background preloader

US versus Manning, Assange, WikiLeaks, and the Press, the Time Line

US versus Manning, Assange, WikiLeaks, and the Press, the Time Line
Populating content today. Populating content today... This is a transcript of the Motion Hearing held on June 6, 2012 at Fort Meade, Maryland in US v Pfc. Bradley Manning. Judge: Army Col. Denise LindProsecution: Captain Ashden Fein, Captain Joe Morrow, Captain Angel Overgaard, Capt. 09:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. Judge Lind Called to order. Lind goes through the script of reading Pfc. [Military counsel] is provided at no expense to you. If you are represented by military counsel of your own selection, then your detailed military counsel will be excused. Do you understand that? Bradley Manning Yes, your Honor. So the documents that Mr. In addition to military defense counsel you have the right to be represented by civilian counsel at no expense to the Government. Civilian counsel may represent you with military defense counsel or you can excuse your military counsel and be represented only by your civilian counsel. Do you understand your....? Yes, Ma'am. OK. Judge Lind details Major Hurley. No, your Honor.

http://www.alexaobrien.com/timeline_us_versus_manning_assange_wikileaks_2012.html

Related:  US of A vs. Prviate Manning

The Dangerous Logic of the Bradley Manning Case After 1,000 days in pretrial detention, Private Bradley Manning yesterday offered a modified guilty plea for passing classified materials to WikiLeaks. But his case is far from over—not for Manning, and not for the rest of the country. To understand what is still at stake, consider an exchange that took place in a military courtroom in Maryland in January. Bradley Manning, the NDAA and Wikileaks Alexa O’Brien is a journalist, researcher, and social activist. She is currently investigating the Bradley Manning trial and the US government’s pursuit of Wikileaks. JAMES GREEN: Could you start off by telling me about the work you’re doing right now on the Bradley Manning case?

Closer look at Project Vigilant Project Vigilant made headlines after last years Defcon conference where Chet Uber alleged that Adrian Lamo volunteered for the secret organization and had been encouraged to inform the federal government about the leak of diplomatic cables by Bradley Manning. Uber also claimed that Vigilant monitors the traffic of 12 regional Internet service providers. The news made various headlines (Forbes) but was later dismissed as a fraud or publicity stunt due to the seemingly unlikeliness of these boisterous claims. However, as far as I know, Adrian Lamo has never disassociated himself with Project Vigilant or Chet Uber and there is evidence of a relationship between the two before Mannings outing.

Bradley Manning's treatment was cruel and inhuman, UN torture chief rules The UN special rapporteur on torture has formally accused the US government of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment towards Bradley Manning, the US soldier who was held in solitary confinement for almost a year on suspicion of being the WikiLeaks source. Juan Mendez has completed a 14-month investigation into the treatment of Manning since the soldier's arrest at a US military base in May 2010. He concludes that the US military was at least culpable of cruel and inhumane treatment in keeping Manning locked up alone for 23 hours a day over an 11-month period in conditions that he also found might have constituted torture. Manning to Face More Serious Charges in Leak Private Manning admitted in court on Thursday that he had provided about 700,000 government documents to , the antisecrecy group, in the most extensive leak of confidential and classified material in American history. But he pleaded guilty to the lesser charges in what is known as a “naked plea” — one made without the usual agreement with prosecutors to cap the potential sentence in return. After the plea, prosecutors and their boss, the commanding general of the Washington Military District, had the option of settling for the 10 charges to which he had admitted his guilt and proceeding directly to sentencing. Instead, they said they would continue with plans for a court-martial beginning June 3, with 141 prosecution witnesses scheduled to testify.

Bradley Manning Indicates He Would Accept Responsibility for Transferring Information to WikiLeaks PFC Bradley Manning UPDATE – 11:45 PM EST According to statement by defense, “PFC Manning is not pleading guilty to the specifications as charged by the Government. Rather, PFC Manning is attempting to accept responsibility for offenses that are encapsulated within, or are a subset of, the charged offenses. The Court will consider whether this is a permissible plea.” I’ve put a strike through “all charged” because I do not feel it appropriately reflects what Manning did with the notice of plea. Iraq Combat Veteran Dan Choi Forcibly Ousted, Barred from Bradley Manning Hearing at Ft. Meade This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form. NERMEEN SHAIKH: We’re joined here in the studio by former Lieutenant Dan Choi, who attended the trial this weekend but was barred from returning on Monday. Lieutenant Choi is an Iraq combat veteran and supporter of Bradley Manning. He’s also an openly gay servicemember who was discharged in 2010 under "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell." Welcome, Lieutenant.

Congressional committee holds hearing on national security leak prevention and punishment Recent leaks of classified information prompted concerned members of the Congressional House Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing today to address consequences for those involved in releasing and publishing national secrets. The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, among other things, listened to testimony about the effectiveness of the Espionage Act of 1917. Recently published investigative news articles in notable newspapers including The New York Times and The Washington Post on cyber warfare, drone strikes and other classified information have brought the issue of leaks to national attention. At the packed hearing, several committee members presented the idea of targeting journalists who knowingly publish leaked information. Members raised questions about the intent of newspapers that print such material and whether journalists should be subpoenaed to testify about their sources.

Related: