Bradley Manning Found Not Guilty Of Aiding The Enemy But Convicted On Other Charges

from the a-bit-of-good-news dept

So, the details aren't out yet, but the headline message is: Bradley Manning has been found "not guilty" of "aiding the enemy" but has been convicted on other charges, including violating the Espionage Act -- which seems a bit crazy, because what he was doing wasn't espionage in any sense of the word. The conviction on those charges is unfortunate, but not a huge surprise. All told, he was found guilty on 19 counts, including four that he'd already pled guilty to. The big question had really been all about the aiding the enemy claim. Either way, he's still facing a potential sentence of about 100 years in jail, though the next stage of this process will be over his sentencing. We'll have more later as the details come out.

Filed Under: aiding the enemy, bradley manning, convicted, espionage act

Irony: Congress May Declare Today 'National Whistleblower Day' As Court Announces Manning Verdict

from the how-we-treat-our-whistleblowers dept

In a few hours, the court hearing the Bradley Manning trial will be announcing the verdict. I'm sure we'll have plenty of commentary on the eventual decision, but it's worth noting this bit of ridiculousness. Senator Chuck Grassley is trying to get today declared National Whistleblower Day by Congress, in honor of the Constitutional Congress' very first whitleblower protection law, enacted on July 30, 1778. As the article notes, Grassley has worked hard over the years to protect whistleblowers, but we recently wrote about his hypocrisy on the subject, passing a special law for a Swiss bank security guard who did more or less the same thing as Ed Snowden, while bashing Snowden for not facing a trial in the US. Congress just really has a knack for doing the exact wrong thing, don't they? If they want to actually support whistleblowers, they should support whistleblowers, not name a pointless day after them on the very same day that a high profile whistleblower likely finds out that he's going to spend much, if not all, of the rest of his life in jail.

Filed Under: bradley manning, chuck grassley, national whistleblower day, whistleblower

Military Harasses Journalists At Bradley Manning Trial

from the freedom-of-the-press dept

The US government hasn't been happy at all that there is any press coverage of the Bradley Manning trial, and seems to bend over backwards to make their lives more difficult. However, it appears that they took things to an entirely new and ridiculous level this week in actively spying on and harassing journalists covering the trial.

@carwinb, @kgosztola, @nathanLfuller, and @wikileakstruck have tweeted about armed guards standing directly behind them as they type into laptops in the designated press area, being "screamed at" for having "windows" open on their computers that show Twitter in a browser tab, and having to undergo extensive, repeated, invasive physical searches.

Even the NY Times has noted how extreme it was:

Two military police officers in camouflage fatigues and armed with holstered handguns paced behind each row there, looking over the journalists’ shoulders, which had not happened during the trial. No explanation was given.

Reading through the various tweets, the MPs were specifically trying to stop journalists from using Twitter. Kevin Gosztola was directly told not to use Twitter and was later admonished for having "a window" open on his computer. No joke. The reporters also noted that they had to go through an incredibly detailed TSA-style search before they could enter the courtroom -- and that this had not happened previously in their coverage of the trial. Multiple journalists noted how "creepy" it was and how intimidating it is to have military police with guns looking over your shoulder and watching everything you do. Freedom of the press? Not at all.

In response to all of this attention, the judge apparently claims that she ordered the "extra security" because of "repeated rule violations" of rules that no one was told about. But, reading through the details, it sounds a hell of a lot more like intimidation of the press than than about any attempt to stop "rules violations."

Filed Under: bradley manning, harassment, journalism, kevin gosztola

Government Argues Bradley Manning Was An Anarchist, As Case Closes

from the the-lies-your-government-spreads dept

We haven't been covering the day to day of the Bradley Manning trial, though it has been interesting (and frustrating) to follow. However, in its closing argument, it appears that the government is trying to smear Bradley Manning and his whistleblowing every possible way:

After more than four and a half hours of proceedings, the government wrapped up its closing argument in the trial of Pfc. Bradley Manning, the soldier being prosecuted for disclosing information to WikiLeaks. Prosecutors called him an “anarchist,” a “hacker,” and a “traitor” before the argument was over.

Really? All three claims are flat out ridiculous. From the very beginning Manning was quite clear in his motives, which were about making sure the American public was better informed. The bogus traitor claims have been mentioned before, and seem to have no basis in reality. But the anarchy one is a new one. As Kevin Gosztola explains:

Quoting chat logs between hacker and government informant Adrian Lamo and Manning, Major Ashden Fein said that he expected “worldwide anarchy” would occur after releasing the diplomatic cables and these were not the “words of a humanist but the words of an anarchist.” He also said he was a “hacker” and not a humanist.

Of course, if you read the actual chat logs and put the statement back in context you realize it's not the words of an anarchist at all. That's just some boasting about how releasing these files will have a major impact. But, as he immediately explains in the following statements, his goal is to create change and stop the US government from lying. He notes that releasing these documents "might actually change something" in how the US goes about its business. He's not talking about anarchy, he's talking about actually having a representative government that doesn't lie and deceive all the time.

Of course, the big claim that the government is trying to make is that Manning knowingly "aided the enemy":

For the “aiding the enemy” charge, which if convicted could lead to maximum sentence of life in prison, Fein argued that Manning had deliberately transmitted the “Collateral Murder” video, certain State Department information and military incident reports from Iraq and Afghanistan.

But how is revealing factual information about the US military screwing up and then trying to cover it up "aiding the enemy." It seems like, once again, that's only true if "the enemy" is the American public and you have information you want to hide from them. In fact, the government appears to argue that any release of information to the public can be seen as "aiding the enemy"

“The public included the enemy and he knew that as an intelligence analyst,” the government stated. The government added that this was not public data. It was US government information that Manning was trained to use.

But, under that argument any journalist or any person who publishes anything that might make Al Qaeda happy is "aiding the enemy." That's crazy.

Manning's defense will give its closing argument on Friday, and then... we wait for the judge to decide.

Filed Under: anarchist, bradley manning, hacker, trial
Companies: wikileaks

Judge Refuses To Drop 'Aiding The Enemy' Charges Against Bradley Manning

from the whistleblowing-is-aiding-the-enemy dept

We noted recently that it has become official Obama administration policy that leaking governmental wrongdoing to the press is considered aiding the enemy. This is ridiculous on multiple levels, not the least of which is the suggestion that "the enemy" is the public, and that truthful information about government overreach and excess could somehow be counterproductive to the country's interests. Of course, that issue hadn't really been put to test in any sort of court until now, in the military trial of Bradley Manning. Tragically, the judge has announced that the "aiding the enemy" charge will not be dropped, despite the near total lack of evidence to support the idea that Manning knowingly released the documents to Wikileaks recognizing that it would "aid the enemy." It is still possible he could be found "not guilty" of aiding the enemy, but dismissing the overall charge would have sent a more powerful message.

Of course, the double standard you see when compared to how the military has treated its own when it comes to things like massacring innocent people is stark and disgusting:

Colonel Morris Davis, one of the key witnesses called by Manning's defence team in an attempt to have the "aiding the enemy" charge dropped, said he was "extraordinarily disappointed" by the ruling. Davis was director of the US air force's judicial system from 2007 to 2008 and said he was normally a defender of military justice.

But he said the fact that military prosecutors were pursuing Manning with such a heavy hand had forced him to think again. He pointed to the contrast between the full-blooded prosecution of the US soldier and the outcome of the court martial that flowed from the 2005 Haditha killings in Iraq.

In that incident, 24 unarmed Iraqis including women and children were killed by US marines. In the ensuing prosecutions, six of the marines involved had their cases dropped, a seventh was found not guilty and the only one to be convicted of a single count avoided any time in jail.

"When you think about these different responses, it suggests to me that the military justice system is not working," Davis said.

Notice that this wasn't being said by some civil libertarian, but the guy who had been in charge of the air force's judicial system just a few years ago. When even folks like Colonel Davis are recognizing what a farce the Manning trial is, it's pretty clear that the system is really, really broken.

The dangerous impact of this ruling cannot be overstated. As we've noted, the main "evidence" against Manning on this particular charge is the claim that Al Qaida, and bin Laden in particular, were found to have some of the Wikileaks documents. But that's not evidence of "aiding the enemy" and if it is, it means that famed reporters like Bob Woodward and his White House sources are equally at risk for having "aided the enemy," since Woodward's books have revealed much more sensitive information, and bin Laden was also found to have not only read Woodward's book, but recommended the book to others.

Meanwhile, as Harvard law profess Yochai Benkler has written (and also testified during the trial), a finding that leaking such information to the public is a form of "aiding the enemy" creates a massive threat to the concept of a free and independent press. The chilling effects are massive.

Freedom of the press is anchored in our constitution because it reflects our fundamental belief that no institution can be its own watchdog. The government is full of well-intentioned and quite powerful inspectors general and similar internal accountability mechanisms. But like all big organizations, the national security branches of government include some people who aren't purely selfless public servants. Secrecy is necessary and justified in many cases. But as hard-earned experience has shown us time and again, it can be—and often is—used to cover up failure, avarice, or actions that simply will not survive that best of disinfectants, sunlight.

That’s where whistleblowers come in. They offer a pressure valve, constrained by the personal risk whistleblowers take, and fueled by whatever moral courage they can muster. Manning's statement in court yesterday showed that, at least in his motives, he was part of that long-respected tradition. But that’s also where the Manning prosecution comes in, too. The prosecution case seems designed, quite simply, to terrorize future national security whistleblowers. The charges against Manning are different from those that have been brought against other whistleblowers. “Aiding the enemy” is punishable by death. And although the prosecutors in this case are not seeking the death penalty against Manning, the precedent they are seeking to establish does not depend on the penalty. It establishes the act as a capital offense, regardless of whether prosecutors in their discretion decide to seek the death penalty in any particular case.

The Freedom of the Press Foundation goes deeper in explaining how merely asking basic important questions can have you accused of "aiding the enemy" under the definitions used by the court.

The implications of the government’s argument are breathtaking. To understand why, it helps to recall the experience of another soldier. In December of 2004, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld held a town-hall style meeting for troops who were preparing to deploy to Iraq. Following his remarks, Rumsfeld was confronted by an Army specialist who complained about the inadequacy of the combat equipment provided by the military.

“Our vehicles are not armored,” said Specialist Thomas Wilson, an airplane mechanic with the Tennessee Army National Guard. “We’re digging pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass that’s already been shot up . . . to put on our vehicles to take into combat. We do not have proper vehicles to carry with us north.”

The soldier’s question — and Rumsfeld’s now infamous response that “you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have” — were front-page news around the world. And while war cheerleaders like Rush Limbaugh accused Specialist Wilson of “near insubordination” for embarrassing the defense secretary in a public forum, there was no suggestion in serious quarters that he face punishment — much less prosecution — for his words.

Yet the government’s decision to prosecute Manning for “Aiding the Enemy” threatens to make public comments like Wilson’s grounds for criminal prosecution. The government does not contend that Manning gave any information to Al Qaeda, or even that he intended that Al Qaeda receive it. Rather, it claims that Manning “indirectly” aided Al Qaeda by causing intelligence information to be posted on WikiLeaks’ website, knowing that Al Qaeda has access to the internet. Specifically, the government contends that Manning violated Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which provides that “any person who . . . gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.”

They go on to note that in merely asking that question (and, in fact, Rumsfeld in answering it) "spoke openly about the vulnerability of U.S. forces in Iraq." And, under the definitions used against Manning, claiming he was "aiding the enemy" the same would apply to both Wilson and Rumsfeld as well:

Both men surely knew that the enemy would watch their exchange on television or read about it on the internet. The notion that Wilson and Rumsfeld broke the law by communicating this information to the media and thereby “indirectly” aiding the enemy is absurd — but no more so than the government’s contention that Bradley Manning did so.

Today's failure to dismiss that claim against Manning is a travesty of justice in so many ways, but more importantly, it makes it clear to future whistleblowers that the cost of blowing the whistle on gross government negligence is much, much higher. That's a very unfortunate situation for a country who at least used to pretend that it was important to keep its government in check.

Filed Under: aiding the enemy, bob woodward, bradley manning, chilling effects, denise lind, free speech, journalism, whistleblowing, yochai benkler
Companies: wikileaks

If You Were Bradley Manning, What Would You Do?

from the put-yourself-in-his-shoes dept

Some Bradley Manning supporters have put together a very compelling campaign, called I Am Bradley Manning, asking the government to drop the "aiding the enemy" charge against Bradley Manning and noting the chilling effects it has on whistleblowers. The key part of the campaign is a five minute video of various well-known people talking about Bradley Manning and asking what would you do if you were in his shoes, and saw that your government was lying to the public, and doing things that you believed went against the very values and principles you were supposed to be fighting for. The video includes commentary from a variety of different people, including Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg, reporter Matt Taibbi, actors Russell Brand, Wallace Shawn, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Peter Sarsgaard and many more, musicians Roger Waters, Tom Morello, Moby and many more. For whatever reason -- even with all of the new attention paid to leaking due to Ed Snowden, the travesty that is the Bradley Manning trial still just isn't getting that much attention. One hopes that a bit more mainstream interest might change that. It really is an important question: if you were in Bradley Manning's shoes, what would you do?

Filed Under: bradley manning, i am bradley manning, whistleblowing

Adrian Lamo On The Stand: 'Did Manning Ever Say He Wanted To Help The Enemy?' 'Not In Those Words, No.'

from the 20-years-for-attempting-to-upset-the-status-quo dept

Bradley Manning is currently on trial, charged with "aiding an enemy" (including "classified" enemies) for turning over sensitive documents to Wikileaks. As Mike pointed out earlier, this latter charge doesn't add up. Manning never handed over anything directly to any enemies of America, classified or otherwise, and any documents these unnamed enemies had in their possession were already publicly available.

Adrian Lamo, the ex-hacker who turned Manning over to the feds (or rather, the Dept. of Defense with some assistance from the FBI), was on the stand on June 4th. Under cross examination by David Coombs of Manning's defense team, Lamo is unable to say Manning intended to "aid the enemy" by releasing these documents. In fact, Coombs exchange with Lamo depicts Manning as someone with idealistic aims who hoped that bringing governmental and military wrongdoing into the light would help change both entities for the better.

Q. At one point you asked him what his end game was, correct?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And he told you, hopefully worldwide discussions, debates and reforms?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. And he said he wanted people to see the truth?
A. Correct.
Q. He said without information you can't make informed decision as a whole?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. And he told you to, he was hoping that people would actually change if they saw the information?
A. Correct.

At one point, the discussion turned to the possibility of aiding US enemies, but Manning still refused to view the information he had acquired as anything other than a contribution to public knowledge.

Q. And at one point you asked him why he didn't just sell the information to Russia or China?
A. Correct.
Q. And he told you that the information belonged in the public domain?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. He believed that information was in the public domain and should be for the public good?
A. Yes.

And when the questions became more direct, Lamo's answers became correspondingly vague.

Q. At anytime did he say he had no loyalty to America?
A. Not in those words, no.
Q. At anytime did he say the American flag didn't mean anything to him?
A. No.
Q. At anytime did he say he wanted to help the enemy?
A. Not in those words, no.

In what words, then? The transcripts of the chats between Lamo and Manning are public. There's no indication Manning wished to aid the enemy. There was the potential for harm to exposed operatives and sources, but that was greatly mitigated by the delay between delivery and publication of the documents, not to mention Lamo bringing this to the FBI's attention after the initial chat session. But the military has chosen to view the embarrassment and inconvenience caused by the documents' release as "aiding the enemy" -- whatever hurts us makes them stronger.

Filed Under: adrian lamo, bradley manning, enemy of the state, trial
Companies: wikileaks

NSA Whistleblower Ed Snowden: From My Desk I Could Wiretap Anyone: You, A Federal Judge Or The President Of The US

from the well-that's-comforting dept

Yesterday, it was revealed that Ed Snowden was the whistleblower, who exposed some details of NSA surveillance capabilities, often going far beyond what people expected. If you haven't yet, you should watch his video interview with Glenn Greenwald where he goes into more detail: Here's a bit that caught my attention:

"I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you, or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President if I had a personal email.

The wording here is a little unclear, since "wiretap" generally means capturing voice conversations, but saying that he would need a personal email address from the President to wiretap him suggests he's talking specifically about access their emails. Either way, given that we keep being told that the NSA is only supposed to cover non-US persons, the fact that a 29-year-old computer guy working for the NSA claims he could get access to anyone's email just by having their email address suggests, certainly, that there isn't much (if any) oversight, and the NSA is clearly not careful about the data it's scooping up.

Later in the interview, he explains why the people who say "I don't care, because I've got nothing to hide" are complete and total idiots:

"Because even if you're not doing anything wrong, you're being watched and recorded. And the storage capability of these systems increases every year consistently by orders of magnitude to where it's getting to the point where you don't have to have done anything wrong, you simply have to eventually fall under suspicion from somebody, even by a wrong call. And then they can use the system to go back in time and scrutinize every decision you've ever made. Every friend you've ever discussed something with. And attack you on that basis, to derive suspicion from an innocent life, and paint anyone in the context of a wrongdoer."

There's a lot more in the interview, which is absolutely worth watching. No one ever got to hear Bradley Manning speak before he got whisked away. Ed Snowden appears to have put a lot more thought and planning into what he was doing than Manning, and here we actually get to hear his thoughts.

Filed Under: bradley manning, edward snowden, nothing to hide, nsa, nsa surveillance, secrecy, suveillance, whistleblower, wiretaps

Crowdfunded Stenographer Denied Press Pass To Cover Transcriptless Bradley Manning Trial

from the can't-have-an-accurate-record-now,-can-we dept

The attempts to limit the press during the Bradley Manning trial have been somewhat ridiculous. The press hasn't been allowed to record anything, even though someone clearly did so surreptitiously. Furthermore, there's been no plan for an official court transcript of the proceedings either. About a month ago, the Freedom of the Press Foundation launched a crowdfunding campaign to try to hire their own professional stenographer to attend the trail to make a transcript. They even had some top press publications, including the Guardian, Forbes and the Verge, apply for an extra press pass for the crowdfunded stenographer. The military refused. But, more ridiculously, they claimed it was a space issue, though that's an issue they could easily fix.

The Army received over 350 media applications for the trial, but only granted 70 to be present in the media room. In an emailed statement, the MDW Media Desk stated: “Your understanding of our space limitations based on building fire codes is greatly appreciated.”

In previous hearings, the Army has opened a public overflow theater with live audio and video streaming of the hearing. Additionally, the Army has sole discretion over which room(s) to designate as media rooms – including how many rooms to make available.

A large group of established news organizations -- including the LA Times, NPR, the New Yorker, Fox News, Newsweek, Bloomberg and NY Magazine -- have all asked the military to open up two additional press passes for stenographers (two so that they can overlap while switching shifts). The judge in the case, on Monday, announced that it would be okay for a stenographer to record a transcript using a stenography machine, which is great... except that without a press pass, they still can't get the stenographer in. Thankfully, for Monday, a Bradley Manning supporter with a pass gave it up to the stenographer, but it's somewhat ridiculous that it had to even come to that.

At this point, it really just seems like the Army is being incredibly petty over this case in its desire to limit the details of coverage.

Filed Under: army, bradley manning, freedom of the press foundation, press pass, stenographer, trial

Constitutional Scholar Who Taught Obama Comes Out Against Bradley Manning Trial

from the as-he-should dept

As the Bradley Manning trial officially kicks off today, it's interesting to see famed Constitutional scholar and Harvard professor Laurence Tribe speak out against the case. As The Guardian notes, Tribe taught Constitutional Law to President Obama when he was in law school.

Laurence Tribe, a Harvard professor who is considered to be the foremost liberal authority on constitutional law in the US and who taught the subject to President Barack Obama, told the Guardian that the charge could set a worrying precedent. He said: "Charging any individual with the extremely grave offense of 'aiding the enemy' on the basis of nothing beyond the fact that the individual posted leaked information on the web and thereby 'knowingly gave intelligence information' to whoever could gain access to it there, does indeed seem to break dangerous new ground."

Tribe, who advised the department of justice in Obama's first term, added that the trial could have "far-reaching consequences for chilling freedom of speech and rendering the internet a hazardous environment, well beyond any demonstrable national security interest."

I know that some people have pre-convicted Manning, but the charges here are simply crazy. He's already pled guilty to certain charges, but this trial focuses on whether or not he was "aiding the enemy," which would require to show that he did this knowing that it would help Al-Qaida and [classified enemy]. The supposed "proof" of this is going to be the fact that Osama bin Laden apparently had Wikileaks documents in his compound in Pakistan. But that's ridiculous. Under that theory, anyone reporting information that terrorists found useful would be guilty of violating the Espionage Act and could face the death penalty. As others in the article note, this would create a tremendous chill on investigative reporting.

Filed Under: aiding the enemy, al qaida, bradley manning, laurance tribe, military, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks