| Subject: Bradley Manning’s court martial begins//True American Patriot |
| From: "Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <garymatalucci@gmail.com> |
| Date: 09/06/2013, 06:11 |
| Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.alien.research,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.astronomy,alt.conspiracy |
Bradley Manning’s court martial begins
After 1,100 days in prison, Army private Bradley Manning faced a
military court martial Monday. Day one of the trial, like the months’
long series of pre-trial hearings before it, was characterized by
government secrecy, vindictiveness and lies. Manning, accused of
leaking some 700,000 military and diplomatic files to whistleblower
organization WikiLeaks, faces a possible life sentence if convicted on
20 charges, the most serious of which is “aiding the enemy” under the
Espionage Act. The Obama administration prosecutors argue that Manning
knowingly provided intelligence information to al Qaeda because
anyone, including terrorists, could access it on the WikiLeaks web
site.
In a statement before military judge Colonel Denise Lind in February,
Manning explained that he transmitted the material in order to expose
the crimes of the US government and military being carried out in the
name of the American people. His aim, he said, was to spark “worldwide
discussion, debates, and reforms.”
Lind ruled that the questions of motive or conscience were irrelevant
to the case, stripping the 25-year-old soldier of the ability to mount
a whistleblower defense, and ruling inadmissible any discussion of the
content of the leaked material. Manning offered to plead guilty on
several charges in order to reduce the possible sentence. The Obama
administration rejected the possibility of a plea deal, seeking to
secure the maximum possible sentence.
Manning’s is the most prominent case of a systematic attack on
whistleblowers by the Obama administration, which has prosecuted more
individuals under the Espionage Act than all other administrations in
US history combined. Over the course of his three-year-long ordeal,
Manning has been subjected to conditions tantamount to torture,
including being held in solitary confinement 23 hours a day for months
at a time, forced nudity and sleep deprivation.
The government intends to make an example of Manning for other would-
be leakers. The case likewise sets a dangerous precedent for
journalists, Internet sites and all those who access information the
government considers sensitive or detrimental to its “interests.”
The implications of the arguments advanced in the prosecution of
Manning were indicated in the revelation earlier this month that the
Obama administration had alleged criminal activity on the part of a
Fox New reporter for arranging to obtain classified information from a
government informant—a basic element of newsgathering. The
administration is seeking to criminalize media activity that exposes
secret government activities, part of a broader criminalization of
political dissent.
Even as Manning is prosecuted to the fullest extent for seeking to
reveal war crimes, those whose criminality were exposed in the leaked
material not only remain free, but are being actively protected by the
Obama administration.
A Kafkaesque atmosphere surrounds the proceedings. Much of the trial,
scheduled over the next three months at Fort Meade, Maryland, will be
held behind closed doors. Military prosecutors intend to present a
large amount of classified material as evidence and will call on 24
witnesses who will testify anonymously, in disguise, within only
limited view of the public and the press.
Lind argued that the extraordinary arrangements were necessary to
prevent “spillage of classified information”; reportedly, several of
the secret witnesses were members of the Navy Seals team that
assassinated Osama bin Laden in 2011. The defense team will not be
allowed to cross-examine the secret witnesses on anything involving
the Abbottabad raid or their personal backgrounds. Lind ruled that
documents published on WikiLeaks must remain classified and cannot be
mentioned in open court.
The Center for Constitutional Rights has pointed out that Manning’s
legal hearings have been “more restrictive than military tribunals at
Guantanamo Bay.” At least 30,000 documents have been produced over the
past three years in relation to the case, very little of it
unclassified. This unprecedented censorship exposes the entire process
as an anti-democratic frame-up. It suggests a great nervousness on the
part of the political and military establishment over the growing
opposition to American imperialism.
Only 16 seats are available for the public to attend in the courtroom;
a trailer on the base has 35 additional seats for public viewing of a
video feed. Only 10 credentialed media personnel are allowed in.
The Washington Post noted that the courtroom was packed on Monday,
with several of Manning’s relatives in attendance. Supporters of the
whistleblower have held rallies outside the gates of the base for the
past few days.
On Monday, lead prosecutor Captain Joe Morrow delivered an hour-long
opening argument in which he laid out new allegations, including that
Manning was taking direction from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
WikiLeaks has never acknowledged or denied that Manning contacted the
organization at all. Morrow’s assertions were predicated on a blatant
attempt at character assassination. He told the court that Manning was
driven to “gain the notoriety he craved.”
“If you had unprecedented access to classified networks 14 hours a day
7 days a week for 8 months, what would you do?” Morrow asked, quoting
a statement Manning made in a private chat later handed over to the
government by hacker-turned-informant Adrian Lamo.
Morrow declared, “This is not a case about a government official
making discreet disclosures. This is a case about a soldier who
harvested hundreds of thousands of documents and dumped them on the
Internet where they would be available to the enemy.” The prosecutor
added that it was about “what happens when arrogance meets access to
information.”
Manning, he said, knew there was a “great value to our adversaries and
in particular our enemies.” Morrow concluded his remarks with a
reference to Osama bin Laden, who the government claims had digital
copies of some material publicly available on WikiLeaks.
David Coombs, Manning’s civilian defense lawyer, opened by describing
an incident in Iraq on December 24, 2009. A US military convoy,
traveling along a roadway, forced a vehicle carrying five civilians
onto the side of the road. They struck a roadside bomb.
At Forward Operating Base Hammer, where Manning was stationed, he and
other intelligence officers watched the event unfold. The other
soldiers erupted in cheers because the US forces were unhurt, Coombs
said. Manning was disturbed. “He couldn’t forget about the life that
was lost on that day. He couldn’t forget about the lives and that
family that was lost on that Christmas Eve.”
Coombs explained that the young private struggled over a sense of
moral obligation, leading him to decide he “needed to do something to
make a difference in the world. He needed to do something to help
improve what he was seeing.”
In releasing the Iraq War Logs, which documented many similar
atrocities, and the “Collateral Murder” video of a helicopter gunship
attack on civilians and journalists, Coombs argued that Manning
thought “the American people should know what is happening on a day-to-
day basis… When he decided to release this information, he believed
this information showed how we value human life. He was troubled by it
and he believed if the American public saw it they too would be
troubled by it and maybe things might change.”
http://wsws.org/en/articles/2013/06/04/mann-j04.html