The Media

It's interesting to see the slight of hand with which the media treated the conviction of Bradley today. Like many of the corporate media, the New York Times headlined, Manning Is Acquitted of Aiding the Enemy, as if to suggest that the military court and judge, Col. Denise R. Lind were lenient and Bradley is lucky to be convicted of only 20 charges and to only be facing up to 136 years in prison. Writing for the NYT, Charlie Savage emphasized the acquittal of one charge and attempted to soften the impact of the conviction and the prospect of this 23 year old spending what remains of his youth and probably his entire life in a military prison cell.

A military judge on Tuesday found Pfc. Bradley Manning not guilty of “aiding the enemy” for his release of hundreds of thousands of military and diplomatic documents to WikiLeaks for publication on the Internet, rejecting the government’s unprecedented effort to bring such a charge in a leak case ... He faces a theoretical maximum sentence of 136 years in prison, although legal experts said the actual term was likely to be much shorter.

Savage continued to carry the mail for the NYT and the government with a stern warning to potential future whistle blowers,

While advocates of open government celebrated his acquittal on the most serious charge, the case still appears destined to stand as a fierce warning to any government employee who is tempted to make public vast numbers of secret documents. Private Manning’s actions lifted a veil on American military and diplomatic activities around the world, and engendered a broad debate over what information should become public, how the government treats leakers, and what happens to those who see themselves as whistle-blowers.

He cites a Harvard law professor and defense witness who on the one hand thinks the acquittal on one charge supports freedom of the press and on the other ignores the impact that convictions on 20 other charges providing the basis for a 135 year sentence has on other journalists who might think about exposing US government war crimes.

"Yochai Benkler, a Harvard law professor who testified in Private Manning’s defense, praised the judge for making an “extremely important decision” that he portrayed as denying 'the prosecution’s effort to launch the most dangerous assault on investigative journalism and the free press in the area of national security that we have seen in decades'.”

Savage continued by quoting Gregg Leslie of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press who seems to suggest that the conviction was justified because of the size of the risk taken by Bradley,

“We always hate to see a government employee who was trying to publicize wrongdoing convicted of a crime, but this case was unusual from the start because of the scope of his release. Whistle-blowers always know they are taking risks, and the more they reveal the bigger the threat is against them.”

The BBC carries a similar message, telling of Bradley's good fortune not to have been convicted of aiding the enemy but emphasizing the enormity of his "crime,"

Bradley Manning, the US Army private who leaked thousands of classified documents, has been convicted of espionage but not of aiding the enemy ... Pte Manning, 25, has been convicted of 20 charges in total, including theft and computer fraud. He had admitted leaking the documents to anti-secrecy organisation Wikileaks but said he did so to spark a debate on US foreign policy. The leak is considered the largest ever of secret US government files. He faces a maximum sentence of up to 136 years. His sentencing hearing is set to begin on Wednesday. In addition to multiple espionage counts, he was also found guilty of five theft charges, two computer fraud charges and multiple military infractions ... The documents also included 470,000 Iraq and Afghanistan battlefield reports and 250,000 secure state department cables between Washington and embassies around the world.

The BBC goes on to quote two US congressmen, Republican Mike Rogers and Democrat Dutch Ruppersberger,

"Manning harmed our national security, violated the public's trust, and now stands convicted of multiple serious crimes."

The words of the good senators fall on deaf ears of the rest of the world who have been watching for years how the US government has "violated the public trust" by robbing the people's national treasury on behalf of the banks and by oppressing dissent at home. For the last 13 years the world has watched how the US government has "harmed our national security" by invading foreign countries, killing and maiming millions of innocent people, torturing their prisoners and putting the entire world at risk with mendacious and illegal "war on terror."

They bring the message home stating that in a joint statement, both "the Democratic and Republican leaders of the US House of Representatives intelligence committee said "justice has been served."

The BBC further describes the reactions of Bradley and the smile of his military defense lawyer David Coombs who saw the court decision as a win but with more work to be done,

Pte Manning stood and faced Judge Colonel Denise Lind as she read the decision on Tuesday. She said she would release detailed written findings at a later date. He appeared not to react during the verdict, but his defence lawyer, David Coombs, smiled faintly as the not guilty charge on aiding the enemy was read. "We won the battle, now we need to go win the war," his defence lawyer, David Coombs said of the sentencing phase. "Today is a good day, but Bradley is by no means out of the fire." A guilty verdict on the aiding the enemy charge could have had serious implications for people leaking documents in the future, says the BBC's North America editor, Mark Mardell.

Rejected by the Washington Post and New York Times

But in his own revealing statement which he read in February to this court, Bradley tells of how before going to Wikileaks, the Washington Post and the New York Times ignored him when he went to them with "information that would have enormous value to the American public."
 

At my aunt’s house I debated what I should do with the SigActs, in particular whether I should hold on to them or disclose them to a press agency. At this point I decided that it made sense to expose the SigAct tables to an American newspaper. I first called my local newspaper, The Washington Post, and spoke with a woman saying that she was a reporter. I asked her if the Washington Post would be interested in receiving information that would have enormous value to the American public. Although we spoke for about five minutes concerning the general nature of what I possessed, I do not believe she took me seriously. She informed me that the Washington Post would possibly be interested, but that such decisions were made only after seeing the information I was referring to and after consideration by the senior editors. I then decided to contact the largest and most popular newspaper, The New York Times. I called the public editor number on the New York Times website. The phone rang and was answered by a machine. I went through the menu section for news tips. I was routed to an answering machine. I left a message stating I had access to information about Iraq and Afghanistan that I believed was very important. However, despite leaving my Skype phone number and personal email address, I never received a reply from The New York Times.

Bradley Manning's Motivation

Ignoring or de-emphasizing the issues of US government crimes and the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, the military junta that convicted Bradley Manning today and their corrupt media focused on their interpretation of authoritarian laws and their simplistic claims as to his motivation for doing what he did. But they ignored Bradley's own words which he read to this same court in February.

A BBC video played earlier today (since removed), characterized Bradley as either being innocently naive, not realizing the importance of his actions - or - of being a traitor with criminal intent and seeking personal fame. They ignored the third possibility that Manning was motivated by conscience and a sense of duty to reveal US war crimes and other violations of the US constitution and international law.

Later today the BBC says the defense characterised Bradley "as a naive and young soldier who had become disillusioned during his time in Iraq."

The Los Angles Times headlines, Bradley Manning was naive, good-intentioned, defense says in closing, with Richard A. Serrano citing his defense lawyer's description, "young, naive, gay and good-intentioned..." while prosecutor Maj. Ashden Fein called him "a traitor who was star struck with WikiLeaks and wanted to glom on to its global franchise exposing government secrets."

To prove his point, the prosecutor then showed to the judge a still photo that Bradley took of himself, "around the time he started cooperating with WikiLeaks. In it he is smiling broadly, evidence the prosecution said shows he was delighted in his coming celebrity." Coombs, his defense lawyer countered that "Manning is wearing a bra. He is cross-dressing. He’s smiling because maybe he’s able to be himself at that moment.” Imagine the sympathy garnered in a military court with that defense statement!

Bradley in his own words

In the statement Bradley read to this court earlier he spoke for himself about his motivation. Of the well-known video of US soldiers murdering civilians from a helicopter gunship in Iraq, Bradley told the judge (excerpt):

Using Google I searched for the event by date by its general location. I found several new accounts involving two Reuters employees who were killed during the aerial weapon team engagement. Another story explained how Reuters had requested for a copy of the video under the Freedom of Information Act or FOIA. Reuters wanted to view the video in order to understand what had happened and to improve their safety practices in combat zones. A spokesperson for Reuters was quoted saying that the video might help avoid the re-occurrence of the tragedy and believed there was a compelling need for the immediate release of the video. The fact neither CENTCOM or Multi National Forces Iraq or MNF-I would not voluntarily release the video troubled me further. It was clear to me that the event happened because the aerial weapons team mistakenly identified Reuters employees as a potential threat and that the people in the bongo truck were merely attempting to assist the wounded. The people in the van were not a threat but merely “good Samaritans.” The most alarming aspect of the video to me, however, was the seemly delightful blood-lust the Aerial Weapons Team seemed to have. They dehumanized the individuals they were engaging and seemed to not value human life, and referred to them as quote-unquote “dead bastards,” and congratulated each other on their ability to kill in large numbers. At one point in the video there is an individual on the ground attempting to crawl to safety. The individual is seriously wounded. Instead of calling for medical attention to the location, one of the aerial weapons team crew members verbally asks for the wounded person to pick up a weapon so that he can have a reason to engage. For me, this seemed similar to a child torturing ants with a magnifying glass. While saddened by the aerial weapons team crew’s lack of concern about human life, I was disturbed by the response of the discovery of injured children at the scene. In the video, you can see a bongo truck driving up to assist the wounded individual. In response the aerial weapons team crew assumes the individuals are a threat. They repeatedly request for authorization to fire on the bongo truck, and once granted, they engage the vehicle at least six times. Shortly after the second engagement, a mechanized infantry unit arrives at the scene. Within minutes, the aerial weapons team crew learns that children were in the van. Despite the injuries the crew exhibits no remorse. Instead, they downplay the significance of their actions, saying quote ‘Well, it’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle.” The aerial weapons team crew members sound like they lack sympathy for the children or the parents. Later, in a particularly disturbing manner, the aerial weapons team crew vocalizes enjoyment at the sight of one of the ground vehicles driving over one of the bodies. As I continued my research, I found an article discussing a book, The Good Soldiers, written by Washington Post writer David Finkel. In Mr. Finkel book, he writes about the aerial weapons team attack. As I read an online excerpt in Google Books, I followed Mr. Finkel’s account of the event belonging to the video. I quickly realize that Mr. Finkel was quoting, I feel verbatim, the audio communications of the aerial weapons team crew. It is clear to me Mr. Finkel obtained access and a copy of the video during his tenure as an embedded journalist. I was aghast at Mr. Finkel’s portrayal of the incident. Reading his account, one would believe the engagement was somehow justified as payback for an earlier attack that lead to the death of a soldier. Mr. Finkel ends his account of the engagement by discussing how a soldier finds an individual still alive from the attack. He writes the soldier finds him and sees him gesture with his two forefingers together—a common method in the Middle East to communicate that they are friendly. However, instead of assisting him, the soldier makes an obscene gesture with his middle finger. The individual apparently dies shortly thereafter. Reading this, I can only think of how this person was simply trying to help others, and then quickly finds he needs help as well. To make matter worse, in the last moments of his life, he continues to express his friendly intent only to find himself receiving this well known gesture of unfriendliness. For me it’s all a big mess. I was left wondering what these things mean, and how it all fits together. It burdens me emotionally. After the release, I was concern about the impact of the video and how it would been received by the general public. I hoped that the public would be as alarmed as me about the conduct of the aerial weapons team crew members. I wanted the American public to know that not everyone in Iraq and Afghanistan were targets that needed to be neutralized, but rather people who were struggling to live in the pressure cooker environment of what we call asymmetric warfare. After the release I was encouraged by the response in the media and general public who observed the aerial weapons team video. As I hoped, others were just as troubled—if not more troubled—that me by what they saw.

Bradley wrote about his assignment from his superiors to analyze information about individuals who were printing anti-Iraqi literature and their response to the result of his investigation:

On 27 February 2010, a report was received from a subordinate battalion. The report described an event in which the Federal Police, or FP, detained 15 individuals for printing anti-Iraqi literature. On 2 March 2010, I received instructions from an S3 section officer in the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division Tactical Operation Center or TOC to investigate the matter and figure out who the quote “bad guys” unquote were and how significant this event was for the Federal Police. Over the course of my research I found that none of the individuals had previous ties to anti-Iraqi actions or suspected terrorist militia groups. The document, as I had assessed as well, was merely a scholarly critique of the then current Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. It detailed corruption within the cabinet of al-Maliki’s government and the financial impact of his corruption on the Iraqi people. After discovering this discrepancy between the Federal Police’s report and the interpreter’s transcript, I forwarded this discovery to the top OIC and the battle NCOIC. The top OIC and the [unavailable] battle captain informed me they didn’t want or need to know this information anymore. They told me to quote “drop it” unquote and to just assist them and the Federal Police in finding out where more of these print shops creating quote “anti-Iraqi literature” unquote might be. I couldn’t believe what I heard, and I returned to the T-SCIF and complained to the other analysts in my section NCOIC about what happened. Some were sympathetic, but no one wanted to do anything about it. I am the type of person who likes to know how things work, and as an analyst, this means I always want to figure out the truth. Unlike other analysts in my section or other sections within the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, I was not satisfied with just scratching the surface and producing canned or cookie-cutter assessments. I wanted to know why something was the way it was, and what we could to correct or mitigate the situation. I knew if I continued to assist the Baghdad Federal Police in identifying the political opponents of Prime Minister al-Maliki, those people would be arrested and in the custody of the Special Unit of the Baghdad Federal Police and very likely tortured and not seen again for a very long time—if ever. Instead of assisting the Special Unit of the Baghdad Federal Police, I decided to take the information and expose it to the WLO, before the upcoming 7 March 2010 election, hoping they could generate some immediate press on the issue and prevent this unit of the Federal Police from continuing to crack down in political opponents of al-Maliki.

Of Guantanamo he told the judge:

The DABs were written in standard DoD memorandum format and addressed the commander of US SOUTHCOM. Each memorandum gave basic background information about detainees held at some point by Joint Task Force Guantanamo. I have always been interested in the issue of the moral efficacy of our actions surrounding Joint Task Force Guantanamo. On the one hand, I have always understood the need to detain and interrogate individuals who might wish to harm the United States and our allies, however, the more I became educated on the topic, it seemed that we found ourselves holding an increasing number of individuals indefinitely that we believed or knew to be innocent, low-level foot soldiers that did not have useful intelligence and would’ve been released if they were held in theater. I also recall that in early 2009 the then newly elected president, Barack Obama, stated he would close Joint Task Force Guantanamo, and that the facility compromised our standing over all, and diminished our quote-unquote “moral authority.” After familiarizing myself with the DABs, I agreed.

Conclusion

And finally, he sent the Iraq video to Wikileaks stating:

This is possibly one of the more significant documents of our time removing the fog of war and revealing the true nature of twenty-first century asymmetric warfare.

Julian Assange's videotaped statement on the trial of Bradley Manning (transcribed by Axis of Logic).

"Bradley Manning's alleged disclosures have exposed war crimes, sparked revolutions and induced democratic reform. This is the first espionage conviction against a whistleblower in the United States. It is a dangerous precedent and a danger of national security extremism. It is a short-sighted judgement that cannot be tolerated and it must be reversed. It can never be that conveying to the public is espionage. President Barack Obama has initiated more espionage proceedings against whistleblowers and public officials than all U.S. presidents combined. In 2008 then presidential candidate, Barack Obama ran on a platform that raised whistleblowing as an act of courage and patriotism. That platform by Barack Obama's actions has been comprehensively betrayed. Barack Obama's campaign document described whistleblowers as watchdogs of wrong doing when government abuses its authority. It was removed from the internet last week. Throughout these proceedings there has been a conspicuous absence - the absence of any victim. The prosecution did not produce evidence that or even claim that a single person came to harm as a result of Bradley Manning's disclosures. The government never claimed that Bradley Manning was working for a foreign power. The only claim is that he gave information to the public. The only victim was the US government's wounded pride. But the abuse of this fine young man, Bradley Manning was never the way to restore it. Rather, the abuse of Bradley Manning has left the world with a sense of disgust at how the Obama Administration has fallen. Its attacks on Bradley Manning are not a sign of strength but a sign of weakness. The judge in this proceeding has allowed the prosecution to substantially open their charges after both the defense and the prosecution had rested their cases. She has permitted the prosecution 141 witnesses and extensive secret testimony. The government kept Bradley Manning in a cage, stripped him naked and isolated him in order to break him - an act formally condemned by the United Nations Special Repitoire for Torture. This was never a fair trial and has not been a fair trial.

Since this video-taped statement, Assange has told the press:

He is the quintessential whistleblower. Bradley Manning isn't guilty of anything in that he's actually very heroic for demanding government transparency and accountability and exposing the American people and the rest of the world to the crimes committed by the American government."

By convicting Bradley of anything today, the US government hopes to strike fear in the hearts of other potential whistleblowers as they reveal their paranoia and a psychotic determination to continue building a police state at home, to skoff the US constitution and to plunder any foreign country that gets in their way all in the name of "national security". 

"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.(2)

1. Journey to the West, Volume 4, p. 42, translated by Anthony C. Yu
2. King James Bible "Authorized Version", Cambridge Edition John 3:19, 20