Defense attorney David Coombs addressed supporters during a court recess. “Thank you for continuing to bring the issue into the public eye. It means a lot to me, it means a lot to my client.”

One of 21 ads throughout the Washington DC Metro subway funded through the efforts of the Bradley Manning Support Network to coincide with the April 24-26 hearing

By Nathan Fuller, Bradley Manning Support Network. April 26, 2012.

As scheduled, today’s proceedings opened at 10 AM. Judge Denise Lind ruled immediately on the defense’s motion to dismiss and/or consolidate charges based on an unreasonable multiplication of charges. She read through the various charges levied against PFC Bradley Manning, including several counts of seemingly redundant charges, such as two counts of unauthorized procurement of documents, and multiple counts of an unauthorized transmission.

As the judge read, the law says that what is substantially one crime cannot be charged as two crimes. However, in her analysis, Lind found that Bradley’s alleged crimes were “distinctly separate criminal acts.” The defense’s argument that the theft should be considered the first step of the transmission “has been discounted in U.S. v. Chapman (2003).” Further, Lind believes the number of charges doesn’t misrepresent the nature of the criminal acts or “unreasonably increase [Bradley’s] punitive exposure.” In fact, the judge says the prosecution could have broken the Article 104 charge into even more separate charges if it so chose. The crux of the judge’s ruling is that the size of the leak renders no number of charges “unreasonable.” She noted that the government concedes two alleged crimes, charges 5 and 7, occurred at the same time and may be merged at a later time, and that it’s still factually in dispute as to whether charges 6 & 7 and 10 & 11 occurred on separate days. Today’s defense motion was denied, but Coombs may re-raise this issue after that factual dispute is resolved.

The judge then asked both parties for input on U.S. v. Wilcox. The defense believed that case wouldn’t apply to the Article 134 charge in this case, and so it wouldn’t be advancing any theory to that effect. The prosecution stated that its interpretation of Article 134 deemed it punitive, saying it calls for “sanctions.” The defense stood again to note that it believes this aspect of Article 134 deals with disclosures “that don’t arise to espionage.” This conversation is important for the judge’s later ruling on the defense’s motion to dismiss the Article 104 charge based on preemption.

We moved on the government’s motion to reconsider compelling the discovery of the State Department’s damage assessment. Instead of standing to argue the case, the prosecution’s Ashden Fein said the government “relies on its written motion.” The defense didn’t stand for long, speaking briefly to “give the court background” instead of arguing the point.

Next the government was forced to provide a definition of the terms ‘damage assessment’ and ‘investigation.’ The prosecution submitted a brief explaining its position. The ultimate conclusion, Fein said, is that the two were distinctly different. Coombs said the defense agrees the two are different, which is why the defense had requested both in its initial discovery request. The judge said that for future reference, the court would officially consider both terms separately.

The next motion was the government’s call to preclude any discussion of damage assessments from the merit phase of the court martial. Fein said he wanted to prevent discussion of harm in arguments related to merit (guilt), as it is only relevant to sentencing (severity of punishment). Fein said harm is irrelevant to all the charges at hand and the defense’s potential arguments, because the government doesn’t have to prove harm was caused to prove the crimes occurred. “Any harm would have come after crimes were committed,” he said, and “whether the accused knew or thought he knew” that harm would come is irrelevant to his act.

Fein did say it would be relevant as mitigating evidence for sentencing, but says as PFC Manning wasn’t an Official Classification Authority (OCA), he couldn’t determine whether the release of the documents would cause harm, and couldn’t have accurately predicted the harm to come. Fein said the harm argument was “prospective,” since harm could still come tomorrow.

The defense stood to request the judge deny the motion, arguing the prosecution’s claims are premature since we’ve yet to even see the damage assessments in court, and that the government has fought to prevent them every step of the way. Coombs also said the motion was over broad in attempting to preclude not only assessments but any discussion of harm at all. Damage, he said, was relevant for the defense’s argument that Bradley had knowledge that the release of these documents wouldn’t cause harm. He was selective, Coombs said, in releasing these documents and not others. He noted internal inconsistencies in the government’s logic: on one hand it says Bradley had the necessary training to know this information could be seen by the enemy, and on the other it says he’s merely a junior analyst who couldn’t know what harm might be caused.

The damage assessments confirm, according to Coombs, that Bradley didn’t act “wantonly” as he selected documents he believed would not bring harm to sources or the United States. He referred to President Obama’s classification order as evidence of the government’s serious over-classification problem. Coombs noted that far more classified documents could have been released, but were not.

Further, Coombs explained that he should be able to use damage assessments to undermine the arguments of government witnesses. Basing his knowledge of these assessments on Secretary of State Robert Gates’ statements that no great harm had been caused by WikiLeaks’ releases, Coombs said he could show that no sources were compromised if a government witness claimed this was the case. If an expert witness takes the stand to describe how significant damage occurred, shouldn’t he have the ability to use the actual impact to challenge that expert, he asked. He’d need these damage assessments to do so.

Coombs previewed the government claim that introducing these damage assessments would contribute to “confusion” in the court proceedings, that doing so would challenge the integrity of the case. He said clearly the judge is capable of controlling the courtroom and clarifying confusion, and that if the judge was unsure about her ruling on the case, she could at least defer a ruling until after her in-camera review of the damage assessments.

The government immediately picked up on Coombs’ most recent point, saying, “There’s incredible confusion right now,” since all charges against Bradley regard potential damage. Fein repeated his claims that assessments are irrelevant to debates of Bradley’s guilt. You can’t look at a “snapshot,” Fein said, and say that because no damage had come in that window, that these crimes caused no damage. “If someone gives the enemy nuclear launch codes today, and nothing happens tomorrow”, that doesn’t diminish the crime urged Fein. Regarding Coombs’ request for a deferment, Fein played into previous calls against the prosecution for a speedy trial, saying eliminating damage assessments now would “save time in the judicial proceedings.”

The defense said this “snapshot” claim was a misrepresentation, since two full years have gone by and no damage, or very little damage, had been caused. He says the government’s early move to preclude the assessments proves that they’ll emerge as favorable to the defense in revealing no harm.

Getting the last word since it called the motion, the prosecution stood to merely reiterate its previous claims. The judge didn’t rule on the motion but said she’ll take in “under advisement,” and called a short recess.

Supporters gather outside Fort Meade courtroom during break in Bradley Manning hearing 4/26/12

During this recess, while waiting to return to court in a small Ft. Meade chamber, defense attorney David Coombs came out to speak to the spectators waiting to reenter the courtroom. He thanked supporters on behalf of himself and Bradley, for “continuing to bring the issue into the public eye. It means a lot to me, it means a lot to my client.” He specifically thanked Courage to Resist for its consistent support. The spectators collectively thanked Coombs for his work, and one supporter handed him a “Thank You” card that had been signed by most of the attendees. [The defense could show the card to Bradley, but he would not be able to possess it as it did not go through the authorized mail channel.]

Shortly thereafter, we returned to court for the judge to rule on the defense motion to dismiss the Article 134 charge based on the Article 104 preemption. Judge Lind said that Article 134 adequately addresses the crime, and she disagrees with the defense that Article 104 covers it entirely. She denied the motion, and called for a recess.

The judge was supposed to be able to rule on the dismissal of the “Aiding the Enemy” charge then, but she said that Ft. Meade’s “working automators” (Internet) were down, and she needed the Internet before being able to issue a ruling [more than likely in order to including proper case law citations to support her conclusions]. A four-hour recess was called, and we returned at 4 PM.

Finally, after an apparent correction of Internet issues, we came back to court. Lind introduced the defense motion to dismiss the Aiding the Enemy charge, and said “actual knowledge” is required but that it may be proved with circumstantial evidence. One cannot “inadvertently, accidentally, or negligibly” commit this offense since it deals with knowledge of the enemy’s ability to receive the contact. In a shift from the prosecution’s claim, she said the government must be prepared to prove that Bradley knew he was giving intelligence to the enemy. She defined “indirect” as knowing he was communicating with the enemy, through a third party. She said the charge, though, was not overly broad given this raised level of the government’s burden of proof. Thus, the motion was denied.

The government says that they are not calling into question releases of information made to just any website, as Coombs had cited examples such as The New York Time and Facebook in making his point as to the First Amendment implications of this charge. The government says that they are only charging this one specific website release–WikiLeaks. Of course the government could declare this same theory regarding any particular website after-the-fact. However, the judge cited this in her ruling.

Court was in recess. As happened yesterday, as soon as the court adjourned several spectators spoke aloud to thank Bradley for his courage and that they hoped he stays strong throughout the process. Also like yesterday, but spectators wore black shirts that simply read “truth”.

We’ll be back to Ft. Meade for the next Article 39 hearing June 6-8. Please join us.

