Richard A. Serrano (Los Angeles Times) reports, "A military judge will tell Army Pfc. Bradley Manning at 10 a.m. EDT
today how long he must serve in prison for illegally leaking a vast
trove of classified U.S. military and diplomatic materials to the
anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks." Will it be one year behind bars? Will it be 90? 60 years, like the prosecution is asking for? Will Bradley get credit for time served for any of the many years and months he's been held behind bars as his Constitutional right to a speedy trial was denied?
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 was 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."
Tuesday, July 30th, Bradley was convicted of all but two counts by Colonel Denise Lind, the military judge in his court-martial. Since then, the sentencing phase has been taking place.
This is a military proceeding. It is not a trial. It's a mockery of justice and let's not pretend otherwise.
As her George Washington University profile notes, Lind has no experience in a civilian court:
Denise Lind currently serves as chief judge, 1st Judicial Circuit, U.S. Army Trial Juciciary. She has served in the Army Judge Advocate General's Corps for 25 years, including 4 years as a military judge in Europe, Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Washington, DC. Col. Lind has also served as an assistant professor of national security studies at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, National Defense University, as chief counsel, U.S. Army Government Appellate Division, general counsel, Fort Belvoir, VA, Army working group member of the Joint Service Committee on Military Justice, and assignments as a supervisory defense counsel, senior prosecutor, and special assistant U.S. attorney. She is a member of the New York Bar.
In other words, Lind couldn't handle a civilian court, she couldn't understand any court where America's concept of checks and balances takes place. The sort of judicial abuse we saw in the trial of the Chicago Eight and then Chicago Seven would not be tolerated in a civilian court today today. But in the joke that is military 'justice,' it's considered normal.
We've seen, in the last years, just how out of control so-called military 'justice' is and just what a joke it is. From Camilo Mejia to Lt Ehren Watada, we've seen laughable idiots granted the title of 'judge' by the military 'rule' on how defendants could or could not defend themselves. Repeatedly, those brave people who stood against War Crimes and illegal war have been told by these clowns -- who would be run out of a civilian court and brought up on charges -- how they could and could not argue, what their best defense would and would not allow.
That is not justice, do not mistake it for such, you cheapen the concept when you do.
These clowns don't give a damn about the law. They're only their to serve their higher ups and pretend like justice has been served.
When Camilo was sentenced by Clown Gary Smith, his mother, Maritza Castillo, asked, "Where is the justice? The American soldier who tortured Iraqi prisoners was sentenced to one year in prison and my son, who denounced these abuses and followed his conscience, was also sentenced to one year in prison? Is that fair? Is that just?"
Of course it's not. It wasn't even legal. Camilo walked after he was stop-lossed. Camilo wasn't a US citizen. He couldn't legally be stop-lossed. He'd served all he legally could. In a real court, that respected rule of law, no trained judge would have echoed Clown Gary Smith's 'verdict.' But Gary Smith was just another clown dancing for the brass serving above him, serving the brass, not any sense of American justice.
Then there's Clown John Head or, as we called him here, Judge Toilet.
John Head exemplifies the reality of military law. His continued service as a military 'judge' ensures that the rotten system is exposed as the actual fraud it is.
Judge Toilet saw his role as convicting Ehren Watada. Toilet would do anything he had to in order to ensure that happened. That didn't just include refusing to allow Ehren the defense and witnesses he wanted to present. Even in the rigged, kangaroo court of military 'justice,' the prosecution couldn't present a solid case against Ehren and Judge Toilet saw that the jury of Ehren's peers realized that as well.
So Judge Toilet announced a do-over for the prosecution.
But you can't do that.
Like most of the idiot clowns serving their masters in the brass, Judge Toilet didn't know the first thing about the law -- including the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy clause. It doesn't allow for 'do overs.' Judge Toilet thought he could toss out the law and conduct himself instead by some playground rules -- that goes how craven and stupid those clowns administering military 'justice' can be.
When the case made it up to civilian review, Judge Toilet was exposed as the fraudulent joke he is and Ehren walked.
Remember that as the sentence comes down.
Lind is supposedly 'fair' for a military official fancy themselves a judge (over a proceeding that fancies you guilty until proven innocent). That may be true, but that's hardly an endorsement of her skills and, as we've seen from her release last Friday, she has huge cognitive issues and a slavish devotion to the determination of those above her in rank. Independent thought appears to be a concept she not only lacks but is grossly afraid of.
And then there's the idiot David Coombs who was supposed to defend Bradley but instead has bungled repeatedly to the point that many wonder if he did so intentionally? (I don't believe that, I just believe he's an idiot.) As Ruth and Marcia pointed out last night, Eric London (WSWS) has rightly called out what Coombs has offered:
At the same, Manning’s lead defense attorney, David Coombs, worked
entirely within the framework set out by the military and the Obama
administration and refused to mount a political defense of the young
whistleblower.
In his summation on Monday, Coombs urged the court to reach an
“unbiased” sentence, which he characterized as somewhat less than the
prosecution’s demand for 60 years. He called “very
biased” the view that Manning “go home today,” thus accepting that his
own client deserves a lengthy prison sentence. He said that it would be
an over-generalization to call Manning either a “traitor” or a “hero.”
Coombs based his defense largely on Manning’s gender and sexuality.
He has repeatedly made the case that Manning’s military superiors should
not have deployed Manning on account of his mental instability and the
“emotional distress” that “impaired his thought process.”
On Monday, Coombs cited psychological reports detailing Manning’s
“narcissistic personality traits” and his “regressed stages of
development” in an attempt to seek a reduced sentence.
Noting that Manning was “in a post-adolescent idealism stage,” Coombs
blamed Manning’s superiors for entrusting him with “access to
classified information” and said that “corrective action should have
been done.”
The degree to which Coombs accepts the framework of the entire “war
on terror” is indicated by his demeaning reference to Manning’s belief
that his leaks would cause the public to “question the need of future
wars.”
Bradley deserved better.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
the los angeles times
richard a. serrano
wsws
eric london
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq