b047b517   
   XPost: alt.alien.visitors, alt.alien.research, alt.astronomy   
   XPost: alt.conspiracy   
   From: garymatalucci@gmail.com   
      
   Bradley Manning’s court martial begins   
      
   After 1,100 days in prison, Army private Bradley Manning faced a   
   military court martial Monday. Day one of the trial, like the months’   
   long series of pre-trial hearings before it, was characterized by   
   government secrecy, vindictiveness and lies. Manning, accused of   
   leaking some 700,000 military and diplomatic files to whistleblower   
   organization WikiLeaks, faces a possible life sentence if convicted on   
   20 charges, the most serious of which is “aiding the enemy” under the   
   Espionage Act. The Obama administration prosecutors argue that Manning   
   knowingly provided intelligence information to al Qaeda because   
   anyone, including terrorists, could access it on the WikiLeaks web   
   site.   
      
   In a statement before military judge Colonel Denise Lind in February,   
   Manning explained that he transmitted the material in order to expose   
   the crimes of the US government and military being carried out in the   
   name of the American people. His aim, he said, was to spark “worldwide   
   discussion, debates, and reforms.”   
      
   Lind ruled that the questions of motive or conscience were irrelevant   
   to the case, stripping the 25-year-old soldier of the ability to mount   
   a whistleblower defense, and ruling inadmissible any discussion of the   
   content of the leaked material. Manning offered to plead guilty on   
   several charges in order to reduce the possible sentence. The Obama   
   administration rejected the possibility of a plea deal, seeking to   
   secure the maximum possible sentence.   
      
   Manning’s is the most prominent case of a systematic attack on   
   whistleblowers by the Obama administration, which has prosecuted more   
   individuals under the Espionage Act than all other administrations in   
   US history combined. Over the course of his three-year-long ordeal,   
   Manning has been subjected to conditions tantamount to torture,   
   including being held in solitary confinement 23 hours a day for months   
   at a time, forced nudity and sleep deprivation.   
      
   The government intends to make an example of Manning for other would-   
   be leakers. The case likewise sets a dangerous precedent for   
   journalists, Internet sites and all those who access information the   
   government considers sensitive or detrimental to its “interests.”   
   The implications of the arguments advanced in the prosecution of   
   Manning were indicated in the revelation earlier this month that the   
   Obama administration had alleged criminal activity on the part of a   
   Fox New reporter for arranging to obtain classified information from a   
   government informant—a basic element of newsgathering. The   
   administration is seeking to criminalize media activity that exposes   
   secret government activities, part of a broader criminalization of   
   political dissent.   
      
   Even as Manning is prosecuted to the fullest extent for seeking to   
   reveal war crimes, those whose criminality were exposed in the leaked   
   material not only remain free, but are being actively protected by the   
   Obama administration.   
      
   A Kafkaesque atmosphere surrounds the proceedings. Much of the trial,   
   scheduled over the next three months at Fort Meade, Maryland, will be   
   held behind closed doors. Military prosecutors intend to present a   
   large amount of classified material as evidence and will call on 24   
   witnesses who will testify anonymously, in disguise, within only   
   limited view of the public and the press.   
      
   Lind argued that the extraordinary arrangements were necessary to   
   prevent “spillage of classified information”; reportedly, several of   
   the secret witnesses were members of the Navy Seals team that   
   assassinated Osama bin Laden in 2011. The defense team will not be   
   allowed to cross-examine the secret witnesses on anything involving   
   the Abbottabad raid or their personal backgrounds.  Lind ruled that   
   documents published on WikiLeaks must remain classified and cannot be   
   mentioned in open court.   
      
   The Center for Constitutional Rights has pointed out that Manning’s   
   legal hearings have been “more restrictive than military tribunals at   
   Guantanamo Bay.” At least 30,000 documents have been produced over the   
   past three years in relation to the case, very little of it   
   unclassified. This unprecedented censorship exposes the entire process   
   as an anti-democratic frame-up. It suggests a great nervousness on the   
   part of the political and military establishment over the growing   
   opposition to American imperialism.   
      
   Only 16 seats are available for the public to attend in the courtroom;   
   a trailer on the base has 35 additional seats for public viewing of a   
   video feed. Only 10 credentialed media personnel are allowed in.   
      
   The Washington Post noted that the courtroom was packed on Monday,   
   with several of Manning’s relatives in attendance. Supporters of the   
   whistleblower have held rallies outside the gates of the base for the   
   past few days.   
      
   On Monday, lead prosecutor Captain Joe Morrow delivered an hour-long   
   opening argument in which he laid out new allegations, including that   
   Manning was taking direction from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.   
   WikiLeaks has never acknowledged or denied that Manning contacted the   
   organization at all. Morrow’s assertions were predicated on a blatant   
   attempt at character assassination. He told the court that Manning was   
   driven to “gain the notoriety he craved.”   
      
   “If you had unprecedented access to classified networks 14 hours a day   
   7 days a week for 8 months, what would you do?” Morrow asked, quoting   
   a statement Manning made in a private chat later handed over to the   
   government by hacker-turned-informant Adrian Lamo.   
   Morrow declared, “This is not a case about a government official   
   making discreet disclosures. This is a case about a soldier who   
   harvested hundreds of thousands of documents and dumped them on the   
   Internet where they would be available to the enemy.” The prosecutor   
   added that it was about “what happens when arrogance meets access to   
   information.”   
      
   Manning, he said, knew there was a “great value to our adversaries and   
   in particular our enemies.” Morrow concluded his remarks with a   
   reference to Osama bin Laden, who the government claims had digital   
   copies of some material publicly available on WikiLeaks.   
   David Coombs, Manning’s civilian defense lawyer, opened by describing   
   an incident in Iraq on December 24, 2009. A US military convoy,   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)