Bradley Manning (above) is in the midst of a court-martial which is expected to finish with arguments on July 25th. Monday April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks released 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 admitted he leaked to WikiLeaks. And why.
Bradley Manning: 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.
For truth telling, Brad's being punished by the man who fears truth: Barack Obama. A fraud, a fake, a 'brand,' anything but genuine, Barack is all marketing, all facade and, for that reason, must attack each and every whistle-blower. David Delmar (Digital Journal) points out, "President Obama, while ostensibly a liberal advocate of transparency and openness in government, and of the 'courage' and 'patriotism' of whistleblowers who engage in conscientious leaks of classified information, is in reality something very different: a vindictive opponent of the free press willing to target journalists for doing their job and exposing government secrets to the public."
Last week saw another embarrassing attempt by the prosecution as they put what appears to have been a known liar on the stand. From OpEd News:
Specialist Jirhleah Showman was Manning's team leader prior to deployment in Iraq. During a counseling session with Manning, Showmen said she asked Manning why he joined the military and he replied, "To get an education." Showmen testified that she then looked at Manning, tapped the flag on her shoulder, and asked, "What does this mean to you?" Showman said Manning told her that the flag did not mean anything to him.
During cross examination, David Coombs asked Showman
if Manning had made disloyal comments, why did she not write him up.
Showman said she took the matter to her superiors, who informed her that
they would handle the matter. One of those superiors is on the
defense's rebuttal list.
Coombs also asked if Manning told her that "you can't
have blind loyalty to a flag," and that "we have duty to all people from
every country." She did not recall.
Coombs then brought forth counseling reports of
sessions Showman had with Manning, including a recommendation for
"soldier of the month."
After a long exchange on why she did not pursue the
matter, Coombs moved to the period after Manning's arrest. Coombs
presented two sworn statements Showman had made to investigators.
Neither statement included any mention of Bradley Manning saying he had
no loyalty to the flag.
The above goes to the desperation of the prosecution and to their ethics. This was not a surprise to them if they did the basic work required. So the conclusion is that they willingly put a questionable witness on the stand, knowingly called on someone they themselves had reason to doubt the veracity of. That does not speak well for their own ethics or the so-called military justice. More to the point, it should draw into question all the witnesses they've presented which is why you never put someone like Showman on the stand to begin with.
And if you're not getting what an embarrassing piece of trash Showman is, Matthew MacEgan (WSWS) reveals, "When cross-examining Showman, Coombs pointed to the personal animosity held against Manning by Showman due to his sexual preferences. Showman admitted to using antigay slurs to describe Manning prior to deployment."
Saturday, Glenn Greenwald (Guardian) noted the other big development from last week:
In the utter travesty known as "the Bradley Manning court-martial proceeding", the military judge presiding over the proceeding yet again showed her virtually unbreakable loyalty to the US government's case by refusing to dismiss the most serious charge against the 25-year-old Army Private, one that carries a term of life in prison: "aiding and abetting the enemy". The government's theory is that because the documents Manning leaked were interesting to Osama bin Laden, he aided the enemy by disclosing them. Harvard Law Professor Yochai Benkler explained in the New Republic in March why this theory poses such a profound threat to basic press freedoms as it essentially converts all leaks, no matter the intent, into a form of treason.
Emily Bazelon (Slate via Winnipeg Free Press) explains:
To justify Thursday’s ruling, prosecutors argued that "the evidence will show that the accused knowingly gave intelligence to the enemy." The proof was that some of the documents, once online, reached Osama bin Laden and were found on his computer. In other words, by giving the information to WikiLeaks, Manning was giving it to the terrorists. This is a shockingly broad interpretation of a law that was written too sweepingly. It implicates all kinds of people who publish things that could hurt U.S. interests by tarnishing our image abroad.
Journalists do this routinely; So do plenty of people on social media. It’s called free speech.
Most of the critics have no access to the kinds of damaging goods that Manning had. But now when they do, they will have to fear that publishing it is the legal equivalent of deliberately handing it to terrorists. As Benkler points out, it doesn’t matter if the publishing platform is WikiLeaks or The New York Times or Twitter. And this theory of aiding the enemy "is unprecedented in modern American history." You have to go back to the Civil War, and a case in which a Union officer gave a newspaper in Virginia rosters of Union soldiers, to find a case like Manning’s.
Rem Rieder (USA Today) voices similar sentiments:
Pursuing the "aiding the enemy" charge smacks more of revenge than justice. It's part of the Obama administration's record-breaking, way-too-enthusiastic and totally inappropriate use of the Espionage Act to go after leakers. It has prosecuted seven current or former government employees under the act. That's more than all previous administrations combined.
Mainstream journalists, not to mention all citizens who care about their access to important information, can take no solace in the fact that Manning is being prosecuted for leaking to the renegade outfit WikiLeaks rather than a traditional news outlet.
Bonnie reminds that Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Birthday Reminder" went up last night. On this week's Law and Disorder Radio, an hour long program that airs Monday mornings at 9:00 a.m. EST on WBAI and around the country throughout the week, hosted by attorneys Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights) topics addressed include Bradley Manning, attorney Rachel Lederman on Oscar Grant and Alfred McCoy on the long history of US government spying.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq oped news
the guardian glenn greenwald
wsws matthew macegan slate the winnipeg free press emily bazelon usa today rem rieder digital journal david delmar
wbai
law and disorder radio
michael s. smith
heidi boghosian
michael ratner
the world today just nuts
iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraqiraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq
iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraqiraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq
iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq
