addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcredit-cardcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobe--smallglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1launch-new-window--smalllight-bulblinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

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.
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,740
Who is WikiLeaks: Wikileaks is an international new media non-profit organization that publishes submissions of otherwise unavailable documents from anonymous news sources and leaks. Its website, launched in 2006, is run by The Sunshine Press. Within a year of its launch, the site claimed a database that had grown to more than 1.2 million documents.The organization has described itself as having been founded by Chinese dissidents, as well as journalists, mathematicians, and start-up company technologists from Australia, Europe, South Africa and Taiwan and the USA.­

"Could become as important a journalistic tool as the Freedom of Information Act." - Time Magazine

WikiLeaks is a non-profit media organization dedicated to bringing important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for independent sources around the world to leak information to our journalists. We publish material of ethical, political and historical significance while keeping the identity of our sources anonymous, thus providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices.

WikiLeaks relies on its supporters in order to stay strong. Please keep us at the forefront of anti-censorship and support us today. You can also read more about WikiLeaks, our mission and objectives­­
Wilber W.
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,747
Michael Moore on Bradley Manning
Posted on September 14, 2011

Thanks to Code Pink for this video from Michael Moore’s book launch in New York last night (Tuesday), where he was asked about Bradley Manning.

Council of Europe report: the world is “indebted” to Bradley Manning
Posted on September 7, 2011

As just reported by the BBC, Council of Europe special rapporteur Dick Marty – best known for his reports on European complicity in extraordinary rendition – has presented his draft report on the “abuse of state secrecy and national security” to the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly. Marty’s report makes clear the importance whistleblowers play in keeping democracy alive and his expression of concern about Bradley Manning’s treatment is incredibly important.

The full report may be read here, but here’s the relevant passage:

"Finally, the fundamental role played by whistleblowers must not be forgotten. Their importance of their contribution is in fact proportionate to the extent that secrecy is still imposed. It is not exaggerated that, still today – and in some cases even more so than in the past – we are confronted with a real cult of secrecy; secrecy as an instrument of power, as Hannah Arendt reminds us in the citation at the very beginning of this report. It is therefore justified to say that whistleblowers play a key role in a democratic society and that they contribute to making up the existing deficit of transparency. We said so before: the Assembly’s reports of 2006 and 2007 and, more recently, the revelations concerning “black sites” in Lithuania are due to a large extent to honest officials who, for ethical reasons and taking great risks, could not and would not take part any longer in illegal activities or cover them up by remaining silent. In this connection, we should also remember Bradley Manning, the young American soldier accused of providing Wikileaks with a large number of confidential documents. High-ranking American officials and numerous voices of international public opinion have expressed indignation at the inhuman and degrading treatment which Mr Manning is said to have undergone. It will be up to the courts to judge. But we cannot ignore that according to the very accusations made against him we are indebted to him for the publication both of a recording of a helicopter attack in Iraq, in which the crew seems to have intentionally targeted and killed civilians. The video recording seemingly indicates a deliberate criminal act which deserves at least an investigation, which, without this indiscretion, would have never been requested. This is a classic example of an illegitimate secret. In addition, the publication of a large number of embassy reports has allowed us to learn significant details of important recent events and which are obviously of general interest. We must not forget either that these publications have brought numerous confirmations of findings included in the Assembly’s reports of 2006 and 2007 on the CIA flights and secret prisons. All those who at the time called for “proof, proof!” have in any case been well served."

The Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly will debate the report in the first week of October.


The story has now also been reported at Business Insider and the Bradley Manning Support Network have issued this statement;

“Bradley Manning acted as a whistleblower and should be treated as such,” the report concluded. “We therefore join Amnesty International in expressing our worries as to the treatment he receives.”

The Bradley Manning Support Network, which collects funds to cover PFC Manning’s legal defense costs and conducts public education and outreach on his behalf, welcomed today’s announcement.

“We welcome the support of the Council of Europe in condemning the abuse of whistleblowers who seek nothing more than to right the wrongs that Western governments refuse to acknowledge,” said Jeff Paterson, co-founder of the Bradley Manning Support Network. “The Council’s report documents numerous incidents where revelations attributed to Bradley Manning have made a critical difference for those seeking justice.”

The draft report released today by the Council of Europe offered a number of recommendations for creating effective oversight mechanisms by representative bodies to hold security and intelligence services accountable to the public. It noted however that, given the current “deficit of transparency,” the public has no choice but to rely on whistleblowers to hold government agencies accountable for abusive behavior.

PFC Bradley Manning is a US Army intelligence analyst who is accused of revealing illegal and unjust foreign policies that have been concealed by the US government. He has been held in confinement without trial for over 15 months. His legal team expects pretrial hearings to begin as early as next month.

BBC,”Europe’s human rights watchdog has called for greater scrutiny of secret services and support for whistleblowers”­

Council of Europe, Draft Resolution, “Abuse of state secrecy and national security: obstacles to parliamentary and judicial scrutiny of human rights violations” http://www.assembly.c...­
Wilber W.
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,799

WikiLeaks' Assange loses extradition battle
WikiLeaks founder has seven days to appeal again, otherwise he will be extradited to Sweden in ten days.
By Robin Millard | AFP – 15 minutes ago

Assange brings down British justice system website!
Too much interest in justice for Assange: Website had massive overload traffic

The website went spectacularly titsup this morning, minutes after WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange lost his appeal against being extradited to Sweden.

A spokeswoman at the Office of the Lord Chief Justice told The Register that simply couldn't cope with the level of online interest in the Assange case.

"We've never seen anything like it," she said.

When asked if Anonymous had hacked the site, the spokeswoman explained that the sysadmins at the MoJ were blaming unprecedented volume of traffic rather than anything more sinister.

Wikileaks released legally admissible, historical documentation on possible war crimes~ The Iraq war diaries

Purely political prosecution (persecution): Assange to be sent back for simple DNA testing; has not been formally charged, in detention (house arrest) in UK for 380 days without charge. Swedish prosecution refused to meet with his lawyers on visits to the UK in interest to this case (despite this being the legal norm in inter European prosecutions) but met with US Embassy officials (What possible interest could they have in a Swedish felony?)

US pre trial is already underway. Many experts believe the Swedish action to be a ruse to get Mr Assange extradited to The United States to face possible exacution. Sweden is the home of most United States special rendition flight origins (See Trevor Paglan: Torture Taxi)

One thing is for certain; The Swedish prosecution have no interest in the wellbeing of these two women!

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Wednesday lost a bitter legal battle to block his extradition from Britain to Sweden to face questioning over allegations of rape and sexual assault.

"I may be a chauvinistic pig of some sort but I am no rapist, and only a distorted version of sexual politics could attempt to turn me into one."

Two judges at the High Court in London rejected arguments by the 40-year-old Australian, whose anti-secrecy website has enraged governments around the world, that his extradition would be unlawful.

"The court dismissed the appeal," said a summary of the judgement, before detailing the four counts on which Assange had appealed against an earlier decision by a lower court in February that he should be sent to Sweden.

Assange's lawyers did not say whether he would make a further appeal to England's Supreme Court, but doing so would be difficult as judges must first decide that the case is of special public interest.

Assange has denied the allegations, claiming they are politically motivated and linked to the activities of WikiLeaks. He has been under virtual house arrest since he was first detained in December.

He wore a blue suit with a poppy in his lapel -- a symbol in Britain to mark Armistice Day on November 11, the anniversary of the end of World War I -- and sat quietly next to his lawyers as the judgement was announced.

Earlier he fought through a scrum of photographers and cameramen from around the world to get into the court for Wednesday's ruling, which had been deferred since the appeal hearing in July.

He had argued that the European Arrest Warrant under which he was held was invalid because it was issued by a prosecutor and not a court, but the British judges said it had been subjected to proper judicial scrutiny in Sweden.

They also rejected his assertion that the claims made by two women of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and an accusation of rape would not be offences under English law.

One woman alleged that Assange had unprotected sex with her while she was asleep, and the judges rejected his lawyers' contention that consent to sex on condition that a condom was used remained consent when a condom was not used.

"There is nothing in the statement from which it could be inferred that he reasonably expected that she would have consented to sex without a condom," the court judgement said.

The judges also rejected his argument that he should not be extradited because he was only wanted for questioning and had not been charged, saying he was "plainly accused" of the crimes.

The fourth and final ground of appeal was that the arrest warrant was disproportionate, given that Assange had offered to be questioned via videolink, but the court also dismissed this.

The enigmatic WikiLeaks boss has been living under strict bail conditions, including having to wear an electronic ankle tag and observe a strict curfew, at the east England mansion of supporter and former army captain Vaughan Smith.

Smith was in court on Wednesday along with supporters including campaigning journalist John Pilger.

Assange now has 14 days to decide whether he will try to take the case to the Supreme Court of England and Wales, the highest legal authority in the land.

But leave to appeal can only be granted by either the High Court or the Supreme Court, and then only if it there is a point of law of general public importance.
Wilber W.
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,800

In an autobiography published in September, Assange repeated his denial of the rape allegations.

"I did not rape those women and cannot imagine anything that happened between us that would make them think so, except malice after the fact, a joint plan to entrap me, or a terrifying misunderstanding that was stoked up between them," he wrote.

"I may be a chauvinistic pig of some sort but I am no rapist, and only a distorted version of sexual politics could attempt to turn me into one."

London joins global ire against cuts, corporate greed
We need to talk about capitalism

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange last week joined over 1,000 protestors in London and thousands of others in Rome and elsewhere across the world to protest against deep budget cuts and corporate greed.


Julian Assange loses extradition appeal
WikiLeaks founder has seven days to appeal again, otherwise he will be extradited to Sweden in ten days.
Posted by Susannah Butter - 24 February 2011 11:45

Judgment in the Julian Assange case was delivered this morning at Belmarsh Magistrates' Court in south London by the chief magistrate, Howard Riddle, following a two-and-a-half-day extradition hearing earlier this month.

In Sweden, Assange faces three allegations of sexual assault and one allegation of rape.

The 39-year-old WikiLeaks founder denies the allegations, which were made in August last year, and has been fighting arrest and extradition since his arrest and subsequent bail in December.

He says that the claims are politically motivated because of the work of WikiLeaks.

Assange's legal team argued that the European arrest warrant (EAW) issued by Sweden was invalid.

The lawyers claimed that because Assange has not been charged with any offence, the alleged assaults would not be legitimate extraditable offences and he would not be given a fair trial in Sweden.

The Swedish prosecutor, who has been represented in court by the British Crown Prosecution Service, maintained that, despite the lack of charge, Assange is wanted for prosecution, rather than merely for questioning, which makes the warrant valid.

There is no bail system in Sweden, so Assange would be detained in custody pending possible trial or release.

Assange fears that being sent to Sweden will lead to him being extradited to the United States on charges relating to WikiLeaks's release of leaked US embassy cables.

If Sweden wanted to do this, it would have to ask the UK's permission for the onward extradition.
Wilber W.
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,801

Prof. Trevor Pagen, the author of the books "Tortue Taxi" and "Blank Spots On The Map"
American Cartographer explains the link between Julian Assange and Swedish "Justice"­­

"If you want further detailed information on US/CIA influence over Swedish courts and government have a read of "Torture taxi: on the trail of the CIA's rendition flights" by Paglen, Trevor. Gives a clue as to what Julian Assange is facing.

Authors@Google: Trevor Paglen
"Blank Spots on the Map" Feb 11th, 2009

Book TV: Trevor Paglen "Blank Spots on the Map"
You Tube Video:­

Trevor Paglen profiles secret U.S. government installations that range from a weapons laboratory in New Mexico to prisons in Kabul and air bases in Georgia and California. Mr. Paglen contends that these clandestine operations maintained by the U.S. government and private corporations operate on a $40 billion annual budget. This event was hosted by City Lights Bookstore in San Francisco.

KQED Spark - Trevor Paglen
The unseen in the desert with photographer Trevor Paglen. Original air date: April 2006­

His latest books:
can be located at his website at­­

"Publisher Dutton says: The adventurous, insightful, and often chilling story of a young geographer's road trip through the underworld of U.S. military and CIA "black ops" sites

Trevor Paglen is a scholar in geography, an artist, and a provocateur. His research into areas that officially "don't exist" leads him on a globe-trotting adventure into a vast, undemocratic, and uncontrolled black empire--the unmarked spots on a map, where our military conducts its most clandestine operations. Run by an amorphous group of government agencies and private companies, this empire's annual budget is over $40 billion, yet almost no one knows how it works or what it does.

Paglen spies on the covert site at Groom Lake, Nevada, taking photos from a mountain top thirty miles away. He visits the widow of Walter Kasza, who, while working construction at Groom Lake, was poisoned by the toxic garbage pits there. The U.S. Air Force defense to his estate's suit? The base does not exist. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case.

Whether it's from a hotel room in Vegas, secret prisons in Kabul, buried CIA aircraft in Central American jungles, Washington, D.C., suburbs, or a trailer in Shoshone Indian territory, Paglen's reporting is impassioned, rigorous, relentless--and eye-opening. Blank Spots on the Map is an exposé of a world that, officially, isn't even there."


WikiLeaks - The US embassy cables
Wed 1 Dec, 7pm
Price: £12.50 (£10 early booking)

Following the release of 251,287 confidential United States embassy cables, journalists and representatives from the whistle-blower website WikiLeaks will be discussing the data, the research behind it and the value of this material. We will be joined by: WikiLeaks spokesperson Kristinn Hrafnsson; James Ball, a data journalist who has been working with WikiLeaks; Nicky Hager, author and Investigative journalist; additional panelists to be confirmed.

Another opportunity to join in a lively public meeting, hosted by Paddy O'Connell of BBC Radio 4's Broadcasting House, which brings together experts and commentators and mixes their views with contributions from our audience.
Wilber W.
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,802

Wilber W.
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,805
Julian Assange official statement at the High Court 2nd November
2 November 2011: Assange Extradition Appeal Turned Down
Support Julian Assange at the High Court 2nd November
Posted on November 2, 2011 by wiseupforbm

Assange’s appeal against extradition to Sweden has been turned down at the High Court in London this morning. Assange has 14 days to appeal to the Supreme Court against the ruling if he can show that there are issues at stake of “public importance”. For now his bail conditions are unchanged. £19,000 legal costs have been awarded against him.

Supporters gathered outside the court from early this morning with candles, placards and banners. The media scrum turned up with stepladders.

Assange spoke briefly after the hearing to those gathered outside:

"I have not been charged with any crime in any country. Despite this, the European Arrest Warrant is so restrictive that it prevents UK courts from considering the facts of a case, as judges have made clear here today. We will be considering our next steps in the days ahead."

The full judgment will be available on No doubt there will be many attempts to try to spin these proceedings as occurred today, but they are really technical. Please go to if you want to know what is really going on in this case.

More soon…
Wilber W.
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,806
Sweden Versus Assange: High Court Judgment: The High Court has dismissed the appeal
330 days under house arrest: No criminal charges

APPEAL JUDGMENT TO BE DELIVERED 09:45 2nd NOVEMBER 2011 at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London

•18 October 2011: Home Office publishes independent review of UK extradition agreements. The EAW section is relevant to the Assange Appeal
•6 October 2011: two new articles regarding the imminent judgment on extradition to Sweden/US: John Pilger "The Smearing of a revolution" in the New Statesman; and Jennifer Robinson and Lizzie O’Shea "Sleepwalking into Dangerous Territory" in the Alternative Law Journal.
•The UK High Court resumed work on 3 October 2011. The judgement for Julian Assange’s extradition appeal is expected to be announced shortly. Follow @swedenvsassange on Twitter to get the latest news.
•Read Guy Rundle’s recent article with a good overview of the Swedish case against Julian Assange and the implications for Wikileaks.
•See July Appeal for a new summary of the proceedings and other updates.

330 days under house arrest: No criminal charges­


What Does it Cost to Change the World?­


To learn more about SERCO, watch this short video:
The Biggest Company You've Never Heard
Guardian Story (referenced in video):­

About this site (Sweden Versus Assange:)

In December 2010 Sweden issued two international warrants for Julian Assange’s arrest. He has been detained without charge since.

This is a guide to the events, investigations and court proceedings that are connected with Julian Assange’s extradition. This guide is the first to map out the legal aspects of the UK extradition cases, the controversies surrounding the Swedish investigation, and societal and political reactions in Sweden. The guide is an archive of information that is in the public domain.

The guide will be updated as the case progresses. Much of the material will be new to readers. All sources are indicated. The research has been commissioned by the Julian Assange Defence Fund’s (JADF) Committee to Defend Julian Assange.

To learn more about SERCO, watch this short video
The Biggest Company You've Never Heard

Wilber W.
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,816

Addressing confusion about PFC Bradley Manning’s case
By the Bradley Manning Support Network. September 1, 2011

This article is a reference both for those who have just begun learning about PFC Bradley Manning’s case, and those who have been following it for awhile. It addresses several common misconceptions about the case. As an advocate for Bradley Manning, you can use the information in the article to educate others, whether speaking to them in-person or sharing relevant excerpts online.

The professional opinion of 300 of Americas top U.S. legal scholars on Bradley Manning

Bradley Manning fits the definition of a whistle-blower (not a traitor).

In online discussions attributed to PFC Bradley Manning, he says that he hopes his actions will spur “discussion, debates, and reforms” and that he “wants people to know the truth, no matter who they are, because without information you cannot make informed decisions as a public.” This is the classic definition of a whistle-blower (a person who tells the public about alleged dishonest or illegal activities/misconduct occurring in a government department).

Unfortunately, the government is charging PFC Bradley Manning with “knowingly [giving] intelligence to the enemy, through indirect means,” under Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice — an allegation of treason and a capital offense. By this rational, scores of service-person-posted blogs, photos, and videos, would now be punishable by death—simply because they are accessible on the Internet. The charge against Bradley Manning appears to be about sending a message to other would-be whistle-blowers.

The Founding Fathers restricted the definition of treason in the U.S. Constitution to, “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort….” They did so because they wanted to prevent a repeat of England’s abuse of power.

It is inappropriate and abusive to attempt to use the Espionage Act against PFC Manning.

PFC Bradley Manning was given access to classified documents (of various levels of secrecy) as a military intelligence analyst. In the course of doing his job, it appears that he became aware of information that was classified not for legitimate purposes, but for purposes of political convenience. Releasing such information fits under the classic definition of whistle-blowing, not “spying.”

Espionage is associated with spying on, or for, potential or actual enemies, primarily for military purposes. No one believes that PFC Bradley Manning engaged in any such activities.

In the chat logs which allegedly record a conversation between PFC Bradley Manning and hacker Adrian Lamo—these chat logs serve as the primary known evidence in this case—Manning expresses a desire for the information to be in the public domain, as opposed to it being used to benefit any nation at the expense of another.

Bradley Manning: i mean what if i were someone more malicious
Bradley Manning: i could’ve sold to russia or china, and made bank?
Adrian Lamo: why didn’t you?
Bradley Manning: because it’s public data
Adian Lamo: i mean, the cables
Bradley Manning: it belongs in the public domain
Bradley Manning: information should be free
Bradley Manning: it belongs in the public domain
Bradley Manning: because another state would just take advantage of the information… try and get some edge
Bradley Manning: if its out in the open… it should be a public good
Bradley Manning: i couldn’t be a spy…
Bradley Manning: spies dont post things up for the world to see

The legality (or illegality) of releasing classified documents isn’t black and white.

In the United States, there is no Congressional law regarding the leaking of classified documents. Documents are classified, or declassified, according to Executive Orders, which apply only to those working for the government.

Furthermore, according to the 1971 Supreme Court Case New York Times Co. vs. United States, as well as President Obama’s Executive Orders, documents may not be classified to conceal embarrassing activity or violations of law, but only for national security reasons:

“In no case shall information be classified… in order to: conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error; prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency… or prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security.”

—Executive Order 13526, Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations

There were many documents released by WikiLeaks that were clearly not classified for reasons of national security. In fact, when asked about the leaks in November 2010, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said, “Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is this awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest.”

In the United States, the release of classified information is not, in general, illegal. A ‘patchwork’ of different laws criminalize disclosing certain types of classified information, and then only under certain circumstances.

PFC Bradley Manning faces a military court martial under the rules of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, primarily Articles 92 and 104. Article 92 generally covers any “failure to obey order or regulation”, and Article 134—generally known as the “catch all” article—criminalizes everything that would “prejudice good order and discipline… or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.”

However, had Bradley Manning performed his job by continuing to hide information which could constitute evidence of human rights violations, he would have then been engaged in illegal activity according to international law (which the United States helped create after WWII). Nuremberg Principle IV states: “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.”

Should one person be able to make the decision on what is classified and what is publicly released?

Which documents are classified, and which that are not, rests on the judgment of individuals most of the time. Thousands of U.S. government workers possess the power to classify documents at the “classified” and “secret” levels, the highest levels of secrecy of the documents released by WikiLeaks. Seventy-six million classification decisions were made in 2010 alone, eight times as many as in 2001. Additionally, The Information Security Oversight Office conducted a survey in 2009 in which they estimated that approximately 35% of documents which had been classified that year did not meet classification requirements.
Wilber W.
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,817

Addressing confusion about PFC Bradley Manning’s case
By the Bradley Manning Support Network. September 1, 2011

This article is a reference both for those who have just begun learning about PFC Bradley Manning’s case, and those who have been following it for awhile. It addresses several common misconceptions about the case. As an advocate for Bradley Manning, you can use the information in the article to educate others, whether speaking to them in-person or sharing relevant excerpts online.

The professional opinion of 300 of Americas top U.S. legal scholars on Bradley Manning


The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) allows citizens to request declassification of documents that no longer must be kept classified. However, because of the large number of requests relative to the staff and resources available for reviewing the classification statuses of documents, this process can take years.

Upon enlisting in the armed forces, Bradley Manning took the following oath: “I, Bradley Manning, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same….”

This oath assumes that individual service people will act on their conscience to defend the U.S. Constitution, which holds government transparency and democracy as core principles.

In instances where there was a reasonable belief that crimes were committed and covered up, service members have an obligation to come forward with that information—regardless of conflicting rules and regulations. The “Collateral Murder” video is only one such example of evidence being hidden from view by classification for no legitimate reason. Yet Bradley Manning faces decades in prison for releasing that video alone!

Did Bradley Manning endanger lives?

To date, the government has made no allegation that any U.S. soldier, citizen, ally, or informant has been physically injured as a result of the revelations.

Many facts that the leaks brought to light about U.S military actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen, for example, were already well known by citizens of those countries, experiencing the reality at their doorstep. The leaks served to inform the American people of aspects of the U.S. governments’ actions abroad that are not frequently covered by domestic mainstream news outlet (for example, the number of civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the fact that there is an official military policy to ignore torture in Iraq).

The Iraq War Logs and the Afghan War Diary were comprised of years-old field reports written by combat troops in the midst of battle. Names of local persons are spelled phonetically in these reports, usually with general descriptions of region or cities. The majority of these names were redacted by WikiLeaks prior to release. The U.S. State Department has declared that of the non-redacted names, there was not enough identifying information released on any individual to justify taking preventive action.

Meanwhile, scores of U.S. and foreign citizens continue to die on a daily basis in these occupation zones due not to Bradley Manning, but due to the controversial policies that he exposed.

Did the documents reveal anything new or important?

While some of the revelations in the documents were previously suspected by academics or human rights advocates carefully studying these topics, the documents uncovered many details that were previously unknown. The documents give American citizens greater insight into the reasoning behind U.S. foreign policies than they have ever been privy to before. It is one thing to suspect something is occurring, but is another thing to have it confirmed by primary sources in the government.

At the end of April 2011, The Atlantic Wire published a study in which they found that for the first four months of 2011, nearly one-half of New York Times editions cited one or more of the leaked cables in their news stories. Many facts brought forth in the documents are of great significance to those working in the fields of foreign policy and human rights advocacy.

The leaked documents include information about the following:
1. There is an official policy to ignore torture in Iraq.
2. There is an official tally of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.
3. Guantanamo prison has held mostly innocent people and low-level operatives.
4. The State Department authorized the theft of the UN Secretary General’s DNA.
5. The U.S. Government withheld information about the indiscriminate killing of Reuters journalists and
innocent Iraqi civilians.
6. The State Department backed corporate opposition to a Haitian minimum wage law.
7. The U.S. Government had long been faking its public support for Tunisian President Ben Ali.
8. U.S. officials were told to cover up evidence of child abuse by contractors in Afghanistan.
9. The Japanese and U.S. Governments had been warned about the seismic threat at Fukushima.
10. The Obama Administration allowed Yemen’s President to cover up a secret U.S. drone bombing
11. Known Egyptian torturers received training from the FBI in Quantico, Virginia.

Please download our factsheet to learn more.

Did Bradley Manning leak documents “indiscriminately”?

PFC Bradley Manning held a Top Secret clearance while working as an army intelligence analyst in Iraq. Yet the vast majority of documents he is accused of leaking consisted of low-level classified documents—about half of the documents were even “unclassified”. Of those that were classified, most were simply “Confidential.” About 11,000 documents were “Secret.” None of the released documents were “Top Secret,” the highest classification. Bradley Manning clearly had access to a much larger number of documents than what was leaked.

President Obama encouraged the perception that Bradley Manning leaked documents indiscriminately when he declared in April, 2011 that Bradley Manning “dumped” information. He then went on to mistakenly declare that now widely-respected Pentagon Papers whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg was “different” than Bradley Manning because Ellsberg didn’t release information that was classified in the same way. The fact is that Ellsberg released “Top Secret” information when he gave information to The New York Times, while Manning is only accused of releasing lower-level classified information. Daniel Ellsberg has also stated in interviews that alongside critical revelations the Pentagon Papers contained thousands of pages of information of little to no public significance. Like many other whistle-blowers, Ellsberg had to trust media organizations to do some of the sorting of an immense amount of data.

In the chat logs between Adrian Lamo and Bradley Manning, Manning allegedly describes the documents he was later accused of leaking, along with some reasons why he felt they needed to be public:
Powered by mvnForum

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