Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
I don't see how Bradley Manning is going to get a fair sentence.
It seems the judge has been offered a promotion when this is over. From July 29, 2013 Democracy Now! broadcast:
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/7/29/bradley_manning_awaits_verdict_after_trial
<snip>
AMY GOODMAN: And, Alexa, the ability to get information out—I mean, what you started doing in this trial, for people to understand how closely held the information was, that you were the one providing the public with transcripts at the beginning. Explain why the court wasn’t doing this.
ALEXA O’BRIEN: The court—this is a military court-martial. And Judge Colonel Denise Lind believed—it was her contention—and Mr. Ratner and CCR, you know, filed suit in respect to this—she felt that there was no legal—First Amendment legal precedent for public access to the court documents. So what she would do is read these really long, mile-a-minute recitations of the motions into the court record and then deprive us of a media operations center, so that we had to actually scribble these things down in our notebooks.
And we’re not talking about just merely the trial of Bradley Manning, as important as it is. We’re talking about setting legal precedent for the future of national security reporting and also whistleblowers—and also, really, even beyond that, just simply people using the Internet, communicating in legally protected speech, First Amendment rights, because the government is asserting in this case that, essentially, the enemy uses the Internet, and so if you publish intelligence or you aid the enemy with whatever is classified as intelligence, which in this case only has to be true and useful to the enemy—that’s the definition; it doesn’t have anything to do with classified information—that you could be brought up on the charge of aiding the enemy. So, it’s very important that we—we should have had access to these public records. And I think it tells you—it leans more towards a long record of Colonel Denise Lind being deferential to the government, the prosecution, and doing whatever she can to help them manage this trial and the public perception about it.
AMY GOODMAN: Michael Ratner, actually, Denise Lind, the judge, is going to move out of her position after this, isn’t she?
MICHAEL RATNER: Yeah, she’s been given, apparently, from a Washington Post report, a appellate judge job, the higher court, which I found pretty extraordinary. I don’t know whether it’s—I don’t think it’s necessarily illegal, but it does—it’s interesting to me that she’s going upstairs during the very trial that’s going on, and given that promotion. And it reminded me when the Ellsberg judge, the judge in Daniel Ellsberg’s case, the federal judge, during Ellsberg’s trial on espionage was offered to be the head of the FBI, secretly, by the Nixon administration. And, of course, there was a huge stink. I don’t see any stink so far in any of the media about the fact that Denise Lind, the judge, is being offered to a higher position. And then, think about the higher position. She’s sitting up there on the court when the Bradley Manning conviction is going to be, assuming there’s—well, there’s a conviction because he’s already pleaded to 10 counts—is going to be reviewed. She won’t sit on it, but her fellow judges are going to be sitting there, and are they going to want to reverse one of their fellow judges? So, it—basically, it stinks, Amy. <snip>
ALEXA O’BRIEN: The court—this is a military court-martial. And Judge Colonel Denise Lind believed—it was her contention—and Mr. Ratner and CCR, you know, filed suit in respect to this—she felt that there was no legal—First Amendment legal precedent for public access to the court documents. So what she would do is read these really long, mile-a-minute recitations of the motions into the court record and then deprive us of a media operations center, so that we had to actually scribble these things down in our notebooks.
And we’re not talking about just merely the trial of Bradley Manning, as important as it is. We’re talking about setting legal precedent for the future of national security reporting and also whistleblowers—and also, really, even beyond that, just simply people using the Internet, communicating in legally protected speech, First Amendment rights, because the government is asserting in this case that, essentially, the enemy uses the Internet, and so if you publish intelligence or you aid the enemy with whatever is classified as intelligence, which in this case only has to be true and useful to the enemy—that’s the definition; it doesn’t have anything to do with classified information—that you could be brought up on the charge of aiding the enemy. So, it’s very important that we—we should have had access to these public records. And I think it tells you—it leans more towards a long record of Colonel Denise Lind being deferential to the government, the prosecution, and doing whatever she can to help them manage this trial and the public perception about it.
AMY GOODMAN: Michael Ratner, actually, Denise Lind, the judge, is going to move out of her position after this, isn’t she?
MICHAEL RATNER: Yeah, she’s been given, apparently, from a Washington Post report, a appellate judge job, the higher court, which I found pretty extraordinary. I don’t know whether it’s—I don’t think it’s necessarily illegal, but it does—it’s interesting to me that she’s going upstairs during the very trial that’s going on, and given that promotion. And it reminded me when the Ellsberg judge, the judge in Daniel Ellsberg’s case, the federal judge, during Ellsberg’s trial on espionage was offered to be the head of the FBI, secretly, by the Nixon administration. And, of course, there was a huge stink. I don’t see any stink so far in any of the media about the fact that Denise Lind, the judge, is being offered to a higher position. And then, think about the higher position. She’s sitting up there on the court when the Bradley Manning conviction is going to be, assuming there’s—well, there’s a conviction because he’s already pleaded to 10 counts—is going to be reviewed. She won’t sit on it, but her fellow judges are going to be sitting there, and are they going to want to reverse one of their fellow judges? So, it—basically, it stinks, Amy. <snip>
The whole transcript is an interesting read about what is happening in the court room.
You can also watch the show online at the website:
http://www.democracynow.org/
18 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
We all know it wouldn't have made any difference because as the Obama administration so eloquently put it years ago "Fuck Bradley Manning", but at least it would have been a better charade.
I know it's not over for Bradley because the real fight will be during the sentencing phase but today I just want to cry. I'm going to take a break for a few hours, get some sun gardening, clean the house with music on, hug the dogs... so I can take a break from screaming just to cry. We are so screwed. I hope they never ever get their hands on Edward Snowden. What a bunch of evildoers. What was the max sentence for the little peons they threw to the wolves in their offhand token gesture for TORTURE at Abu-Ghraib? 10 years with like a total of 6 served for one, a few months for the others while the real war criminals hire more servants to bring them breakfast in bed? What a travesty.
The whole distraction about the "aiding the enemy" charge is bullshit too. Here's some real "aiding the enemy" for that complicit judge and the buffoons who support these crimes. The buffoons who support these crimes are my real enemies, not innocent people halfway around the world whose accident of birth inconveniences someone's profit plan.
Aiding the enemy? ‘US won’t stop paying Afghan contractors with militant links’
Published time: July 30, 2013 14:16
Charbagh village in Nangarhar province, Afghanistan (AFP Photo / Noorullah Shirzada)
The US Army won’t bar Afghan contractors aiding militants from receiving contracts for reconstructing the country, a watchdog said in a report detailing the waste of resources plaguing the effort. The military say the evidence is not conclusive.
John Sopko, the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR), voiced his concerns over the military’s reluctance over the issue in Monday’s quarterly report. He said the US Army would not bar 43 individuals and companies from receiving contracts "despite detailed supporting information demonstrating that these individuals and entities are providing material support to the insurgency in Afghanistan."
"I am deeply troubled that the US military can pursue, attack and even kill terrorists and their supporters, but that some in the US government believe we cannot prevent these same people from receiving a government contract," Sopko wrote.
"In other words, they may be enemies of the United States, but that is not enough to keep them from getting government contracts," the report said.
The Army said SIGAR evidence were partially based on anonymous sources and was not sufficient to bar the contractors.
...
http://rt.com/usa/afghanistan-sigar-report-waste-795/
Published time: July 30, 2013 14:16
Charbagh village in Nangarhar province, Afghanistan (AFP Photo / Noorullah Shirzada)
The US Army won’t bar Afghan contractors aiding militants from receiving contracts for reconstructing the country, a watchdog said in a report detailing the waste of resources plaguing the effort. The military say the evidence is not conclusive.
John Sopko, the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR), voiced his concerns over the military’s reluctance over the issue in Monday’s quarterly report. He said the US Army would not bar 43 individuals and companies from receiving contracts "despite detailed supporting information demonstrating that these individuals and entities are providing material support to the insurgency in Afghanistan."
"I am deeply troubled that the US military can pursue, attack and even kill terrorists and their supporters, but that some in the US government believe we cannot prevent these same people from receiving a government contract," Sopko wrote.
"In other words, they may be enemies of the United States, but that is not enough to keep them from getting government contracts," the report said.
The Army said SIGAR evidence were partially based on anonymous sources and was not sufficient to bar the contractors.
...
http://rt.com/usa/afghanistan-sigar-report-waste-795/
It's not at all that I believe those people are my enemy. They're not. What did they ever do to me? Nothing. They just had the misfortune of being in the way of our sick need to capture the word's oil supply so we can stomp on the whole world shouting "USA! USA!".
Matt Damon got it totally right
Here's Amnesty's weak press release about the original point of this post, the 'public interest' defense that Bradley Manning wasn't allowed to use.
Press Release
June 3, 2013
USA Must Allow Bradley Manning to Use 'Public Interest' Defense
Explaining Motive Only at Sentencing Stage "Could Have a Chilling Effect"
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) - Bradley Manning must be allowed to argue that he acted in the public interest when he distributed information to Wikileaks, Amnesty International said today as the trial against the U.S. soldier began in the state of Maryland.
Manning faces multiple charges, including "aiding the enemy," in relation to obtaining and distributing thousands of classified documents to unauthorized parties. The charge of aiding the enemy carries a potential death sentence, although the prosecution has said it would not seek this in his case. Instead, Manning faces a possible life sentence or decades in prison.
"The court must allow Manning to explain in full his motives for releasing the information to Wikileaks," said Anne FitzGerald, director of research and crisis response at Amnesty International. "It disturbing that he was not permitted to offer the 'public interest' defense as he has said he reasonably believed he was exposing human rights and humanitarian law violations."
"Allowing Manning to explain his motives only at the sentencing stage could have a chilling effect on others who believe that they are whistle-blowing, or acting in the public interest in disclosing information. Manning should have been allowed to explain how, in his opinion, the public interest in being made aware of the information he disclosed outweighed the government’s interest in keeping it confidential."
Manning has already pleaded guilty to 11 of the charges after presiding Judge Col. Denise Lind ruled that he could not argue that he was acting in the public interest when he released information to Wikileaks. At the start of his trial, in a statement read to the Court, Manning stated that he believed he was exposing abuses. Judge Lind ruled that Manning's motives for disclosure were not relevant to whether he had intentionally broken the law, but could only be considered in mitigation for purposes of sentencing. Manning could be sentenced to a maximum of 20 years for the 11 charges for which he has pleaded guilty.
Bradley Manning was arrested in May 2010 while stationed with the U.S. army in Iraq and has been held in military custody since then. Information released by Manning included a video of a 2007 Apache helicopter attack in Baghdad in which U.S. soldiers killed 12 people, including civilians, and which hadn’t been in the public domain until then. Although a U.S. military internal inquiry on the incident concluded that the soldiers had acted appropriately, there has been no independent and impartial investigation into the attack.
Amnesty International will continue to follow the case closely and will send an observer at key points of the trial, which is expected to run for the next several months.
Amnesty International is a Nobel Peace Prize-winning grassroots activist organization with more than 3 million supporters, activists and volunteers in more than 150 countries campaigning for human rights worldwide. The organization investigates and exposes abuses, educates and mobilizes the public, and works to protect people wherever justice, freedom, truth and dignity are denied.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press-releases/usa-must-allow-bradley-manning-to-use-public-interest-defense
June 3, 2013
USA Must Allow Bradley Manning to Use 'Public Interest' Defense
Explaining Motive Only at Sentencing Stage "Could Have a Chilling Effect"
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) - Bradley Manning must be allowed to argue that he acted in the public interest when he distributed information to Wikileaks, Amnesty International said today as the trial against the U.S. soldier began in the state of Maryland.
Manning faces multiple charges, including "aiding the enemy," in relation to obtaining and distributing thousands of classified documents to unauthorized parties. The charge of aiding the enemy carries a potential death sentence, although the prosecution has said it would not seek this in his case. Instead, Manning faces a possible life sentence or decades in prison.
"The court must allow Manning to explain in full his motives for releasing the information to Wikileaks," said Anne FitzGerald, director of research and crisis response at Amnesty International. "It disturbing that he was not permitted to offer the 'public interest' defense as he has said he reasonably believed he was exposing human rights and humanitarian law violations."
"Allowing Manning to explain his motives only at the sentencing stage could have a chilling effect on others who believe that they are whistle-blowing, or acting in the public interest in disclosing information. Manning should have been allowed to explain how, in his opinion, the public interest in being made aware of the information he disclosed outweighed the government’s interest in keeping it confidential."
Manning has already pleaded guilty to 11 of the charges after presiding Judge Col. Denise Lind ruled that he could not argue that he was acting in the public interest when he released information to Wikileaks. At the start of his trial, in a statement read to the Court, Manning stated that he believed he was exposing abuses. Judge Lind ruled that Manning's motives for disclosure were not relevant to whether he had intentionally broken the law, but could only be considered in mitigation for purposes of sentencing. Manning could be sentenced to a maximum of 20 years for the 11 charges for which he has pleaded guilty.
Bradley Manning was arrested in May 2010 while stationed with the U.S. army in Iraq and has been held in military custody since then. Information released by Manning included a video of a 2007 Apache helicopter attack in Baghdad in which U.S. soldiers killed 12 people, including civilians, and which hadn’t been in the public domain until then. Although a U.S. military internal inquiry on the incident concluded that the soldiers had acted appropriately, there has been no independent and impartial investigation into the attack.
Amnesty International will continue to follow the case closely and will send an observer at key points of the trial, which is expected to run for the next several months.
Amnesty International is a Nobel Peace Prize-winning grassroots activist organization with more than 3 million supporters, activists and volunteers in more than 150 countries campaigning for human rights worldwide. The organization investigates and exposes abuses, educates and mobilizes the public, and works to protect people wherever justice, freedom, truth and dignity are denied.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press-releases/usa-must-allow-bradley-manning-to-use-public-interest-defense
