align-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcamerachatcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-crosscrosseditfacebookglobegoogleimagesinstagramlocation-pinmagnifying-glassmailmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonplusImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartwitteryahoo

The London Expat American Meetup Group Message Board › Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks and Afghanistan - US Citizen in Guantanamo

Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks and Afghanistan - US Citizen in Guantanamo

Wilber W.
WilberWebb
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,958
Future of media – death of journalism?
“Journalism has the obligation to produce trustworthy information and to be active in society”
Voiz.fi 15.3.2011
http://www.voiz.fi/?p...­

Newspapers are dying as a buisness model- Journalism is need now more than ever as a bridge between peer reviewed information, truth and a well informed public....



One can only wonder what the future of media will look like. New innovations and applications keep rising from nowhere. Few years ago no-one knew about Kindle, iPad, Facebook or many of the blog start-ups that everyone is now reading and talking about. When media becomes too familiar and accessible to everybody, what happens to the scene? Who are the creators of certain content, for example a piece of news? What defines journalism – and more importantly: Can anyone become a journalist?

Danish journalism professor Kirsten Mogensen, who currently studies innovation coverage at Silicon Valley’s top university Stanford, separates journalism from the new media forms and their written content. Blogs and other types of social media make it possible for anyone to express themselves freely, with almost no limitations of time and space, but according to Mogensen, they are not journalism.

“The profession has a role; it has norms that constitute journalism. Most blogs are not trustworthy and they can’t stop journalism because journalism is different,” Mogensen says during a Q&A session in New York, her image and words transmitted live to Ylöjärvi, Finland via Skype.

The key factor that separates journalism from most media content, especially in the internet, is reliability.

“Journalism has the obligation to produce trustworthy information and to be active in society”, Mogensen differentiates.

Needed: A Generalist with Specialist Knowledge

The audience’s need for reliable information is what keeps journalism alive. Even if newspaper journalism seems to be losing ground to new media innovations, Mogensen says the future still offers possibilities for professional journalists who are willing and able to change.

“I think journalists should be able to do a bit of everything, like photography and video. On the other hand, people are willing to pay for quality. That is why print journalists should still have photographers and other specialists working with them, at least on bigger stories”.

When it comes to knowledge, Mogensen believes in the blessing of variety.

“A journalist should have a basic understanding about the philosophy of journalism. Familiarity with different areas should change according to the assignment. First I cover business, and after that when I’m working as a foreign correspondent I cover international matters. Journalists should change their interests when their beat changes, but they should also be generalists and know a bit about everything”.

The contents of media studies vary, but Mogensen, a professor at Roskilde University in Denmark, thinks that generally the philosophy of journalism should be emphasized more in media education.

“Journalism is about morals and responsibility to be objective and pass information to everyone. Schools should focus more on the responsibilities, such as democracy and independence”.

Mogensen says she enjoys being a visiting researcher in Silicon Valley, the number one technology hotspot and innovation haven in the world. But, she goes on to say, there is not much value in teaching journalists all the latest technology aspects of media.

“Journalism will always be behind of technological development. That’s why I think education should focus mostly on morals and content, the core values of journalism. Investigative journalism and professional skills, like reporting and storytelling, should also be fostered”.

Ubiquitous tech, ubiquitous journalism

Some of Kirsten Mogensen’s journalism ideas are not exactly what you’d expect to hear in Silicon Valley. People use more and more interactive content on the expense of journalism, and the venture capitalists who fund new business models know the trend. All eyes are fixed on social network start-ups.

While journalism has spread on to various new platforms, predominantly in the Internet, various mobile apps have also helped a local company, Apple, boost its sales. The most recent success story is launching the iPad, a much-hyped tablet bigger than a smart phone but much lighter and smaller than a laptop.

Consequently, modern journalism is ubiquitous and its representatives can be found everywhere too. Glamour of being a star reporter may slowly fade, but a fashion blogger, working in pajamas and slippers, may instead become a role model for many. The most creative fashion writers, Barbie collectors or cupcake gurus already get paid for following their passion.

This said, Mogensen believes that many young people, while hoping to become a reporter, don’t actually realize the situation in the field. There might soon be more students of journalism, chasing less journalism jobs than ever before during our lifetime.

“It will require even more hard work than before to become a successful journalist and get your bills paid while doing it. No one is born into the profession”.

Teksti: Tia Tuovinen
Wilber W.
WilberWebb
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,975
Bradley Manning Needs You
By Genny Bove
http://www.radicalwal...­



Accused whistle-blower Bradley Manning was born in the US on 17 December 1987 to a Welsh mother and American father. He lived in Wales for three years as a teenager and his Mum and other relatives still live in Wales. More background in this previous article. Manning’s military pre-trial ‘Article 32′ hearing in Maryland USA concluded just before Christmas after nearly 19 months of detention and at least nine months of torture; he remains in prison waiting to find out if the state will pursue a court martial against him. Whatever happens, Bradley Manning needs our continued visible and vocal support here in Wales in the coming weeks and months. Can you help?

Having joined the US army in 2007 as an intelligence analyst, Bradley was arrested in Iraq on suspicion of leaking classified information to WikiLeaks and has been held in detention without trial since. He stands accused of leaking the Collateral Murder video, footage which shows unarmed civilians being killed by US soldiers and which the US military had covered up, also the Afghan War Diary, described by the New York Times​ as "an unvarnished and grim picture of the Afghan war", the award-winning Iraq War Logs that reveal human rights abuses by coalition and Iraqi forces and hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables from US Embassies around the world that have proved highly embarrassing and revealing.

During the pre-trial hearing, Bradley's civilian attorney David Coombs made much of his fragile mental state, gender identity issues, efforts to seek help and the incredibly lax security on the base. He also touched on Bradley's 'moral compass' and idealism. Opportunities for the defence to raise some of the most important issues in the case were limited, partly because permission to call most of the defence witnesses for this hearing was refused including President Obama who has already declared that Bradley Manning broke the law. As Obama is Commander-in-Chief of the military, this comment effectively jeopardises Bradley's chances of a fair hearing at court martial.

Bradley was tortured in detention for at least nine months until moved to a less punitive regime in April 2011. The torture was extra-judicial punishment and very likely aimed (unsuccessfully) at persuading him to implicate Julian Assange of WikiLeaks in return for more favourable treatment. The torture of Bradley Manning, Obama's prejudicial declaration of his guilt and possible other 'undue command influence', the nature of much of the leaked material, including that which contains evidence of war crimes, along with the general principle of protecting whistle-blowers as stated by Obama during his presidential election campaign, are all arguments for charges against Bradley Manning to be dropped and for his detention to be ended. It's not going to happen without a huge public outcry though: in spite of his fine words, Obama has prosecuted more whistle-blowers during his term in office than have been prosecuted during all previous US administrations put together.

I wrote this article calling for Welsh solidarity with Bradley Manning almost a year ago. Since then, there has been some action for Bradley Manning in Wales for us to build on:

The international day of action on 20 March was marked in Wrexham with a vigil and on the same day young people from Pembrokeshire attended and spoke at a rally for Bradley Manning at the US Embassy in London. A few days later, a public meeting was held in Pembrokeshire. Efforts were made to contact Bradley Manning's family in Wales to offer support. Supporters organised a benefit gig in Pembrokeshire in April. Stalls and solidarity letter-writing events have been organised in Wrexham and beyond through the year. A number of public bodies and figures have made statements of support for Bradley Manning or expressed their concern for his welfare, for example Cytun: Churches Together in Wales and poet Les Barker. South Wales Friends of Bradley Manning started an online petition in October calling for the Welsh Assembly to issue a public statement of support; the petition is listed for discussion at the Senedd on 10 January. Over the past year, many people have written to their political representatives about Bradley Manning and Welsh MEPs were among the 64 who signed a letter to President Obama in November setting out serious concerns about Bradley's detention and mistreatment. Tim Price of National Theatre Wales has written a play, The Radicalisation of Bradley Manning, which will be performed in Welsh schools during April 2012, starting with Tasker Milward high school in Haverfordwest, where Bradley was a pupil. 16-19 December saw four days of action in Wales (Wrexham and Cardiff) to mark Bradley's pre-trial hearing and his 24th birthday, with many messages of solidarity collected. We know that lots of people have also written individual letters of support to Bradley in detention.

WISE Up for Bradley Manning (WISE = Welsh, Irish, Scottish, English) is a loose network of people working to build solidarity with Bradley, increase awareness of his case and to campaign for his freedom. To do this we need your help! Please get in touch by email at wiseupforbm@yahoo.com or call 0845 330 4505.

You can keep up to date with news about Bradley's case at the international support website: www.bradleymanning.org
Wilber W.
WilberWebb
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,976


Daniel Ellsberg at Bradley Manning's Military Trubunal
Americas greatest whistleblower offers support at Fort Meade
http://www.guardian.c...­



We managed to catch up with Daniel Ellsberg, the man behind the leaking of the Pentagon Papers, before heading off from Bradley mannings section 54 hearing.

