Chelsea Manning Thread

[Plutonia]

Alexa O'Brian is assembling an encyclopedic data-set about the Bradley Manning prosecution.

Here's the intro and the players - go to the link for the timeline:

Timeline of United States investigation and case(s) against Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, and WikiLeaks (Work in Progress)
By Alexa O'Brien on December 23, 2011 11:32 PM

Be back to work on this Friday EST 12/30/11, have some other responsibilities to tend.

I am constructing a time line of the US investigation(s) and case(s) against Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, and WikiLeaks based on news reports of official leaks, official documentation including charge sheets, and testimony in order to glean how they have built those cases.

This is a work in progress, and may contain errata and is incomplete. I have not even gotten to testimony from Pretrial. The aim is to get this done by January 16, when IO report due to convening authority Col. Carl R. Coffman, and publish on WL Central.

If you have any questions, comments, or corrections, please e-mail [email protected]. That e-mail is not secure.

List of US agents acting in a investigative or prosecutors manner:

White House tasked XXXXXXXXXX (See 5a of Manning Defense Request for Evidence) (See 5b of Manning Defense Request for Evidence)
Information Review Task Force (See 5b of Manning Defense Request for Evidence)
Department of Defense (See 5b of Manning Defense Request for Evidence)
Department of State (See 5c and 5e of Manning Defense Request for Evidence)
Defense Intelligence Agency (See 5c of Manning Defense Request for Evidence)
Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive (See 5c of Manning Defense Request for Evidence)
XXXXXXXXXX (See 5c of Manning Defense Request for Evidence)
Department of Justice (See 5d of Manning Defense Request for Evidence)
6 US attorneys at the secret grand jury in Alexandria, VA (See David House, democracynow.org)
Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Joseph Lieberman
Jack Lew, Chairman of the Office of Budget and Management
Office of Budget and Management
Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Secretary of the Army's 15-6 Investigation
Joint investigation team of :
CID,
Department of State (DOS) Diplomatic Security Service,
and the FBI.

According to the defense witness list (PDF) a "joint investigation by CID and the Department of State (DOS) Diplomatic Security Service (DSS). Under the cooperative investigation agreement, CID is the lead investigative agency with primary responsibility for coordinating all leads affecting the U.S. Army, and DSS has responsibility for leads involving the DOS. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) later joined as a joint partner in the investigation with responsibility for providing counterespionage expertise, investigative support, and as the lead agency for all civilian related leads." (Source: Defense Article 32 Witness List)

CID

According to their web site "CID is to investigate and deter serious crimes in which the Army has an interest. CID collects, analyzes, processes and disseminates criminal intelligence; conducts protective service operations; provides forensic laboratory support to all DoD investigative agencies, and maintains Army criminal records. CID also provides criminal investigative support to all U.S. Army elements and deploys on short notice in support of contingency operations worldwide."

Over 22 CID agents participated in the investigation of the alleged leak concerning US vs. PFC Bradley Manning. (Source: Defence Request to Compel the Production of the Witnesses)

CCIU

According to the CCIU web site "[P]primary mission is to conduct criminal investigations concerning intrusions into U.S. Army computer networks. Because investigations of this nature require a level of computer expertise not usually found in most CID Special Agents, CCIU personnel receive advanced computer training from the Defense Cyber Investigations Training Academy (DC3) Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and other technical experts."
Department of State (DOS) Diplomatic Security Service (DSS)

According to its Web site, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) Web site is the security and law enforcement arm of the U.S. Department of State....The Bureau of Diplomatic Security is responsible for providing a safe and secure environment for the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. Every diplomatic mission in the world operates under a security program designed and maintained by Diplomatic Security. In the United States, Diplomatic Security personnel protect the Secretary of State and high-ranking foreign dignitaries and officials visiting the United States, investigates passport and visa fraud, and conducts personnel security investigations. Operating from a global platform in 25 U.S. cities and 159 foreign countries, DS ensures that America can conduct diplomacy safely and securely. DS plays a vital role in protecting U.S. embassies and personnel overseas, securing critical information systems, investigating passport and visa fraud, and fighting the war on terror. "
FBI

According to their web site their mission is to "to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats and to enforce the criminal laws of the United States." Also, they "currently have jurisdiction over violations of more than 200 categories of federal law, within our three national security priorities" including terrorism, counterintelligence, cyber crime, and five criminal priorities, "public corruption, civil rights, organized crime, white collar crime, and violent crime and major thefts." (See also 5c of Manning Defense Request for Evidence)

Questions:

Who was on the 706 board?
Who conducted the Secretary of the Army's 15-6 investigation?
What are the specific investigation teams, arms, agencies? Aggregate a verified list.
Who was the subject of what adverse administrative or UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) actions based upon the 15-6 investigation conducted by XXXXXXXXXX or any other governmental investigation(s)?
Who did the government provide information about to defense regarding adverse administrative of UCMJ action(s) based upon the 15-6 investigation conducted by XXXXXXXXXX or any other governmental investigation(s)? Defense writes in its November 22, 2011 request for evidence that "[t]he previous request included, but was not limited to, the following individuals: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. The government has so far only provided information in relation to XXXXXXXXXX"?
Who was tasked by the White House to lead a comprehensive effort to review the alleged leaks in this case? He "completed a report detailing the rather benign nature of the leaks and the lack of any real damage to national security. (See 5a of Manning Defense Request for Evidence)
What was the damage assessment of the WikiLeaks Task Force? (See 5b of Manning Defense Request for Evidence)
What was the damage assessment of the Information Review Task Force? (See 5b of Manning Defense Request for Evidence)
Who completed the Original Classification Authority's (OCA) classification review? His determination is at odds with the damage assessment completed by the WikiLeaks Task Force and by the Information Review Task Force. What was his determination, was it directly related to the case? (See 5b of Manning Defense Request for Evidence)
Who (plural) testified and what was the testimony of each of the representatives from the OCA for the charge documents in this case? (See 5c of Manning Defense Request for Evidence)
Defense writes regarding negative damage assessment of another review by XXXXXXXXXX at the discretion of XXXXXXXXXX? Who is this and what what their assessment? (See 5b of Manning Defense Request for Evidence)
Who is "espousing an opinion which is inconsistent with the damage assessment by the government"? (See 5b and e of Manning Defense Request for Evidence)
Who directed the Defense Intelligence Agency to lead a comprehensive review of the documents allegedly given to WikiLeaks and to coordinate under the Information Task Review Force (IRT, formerly TF 725) to conduct a complete damage review? "The results of this damage review undercut the testimony of each of the representatives from the OCA for the charge documents in this case. Specifically, the damage assessments concluded that all the information allegedly leaked was either dated, represented low-level opinions, or was commonly understood and known due to previous public disclosures."" (See 5c of Manning Defense Request for Evidence)
Who is the defense referring to in 8 of Request for Evidence? (See 8 and e of Manning Defense Request for Evidence)
Are all the defenses visits and meetings with Manning monitored or surveilled? (See 8 and e of Manning Defense Request for Evidence)
When did the FBI join the case, the date?
What date did the Iraqi flyer episode occur? (See Number 31 Defense Article 32 Witness List)
Who received adverse administrative actions related to alleged leak by PFC Manning?
Who are the 22 CID investigators related to US vs. PFC Bradley Manning? (Source: Defence Request to Compel the Production of the Witnesses)
Who is this agent? Perform process of elimination once all data input. One agent that the defense requested as a witness on Dec. 2, 2011 for Bradley Manning's Article 32 Pretrial Hearing was on the prosecution's original government witness list dated Jul 7, 2010. "The defense has requested the attendance of XXXXXXXXXX [See Defense's Dec. 2, 2011 Request for Witnesses (PDF)] in order to provide the Investigating Officer with testimony concerning the joint investigations being conducted by both the Department of State and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Notable XXXXXXXXXX was on the original government's witness list filed on 7 July 2010. According to the government's memo dated 7 December 2011, the other agents 'XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX can provide the needed testimony.' Their testimony, however, will in large part be hearsay evidence about what other agents have done on the case and what witnesses have told these other case agents..."(Source: Defence Request to Compel the Production of the Witnesses)
Who is h? h.)XXXXXXXXX: In the defense's witness request, it requested XXXXXXXX be made available. The relevancy of this witness should be obvious. Any agent testifying to the matters allegedly heard by XXXXXXXXX would only be testifying to hearseay. Given the potential impact of his testimony, XXXXXXXXX must be produced in order to provide for a thorough and impartial investogation. (Source: Defence Request to Compel the Production of the Witnesses)
Remember IO allowed one additional witness day of hearing...source from transcript Day 1.

http://www.alexaobrien.com/secondsight/ ... leaks.html

She deserves some kudos fersure - THANK-YOU ALEXA!!!!

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

And why would be be framed up for this?

Prolly to keyword hijack some bullshit.

Wasn't Hugh arguing previously that Manning didn't exist? This is progress.

Fuck no. Don't fucking lie about this subject. It is the death of the Enlightenment and millions of people.
I'm not taking it from superficial trolls for one second.

I wrote that Bradley Manning was cyber-framed Lee Harvey Oswald-style to displace the David Manning memo of March 2002.

Consider the stakes. Consider the clarity of evidence. Consider telling the damn truth about atrocity.

[crikkett]

My, you're feisty tonight.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

My, you're feisty tonight.

Obscuring a space-age Gestapo with lies pisses me off to the max.
Fascism uses logical, scientific, pragmatic manipulation techniques to exploit ignorance-fueled emotionalism and conditioning.

Just be logical about oppression and you can counter it.
(As I'm typing this National Propaganda Radio is doing an article about social manipulation in the workplace, co-opting a theme.)

[seemslikeadream]

Bradley Manning trial: US government ordered to release WikiLeaks damage assessments
The US government has been ordered to release its assessments on how much damage WikiLeaks' publication of secret files caused to US interests, after lawyers for Pfc Bradley Manning argued they were essential to his defence.

Bradley Manning faces charges over his alleged role in stealing more than half a million secret documents Photo: AP
By Raf Sanchez, Fort Meade, Maryland7:26PM BST 24 Apr 2012
Pfc Manning is in military court, where he is accused of smuggling thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks.
The website began publishing the military and diplomatic files last year, leaving the US government scrambling to figure out whether the leaks could harm American national security. At least three task forces – from the State Department, the CIA and the Pentagon – were formed to assess the damage and report back to the White House and other agencies.
Colonel Denise Lind, the military judge presiding over Pfc Manning's court-martial, ruled on Tuesday that the task forces' reports were "materially relevant" to his case and ordered the government to produce them.
It is not clear whether the task forces' assessments would be made available to the public or if they would be discussed in a secret hearing. The State Department has already said it will fight the court's decision and it is expected that the CIA and Pentagon will follow suit.
Pfc. Manning, 24, faces charges over his alleged role in stealing more than half a million secret documents from a secure military network and passing them to Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks. Among the most serious charges is one count of aiding the enemy, a crime that can lead to life imprisonment.
RELATED ARTICLES
Full court martial recommended for Wikileaks case 12 Jan 2012
Wikileaks suspect's Facebook rage 30 Jul 2010
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange denied full legal access to Manning trial 17 Dec 2011
Bradley Manning declines to plea 23 Feb 2012
David Coombes, Pfc. Manning's civilian defence lawyer, said prosecutors must prove that the leaks actually "caused harm" if they are to convict his client. While the government assessments remain classified, Mr Coombes cited media reports from last year where anonymous US authorities privately admitted that the WikiLeaks revelations had caused only "pockets" of short-term damage.
The reports directly contradicted the Obama administration's official position that the leaks had caused "substantial" damage and endangered the lives of American informants around the world.
In a densely legalistic hearing at the sprawling Fort Meade military complex in Maryland, Pfc. Manning's lawyers also demanded that government release video footage reportedly showing the soldier stripped naked and interrogated by Army authorities.
Following his arrest in Iraq in May 2010, Pfc. Manning spent eight months in solitary confinement at a military prison in Quantico, Virginia. Part of his defence strategy is to argue that this period represented "unlawful pretrial confinement" and his lawyers said the alleged incident from January 2011 supported their case.
Prosecutors insisted that there was no footage of the interrogation to hand over.
Mr Coombes is also trying to force the government to turn over documents from a grand jury convened in Virginia, reportedly to explore ways to prosecute Mr Assange under American espionage laws.
Pfc Manning, who wore a formal dress uniform during the hearing, dismissed two of the military lawyers assigned to his defence but offered no explanation why.
Major Matthew Kemkes and Captain Paul Bouchard had appeared at his side at a number of earlier hearings but the soldier told the judge that he wished to replace them Captain Joshua Toomes, another military attorney. Colonel Lind is expected to rule on Wednesday [WED] on a defence motion to have all 22 charges against Pfc. Manning dismissed on the grounds that the government had failed to hand over relevant evidence to the case.
The defendant has not yet entered a plea to the charges.

[8bitagent]

Snapped this image a few blocks from where I met some of the RI guys here for drinks last week

(the top part got cut off, but it says HERO)


It still angers me how apathetic(or even worse, anti Manning) so many mainline liberals are. As much as I criticize MSNBC, I do like how(least for awhile) they were really pushing the Manning issue. I still say they should strip warmonger Obama of that nobel and give it to Manning.

The fact Obama's goons have gone out of their way to punish him shows what a bunch of lowlife globalist crooks they are. Something the idiot racist right will never criticize them for

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

I've run into many people with 'support Bradley Manning'-type buttons.

Trying to explain to them why he was patsied leaves them just blinking....once the bone is thrown it's hard to recall it....

[8bitagent]

I've run into many people with 'support Bradley Manning'-type buttons.

Trying to explain to them why he was patsied leaves them just blinking....once the bone is thrown it's hard to recall it....

I'd be curious to hear your take.

I just assumed he was an earnest kid getting bullied for being gay, realized how corrupt the whole system is and wanted to expose some of the war crimes going on with the government eventually making an example out of him

[8bitagent]

Oh man you cant make this stuff. If this isnt a wake up call for the left to start actively opposing their precious "democratic" government I dont know what is.

US government now claiming PFC Bradley Manning Was Aiding al Qaeda
http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/0 ... wikileaks/

[seemslikeadream]

Evidence Shows Three-Star General Ordered Unlawful, Brutal Treatment Of PFC Bradley Manning
MONDAY, 13 AUGUST 2012 14:39

NEW YORK--(ENEWSPF)--August 13, 2012 - David Coombs, civilian legal counsel for accused WikiLeaks whistle-blower PFC Bradley Manning, has published the "Article 13" motion that in July he said would "shock the conscience of the court." This document not only reveals new details about PFC Manning's brutal conditions at the Quantico Marine Brig in Virginia, but the shocking revelation that a three-star General, far removed from the brig, ordered this illegal treatment. Coombs writes that new emails show two different brig commanders then carried out these unlawful orders in clear violation of Article 13 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice which prohibits pre-trial confinement conditions "any more rigorous" than the minimum needed to ensure the accused appears for court hearings. Mr. Coombs will argue this motion for dismissal of all charges, based on these military law violations at a critical October 1-5 pre-trial hearing at Fort Meade, Maryland.

Mr. Coombs has detailed how these newly uncovered emails "reveal that everyone at Quantico was complicit in the unlawful pretrial punishment, from senior officers to enlisted soldier." Continuing the pattern of abusing PFC Manning's right to due process, the prosecution withheld these emails for six full months. They were finally turned over to the defense only hours before Mr. Coombs planned to file the court motion regarding this issue. PFC Manning was forced to remain in solitary confinement for more than 23 hours per day, with 20 minutes of exercise during which time his hands and feet were shackled with metal restraints. Military officials uniformly declared that PFC Manning was placed on this special "prevention of injury" watch for his own good-despite nine straight months of Brig psychiatrists' evaluations that declared the treatment unjustified.

"These emails now make all previous assertions by Quantico and Pentagon officials that they were simply following procedures to keep Manning safe patently ridiculous," noted attorney Kevin Zeese, of the Bradley Manning Support Network.

29-year military veteran US Army Colonel Ann Wright (ret.) declares:

"The revelation that a Lieutenant General would order the mistreatment of a fellow soldier in violation of the UCMJ leaves me aghast. This general, and those who obeyed his orders to mistreat whistle-blower Bradley Manning while he was held in pre-trial confinement, must be held accountable. If not, the entire military justice system fails all members of the military."

Jeff Paterson, of the Bradley Manning Support Network, notes, "It would take a military judge of extraordinary character to do the right thing under military law and toss this case. For the first time, however, there is real hope that justice may be served, and the charges against Bradley dismissed."

With the financial support of nearly 13,000 supporters, the Bradley Manning Support Network continues to be responsible for 100% of PFC Manning's substantial legal defense expenses.

Mr. Coombs will argue this issue at Fort Meade October 1-5. Additionally, PFC Manning will appear in court before then on August 27-31. Members of the media should contact the Public Affairs Office at Fort Meade for information regarding accreditation.

[seemslikeadream]

Bradley Manning awarded sentencing credit by judge

By JOSH GERSTEIN | 1/8/13 5:47 PM EST Updated: 1/8/13 5:59 PM EST
FORT MEADE, Md. — The military illegally punished alleged WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning by keeping him in stricter conditions than were necessary during much of the nearly nine months he spent in a Marine Corps brig, a military judge ruled Tuesday.

Army Col. Denise Lind granted the Army private nearly four months credit off any sentence he may receive for allegedly sending hundreds of thousands of military reports and diplomatic cables to the pro-transparency organization.

The decision is a significant victory for Manning’s defense and a vindication for human rights groups that complained that the intelligence analyst was being treated unfairly. The ruling also runs counter to President Barack Obama’s statement at a March 2011 news conference that Manning’s treatment at the brig was “appropriate.”

However, with Manning facing the possibility of up to life in prison if convicted, the practical effect of the 112-day “sentencing credit” is limited.

Lind calculated most of the credit based on three periods when Manning was held on “suicide risk” or “prevention of injury” watch after psychiatrists opined that such treatment was not necessary. The judge ruled that it was “excessive” to keep him on that status, which required frequent checks by guards, limits to his clothing, and sometimes led to him sleeping wearing nothing but an anti-suicide blanket.

“At some point, continuing POI [prevention of injury watch] of the recommendations over mental health professionals becomes excessive, absent a change in circumstances,” Lind said in her lengthy ruling which she read from the bench Tuesday afternoon. She called her decision to award one 20-day credit “a very close call.”

Lind also gave Manning 10 days credit for being denied the customary one hour of exercise time during a four and a half month period. In that window, he usually got a 20-minute “sunshine call” where he could not exercise vigorously because his restraints were not removed.

Prosecutors had essentially agreed that Manning was entitled to a seven-day credit because Quantico officials violated Navy procedures by not immediately removing him from the strictest status he was on, “suicide risk,” after psychiatrists called for him to be downgraded.

Manning spent a total of nearly nine months at the Quantico brig before being transferred to a larger military detention facility at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas in April 2011. At the time, Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson said the soldier’s treatment “was in compliance with legal and regulatory standards in all respects.”

Lind found no improper motive on the part of the Marine Corps jailers or others in the chain of command, who she said were motivated by genuine desire to ensure Manning’s safety given his history of mental health issues and indications he was suicidal for a time. “There was no intent to punish the accused by anyone on the Marine Corps brig staff” or other officials, she said.
However, she found mistrust and a lack of communication between brig personnel and mental health professionals led to psychiatrists’ recommendations’ being largely ignored. The suicide of a Marine Corps captain at the Quantico brig in January 2010 led to “caution, even overcaution,” the judge ruled.
Continue Reading
Text Size
-+reset
While critics accused the military of keeping Manning in “solitary confinement,” Lind insisted that was not the case.
“Solitary confinement means alone, without human contact,” she said. “He had daily human contact.”
The defense had sought 10-to-1 credit — more than seven years — for the time Manning spent at Quantico.
The judge’s ruling followed about two weeks of hearings late last year, where she heard from brig personnel, commanders and Manning himself about the conditions he faced at Quantico.
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits pre-trial punishment. In addition, a provision of military law bars use of confinement conditions ” more rigorous than the circumstances required to insure [a defendant’s] presence” at trial.
If convicted on the most serious charge he faces, aiding the enemy, Manning faces a potential sentence of up to life in prison. Other charges, such as violating the Espionage Act and theft of government property, could put Manning in jail for dozens of years.
It’s unclear how the sentence credit would be awarded if Manning were sentenced to life behind bars.
Manning has waived his right to the military equivalent of a jury and has agreed to be tried by the judge alone. No formal trial date has been set, but more pretrial hearings are expected this month and next.
Lind spent more than an hour and 45 minutes Tuesday reading her decision in the courtroom. A live reading of an opinion of that length is largely unheard of in civilian courts. Such a procedure is largely unheard of in civilian courts.
However, the Defense Department has refused to release written copies of the judge’s rulings, legal filings or transcripts of the court martial proceedings and Lind has said she does not have the authority to do so. Reading the decision aloud was the only way for the judge to effectively get her full rationale into the public domain.
The military’s highest appeals court is considering a legal challenge to the secrecy surrounding the court records. Such records are routinely available to the public in state and federal civilian courts.

[8bitagent]

I saw a new documentary narrated by Kevin Spacey called "Hackers Wanted", which mostly seems to focus on Adrian Lamo and paints him as some sort of hero. (It also has a very pro war on terror vibe)
Adrian Lamo,,,good lord. This guy claims to be against the US government, claims to have hacked the Pentagon. Then WHAT does he do? Acts as an FBI informant in concert with Drone company Wired
to lure and snitch out Bradley Manning who looks like he'll die in prison for exposing US war crimes. Despicable

(Yes, the head of Wired is involved in drone companies and is a big supporter of military drones)

[seemslikeadream]

Bradley Manning pleads guilty to leaking secret government documents


By Richard A. Serrano
February 28, 2013, 8:01 a.m.
FT. MEADE, Md. – Army Pfc. Bradley Edward Manning pleaded guilty Thursday to 10 charges that he illegally acquired and transferred U.S. government secrets, agreeing to serve 20 years in prison for leaking classified material to WikiLeaks that described U.S. military and diplomatic efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the globe.

The 25-year-old soldier, however, pleaded not guilty to 12 more serious charges, including espionage for aiding the enemy, meaning that his criminal case will go forward at a general court-martial in June. If convicted at trial, he risks a sentence of life in prison at Ft. Leavenworth, Kan.

A small, thin soldier in Army blues and eyeglasses, Manning admitted that he leaked the video of a helicopter gun battle, State Department cables, an Army field manual and Army documents on Iraq and Afghanistan that detailed the military’s patrol reports there.

FULL COVERAGE: Bradley Manning's trial

He also admitted that he leaked confidential file assessments of detainees at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and five classified records from a U.S. bombing in the Farah Province of Afghanistan, which killed up to 30 civilians.

In all, the 5-1/2-year veteran once assigned to Operation Station Hammer near Baghdad in Iraq pleaded guilty to 10 counts, each drawing two years in prison.

Asked repeatedly by the judge, Army Col. Denise Lind, if he wanted to go forward with the guilty pleas, Manning answered each time with short, crisp words: “Yes, ma’am,” and “Yes, your honor.”

He was arrested in May 2010, and already has spent 1,007 days in jail.

[JackRiddler]

.

Poor bastard. He's facing another 17-18 years minimum, and that's only in the unlikely case they don't hang any of these treason-level charges on him. He's truly being crucified for our sins, or at any rate, the sins of precisely those doing the crucifying. Fuckers.

Guardian continues its Jekyll and Hyde on Wikileaks stories, today it's Jekyll and very good:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/fe ... imes/print


Bradley Manning steps out of a security vehicle as he is escorted into a courthouse for a pre-trial hearing in Fort Meade, Maryland. Manning is charged with aiding the enemy by causing hundreds of thousands of classified documents to be published on the secret-sharing website WikiLeaks. Bradley Manning said he only went to WikiLeaks after being rebuffed by US news organisations. Photograph: Patrick Semansky/AP

Manning says he first tried to leak to Washington Post and New York Times

Soldier reads 35-page personal statement revealing how he came to leak information to WikiLeaks after failing elsewhere

Ed Pilkington at Fort Meade
* guardian.co.uk, Thursday 28 February 2013 13.12 EST

Bradley Manning has revealed to his court-martial at Fort Meade, Maryland, that he tried to leak US state secrets to the Washington Post, New York Times and Politico before he turned in frustration to the new anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks.

The poor, poor bastard. Trying to pet two heads of the hydra, plus the minor viperish protuberance known as Politico. Politico?! Why not Salon, man? Ever heard of your best media ally Glenn Greenwald? Maybe not, of course, since they've got you totally bottled up.

Manning, the US solider accused of the biggest leak of state secrets in US history, read out a 35-page statement to the court that contained new detail on how he came to download and then transmit a massive trove of secrets to WikiLeaks. It contains the bombshell disclosure that he wanted to go to mainstream American media but found them impenetrable.

While he was on leave from Iraq and staying in the Washington area in January 2010 he contacted the Washington Post and asked would it be interested in receiving information that he said would be "enormously important to the American people". He spoke to a woman who said she was a reporter but "she didn't seem to take me seriously".

The woman said, according to Manning's account, that the paper would only be interested subject to vetting by senior editors.

Despairing of that route, Manning turned to the New York Times. He called the public editor of the paper but only got voicemail.

He then tried other numbers on the paper but also got put through to voicemail, and though he left a message with his Skype contact details, nobody called him back. Manning added he had also contemplated going to the website Politico, but harsh weather prevented him.

In Manning's statement, he provides a wealth of information about how he systematically downloaded and transmitted confidential information to WikiLeaks. That included the video of an Apache helicopter attack in Iraq – the so-called collateral murder video – as well as war logs and hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables.

Manning insisted that he believed that the cables would not harm US interests, though he suspected it would embarrass the US government by revealing behind the scenes deal-making.

He also gave insight into the ethical reasons that he had for making such an enormous breach of military orders. Referring to the war logs form Iraq and Afghanistan, he said he felt they would reveal the "true costs of war".

"I felt we were risking so much for people who seemed to be unwilling to cooperate with us leading to frustration and hostility on both sides. I began to get depressed about he situation we were mired in year after year.

"We were obsessed with capturing and killing human targets on lists and ignoring goals and missions. I believed if the public, particularly the American public, could see this it could spark a debate on the military and our foreign policy in general as it applied to Iraq and Afghanistan. It might cause society to reconsider the need to engage in counter terrorism while ignoring the human situation of the people we engaged with every day."

Manning also revealed that he had lengthy and prolonged discussions with a senior member of WikiLeaks codenamed Ox, whom he went on to name after an author of a book he had read in 2009: Nathaniel Frank. He said he assumed that "Nathaniel" was Julian Assange – whom Manning pronounced as Ass-angy.

Manning plea statement: Americans had a right to know 'true cost of war'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/fe ... ment/print

28 Feb 2013
After admitting guilt in 10 of 22 charges, soldier reveals how he came to share classified documents with WikiLeaks in 2010

28 Feb 2013
Bradley Manning pleads guilty to 10 charges but denies 'aiding the enemy'

28 Feb 2013
Bradley Manning enters plea: live tweets from hearing at Fort Meade

28 Feb 2013
Bradley Manning gives evidence to court martial: 10 things to look out for
Bradley Manning trial: US government to call 141 witnesses for prosecution

27 Feb 2013
Sensitive witnesses to testify behind closed doors about harm to US from WikiLeaks as Manning denied right to present evidence that the US government is guilty of excessive secrecy

* © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

Your IP address will be logged
Short link for this page: http://gu.com/p/3e5zc

Manning says he first tried to leak to Washington Post and New York Times
This article was published on guardian.co.uk at 13.12 EST on Thursday 28 February 2013. It was last modified at 13.16 EST on Thursday 28 February 2013.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/fe ... -statement


Manning's statement recounted how he had first become aware of WikiLeaks in 2009. Photograph: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images

Manning plea statement: Americans had a right to know 'true cost of war'

After admitting guilt in 10 of 22 charges, soldier reveals how he came to share classified documents with WikiLeaks and talks of 'bloodlust' of US helicopter crew

Bradley Manning, the solider accused of the biggest unauthorised disclosure of state secrets in US history, has admitted for the first time to being the source of the leak, telling a military court that he passed the information to a whistleblowing website because he believed the American people had a right to know the "true costs of war".

At a pre-trial hearing on a Maryland military base, Manning, 25, who faces spending the rest of his life in military custody, read out a 35-page statement in which he gave an impassioned account of his motives for transmitting classified documents and videos he had obtained while working as an intelligence analyst outside Baghdad.

Sitting at the defence bench in a hushed courtroom, Manning said he was sickened by the apparent "bloodlust" of a helicopter crew involved in an attack on a group in Baghdad that turned out to include Reuters correspondents and children.

He believed the Afghan and Iraq war logs published by the WikiLeaks website, initially in association with a consortium of international media organisations that included the Guardian, were "among the more significant documents of our time revealing the true costs of war". The decision to pass the classified information to a public website was motivated, he told the court, by his depression about the state of military conflict in which the US was mired.

Manning said: "We were obsessed with capturing and killing human targets on lists and ignoring goals and missions. I believed if the public, particularly the American public, could see this it could spark a debate on the military and our foreign policy in general [that] might cause society to reconsider the need to engage in counter-terrorism while ignoring the human situation of the people we engaged with every day."

In a highly unusual move for a defendant in such a serious criminal prosecution, Manning pleaded guilty to 10 lesser charges out of his own volition – not as part of a plea bargain with the prosecution. He admitted to having possessed and willfully communicated to an unauthorised person – probably Julian Assange – all the main elements of the WikiLeaks disclosure.

That covered the so-called "Collateral Murder" video of an Apache helicopter attack in Iraq; some US diplomatic cables including one of the early WikiLeaks publications the Reykjavik cable; portions of the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs; some of the files on detainees in Guantánamo; and two intelligence memos.

The charges to which the soldier pleaded guilty carry a two-year maximum sentence each, committing Manning to a possible upper limit of 20 years in military prison.

But the plea does not avoid a long and complex trial for the soldier, that is currently scheduled to begin on 3 June. Manning pleaded not guilty to 12 counts which relate to the major offences of which he is accused by the US government.

