.

The Voice of Russia adds, "Hundreds of people gathered on Saturday at a rally in Laurel, Maryland, to march in support of Bradley Manning, the former Potomac resident and Montgomery College student who has acknowledged giving hundreds of thousands of classified documents to the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks."

One way Bradley wins is a strong outpouring of support.  12 weeks of a trial?  That's too long, especially in the summer heat, to expect people to not only participate but also for the protests to grow in number -- and they'll have to grow to count as news.

Is it possible?  Yes.  It goes against everything we've seen since 2010 in terms of protests for Bradley but it is possible.  Not likely, but possible.

What the hell was the defense thinking?  Oh, that's right David Coombs is an idiot, I forgot.  And only an idiot would say go with a military judge and not with a military jury.  There's always a chance on a jury.  Military judge's tend to favor military prosecutors.  And idiots like Judge John Head are not your common military judge.

 On Monday, February 5, 2007, Watada's court-martial began. It continued on Tuesday when the prosecution argued their case. Wednesday, Watada was to take the stand in his semi-defense. Judge Toilet (John Head) presided and when the prosecution was losing, Toilet decided to flush the lost by declaring a mistrial over defense objection in his attempt to give the prosecution a do-over. But in the legal world, a do-over means double jeopardy.  And that's why Ehren was not retried.  But Head's an idiot.  It was obvious the day Head tried to give a do-over that Ehren had just won -- obvious to everyone. 

Ehren had a jury.  David Coombs decided to go with a judge.  That was stupid.

Allowing 12 weeks for a trial is stupid too.

If someone thought NBC was awful tonight in their report on Bradley, wait until he's on week 11 of his court-martial and NBC hasn't covered the trial in weeks.  This is not a show trial with drama and witnesses that captivate.  This is a trial over the law and principles, belief and concepts.  Those don't play well on TV.  House guests who never leave and angry ex-lovers testifying play better on TV.  So 12 weeks of this case is -- and the government knows this -- asking the networks to ignore it.  Four weeks?  They could cover that.  but not 12.  They'll lose their audience as they go into the weeds over minor points of procedural and evidentiary issues.


If nothing else, the defense should have moved for stipulations to shorten the trial.  I'm curious to see who the defense thinks makes a quality witness.  Without a jury? The only qualified witness is a military law expert.  I didn't make these rules, but I know them.  It's a shame Bradley's defense doesn't.  You can put a crying parent on the witness stand -- Brad's mother or father -- it's not going to influence a military judge.   The only thing they're going to be swayed by are arguments over legal points.  That's why you go with a jury in a military trial.

A jury can be swayed.  A jury can bring in things other than the law.  Maybe they had a nasty time at some point in their service?  They might remember that -- especially with the right defense argument -- and that might influence how they vote.

Most officers presiding over a military court are not going to be swayed even if they are sympathetic.  To do their jobs and succeed at their jobs, they've already had to demonstrate that they will follow the letter of the law without exception.

The stupidity of David Coombs has been evident from the start.  If Bradley was going to admit to passing documents to WikiLeaks in 2013, he should have done so through his lawyer in 2010.  It would have allowed a lot stronger cases to be made for Bradley publicly.

With Bradley unable to give interviews, his civilian defense attorney should have been everywhere to get the word out on Brad.  Instead, he stood up and bragged before a group of people (I was there) that he had turned down interview requests.

That's not an attorney you want to hire.  You want the attorney that's going to fight for you, that's going to go to every media outlet and talk about your case so that the whole world knows what's at stake and so that the government's line on the case does not become the accepted narrative.

David Coombs has failed Bradley.  It's a circle-jerk land where people delude themselves about this case.  It was always iffy.  The smartest thing would have been to get a plea deal that gave Bradley very little time behind bars.  After that, the smartest thing would have been to have argued before a jury.

David Coombs is doing such a poor job that, after the verdict's handed down, look for people to start speculating that Coombs was secretly working for the government.  I'm not saying that's what happened.  I believe Coombs is just an idiot.  That point rang clear when I heard him speak.  But he is such a big idiot that people will wonder how he ended up representing Bradley and how he did such a bad job and some will conclude that he was bought and paid for by the government.  But he's really just stupid.









I'm traveling in some vehicle
I'm sitting in some cafe
A defector from the petty wars
That shell shock love away
-- "Hejira," written by Joni Mitchell, first appears on her album of the same name

 The number of US service members the Dept of Defense states died in the Iraq War is [PDF format warning] 4488.


New content at Third:





 The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

 









Posted by at