Chelsea Manning: what's new

Discussion in 'Wikileaks' started by Anonymous, Oct 10, 2012.

  1. X-B0rd3r Member

    Iraq War and perverting the course of justice: US War Crimes Tribunal investigation #6


    The US strategy from the beginning of the second Iraq War has been to deflect criticism and prosecution by blaming others. The war began with a lie: that Saddam Hussein had WMD (weapons of mass destruction) and a BBC documentary showed what everyone suspected – that the US Administration went to great lengths to fool the public into accepting that the war was necessary (the true reason for invasion was, of course, oil). During the course of the war the US Administration ensured it was not charged for war crimes committed or for torture. And when Wikileaks revealed those war crimes, instead of prosecuting the persons who had committed the crimes the US Government focused on the person who provided the evidence.

    A must see video interview with Baltasar Garzon, the renowned jurist, is also below (click link if embedded version not visible) and includes observation about Wikileaks, the attempted prosecution of Bush officials re torture allegations, the attempt to uncover the truth re 300,000 murdered during the Franco regime, the indictment of General Pinochet and more….
    Meanwhile the Bradley Manning prosecution farce continue with the judge decreeing that publication of court documents is a privilege not a right, which, of course, is contrary to the US Constitution.
    (This report is part of a series of investigations for a proposed US War Crimes Tribunal. There are two more reports to follow. Here are investigations #1 ( Iraq War atrocities – part 1 ), #2 ( Iraq War atrocities – part 2 ), #3 ( Guantanamo Bay atrocities ), #4 ( Afghanistan atrocities ) and #5 ( Dulci et decorum est pro patria mori ).)
    The attempt to prosecute the US Government
    The Obama Administration worked closely with Republicans during Obama’s first few months in office to protect Bush Administration officials facing an overseas criminal investigation for their involvement in establishing policies that condoned the use of torture. A “confidential” April 17, 2009, cable sent from the US embassy in Madrid and obtained by WikiLeaks detailed how the Obama administration, working with Republicans, leaned on the Spanish Government to derail this potential prosecution [by Baltasar Garzon] ….
    In March 2009, Baltasar Garzón considered whether Spain should allow charges to be filed against former officials from the United States government under George W. Bush for offering justifications for torture. The six former Bush officials were: Alberto Gonzales, former Attorney General; John Yoo, of the Office of Legal Counsel; Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense for policy; William Haynes II, former general counsel for the Department of Defense; Jay Bybee, also at Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel; and David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff.
    However, the investigation was subsequently assigned to Judge Eloy Velasco, who chose not to pursue it (surprise, surprise!), stating that Spain could not investigate the case unless the U.S. stared that it would not conduct its own investigation. In a U.S. diplomatic cable published by WikiLeaks it was revealed that Chief Prosecutor Javier Zaragoza had intended to argue that the case should not be assigned to Judge Garzón. In a later cable it was stated that Garzón was “forced to give up” the investigation. It was also revealed that Zaragoza had strategized how to force Garzón to give up the case – namely:
    * On April 16, 2009, the Spanish Attorney General, Cándido Conde-Pumpido, stated that he thought the Spanish investigative magistrate should drop the consideration of charges against the six men.
    * On April 17, 2009, Conde-Pumpido, said his office would not support Judge Baltasar Garzon’s ‘outrageous effort’ to prosecute six Bush Administration officials for their role in the US antiterror effort.
    * On April 23, 2009, Eloy Velasco took over responsibility for determining whether or not the six former Bush officials should face Spanish charges.
    * On 29 April 2009, Garzón opened an investigation into an alleged “systematic programme” of torture at Guantánamo Bay, following accusations by four former prisoners. Similarly, the leaked cable indicated that the Chief Prosecutor intended to fight this investigation too and that he feared, “Garzón may attempt to wring all the publicity he can from the case unless and until he is forced to give it up.”
    [At the time The Guardian reported that Garzón had initiated a formal investigation into whether confessions from four former Guantanamo captives were the result of the use of abusive interrogation techniques. The four men: Hamed Abderrahman Ahmed, Lahcen Ikassrien, Jamiel Abdul Latif al Banna and Omar Deghayes, had previously faced charges in Spanish courts, based on confessions they made while in US custody. Their charges had been dropped, based on their claims that their confessions were false and the result of abusive interrogation techniques.]
    * On May 5, 2009, Velasco formally requested the USA to indicate whether they were going to conduct a domestic inquiry into the six men’s conduct. (Spain’s principle of universal justice allows third party states to charge non-citizens, and request their extradition, only when their country of citizenship has not conducted its own investigation.)
    * On May 20, 2009, the New York Times reported that some Spanish legislators were proposing a law to strip investigating magistrates of the authority to pursue international human rights cases. This law, however, would not retroactively put an end to the progress of current cases but would halt the initiation of similar cases.
    Andy Worthington, writing in the Huffington Post, gave an account of this story:
    “Zaragoza said he had challenged Garzón directly and personally on this latest case, asking if he was trying to drum up more speaking fees. Garzón replied he was doing it for the record only and would let it die. Zaragoza opined that Garzón, having gotten his headline, would soon drop the matter. In case he does not, Zaragoza has a strategy to force his hand. Zaragoza’s strategy hinges on the older case in which Garzón investigated terrorism complaints against some Guantanamo detainees. In connection with those earlier investigations, Garzón ordered the Spanish police to visit Guantanamo and collect evidence against the suspected terrorists. Zaragoza reasons that he can use this fact to embarrass Garzón into dropping this latest case by suggesting that Garzón in some sense condoned the U.S. approach to detainee issues circa 2004. Garzón took no action in 2004 when the suspects returned to Spain and reported to him their alleged mistreatment. Zaragoza said that if Garzón could not be shamed into dropping the case, then he would formally recommend Garzón do so and appeal if Garzón ignored him.”
    What Wikileaks tells us really happened
    Numerous embassy cables leaked by the whistle-blowing website Wikileaks centered on the progression of the case. US Government intentions were summarised in a confidential cable, dated April 1, 2009. The summary was sent to the U.S. State Department by the Madrid Embassy. The cable suggested that the U.S. had intended to convince Spanish Officials to interfere with the National Court’s judicial independence:
    A Spanish NGO has requested that the National Court indict six Bush Administration officials for creating a legal framework that allegedly permitted torture. The NGO is attempting to have the case heard by Investigating Judge Baltasar Garzon, internationally known for his dogged pursuit of “universal jurisdiction” cases. Garzon has passed the complaint to the Prosecutor’s office so that they can determine if there is a legitimate case. Although he seemed displeased to have this dropped in his lap, Chief Prosecutor Zaragoza told us that in all likelihood he would have no option but to open the case. He said he did not envision indictments or arrest warrants in the near future. He would also argue against the case being assigned to Garzon. MFA and MOJ contacts told us that they are concerned about the case, but have stressed the independence of the Spanish judiciary. They too have suggested the case will move…
    The six accused are: former Attorney General Gonzales; David Addington, former chief of staff and legal adviser to the Vice President; William Haynes, former DOD General Counsel; Douglas Feith, former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; Jay Bybee, former head of the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel; and John Yoo, a former member of Bybee’s…
    [The complaint] alleges that the accused conspired with criminal intent to construct a legal framework to permit interrogation techniques and detentions in violation of international law. The complaint describes a number of U.S. documents, including: a December 28, 2001, memorandum regarding U.S. courts’ jurisdiction over Guantanamo detainees; a February 7, 2002, memorandum, saying the detainees were not covered by the Geneva Convention; a March 13, 2002, memorandum on new interrogation techniques; an August 1, 2002, memorandum on the definition of torture; a November 27, 2002, memorandum recommending approval of 15 new interrogation techniques; and a March 14, 2003, memorandum providing a legal justification for new interrogation techniques. The complaint also cites a 2006 U.S. Supreme Court case which it says held the February 2002 memo in violation of international law and President Obama’s Executive Order on ensuring lawful interrogations…
    The complaint asserted Spanish jurisdiction by claiming that the alleged crimes committed at Guantanamo violated the 1949 Geneva Convention and its Additional Protocols of 1977, the 1984 Convention Against Torture or Other Cruel, Unusual or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the 1998 Rome Statute. The GOS [Government of Spain] is a signatory to all three instruments. The complaint cites Article 7 of the 1984 Convention Against Torture, which states that if a person accused of torture is not extradited to the nation that is bringing a case against him or her, then the competent authorities in the country where the person is should bring a case against him or her.
    The cable concluded…
    We do not know if the government would be willing to take the risky step of trying behind the scenes to influence the prosecutor’s recommendation on this case or what their reaction to such a request would be.
    Note: if you cannot view the video below, click here to see.

    See also
    • Like Like x 4
  2. X-B0rd3r Member

    Not purely about Bradley but nice to see that US Army doesn't know about crisis: you wanna a job?

    Internment camps for political dissidents in the U.S. aren’t a conspiracy theory. The Department of Defense document entitled “INTERNMENT AND RESETTLEMENT OPERATIONS” or FM 3-39.40 proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    Download link for FM 3-39.40:
    Army hiring for these internment camps:

  3. Anonymous Member

    Common knowledge- imo how it is interpreted seems to be the bone of contention.
  4. Anonymous Member

    I'm as upset about this as you are, but Internment and Resettlement options are for a state of war. .The plan is to incarcerate political dissidents in place of firing squads. We aren't close to insurrection yet. Look at pre-WW1, then 1968-1973.
  5. giovanymous Member

    L'image d'anonymous est au top de l'autre coté de l'atlantique :) ils assurent les canadiens .

    "Anonymous est devenu de plus en plus médiatisé au fil des ans, jusqu'à figurer dans la prestigieuse liste des personnes les plus influentes du magazine Time l'an dernier, aux côtés de Hillary Clinton et Kim Jong-un"

    :rolleyes: ça me parait exagéré , mais tant mieux si c'est vrai.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. The Wrong Guy Member

    Court rejects plea for access to Bradley Manning trial records -

    By Josh Gerstein

    Public and press access to the military justice system suffered a serious blow Wednesday, as the military's highest appeals court narrowly ruled that it has no power to consider media challenges to military judges' rulings on access to courts martial.

    The decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces came on a bid by journalists to gain access to legal filings and court orders in the court martial of Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, who's accused of leaking hundreds of thousands of military reports and diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks.

    In a sharply divided ruling, the appeals court ruled, 3-2, that it had no jurisdiction to consider such a complaint from parties other than the government or the defendant in a particular case.

    "This Court, and courts-martial in general, being creatures of Congress created under the Article I power to regulate the armed forces, must exercise their jurisdiction in strict compliance with authorizing statutes," Judge Scott Stucky wrote in the majority opinion (posted here).

    Continued at
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Anonymous Member

  8. Anonymous Member

    Bradley Manning is off limits at SF Gay Pride parade, but corporate sleaze is embraced

    A seemingly trivial controversy reveals quite a bit about pervasive political values

    (FILES)PFC Bradley Manning is escorted by military police as he departs the courtroom at Fort Meade, Maryland in this April 25, 2012 file photo. Photograph: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images
    News reports yesterday indicated that Bradley Manning, widely known to be gay, had been selected to be one of the Grand Marshals of the annual San Francisco gay pride parade, named by the LGBT Pride Celebration Committee. When the predictable backlash instantly ensued, the president of the Board of SF Pride, Lisa L Williams, quickly capitulated, issuing a cowardly, imperious statement that has to be read to be believed.
    Williams proclaimed that "Manning will not be a grand marshal in this year's San Francisco Pride celebration" and termed his selection "a mistake". She blamed it all on a "staff person" who prematurely made the announcement based on a preliminary vote, and she assures us all that the culprit "has been disciplined": disciplined. She then accuses Manning of "actions which placed in harms way [sic] the lives of our men and women in uniform": a substance-free falsehood originally spread by top US military officials which has since been decisively and extensivelydebunked, even by some government officials (indeed, it's the US government itself, not Manning, that is guilty of "actions which placed in harms way the lives of our men and women in uniform"). And then, in my favorite part of her statement, Williams decreed to all organization members that "even the hint of support" for Manning's action - even the hint - "will not be tolerated by the leadership of San Francisco Pride". Will not be tolerated.
    • Like Like x 3
  9. The Wrong Guy Member

    Bradley Manning Supporters Will Protest SF Pride Tomorrow | Advocate

    The backlash from San Francisco Pride's denial statement yesterday continues tomorrow on the streets.

    By Diane Anderson-Minshall

    A group of LGBT activiss is calling for a protest against the San Francisco Pride Committee’s rescinding of naming whistleblower Bradley Manning as a grand marshal of June's Pride celebrations.

    Gay and lesbian peace and social justice activists Michael Petrelis, Tommi Avicolli Mecca, and Lisa Geduldig are behind the call to action.The group says that SF Pride is turning its back on activism and dissent, after the board president, Lisa Williams, released a statement on Saturday saying that Manning being named a grand marshal was a mistake by a lone employee that underscored a systemic problem in how grand marshals are chosen.

    “Even the hint of support for actions which placed in harm’s way the lives of our men and women in uniform, and countless others, military and civilian alike, will not be tolerated by the leadership of San Francisco Pride,” Williams sad.

    "Our message to SF Pride is that they should make Manning a grand marshal of this year's Pride march and celebration because of his brave act of whistleblowing against the military industrial complex," said Petrelis. "We are fed up with marriage and military concerns sucking the oxygen out of what used to be a queer movement and Pride march and celebration about social justice for queers."

    Continued at
    • Like Like x 3
  10. The Wrong Guy Member

    Charles Barkley: ‘There Were Only Ever Three Straight NBA Players’ | The Onion

    During Monday’s pregame broadcast, TNT basketball analyst and NBA Hall of Famer Charles Barkley confirmed that there have been only three straight players in the history of the league: himself and two of his former Phoenix Suns teammates.

    "So there was me, obviously, Kevin Johnson, and I'm pretty sure Dan Majerle was mostly straight," said Barkley, adding that Wilt Chamberlain had sex with at least twice as many men as women.

    "George Mikan, Michael Jordan, Jerry West, the entire Detroit Pistons roster under Chuck Daley, Chuck Daley, James Worthy, which is a no-brainer once you meet the guy, Derrick Coleman, and everyone else — all card-carrying friends of Dorothy. I’ll say this: if you want to see gay in all its glory, enter an NBA locker room. There is no more gay-friendly place on earth.”

    More at,20615/
    • Like Like x 1
  11. The Wrong Guy Member

    Closed pretrial hearing in WikiLeaks case a rare ‘dry run’ for classified info testimony

    By Associated Press, Monday, May 6

    Government secrecy reaches a new level this week in the court-martial of an Army private who gave reams of classified documents to WikiLeaks.

    The military judge has ordered what prosecutors say is an unprecedented closed hearing Wednesday to help her decide how much of Pfc. Bradley Manning’s trial will be closed to protect national security.

    An unidentified prosecution witness will testify in a “dry run” to test alternatives to courtroom closures during presentation of classified evidence. The strategies could include redacted documents, unclassified summaries and even code words for classified information.

    Continued at
    • Like Like x 5
  12. Anonymous Member

    Holy shit.
  13. Anonymous Member

    Nothing new
  14. Anonymous Member

    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  15. The Wrong Guy Member

    SF Pride Board Says Bradley Manning Can't Be Grand Marshal Because He's Not Local | KQED

    The San Francisco Pride Board has a new rationale for keeping former U.S. soldier and whistle-blower Bradley Manning out of the parade as a grand marshal: he's not local enough. The position in Manning's case would be largely symbolic: he's currently incarcerated at a military prison in Kansas as he awaits trial on a number of serious charges that include aiding the enemy, related to his leaking of classified information to the Wikileaks website.

    The Board released a statement last night asserting that the original nomination of Manning violated its procedures because Manning isn't from the immediate area. The exact definition of what constitutes local was not defined. The announcement drew the ire of protesters who had come to the board's public meeting to ask that Manning be reinstated.

    The Pride Board in San Francisco originally caused a stir by inviting Manning, who is gay, to represent the LGBT community as a grand marshal in the yearly march. Late last month the board revoked the invitation after complaints from outside groups like the Log Cabin Republicans. The decision to remove Manning as a grand marshal has attracted protesters and national media coverage, and now, in an odd twist for Pride, a discrimination complaint filed by David Wagner, a gay activist and attorney.

    “They denounced him for what he stands for politically as a whistle-blower,” Wagner says, “well that's illegal under San Francisco law. You can't get money from the city and then turn around and discriminate against people on the basis of their moral convictions.”

    More at
    • Like Like x 3
  16. “They denounced him for what he stands for politically as a whistle-blower,” Wagner says, “well that's illegal under San Francisco law. You can't get money from the city and then turn around and discriminate against people on the basis of their moral convictions.”

    • Like Like x 1
  17. The Wrong Guy Member

    Pride meeting ends amid chaos - The Bay Area Reporter

    The San Francisco Pride board of directors faced off against an angry crowd of about 125 Bradley Manning supporters Tuesday evening at a meeting intended to hear public comments on its reversal of Manning as a Pride grand marshal. But the meeting came to an abrupt end after SF Pride CEO Earl Plante, noticeably shaken, said he had been assaulted and ordered his staff to call police for what he called a "riot."


    The meeting did not begin at its scheduled time of 7 p.m., as activists rushed and shoved their way into the office as a board member entered. Plante, stationed by the door, announced no one with press cameras or recording devices would be allowed in. Angry supporters got angrier.


    [SF Pride CEO Earl] Plante was not present during public comments. Suddenly he appeared and told the board he had been assaulted and he directed a staffer to call the police. He described the situation to the board as a "riot."

    Plante appeared shaken and angry. He said someone on the street had shouted in his face and shoved him to the ground "to make his point." Again, the B.A.R., stationed by the door to the room, overheard Plante as he described the alleged assault to the board. When the board realized the paper's presence, someone closed the door and locked the board away until police arrived.

    About 20 police arrived amidst the shouting crowd and several frightened board members. It took a bit for police to understand what had happened and why they were called. Plante told officers that he wanted to file charges against his assailant, if the person could be found.

    Board members wanted police to escort them away from the building. They said they were afraid they would be assaulted by the crowd. Plante announced to the few journalists trapped there with them that the board would hold another meeting with better security and in a larger venue. Neither he nor Williams could give a date for the meeting.

    It fell to board treasurer David Currie to tell the crowd that the meeting was over and that another meeting would be held. He requested police protection to make the announcement to the angry protesters in the stairwell. As Currie spoke, the crowd shouted him down.

    Outside the building, San Franciscan Bruce Beaudettte, 53 and a security professional, said he had been one of the 15 people to make public comments before the meeting ended. He said he told the board that "Pride should inspire people not shame them." He said he did not consider the crowd violent.
    "We were vocal," he said.

    San Francisco Police Officer M. Shea said there were no arrests. He said the crowd was "cooperative and compliant." He said the official reason for ending the meeting was too small a venue.

    More at
    • Like Like x 3
  18. The Wrong Guy Member

    Bias complaint filed against Pride - The Bay Area Reporter

    LGBT unrest over the San Francisco LGBT Pride Celebration Committee's controversial selection and retraction of imprisoned Army Private First Class Bradley Manning as a Pride grand marshal has now escalated to the legal arena with a complaint to the San Francisco Human Rights Commission.

    In a six-page filing prepared by local gay attorney and District 8 resident David Waggoner, 38, nearly 30 signatories initiated a Complaint of Unlawful Discrimination against the San Francisco Pride board of directors with the HRC on May 7.

    Former parade grand marshals Gabriel Haaland and Gary Virginia, and Swords to Ploughshares staff attorney Becca Von Behren were among the 21 individuals who signed on to the complaint. [Full disclosure: attorney Paul Melbostad, who serves as the Bay Area Reporter 's legal counsel, also signed the complaint.]

    Among the five LGBT organizations to endorse the complaint are the Bay Area Military Law Panel and the Military Law Task Force of the National Lawyers Guild.

    The complaint said the board had "repudiated San Francisco Pride's electoral college's selection of Bradley Manning as a 2013 grand marshal for the Pride parade." This action violated city administrative codes, arts funding guidelines, board marshal selection policy, and board non-discrimination policy, the complaint charged.

    "Pride is subject to the city's non-discrimination laws because it receives city funding," Waggoner said in an email. He confirmed to the B.A.R. that the complaint had been officially filed with the HRC with copies emailed to Pride officials.

    "If SF Pride reverses its decision [on Manning], the complaint will be withdrawn," said Waggoner, a former president of the Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club.

    Continued at
    • Like Like x 2
  19. The Internet Member

    If Bradley Manning looked like this:


    he would be fronting that parade.
    • Like Like x 1
  20. The Wrong Guy Member


    By Chase Madar
    Verso, $21.99

    Reviewed by Jeff Sparrow

    ''Bradley Manning deserves the Presidential Medal of Freedom.'' The opening from Chase Madar's book leaves us in no doubt as to the author's view on his subject: whistleblower Bradley Manning, the man said to have supplied to WikiLeaks half a million classified documents.

    For Madar, the line's more than a rhetorical flourish. The US awarded the Presidential Medal, the nation's highest civilian honour, to most of the principal players behind the Iraq war, including Tony Blair and John Howard. In other words, those who misled the public into a disastrous invasion were decorated - but Manning faces life in jail for revealing the truth about what the conflict entailed.

    Continued at
    • Like Like x 3
  21. The Wrong Guy Member

    Benjamin Franklin and Bradley Manning - The Times News


    Any day now, a military court will sentence Manning, possibly to life in prison, for leaking confidential documents. Government prosecutors charge that Manning aided the enemy by collaborating with WikiLeaks.

    Ben Franklin knew a thing or two about the importance of circulating sensitive information. Back in 1773, he played a crucial role in leaking private letters written by the royal governor of Massachusetts. What proved so embarrassing to the British Empire was the letters’ disclosure that people in high places secretly believed “there must be an abridgement” of the liberties that American colonists enjoyed.

    The letters became a smoking gun for colonists, proof that Parliament had been plotting all along to place unprecedented restrictions upon American freedoms. Up and down the Atlantic seaboard, as news of the letters spread, more than a few people living in British North America began to question their status as imperial subjects.

    In the battle over public opinion, the stolen letters that Franklin transmitted to the Sons of Liberty were a decisive weapon for American patriots such as Sam Adams.

    Just as Manning sought out WikiLeaks to publish information that he felt citizens had the right to know, Franklin turned to a group of American radicals to spread the secret doings of an empire.

    Like Manning, Franklin was soon under investigation for what many in Britain viewed as an act of treachery. He worried that he might wind up in the infamous Newgate prison in London.

    The portrait of Franklin that emerged from the show trial orchestrated by Britain’s Privy Council bears no resemblance to the image we now have of this Founding Father. Dishonorable, scheming, faithless: This is what detractors in Parliament called Franklin.
    • Like Like x 3
  22. The Wrong Guy Member

    Transparency, accountability at stake in Manning trial - Committee to Protect Journalists

    By Joel Simon, CPJ Executive Director

    On June 3, when the long-anticipated court-martial of Army Pfc. Bradley Manning begins in Fort Meade, Md., journalists will crowd the courtroom. But at some point the press and the public likely will be ordered out while confidential testimony--including from State Department officials and active military personnel-- is heard. If the pre-trial proceedings are any indication, the press will also be denied access to written submissions deemed sensitive.

    Precisely how much of the Manning trial will be hidden from public view will be decided by the judge in the case, Col. Denise Lind, and is the subject of legal wrangling, including Freedom of Information requests and an amicus brief protesting restrictions and signed by more than 30 media organizations. While the case is undoubtedly sensitive, the U.S. government has a credibility problem when it comes to classification. For example, after WikiLeaks released hundreds of thousands of U.S. diplomatic cables, thus making them available to anyone around the world with an Internet connection, the U.S. government took the absurd view that the documents remained classified and warned unauthorized government employees not to access them, even on home computers.

    The possibility that portions of the Manning trial will take place in secret is all the more troubling because the trial will touch on issues of grave concern to U.S. journalists--in particular, whether the act of releasing classified documents to the public violates the 1917 Espionage Act and is tantamount to "aiding the enemy," a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Espionage Act, under which civilians but not (so far) journalists have been prosecuted, makes it a crime to "communicate" information, but the word "publish" was deliberately omitted from the statute by Congress, according to the legislative history.

    The novel view of the military prosecutors is that when Manning sent classified material to WikiLeaks using that site's secure dropbox, he knew that Al-Qaeda would eventually see the information. The fact that some of the material published by WikiLeaks was found on Osama Bin Laden's personal laptop is expected to be a key argument. Manning pleaded guilty in February to leaking classified information, a crime for which he could be sentenced to up to 20 years in prison. But prosecutors are continuing to pursue more serious charges, including violations of the Espionage Act. They have said that they are seeking life imprisonment rather than the death penalty.

    As Floyd Abrams and Yochai Benkler noted in a March 13 op-ed in The New York Times, a successful prosecution in the Manning case could deter future journalistic sources, particularly those in the military who, like Manning, are subject to prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The military prosecutors seek to convict Manning for "knowingly giv[ing] intelligence to the enemy" solely on the ground that he disregarded the risk that an enemy might access the same information widely available to the public.

    Continued at
    • Like Like x 3
  23. The Wrong Guy Member

    • Like Like x 2
  24. The Wrong Guy Member

    • Like Like x 1
  25. The Wrong Guy Member

    WikiLeaks prosecutors accept GI’s guilty plea to 1 of 22 offenses - The Associated Press

    The government will accept an Army private’s guilty plea to a lesser version of one of the 22 counts he faces for sending more than 700,000 classified U.S. documents to the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks, a military prosecutor said during a pretrial hearing Tuesday.

    But prosecutors still will try to convict Pfc. Bradley Manning at his trial next month of other serious offenses, including aiding the enemy, which carries a maximum life sentence.
    • Like Like x 1
  26. The Wrong Guy Member

    • Like Like x 1
  27. The Wrong Guy Member

    WikiLeaks, others take fight for court-martial records on Army private to civilian court

    The Associated Press

    The WikiLeaks organization and a handful of journalists asked a federal judge Wednesday to order greater transparency in the court-martial of an Army private who has acknowledged sending reams of classified document to the WikiLeaks website.

    The Center for Constitutional Rights, representing WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange, filed the petition in U.S. District Court in Baltimore. It seeks an order requiring public access to all documents in the court-martial of Pfc. Bradley Manning.

    It also seeks to have the lawyers and military judge “reconstitute” in open court certain conferences they have held out of public view.

    Continued at
    • Like Like x 1
  28. The Wrong Guy Member

    U.S. Settles Lawsuit With Bradley Manning Supporter Who Had Laptop Seized at Airport | American Civil Liberties Union

    Government Admits Activist Was on DHS “Lookout” List, Will Turn Over Investigation Documents and Destroy Copied Data

    In a settlement reached with human rights activist David House, the government has agreed to destroy all data it obtained from his laptop and other electronics when he entered the U.S. after a vacation, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Massachusetts announced today. House, who was then working with the Bradley Manning Support Network, an organization created to raise funds for the legal defense of the soldier who has admitted to leaking material to WikiLeaks, charged in a lawsuit that the seizure violated his Fourth Amendment rights by subjecting him to unreasonable search and seizure, and violated his First Amendment right to freedom of association.

    In November 2010, Department of Homeland Security agents stopped House at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago and questioned him about his political activities and beliefs. They then confiscated his laptop, camera, and USB drive, which contained information identifying members and supporters of the Bradley Manning Support Network. The government copied House’s cell phone at the airport and held his laptop and other devices for 49 days. The data taken from House’s materials was then turned over to the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID), which concluded that it would not use the information.

    “The government’s sweeping claim that it can search through our electronics at the border for any reason or no reason at all is flatly contradicted by the Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures,” said Catherine Crump, staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “The tremendous amount of personal and business information that we can now easily carry around with us means that respecting the Fourth Amendment in all places – including the border – is more important than ever.”

    Under the terms of the settlement, the government agreed to destroy all remaining data copied from House’s devices. The government will also hand over numerous documents, including reports describing Army CID’s inspection of House’s data as well as the DHS “Lookout” telling agents to stop House as he entered the country. The government further agreed to release reports on DHS agents’ questioning of House, which included inquiries about whether he knew anything about Manning giving classified information to WikiLeaks.

    Continued at
    • Like Like x 3
  29. Anonymous Member
    • Like Like x 4
  30. The Wrong Guy Member

    Supporters of Bradley Manning protest at Maryland's Fort Meade before WikiLeaks trial - Associated Press

    Manning court martial trial starts Monday - Miami Herald

    Bradley Manning leak trial set to open Monday amid secrecy and controversy - Washington Post
    • Like Like x 2
  31. X-B0rd3r Member

    Time for next step ? Source

    Manning &amp; Hammond – warp speed: media are key to their release

    Posted on June 2, 2013 by admin
    View attachment wpid-afK3pJKDjPJ3izh_IDXrJDl72eJkfbmt4t8yenImKBWNC
    Yesterday over 2000 people took part in a rally in support of whistleblower Bradley Manning outside the military centre where he is being detained (and many similar rallies took place in other parts of the world). Tomorrow, the trial of Manning commences: he has pleaded guilty to charges that carry up to 20 years imprisonment and may be found guilty on other charges. A week ago investigative researcher Jeremy Hammond pleaded guilty on one charge that carries a maximum of ten years imprisonment to avoid a trial that might incur a sentence of decades of imprisonment. Both men should never have been prosecuted in the first place: they are prisoners of conscience who released information about war crimes or crimes of espionage to the public domain (what any media channel with integrity would do). At this pivotal stage (Hammond is yet to have his sentence confirmed and Manning’s sentence is dependent on many factors) the media may well be key to the fate of both. Their intervention could result in Hammond’s sentence equating to his 15 months time on remand, with Manning’s sentence equating to his three years (including months of torture).

    Manning and Hammond are two extraordinary talented and moral individuals who do not deserve prison but recognition and it is certain that on their release they will each, in their very different ways, significantly contribute to the betterment of the world. Time is running out and the media must act now.
    Note, two days ago in Kabul, a small group of the Afghan Peace Volunteers gathered for an informal presentation about WikiLeaks, its chief editor Julian Assange, and its most prominent contributor, Bradley Manning. They believe that the vast majority of Afghans are among myriads worldwide who have Manning to thank for the information they will need in struggles for freedom, security, and peace and wish that more people would find the courage to stand up to military and government forces, especially their own, and act as whistle-blowers. See here for more.
    A. Media running scared
    With the exception of a few journalists – Glenn Greenwald, Philip Dorling, John Pilger, Kevin Gosztola, Amy Goodman, Alexa O’Brien, and Julian Assange, as well as countless blogs – mainstream media coverage of both the Bradley Manning pre trial hearings and the prosecution of Jeremy Hammond has been scant if not devoid. This is not surprising, given that most of the world’s leading newspapers disseminated, at some point, the information sourced by Manning and Hammond (and published by Wikileaks) and so could also be charged, like Manning, with ‘aiding the enemy’, or with the same ‘crimes’ raised against Hammond. But instead of standing together against the near-totalitarian aspirations of the Obama regime, the mainstream media has preferred to opt for betrayal – presumably in the hope they will not face prosecution.
    Or as Michael Ratner, President Emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights, puts it… “And if I can explain it for one minute here, what it means is aiding the enemy. What they’re claiming is that Bradley Manning, by giving the documents to WikiLeaks. Washington Post or The New York Times, as the prosecutor admitted, and he would still be, in their view, guilty of aiding the enemy. And the reason is not that The Times is the enemy or WikiLeaks is the enemy, although that’s not beyond this government; it’s that al-Qaeda, bin Laden–and they actually said this–read those documents. So he read or asked for documents that WikiLeaks exposed that were the documents that Bradley Manning gave WikiLeaks. So WikiLeaks is the indirect way in which Bradley Manning, quote, aided the enemy. It means that every newspaper in this country could conceivably be seen as aiding the enemy when they get this information from a soldier. Think about what it does to truth-telling. You think you’re ever going to get another Bradley Manning again? It’s hard enough. But think about facing the death penalty because somehow, even though you’re giving it to a media source, a media publisher, who could be you, it could be Times, you’re somehow aiding the enemy. And they’re going ahead with that charge.”
    B. Obama’s assault on the press
    In a January pre-trial hearing the Bradley Manning trial judge, Colonel Denise Lind, asked prosecutors directly whether they would have brought the same charges had Manning leaked the materials directly to the New York Times instead of WikiLeaks. The prosecutors’ answer was unambiguously yes. And this is why US media prefers, these days, to publish the occasional comment on alleged hackers and leakers, but not to publish their leaks, leaving it to others – e.g. blogs, Wikileaks – to boldly go where they fear to tread.
    The US Government is not threatening to prosecute, say, the Guardian, or one of the other Wikileaks’ partners, because it would be too controversial. Instead it prefers to go for Manning (and Jeremy Hammond and Barrett Brown) first, then Wikileaks, in order to deter the mainstream media generally. And should the prosecution of Wikileaks also proceed, it will probably be in regard to the Computer Misuse Act or Copyright infringement (easier to proceed with than, say, an espionage charge, which, apparently is what the secret Grand Jury was first asked to consider).
    And so, ironically, in the ‘land of the free’ (America) journalists are now more prone to arrest and jail, as demonstrated by the recent crackdown, than journalists in many other countries, simply because legislation does not provide – for now, anyway – the authorities there with a mechanism to charge journalists in these other countries should they publish articles perceived as detrimental to US Government interests.
    In short, US journalists are running scared, leaving the American public with little choice but to discover the truth of what their government is up to by reading foreign media (or Wikileaks).
    Also, recently, it was reported that the US Administration’s persecution of Associated Press journalists did not only include over 500 interviews of AP officials and the seizure of their phone records in connection with a Yemen bomb plot, but that FBI agents demanded details of sources for two other articles, including one from a New York Times reporter who had written about computer attacks on Iran. In short, we are currently witnessing a climate of fear, characterised by threats to the press, wiretaps, prosecution of leakers, and so on.
    So, while McCarthy’s victims were blacklisted in the 1950′s, Obama’s face years of imprisonment.
    C. Media collusion: the ‘guilty’
    Now, it would have been interesting to provide here a list of the many newspapers and TV channels around the world that have published or aired material sourced by Bradley Manning, then retailed by Wikileaks. But it’s not possible. Why?
    Because there are literally thousands of articles published in hundreds of newspapers and many documentaries aired in scores of TV channels, over the last three years and more, using this information either directly or indirectly. All these newspapers and TV channels may well be, according to the United States Government, guilty of ‘Aiding the Enemy’.
    The newspapers listed below saw huge sales as a result of publishing the information sourced by Bradley Manning. But will they buckle under, do as they’re told and hope all this is nothing but a passing phase? Or will they recognise, finally, that the assault on Manning (and Wikileaks) is but one stage in a process that may see the world’s press neutered and the precious freedom they boast become nothing but a sham? The mainstream media, consequently, are at crossroads: either they come to the aid of Manning and Hammond, or they lose whatever integrity they may claim.
    Here, we publish links to just one story, out of the hundreds, for five major news outlets that have used information directly sourced by Manning:
    A. The Guardian
    B. The New York Times
    C. Der Spiegel
    D. Bureau of Investigative Journalism
    E. BBC
    D. And the same, too, with Jeremy Hammond
    The same media treachery applies to the Jeremy Hammond case. Hammond is nothing more than a political prisoner and his release of information pertaining to the private espionage firm, Stratfor, led to major changes, such as the Arab Spring, that in turn helped make the world a freer place. Interestingly, on May 14, three British Internet activists received prison sentences of two years to 32 months for their involvement in LulzSec leaks. All three are likely to be released on parole after serving half of their sentences. A fourth is free on a suspended sentence, as are two Irish men whom prosecutors declined to charge. It is the hope of Hammond’s supporters that he be released with the 15 months he has also spent in prison on remand being deemed an appropriate sentence. Though the wider argument, of course, is that he should never have been arrested in the first place, for his actions were but a 21st century version of investigative journalism. That many of those 30 or so media outlets that published the information Hammond obtained from Stratfor are not now rushing to his aid, is a sad indictment of their moral vacuity.
    E. Summary
    Mainstream media collaborated in the publication of material provided by both Manning and Hammond, so benefiting via sales and kudos. The fate of both may now depend on the intervention or otherwise of the world’s press, which should, like both men, refuse to be bullied and, given the context above, demand their release.
  32. The Wrong Guy Member

    Manning's Attorney Thanks Supporters - The Associated Press


    David Coombs issued a brief statement on his website Sunday. It reads, in part, "On behalf of both myself and Pfc. Manning, I would like to thank everyone for their continued support over the last three years." He also thanks supporters for raising money and awareness of the case.

    Coombs has issued few public statements during the Manning case.
    • Like Like x 2
  33. The Wrong Guy Member

    Bradley Manning and the real war on leaks | The Great Debate | Reuters

    By Ari Melber


    A few months ago, it may have sounded like a leap to say the case against Manning risks criminalizing the core work of journalists. Now, we know the Justice Department says so directly, fingering Fox reporter James Rosen as an “abettor” or “co-conspirator” to criminal leaks in recent court papers.

    Desperate charges may stem from desperate times. The administration has clearly struggled to identify the leakers in the Fox and A.P. investigations, and it struggled to exert much influence on leaks when Wikileaks’ released the State Department cables. While traditional news publishers have collaborated with the government on disclosures, even altering and delaying articles, the government found that with Wikileaks, there was no one sitting on the other side of the table.

    That unusually powerful publishing model has been met with a ferocious response – disabling Wikileaks’ servers and payment processing where possible, ratcheting up investigations and potential charges against traditional journalists, and apparently aiming to make a severe example out of Manning, who could become the first American effectively convicted of information-terrorism.

    The courts will decide if all this is legal. But as the evidence piles up, it is increasingly clear that the administration is overdoing it.

    This is not about advocating blanket amnesty for national security leaks. But the government is losing sight of its constitutional boundaries when it treats reporting as criminal and leaking as treason.
    • Like Like x 2
  34. Anonymous Member

    Wikileaks contacted the US State Department requesting their assistance with redactions. The US State Department refused, so claiming there was 'no one sitting on the other side of the table' is false. It just goes to show that if you continue to repeat a lie often enough people will believe it to be true....
    • Like Like x 3
  35. The Wrong Guy Member

    Bradley Manning court-martial opens - The Washington Post

    U.S. says actions of WikiLeaks soldier show 'arrogance' - Reuters,0,2496856.story

    Media push for transcripts for Manning trial - POLITICO


    On Monday, more than 20 media organizations wrote a letter to the U.S. military court requesting that stenographers be given access to the trial so as to provide a comprehensive transcript of the proceedings. Seventy news organizations have been given press credentials, but the government has refused their requests to release official transcripts.

    "If [the stenographers] are denied, over 280 of our colleagues who applied for credentials will not be able to report on the trial, and the public, which is closely watching this case, will be less able to understand the process and decisions made by this court," the co-signers wrote.
    • Like Like x 2
  36. Anonymous Member

    Chilling, it keeps getting more chilling.
    • Like Like x 1
  37. The Wrong Guy Member

    Questions, answers about Manning's WikiLeaks trial - The Associated Press

    Prosecutor: Manning let secrets into enemy hands - The Associated Press

    Bradley Manning: What we'll learn from Wikileaks trial - BBC News
    • Like Like x 4
  38. The Wrong Guy Member

    • Like Like x 2
  39. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 3
  40. The Wrong Guy Member

    • Like Like x 2

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


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

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins