Bradley Manning court-martial opens

[brooklynite]

Source: Washington Post

FORT MEADE, Md. — Opening the court-martial of Army Pfc. Bradley E. Manning, a military prosecutor charged Monday that he “harvested” a massive trove of classified information from secure networks and made it available to America’s enemies by dumping it onto the Internet.

In a nearly hour-long statement to a packed courtroom, Cap. Joe Morrow described ways in which the disclosure of this information put the lives of Manning’s fellow soldiers “at risk.” The trial opened at this Army installation 27 miles northeast of Washington more than three years after Manning was arrested in Iraq in connection with the largest leak of classified documents in U.S. history.

“This is a case about a soldier who harvested hundreds of thousands of documents and dumped them on the Internet where they would be available to the enemy,” Morrow said. A slideshow outlining “key evidence “ the prosecution would present included information from an external hard drive of Manning’s personal computer and chat logs.

The prosecutor said the judge would gain a sense of an intelligence analyst who was leaking documents to WikiLeaks almost from the moment he arrived at Forward Operating Base Hammer in Iraq in November 2009. Morrow said Manning would “package” information and transmit it within a “couple of hours.”

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/bradley-manning-court-martial-opens/2013/06/03/9c65ea48-cc51-11e2-8f6b-67f40e176f03_story.html?hpid=z3

---

Yesterday, someone here claimed this was a "kangaroo court". Still waiting to see the marsupials.

[still_one]

1. There are two issues here. One, did Bradley Manning violate military law. Most likely yes.

The second issue did the information show the U.S. military was violating international law?

Of course Bradley Manning is not the only one who did such things. Daniel Ellsberg, Mai Lai(Viet Nam), and others.

The fact is when one joins the military, and specifically becomes part of the intelligence in the military, you accept certain conditions. If one violates those conditions, they will face the consequences. I have no doubt Bradley Manning was aware of this when he released the information.

Will this deter other whistle blowers in the military? Not if their conscious truly believes in what they are doing.

[7962]

2. Well said, Still.

He's no hero. He put many lives at risk and probably assisted in ending some too. I think of the doctor in Pakistan who was instrumental in helping to get Bi Laden. Now he sits in jail because his name got out. Not due to Wiki, but how many like him were "outed" because of it?

[Maedhros]

3. If what you say is true:

"He [Manning] put many lives at risk and probably assisted in ending some too."

Then why has the Pentagon repeatedly stated the opposite, that no lives were lost because of the leaks?

Also, if you are so enraged about the alleged crime of outing foreign agents in the War on Terror, why are you not at least as outraged at the crimes revealed by the leaks?

[annm4peace]

11. thank you

and well said or asked

[premium]

16. No U.S. lives were lost,

but he released hundreds of names of informants working with the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Taliban has already said because of those docs., they have a list of 1800 Afghans on their wanted list.
I think that pretty much puts their lives in danger, Assange even said himself that informants get what they deserve.

[freshwest]

20. 'Assange even said himself that informants get what they deserve.'

So their lives mean nothing, or is he saying that the Taliban are the good guys here?

The same Taliban who conducted public amputations, stoning and other gruesome acts when left by themselves to rule Afghanistan. The cult that shoots little girls in the head for daring to get an education, starves the women and children of families whose husbands have been killed so that they must beg on the streets and be further harmed. And deals in the sale of little boys and girls for sex?

Who can defend that, even in the name of self-determination and respecting a culture? And mind you, a lot of the money for all of this folly comes from the USA.

How does Assange expect to be dealt with an informer himself?

That's a rash statement to make, in this context, at least. At times I wonder if he and all the rest are under the payroll of some wack job religious sect that wants to take over the world or something.

And that sounds very much like a 'the end justifies the means' way of thinking, which makes one wonder just what 'the end' they are working toward is. I don't think 'the means' as that, will lead to freedom of information, or liberating people, etc.

Very strange and murky stuff.

[premium]

21. Here's what I was able to find about informants lives being placed in danger.

Hundreds of Afghan civilians who worked as informants for the U.S. military have been put at risk by WikiLeaks’ publication of more than 90,000 classified intelligence reports which name and in many cases locate the individuals, The Times newspaper reported Wednesday.

The article says, in spite of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s claim that sensitive information had been removed from the leaked documents, that reporters scanning the reports for just a couple hours found hundreds of Afghan names mentioned as aiding the U.S.-led war effort.

One specific example cited by the paper is a report on an interview conducted by military officers of a potential Taliban defector. The militant is named, along with his father and the village in which they live.

“The leaks certainly have put in real risk and danger the lives and integrity of many Afghans,” a senior official at the Afghan foreign ministry told The Times on condition of anonymity. “The U.S. is both morally and legally responsible for any harm that the leaks might cause to the individuals, particularly those who have been named. It will further limit the U.S./international access to the uncensored views of Afghans.”

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/28/wikileaks-exposed-hundreds-of-afghan-informants/

[Maedhros]

4. An even better question...

If you're so incensed about the unintended possible collateral damage from the Manning leaks (e.g. the alleged deaths), why aren't you equally incensed about the collateral damage from drone attacks? The deaths of innocents that result from implementation of our drone campaign are (unlike those from the Manning leaks) definitely confirmed and much more numerable.

[duhneece]

5. Revealing war crimes is the act of a hero.

Manning revealed war crimes (the murder of Reuters journalists and Iraqis come to mind).

I don't believe his info caused anyone's death, but the war he wanted 'revealed' destroyed millions of lives. The fact that Daniel Berrigan supports him means alot to me.

[struggle4progress]

6. Manning 'systematically harvested' documents

4 Jun 2013, 8:50 am
Source: AFP

... Morrow said Manning was in regular contact with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange -- currently holed up in Ecuador's embassy in London as he aims to avoid extradition to Sweden -- to determine the most valuable kinds of information.

He had also provided WikiLeaks with the email addresses of more than 74,000 service members in Iraq, including, names, ranks and positions, Morrow said.

In one period Manning had "systematically harvested" more than 250,000 US State Department cables subsequently released by WikiLeaks.

"250,000 cables -- that's 25,000 cables a day, more than 1,000 cables an hour," Morrow said ...

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1774238/Wikileaks-soldier-%27had-good-intentions%27

[freshwest]

14. '...25,000 cables a day, more than 1,000 cables an hour...' How did he do that? Literally, how?

Also from the link:

"...The evidence will show... the accused knowingly gave intelligence to the enemy," Morrow said.

"He knew al-Qaeda used WikiLeaks," he said, adding that Bin Laden was known to scour classified US reports from Afghanistan...

I had planned to ask, just who are 'America's enemies' and guess thats the list. Officially, al-Qaeda is one of them.

Some who don't believe he did anything criminal or improper but necessary, may not believe in the existence of al-Qaeda or even Bin Laden. Those rumors have been around since the Bush era, in circles that hold both are creations of the CIA and used as justification for military actions.

Such reasoning goes with the assumption that none of these actors listed officially are the real enemy of the world, but that the US Government and the CIA are the enemy of mankind. That is a popular view.

I'm a bit stunned that he would knowingly give that information to anyone, including some who might be planning additional attacks. Not only does al-Qaeda kidnap, torture and kill those they associate with Americans, but also other groups that they are fighting a sort of religious civil war with, too.

That's a lot of lives being put at risk that are innocent. The link highlights the family in the vehicle destroyed by the roadside bomb as a catalyst. Who set that device, Americans or al-Qaeda?

Was Manning solely reacting to the living who had not been bombed and he deemed to be insensitive to the horror of that explosion, or the violence itself?

Did he blame in a larger sense, Americans for being there in the first place, thinking that such things were not taking place in all these nations that are going through these civil wars?

I'm going to have a think a while about what this means, and would appreciate input on any of this who truly thinks about the bigger picture there, and who did Bradley think would be harmed and did he care. Because if he did it in order to save the world or whatever, he seems to have made some deadly decisions.

[struggle4progress]

7. Bradley Manning: Patriotic whistle-blower or American traitor?

The court-martial of Pfc. Bradley Manning began Monday. Manning has said the documents he sent to WikiLeaks served a valuable purpose. Others agree, but that might not help him legally.
By Anna Mulrine, Staff writer / June 3, 2013

... But even if there were individual cases of misconduct, the indiscriminate nature of the WikiLeaks release – which included reams of embarrassing diplomatic cables – was highly damaging to national security and different from the specific nature of the Pentagon Papers, some critics argue.

Ellsberg, for example, decided to keep confidential the volumes of the Pentagon Papers that described the diplomatic efforts to resolve the Vietnam War, which included “derogatory comments about the perfidiousness of specific persons involved, and statements which might be offensive to nations or governments,” noted Floyd Abrams, who was the lawyer for The New York Times during the Pentagon Papers proceedings, in a December 2010 opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal.

Mr. Abrams also pointed to other differences. “The Pentagon Papers revelations dealt with a discrete topic, the ever-increasing level of duplicity of our leaders over a score of years in increasing the nation’s involvement in Vietnam while denying it. It revealed official wrongdoing or, at the least, a pervasive lack of candor by the government to its people.”

“WikiLeaks is different,” he argues. “It revels in the revelation of ‘secrets’ simply because they are secret” ...

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/0603/Bradley-Manning-Patriotic-whistle-blower-or-American-traitor

[Kolesar]

13. Manning was no Ellsberg, for sure

Manning just grabbed everything he could find and released it. He didn't even read the material.

[freshwest]

15. I'm on the run today, that is a very good article, the best yet. Marking to ask questions later...

[struggle4progress]

8. Give Manning a plea deal in classified leaks case

By Eugene Robinson, Monday, June 3, 8:11 PM

... A more meaningful difference, perhaps, is that Ellsberg knew the material he was leaking showed the fundamental bankruptcy of U.S. policy in Vietnam, proving that officials did not believe their own rhetoric about “winning” the war. I doubt Manning understood a fraction of what he allegedly leaked.

Any such large, unsifted release of U.S. diplomatic cables is bound to include disclosures that put lives in danger. WikiLeaks and the news organizations that published some of the information tried to make appropriate redactions. Manning allegedly just threw it all out there, heedless of the consequences.

That kind of callous disregard, for life as well as the law, deserves punishment. But I believe “heedless” is the right word; it’s not at all clear that he wanted to give aid and comfort to al-Qaeda or the Taliban. Unless the government really believes he was a spy working for the enemy — which I doubt — he shouldn’t be prosecuted as one.

The government should make a plea deal. Twenty years is enough penalty to deter other potential leakers — and enough time to begin crafting history’s verdict on Pfc. Bradley Manning ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-give-manning-a-plea-deal-in-classified-leaks-case/2013/06/03/3d2a7578-cc8b-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html

[struggle4progress]

9. Bradley Manning Decided in 2009 to Leak Secrets, Lawyer Says

une 3, 2013
Richard Serrano

Army Pfc. Bradley Manning's decision to release classified U.S. government secrets came in late December 2009, when he was new to Iraq and learned to his horror that a family of five was grievously injured by a roadside bomb.

David Coombs, defense attorney for the 25-year-old enlistee, said at the opening Monday of Manning's long-awaited court martial that on Christmas Eve that year a vehicle with two adults and three children pulled to the side of the road to let an Army convoy pass, only to hit a roadside bomb. "All five of the occupants were taken to the hospital," Coombs said. "One died en route."

What troubled Manning more, he said, was that U.S. soldiers had cheered because their convoy missed the bomb. "He couldn't stop thinking about that" ...

Coombs acknowledged that Manning released more than 700,000 materials to the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks, but said, "he was hoping to make the world a better place. He was 22 years old, he was a little naive. But he was good-intentioned" ...

http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/2013/6/3/bradley_manning_decided_in_2009_to.htm

[snot]

10. I stand with Manning.

[Kolesar]

12. You won't have to sit in a tank 'til your seventy, then be discharged to a flop house

collecting food stamps and $700/month from SSI.

[premium]

17. Manning's going to Florence ADX prison for the rest of his life,

will you stand with him in that SuperMax prison?

[brooklynite]

18. No he won't...

...Florence is a civilian prison, and this is a military trial. Likely the United States Disciplinary Barracks at Leavenworth, KS.

[premium]

19. Probably not.

He'll probably be convicted, given a dishonorable discharge and sent to Florence ADX, however, Leavenworth ain't any better, so it really doesn't matter which one, this young man is in for a rough time.

[annm4peace]

22. I hope a miracle happens

and he is set free.