Specifically, he denied he had been involved in "aiding the enemy" – the idea that he knowingly gave help to al-Qaida and caused secret intelligence to be published on the internet, aware that by doing so it would become available to the enemy.

As he read his statement, Manning was flanked by his civilian lawyer, David Coombs, on one side and two military defence lawyers on the other. Wearing full uniform, the soldier read out the document at high speed, occasionally stumbling over the words and at other points laughing at his own comments.

He recounted how he had first become aware of WikiLeaks in 2009. He was particularly impressed by its release in November that year of more than 500,000 text messages sent on the day of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

He had originally copied the war logs as a good housekeeping measure to have quick access to the information. But the more he read into the data, he said, the more he was concerned about what it was uncovering.

He decided to take a copy of the data on a memory stick when he went back from Iraq to the US on leave in January 2010. There, having failed to interest the Washington Post and the New York Times in the stash of information, he turned to WikiLeaks.

On his return to Iraq, he encountered a video that showed an Apache helicopter attack from 2007 in which a group of people in Baghdad came under US fire. The group was later found to have included civilians, children and two Reuters correspondents who died.

Manning said he was "troubled" by the resistance of the military authorities to releasing the video to Reuters, and a claim from on high that it might not still exist. When he looked through the video on a secure military database he was also troubled by the attitude of the aerial weapons team in the Apache – "the bloodlust they seemed to have, they seemed not to value human life".

The soldier related that in the video a man who has been hit by the US forces is seen crawling injured through the dust, at which point one of the helicopter crew is heard wishing the man would pick up a weapon so that they could kill him. "For me that was like a child torturing an ant with a magnifying glass."

After he had uploaded the video to WikiLeaks, which then posted it as the now notorious "Collateral Murder" video, Manning said he was approached by a senior WikiLeaks figure codenamed "Ox". He assumed the individual was probably Julian Assange, and gave him his own codename – Nathaniel Frank – after the author of a book he had recently read.

Of the largest portion of the WikiLeaks disclosures – the 250,000 US diplomatic cables – Manning said he was convinced the documents form embassies around the world would embarrass but not damage the US. "I thought these cables were a prime example of the need for more diplomacy. In many ways they were a collection of cliques and gossip," he said.

© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

Your IP address will be logged
Short link for this page: http://gu.com/p/3e5qz

Manning plea statement: Americans had a right to know 'true cost of war'
This article was published on guardian.co.uk at 15.01 EST on Thursday 28 February 2013. It was last modified at 15.35 EST on Thursday 28 February 2013.

[JackRiddler]

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/3/12/b ... aked_court

Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Bradley Manning Speaks: In Leaked Court Recording, Army Whistleblower Tells His Story for First Time

A leaked audio recording has emerged of the statement Army whistleblower Bradley Manning delivered at his pretrial hearing in military court late last month. Manning acknowledged he gave hundreds of thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks, saying he wanted to show the American public the "true costs of war" and "spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan." This is the first time Manning’s voice has been heard publicly since he was arrested nearly three years ago. We air excerpts of his remarks, hearing Manning describe in his own voice the moment he decided to release the documents and the outrage he felt at the "Collateral Murder" video of an Apache helicopter attack in Iraq. [includes rush transcript]
Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AARON MATÉ: Since his arrest nearly three years ago for the largest leak of state secrets in U.S. history, Army Private Bradley Manning has not been able to tell the world his own story. Accusing him of "aiding the enemy" for providing a trove of classified U.S. cables and files to WikiLeaks, the Bush administration and Obama administrations have kept Manning in harsh military detention, including many months in solitary confinement, prompting the U.N.'s top torture expert to criticize the U.S. for "cruel and degrading" treatment. Facing up to life in prison, Manning's voice has been silenced by more than 1,000 days behind bars and the full brunt of the national security state.

Well, the silencing of Bradley Manning ends today. A leaked audio recording has emerged of the statement Manning delivered at his pretrial hearing in military court late last month. Manning acknowledged he gave the classified documents to WikiLeaks. He said he wanted to show the American public, quote, the "true costs of war" and "spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan."

AMY GOODMAN: During the hearing at Fort Meade, Bradley Manning took responsibility for leaking files including the so-called "Collateral Murder" video of an Apache helicopter attack in Iraq, U.S. diplomatic cables, records on detainees at Guantánamo. He described the anguish he felt at witnessing the video footage of U.S. aerial pilots shooting down unarmed Iraqi civilians and discussed his personal isolation in the military as a gay soldier.

Portions of Manning’s statement were reported by journalists and supporters who witnessed it inside the courtroom. But military censors prevented the release of a complete transcript until just this week. Now, Democracy Now! has obtained a secret recording of Manning’s remarks that allows us to hear Bradley Manning tell his story in his own words. It’s the first time most people will hear not just Manning’s story, but his voice.

The recording was released today by the group Freedom of the Press Foundation, a new organization that funds independent journalism organizations dedicated to transparency and accountability in government. The full recording is up on their website, the Freedom of the Press Foundation; it’s called PressFreedomFoundation.org.

In a moment, we’ll be joined by Daniel Ellsberg, arguably the nation’s most famous whistleblower for leaking the Pentagon Papers in 1971. But first let’s turn to the leaked audio of Bradley Manning’s statement. In this clip, Manning begins to explain his motivation for releasing a trove of classified information to WikiLeaks. He starts with what are called "Significant Activities" tables, or SigActs for short, incident reports from U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. And you’re going to have to listen closely, as the audio can be very difficult to hear. After downloading those SigAct tables, Manning said he began to think about what he knew and the information he had in his possession.

BRADLEY MANNING: I began to think about what I knew and the information I still had in my possession. For me, the SigActs represented the on-the-ground reality of both the conflicts—of both the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. I felt we were risking so much for—we were risking so much for people that seemed unwilling to cooperate with us, leading to frustration and hatred on both sides. I began to become depressed with the situation that we found ourselves increasingly mired in year after year. The SigActs documented this in great detail and provided context of what we were seeing on the ground.

In attempting to conduct counterterrorism, or CT, and counterinsurgency, COIN, operations, we became obsessed with capturing and killing human targets on lists and on being suspicious of and avoiding cooperation with our host nation partners, and ignoring the second and third order effects of accomplishing short-term goals and missions.

I believe that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information contained within the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A tables, this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general, as well as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan.

I also believed the detailed analysis of the data over a long period of time by different sectors of society might cause society to reevaluate the need or even the desire to engage in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations that ignore the debate—that ignore the complex dynamics of the people living in the effected environment every day.

AMY GOODMAN: Bradley Manning went on to discuss the so-called "Collateral Murder" video of an Apache helicopter—made by military—Apache helicopter attack in Iraq, July 12, 2007, and admitted for the first time being the source of the leaked tape. The video shows U.S. forces killing 12 people, including a Reuters videographer, Namir Noor-Eldeen, and his driver, Saeed Chmagh. Bradley Manning said he was alarmed by the U.S. pilots’, quote, "delightful bloodlust," which, he said, "seemed similar to a child torturing ants with a magnifying glass." Bradley Manning began by saying it was clear to him the helicopter incident happened because the pilots mistakenly identified Reuters employees as a potential threat and that the people in the bongo truck were merely attempting to assist the wounded.

BRADLEY MANNING: It was clear to me that the event happened because the aerial weapons team mistakenly identified Reuters employees as a potential threat and that the people in the bongo truck were merely attempting to assist the wounded. The people in the van were not a threat but merely "Good Samaritans."

The most alarming aspect of the video to me, however, was the seemingly delightful bloodlust the aerial weapons team—they appeared to have. They dehumanized the individuals they were engaging and seemed to not value human life by referring to them as, quote, "dead bastards," unquote, and congratulating each other on the ability to kill in a large—in large numbers.

At one point in the video, there’s an individual on the ground attempting to crawl to safety. The individual is seriously wounded. Instead of calling for medical attention to the location, one of the aerial weapons team crew members verbally asks for the wounded person to pick up a weapon so that he can have a reason to engage. For me, this seems similar to a child torturing ants with a magnifying glass.

While saddened by the aerial weapons team’s true lack—crew’s lack of concern about human life, I was disturbed by the response of the discovery of injured children at the scene. In the video, you can see the bongo truck driving up to assist the wounded individual. In response, the aerial weapons team crew assumes the individuals are a threat. They repeatedly request for authorization to fire on the bongo truck, and once granted, they engage the vehicle at least six times.

Shortly after the second engagement, a mechanized infantry unit arrives at the scene. Within minutes, the aerial weapons team crew learns that children were in the van, and despite the injuries, the crew exhibits no remorse. Instead, they downplay the significance of their actions, saying, quote, "Well, it’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle," unquote.

The aerial weapons team crew members sound like they lack sympathy for the children or the parents. Later, in a particularly disturbing manner, the aerial weapons team crew verbalizes enjoyment at the sight of one of the ground vehicles driving over a body.

AMY GOODMAN: Bradley Manning, discussing the video showing U.S. helicopter pilots killing 12 people in Iraq, including two Reuters employees. Manning went on to tell the court he was encouraged by the public reaction to the video’s release. He said he hoped the public would be as alarmed as him about the conduct of the aerial weapons team crew members. Listen carefully.

BRADLEY MANNING: I hoped that the public would be as alarmed as me about the conduct of the aerial weapons team crew members. I wanted the American public to know that not everyone in Iraq and Afghanistan were targets that needed to be neutralized, but rather people who were struggling to live in the pressure-cooker environment of what we call "asymmetric warfare."

After the release, I was encouraged by the response in the media and general public who observed the aerial weapons team video. As I hoped, others were just as troubled, if not more troubled, than me by what they saw.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Army whistleblower Bradley Manning reading a prepared statement in court last month—a statement you were not supposed to hear. But for the first time, this video—this audio recording is being heard, surreptitiously recorded in the court.

For more, we’re joined by perhaps the country’s most famous whistleblower, Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971, the secret history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Daniel Ellsberg is joining us from the University of California.

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Yes, thank you. Now I hear.

AMY GOODMAN: Dan, welcome to Democracy Now! I know you’ve been inside the courtroom where Bradley Manning has spoken. Can you talk about the significance—can you talk about the significance of this audiotape? Can you talk about the significance, Dan, of this audiotape?

We’re going to go to a break to work out the—our connection to the Berkeley studios. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. Back in a minute.