Court Orders Chelsea Manning Released From Jail One Day After Suicide Attempt: Testimony 'No Longer Needed'

from the what-a-waste dept

A year ago, the DOJ subpoenaed Chelsea Manning to appear before a grand jury and provide testimony as it was building its case against Julian Assange, who was subsequently indicted on a very questionable basis. Manning refused to comply with the subpoena, and was put in jail for contempt of court. Many people -- even some supporters of Manning -- seemed split on this move, noting that complying with a lawful subpoena, especially regarding a situation where all information had been previously provided and in which the target is already indicted, is different than being asked to cough up private info. But, given the context of Manning's earlier incarceration and commutation, the whole effort seemed somewhat vindictive.

As reporter Dell Cameron pointed out, the DOJ already has all the details of Manning's conversations with Assange. It's difficult to see what more it needed to get from her. And yet, she sat in jail. And considering her history with possible suicide attempts, it seemed (tragically) that being confined again could be incredibly damaging to her. Indeed, yesterday it was reported that she attempted suicide once again.

Incredibly, just a day later, the court has ordered her released from jail, noting that her appearance "is no longer needed."

Upon consideration of the Court's May 16, 2019 Order, the Motion, and the Court's March 12, 2020 Order discharging Grand Jury 19-3, the Court finds that Ms. Manning's appearance before the Grand Jury is no longer needed, in light of which her detention no longer serves any coercive purpose. The Court further finds that enforcement of the accrued, conditional fines would not be punitive but rather necessary to the coercive purpose of the Court's civil contempt order.

The fact that the grand jury has been disbanded without her testimony -- and given Dell's point earlier about the DOJ already having all the details -- it makes you really question why this whole thing was necessary in the first place, because the answer sure seems to be that it wasn't. And yet, she spent months in jail, and still now faces basically a quarter of a million in fines that the court says is just dandy. What a sham.

Filed Under: chelsea manning, contempt of court, doj, julian assange, subpoena

New Assange Indictment Makes Insane, Unprecedented Use Of Espionage Act On Things Journalists Do All The Time

from the whoa dept

As we noted when Julian Assange was arrested in the UK last month, it was notable how... lacking the charges were. The whole thing revolved around an apparently failed attempt to help Chelsea Manning crack a CIA password. We still had significant concerns about the way the CFAA was being used, and the fact that the description of the "conspiracy" involved actions that tons of journalists do every day -- but the original indictment didn't have what was most feared: use of the Espionage Act against the actions of a news organization. At the time, some knowledgeable observers pointed out that it was likely a superseding indictment would come, and it wouldn't surprise them if it had Espionage Act charges. And they were right.

On Thursday the DOJ unsealed the new indictment against Assange and it should absolutely terrify anyone who believes in a free press and the 1st Amendment. It takes a whole variety of things that journalists at major publications do every single day -- finding and cultivating sources, getting information and publishing that information -- as evidence of Espionage Act violations. We've always had issues with the Espionage Act, which we believe is almost certainly unconstitutional. In the past, we've highlighted how it's been used in ridiculous ways against many whistleblowers, and it doesn't even allow for a defendant to give a reason for why they leaked documents (i.e., they can't say they did it to blow the whistle on government malfeasance -- it's just automatically treated as espionage, which is nonsensical).

However, this indictment goes much further. It's not going after an actual leaker, it's going after a publisher. It's so bad that even Obama-era officials (who used the Espionage Act against leakers more times than any other President in history combined) seem horrified. This is from the former DOJ spokesperson in the Obama admin:

Much of the indictment focuses on Wikileaks/Assange cultivating sources and requesting information -- which is what lots of reporters do all the time. For example, the first count includes the following actions:

To willfully communicate documents relating to the national defense—namely, detainee assessment briefs related to detainees who were held at Guantanamo Bay, U.S. State Department cables, Iraq rules of engagement files, and documents containing the names of individuals in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere around the world, who risked their safety and freedom by providing information to the United States and our allies, which were classified up to the SECRET level—from persons having lawful possession of or access to such documents, to persons not entitled to receive them

But, that's what lots of reporters do all the time in cultivating sources within the government. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein became celebrated and famous by getting government officials to leak classified information. Indeed, it's what a bunch of reporters at the NY Times, Washington Post, etc. are doing right now to try to find information about this White House. And, yes, President Trump likes to refer to them as "fake news," and if you buy that you are too stupid to read this site, so go away. This is a full frontal attack on the First Amendment and basic reporting. If this works it sets a precedent to go after any investigative reporting of the government.

It's also notable -- and ridiculous -- that the indictment focuses on the supposed "danger" that Assange/Wikileaks put people into by publishing the documents that Chelsea Manning leaked.

The significant activity reports from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars that ASSANGE published included names of local Afghans and Iraqis who had provided information to U.S. and coalition forces. The State Department cables that WikiLeaks published included names of persons throughout the world who provided information to the U.S. government in circumstances in which they could reasonably expect that their identities would be kept confidential. These sources included journalists, religious leaders, human rights advocates, and political dissidents who were living in repressive regimes and reported to the United States the abuses of their own government, and the political conditions within their countries, at great risk to their own safety. By publishing these documents without redacting the human sources' names or other identifying information, ASSANGE created a grave and imminent risk that the innocent people he named would suffer serious physical harm and/or arbitrary detention.

News publishers often have to make difficult decisions about publishing certain info that could cause harm, but it does not violate the Espionage Act to do so in the service of informing the public. Even worse, as has been detailed for many years now, the US government admitted back in 2013 that not a single death was caused by Manning's leaks, and former Defense Secretary Robert Gates even called claims of harm "overwrought" and said:

“Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest.’’

In fact, Reuters reported (via its own cultivated sources and leaks) that the "damage" claims were purposefully exaggerated by Obama admin officials in the hopes that it would create enough to bring these bogus charges against Assange:

A congressional official briefed on the reviews said the administration felt compelled to say publicly that the revelations had seriously damaged American interests in order to bolster legal efforts to shut down the WikiLeaks website and bring charges against the leakers.

“I think they just want to present the toughest front they can muster,” the official said.

But State Department officials have privately told Congress they expect overall damage to U.S. foreign policy to be containable, said the official, one of two congressional aides familiar with the briefings who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity.

The only "evidence" of harm shown in the indictment is just that Osama bin-Laden had some copies of the Wikileaks files when the US killed him:

On May 2, 2011, United States armed forces raided the compound of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan. During the raid, they collected a number of items of digital media, which included the following: (1) a letter from bin Laden to another member of the terrorist organization al-Qaeda in which bin Laden requested that the member gather the DoD material posted to WikiLeaks, (2) a letter from that same member of al-Qaeda to Bin Laden with information from the Afghanistan War Documents provided by Manning to WikiLeaks and released by WikiLeaks, and (3) Department of State information provided by Manning to WikiLeaks and released by WikiLeaks.

There are a few other claims of people made "vulnerable" by Wikileaks publishing the Manning documents, but no evidence of actual harm.

So, let's be clear here: the US government has admitted to making bullshit claims about non-existent "harms" done by Wikileaks, and now it's using that to charge a news publisher with espionage for doing the same sort of work that tons of reporters do every day. It's an incredible attack on the 1st Amendment from this administration, and one that hopefully the courts will shut down.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, chelsea manning, doj, espionage act, journalism, julian assange
Companies: wikileaks

Julian Assange Arrested On Behalf Of The US, For Trying To Help Manning Crack CIA Password

from the cfaa-and-conspiracy dept

Julian Assange has been arrested in the UK on behalf of the US, as Ecuador has finally tired of their overstaying asylumed house guest. We're about to see quite a major legal battle, first in the UK and then almost certainly in the US, about Assange. The current charges seem narrowly focused on a CFAA-based "conspiracy" between Assange and Manning to try to hack a CIA computer, but if they expand to other Wikileaks activities, there should be concerns over press freedom issues.

I am no fan of Julian Assange or Wikileaks. However, for years I've made it clear that prosecuting him for publishing leaked documents would be a huge mistake by the US. The DOJ spent years trying to come up with an excuse to charge Assange, but kept realizing they had no case, because while he may have had malicious intent, none of his public actions in releasing documents were any different -- legally speaking -- than what any investigative journalism outlet did in releasing obtained documents. The Supreme Court has made it clear that publishing classified documents is protected by the First Amendment. If he went beyond just releasing documents, as the indictment alleges, it becomes a lot trickier -- but there's a fine line here.

It's been clear in the last year or so, that despite years of not finding anything, the DOJ was finally moving ahead with plans to charge him. As we noted last year, everyone who believes in a free press should be concerned about what this might mean for press freedoms in the US as the case proceeds. And that's true, even if the specific charges right now are limited to actions that are unrelated to the publishing of the documents.

A few minutes ago, the DOJ released a fairly barebones 7-page indictment, alleging he was in a conspiracy with Chelsea Manning to hack into government computers to obtain documents. From the indictment, the charges are separate from releasing the documents that everyone knows Manning provided to Assange, and specifically revolve around Manning and Assange apparently working together to try to hack the CIA after Manning had finished handing over all of the documents we already know about. The indictment claims (and I kid you not) that Manning "used special software, namely a Linux operating system... to obtain the portion of the password provided to Assange." What was obtained apparently was a hashed password to a CIA computer system, that Assange was allegedly going to try to crack, in order to enable Manning to get more info out of the CIA.

If all of this is true, then it certainly could go beyond issues related to press freedoms. It's one thing to receive classified documents and publish them. It is a different issue altogether to work with a source and participate in trying to hack a government system. There is no evidence that Assange was ever actually successful in cracking the password, but he's facing CFAA and conspiracy charges here that may have more staying power. If the indictment is accurate and there's evidence to back it up, then Assange could potentially be in (and this is the legal term) deep shit.

But so much of what Assange did, even if we might disagree with his reasons for doing it, is little different than what many media organizations do. What will be necessary is watching closely how the case against Assange advances and changes (it is unlikely that these will be the only charges against Assange). If it is narrowly limited to the actions described in the current indictment, the dangers to press freedoms may be limited. However, if it strays beyond that into some of the other, more journalistic efforts of Assange, it could still represent a huge attack on a free press. Given our current President's near daily attacks on the free press, with repeated announcements that he'd like to change the laws to harm them, going after Assange legally (which may seem a bit ironic, given all the accusations that Assange's leaks in 2016 were designed to help Trump get elected), might be the best way to actually achieve that goal.

Filed Under: cfaa, chelsea manning, cia, conspiracy, doj, hacking, julian assange, passwords

DOJ Moving Ahead With Its Attempt To Prosecute Julian Assange; Subpoenas Chelsea Manning

from the all-the-bad-precedent-it-can-get dept

The DOJ is still moving ahead with its plan to attack free speech protections. More than eight years in the making, the attempted prosecution of Julian Assange for publishing leaked documents forges ahead slowly, threatening every journalist in its path.

Wikileaks isn't the only entity to publish leaked documents or shield their source. Multiple US press entities have done the same thing over the years. It seems the DOJ feels it's ok to go after Assange and Wikileaks because it's not a US newspaper. But once you set foot on a slope this slippery, it's pretty tough to regain your footing -- especially when the Executive Branch has housed people hellbent on eliminating leakers and whistleblowers for most of the last 20 years.

It appears the government wants Chelsea Manning to testify about her relationship with Wikileaks and Julian Assange. The demand Manning received may be deliberately vague, but it's pretty easy to connect the dots, as Charlie Savage does for the New York Times.

The subpoena does not say what prosecutors intend to ask her about. But it was issued in the Eastern District of Virginia and comes after prosecutors inadvertently disclosed in November that Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has been charged under seal in that district.

Ms. Manning, who provided a copy of the subpoena to The New York Times, said that her legal team would file a motion on Friday to quash it, arguing that it would violate her constitutional rights to force her to appear. She declined to say whether she would cooperate if that failed.

It would seem like Manning already cooperated when she was being prosecuted. During that hearing, she took full responsibility for her actions and stated Wikileaks/Assange did not direct her actions. But if the DOJ can't get Manning to talk, it apparently has other options.

A former WikiLeaks volunteer who was also personal friends with Manning was subpoenaed last May. But unlike Manning, he did not fight the subpoena. He accepted an immunity deal offered by prosecutors.

It’s the second person in Assange’s broader orbit publicly known to have cooperated with prosecutors in their nearly decade-long pursuit of WikiLeaks.

The former volunteer is David House. House has been subpoenaed twice, according to The Daily Beast's Kevin Poulsen. House was uncooperative with the first, but far more accommodating the second time around, after being granted immunity for testifying.

House spoke briefly with prosecutors and then testified for about 90 minutes in front of the grand jury, he said. “They wanted to know about my meetings with Assange, they wanted to know broadly about what we talked about,” he recalled. Prosecutors seemed particularly interested in the potential for collateral damage in some of Assange’s leaks.

If the DOJ is really going to re-litigate the harms of Manning's leaks, it might want to refresh its memory about the damage they did. A classified Defense Department report said the leaked docs did no serious damage to personnel or American interests. This reiterated findings by the US military dating all the way back to 2013 which said the same thing: no Americans were harmed or killed as a result of the leaks. Unfortunately, the reality we're faced with is this: the DOJ is threatening First Amendment protections over some hurt feelings and embarrassment.

Filed Under: chelsea manning, david house, doj, indictment, journalism, julian assange, leaks, subpoenas
Companies: wikileaks

Cops Perform Guns-Drawn Raid Of Chelsea Manning's Home Because Someone Reported Her Suicidal Tweets

from the ARE-YOU-OK-IN-THERE-CITIZEN-[bullets-flying] dept

We've discussed the divide between police and the policed, but perhaps none is more pronounced than law enforcement's handling of those with mental health issues. Dozens of times a year, someone in need of intervention or caretaking is killed by police officers who have responded to relatives, friends, or family calling for help.

911 is a dumb pipe. It will route the info to all, but it's usually police who end up acting as first responders, even when the crisis is health-related. Any combativeness is viewed as a threat, rather than a rational response to loud, violent stimuli. If the person needing help has a criminal record (and many people with mental health issues do), the "threat" is perceived before officers even make contact. In rare cases, these "wellness checks" end peacefully and with a resolution in line with the terminology used by law enforcement.

In most cases, an arrest is involved. In many cases, the "wellness check" ends in someone's death. Nearly 250 people suffering mental health crises were killed by officers in 2017. The story here is unique in that it didn't end in death, a violent arrest, or something else not even roughly aligned with the idea of community caretaking. But that's possibly due to the fact no one was home.

Shortly after Chelsea Manning posted what appeared to be two suicidal tweets on May 27, police broke into her home with their weapons drawn as if conducting a raid, in what is known as a “wellness” or “welfare check” on a person experiencing a mental health crisis. Manning, a former Army intelligence analyst turned whistleblower and U.S. Senate candidate, was not at home, but video obtained by The Intercept shows officers pointing their guns as they searched her empty apartment.

The footage, captured by a security camera, shows an officer with the Montgomery County Police Department in Bethesda, Maryland, knocking on Manning’s door. When no one responds, the officer pops the lock, and three officers enter the home with their guns drawn, while a fourth points a Taser.

Granted, some people use firearms to end their lives, but guns drawn appears to be the default response in welfare checks. Officers are operating with limited information, but that should indicate a need for both caution and de-escalation tactics, rather than responding to a third-hand account of suicidal tweets with something that could pass for a rather low-key drug bust.

The responding agency -- the Montgomery County Police -- appears to know this isn't the proper response. Its first reaction when reached for comment was to accuse The Intercept of posting a possibly-unauthentic video. Police Captain Paul Starks also questioned The Intercept's facts, asking how it knew "no one was home."

Then he defended the guns-first approach to community caretaking.

“They don’t know what kind of circumstances they are entering when they enter a home,” Starks said, increasingly flustered. “The fact that a weapon is drawn doesn’t mean that they are going to shoot it.”

Perhaps not. But it makes it far more likely that they will use weapons, sometimes inadvertently. Unless you're intending to kill something or someone, the guns should remain holstered. That's just common sense, especially when multiple officers are exploring an unfamiliar space with limited information. It's not just the person being "helped" who might end up shot. It's other officers responding to the same call possibly startling another responder already on edge with a gun drawn.

Being a police officer in America is an astoundingly safe (in terms of risk of death, if not secure, lifelong employment) career choice. And yet, officers respond to many welfare checks as though the person in need of physical or psychiatric health is determined to Bonnie and Clyde their way through the attempted intervention. Cops are rarely killed in the line of duty -- even less so by firearms -- but the mentality is that every member of the general public is just dying to escalate a car stop or frisk into Murder One charges with a law enforcement sentencing enhancement tacked onto it.

The militarization of police has turned community servants into combatants despite the level of violent crime dropping precipitously over the last three decades. As public violence continues to decline, police keep amping up their response to "threats" only they can see, feel, or hear. The only sure way to make it through a wellness check alive is to be like Chelsea Manning -- nowhere near the address reported by people who thought they were doing the right thing.

Filed Under: chelsea manning, mental health, montgomery county police, police, suicide, wellness check

Moral Muppets At Harvard Cave In To The CIA; Rescind Chelsea Manning's Fellowship

from the fucking-cowards dept

Harvard is one of the most prestigious universities in the world (and its graduates often feel the need to remind you of that). But apparently Harvard is more worried about protecting its reputation from the elite than actually fulfilling its stated mission of "educating the citizens and citizen-leaders for our society." In an act of utter cowardice, it withdrew a Visiting Fellowship that it gave to Chelsea Manning just a couple days after announcing it -- all because the CIA and its friends got upset. Harvard caving in to the CIA is not a good look.

Two days ago, Harvard's Institute of Politics at the Kennedy School announced that Chelsea Manning would be a "Visiting Fellow" for the 2017-2018 school year. She was joining others -- including former Trump press secretary Sean Spicer, former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook. The Visiting Fellows program is basically a high falutin' way of saying that these people would come give some talks at the school. But the point of the program -- in theory -- is to expose people to a variety of ideas from a variety of different perspectives. Personally, I think honoring Spicer, Lewandowski and Mook is fairly ridiculous, but I respect and support Harvard wishing to bring them -- or anyone -- in to talk about their experience

But, of course, anything having to do with Manning is controversial to some -- mostly those who have bought into a misleading line of tripe from cable news. And thus people freaked out that Harvard was including her. Among those most triggered by Harvard planning to have Manning come talk to students was the CIA. On Thursday, former CIA depute director (and former acting director) Michael Morell resigned from his own fellowship (in a different program) at the Kennedy School in protest. His letter is full of debunked bullshit.

Unfortunately, I cannot be part of an organization -- The Kennedy School -- that honors a convicted felon and leaker of classified information, Ms. Chelsea Manning, by inviting her to be a Visiting Fellow at the Kennedy School's Institute of Politics. Ms. Manning was found guilty of 17 serious crimes, including six counts of espionage, for leaking hundreds of thousands of classified documents to Wikileaks, an entity that CIA Director Mike Pompeo says operates like an adversarial foreign intelligence service.

Senior leaders in our military have stated publicly that the leaks by Ms. Manning put the lives of US soldiers at risk. Upon her conviction, then Rep. Mike Rogers and Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the top Republican and Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee at the time, praised the verdict, saying "Justice has been served today." They added "Pfc. Manning harmed our national security, violated the public's trust, and now stands convicted of multiple serious crimes."

This statement is hogwash. Yes, she was convicted of various crimes including espionage, but only because the Espionage Act is a complete unconstitutional joke that makes no distinction between leaking to the press and spying for a foreign government -- and under which you're not allowed to share your motives for leaking information. Saying she was "convicted of espionage" without context is misleading bullshit and Morell, of all people, knows that and is exploiting it.

The claim that Pompeo now says that Wikileaks is acting like an "adversarial foreign intelligence service" is bullshit and misleading in two ways. First, Pompeo is not exactly an unbiased observer. He's long been a massive surveillance state cheerleader -- who was one of the biggest supporters of having the NSA illegally spy on nearly every American, and who has a long history of grandstanding against those with the courage to blow the whistle on the unconstitutional activities Pompeo himself has championed (more on him in a moment).

Separately, even if you accept Pompeo's recent statements about how Wikileaks acts today, anyone with any knowledge of the history (which Morell certainly has) knows that Wikileaks was a very different kind of operation back when Manning first leaked the documents to the site. Manning's leaks to Wikileaks were really its first big "government" leak. Earlier leaks had been more targeted at corporate malfeasance, and the site's reputation at the time was as a general home for hosting whistleblowing documents of all kind.

As for Ruppersberger and Rogers' statements, they are in the Pompeo camp as long time defenders of the surveillance state. Ruppersberger's district was where many NSA employees lived, and Rogers' reputation was largely built around acting like a tough guy on "law and order" and surveillance. So, big whoop.

The really obnoxious and bullshit part of Morell's letter, though, is the claim that "our military have stated publicly that the leaks by Ms. Manning put the lives of US soldiers at risk." Note Morell's careful choice of words. He didn't say that she put people's lives at risk. Or that anyone was harmed by Manning's whistleblowing. He says that some in the military publicly stated that lives were put at risk. His careful choice of words is because he knows full well that at Manning's sentencing hearing, those same military officials admitted there was no evidence of any lives harmed as a result of the leaks. It was also admitted that the earlier claims of harm were misleading, in that some of the names that the military had claimed had died... had actually died before the Wikileaks disclosures.

Back to Pompeo. Soon after Morell's letter became public, CIA director Pompeo refused to give a planned speech at Harvard, giving a similarly bullshit statement:

"My conscience and duty to the men and women of the [CIA] will not permit me to betray their trust by appearing to support Harvard's decision with my appearance at tonight's event," Pompeo wrote, referring to the Thursday engagement. "Ms. Manning betrayed her country and was found guilty of 17 serious crimes for leaking classified information to Wikileaks."

"Leaders from both political parties denounced Ms. Manning's actions as traitorous and many intelligence and military officials believe those leaks put the lives of the patriotic men and women at the CIA in danger," Pompeo continued. "And those military and intelligence officials are right."

Again, this is bullshit for all the same reasons that Morell's letter was bullshit.

But Harvard, as an academic institution that supports differences of opinion and free speech, stood up to these CIA spooks, right? Nope, they immediately caved and withdrew the fellowship, but tried to appease people by saying she could still come to speak.

We are withdrawing the invitation to her to serve as a Visiting Fellow — and the perceived honor that it implies to some people — while maintaining the invitation for her to spend a day at the Kennedy School and speak in the Forum.

I apologize to her and to the many concerned people from whom I have heard today for not recognizing upfront the full implications of our original invitation.

What a bullshit, cowardly statement in response to concern trolling from surveillance state supporters with actual blood on their hands. Mike Morell, among his many claims to fame, defended torture, and droning innocent civilians.

Here's something else: Morell has accepted responsibility and apologized for playing a large role in providing incorrect intelligence that led the US to attack Iraq, leading to the actual deaths of thousands of US soldiers. For Havard to rescind its offer to Manning, over false claims of putting US soldiers at risk from a guy who has admitted his own decisions lead to the deaths of thousands of US soldiers, is a total travesty.

What's more, this comes just a day after it came out that Harvard administrators deliberately overruled a decision to admit a woman who was about to be released from prison for killing her child. The story is heartbreaking in many ways -- but it reminds us that prison is supposed to be a place of redemption, but the cowards at Harvard overruled what some said was "one of the strongest candidates in the country last year, period," over fears of how it would look. One of the quotes from a Harvard professor in the article is quite incredible:

But frankly, we knew that anyone could just punch her crime into Google, and Fox News would probably say that P.C. liberal Harvard gave 200 grand of funding to a child murderer, who also happened to be a minority. I mean, c’mon.

It takes courage to stand up for what's right. It takes courage to stand up for redemption after one has served their time for crime. Harvard has no courage. Harvard is made up of cowards.

As an aside: last night was the EFF's Pioneer Awards, in which I had the honor and privilege of standing with Chelsea Manning, who gave a truly inspirational speech about redemption and the ability to face adversity with dignity, just minutes before Harvard showed that it had no dignity at all.

Filed Under: chelsea manning, cia, mike morell, mike pompeo
Companies: harvard

EFF Pioneer Awards: Chelsea Manning, Annie Game... And Me

from the neat dept

So here's a bit of nice news. Yesterday EFF announced this year's Pioneer Award winners, and they included Chelsea Manning, Annie Game... and me. I'm humbled to win the award -- but especially to be included with Chelsea and Annie, both of whom have gone to amazing lengths, and often sacrificed tremendous amounts, to do what they believe in to help make the world a better place. I just write about stuff. If you read Techdirt, you probably know about Chelsea Manning already -- we've certainly written about her, what she's done for this country, and the travesty of the charges and punishment she faced. Frankly, it's a joke to put me in a list with Chelsea Manning. We don't belong in the same conversation, let alone getting the same award. As for Annie Game -- you might not know the name, but she's a force to be reckoned with as well. She runs IFEX, which is on the front lines around the globe -- especially in repressive authoritarian-led countries -- fighting to protect a press that has few legal protections and standing up for free expression and access to information in very real and tangible ways (and sometimes in dangerous environments). I aspire to do work that will someday put me on a level with the things both Chelsea and Annie have done -- but in the meantime, I'm happy to share this award with them.

If you have not been, the Pioneer Awards event is always a blast, so if you're in the area on September 14th, please consider coming out to the ceremony. Tickets help support EFF, and I think we all know just how much amazing work EFF has done over the years.

Filed Under: annie game, chelsea manning, eff, pioneer awards

Secret Defense Dept. Report Shows Manning Leaks Did No Serious Damage

from the confirming-unofficial-statements-from-US-officials dept

Prosecutors seeking to justify a lengthy sentence (and the abuses that had already occurred) in the Chelsea Manning case insisted the documents she leaked had caused serious damage to those exposed by them. They said this even as multiple government officials admitted the most the United States had suffered was some embarrassment.

Jason Leopold has obtained an official assessment of the Manning leaks which shows the same thing: no real damage was done.

Regarding the hundreds of thousands of Iraq-related military documents and State Department cables provided by the Army private Chelsea Manning, the report assessed “with high confidence that disclosure of the Iraq data set will have no direct personal impact on current and former U.S. leadership in Iraq.”

This doesn't necessarily mean no damage was done. But the report confirms the United States didn't suffer from the Manning leaks.

The report also determined that a different set of documents that was published the same year, relating to the U.S. war in Afghanistan, would not result in “significant impact” to U.S. operations. It did, however, have the potential to cause “serious damage” to “intelligence sources, informants and the Afghan population” and U.S and NATO intelligence collection efforts.

The report [PDF] also notes investigators located the encrypted Wikileaks "insurance" file -- one Julian Assange says he'll release the key to if he feels his ability to disseminate information is threatened. (Stay tuned!) The assessment concludes it's unlikely this file contains anything damaging either.

Based on public statements by Assange, the IRTF assesses with moderate confidence that the "Insurance File" does not contain any USG data beyond what the IRTF has already reviewed.

The document dates back to 2011. It may have been some use in Manning's defense during the trial (a defense severely limited by the nature of espionage proceedings). As Leopold notes, Manning was not allowed to view this report. Instead, she was forced to fight the charges blind while prosecutors cherry-picked portions of the report to bolster their arguments.

Not that any of this matters at this point. The damage has already been done to Manning's life. And Manning's prosecution likely serves as a low-key chilling effect to dissuade potential leakers and whistleblowers from publicly humiliating the US government. But it does show the government is willing to use evidence that doesn't actually exist to secure a conviction.

Filed Under: chelsea manning, damage, defense department, dod, leaks, state department
Companies: wikileaks

UN Independent Expert On Promotion Of Democracy Calls On Governments To Stop Persecuting Whistleblowers

from the take-that dept

Alfred de Zayas, who is the UN's "Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and international order" has put out quite a statement in support of President Obama's decision to commute Chelsea Manning's sentence. But de Zayas didn't stop there. He went on to point out that the US government and other governments have been persecuting many other whistleblowers around the world, including Ed Snowden and Julian Assange, and that should stop:

I welcome the commutation of sentence of Chelsea Manning and her forthcoming release in May. There are, however, many whistleblowers who have served the cause of human rights and who are still in prison in many countries throughout the world. It is time to recognize the contribution of whistleblowers to democracy and the rule of law and to stop persecuting them.

I call on Governments worldwide to put an end to multiple campaigns of defamation, mobbing and even prosecution of whistleblowers like Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, the Luxleakers Antoine Deltour and Raphael Halet and the tax corruption leaker Rafi Rotem, who have acted in good faith and who have given meaning to article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on freedom of expression. Whistleblowers who are serving prison sentence in many countries should be pardoned.

Whistleblowers are human rights defenders whose contribution to democracy and the rule of law cannot be overestimated. They serve democracy and human rights by revealing information that all persons are entitled to receive. A culture of secrecy is frequently also a culture of impunity. Because the right to know proclaimed in article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is absolutely crucial to every democracy, whistleblowers should be protected, not persecuted.

The statement goes on for a few more paragraphs and concludes:

It is time for this abnormal and inhuman situation to end.

Of course, this kind of statement will mostly be ignored by those in power -- and where not ignored, it will likely be mocked or attacked. But it is an important and useful statement. In the hype and buzz around these individuals, the underlying facts often get buried. But it remains the case that the individuals de Zayas named have focused on revealing to the public important information that powerful people have tried to keep secret, often exposing massive government overreach or outright lies.

Filed Under: alfred de zayas, chelsea manning, democracy, ed snowden, julian assange, un, whistleblowers

Almost Every Word Of John McCain's Response To Chelsea Manning's Sentence Commutation Is Flat Out Wrong

from the hypocrites-in-congress dept

It's hardly a surprise that a bunch of people who have been fed a load of bullshit about what Chelsea Manning did years ago are now quite angry over President Obama's decision to commute Manning's sentence. But I don't think any are quite as painstakingly wrong as Senator John McCain. Someone should call up the Guinness World Record folks, because the wrong-per-sentence ratio of McCain's angry statement might just set a new world record. Let's dig in.

President Obama’s commutation of Chelsea Manning’s sentence is a grave mistake that I fear will encourage further acts of espionage and undermine military discipline.

Wait. Really? Manning has been in prison for seven years, with a significant portion of that being held in solitary confinement, sometimes being made to strip naked before being able to sleep. This was called "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of article 16 of the convention against torture" by the United Nations. You would think, of all people, Senator John McCain, who similarly was held in solitary confinement and tortured for extended periods while being held captive for 5 and a half years in Vietnam, would recognize that "only" 7 years of such treatment wouldn't exactly encourage more of Manning's behavior.

To put it more directly: who, in their right mind, is going to leak a bunch of documents thinking "oh, perhaps after going through literal torture, character assassination and basically hell on earth, it'll be okay, because maybe some other President will commute my insane 35 year sentence to just 7 years? No one. The idea that this commutation is going to lead to further leaks is ridiculous. If anything will lead to further leaks it's Manning's courage in seeing something wrong in the system and actually doing something about it.

In fact, it was things like Manning's courage that helped inspire Ed Snowden and other whistleblowers to step up. They didn't do it on the idea that they might "only" suffer 7 years of torture.

Second, what Manning did was not "espionage" and for McCain to suggest it is, means McCain either has no idea what he's talking about, or is lying. Manning leaked diplomatic cables and related information exposing vast wrongdoing by the US, to Wikileaks, who partnered with a number of respected press outlets to reveal the wrongdoing. That's not espionage. That's classic whistleblowing. And, yes, in case you've forgotten, Manning's leaks revealed a hell of a lot of wrongdoing by the US government.

It also devalues the courage of real whistleblowers who have used proper channels to hold our government accountable.

Oh come on. We've highlighted repeatedly how the "proper channels" claim is a complete joke. The "proper channels" have a long history of retaliating against whistleblowers such that everyone now knows the best way to destroy your life is to use the proper channels.

It is a sad, yet perhaps fitting commentary on President Obama’s failed national security policies that he would commute the sentence of an individual that endangered the lives of American troops, diplomats, and intelligence sources by leaking hundreds of thousands of sensitive government documents to Wikileaks, a virulently anti-American organization that was a tool of Russia’s recent interference in our elections.

First of all, Manning did not endanger the lives of American troops, diplomats and intelligence sources. During Manning's sentencing hearing, following her conviction, the US military admitted no one died because of Manning's leaks. So why does this myth still persist? Mainly because it's politically convenient to lie and pretend that whistleblowing leaks must "cost lives."

Thousands of Americans have given their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq upholding their oaths and defending this nation. Chelsea Manning broke her oath and made it more likely that others would join the ranks of her fallen comrades. Her prison sentence may end in a few months’ time, but her dishonor will last forever.

This has been pointed out over and over again: the oath that people take is to defend the Constitution. And a big part of that is calling out unconstitutional behavior by "this nation." Which is exactly what Manning did. Manning clearly felt that part of defending our nation and upholding her oath was to reveal wrongdoing by the US government. Furthermore, once again, the US military itself admitted that Manning didn't cause anyone to die.

Finally, as Marcy Wheeler correctly points out, McCain isn't just completely wrong with most of his statement, he's a total hypocrite as well. After all, McCain has been one of the most vocal supporters of General David Petraeus, a man who was convicted of giving classified information (much more serious than anything leaked by Manning) to his mistress. When there was talk of demoting Petraeus for this fairly serious breach, McCain said he was going to launch a Congressional investigation. And, more recently, McCain had this to say about Petraeus:

People make mistakes in life, they pay a price and move on.

So, uh, yeah. Compare that to his statement about the commutation (not pardon) of Manning's sentence and explain how McCain is not an utter and total hypocrite. If commuting Manning's sentence after "just" 7 years of torture and inhuman treatment will incentivize more leaks, wouldn't that also mean that Petraeus getting basically no punishment at all for leaking much more serious material will lead to more leaks, since it seems top government and intelligence community officials are clearly being given the message: it's okay to give up the nation's biggest secrets if it means you get laid.

Filed Under: chelsea manning, commutation, espionage, harm, john mccain, oath, whistleblowing