Bradley Manning (right) is escorted from his arraignment at Fort Meade 2/23/12 (Photo: EPA)

By Bradley Manning Support Network. February 24, 2012

Yesterday’s arraignment for Bradley Manning lasted a little under an hour, as expected. Replacing the Investigating Officer from the Article 32 hearing is military judge Denise Lind. After members of the prosecution and defense declared their certifications and qualifications, the judge addressed Pfc. Manning directly, asking if he understood that a military counsel is available to him at no cost, or a civilian counsel is available at no cost to the government. “Yes, your honor,” Manning replied. She then asked who he wished to represent him, and he replied that he wanted to keep Mr. Coombs and the rest of the defense team with him.

Then the prosecution and defense were allowed to question the judge. The prosecution declined, but Coombs stood for the defense. He asked her what prior knowledge she had of Manning’s case. She responded, “I knew there was a case, that it involved classified information. I knew the case involved someone named Pfc. Manning.”

Coombs asked if the judge had made any impressions with her knowledge of the case, and she replied that she’d made none. She said she’d had no discussions of the case that she could recall. When asked, she said “I have formed no opinion” about Pfc. Manning or the leaked information.

Then Coombs asked about her background, to determine her experience with national security and classified documents. The judge said she had dealt with classified information on at least two cases as a military judge, and that she was “sure” there had been others where classified information was involved. Asked if she’d received training in classified information, she said there were “short classification classes” as part of her training, but she didn’t remember if she’d attended a full week of those classes.

Coombs pressed her to remember. Between 2007 and 2009, he asked, had she taken any short courses on classified information? She replied that between ’07 and ’08 she hadn’t taken any, but that she had between ’08 and ’09. Coombs, ready for the answer, asked, “Do you recall me teaching?” The judge replied that yes, she had thought he looked familiar, and that she had taken his class. Asked if she’d had any impression of Coombs from that class, the judge replied she had not.

The arraignment proceeded, with Ashden Fein of the prosecution reading all 22 of the charges against Pfc. Manning aloud. Then the judge read Manning his rights, notifying him that if a jury found him guilty, it would need at least a two-thirds majority to agree on sentencing, and if the sentence exceeded ten years, the jury would need at least a three-fourths majority. She asked Manning if he’d like a trial by judge or by jury, and Coombs stood to announce that Manning would defer that decision.

Next the judge brought up a previous RCM-802 telephonic conference, which is a phone call between the judge, prosecution, and defense to discuss scheduling and logistics of court proceedings. The judge reviewed the contents of the call before asking Coombs and Fein to supplement her summary if necessary.

First, the judge mentioned the defense’s proposal to compel discovery and deposition. What came after that was revealing. There had been a series of email communications between the court, the prosecution and the defense team as part of the RCM-802 process. One of the items at issue involved something the judge referred to as a “bill of particulars.” The judge said that she had set a deadline of 21 Feb 2012 for the prosecution, acting on behalf of the government, to produce these materials. The government had asked for an additional three week delay beyond the 21st of February. On 15 Feb 2012, according to the judge, she had notified the prosecution via email that the request for the delay had been denied. Today in court, Fein responded by saying “we have not received that email.” David Coombs then followed him up by noting that, in a subsequent email from the prosecution dated on 21 Feb 2012, they had in fact referenced the earlier decision. This fact appeared to expose Fein’s claim as being false.

Three hundred supporters march on Fort Meade during Bradley Manning's pre-trial hearing 12/17/11. Photo: Jeff Paterson

The judge moved on, to announce that tentatively, the next hearing date would be March 15th or 16th, to discuss remaining unsolved issues. She asked if either counsel wished to address something else from the RCM-802, and Fein announced that the prosecution “saw spillage” in something the defense filed, implying some classified material was leaked, and sought to deal with that. Fein said that “two out of three filings” contained, in his view, an issue with spillage. Coombs stated that it was the defense’s position that there was no spillage and requested a protective order, so that the “government can’t unilaterally declare spillage.” Coombs also noted that experts that had been provided to the defense team had seen no spillage.

The defense raised another complaint with the way the prosecution was handling the case: when referring to certain documents, Coombs said, the prosecution referred to a “range of bates numbers” it had assigned to the pages, instead of to the content therein. Fein responded that with 41,000 documents already gone through, with different cable numbers there were far too many to reference easily without bates numbers. The defense disagreed, but the judge told Coombs he should raise the issue again at a later date.

Further supplementing the judge’s review of the RCM-802, Coombs reminded the court that Pfc. Manning has been detained for 635 days, and that that number will be over 800 by the time we get to the court martial if it starts at the prosecution’s preferred date in August. He reminded the judge and prosecution that he’s repeatedly entered speedy trial requests, the first of which is dated January 9, 2011. The prosecution had responded that the complexities of this case had warranted a delay, but Coombs, prepared for that reply, remarked that when necessary the prosecution has acted very quickly, and there was no need for any more delays. For example, he noted that at one point in this process, a security clearance had been provided to an individual within 48 hours.

To conclude the arraignment, the judge asked Pfc. Manning how he wished to plea. Once again, Coombs stood to announce that the defense would defer on entering a plea. Court was declared in recess, and before we had the chance to stretch our legs, a white-suited man from CodePink jumped up to ask aloud, “Judge, isn’t a soldier required to report a war crime?” The judge gave no response, and we walked back outside as stern-faced security personnel began forming a barrier between us and those on the other side of the bar.

“This administration owes all Americans an honest explanation for their extraordinary retaliation against Bradley Manning,” said Jeff Paterson, a lead organizer of the Bradley Manning Support Network. “President Obama and Secretary Clinton need to produce sworn depositions under conditions where they are required to tell the truth about Bradley Manning.”

Legal observers have noted that President Obama and Secretary Clinton have already inserted themselves into the case by declaring Manning to be guilty and making unsubstantiated accusations that the WikiLeaks materials somehow harmed national security. Manning’s defense team has argued that these claims contradict the government’s own impact assessments, which military prosecutors have blocked from consideration during the proceedings. On Janurary 20, Manning’s lead defense counsel David Coombs filed another request for the “WikiLeaks Task Force” and other entities to produce these records.

On January 18, Col. Carl R. Coffman Jr. denied a separate request filed a week earlier by Manning’s defense team to conduct oral depositions of nine essential witnesses. Although names have been redacted from publicly available versions of these deposition requests, media analyses have shown that President Obama and Secretary Clinton are among those being called to testify.

“This determination is difficult to comprehend given the nature of the charges against PFC Manning. Today’s decision is yet another example of the government improperly impeding the defense’s access to essential witnesses,” according to a blog post by Coombs in response to that denial of evidence.

Although this set of witnesses was prevented by military officials from testifying during last month’s Article 32 hearing, and again with this most recent decision, Manning’s defense team intends to renew these deposition requests with the General Court-Martial Convening Authority.

The decision by Maj. Gen. Linnington comes as his office was barraged with several days of calls after the Bradley Manning Support Network tweeted his phone number. Supporters had called on Linnington to at least drop the most serious charge of “aiding the enemy.”

The Bradley Manning Support Network sent a representative into the courtroom to take notes for the public on what happened at Bradley Manning’s hearing. No recording devices (like cell phones or audio recorders) were allowed, so all these notes are hand-written and as accurate as written notes and memory allow.  Notes were taken by Nathan L. Fuller. Please send corrections to nathanlfuller@gmail.com (@NathanLfuller)

Thursday, December 22, 2011

Concluding Statements from the defense

Proceedings began at 9 AM, with the defense delivering closing statements first. David Coombs opened his statement by addressing the Investigating Officer directly, “You are in a unique position to give the United States a reality check.”

Coombs explained that the IO’s recommendation will have a big impact. He asked the IO to use his recommendation to send a message that PFC Manning has been overcharged. Coombs believes Manning has been overcharged in order to “strong-arm a plea.”

He noted that before the “aiding the enemy” charge, the prison sentence for the rest of Manning’s charges, if convicted, added up to 150 years in prison. But, he said, the prosecution was not satisfied with that, and so they also charged him with “aiding the enemy,” which carries a death sentence, or life in prison without parole.

Then Coombs asked the IO to dismiss the “aiding the enemy” charge, and to dismiss all the Article 92 offenses related to the enforcement of information assurance. He said Manning served in a “lawless unit” with regards to information assurance, and so it isn’t reasonable for Manning to be charged alone.

Coombs requested a consolidation of the remaining charges, whose convictions would carry a total of 30 years in prison, maximum. Thirty years is “big time,” he said, more than sufficient punishment. To give the IO a sense of just how big it was, Coombs recalled that 30 years ago we were supporting Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war. “Thirty years ago,” Coombs said, “my client was not even born.”

He then said that before we consider punishment, we must consider why something happened and what was the result.

He reminded the IO of the evidence he presented showing Manning’s “gender-identity disorder,” which he said is not really a “disorder” at all. It was something Manning was struggling with throughout his time in the military.

Coombs read from a letter of Manning’s to Sgt. Adkins, in which Manning wrote, “This is my problem,” that it was the source of his pain and confusion. He found it difficult to sleep or converse. “It feels like I’m not really here anymore,” he wrote. Coombs also read from a single journal entry, which read, “I may have gender identity issues.” He’d thought joining the military would get rid of it.

Coombs said Manning had downloaded articles on transgender issues. He created a “virtual identity,” Breanna Manning. Coombs, reminding the IO of the military’s responsibility to deal with the issue Manning brought up, said he “struggled in isolation, but not in silence.”

He called Sgt. Adkins the most responsible, who refused to testify. He noted Adkins had written three separate memorandums on Manning. The first said Manning’s “instability seems heightened,” and that he needed intense psychological therapy and medication. “[He] wrote that memo, and yet did nothing,” Coombs said.

The second memo observed that “events reemerged” and intensified, that Manning created internal pressure that he can’t discuss. “Wrote that memo, and yet did nothing,” Coombs intoned again.

In the third memo, Adkins said Manning was clearly agitated, clearly in pain. He’d come upon Manning alone in a room, with his knees tucked into his chin. A knife lay beside him. Manning had etched into a chair nearby, “I want.” According to Adkins, Manning said he wasn’t there, he wasn’t a person, he had no personality. He said the person speaking to Adkins was independent of the person inside. “Wrote that memo, and yet did nothing,” Coombs repeated. He summarized Adkins’ behavior again: he wrote three memos, gave unsworn statements, but took no action.

Then Coombs pivoted to the information released. He said all of this information is out in the public, and yet it hasn’t caused any harm. “If anything, it’s helped,” he said. Coombs said the government has given a “chicken little response,” a response the media has picked up on. He noted that Hillary Clinton gave a “chicken little response” just last week. He said officials were saying the “sky is falling, the sky is falling” over and over.

But, he said, “the sky has not fallen, is not falling, and will not fall.”

Coombs said Manning was young and idealistic. He’s in his early 20s and he wanted to change the world. When your in your early 20s, Coombs said, you believe you can make a difference, you believe a politician who says “Yes we can.” “And that’s a good thing,” Coombs said.

That Bradley Manning needs to pay, Coombs said, is an overreaction. This response strips the military of any credibility, he declared. Again addressing the IO directly, he said, “Let’s give the government a reality check.” Let’s tell them, he said, that “sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

Concluding statements from the prosecution

Then Ashden Fein stood to deliver the prosecution’s closing statements.

Fein began by saying that PFC Manning was a “trained and trusted” US Army intelligence analyst, and that “he used that training to defy our trust.” He said Manning downloaded more than 700,000 documents over SIPRnet, using WikiLeaks’ “most wanted list” as a guide.

Fein said Manning knew that enemies of the United States were using the Internet, and that they could access WikiLeaks.

Fein said there was “overwhelming evidence” proving Manning’s culpability, including a thorough investigation, testimony, and “minute by minute” accounts of how he “harvested” this information. There were also chats with Julian Assange. All of these, Fein said, were tied to PFC Manning.

He then laid out his coming statement, as he’d review each section of information that Manning allegedly released, and each of the related charges. Then he focused on Manning’s background. He said Manning was “trained to evaluate threats against the United States,” their tactics and their procedures. He said Manning signed seven nondisclosure agreements. He put one such document on the TV screen, which Manning had signed, and which warned that a disclosure would result in his punishment.

Fein reviewed Manning’s classes on InfoSec and OpSec, saying Manning learned how disclosures could “reasonably be expected to cause damage to the United States.” He noted Manning had given a PowerPoint presentation on OpSec (which had been recovered on an external hard drive), on June 13, 2008, and he presented it on the screen. It outlined the information that must be protected, with slides titled “Dates and Times,” “Official Information,” and “Adversaries.” Fein said Manning researched common sources of information leaking, including the Internet. He said Manning had especially noted that information must not be leaked online, because many “adversaries” would then have access. Shortly thereafter, Fein said, Manning was deployed to Iraq.

He said Manning’s three main charges spanned 6 months, but each occurred at different times and with different methods. Then he outlined what he called the key forensic evidence.

First he noted the Intel Link search logs, which give “minute by minute” accounts of his searches. According to Fein, Manning searched for “retention of interrogation videos” despite being a Shia analyst in Iraq. He said Manning searched for “WikiLeaks” 122 times, “Assange” 19 times, and “Iceland” and “other related terms” also. Second, he discussed online chats said to be with Julian Assange, in which leaked material was discussed. He noted the alleged chats with Adrian Lamo, which were published in WIRED magazine, and said that chats from Lamo’s computer and Manning’s matched. Third was the CD said to be found on Manning’s computer. He said when CDs are burned, the year, month, and day, along with the hour and minute marking the time of the burn, are printed on the CD. Fein recalled that Johnson had put the CD into a computer to recover information from Manning’s computer. Finally, he described “Centaur” as a data collection program, which collects information transmitted across the Internet. Fein said the prosecution used this program to collect information from Manning’s computer, particularly regarding the State Department cables.

Fein went on to address the Apache video, which he said depicted an air weapons team “providing air support.” He said that on February 14, 2009, Manning searched for that video. He said just a day later, the video was transferred onto a CD marked with a “Secret” sticker. During the time between the “compromise” of the video and WikiLeaks’ disclosure of it, Manning was said to have searched the Internet for it several times. After it was released, Fein said Manning searched for information on the video “hourly.” Fein said Manning admitted to Lamo that he’d leaked the video. Fein then noted that the video was not classified, but said that at the time Manning thought it was classified, due to the “Secret” sticker with which he labeled the CD.

Next he discussed the ‘Blah.zip’ folder found on Manning’s computer, which he said including classified reports that Manning transmitted to WikiLeaks. He moved on quickly to the CDNE Iraq and Afghanistan logs. He said these logs were only available on the SIPRnet network. Fein said Manning knew these logs contained unit names, reaction techniques, and Medevac procedures.

Then he outlined Special Agent Shaver’s testimony. Shaver examined the SD card containing these logs, and said the card included Manning’s instructions to WikiLeaks to “sit on” this material. Fein then noted that the SD card included a photo of smiling, saluting PFC Manning. He concluded that we can easily see these documents were properly classified at the time, and that they still are now.

Fein went on to the JTF GTMO files, containing detainee assessments. These also, he said, are only available on the SIPRnet network, and were marked as classified. On December 8, 2009, he said, Manning accessed these files. He tried to download them all, but couldn’t complete the process. The very next day, Manning began using wget, the online chatting program similar to AOL Instant Messenger. He said on March 8, 2010, Manning burned a zip file with the GTMO docs to a CD and immediately transferred it to his personal computer to send to Assange. According to Fein, Manning told Assange, “I’m throwing anything I’ve got on JTFGTMO at you,” to which Assange allegedly replied, “OK, great.”

He then reviewed the transmission of the Granai air strike video, depicting the Farah incident. Fein recalled that the computer’s index.back folder shows when these files (the video and accompanying documents) were downloaded and compressed to a ‘Farah.zip’ folder. He again said Manning admitted this transmission to Adran Lamo, and that WikiLeaks had tweeted their possession of the files.

All of these files, Fein said, revealed tactical information, Medevac procedures, and intelligence methods. All were properly classified, and still are now, Fein repeated.

On to the State Department cables, Fein said Manning had begun to spend “all of his time” helping WikiLeaks. He said Manning was able to “accomplish his goal” of harvesting as much information as possible.

Fein reviewed a worksheet Manning created with three sections, one called wget, another marked ‘0310-0410,’ and a third marked ‘0510,’ harvesting cables between March and May of 2010. As Agent Shaver said, WikiLeaks didn’t release cables during that period.

The worksheet’s first number, Fein said, was 251,288 – an important number because WikiLeaks released 251,287 documents. So Fein said this marked the first cable not leaked, which he says means Manning intended to “continue harvesting” and had these cables “ready to go.” Fein said Manning’s computer made more than 700,000 connections with the SIPRnet database, which he repeatedly explained as Manning’s “methodical, “systematic” process of charting these cables. Fein repeated his mantra from before: all of these were classified then, and still are now.

Fein moved to the single Reykjavik 13 cable, which Manning sent to WikiLeaks. Shortly thereafter, Manning searched Intel Link for ‘Iceland’ (when Fein said he should have been searching for Iraqi election and Shia information) and had set an Icelandic portal as his homepage. “Why this cable?” Fein asked aloud. Because Iceland was the “homebase” for Assange, he answered. On December 1, 2009, Manning searched Intel Link for ‘WikiLeaks,’ the same day he’s said to access the Reykjavik 13 document. “Knowing foreign enemies will have access to WikiLeaks and exploit that information,” Fein said, Manning then transferred the document to WIkiLeaks on February 15. He said Manning searched for the New York Times article confirming the authenticity of that report. He said he knew WikiLeaks would publish, and he knew foreign adversaries “including Al Qaeda” would exploit that information.

Then he mentioned the global address book Manning is said to have released, citing WikiLeaks’ tweet specifically requesting a “list of as many .mil addresses as possible.” Fein said Manning tasked himself with acquiring the addresses, knowing they “belonged to the United States.” Fein said Manning was also charged with “attempting to bypass security,” because he tried to leak the information without being detected.

In conclusion, Fein emphasized the “aiding the enemy” charge. He said Manning “indiscriminately harvested” information knowing it’d be accessed by enemies including “Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and ‘classified’ enemies.” Then Fein played a video ostensibly of Muslims in the Middle East praising WikiLeaks and the easy access it provided. One speaker said he was thankful this information was available online and that anyone “actively fighting for God” has these resources available on the Internet. He mentioned an Inspired magazine article urging Western followers to “harvest this information.” Fein again mentioned a “classified enemy,” who he says is known to have accessed the Afghanistan war logs.

Finally, Fein said Manning “knowingly gave information to the enemy,” and disregarded his oath. He said he gave our enemies “unfettered access” to and multiple enemies are known to have accessed it. He repeated his opening line that Manning used his training to defy the military’s trust. His last sentence was to recommend a full military court martial.

The IO wrapped up quickly: he addressed PFC Manning directly to remind that his recommendation is nonbinding. And with that, the hearing was complete.

FORT MEADE, MARYLAND — Eighteen months after he was first accused of revealing information to WikiLeaks, PFC Bradley Manning appeared before an Article 32 investigating officer this morning.  Supporters began gathering outside the gates of Fort Meade to call for Manning’s freedom and denounce the proceedings as unjust. Inside the tightly-controlled military court room, lead defense counsel David Coombs challenged the investigating officer, Army Lt. Col. Paul Almanza, to recuse himself due to conflicts of interest.

“Military officials have begun conducting their star chamber prosecution after abusing Bradley Manning of his rights for eighteen months,” said Jeff Paterson, an organizer with the Bradley Manning Support Network, who was speaking from the vigil at Fort Meade. “The investigating officer is not only biased to produce an outcome that is favorable to his employer at the Justice Department — he’s under pressure from his Commander-in-Chief, who has already inappropriately weighed-in on this case.”

Supporters have long argued that PFC Manning could not receive a fair hearing due to unlawful command influence from President Obama, who publicly declared in April that the former Army intelligence analyst “broke the law.”

A bus carrying over 50 supporters from Occupy Wall Street arrived shortly after 9:00 AM as the media blackout began inside the courtroom. Former Army linguist Lt. Dan Choi, who was a prominent activist in the effort to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” greeted the new arrivals and spoke out in support of Manning.

“We must have the truth to achieve justice — and without justice we will never see true peace,” said Lt. Choi as he spoke to reporters. “Despite the best efforts of President Obama, troops are coming from Iraq this year because of information about the cover-up of war crimes that Bradley Manning is accused of revealing to the public.”

The Obama administration had sought to extend the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq well beyond the expiration of the current Status of Forces Agreement at the end of this year. Cables released via WikiLeaks in September showed that American military and diplomatic officials had covered up an atrocity that involved the execution of Iraqi civilians. The Iraqi parliament was forced by the ensuing public outrage to withdraw legal immunity from any future U.S. military presence in Iraq — a stipulation that the U.S. Defense Department would not accept.

Hundreds of supporters are planning to rally and march again tomorrow outside the gates of Fort Meade to mark Bradley Manning’s 24th birthday.

November 30, 2011. Bradley Manning Support Network

Press conference video (YouTube) Features Bradley Manning Support Network Steering Committee member Gerry Condon.

BRUSSELS, BELGIUM — Speaking at a press conference this morning at the European Parliament (photo right), elected officials representing a broad spectrum of political parties expressed their strong concerns about the mistreatment of accused WikiLeaks whistle-blower Bradley Manning. They released a letter signed by dozens of Members of Parliament to officials in the White House and U.S. military, which read in part:

“We are troubled by reports that Mr Manning has been subjected to prolonged solitary confinement and other abusive treatment tantamount to torture.”

The full text of the letter is included below. Today’s press conference follows on a revelation by Manning’s counsel, David Coombs, that military officials have refused to provide the defense team with video-recordings that were made while Manning was subjected to periods of forced nudity during part of his confinement.

“Every day that the Obama administration persists in their refusal to respect basic standards of civil and human rights, they will become increasingly isolated in the eyes of the international community,” said Jeff Paterson, an organizer with the Bradley Manning Support Network. “They know that the show is over, but they’re too embarrassed to hand over the video.”

In a recent “Defense Request for Evidence” that was made public earlier this week, Manning’s chief counsel David Coombs revealed that the Obama administration has been withholding favorable evidence from his defense team. They noted that military prosecutors have not turned over a damage assessment conducted by the Defense Intelligence Agency, which found no adverse impacts on national security caused by the information exposed via WikiLeaks.

“The White House has known for some time that these revelations never posed a threat to our national security,” said Kevin Zeese, a legal adviser with the Bradley Manning Support Network. “They aren’t violating Manning’s civil liberties for the sake of his safety or our own, but rather for the psychological impact these abuses are intended to convey.”

Legal observers have noted that the legitimacy of any trial against Manning has already been compromised by numerous rights violations on the part of the Obama administration. Among these violations are substantiated concerns related to due process, freedom of speech, fifth amendment rights, undue command influence, and unlawful pretrial punishment that may have amounted to torture.

Juan Mendez, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, is preparing to issue a report on Bradley Manning’s conditions of confinement. PFC Manning’s supporters have argued that this report won’t be fully complete so long as the Obama administration prevents them from conducting an unmonitored meeting. Manning’s request for an unmonitored meeting with Mendez still stands.

The full text of the letter from the Members of the European Parliament:

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.

The Bradley Manning Support Network issued the following statement of solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street movement today:

“The Bradley Manning Support Network stands in solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street movement that has spread to hundreds of cities and town squares across America. We share a common commitment to exposing the corruption of corporate power upon our democratic system.

Over the last few weeks, organizers with the Bradley Manning Support Network have been on the ground at occupations in New York, Washington DC, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco and elsewhere, along with countless other supporters for the accused WikiLeaks whistle-blower.

Earlier this week, a veteran wearing a “Free Bradley Manning” shirt was among the first to be arrested in a police raid of the Occupy Boston encampment.

We condemn this crackdown on our fellow citizens and veterans in Boston and elsewhere around the country. There is no excuse to silence those who speak freely, assemble peacefully, and seek to petition their government.

Supporters of Manning at the Occupy Wall Street protest 10/4/11 NYC

We also stand for the right of the press to operate free from government harassment. For over 16 months, the Obama administration has withheld the freedom of PFC Bradley Manning in retaliation for allegedly exposing evidence of abuse via WikiLeaks and other media outlets. The administration’s unprecedented pursuit of whistle-blowers like Manning has created a severe chilling effect on those who seek to expose and correct wrongdoing.

The sustained campaign of civil liberties violations that began under the Bush administration continues to play a major role in undermining the public’s trust in our government. The Occupy movement presents a powerful way for citizens to reclaim control of our government by engaging nonviolently in direct democracy.
Many Occupy participants have drawn inspiration from the Arab Spring. The ongoing democratic uprisings across the Arab world have been fueled in part by access to previously-withheld evidence of abuse that has been released via WikiLeaks and other publishers supporting whistle-blowers. Countless anonymous activists have used their technical skills to relay this critical information to areas where governments have sought to cut off avenues of communication.

Now in the United States, we rely on each other to preserve our freedom to communicate in the face of authoritarian crackdowns on our rights.

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. Shell executives privately boasted to U.S. diplomats that its agents had managed to infiltrate all of the major Nigerian government ministries. 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.

Taken as a whole, the material allegedly revealed by PFC Manning shows that an unjust accumulation of informational power runs parallel to widespread economic and political inequalities. In both the United States and abroad, 99% of the people are kept in the dark, while corporate elites use restricted information to manipulate government policies for their personal profit.

Our struggle for Bradley Manning’s freedom is a struggle for everyone’s freedom. The Occupy movement’s fight for true democracy is everyone’s fight. That is why we’re standing in solidarity, in person, as we Occupy everywhere.”