Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

Why, what it means, doesn’t mean, and what next

By Jeff Paterson, Bradley Manning Support Network. November 19, 2012. Published at Allvoices.com

Army Private Bradley Manning recently informed the military court that he was, in fact, the source of information published by WikiLeaks. While the 24 year old Intelligence Analyst, effectively, took responsibility for transferring classified documents, in violation of military regulations, he maintained that he was not guilty of all 22 charges against him.

“PFC Manning has offered to plead guilty to various offenses through a process known as “pleading by exceptions and substitutions,” explained Manning civilian defense attorney David Coombs on his blog. Manning is “attempting to accept responsibility for offenses that are encapsulated within, or are a subset of, the charged offenses…. PFC Manning is not pleading guilty to the specifications as charged by the government,” added Coombs. Nor is he “submitting a plea as part of an agreement or deal with the government.”

“Pleading by exceptions and substitutions” is very rare–so rare that most observers of the proceedings were thoroughly confused. Some media outlets incorrectly reported that Manning was “seeking a deal”, “pleading guilty”, or trying to nullify a life sentence–or even the death penalty. It’s important to clarify that no deal is being sought, Manning no longer faces the death penalty, and his plea doesn’t prohibit the maximum sentence of life in prison. Manning’s plea confused many, simply because the truth isn’t usually offered up in such proceedings without something in return. But that is what happened.

Why would Manning accept responsibility?

Manning needed to accept responsibility, so that he could move forward with his defense as a whistle-blower, ahead of the scheduled, February 4, 2013, start of his court martial at Fort Meade, Maryland.

Supporters of Manning have long hailed him as a young man, with a conscience, who heroically uncovered evidence of war crimes and government corruption. Yet, many cling to the narrative of Manning, the disillusioned, unstable, gay soldier, serving precariously under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.

Neither the defense nor the prosecution, believe Manning’s difficulties in the Army are a primary aspect of what happened. Neither side has disputed Manning’s motives, as summed up in this online chat, prior to his arrest: “I want people to see the truth… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public… I was actively involved in something that I was completely against.” According to the prosecution, Manning also provided the following note, to WikiLeaks, when he, anonymously, uploaded a cache of battlefield reports of the Iraq War: “This is perhaps one of the most significant documents of our time… removing the fog of war and revealing the true nature of 21st century asymmetric warfare.”

While doing his job, Manning analyzed horrific surveillance videos of the bloody and chaotic Iraq War unfolding around him. In stark contrast to the “Aiding the Enemy” and Espionage Act violation charges the prosecution has painted him with, Manning is now free to explain how he was trying to do the right thing, expecting nothing in return, while sitting in that dark bunker at Forward Operating Base Hammer.

“God knows what happens now. Hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms – if not, we’re doomed,” Manning allegedly told a government informant before his arrest. Now with this plea offering, he’s taken responsibility on the most favorable terms available to him.

At the conclusion of the “Article 32” pre-trial investigative hearing back in December 2011, Manning’s attorney David Coombs explained that his goal was to show the court “why things happened, while the government was only interested in what happened.” In that context, this plea doesn’t represent a change of course for the defense.

What does such a plea actually change?

The plea offered by Manning doesn’t change the charges against him, nor does it alter the possible maximum sentence of life in prison.

The presiding judge, US Army Colonel Denise Lind, may choose to reject Manning’s plea on technical grounds (if so, technically, Manning will have to unaccept responsibility). If the plea is accepted, the prosecution is free to present its case as planned. Manning’s plea offering only addresses three lesser aspects of a couple lesser charges, so the government could easily accept Manning’s plea and still “upcharge” him.

Manning’s plea could make the prosecution’s job easier, if they are relieved of the burden of proving he accessed documents and transferred them to WikiLeaks. Without this new twist, Manning’s court martial was expected to last at least six weeks, with possibly four of those weeks dedicated to testimony covering information technology-related forensic evidence–such as computer and router logs, login passwords, network access records, and hard drive images. The court martial might now become an expedited two or three week affair.

While the government’s burden of proof may have been reduced overall, it is important to understand that Manning is only admitting to violating military regulations that cover the approved usage of secure computers and the appropriate handling of information. During previous pre-trial hearings, Manning’s defense has shown that every member of his intelligence office in Iraq also violated these same regulations. While other soldiers  didn’t share documents with WikiLeaks, they did install unauthorized video games and software and they shared a library of bootleg music and movies on secure Army computers. As Manning is the only soldier charged with any of these violations, the issue of selective prosecution is raised.

Manning’s defense team has had a year, now, to review, at least, some of the forensic evidence. As a courtroom observer, I’ve found the prosecution’s data evidence compelling. It’s likely that Manning’s defense team doesn’t believe there is a reasonable chance to prevail with a “you got the wrong guy” argument, at least not in front of Judge Lind and a jury comprised of Army officers and career enlisted service members. Or, Manning may simply want to be able to tell the truth, regardless of the strength of the evidence available to the prosecution.

Actual deal now less likely

Now that Bradley Manning has unilaterally offered to take responsibility for the transfer of information to WikiLeaks, the prosecution has less motivation to offer him any worthwhile deal, including a sealed maximum sentence, in exchange for a prosecution friendly “Stipulation of Facts”.

A “Stipulation of Facts” is a document of agreed upon facts, by all parties, in a military court martial proceeding. The defense often agrees to facts favorable to the prosecution. In exchange, the defendant receives a sealed maximum sentence agreement opened by the judge only after sentencing. This “secret” agreement often reduces the sentence announced at the conclusion of a court martial. Given the extremely high rate of conviction by military trials, this is a routine defense counsel tactic.

Manning was pressured to cooperate with the government’s efforts to indict WikiLeaks (and Julian Assange specifically) with nine months of brutal and illegal pre-trial confinement conditions at Marine Base Quantico, Virginia, from July 29, 2010 until April 20, 2011. It is unlikely that he’ll change his mind now and cooperate after public outcry secured for him non-abusive confinement conditions at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Manning’s demeanor in the courtroom during pre-trial hearings indicates that he’s looking forward to making his case.

Late in the game?

Bradley Manning was detained in Iraq on May 27, 2010, and imprisoned two days later–129 weeks ago. So why did he wait until “so late in the game” to accept responsibility?

In the normal calendar of a court martial, the investigative “Article 32” hearing, the pre-trial “Article 39A” hearings, and the start of the actual trial, are supposed to take place within 120 days of arrest. This is the “speedy trial” guaranteed by military law. US military court martial procedures are dictated by various “articles” of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), with additional guidance from the Rule for Court Martial (RCM) manual.

So while the proceedings are now taking place quickly, for most of the last two and a half years, Manning has languished in prison awaiting his day in court. This has gone on for so long that the defense will be able to make a compelling argument for dismissing all charges, at the December 10-14 hearing at Fort Meade, based on the government’s violation of Manning’s right to a speedy trial under RCM 707 and UCMJ “Article 10”.

In his September 19, 2012, motion, Manning’s attorney, David Coombs, explained:

“With trial scheduled to commence on 4 February 2013, PFC Manning will have spent a grand total of 983 days in pretrial confinement before even a single piece of evidence is offered against him. To put this amount of time into perspective, the Empire State Building could have been constructed almost two-and-a-half times over in the amount of time it will have taken to bring PFC Manning to trial.”

This seems “late in the game” because the government changed the rules to extend the game by a factor of eight. During this seemingly endless game, the prosecution benefited from limitless resources, while the defense team got by on funding from a grassroots support campaign. It is precisely during the “Article 39A” hearings, finally underway, that motions and plea offers, such as Manning’s, are made and litigated.

The real defense

Manning’s attorney has long contended that the defense will show that the release of these documents brought little to no harm to U.S. national security, and that Manning’s motives were to expose crime, fraud, corporate malfeasance, and abuse. They hope to show that this was, indeed, the outcome. The prosecution’s position will remain that Manning’s motives and the actual outcomes are irrelevant during the guilt phase of trial.

Some members of Congress and media pundits have called for Manning to be lynched because “lives were put in danger”, and informants possibly killed. Yet the government has not named a single individual, anywhere on Earth, who was physically harmed as a result of the WikiLeaks publications—now over two years after the fact.

Every indication is that the “harm” was limited to the U.S. State Department being embarrassed by some diplomatic cables released; however, embarrassment has never been a legitimate justification for classifying a document—and certainly not the thousands of documents which we now know were inappropriately classified in the first place. Meanwhile, the Iraq War has ended (more or less), and we’re told that the Afghanistan War is nearing an end.

Command influence led to trial by judge alone

In another aspect unique to court martials, Manning, last week, opted not to be tried (and possibly sentenced) by a military jury, but by judge Colonel Lind alone. She will decide guilt or innocence on all charges and, if needed, determine sentencing at the conclusion of the punishment phase of court martial.

During an exchange, captured on video, President Barack Obama declared that Manning “broke the law”, at a campaign fundraiser in San Francisco on April 21, 2011. Echoing the Commander-in-Chief, General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated that Manning “did violate the law“ at a press conference a couple of weeks later. Major General Michael Linnington, the direct overseer of Manning’s court martial (referred to as the “Convening Authority”), reports directly to the Pentagon. So it’s no surprise that the defense has little confidence in being able to find a jury untainted by this command influence. This type of influence is specifically prohibited under UCMJ “Article 37”; however, there is no indication, thus far, that the government will face any consequences.

Will Judge Lind be able to ignore the influence of her Commander-in-Chief and Pentagon superiors and, if so, will she then be moved by Manning’s arguments, and to what degree? Regardless, it is safe to say that Manning’s arguments, that he was following his conscience, will be more compelling before, and not after, the prosecution makes its case with forensic evidence.

Ensuring drama, to the very end of this court martial, Judge Lind will have nearly limitless leeway, when announcing punishment, if Manning is found guilty. While the maximum sentencing, on all 22 charges, amounts to a couple of lifetimes in prison, there are no minimum sentencing requirements. Manning could be found guilty of only one charge and receive life in prison, or be found guilty of all charges and sentenced to a few years or less.

The goal of “military justice” is not actually justice, but military discipline. Many factors, including public opinion and the “reputation of the military”, are key ingredients in determining what discipline is appropriate—more so than in civilian legal proceedings. If Judge Lind understands that a significant section of the American public is sympathetic to Manning, the odds greatly improve that she’ll find “middle ground” favorable to Manning throughout these proceedings.

Conspiracy of abuse at Quantico

Bradley Manning’s defense team is scheduled to argue another motion to dismiss all charges November 27th through December 2nd. This motion delves into great detail on how Pentagon-level Lieutenant General George Flynn secretly ordered extreme and unlawful confinement conditions for Manning at Quantico, Virginia. These conditions were so severe that United Nations Chief Rapporteur on Torture Juan Mendez condemned them as “cruel, inhuman and degrading” in his official report.

While the UCMJ “Article 13” prohibits all pre-trial punishment any more rigorous than required to insure that the accused appears at legal hearings, Manning was subjected to solitary confinement, prohibited from undertaking any meaningful physical exercise, and subjected to around- the- clock harassment–including being stripped and made to stand naked during some roll calls.

The military doesn’t deny that the mistreatment occurred, but argues that it was for Manning’s well-being and safety. Brig authorities claimed that mental health assessments dictated these extreme “Maximum” measures and “Prevention of Injury” protocols for Manning alone out of all brig detainees and prisoners.

In emails, long hidden from the defense, it was exposed, in September, that Manning’s treatment had absolutely nothing to do with his health. Lt. Gen. Flynn, while serving as the Commanding General of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command, illegally ordered Manning’s solitary confinement. These illegal orders were then carried out, down the chain of command, without much questioning. The only exception appears to be the mental health professionals, on staff at Quantico, who spoke up against Manning’s treatment. They were threatened with losing their jobs if they persisted with their objections.

Military law would appear to favor Manning’s motion to dismiss, based on these “Article 13” violations. Common sense, however, indicates that Judge Lind will be under unimaginable pressure not to do so. If Judge Lind doesn’t dismiss charges, the defense, in its court filings, suggests the more common remedy of multiple days of confinement credit for every day of mistreatment. The defense will argue for ten days credit, while the prosecution will likely ask for “one for one”—in other words, no additional credit.

If Judge Lind agreed to the defense’s credit position, Manning would receive nearly seven and a half years credit for his time at Quantico plus another couple of years credit for “appropriate” pre-trial confinement. In this situation, Manning might walk out of prison very soon, even if he were sentenced to ten years confinement. If Manning is sentenced to 100 years in prison, then this potential decade of confinement credit becomes meaningless.

If confinement credit, for being tortured, becomes worthless, Judge Lind would be giving the military a free pass to mistreat all pre-trial U.S. military personnel, if there were no actual consequences for doing so. This could be the point where the distinction between foreign “Enemy Combatants” at secret prisons facing tribunals, and our limited, but well established, guarantees of due process for U.S. military service members, as outlined by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, are forever blurred.

Many have chosen not to take a position, regarding Army PFC Bradley Manning, because they were not comfortable supporting someone for something they may, or may not, have done. Now is the time to get off that fence.

A former U.S. Marine artillery man, Jeff Paterson serves on the Bradley Manning Support Network (bradleymanning.org) Steering Committee, which is responsible for 100% of Manning’s legal fees, and is Project Director of Courage to Resist (couragetoresist.org), an organization dedicated to assisting U.S. military personnel grappling with matters of conscience in war.

Last month, a video showing four uniformed U.S. Marines urinating on the bloodied corpses of dead Afghans went viral, returning – if briefly – to our national discussion the depravity of war and the inhumanity of those sent off to fight it.

The video also reignited debates about whether soldiers of these repugnant spectacles are merely “a few bad apples” running rogue or instead a disturbing manifestation of a more insidious, fundamental, and pervasive immorality at the heart of war. In doing so it recalled more obscene instances in the past, such as the Abu Ghraib torture scandal or some of Guantánamo’s darker secrets.

It also might have reminded you of the so-called “Kill Team,” the U.S. Army platoon in Afghanistan whose commander directed his soldiers to murder unarmed Afghani civilians, killed another himself, then removed and collected body parts as souvenirs.

Cpl. Jeremy Morlock with Staff Sgt. David Bram

The ‘Kill Team’ story got major media attention, spurred war-mentality discussions, and put the soldiers involved and their Staff Sergeant in charge on trial. But what came of their indictment?

Several soldiers were prosecuted in the incident, with varying severity. These include Pfc. Andrew Colmes, who pled guilty to the murder of innocent Afghan civilians and was sentenced to seven years in prison. Staff Sergeant David Bram was convicted of solicitation to commit murder, conspiracy to commit assault, and attempting to obstruct the investigation into the Kill Team’s rampage. He was sentenced to five years in prison, but he’ll be eligible for parole after the first three.

Then there’s Staff Sergeant Calvin Gibbs, dubbed the ringleader of the Kill Team. Gibbs was convicted of murdering a civilian, Marach Agha, and planting a weapon next to him to make it seem like he’d killed a militant. He was also convicted of murder for inciting one soldier to throw a grenade at a 15-year-old Afghan civilian, Gul Mudin, and another to shoot the boy afterward. Gibbs was said to play with Mudin’s corpse “as if it was a puppet,” collect teeth and finger bones, and keep part of the victim’s skull. Gibbs’ punishment was most severe, sentenced to life in prison, yet he will be eligible for parole in less than ten years. According to the Guardian, Gibbs’ “jurors acceded to the convicted soldier’s plea to have the hope of being reunited with his son.”

Compare this treatment with the prospective and intended treatment of Pfc. Bradley Manning. Whereas Gibbs, who murdered, conspired to murder, and treated war like deer-hunting bloodsport, was quietly tried and awarded the chance of extremely early parole, Manning could face life in prison without parole or even the death penalty, if his jurors so choose. What about Manning’s hope to reunite with his family after prison, or come to terms with his gender-identity crisis? Manning didn’t kill a soul – will his jurors accede to his plea for freedom?

Gibbs was not kept in solitary confinement for ten months against his will. He wasn’t forced to strip naked in prison at night as Manning was in Quantico. Gibbs’ Article 32 hearing was not delayed 18 months and then held so as to minimize media access. His Commander-in-Chief did not declare Gibbs guilty before he even stepped inside a courtroom, as President Obama declared of Manning eight full months before his hearing. Well-known former governors did not demand that Gibbs be executed.

Or consider another ongoing military investigation. Marine Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich is being tried for his alleged involvement in the 2005 Haditha killings, in which Marines murdered 24 Iraqi civilians. In what witnesses describe as a massacre, Wuterich ordered his squad to “shoot first, ask questions later.” His Marines then shot two dozen unarmed Iraqis, including women and children. If convicted of all charges, Wuterich would face life in prison. Yet at his Article 32 pre-trial hearing, the Investigating Officer, a fellow Marine officer, recommended the major charges be dropped in favor of a lesser one, negligent homicide, that’d only carry a maximum 3-year sentence. But that wasn’t enough: Sgt. Wuterich was just awarded a plea deal in which he pled guilty to “dereliction of duty,” which carries minimal punishment, and then the military judge in his case recommended that he spend no time in jail at all.

Furthermore, it was recently revealed that Sergeant Sanick Dela Cruz testified that Wuterich, his commander, killed five Iraqis and then ordered Dela Cruz to lie about it. Dela Cruz only testified against Wuterich in exchange for immunity – the government dismissed murder charges against him when he agreed to testify in Wuterich’s trial. So Dela Cruz, who also admitted to urinating on one of Wuterich’s corpses, will get off with no jail time, for bringing to light these war crimes and military abuses. The irony is not lost on anyone familiar with Manning’s case: Manning was never accused of murder, desecrating dead bodies, or covering up crimes, but he’s looking at a caged life with no hope for parole or freedom, while actual murderers and those who lied for them get lessened charges or full immunity.

So why is Manning treated this way? In 2010, Admiral Mike Mullen said that WikiLeaks’ source for the Afghan War Logs “might already have on [his] hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family,” a year and half before Manning’s pre-trial hearing. Google searches for Mullen’s comments on Staff Sgt. Gibbs’ murder, photos playing with dead bodies, and body-part trophies yield no results.

Video of the Apache helicopter incident in New Baghdad

As Charles Davis writes for Al Jazeera, “While killing unarmed civilians for sport may not be officially sanctioned policy, it doesn’t threaten the functioning of the war machine as much as a soldier standing up and refusing to be complicit in mass murder.” In other words, Wuterich’s and Gibb’s murders don’t interfere with America’s wars in the Middle East in any meaningful way. They’re embarrassing when made public and incur scorn from the international community, but they don’t have any real effect on U.S. foreign policy. By contrast, Bradley Manning’s alleged actions, in highlighting grave abuses, airing diplomatic secrets, and calling attention to otherwise unnoticed crimes, are considered an impediment to American policy. According to CNN, negotiations between the Iraqi government and the Obama Administration broke down over a dispute about immunity for U.S. soldiers there, specifically due to a cable released by WikiLeaks. Due to this breakdown, the U.S. had to fulfill its promise to withdraw troops from Iraq, leading many to credit Bradley Manning with helping end the nearly 8-year occupation.

Comparing Wuterich or Gibbs with Pfc. Manning sheds much-needed light on some ugly truths of the U.S. justice system. Referencing the Kill Team specifically, Davis suggests that if Manning “had murdered civilians and desecrated their corpses – if he had the moral capacity to commit war crimes, not the audacity to expose them – he’d be better off today.”

But the government would argue that Pfc. Manning’s case is of special interest, and therefore deserves magnified punishment, because he indirectly “aided the enemy.” This is the charge that carries the potential death penalty, that Manning’s lawyer requested be dropped in the Article 32 hearing, and that leads prominent pundits to declare Manning a “traitor.” This will be the charge that sets a precedent in the war on whistle-blowing.

It will also surely be distorted by Manning’s prosecutors, because if the military disciplined soldiers based on honest assessments of what truly “aids the enemy” – and what does not – it would require harsher punishment for soldiers following orders and leniency for an intelligence private releasing improperly classified documents he believes the public should see.

It would also require investigating prominent U.S. politicians. In late 2010, American officials including former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, former secretary of homeland security Tom Ridge, former White House homeland security adviser Frances Townsend and former attorney general Michael Mukasey attended a forum held by supporters of the Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK), a group the United States has designated a terrorist organization since 1997. As Glenn Greenwald writes,

“Even though the actions of these Bush officials violate every alleged piety about bashing one’s own country on foreign soil and may very well constitute a felony under U.S. law, they will be shielded from criticisms because they want to use the Terrorist group to overthrow a government that refuses to bow to American dictates.”

If the U.S. was genuine in disciplining those who “aid the enemy,” they’d be investigating and indicting U.S. officials openly supporting a group the U.S. deems a terrorist organization.

They’d also be paying closer attention to what those they’ve captured have to say. On the rare occasions when suspected militants are caught and tried, they say what radicalized them toward terror is the American killing of Middle Eastern civilians. As Chase Madar writes,

“terrorists themselves have freely confessed that what motivated their acts of wanton violence has been the damage done by foreign military occupation back home or simply in the Muslim world. Asked by a federal judge why he tried to blow up Times Square with a car bomb in May 2010, Pakistani-American Faisal Shahzad answered that he was motivated by the civilian carnage the U.S. had caused in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.”

Examine again what Sgt. Gibbs and his soldiers did in Afghanistan: killing innocent Afghani civilians (including a 15-year-old boy), removing their fingers, playing with their corpses. This is what provides rhetorical ammunition for Al Qaeda and its offshoots, who can point to events like this as catalysts for their rage. This is indirectly “aiding the enemy” as a blatant and obscene symbol of American invasion.

This is also the type of behavior that Pfc. Manning is accused of revealing. One State Department cable that WikiLeaks published documents a harrowing atrocity in Iraq, “wherein one man, four women, two children, and three infants were summarily executed.” The killings were illegal, a US airstrike attempted to destroy the evidence, and yet no soldiers have been held accountable. Releasing this cable did not “aid the enemy”; it’s the killing itself that spawns outrage and radical militancy.

Sgt. Gibbs, Sgt Wuterich, and the soldiers who followed their orders have confessed to the blood on their hands, and they will be granted plea deals and near-immunity. Defense Secretary Robert Gates declared that claims of damage done as a result of WikiLeaks’ releases were “significantly overwrought,” and yet Pfc. Manning could be sent to prison for life.

But Manning’s case is not truly about disciplining a soldier for “aiding the enemy” at all. If it were, Sergeants Gibbs and Wuterich would be those on high-profile trial, worrying they may never be free again. Instead, Manning’s trial is about punishing the messenger to dissuade those who find his courage inspiring. It sends a clear message that no matter the abuse, shedding desperately needed light on unpunished crimes will not be tolerated.

Bradley Manning being escorted to the courthouse for the Pretrial Hearing

Courtroom sketch of Bradley's Article 32 hearing

December 25, 2011. Bradley Manning Support Network

On Friday December 16, the world turned its eyes to a small courtroom in Fort Meade, MD, where Bradley Manning made his first public appearance after 18 months in pretrial confinement.  The pretrial hearing – known as the Article 32 hearing – is normally a quick hearing shortly after one is arrested to determine whether and what kind of court martial is appropriate. Manning’s hearing was unusual, happening 18 months after his arrest and lasting seven days.

The Bradley Manning Support Network organized two public rallies at Fort Meade to coincide with the hearing and there were solidarity rallies across the globe.  We also sent representatives into the courtroom to provide minute by-minute coverage of what happened in the hearing. We believe that justice will not come for Bradley Manning unless the government is held accountable to the court of public opinion, which is why we fought hard to get the public a place in the court.

Major Takeaways

The defense called on the investigating officer to recuse himself due to the possibility of bias (the standard that must be met is not whether the investigating officer is biased but rather whether a reasonable person, knowing all the facts, would conclude that he was likely to be biased).  To recap: the investigating officer works for the Department of Justice (which is investigating WikiLeaks through a secret grand jury) and demonstrated bias by refusing the majority of the defense’s witnesses while granting all of the prosecution’s witnesses. The investigating officer also initially refused a request to close a small portion of the hearing that the defense felt could endanger Manning’s likelihood of receiving a fair trial.  Additionally, the investigating officer decided to allow unsworn statements against the objections of the defense from two key witnesses who reviewed whether information was appropriately classified, demonstrating more bias to the prosecution and perhaps running contrary to military law.

The prosecution is building its case mostly on a wealth of forensic evidence. Multiple computers were seized and examined – from Manning’s personal computer to all of the computers he used at work to two devices belonging to Adrian Lamo.  Forensic examiners testified at length about finding various pieces of evidence similar to what was later published by WikiLeaks on the computers.

The defense is using several different tactics to fight different charges. Some of the major tactics include:

1. Showing that dysfunctional military leadership failed Manning, providing inadequate training and supervision and failing to address his clear psychological distress.
2. Showing that there were habits of breaking computer access regulations that were not only tolerated but necessary to complete one’s job and openly encouraged by supervisors.
3. Demonstrating that there was no harm resultant from the alleged disclosures, and that in fact much of what was published on WikiLeaks was either not classified or should not have been classified.

Additionally, testimony provided showcased that Manning was treated terribly in the military.  From his roommate refusing to speak to him anymore after learning he was gay to being generally abhorred by others in the unit, Manning lived a friendless and difficult life.  Homophobia in the military created a cruel and lonely environment for him. There’s plenty of evidence of him trying to get help, and no response from leadership.

The defense continually sought ways to take this beyond a discussion of forensic analysis and into a discussion of over classification as an epidemic in our military.

Additionally, WikiLeaks sent two lawyers in to the proceedings. They petitioned the court for guaranteed access to the proceedings, arguing this would have deep ramifications of their related case. One of the attorneys had the highest level of secret security clearance. Check out Center for Constitutional Right’s press release and Bradley Manning Support Network’s statement opposing the closed trial.

Want more about the trial? Here you go:

Read this Nation article describing how the government strategically blocked public and press access to the Manning hearing.  Check out our wrap-up from the solidarity rallies held in Fort Meade and around the world .  See this amazing debate about the hearing and government secrecy on Al Jazeera. And check out this thorough article by Kim Zetter of Wired on Lamo’s testimony.

Want even more of the Manning hearing in your life? Read in-depth, minute-by-minute notes from each of the days below:

Day 1: Defense calls for investigating officer to recuse himself

Day 2: Testimony about the gathering of forensic evidence and the initial forensic analysis

Day 3: Testimony from individuals who served with Manning about emotional outbursts and poor information access enforcement, and the hard core forensic analysis of Manning’s work computer

Day 4: Chat logs with “Julian”, Manning’s homophobic roommate testifies, lots of forensic analysis including network logs

Day 5: Manning’s direct supervisor on mental conditions and attempts to have his security clearance revoked, and Adian Lamo testifies

Day 6: The defenses’ two witnesses

Day 7: The closing arguments

Here is footage of Lt. Dan Choi’s inspiring speech along with interviews with Bradley’s supporters at Ft. Meade,

Bradley Manning Support Network writer, Nathan Fuller (@nathanlfuller) live tweeted the Fort Meade event, and shared these great photos,

John Grant has a write up the event (with photos). (Also available here.) The rally made it onto the front page of the Washington Post.

With the pretrial hearing beginning,

Bradley’s supporters made their voices heard. Here are just a few pictures and videos from Bradley Manning demonstrations held around the country.

In San Francisco, Occupy SF and other Bradley Manning supporters marched in support with big thank yous and happy birthdays for Bradley,

In Philadelphia, passerbys signed birthday cards for Bradley at an informational picket setup by supporters,

In Ashland,, approximately 50 people came out to support Bradley. A Veterans for Peace supporter describes the event, “with candles in their hands and empathy for the plight of Pvt. Bradley Manning in their hearts a group of citizens, young & older, gathered at the Ashland Plaza to mark the first day of the pre-trial hearing in the court martial of young Bradley, charged with aiding and abetting the enemy by allegedly released classified documents and videos about the Iraq and Afghan wars to WikiLeaks while stationed in Iraq.”

They shared these pictures.

In Los Angeles, over freeway 101, sometime during rush hour – Iraq and Afganistan veterans from March Forward hung an enormous banner, “It was dropped over the 101 Freeway in Los Angeles during rush hour traffic (the busiest stretch of freeway in the country!) for 2 hours so thousands of people saw it.” Check out some of the photos.

Protesters also marched in L.A., and unfortunately 2 members of Occupy were arrested – (link)

From Nashville, protesters from Occupy took to the streets!

(more photos)

From Oaklahoma City, we have this photo of a rally held on a busy corner near a mall. Also one of the participants went to Bradley’s hometown of Crescent, OK, in the morning to take photo of himself in front of the “Welcome To” sign.

And from around the world,

In Adelaide, Australia, Michele Ambrose corresponds from a vigil for Bradley, “I hope that all the support that Bradley is getting from his defense team, the Bradley Manning Support Network / Courage to Resist and all his supporters around the world will positively influence the outcome of his pretrial hearing so that all the charges against him are dropped and he is released from custody. Wouldn’t that be a great birthday present!”

She shared this video,

In Wrexham, Whales, WISE Up for Bradley Manning supporters “put up two banners at the busy Plas Coch roundabout in Wrexham, Wales, during the morning rush hour: ‘FREE BRADLEY MANNING’ and ‘END THE WARS!’ along with a rainbow peace flag. Bradley Manning’s mother is from Pembrokeshire and still lives in Wales along with other of his relatives.”

Read more and see pictures here.

In Athens supporters from the Antinationalistic Antimilitaristic Initiative held an event outside the U.S. embassy

In London, speeches were made by Ben Griffin from “Veterans for Peace”, Naomi Colvin from “UK Friends of Bradley Manning” and Ciaron O’Reilly from the “London Catholic Worker”.  An open platform followed which included speeches by folks from Occupy London SX, “Pay Day”, “Global Women’s Strike”, a British Iraq War veteran, “Pirate Party”, “Queer Friends of Bradley Manning”, “Oxford Catholic Worker”, an Iraqi exile among others”. Supporters shared this footage of the London protest,

Here are  more pictures from the London event, (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (flickr) (7)

These events show how much public support there is to free Bradley Manning! More coverage of these and others to come. Find more photos on the SaveBradley photostream on flickr.

Politico wrote an article which pointed out how both President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been requested by the defense as witnesses. Although the witness list that Coombs has posted on his website will not include names until the prosecution replies to his requests, these two figures are easily identifiable.

You may remember an incident last April, in which some Bradley Manning supporters shamed President Obama at a San Francisco fundraiser with a song about Bradley Manning’s abuse at Quantico. The creative action did more than result in international news coverage, it also led to President Obama making a pretrial declaration of guilt on camera when questioned by Logan Price, a staff member of the Bradley Manning Support Network, later at the same event. If President Obama is careless enough to make such a statement in public, he’s likely made similar statements behind closed doors.

The defense requests the presence [witness 36] in order to discuss the issue of Unlawful Command Influence (UCI). Under Rule for Courts-Martial 405(e), the defense is entitled to explore the issue of UCI. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), a superior officer in the chain of command is prohibited from saying or doing anything that could influence any decision by a subordinate in how to handle a military justice matter. As he made improper comments on 21 April 2011, when he decided to comment on PFC Manning and his case. On that date, he responded to questions regarding PFC Manning’s alleged actions by concluding that ‘We’re a nation of laws. We don’t let individuals make their own decisions about how the laws operate. He [PFC Manning] broke the law.” The comments by [witness 36] are UCI. The defense intends to question on the nature of his discussions with members of the military regarding this case and whether he has made any other statements that would either influence the prosecution of this case or PFC Manning’s right to obtain a fair trial.

As Commander in Chief, President Obama’s actions hold significant sway over military proceedings. Coombs’ legal team also calls out President Obama on his hypocrisy regarding claims of support for greater government transparency and whistle-blowing:

[Witness 36] will also testify about the problem of over-classification within the government. Specifically, that he supported and signed into law the Reducing Over-Classification Act on 7 October 2010. Additionally, he will testify that on his first full day in office , 21 January 2009, he issued two memoranda for the head of Executive Departments and Agencies that were related to transparency in government. The first memorandum focused on the administration of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and the second focused on transparency and open government.

The issue of a poorly regulated government classification system which leads to many communications being improperly classified has been well-documented through statements by government officials over the past few decades. Millions of low-level government employees and contractors have the authority to classify documents, and most classification decisions will not be reviewed by a second party. An internal government review concluded that around 35% of U.S. classified documents were not classified for reasons of national security, and as such do not meet the requirements for classification as put forth in Executive Order 13526.

In fighting the most serious charge against Bradley, “Aiding the Enemy,” it seems Coombs is ready to lead with the argument that the claims about the releases hurting national security are false. Witness #38 fits the description of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

[Witness 38] will testify that she has raised the issue of the disclosure of diplomatic cables with foreign leaders “in order to assure our colleagues that it will not in any way interfere with American diplomacy or our commitment to continuing important work that is ongoing.” [Witness 38] will also testify, that she has not had any concerns expressed to her about whether any nation would not continue to work with the United States or would not continue to discuss important matters going forward due to the alleged leaks. As such, [witness 38] will testify, that although the leaks were embarrassing for the administration, that she concurs with the opinion that they did not represent significant consequences to foreign policy.

While Secretary Clinton will be called upon to testify that American diplomacy has not been concretely injured by the releases, Dr. Robert M. Gates, who served as United States Secretary of Defense from 2006 to 2011, is being called upon to reiterate a previous public statement he made indicating soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan had not actually been endangered by WikiLeaks as administration officials had originally claimed:

[Witness 37] will testify that the Afghanistan and Iraq SIGACT releases did not reveal any sensitive intelligence sources or methods. He will also testify that the Department of Defense could not point to anyone in Afghanistan or Iraq harmed due to the documents released by Wikileaks. He will testify that the Afghanistan and Iraq SIGACTs are simply ground-level field reports that document dated activities which do not disclose sensitive information or our sources and methods. [Witness 37] will also testify that the initial public descriptions of the harm to foreign policy due to the publication of diplomatic cables were “fairly significantly overwrought.”

The quote “fairly significantly overwrought” comes from a Pentagon briefing Robert Gates gave in November of last year. As part of the briefing he also made the revealing statement,

“Let me just offer some perspective as somebody who’s been at this a long time. Every other government in the world knows the United States government leaks like a sieve, and it has for a long time. And I dragged this up the other day when I was looking at some of these prospective releases… The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it’s in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets. Many governments — some governments — deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us.”

While the military may seek to make examples of low-level soldiers who seek to be whistle-blowers, such as Bradley Manning, the reality is that U.S. officials frequently reveal technically classified information, especially if it can benefit U.S. interests. The American Civil Liberties Union recently published the results of their Freedom of Information Act request for a number of key WikiLeaked cables. By comparing the redacted documents granted to them by the U.S. government with the unredacted documents published by WikiLeaks, they conclude that secrecy decisions are continuing to be made on the basis of what information paints U.S. actions in a favorable light, as opposed to revealing information the U.S. public needs to know.

In addition to pointing out the contradictions between our top leaders’ claims about the dangers of WikiLeaks and their statements and actions which demonstrate a different reality, Coombs requests witnesses that can testify to Bradley’s mistreatment at the Quantico military prison.

Of witness # 46, he says:

He will testify that during a meeting in early January of 201 1, the Security Battalion Commander in charge of the Quantico Brig, [redacted], clearly stated to the Brig Staff that “I will not have anything happen to Manning on my watch…. So, nothing is going to change…. He won’t be able to hurt himself and he won’t be able to get away, and our way of making sure of that is that is he will remain on Maximum Custody and POI indefinitely.” He then will testify that one of the other Brig psychiatrists said “You know Sir, I am concerned because if you are going to do that, maybe you want to call it something else because it is not based upon anything from behavioral health.” In response, [Witness 46] will testify that [redacted] said “We will do whatever we want to do…”

Based on this witness’s observations, concerns about the treatment of Bradley at Quantico clearly went beyond those of a couple individuals.

[Witness 46] will testify that… he spoke with others at the Brig to see if they knew why the Brig was so heavy handed on PFC Manning. He will testify that others at the Brig told him that they have never seen anything like this before. [Witness 46] will testify that others told him that they were afraid to speak out about the situation given the concern of what would happen as a result of any complaint about PFC Manning’s treatment.

Witness 47 is being called for a similar purpose as witness 46.

[Witness 47] will testify that he gave weekly status reports stating that he felt the POI precautions were unnecessary. [Witness 47] will testify that he recalls a meeting where [redacted] stated that PFC Manning would remain in his current status Maximum Custody and POI unless and until he received instructions from higher authority to the contrary. [Witness 47] cannot recall exact words, but he does recall that [redacted] made it clear that nothing would change with PFC Manning regardless of his behavior or the recommendations of behavioral health.

Through the efforts of allies and groups that have worked in solidarity with the Bradley Manning Support Network, and especially the persistence with which UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Juan Mendez has tried to investigate the matter, the mistreatment of Bradley at Quantico has been brought to the forefront of the public’s attention.

Politico helped break the story several months ago of how an internal marine inquiry into Bradley’s extreme “Prevention of Injury” treatment conditions stated they were unnecessary, yet brig psychiatrists’ expertise was overruled by a brig commander. If illegal management of Bradley’s harsh pretrial imprisonment conditions can be demonstrated, then the case can be made that the trial has already been unfairly influenced, and if he is convicted of any charges that he has already served part of his sentence.

Many of the lesser charges faced by Bradley relate to installing software on government computers and downloading classified documents onto his personal computer. To fight these charges, Coombs is requesting several witnesses who can testify that both were common practice in Bradley’s unit, and among intelligence analyst’s in Iraq in general.

Another category of witness that has drawn considerable media attention are those requested by Coombs who would testify that Bradley was facing emotional stress while serving in the military and had sought counseling to work out his issues. Without first seeking clarification from Bradley’s lawyer, the UK Guardian published a misleading article about the witnesses titled “Bradley Manning team to highlight WikiLeaks suspect’s fragile mental state.”

While there is ample evidence to suggest Bradley Manning was coping with considerable emotional stress while serving in the Iraq War, as do many soldiers, we do not believe that this will play a large role in Coombs’ strategy of fighting the 22 charges against Bradley. Rather, as Courage to Resist Project Director and military veteran Jeff Paterson explains,

“The defense has to be prepared from the beginning for mitigation. In military court, there is no pause between “the guilt phase” and “the punishment” phases of a court martial. If found guilty in the morning, basically a second trial begins in the afternoon to determine punishment. If you don’t have your witnesses sitting there, then it’s already too late.”

David Coombs is financed by the Bradley Manning Support Network, and entrusted by Bradley and his family to protect Bradley to the best of his abilities. Bradley will be facing a jury of high-ranking military officials at court martial, and as such it’s quite possible he will be convicted of at least some of the charges. We believe David Coombs to be preparing all methods he can think of to reduce Bradley’s sentencing in the event of a conviction.

The existing list of 48 witnesses represent the witnesses which will be the most challenging to call upon, because of their potentially conflicting political allegiances. Witnesses who are more openly supportive of Bradley can be requested later, as their chances of refusing are low. This leaves open the possibility that witnesses can still be called before the court martial who will testify as to international human rights laws and the Nuremburg Principles of correct conduct during war. In other words, this initial list of 48 witnesses in no way rules out the possibility that Bradley’s alleged actions will also be defended as acts of whistle-blowing in court.

Regardless of whether this perspective is used as a legal argument in court, the Bradley Manning Support Network and our allies will continue to educate the public as to Bradley Manning’s alleged whistle-blowing. To a military tribunal such as the one Bradley will be facing, the possibility of endangerment to U.S. soldiers is likely to be their highest priority. Calling witnesses to testify that no significant harm has been caused to the safety of U.S. soldiers and other citizens will be crucial in convincing these officers that the most serious charges against Bradley are unwarranted. However, raising awareness and outrage about the broader political issues at play in this case is also critical to holding our leaders accountable, and putting indirect pressure on military decision-makers to lessen any potential punishment upon conviction of lesser charges. What WikiLeaks has revealed includes irresponsible decision-making by military leaders, violations of international human rights laws by countries around the world, and a poorly-regulated U.S. government classification system allowing officials to deceive the American people. Aggressive foreign policies which use American taxpayer dollars to violate rights of foreign citizens can breed anti-American sentiment abroad, and make average Americans less safe. These controversial issues deserve public debate, and without information, we cannot make informed decisions as a public. These lessons will not be forgotten as the grassroots movement to support Bradley Manning, and all government whistle-blowers, continues to grow.

December 17th, Bradley’s second day in court and 24th birthday, is our International Solidarity Day of Action. Check out events.bradleymanning.org to find or organize an event near you.

An anonymous source has revealed to representatives of the Bradley Manning Support Network that military officials conducted a non-publicized press briefing this morning for selected journalists, to outline restrictions that will be placed on members of the media at the upcoming hearings for the accused WikiLeaks whistle-blower.

“The military is attempting to apply an embedded journalist framework to these proceedings,” said Jeff Paterson, an organizer with the Bradley Manning Support Network. “As in combat zones, these reporters receive special access to information in return for favorable coverage. Meanwhile, independently minded journalists are left out. It’s indefensible for the Army to apply this to a court martial process that by law is open to both the media and public.”

The source, who was familiar with the details of today’s private briefing, noted that fewer than ten seats are expected to be made available to journalists and members of the public in the courtroom. Although a closed-circuit viewing area may be made available to additional reporters, the television feed will most likely be cut for large segments of the trial, he said. The source added that military officials intend to invoke unspecified threats to national security in order to control the flow of information to the public.

“We already know that the administration’s internal assessments found that these materials never posed a threat to national security,”  said Kevin Zeese, a legal adviser with the Bradley Manning Support Network. “The Obama administration is clinging to clearly fabricated threats in an absurd attempt to control journalists and keep the American people in the dark.”

The Bradley Manning Support Network intends to issue a Freedom of Information Act request for a transcript of today’s secret press call if it is not immediately made available to the public.

Earlier this week, the American Civil Liberties Union revealed the results of its FOIA request for several cables that were allegedly released by PFC Manning. The ACLU posted the redacted versions of the widely available materials to demonstrate “the government’s selective and self-serving decisions to withhold information” from the public. (link)

A document released yesterday by David Coombs, the lead counsel for PFC Manning’s legal defense, expressed similar frustrations with the government’s repeated obfuscation over even the most routine requests for information. Coombs explained that the administration has been arguing that high ranking officials such as President Obama and Secretary Clinton are essentially “too important” to testify even though they have already commented publicly on the case. Coombs concluded:

“Anything but the personal appearances of all witnesses requested by the defense and government would deny PFC Manning his right to a thorough and impartial investigation and turn this into a hollow exercise.”

The full text of the defense team’s response to the government’s denial of witnesses was released by David Coombs yesterday on his blog.

Hundreds of supporters are expected to rally for Bradley Manning near the main gate of Fort Meade outside of Washington DC as the pre-trial proceedings begin next Friday, December 16.

Troops are coming home from Iraq despite the best efforts of the Obama administration to keep them there. “We’re relieved to know all the troops will be home at the end of the year. This would not have been possible without the courageous actions of Wikileaks and the alleged participation of Bradley Manning” says Executive Director of Iraq Veterans Against the War, Jose Vasquez.

Until their abrupt reversal a few weeks ago, the Obama administration had been working hard to maintain between 8000 and 20,000 troops in Iraq after the current Status of Forces agreement was set to expire at the end of this year. Fortunately, the Iraqi government refused to renew the judicial immunity, under which the U.S. Armed Forces had been operating.

Establishment news outlets have largely ignored the reason for this sudden change of plans. A few weeks before the negotiations between Washington and Baghdad reached an impasse, WikiLeaks released a cable providing clear evidence that U.S. forces had been engaged in a cover up of the heinous execution of civilian non-combatants following a raid of a suspected insurgent stronghold.

“A U.S. diplomatic cable made public by WikiLeaks provides evidence that U.S. troops executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians, including a woman in her 70s and a 5-month-old infant, then called in an airstrike to destroy the evidence, during a controversial 2006 incident in the central Iraqi town of Ishaqi.” (link)

There were disagreements between reports from the Iraq government, the American government, and those of a U.N. special raporteur, whose unclassified report and questions to the U.S. embassy in Baghdad were published through WikiLeaks. The embassy cable supported stories told by villagers who witnessed the attack,

“Throughout the early investigation, U.S. military spokesmen said that an al Qaida suspect in Iraq had been seized from a first-floor room after a fierce fight that had left the house he was hiding in a pile of rubble.

But the diplomatic cable provides a different sequence of events and lends credence to townspeople’s claims that American forces destroyed the house after its residents had been shot.” (link)

All of the executed, the article reports, had been handcuffed and shot in the head prior to the building coming down. The cable contradicted the U.S. government’s position, and exposed the military’s and the administration’s unwillingness to investigate documented war crimes. This information created a political crisis in Iraqi politics that made it unacceptable for the Iraqi regime to continue allowing U.S. forces to operate outside of any accountability to human rights law. The Iraqi government was forced to draw a line in the sand that the Department of Defense would not cross. That is why the war is coming to a close. Our government’s well-crafted, amply-financed public relations spin campaign was ultimately no match for the stark reality of what is actually happening on the ground to the people of Iraq.

This decision can be celebrated by Iraqis and Americans alike. Since 2006, Pew research polls have shown a majority of American citizens oppose the war, which has been extremely costly both in terms of domestic dollars spent and plummeting opinions of U.S. policy abroad. Criticisms of the war have not come only from civilians. A Zogby poll in March 2006 found that 72% of US soldiers in Iraq said the war should be ended within a year. A military-commissioned study in 2009 found that a majority of troops deployed to Iraq reported low morale, and other studies have shown up to a third of returning U.S. Iraq War veterans to suffer from depression and/or PTSD.

Our government has a duty to act openly. Insisting on legal immunity for all troops does nothing to sustain respect for ethical soldiers, but instead helps shield irresponsible leaders. Truth and transparency are essential to public debate and decision making. In an analysis of the cable’s impact on the negotiations over whether to extend the U.S. military presence in Iraq, Salon reporter Glenn Greenwald writes, “whoever leaked those cables is responsible for one of the most consequential, beneficial and noble acts of this generation.”

We cannot claim to have a democratic system of government so long as 99% of the public is kept in the dark. We have to know what people in power are doing in order for us to have any chance of holding them accountable. Stand up for those who have had the courage to inform the public of information that they have a right to know. Join the struggle to free WikiLeaks whistle-blower Bradley Manning – not only to secure his freedom, but for the freedom of us all.

Four supporters of accused WikiLeaks whistle-blower PFC Bradley Manning appeared today before a judge in Manassas, Virginia, to face charges stemming from their arrests in March outside of a Marine military brig in Quantico, Virginia. These supporters were arrested along with many others who are outraged at the abusive confinement conditions to which PFC Manning was subjected during the eight months he was held at the Quantico Pre-Trial Confinement Facility. They were detained after military officials reneged on their offer to allow flowers to be placed at an Iwo Jima Memorial located at the entrance to the base.

Among those arrested attempting to lay flowers were veterans and family members of veterans, including Daniel Ellsberg, the “Pentagon Papers” whistle-blower. Instead of accepting their charges and paying fines, these four supporters pleaded not-guilty and chose to assert their First Amendment rights inside the courtroom.

Speaking before her scheduled appearance today, retired U.S. Army Colonel Ann Wright explained why she felt obliged to speak out:

“I felt the pre-trial conditions of solitary confinement and nudity that PFC Bradley Manning was subjected to in the Quantico brig for many months were outrageous and that public action by veterans and citizens to show their concern for the rights of this soldier was necessary.”

Following sustained public pressure, Bradley Manning was moved to a military prison in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. He is no longer being held in solitary confinement. Military officials have denied speculation that the recent announcement of the impending closure of the confinement facility at Quantico was a result of widespread condemnation of the mistreatment.

Circuit Court Judge Mary Grace O’Brien dismissed the charge against Col. Wright of “remaining at place of riot or unlawful assembly after warning to disperse,” finding insufficient evidence. Various minor traffic-related charges were upheld against the other three defendants. The defendants testified that they were compelled to directly petition the Quantico military detention center, because PFC Manning was being subjected to severe mistreatment in violation of his constitutional rights and international standards of human rights.

The Commonwealth Attorney, arguing on behalf of the state, claimed that the defendants should be found guilty because they were engaging in civil disobedience.  Drawing parallels to the civil rights movement, the Commonwealth Attorney argued that the defendants should accept their punishments instead of challenging them.  Speaking in his own defense, Mr Obuszewski, a long-time peace and justice activist from Baltimore, Maryland, clarified that the demonstrators at Quantico were engaging in “civil resistance” and not “civil disobedience.”  He noted that civil disobedience typically refers to deliberately breaking a law that one considers to be unjust, and that they found nothing inherently unjust about the normal application of traffic laws.  Civil resistance, on the other hand, entails the use of direct action to challenge unjust abuses of power. Demonstrators had engaged in civil resistance by shutting down the entrance to the Marine base for several hours.

In announcing her findings, Justice O’Brien concurred that the case “does bring in larger questions” about the motivations of the demonstrators.  Although she agreed that these larger issues are relevant, she felt that they “would not be appropriate for me to consider.”

The guilty parties were each ordered to pay fifteen dollars in fines and court costs.

Bradley Manning supporters at #OccupyCharleston

By Emma Cape, Bradley Manning Support Network. October 19, 2011

The high-profile whistle-blowing of which PFC Bradley Manning is accused links closely to the issues that #OccupyWallStreet and other #Occupy protests seek to address. Back door deals between high-level government officials and large corporations prevent the public from being able to keep Wall Street’s influence on government in-check through democratic means. In our statement of solidarity with the #OccupyWallStreet movement, we explain:

Similarly to the Arab Spring, the Occupy movement can draw from information revealed by WikiLeaks that exposes corporate manipulation of our foreign policy. An October 2009 diplomatic cable shows how U.S. diplomatic officials shared sensitive intelligence with Shell to give the oil corporation unfair economic leverage in Nigeria… Another series of cables illustrate how diplomatic officials successfully squashed a proposed increase in the Haitian minimum wage. Pressure from U.S. diplomats on Haitian officials enabled major American clothing companies like Levi’s and Hanes to continue exploiting sweatshop labor in Haiti. Other cables show that Chevron executives worked in tandem with U.S. officials to avoid paying $18.2 billion in court-ordered damages after the energy giant acquired Texaco, which had dumped billions of gallons of waste in indigenous areas.

We know that many people who advocate for democracy and social justice by supporting PFC Bradley Manning have also attended #Occupy protests. Therefore, we’ve decided to put together this post explaining how you, as a supporter of PFC Manning, can help him while attending your local #Occupy protest. Your actions of support for PFC Manning will in turn help create a safer environment for future government whistle-blowers who wish to hold officials accountable to the people who elected them.

1. Collect petition signatures

Our Stand with Bradley Manning petition calls for Bradley to be acknowledged as a whistle-blower and freed. It is directed toward the Secretary of the Army and the Army Chief of Staff, two people who have crucial decision-making power in the outcome of Bradley’s case. Signing the petition is also a way for people to be put on our e-mail list to receive weekly updates about the case and actions they can take to help Bradley. Each person who collects 100 petition signatures will be welcomed to our activist team with a free “Free Bradley Manning” t-shirt.

Please go here to download the petition.

2. Collect photos for the “I am Bradley Manning” blog

Our website, iam.bradleymanning.org, showcases thousands of photos of people around the world who are expressing their solidarity with Bradley Manning by helping to put a human face on the campaign. The photo of filmmaker Michael Moore was collected at #OccupyWallStreet. If you have a camera, then simply make a sign which says “I am Bradley Manning” and after someone has signed our Stand with Bradley Manning petition ask them if you can take their photo for the website. If you see a prominent community figure or celebrity at the demonstration, ask them to participate as well. You can upload photos individually here. We regularly feature creative and otherwise notable entries on our facebook page, Save Bradley Manning.

3. Pass out public education resources

As you talk to the #Occupy protestors about PFC Manning, you may find that some people are more familiar with his case than others. The following articles and fact sheets are useful starting points that will help you talk to the public and answer their questions:

• Bradley Manning 1-pg fact sheet
• Bradley Manning Support Network in solidarity with Occupy Movement
• What did WikiLeaks reveal?
• Addressing confusion about PFC Bradley Manning’s case
• Stickers, buttons, and 6″x4″ info cards

To contact the campaign team, you can fill out the form here and the right person will get in touch with you. Select “Donations and Material Orders” to receive stickers and campaign cards. For all other questions about activism and outreach select “Volunteers and Campaign.”

4. Ask others to join you

Public education can be fun with a group. Try asking friends to join you so that together you reach out to more people. If someone from your local community checks the box on the Stand with Bradley Manning petition indicating they are interested in volunteering, ask them if they’d like to help you do local Bradley Manning support either at present or future events before forwarding the petitions to our national office. If you can take photographs of a group doing Bradley Manning visibility at the #Occupy protests, please share them on our facebook page!

WASHINGTON, DC — Supporters of PFC Bradley Manning have surpassed a 5,000 signature threshold through a new White House online petition interface. According to the website’s rules, the White House must now respond to the issues raised in the petition; including requests to allow a United Nations torture investigator to make an official visit with PFC Manning, and answering supporters’ calls for his freedom.

“Although we should never need to petition our government to respect basic human rights standards, we can now at least expect an answer to Mr. Mendez’s request to meet with PFC Manning,” said Kevin Zeese, a legal adviser with the Bradley Manning Support Network.  “President Obama undermines his professed support for the work of the United Nations abroad when he prevents officials from responding to well-substantiated claims of cruel and unusual punishment at home.”

The White House petition is available at this link:  http://www.wh.gov/40y

Juan Mendez, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, has made repeated requests to the Obama administration to conduct an official meeting with PFC Bradley Manning, the accused WikiLeaks whistle-blower. Mr. Mendez is responding to evidence that PFC Manning was subjected to severe conditions of confinement while being held at a Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia. Several hundred U.S. legal scholars have signed an open letter arguing that these abuses may have amounted to torture. So far, the Department of Defense has only offered the option of a monitored meeting, which is not consistent with the U.N. investigator’s routine mandate. PFC Manning has refused this option, because anything he said while being monitored could potentially be used against him later.

“Thanks to the public encouragement of WikiLeaks and many others online, supporters of Bradley Manning surpassed the required signature threshold over two weeks ahead of the White House’s deadline,” said Jeff Paterson, a co-founder of the Bradley Manning Support Network. “We’re giving the White House the benefit of our doubts about their new Open Government Initiative. We want them to prove that this dialogue mechanism can be an effective channel of communication.”

The Obama administration will also be required to go on the record about its justification for continuing to hold PFC Manning in pre-trial confinement for over 16 months. The White House’s new “We the People” petition website was announced by President Obama during his recent visit to the United Nations. Following his unveiling of the new website, the President added:

“We’ll work to reform and expand protections for whistle-blowers who expose government waste, fraud and abuse.”

Supporters of Bradley Manning say that the President’s rhetoric does not match his record of having issued more prosecutions against whistle-blowers than all previous presidencies combined.