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. 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 so at this point you have a detailed military defense counsel. Are these the three attorneys that you want to represent you [Mr. OK. OK. 1.) Related:  US of A vs. Private Chelsea Manning

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? ALEXA O`BRIEN: Sure. And then there is more in-depth coverage and profiles I’ve built, including witness profiles and a reconstructed Appellate List available at GREEN: Just for people who are not familiar with the legal jargon, what is that? O’BRIEN: It`s basically the court docket. GREEN: What is the justification given for it being done in such secrecy? O’BRIEN: It is a military trial, but it doesn’t matter. GREEN: Where exactly are these trials taking place? O’BRIEN: To give you a kind of high overview, US v. GREEN: What is the General Convening Authority? GREEN: So are there no other professional journalists in attendance at these proceedings? O’BRIEN: Yes.

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. Last June, right after Manning was revealed as the Wikileaks source, Chet Uber went on a media compaign to build publicity for Project Vigilant. During this same time, Chet Uber sought out Greg Hoglund CEO of HBGary in a private email for “highly sensitive work”. Mark RaschFormerly DOJCurrently CSC

blog: Was 'Antipolitics' a Failure? Was 'Antipolitics' a Failure? While I was writing this essay, I was reminded of an anecdote from Plato's "Republic". In Book One, Socrates tries to persuade Polemarchus, who is dragging Socrates against his will, to release him. Polemarchus remarks, "How are you going to persuade us if we don't listen?" Was 'antipolitics' a success or a failure? Pulling our Platonic parallel further, 'antipoliticians,' are not interested in being "masters over others for the sake of averting harm." "In a democracy, human beings may enjoy many personal freedoms and securities that are unknown to us, but in the end they do them no good, for they too are ultimately victims of the same automatism [like totalitarian states], and are incapable of defending their concerns about their own identity or preventing their superficialization or transcending concerns about their own personal survival to become proud and responsible members of the polis, making genuine contribution to the creation of its destiny." (91)

Bradley Manning's treatment was cruel and inhuman, UN torture chief rules | World news 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. "The special rapporteur concludes that imposing seriously punitive conditions of detention on someone who has not been found guilty of any crime is a violation of his right to physical and psychological integrity as well as of his presumption of innocence," Mendez writes. But the Pentagon's arguments did not impress the special rapporteur.

Bradley Manning Pretrial Hearing Puts Military On Trial In WikiLeaks Case Bradley Manning is finally getting his day in court. The Army private accused of giving thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks took the witness stand on Thursday and Friday in a pretrial hearing. Manning and his defense lawyer are in essence putting the military on trial, arguing that Manning's treatment in the Marine Corps brig at Quantico was so harsh that his court martial charges should be dropped. Manning, 24, speaking in public in court Thursday at Fort Meade in Maryland for the first time since he was accused in May 2010 of leaking thousands of military and diplomatic documents to the website, detailed some of the 917 days he had spent in custody. He endured many of them in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day, stripped naked at night on suicide watch -- conditions that the United Nations' special rapporteur on torture found to be "cruel and unusual." On Friday, military prosecutors sought to challenge that argument. But it did not work. Also on HuffPost:

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. LT. NERMEEN SHAIKH: Can you explain, Dan, what happened on Monday at the trial? LT. NERMEEN SHAIKH: Why did they say that you can’t wear the uniform? LT. AMY GOODMAN: So, on Monday, exactly what happened when you tried to go in? LT. AMY GOODMAN: Get out of the base. LT. AMY GOODMAN: You’re wearing a wrist brace. LT. AMY GOODMAN: Because? LT. AMY GOODMAN: They ripped the rank off your shoulder? LT. LT. AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about why, Lieutenant Dan Choi, you’ve chosen to stand up for Bradley Manning? LT. LT. NERMEEN SHAIKH: There’s a ban, an outright ban? LT. LT. LT. LT.

Wikileaks, Antipolitics, and the Post Modern State ~ Alexa O'Brien 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. "Why not send a subpoena to the reporter? Attorney Kenneth L. Rep. Rep.