He told us: "This process should not have had to take place. And the proceedings in this case should be ended in the same way that my trial was ended nearly 40 years ago.- Dismised!"

In 1973, Ellsberg saw espionage charges against him dismissed, with Judge William Byrne concluding that government misconduct in the case went so far as to "offend a sense of justice".

Speaking today, Ellsberg said the same was true for Manning.

He said holding the young soldier in isolation for months on end amounted to torture. In addition, President Barack Obama had exerted "improper command influence" for stating in an interview that Manning "broke the law".

But moreover, the Wikileaks source was "doing his duty" as an American citizen in bringing to public light incidents such as the Apache helicopter crew killing of civilians in Iraq.

"The real question is why did the others who saw that video in his own unit not put it out or do something about it," Ellsberg said.

He added: "Bradley Manning no more deserves to face charges of treason than I did. He no more deserves to be called a traitor than I do, because I am not."

<p></p>

Bradley Manning hearing – Thursday 22 December• Closing prosecution and defence arguments at Fort Meade
• Thursday expected to be last day in Bradley Manning hearing
• Paul Almanza to make recommendation by 16 January

The hearing was concluded by Investigating officer Lt Col Paul Almanza who told Manning that his recommendation to the convening authority – which will ultimately rule if the soldier is to face a court martial – is not binding.

Almanza now has until 16 January to inform that body of his opinion.
Given the sheer bulk of evidence he has to wade through, it will mean that much of his Christmas break will be spent at his desk

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv­vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Troops' emails will be under surveillance as part of a Defense Department bid to prevent another WikiLeaks style disclosure; also Trades Unionists, observers, organisers of any sort.. , according to Army Times.
http://www.sirnosir.c...­



A new project backed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency aims to create "a suite of algorithms that can detect multiple types of insider threats by analyzing massive amounts of data — including email, text messages and file transfers — for unusual activity," according to a statement from the Georgia Institute of Technology, which is helping develop the system.

The aim is to identify threats similar to that posed by Bradley Manning, the Army intelligence specialist who allegedly leaked thousands of classified documents to Wikileaks, or Nidal Hasan, the Army major accused of killing 13 people in a shooting spree at Fort Hood in November 2009. Authorities say Hasan had contacts with Islamic extremists overseas before the shooting.

DARPA describes the project, officially known as the Anomaly Detection at Multiple Scales program, as "insider threat detection in which malevolent (or possibly inadvertent) actions by a trusted individual are detected against a background of everyday network activity," according to the agency's website.

DARPA to start checking your email for threats
http://www.armytimes....­
By Andrew Tilghman - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Dec 21, 2011 16:31:54 EST

Troops’ emails will be under surveillance as part of a new Defense Department project to help detect potential “insider threats,” or potential traitors or terrorists inside the military.

A new project backed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency aims to create “a suite of algorithms that can detect multiple types of insider threats by analyzing massive amounts of data — including email, text messages and file transfers — for unusual activity,” according to a statement from the Georgia Institute of Technology, which is helping develop the system.

The aim is to identify threats similar to that posed by Bradley Manning, the Army intelligence specialist who allegedly leaked thousands of classified documents to Wikileaks, or Nidal Hasan, the Army major accused of killing 13 people in a shooting spree at Fort Hood in November 2009. Authorities say Hasan had contacts with Islamic extremists overseas before the shooting.

DARPA describes the project, officially known as the Anomaly Detection at Multiple Scales program, as “insider threat detection in which malevolent (or possibly inadvertent) actions by a trusted individual are detected against a background of everyday network activity,” according to the agency’s website.

A DARPA spokesman said he was unable to provide further information about the project, to include whether the tracking will be limited to official government computers; when such monitoring could begin; or how many troops might be monitored during the development phase, which is slated to take two years.

By tracking keystrokes and file downloads, the new surveillance system will create “a very short, ranked list of unexplained events that should be further investigated,” according to the statement from Georgia Tech.

Insider threats are on the rise, military intelligence experts told Congress in December. Authorities have identified at least five instances of plots or attacks from troops who had become radicalized.

“The Fort Hood attack was not an anomaly,” said former/current IRA man Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., at a Dec. 7 hearing that focused on the military’s insider threats. “It was part of al-Qaida’s two-decade success at infiltrating the U.S. military for terrorism, an effort that is increasing in scope and threat.”

This conclusion is some what dubious.....




Sir, No Sir tells the long suppressed story of the GI movement to end the war in Vietnam. This is the story of one of the most vibrant and widespread upheavals of the 1960’s- one that had a profound impact on American society yet has been virtually obliterated from the collective memory of that time.


Wilber W.
WilberWebb
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,977


Nation of They
http://zunguzungu.wor...­

In The Nation a week ago, Rainey Reitman wrote that

The Manning hearing, one of the most important court cases in our lifetime…will show much about the United States’s tolerance for whistleblowers who show the country in an unflattering light. Are we a nation that tolerates criticism and values transparency? Or are we willing to crack down on whistleblowers of conscience? Unfortunately, the military is taking steps to block access by the media and the public to portions of the proceedings, robbing the world of details of this critically important trial.

I’m interested in the way the rhetoric slips from “the United States” and “the military” there, which seems both a symptom of the problem and a failure to address exactly why it is that we have this problem, why it is that we are so “unfortunate” as to be denied access, as a public, to the truth of what is happening with Bradley Manning* during his Article 32 hearing. This is not something that is just happening, by the random happenstance of fate. This is happening because Bradley Manning does not live in a democracy. He lives in the U.S. Army. The same is true when the “Manning hearing” gets called a “court case,” which it is not: we forget that while the United States is a democracy, the U.S. military is something different.



To state only the obvious: a civilian is not supposed to be treated the way Bradley Manning has been and will be treated, because a civilian is supposed to have a particular set of constitutional rights which a soldier lacks. A civilian trial operates according to rules and procedures that were defined in the 18th century by the particular set of concerns which motivated and legitimized the American republic’s secession from the British Empire. Because of what the people who wrote the Bill of Rights were trying to achieve, and because of how the 5th through 8th amendments have been interpreted and redefined ever since, a civilian trial will work one way. And because the military operates by the purest logic of efficacious necessity (as that has been enshrined in the Uniform Code of Miltiary Conduct), a military trial – a court “martial” – will work very differently. Military due process is not nothing, of course, but it’s also not what we tend to take for granted as justice: a soldier will not have the same rights as a civilian, by design, and Bradley Manning’s trial will not look very much like the kind of trial we, as Americans, like to expect, again, by design.



I don’t say any of this to justify what is being done to Bradley Manning, of course; I’m as appalled as anyone. But let’s look clearly at why it’s being done: the terms through which the military operates – where winning the war means giving up “normal” rights and concerns – make what is happening to him the very opposite of a scandal. It is normal for one person’s rights to be subordinated to some larger social imperative, however defined. This is what the military is, does, and must be. And when we have always tolerated (usually venerated) this non-democratic space at the heart of our democracy, a permanent state of exception to the right of things like trial by jury, this is what will happen as a result. Soldiers don’t live in a democracy; soldiers live in a military dictatorship, one ruled by martial law (in the most literal sense possible).

(Parenthetically, I wonder how much this has to do with why “supporting the troops” is such a powerful moral imperative, even beyond the obvious jingoism. We secretly know that soldiers experience terrible things, are warped and changed and scarred by the experience, and are then discarded from a society that at least took responsibility for them (however paternalistically and non-democratically) and are then left to fend for themselves as individuals in a society that will not. We know they get a raw deal. But rather than change the system we enjoy — which is unthinkable — we deal with the vague nagging, by a substitute of sentimental feeling, which costs nothing and even makes us feel good about ourself; the continuity of an unjust system is fine, as long as I feel bad about the injustice of it, etc).



In any case, the real reason I make this rather simple point because this rhetorical figure – “what nation are we?” – is misleading, in that it takes for granted the singularity of the figure. We have always been two nations when it comes to the military (or poor people, black people, or native peoples, or women, or immigrants without papers, or children, or the insane, etc), and what we should be most concerned about is not the question of who “we” are, but the way the borders which distinguish certain kinds of “we” from certain other kinds of “they” are changing. We have rights; they tend not to. And so the problem is not that someone decided to treat him a certain way; Bradley Manning had already become a “they” with respect to the American constitution a long time ago. The problem is that the nation of they is growing and the nation of we is shrinking.

See also: On the Manning Art. 32, Court Secrecy & Nat. Sec. Cases, who has the careful details on what Manning’s legal process is going to look like, and why.

http://www.emptywheel...­

Queer Friends of Bradley Manning: Bradley or Breanna?
By queerfriendsofbradley
http://queerfriendsof...­

UPDATE: December 24 2011 00:38 GMT We have heard from a representative of bradleymanning.org that Bradley’s close friends only “heard or knew of male pronouns” but bradleymanning.org are advising people to be gender neutral where possible. Queer Friends of Bradley Manning will follow this advice until we hear otherwise. END UPDATE

There have been quite a few debates on the internet recently about the fact that Bradley has referred to himself, on a few occasions and in different contexts, as possibly being transgender and having the name ‘Breanna’. The post Why does the media still refer to “Bradley” Manning? The Curious Silence Around a Transgender Hero is a good example and it contains the best arguments presented so far as to why he should be called Breanna – the posts beneath the article, many written by trans people, are well worth reading.

Queer Friends of Bradley Manning want to briefly lay out the reasons why we, for the time being at least, will continue to refer to Bradley as Bradley and not Breanna.

Wilber W.
WilberWebb
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,978


Queer Friends of Bradley Manning: Bradley or Breanna?
By queerfriendsofbradley
http://queerfriendsof...­

UPDATE: December 24 2011 00:38 GMT We have heard from a representative of bradleymanning.org that Bradley’s close friends only “heard or knew of male pronouns” but bradleymanning.org are advising people to be gender neutral where possible. Queer Friends of Bradley Manning will follow this advice until we hear otherwise. END UPDATE

There have been quite a few debates on the internet recently about the fact that Bradley has referred to himself, on a few occasions and in different contexts, as possibly being transgender and having the name ‘Breanna’. The post Why does the media still refer to “Bradley” Manning? The Curious Silence Around a Transgender Hero is a good example and it contains the best arguments presented so far as to why he should be called Breanna – the posts beneath the article, many written by trans people, are well worth reading.

Queer Friends of Bradley Manning want to briefly lay out the reasons why we, for the time being at least, will continue to refer to Bradley as Bradley and not Breanna.

Firstly, Bradley has at no point publicly asked to be called Breanna: the chat-log conversations were meant to be private conversations, and the discussions he had with his counsellor were also meant to be private – we are not sure how his counsellor feels it is okay to talk to the media about private discussions he has had with Bradley in a professional setting, we feel this is quite appalling and highly unprofessional – and because Bradley had these on- and off-line conversations with the expectation that they would remain private means that we feel that it is not right to use the information as if it were public information and could somehow constitute a request, public or otherwise, for Bradley to be referred to as Breanna. It is also not yet the case that the chat-logs have been confirmed as being, beyond a shadow of a doubt, authentic.

Secondly, we understand that he had used the name ‘Breanna’ to set up other online accounts, however, given the prevalence of people using pseudonyms on the internet we don’t feel that this is a strong enough justification for us to refer to him as Breanna.

As soon as Bradley publicly expresses a wish to be called Breanna we will totally respect and support that decision, but until such time as he does we feel it more appropriate to call him Bradley.

Wilber W.
WilberWebb
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,980
TOMORROW: Michael Ratner speaks on Bradley Manning TENT UNI 11am PLEASE POST OUT TO CAMP ECONOMICS GROUP EMAIL
Important talk happening at Tent University tomorrow morning 11 am.

Any questions you might have about The National Defense Authorisation Act, Michael Ratner is the man to speak with. Michael Ratner is from The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), and is here in London to speak on Bradley Manning.

Please twitter and spread the word on the camp far and wide!

Michael Ratner of Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), speaks on Bradley Manning
Bradley Mannings legal advisers in London

http://tentcityuniver...­
https://www.google.co...­

January 12, 2012
Talk by Michael Ratner
Starts: 11:00 am
Ends: January 12, 2012 - 12:00 pm
Location: Tent City Uni, St Pauls
Description: Michael Ratner (born 1943, Cleveland, Ohio) is an attorney, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), a non-profit human rights litigation organization based in New York, New York and president of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) based in Berlin.

Ratner is known for his human rights activism.

He was co-counsel in representing the Guantanamo Bay detainees in the United States Supreme Court, where, in June 2004, the court decided his clients have the right to test the legality of their detentions in court. Ratner is also a past president of the National Lawyers Guild and the author of numerous books and articles, including the booksThe Trial of Donald Rumsfeld: A Prosecution by Book, Against War with Iraq and Guantanamo: What the World Should Know, as well as a textbook on international human rights. Ratner is also the co-host of the radio program, Law and Disorder. He and three other attorneys host the Pacifica radio show that reports legal developments related to civil liberties, civil rights and human rights.

LONDON Occupy LSX Michael Ratner speaks on Bradley Manning

Michael Ratner speaks on Bradley Manning
LONDON Occupy LSX This Thursday Jan 12th

PLEASE TWITTER AND EMAIL THIS FAR AND WIDE


When: 11:00 am, THIS THURSDAY, Jan 12, 2012

Where: Occupy LSX: Tent University
Saint Paul's Church Yard, Right off Steps of St Paul's
London EC4M 8AD
http://maps.google.co...­

Michael Ratner is president of the Centre for Constitutional Rights and president of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) based in Berlin. He was one of the first US attorneys to represent Guantánamo detainees and has been actively involved in the Bradley Manning case.

He is in London for a series of talks and events on the 10th anniversary of Guantánamo and we are privileged to have him for an informal talk at Tent University, St Paul's this Thursday to give us his insider view, and legal expertise on the Manning/ Assange cases.

Mr Ratner will also be giving us his expert view on recent legal developments including The National Defence Authorisation Act which President Obama returned, signed to Congress and The Justice and Security Green Paper here in the UK.

He was co-counsel in representing the Guantánamo Bay detainees in the United States supreme Court, where, in June 2004, the court decided his clients have the right to test the legality of their detentions in court. It will ba a lively talk, and a great chance to catch up on what's happening in the Manning case and ask direct questions to someone involved in his legal team.

See you there!


The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organisation committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.


nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn­nnnnnnnnnnnnnn



CCR Appeals Denial of Guaranteed Access to Manning Hearing for WikiLeaks Attorneys
Access Critical to Monitor Fairness and Protect WikiLeaks’ Substantial Interests
http://www.ccrjustice...­

New York, December 17, 2011— This morning, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), representing Julian Assange, publisher of the WikiLeaks media organization, appealed a military court decision yesterday that denied guaranteed access by Assange and WikiLeaks’ counsel to the proceedings against Private Bradley Manning at Ft. Meade. The Center argued that reserved access was essential to monitor these controversial hearings and protect their clients’ substantial interests in the conduct and content of the proceedings.

The Assange and WikiLeaks legal team at Ft. Meade consists of Center for Constitutional Rights cooperating counsel Amy Jacobsen, who has the highest level of Top Secret security clearance and thus would have an entitlement to observe even closed portions of the hearing, and Assange’s Australian attorney, Jennifer Robinson, who traveled from London to monitor the proceedings on behalf of WikiLeaks.

Said CCR Legal Director Baher Azmy, “The proceedings against Bradley Manning at Ft. Meade are more restrictive than those at Guantanamo. As counsel for WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, we have a compelling interest in monitoring the hearing given both that Manning stands accused of providing evidence of war crimes to our clients, and that the proceedings are clearly closely linked to a grand jury in Virginia reported to be issuing subpoenas for information on our clients. It’s outrageous that we are being denied guaranteed access, yet utterly consistent with the way the government has conducted itself throughout Manning’s prosecution.”

Private Manning has suffered serious human rights violations in detention, including prolonged isolation and sensory deprivation, and other torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment reminiscent of the worst abuses at Guantánamo Bay. Throughout all of his detention, the U.S. government has refused to allow the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Torture to adequately assess Private Manning’s treatment and conditions.
Wilber W.
WilberWebb
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,981
CCR Appeals Denial of Guaranteed Access to Manning Hearing for WikiLeaks Attorneys
Access Critical to Monitor Fairness and Protect WikiLeaks’ Substantial Interests
http://www.ccrjustice...­

Con....

WikiLeaks seeks to support all individuals who are being persecuted because of allegations that they have provided materials to WikiLeaks. Mr. Assange said yesterday: “Private Bradley Manning is alleged to have submitted footage of war crimes to WikiLeaks. If it is the case that he is indeed the source of this or other WikiLeaks materials, Manning has singlehandedly changed hundreds of thousands of people's lives for the better, contributing to the ending of dictatorships and exposing torture and wrongdoing all over the world. His treatment during the 570 days he has been held in custody amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment and is cause for international outrage. WikiLeaks always takes an interest in the prosecution of those alleged to be our sources. It has been widely reported that the grand jury in Virginia has subpoenaed Twitter and Google for information relating to WikiLeaks. The presence of our legal representative to monitor and observe Private Manning’s hearing is an essential part of our vigilance and care for those alleged to be WikiLeaks sources.”

Mr. Assange has a particular personal interest in these proceedings because it appears that federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia have been issuing subpoenas to supporters of WikiLeaks in order to investigate matters that, based on prior official statements, will likely be addressed in Private Manning’s proceedings. It has been reported that these subpoenas are the result of a grand jury process that has, as is the norm in the United States, taken place entirely in secret without any involvement permitted by defense counsel, in a district that has the highest concentration of military and government jurors in the nation. The names of Mr. Assange, WikiLeaks, and Private Manning reportedly appear on many of the production orders coming out of this grand jury process that have been served in relation to WikiLeaks’ supporters on companies such as Google and Twitter.

Conspiracy to commit espionage is amongst the potential indictments is being considering by the grand jury. U.S. investigation into WikiLeaks has been "unprecedented both in its scale and nature" and the investigation into Mr. Assange has been "vigorous" according to the Australian embassy in Washington. Official correspondence demonstrates that the U.S. Ambassador to Australia has stated that "Australia will have to consider its own extradition obligations" in respect to Mr. Assange. Mr. Assange and his lawyers therefore are concerned about the threat of an extradition request from the U.S. on matters raised in Private Manning’s proceedings.


http://www.guardian.c...­
http://www.reprieve.o...­

Mr Ratner is also a past president of the National Lawyers Guild and the author of numerous books and articles, including the booksThe Trial of Donald Rumsfeld: A Prosecution by Book, Against War with Iraq and Guantanamo: What the World Should Know, as well as a textbook on international human rights




Wilber W.
WilberWebb
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,993


LONDON Occupy LSX Michael Ratner speaks on Bradley Manning

Michael Ratner speaks on Bradley Manning
LONDON Occupy LSX This Thursday Jan 12th
PLEASE TWITTER AND EMAIL THIS FAR AND WIDE

When: 11:00 am, THIS THURSDAY, Jan 12, 2012
Where: Occupy LSX: Tent University
Saint Paul's Church Yard, Right off Steps of St Paul's
London EC4M 8AD
http://maps.google.co...­

Michael Ratner is president of the Centre for Constitutional Rights and president of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) based in Berlin. He was one of the first US attorneys to represent Guantánamo detainees and has been actively involved in the Bradley Manning case.

He is in London for a series of talks and events on the 10th anniversary of Guantánamo and we are privileged to have him for an informal talk at Tent University, St Paul's this Thursday to give us his insider view, and legal expertise on the Manning/ Assange cases.

Mr Ratner will also be giving us his expert view on recent legal developments including The National Defence Authorisation Act which President Obama returned, signed to Congress and The Justice and Security Green Paper here in the UK.

He was co-counsel in representing the Guantánamo Bay detainees in the United States supreme Court, where, in June 2004, the court decided his clients have the right to test the legality of their detentions in court. It will ba a lively talk, and a great chance to catch up on what's happening in the Manning case and ask direct questions to someone involved in his legal team.

See you there!

The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organisation committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
Wilber W.
WilberWebb
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,994


CCR Appeals Denial of Guaranteed Access to Manning Hearing for WikiLeaks Attorneys
Access Critical to Monitor Fairness and Protect WikiLeaks’ Substantial Interests
http://www.ccrjustice...­
http://www.wired.co.u...­

New York, December 17, 2011— This morning, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), representing Julian Assange, publisher of the WikiLeaks media organization, appealed a military court decision yesterday that denied guaranteed access by Assange and WikiLeaks’ counsel to the proceedings against Private Bradley Manning at Ft. Meade. The Center argued that reserved access was essential to monitor these controversial hearings and protect their clients’ substantial interests in the conduct and content of the proceedings.

The Assange and WikiLeaks legal team at Ft. Meade consists of Center for Constitutional Rights cooperating counsel Amy Jacobsen, who has the highest level of Top Secret security clearance and thus would have an entitlement to observe even closed portions of the hearing, and Assange’s Australian attorney, Jennifer Robinson, who traveled from London to monitor the proceedings on behalf of WikiLeaks.

Said CCR Legal Director Baher Azmy, “The proceedings against Bradley Manning at Ft. Meade are more restrictive than those at Guantanamo. As counsel for WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, we have a compelling interest in monitoring the hearing given both that Manning stands accused of providing evidence of war crimes to our clients, and that the proceedings are clearly closely linked to a grand jury in Virginia reported to be issuing subpoenas for information on our clients. It’s outrageous that we are being denied guaranteed access, yet utterly consistent with the way the government has conducted itself throughout Manning’s prosecution.”
[/img]

Private Manning has suffered serious human rights violations in detention, including prolonged isolation and sensory deprivation, and other torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment reminiscent of the worst abuses at Guantánamo Bay. Throughout all of his detention, the U.S. government has refused to allow the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Torture to adequately assess Private Manning’s treatment and conditions.

WikiLeaks seeks to support all individuals who are being persecuted because of allegations that they have provided materials to WikiLeaks. Mr. Assange said yesterday: “Private Bradley Manning is alleged to have submitted footage of war crimes to WikiLeaks. If it is the case that he is indeed the source of this or other WikiLeaks materials, Manning has singlehandedly changed hundreds of thousands of people's lives for the better, contributing to the ending of dictatorships and exposing torture and wrongdoing all over the world. His treatment during the 570 days he has been held in custody amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment and is cause for international outrage. WikiLeaks always takes an interest in the prosecution of those alleged to be our sources. It has been widely reported that the grand jury in Virginia has subpoenaed Twitter and Google for information relating to WikiLeaks. The presence of our legal representative to monitor and observe Private Manning’s hearing is an essential part of our vigilance and care for those alleged to be WikiLeaks sources.”

Mr. Assange has a particular personal interest in these proceedings because it appears that federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia have been issuing subpoenas to supporters of WikiLeaks in order to investigate matters that, based on prior official statements, will likely be addressed in Private Manning’s proceedings. It has been reported that these subpoenas are the result of a grand jury process that has, as is the norm in the United States, taken place entirely in secret without any involvement permitted by defense counsel, in a district that has the highest concentration of military and government jurors in the nation. The names of Mr. Assange, WikiLeaks, and Private Manning reportedly appear on many of the production orders coming out of this grand jury process that have been served in relation to WikiLeaks’ supporters on companies such as Google and Twitter.

Conspiracy to commit espionage is amongst the potential indictments is being considering by the grand jury. U.S. investigation into WikiLeaks has been "unprecedented both in its scale and nature" and the investigation into Mr. Assange has been "vigorous" according to the Australian embassy in Washington. Official correspondence demonstrates that the U.S. Ambassador to Australia has stated that "Australia will have to consider its own extradition obligations" in respect to Mr. Assange. Mr. Assange and his lawyers therefore are concerned about the threat of an extradition request from the U.S. on matters raised in Private Manning’s proceedings.



Mr Ratner is also a past president of the National Lawyers Guild and the author of numerous books and articles, including the booksThe Trial of Donald Rumsfeld: A Prosecution by Book, Against War with Iraq and Guantanamo: What the World Should Know, as well as a textbook on international human rights.


Wilber W.
WilberWebb
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,995


Manning to face court martial - 22 counts
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...­

The US Army analyst suspected of passing classified information to Wikileaks should face a court martial, a military tribunal has recommended.

Intelligence analyst Bradley Manning is alleged to have leaked US government cables to the whistle-blowing website.

Accused of leaking thousands of documents and "aiding the enemy", he could face life in prison if convicted.

Pte Manning, 24, appeared for a pre-trial hearing in December, in which prosecutors pushed for a court martial.

He was arrested in May 2010 in connection with the leak.

The US Army said in a statement that the head of the tribunal, Lt Col Paul Almanza, had concluded that "reasonable grounds exist to believe that the accused committed the offences alleged.

"He [Lt Col Almanza] recommended that the charges be referred to a general court martial," the army statement said.



'Linked' to Assange

The recommendation from Col Almanza will now be referred up the military chain of command.

The commander of the Washington military district, Maj Gen Michael Linnington, will make a final determination on whether Pte Manning will face military trial.

At a December hearing known as an Article 32 hearing, Pte Manning's defence lawyers argued that the soldier was struggling with personal issues, including his gender identity.

They argued that Pte Manning's superiors should have revoked his access to classified material.

Meanwhile, prosecutors alleged that the soldier, from Crescent, Oklahoma, had communicated directly with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.

A digital crimes investigator testified that he found thousands of classified documents on a data card owned by Pte Manning.

[/img]

'Ridiculous and counterproductive'

The documents published by Wikileaks amounted to the biggest leak of classified information in US history.

They included a video of a 2007 helicopter attack in Iraq in which journalists and civilians died, and more than 250,000 classified US diplomatic cables.

A cache of nearly 400,000 documents relating to the war in Iraq, known as "war logs", were also leaked to the anti-secrecy site.



The documents suggested that use of torture was ignored and gave details about thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths.

After his arrest Pte Manning was held at Quantico, a marine jail in the US state of Virginia.

The conditions of his confinement at Quantico drew international concern. His lawyers said he was subjected to 24-hour surveillance and was forced to undress at night and stand naked at roll call.

A top US state department spokesman, PJ Crowley, resigned after saying the military's treatment of the Wikileaks suspect was "ridiculous and counterproductive".

On 20 April 2011, Pte Manning was moved to Fort Leavenworth military prison in the US state of Kansas, where conditions were said to be better.


Powered by mvnForum

Our Sponsors

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy