Leaving Truth Outside the Court House at Bradley Manning’s Trial

The following post is written by Medea Benjamin, founder of CODEPINK and Global Exchange, and retired US Army Colonel and former US diplomat Ann Wright.


Leaving Truth Outside the Court House at Bradley Manning’s Trial

The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naive and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who loves his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.” ~ H.L. Mencken”
 
It was an early morning, getting out to Ft. Meade, Maryland by 7am to join the group of hearty activists standing out (in) the rain, greeting the journalists coming into the Bradley Manning hearing with chants of “Whistleblowing is not a crime, Free Bradley Manning.” The activists, many with groups like The Bradley Manning Support Committee, Veterans for Peace, CODEPINK and Iraq Vets Against the War, had come from all over the country to show support for Manning during the upcoming weeks of the trial.
 
After a stint at the bullhorn, we got into the car to drive onto the base and get on line to try to get into the courtroom or the overflow room. With Ann Wright’s retired military ID, we got to bypass the long line of cars snaking around the checkpoint and breeze right in. About a dozen people were already on line, in the rain. Some were well-known characters, like professor Cornell West, author Chris Hedges, lawyer Michael Ratner and ACLU lawyer Ben Wisner; others were individuals who had come from as far away as Ireland and Mexico to support Manning.

It’s great that court martial trials are open to the public. But it’s absurd that this epic trial is being held in a tiny courtroom that only fits a total of 50 people. “It’s a trial of the century being conducted in a shoebox,” complained attorney Michael Ratner. Only 16 spaces were allocated to the public; the rest had to go to an overflow theatre that seated about 100, or a trailer next to the courtroom with room for 35. The press had a separate room where they could bring their computers and phones, although they were not allowed to transmit anything during the trial—just during the breaks.

Going through security for the courtroom, we were not allowed to bring any electronics. And there was a bit of a dust-up around t-shirts: some people with slogans on their shirts were made to turn them inside out, while others escaped the censors. It seems that “LOVE”, “Peace” and “Stay Human” could sneak by, but “TRUTH” and “Free Bradley” didn’t make it.

Once inside, we immediately saw the back of Bradley Manning’s shaved head, and his wire-rimmed glasses jutting out from the side. “He looks just like my grandson,” said CODEPINK Barbara Briggs from Sebastapol, California. “How tragic that this 25-year-old is facing life in prison.”

It was also sad to see that almost none of Manning’s family was there—only an aunt and cousin.

Manning had requested a court-martial by judge rather than by a jury of his peers.The judge, Colonel Denise Lind, said last month she would close parts of the trial to the public to protect classified material.

The Prosecution presented its opening statement using an extensive power point that detailed the charges and specifications, and a brief synopsis that the testimony each witness will give.  The Prosecution said that FPC Manning had purposefully aided and abetted the enemy through the Wikileaks documents that Manning downloaded. He concluded by saying that Osama bin Laden requested and received a copy of internal U.S. military logs of the war in Afghanistan from another member of al-Qaeda.

The Defense’s opening statement responded that Manning is young and naïve but with good intentions.  Manning’s attorney David Coombs said Manning thought that the public should know what goes on in war and how one’s government operates.  He was troubled by the response of the government to requests for information from the Reuters news agency concerning the deaths of their journalists from an Apache helicopter attack (the video now known as Collateral Murder), as well as the 2009 Gharani air strike that killed 150 civilians.  Coombs insisted that Manning made the documents available for the public, not for the enemy, and that the documents leaked were largely publicly available information with no critical intelligence sources.

At a pretrial hearing in February, Manning admitted to 10 offenses that could land him 20 years in prison. But the government insisted on upping the ante by accusing him of “aiding the enemy”—a charge that could result in life in prison. The court-martial may take 2 or 3 months to complete the presentation of evidence for the 12 counts to which Manning has not plead guilty. Numerous secret witnesses will be testifying for the prosecution.

While the “aiding the enemy” charge is going to be very difficult to prove, Michael Ratner, the president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said the fact that the government is pursuing this charge “sends a message to every soldier and every journalist that they are literally taking their lives in their hands if they dare speak out against wrongdoing.”

Manning’s trial, which is slated to last three months, is the most stark example of the Obama administration’s relentless stance against whistleblowers. “This president has the  tried to prosecute six whistleblowers under the Espionage Act, twice as many as all previous presidencies combined,” said Cornell West. “President Obama is determined to stop the public from knowing about government wrongdoing.”

In pretrial proceedings, Manning said his motivation was to “spark a domestic debate over the role of the military and our foreign policy in general.” Certainly that debate is long overdue. So is the debate about (the) right of the public to be informed about what our governments are doing in our name.

Medea Benjamin, founder of CODEPINK and Global Exchange, is author of “Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control.” Ann Wright is a retired US Army Colonel and former US diplomat who resigned in 2003 in opposition to the Iraq War.  She is the co-author of “Dissent: Voices of Conscience.”

Global Exchange board member Ann Wright

The following guest post by Global Exchange board member Ann Wright originally appeared on MichaelMoore.com.

Bradley Manning was recently chosen as  Global Exchange’s Human Rights Awards People’s Choice Winner. The award will be presented at the 2012 Human Rights Awards gala on May 10th in San Francisco and will be accepted on Bradley Manning’s behalf by special guest Daniel Ellsberg.


The Government’s Warning to Bradley Manning and Others: “Tell on us, and we will put you behind bars for the rest of your life”

The pre-trial hearings for alleged Wikileaks whistleblower US Army PFC Bradley Manning hold some lessons for us all.

One of the issues discussed in Manning’s April 25 pre-trial hearing has relevance for all of us. If soldiers or other government employees expose on the internet or in interviews with journalists government malfeasance, should that person be charged with “aiding and abetting the enemy?” Even if a soldier has no intent to give information to an “enemy,” no “evil intent,” but the enemy could possibly have access to the interview by buying a newspaper that contains the interview, or accesses it on the internet, should the government employee be prosecuted for “aiding and abetting the enemy?”

What if the government is more fearful of its citizens than of al Qaeda and the Taliban and attempts to silence the whistleblowers in the government who alert the citizens of the wrongdoings of its government?

What if the government does not want to hold accountable those in government who are violating regulations and laws?

The prosecution in the Bradley Manning trial is arguing that soldiers should know that the “enemy” uses the internet and can easily find derogatory or negative comments from military personnel and use them to find weaknesses in military units, strategies, policies.

Does that mean that a soldier, government employee, or for that matter, anyone not even in government who talks about the monstrously high levels of post-traumatic stress in our military or talks about 18 military and veterans committing suicide a day, or anyone who identifies cost overruns in virtually every government program is subject to the charge of “aiding and abetting the enemy.”

I recently inadvertently and fortuitously ended up at a meeting with a US State Department sponsored group of young professionals from the Middle East who were brought to the United States to learn more about our country. I mentioned that I was attending the hearings for the alleged Wikileaks whistleblower Bradley Manning.

The reaction of the group was stunning. Immediately hands for questions went up—the questions began with a comment—“Without Wikileaks, I would never have learned what my own governments was doing, its complicity in secret prisons and torture, in extraordinary rendition, in cooperation in the US wars in the region. Wikileaks exposed what our politicians and elected officials are doing. Without Wikileaks, we would never have known!”

And that is what Bradley Manning’s trial is all about and what the charges against six other government employees who face espionage allegations for providing information the government classified to protect its own wrongdoings -to silence other potential government whistleblowers.

Only two persons in our government have had the courage to risk life imprisonment to leak massive amounts of government documents. Daniel Ellsberg leaked thousands of documents that revealed the sordid history of the US involvement in Vietnam and who President Nixon labeled for his actions “the most dangerous man in America.”

And now, Bradley Manning who is accused of leaking hundreds of thousands of documents that reveal war crimes in the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and questionable US diplomatic policies and duplicity with governments around the world.

The charges of “aiding and abetting the enemy” and of espionage are meant to threaten any others who might find the evidence of government criminal actions and alert the American public.

The unmistakable warning is “don’t tell on us, or we will put you behind bars for the rest of your life.”

About the Blogger: Global Exchange board member Ann Wright is a retired US Army Colonel who spent 29 years in the US Army and Army Reserves. She resigned from the State Department on March 19, 2003 in protest of the invasion of Iraq. Since then, she has been writing and speaking out for peace. Ann has been on delegations to Iran, was in Gaza three times in 2009, and was an organizer for the Gaza Freedom March. She was on the 2010 Gaza flotilla that was attacked by the Israeli military and on the Audacity of Hope boat which was part of the Freedom Flotilla in 2011. She lives in Honolulu.

Attend the 2012 Human Rights Awards gala: Global Exchange is proud to honor Bradley Manning as its 2012 Human Rights Awards People’s Choice recipient.

Find out all about this exciting awards event here and purchase tickets here.