Customize

Bradley Manning hearing on December 16 at Fort Meade

Discussion in 'Wikileaks' started by The Wrong Guy, Nov 21, 2011.

  1. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/adrian-lamo-bradley-manning/
    He is Satan.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Kilia Member

    Can't read all of the story because they want a monthly subscription charge that I can't really afford.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. The Wrong Guy Member

    Lt. Dan Choi - Bradley Manning hearing Ejection



    Uploaded by lesleyblooddotcom on Dec 20, 2011

    Lt. Dan Choi was forcibly ejected from the Bradley Manning Article 32 hearing.

    He was handcuffed and his rank ripped off his uniform.

    Dan talks about the surrounding factors of the hearing and the miscarriage of justice.

    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/cables-match-laptop-manning

    WP_profile.jpg

    http://twitter.com/#!/ltdanchoi

    ltdanchoi Dan Choi
    @Glennobot X-rays taken. Report filed. Nurse said they look sprained but maybe fractures.
    21 hours ago

    ltdanchoi Dan Choi
    The #BradleyManning show-trial is the lowest moment for America I've ever seen. No truth: no justice. No justice: no peace. #freebrad
    22 hours ago
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Kilia Member

  5. Anonymous Member

    This is from one of the comments.
  6. Anonymous Member

  7. The Wrong Guy Member

    • Like Like x 2
  8. Anonymous Member

    Thanks TWG for posting this.
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Smurf Member

    Interesting, did Choi out Bradley Manning as "a gay American"? There have been rumors, but I don't recall anyone in Manning's family or circle of friends acknowledging that he's gay.

    Evidently, after making a stink on the talk shows, Choi has been allowed to return to the hearings.

    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/12/20/Dan_Choi_Scraps_with_MPs__at_Manning_Hearing/
  10. The Wrong Guy Member

  11. Anonymous Member

    Not sure if trolling, but...

    If you steal from a thief, or in this case, a genocidal empire, it's not stealing.
    • Like Like x 3
  12. Anonymous Member

    Obama is the #1 1% stooge. He'll do what he's told, and nothing else.

    Manning... they're probably drugging his food. Nothing new for the US Army.
  13. The Wrong Guy Member

    Here are some updates from Naomi Wolf on Facebook, at http://www.facebook.com/naomi.wolf.author

    I am hearing on Democracy Now that reporters covering the Manning trial are being forbidden to turn wifi connections on to report live from the hearing.

    I am also hearing that Dan Ellsberg and Lt Dan Choi went to the Manning trial. Choi is the openly gay lieutenant who fought Don't Ask Don't Tell; he was told he could not wear his uniform in court -- which is not true -- then when he spoke up and said that Manning was a good soldier, standing up for true army values -- for two days he says he was 'absolutely quiet and peaceful' and they said he wad disruptive, "handcuffed me high tackled me pinned me down...bruised in my left leg, wrist sprained..." and ejected him. As they threw him to the ground handcuffed, they ripped the rank off his uniform, "I know my rights this is an open trial, there is no reason for you to assault me," they said Choi was assaulting THEM and forbade him to return.
  14. Anonymous Member

    Manning's not sure if he's a guy or a lady. I don't believe this automatically makes him gay... but it would seem he ain't hetero neither.



    For me, either way, doesn't distract from the gravity of the issue at hand.
    Bradley Manning needs to be out on the streets, doing whatever tickles his fancy.
  15. Anonymous Member

    Yes.
    The policy of "Don't ask, don't tell" is a direct cause of this. If he had had some support for the things about his sexual orientation that caused him pain things would have been different.
    Consequences are a bitch.
    • Like Like x 2
  16. The Wrong Guy Member

    Charges against Bradley Manning should be cut to 3, defense argues

    By Larry Shaughnessy, CNN Pentagon Producer

    Pfc. Bradley Manning's attorney told the officer overseeing his case Thursday that the Army prosecutors have overcharged the young soldier, accused of the largest intelligence leak in American history.

    "Provide the U.S. government with a reality check," David Coombs asked in his closing arguments. "Tell them, they have overcharged in this case."

    But Capt. Ashden Fein, the lead prosecutor, said all the charges are justified and that Manning "gave the enemy of the United States unfettered access to" the classified documents he leaked.

    Manning currently faces 22 charges and potentially a death sentence or life in prison without parole if convicted of all of them.

    Coombs argued that the charge of "knowingly giving intelligence to the enemy" should be thrown out because there is no evidence that harm came from the leaks.

    He said the U.S. government, beginning with former Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell, acted like "Chicken Little" yelling that "the sky is falling."

    Shortly after Manning's arrest in 2010, Morrell told reporters at a Pentagon briefing "it appears that someone -- if not multiple people -- violated the trust and confidence bestowed on them by their country and leaked classified information; which not only is against the law but potentially endangers the well-being of our forces and potentially jeopardizes our operations."

    Coombs also said all five charges connected to Manning's alleged altering government computers to download the documents he's accused of leaking should be tossed out.

    Manning allegedly put unauthorized software on his computer. But Coombs said Manning's entire unit was very lax when it came to computer security or information assurance.

    "It was a lawless unit when it comes to information assurance," Coombs said, in reference to testimony that all soldiers in the unit had added unauthorized software to their computers.

    Coombs also argued that the 16 charges under the military law outlawing conduct "prejudicial to good order and discipline" should be reduced to just three charges.

    If the investigating officer who oversaw the hearing, Lt. Col. Paul Almanza, were to follow Coombs request, Manning's maximum possible penalty, instead of life in prison or a possible death sentence, would be reduced to 30 years.

    He argued Manning wasn't leaking information to the enemy but was letting Americans know what was going on in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    "A hallmark of a democracy is the ability of government to be open with the public. Let's start that today," Coombs said. "Sunlight is the best disinfectant."

    More at http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/22/justice/manning-closing-arguments/index.html
    • Like Like x 1
  17. "A hallmark of a democracy is the ability of government to be open with the public. Let's start that today," Coombs said. "Sunlight is the best disinfectant."
    this ^^
    • Like Like x 2
  18. The Wrong Guy Member

    Government Blocks Access to Bradley Manning’s Hearing

    By Rainey Reitman

    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.

    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.

    More at http://www.thenation.com/article/165336/government-blocks-access-bradley-mannings-hearing
  19. Smurf Member

  20. none given Member

    I was @ Ft. Meade all week. (dox available via PM but most of you know I am good for it)
    Base security was very pleased w/the civil and proper protesters: you occupy, say your say (get some camera time) and move on.
    No 9-11 calls, not even an arrest.
    Well done planfags.
    That's how it is done in the USA.

    The Manning kid made an oath, he signed up for a different deal and broke it.
    Lessons learned: keep your promises.
  21. amaX Member

    The Manning kid's government and military superiors took oaths and have laws they should follow and they broke it all.
    Lessons learned: everybody keep your promises...
    • Like Like x 2
  22. none given Member

    First off, yeah, everybody play by the same rules, like our President said.
    Ya kno Mom, in my EXPERT opinion the behavior of military officers is a great topic for a new thread or even a new forum (seriously) but since we are talking about that kid named Brad ITT I have to say that the li'l faggot needs to fry.
    Who else needs to fry?
    Good question. Looking forward to your posts on the subject.
  23. Anonymous Member

    Namecalling in the same sentence you boast in bold capital letters about your expertise leaves you looking much less so.
  24. Atleast the last we can do is to send a mail to Pentagon, you can check on Bradley Manning Site about what you can do.
    PLEASE SEND A MAIL TO PENTAGON ABOUT TO NOT KILL BRADLEY MANNING!

    I AM BRADLEY MANNING. A true hero.
    • Like Like x 1
  25. Anonymous Member

    I am banned. We are all banned.

    tantrum.jpg
  26. Why i see you spam most of the threads?
  27. Spammer is long gone. Banned. James Spader edited all the posts.
    • Like Like x 1
  28. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 2
  29. Anyone knows something about Manning?
  30. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1
  31. The Wrong Guy Member



    Uploaded by Current on Feb 3, 2012

    Musician and activist Graham Nash tells Cenk why he felt compelled to write a song in defense of Bradley Manning.
    • Like Like x 3
  32. adhocrat Member

    http://news.yahoo.com/army-orders-court-martial-wikileaks-case-002003208.html
    • Like Like x 1
  33. Anonymous Member

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29077
    • Like Like x 3
  34. Anonymous Member

    Sort of related:
    http://pastebin.com/Ca2Vshsk
    • Like Like x 3
  35. Anonymous Member

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/under...ion-from-wikileaks-julian-assange-110525.html
    • Like Like x 1
  36. 2012-02-23 Transcript of Bradley Manning's Arraignment at Fort Meade, MD 1 p.m. February 23, 2012

    Most of language today is legal and procedural. The hearing lasted about 50 minutes.

    Judge Lindopens the proceedings.

    Captain Ashden Fein (prosecution) states the procedural history of the US charge's against Bradley Manning from original accuser Cameron Leikerthru the Article 32 Pretrial Hearing to today's arraignment.

    Fein (Prosecution): Prosecution is ready to proceed.

    Fein (Prosecution) then names each member of the prosecution and defense team, confirming that the individuals named have been "detailed" to the court.

    Fein (Prosecution): Fein..Morrow…Overgaard…for the defense...Coombs…Kempkes…Bouchard…Hunter White…Patricia Williams…court reporter…Cory Brother (speling).

    Fein (Prosecution) then states that all members of the prosecution are certified and qualified under UCMJ (Unified Code of Military Justice).

    Military judge Col. Denise R. Lind reads Bradley Manning his rights.

    As in the Article 32 Pretrial Hearing script, her statement details the defendant's rights, as well as parameters around the military appointed defense counsel. Her statement also advises Manning what his rights are should he request other military counsel than those already provided.

    Judge Lindasked Bradley Manning if he understood his rights.

    Bradley Manning: Yes, M'am.

    Judge Lind then asks Bradley Manning who will represent him.

    Bradley Manning: Mr. David Coombs, Major Matthew Kemkes, (He glances quickly down table.) and Captain Paul Bouchard.

    David Coombs (civilian defense) rises and states that all members of the defense are "detailed and certified."

    Judge Lind asks Coombs (defense) to state his qualifications. He does, and says he has no conflicts of interest. Coombs (defense) is sworn in by Judge Lind.

    Next up Judge Lind asks if there are any challenges to her presiding in the case of Bradley Manning. Fein (prosecution) declines. Coombs (defense) asks if he might ask her some questions.

    Coombs (defense): What prior knowledge do you have of this case?
    Judge Lind: I knew there was case. I knew the case involved classified info. I knew it involved a person named PFC Manning.

    Coombs (defense) : Did you view any material related to this case?

    Judge Lind answers either "No," or, "Not that I can recall." (I am not sure of her exact words.)

    Coombs (defense) : What impressions, if any, do you have of this case?

    Judge Lind: None.

    Coombs (defense) : Any discussions?

    Judge Lind: Not that I can recall.

    Coombs (defense) : Formed any opinions about the case?

    Judge Lind: None.

    Coombs (defense) asks Judge Lind for her credentials.

    Coombs (defense): Did you teach at the National Defense University?

    Judge Lind said she took (a ?) class(es ?) from 2006 to 2007 at National Defense University and then "I taught at the National Defense University from 2007 to 2008."

    Coombs (defense): What courses did she teach?

    Judge Lind says taught national security strategy, law of armed conflict. She states she was part of a "think tank, and since I was co-chair some sort of Australia, New Zealand…regional studies."

    Coombs (defense): Ever deal with classified information?

    Judge Lind: She pauses. She says she thinks two cases either at college or as a military judge, "but I had to have received training on classified information to become a judge...short courses...Army Judge Advocate General School."

    Coombs (defense): I taught there. Did you ever take any of my courses? Do you recall me teaching any classes?

    Judge Lind pauses. "I think you might have (taught me). You look familiar."

    Coombs (defense): Do you have any impressions of me?

    Judge Lind to Coombs (defense) politely embarrassed, laughs and states that she "doesn't really remember the class." and "No."

    Coombs (defense): No further questions.

    Fein (prosecution) then reads charges as groups. e.g. this many violations under Article 134…Fein (prosecution) starts with "aiding the enemy" at another point he states that unauthorized software was put on "two separate systems." Fein (prosecution) describes the procedural aspects of the charges. First accuser was Cameron Leiker. He states after Leiker was the first convening authority…then for MD, Carl Coffman…then for MDW, Linnington.

    Judge Lind then explains to Manning what his options are regarding the form of his court martial, by military judge or by jury of officers. (Please refer to the Manual for Court Martial). Judge Lind then describes various rules for jury of officers, "None can be junior to you."

    She describes that two thirds are required for guilt and sentence, and three fourths if the sentence carries more than ten years of confinement. She concludes, "or a military judge alone can rule and determine sentence."

    Coombs (defense) rises and states that Manning defers form (trial by judge or jury of officers) selection.

    Fein (prosecution) rises and asks if Bradley Manning will waive the recitation of charges.

    Coombs (defense) waives.

    Fein (prosecution) goes into procedural history of the US charges against Bradley Manning again, "Cameron Leiker sworn before someone certified to administer oaths…Linnington, convening authority, MDW."

    Judge Lind then states for the court record that an R.C.M. 802 meeting with counsel took place telephonically on February 8, 2012.

    Judge Lind explains to Manning and for the court that the telephonic meeting was to deal with scheduling and logistical matters. She explains that when an Electronic Docketing Request is received the court is required to solicit dates from the defense and prosecution for the arraignment and trial.

    Judge Lind then asks the defense and prosecution if they agree. They answer, "Yes, M'am" and "Yes, your Honor"

    Judge Lind states for the court record that at the R.C.M. 802 meeting the US prosecution requested army service uniforms. Defense had no objection. Judge Lind states for the court record that both sides provided possible trial schedules.

    Judge Lind states at the R.C.M. 802 conducted telephonically February 8, 2012 was followed with email correspondence.

    Judge Lind states for court record that the R.C.M. 802 telephonic meeting with counsel also concerned motions that would be filed at the arraignment. If I am correct, Judge Lind states that there was a question as to how to file motions (meaning by submission or grouped).

    The next part relates to a series of correspondences between defense, Judge Lind and prosecution regarding defense motions.

    (continued...)

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins