Monday, May 28, 2012
#BradleyManning:Defence team says US military is withholding key evidence
Military's delay in searching through files and handing them over is denying Manning a fair trial, defence attorney argues
Bradley Manning has been in custody since May 2010, and his trial is due to start in September. Photograph: Cliff Owen/AP
Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of being behind the biggest leak of state secrets in US history, is being denied a fair trial because the army is withholding from him crucial information that might prove his innocence or reduce his sentence, his defence team is arguing.
The stakes are high, with Manning facing possible life imprisonment for a raft of charges that include "aiding the enemy".
Manning's main civilian lawyer, David Coombs, has filed a motion with the military court in Fort Meade, Maryland, that sets out a catalogue of delays and inconsistencies in the army's handling of the case.
Almost two years after Manning was arrested, the military has not yet completed a search even of its own files to see if there is any material beneficial to the defence – as it is legally obliged to do.
"That the government cannot get its ducks in a row with respect to discovery which is clearly under its control does not inspire confidence," Coombs writes.
Manning faces 22 charges relating to the transfer of a massive trove of US state secrets from military computers to the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks.
Material from the trove was published by the Guardian and an alliance of other international newspapers.
The leaks included video footage of a US helicopter attack on a group of civilians in Baghdad, war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan and hundreds of thousands of secret US embassy cables from around the world.
Disclosure by the prosecution of information that could be useful to the defence – known as "Brady materials" – has been a cornerstone of American criminal law since the US supreme court laid down a ruling making it obligatory in 1963.
The rule applies equally to civilian and military prosecutors, under the 14th amendment of the US constitution.
Yet Coombs describes an astonishing lack of diligence on the part of the military authorities to meet its obligations. Coombs writes that he has just learned that it took army prosecutors more than a year even to start the process of searching for Brady materials.
Manning was first charged as the WikiLeaks suspect on 5 July 2010, but it was not until 29 July 2011 that the government sent out a memo to relevant army officials asking them to search for and keep information that should be disclosed to defence lawyers.
On top of that unexplained delay, the army then discovered on 17 April 2012 – fully nine months after the request went out and 21 months after Manning was charged – that absolutely no action had been taken by any of those officials.
Coombs said his discovery had exposed the government's "utter lack of diligence in undertaking its Brady search. Why would the government wait until over a year after preferral of charges to begin its search for Brady materials? How could the government not have noticed that for nine months, it had not received any material from any principal officials in the army? If the government cannot even search its own files properly, how can we believe them when they say they have diligently searched the files of other organisations?"
The defence motion itemises some of the information that it believes is in the possession of government bodies, from the army itself to the FBI, department of justice, state department and various intelligence agencies. In total, 12 government departments are listed by the defence.
Specifically, Coombs complains that he has been withheld any assessments compiled by heads of US embassies and missions around the world regarding the overall impact of the WikiLeaks releases.
He also wants to see the output of a working group of senior officials set up within the state department that reviewed the potential risks to individuals from the WikiLeaks disclosures, as well as reports made by the same department to Congress concerning the impact of WikiLeaks and the steps taken to mitigate the fall-out.
"To allow the government to restrict the defence's access to this information," Coombs concludes, "is to provide the government with an unfair tactical advantage that will likely prejudice Manning's right to a fair trial."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/27/bradley-manning-military-withholding-evidence?cat=world&type=article
Monday, April 30, 2012
Bradley #Manning Trial to Begin September 21st April 26, 2012...
http://tmblr.co/ZC3D0xKOAqJN
An Army judge ruled this afternoon that the court martial of 24-year-old Army Private First Class Bradley Manning, who is alleged to have leaked hundreds of thousands of classified documents to the WikiLeaks website, will begin in five months time on September 21, 2012. Manning has been in pretrial confinement since being arrested nearly two years ago on May 25, 2010 at his post in Iraq.
Colonel Denise Lind, the presiding judge at today’s hearing at Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, also rejected all of the motions by Manning’s civilian lawyer David Coombs to dismiss the charges against Manning. The most serious charge is that Manning provided aid and comfort to the enemy by disclosing classified information. If found guilty on this charge alone, Manning could face the death penalty. But the lead Army prosecutor in the case has already said that he will not ask for the death penalty if Manning is convicted of this charge.
An Army judge ruled this afternoon that the court martial of 24-year-old Army Private First Class Bradley Manning, who is alleged to have leaked hundreds of thousands of classified documents to the WikiLeaks website, will begin in five months time on September 21, 2012. Manning has been in pretrial confinement since being arrested nearly two years ago on May 25, 2010 at his post in Iraq.
Colonel Denise Lind, the presiding judge at today’s hearing at Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, also rejected all of the motions by Manning’s civilian lawyer David Coombs to dismiss the charges against Manning. The most serious charge is that Manning provided aid and comfort to the enemy by disclosing classified information. If found guilty on this charge alone, Manning could face the death penalty. But the lead Army prosecutor in the case has already said that he will not ask for the death penalty if Manning is convicted of this charge.
Wikileaks has obtained and decrypted this previously unreleased video footage from a US Apache helicopter in 2007. It shows Reuters journalist Namir Noor-Eldeen, driver Saeed Chmagh, and several others as the Apache shoots and kills them in a public square in Eastern Baghdad. They are apparently assumed to be insurgents. After the initial shooting, an unarmed group of adults and children in a minivan arrives on the scene and attempts to transport the wounded. They are fired upon as well.
The official statement on this incident initially listed all adults as insurgents and claimed the US military did not know how the deaths ocurred. Wikileaks released this video with transcripts and a package of supporting documents on April 5th 2010 on http://collateralmurder.com
Thursday, April 12, 2012
#BradleyManning : An Evening With Craig Murray In Support Of Bradley Manning - Look Forward To Seeing You There.
Monday 16 April 2012
Why Do We Need Whistleblowers in a Democracy?
An Evening with Craig Murray
Ex Ambassador, Author, Broadcaster, Whistleblower and Human Rights Activist
Small Chemistry Lecture Theatre, Main Building, Cardiff University
With Bradley Manning’s impending court martial hearing and the recent WikiLeaks controversy, Craig Murray will be discussing why whistleblowing is necessary in a democracy. He will draw on his experience as former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan, until 2004 when he was removed from his post for exposing grave human rights abuses as well as about his experiences in Africa.
This event is held in partnership with Bradley Manning Support Events (Wales). For more details of events taking place for the Manning campaign in April, see
wiseupforbradleymanning.wordpress.com
Please contact Naomi Blight at naomiblight@wcia.org.uk or call 029 20228549 if you are able to attend.
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/04/an-evening-with-me-in-support-of-bradley-manning/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Why Do We Need Whistleblowers in a Democracy?
An Evening with Craig Murray
Ex Ambassador, Author, Broadcaster, Whistleblower and Human Rights Activist
Small Chemistry Lecture Theatre, Main Building, Cardiff University
With Bradley Manning’s impending court martial hearing and the recent WikiLeaks controversy, Craig Murray will be discussing why whistleblowing is necessary in a democracy. He will draw on his experience as former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan, until 2004 when he was removed from his post for exposing grave human rights abuses as well as about his experiences in Africa.
This event is held in partnership with Bradley Manning Support Events (Wales). For more details of events taking place for the Manning campaign in April, see
wiseupforbradleymanning.wordpress.com
Please contact Naomi Blight at naomiblight@wcia.org.uk or call 029 20228549 if you are able to attend.
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/04/an-evening-with-me-in-support-of-bradley-manning/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
#Iraq :#BradleyManning Video News: Crackdown on Manning supporter David House, the erosion of privacy, and a puppet show for Bradley
Andrew Rosenthal calls the U.S. crackdown on Bradley Manning supporters “an outrageous abuse of power.” At his New York Times blog, Rosenthal chronicles the efforts of the Support Network’s David House to sue the U.S. government for seizing his electronic equipment solely for his political affiliations. He provides more detail about the case before denouncing the government for trying to chill First Amendment-protected speech:
Bradley Manning supporters Birgitta Jónsdóttir and Mike Gogulski discuss the erosion of privacy and increasing surveillance. Jónsdóttir, of the Icelandic Parliament, and Gogulski talk about advocating for WikiLeaks and Bradley Manning, and the U.S. government’s crackdown on their supporters. The interview starts at about 1:40:....Video at link...
#BradleyManning
From the use of customs as a pawn in what is obviously a political game, to the seizure of Mr. House’s computer devices, this is an outrageous abuse of power. But the government didn’t think Mr. House deserved even a day in court. It demanded that the court dismiss Mr. House’s claims that the search and seizure violated his Fourth and First Amendment rights.House’s case proceeding to trial is a minor but important victory for free speech, whistle-blowing, and political dissent. The government cannot be allowed to silence those who merely seek to expose the truth. (Read more…)
The court said Mr. House had a legitimate claim concerning the 49-day delay in returning his property. And it granted him the chance to argue that the entire search and confiscation was based solely on his association with the Bradley Manning Support group, and therefore violated his First Amendment rights.
Judge Casper did the right thing by assessing this case on its merits, and not on the propaganda of fear that has dominated the national security debate since Sept. 11, 2001.
Bradley Manning supporters Birgitta Jónsdóttir and Mike Gogulski discuss the erosion of privacy and increasing surveillance. Jónsdóttir, of the Icelandic Parliament, and Gogulski talk about advocating for WikiLeaks and Bradley Manning, and the U.S. government’s crackdown on their supporters. The interview starts at about 1:40:....Video at link...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)