Chelsea Manning explains why she leaked secret military documents …

— -- Chelsea Manning has been called a hero by some, a traitor by others, but when asked how she sees herself, she said, "I'm just me."

"It's as simple as that," Manning told "Nightline" co-anchor Juju Chang in an exclusive interview on "Nightline."

Manning, a transgender U.S. Army soldier, was in prison for seven years at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, after being convicted by a military tribunal under the Espionage and Computer Fraud and Abuse Acts and sentenced to 35 years in prison for releasing over 700,000 documents to WikiLeaks, of which only small amount of those documents ultimately lead to her conviction (some of them were published by The New York Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel).

When asked if she felt she owed the American public an apology, Manning said she has accepted responsibility for her actions.

"Anything I've done, it's me. There's no one else," she said. "No one told me to do this. Nobody directed me to do this. This is me. It's on me."

Manning at that time was a 22-year-old Army private named Bradley Manning. The information she disclosed included low level battlefield reports from Iraq and Afghanistan, evidence of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, Guantanamo prison camp detainee profiles and U.S. diplomatic correspondence.

In referring to the military documents she was reviewing and what compelled her to risk her career and break the law by leaking them, Manning said, "We're getting all this information from all these different sources and it's just death, destruction, mayhem."

"We're filtering it all through facts, statistics, reports, dates, times, locations, and eventually, you just stop," she continued. "I stopped seeing just statistics and information, and I started seeing people."

Manning said she leaked the documents because she wanted to spark public debate. She said she didn't think leaking them would threaten national security.

"I work with this information every day," Manning said. "I'm the subject matter expert for this stuff. You know, we're the ones who work with it the most. We're the most familiar with it. It's not, you know, it's not a general who writes this stuff."

When asked why she, a low-level analyst, didn't raise her concerns up through the chain of command, Manning said, "the channels are there, but they don't work."

Manning pleaded guilty to some charges and was acquitted of the most serious charge brought against her: aiding the enemy. Her imprisonment was longer than any leaker in U.S. history. President Obama commuted her sentence to time served three days before he left office.

Days after Manning was sentenced, she came out as transgender on August 22, 2013. The military would not provide her with any treatment for her gender dysphoria, which she claimed resulted in her escalating distress. Her ACLU lawyer, Chase Strangio, filed a lawsuit on her behalf in September 2014. According to Strangio, Manning became "the first military prisoner to receive health care related to gender transition and was part of a shift in practice that lead to the elimination of the ban on open trans service in the military."

Fighting for hormone treatment was important for her, Manning said, because "it's literally what keeps me alive."

"[It] keeps me from feeling like I'm in the wrong body," she added. "I used to get these horrible feeling like I just wanted to rip my body apart and I don't want to have to go through that experience again. It's really, really awful."

Manning was released from prison on May 17 and has been documenting moments from her daily life on her Instagram and Twitter account, @xychelsea, from taking her first steps out of prison, to playing videos games to hanging out with friends.

Being on the outside, "it's a culture shock for anyone to go through any set of circumstances like that," Manning said.

When asked how she feels about the military today, Manning said, "I have nothing but utmost respect for the military."

"The military is diverse, and large, and it's public, it serves a public function, it serves a public duty," she continued. "And the people who are in the military work very hard, often for not much money, to make their country better and to protect their country. I have nothing but respect for that. And that's why I signed up."

Manning said she hasn't spoken to Obama since he commuted her sentence, but she would want to tell him thank you.

"I've been given a chance," she said. "That's all I asked for was a chance. That's it, and now this is my chance."

Follow this link:
Chelsea Manning explains why she leaked secret military documents ...

The Bradley Manning Trial: A Short(ish) Guide To Understanding … – NPR

Army Pfc. Bradley Manning (right) is escorted out of a courthouse in Fort Meade, Md., on June 25, 2012. His lawyer announced that Manning, who is accused of leaking classified information to WikiLeaks, had agreed to plead guilty to lesser charges. Patrick Semansky/AP hide caption

Army Pfc. Bradley Manning (right) is escorted out of a courthouse in Fort Meade, Md., on June 25, 2012. His lawyer announced that Manning, who is accused of leaking classified information to WikiLeaks, had agreed to plead guilty to lesser charges.

For the next 12 weeks, a military judge in Fort Meade, Md. will consider the case of Army Pfc. Bradley Manning. It's bound to be a complicated, long-running and often secretive process that kicked off on Monday.

Before we get too far into the court-martial, we wanted to put together a shortish guide to bring you up to speed on the trial.

-- First Off, The Leaks:

Central to this court-martial is the vast trove of government data that Manning handed to the website WikiLeaks. They mark the largest leak of classified information in the history of the United States.

It was a video dubbed "Colateral Murder" that first brought attention to Wikileaks in 2010. It showed a 2007 incident in which a U.S. military crew on an Army Apache helicopter shot at Iraqi civilians and a Reuters journalist, after allegedly mistaking them for insurgents. It provided a rare chance to witness an incident of what the military calls collateral damage.

The leaks continued, peaking with the release of hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables, that brought mostly diplomatic headaches for the United States. Some argued that they revealed much more in some cases the identities of operatives and informants across the world. The government said during the first day of the court-martial that it will present evidence that Osama bin Laden asked for and received some of these cables. The documents are archived here.

-- Who Is Bradley Manning?:

PBS' Frontline has a quick 10-minute profile of Manning that is worth watching. In short, he is son of an American dad and a British mother who grew up in a small town near Oklahoma City. His relationship with his dad and his stepmother was strained. He joined the Army in 2007 seeking some structure and direction for his life.

He became an intelligence analyst for the Army and received access to classified information.

Manning was arrested in May of 2010 over the leaks. Since then, he has been held by the U.S. military.

-- What Manning Has To Say:

Since his arrest, we have not heard much from Manning. His most significant statement came when a judge was considering throwing out the case against him because of the way the U.S. government treated him.

As NPR's Carrie Johnson reported in November of 2012, it was highly unusual for a court-martial to be delayed for more than three years. Not only that but at one point, Manning was kept in complete isolation and in some instances forced to sleep naked and without a blanket.

Manning's defense attorney David Coombs, who himself has been pretty quiet, said that Manning's treatment at the Marine Corps Base in Quantico, Va., will "forever be etched, I believe, in our nation's history as a disgraceful moment in time."

The military judge ultimately refused to drop the charges against Manning. But the proceedings allowed him to plead guilty to lesser charges and make his first public statements.

Manning read from a 35-page statement. He explained that he thought the battle field reports were not considered sensitive in the military and that he leaked the diplomatic cables, hoping it would lead to a more open diplomacy.

"I believed that these cables would not damage the United States," Manning said. "However, I believed these cables would be embarrassing.

-- The Charges:

The government decided to go through with the more serious charges against Manning. As NPR's Carrie Johnson reported earlier this month, Manning is facing charges "including violations of the Espionage Act and aiding the enemy, which carries a possible life sentence."

Carrie adds that during the 12-week trial, the government will have to prove "Manning had reason to believe the leaks would hurt national security."

Court House News Service reports that on the aiding the enemy charge, the government has to prove that Manning leaked the information with that intent in mind.

-- How To Follow The Action:

We will post on major developments in the case, but several reporters covering the trial have been tweeting live updates. Ed Pilkington is covering it for The Guardian; Alexa O'Brien is covering it for The Huffington Post, and Kevin Gosztola is covering it for the liberal website FireDogLake.

Here is the original post:
The Bradley Manning Trial: A Short(ish) Guide To Understanding ... - NPR

Bradley Manning: the angry young man who turned whistleblower

Tasker Milward school in Haverfordwest closed a week or so ago for the summer holidays, and its peeling black metal gates on Tuesday opened on to an almost empty car park, the three-storey red brick and cream building nearly deserted in the warm Pembrokeshire afternoon.

In term time, 1,200 pupils mill around the grounds, representing a significant chunk of the young people in the small town of 13,000, situated at the very westernmost tip of Wales.

It is less than a decade since one of those spilling out of these gates in a red polo shirt and bottle green sweatshirt with a red dragon crest was a diminutive blond 17-year-old with a thick Oklahoma twang, just 1.57 metres (5ft 2in) tall and weighing only 47.43kg (7 stone).

In the years since he left Tasker Milward, Bradley Manning has become arguably the highest profile whistleblower of his generation, the source of the biggest data leak in US military history and will continue to be a hero to some, a traitor to others. Between 2001 and 2005, however, to his Welsh classmates he was just Bradley, the oddball who was a whizz on computers but didn't quite fit in, who liked political arguments in class, whose mum made "brilliant" beefburgers after school.

Manning today finds himself at the heart of a quite extraordinary episode in US diplomatic, military and legal history. The account of what took him, in less than five years, from the computer club of a west Wales secondary school to US military custody accused of trying to help al-Qaida attack America may be one of the remarkable aspects of the young army private's story.

Manning doesn't hold a British passport and doesn't consider himself to be a UK citizen, but he is unquestionably half Welsh (the Foreign Office, notably, has stressed he is "British by descent"). Though he was born in the US, his parents met when Brian Manning, a US naval intelligence analyst, was stationed in the very southwest tip of Wales; Susan Manning, then Fox, was a local girl from Haverfordwest. An older sister, Casey, was born in Wales; Bradley followed in 1987 after his parents had returned to the tiny Oklahoma town of Crescent where Brian took up a job in a car rental firm. The marriage was not a success, and in 2001, after Brian walked out, Susan returned to her home town with her children.

His new school was around the size of his entire home town, and friends from that time recall a complicated boy who never quite fit, didn't get the Welsh humour, was hotheaded and unpredictable and sometimes bullied. "An American at a Welsh school is always going to stick out, isn't he?" his friend James Kirkpatrick has said. "And his personality is unique, extremely unique. Very quirky, very opinionated, very political, very clever."

Manning's mother and extended family still live in and around Haverfordwest; they have largely withdrawn from the media and campaigners since the early days of his detention.

Those who have examined closely Manning's time in Haverfordwest, however, are clear that even while a young teenager there were signs of the young man he was to become. Tim Price spent 10 months talking to Manning's family members, friends and former teachers as research for a play, the Radicalisation of Bradley Manning, staged last year by the National Theatre of Wales, and remains close to Manning's mother.

"The people who knew Bradley when he was in Wales say he was an incredibly bright young guy who was also incredibly thoughtful," says Price. While still at school he built an early social media website called Angeldyne, "and there were stories on there written by a young Bradley Manning that were not written by your average teenager, a story about Dr David Kelly, for example. He was an unusual teenager, very politically engaged."

Vicky Moller, who runs a local campaign in support of the soldier, says former teachers have told her of a student who was "highly intelligent, engaged in long political discussions, had a questioning mind". Moller feels that the Welsh education system which she says focuses on "civil awareness and a moral approach to the human role in society" may even have contributed to the actions that Manning would later take.

However bright and engaged, he does not seem to have been particularly happy while in Haverfordwest. Schoolfriends have said they didn't know at the time that Manning was gay, and on leaving school after his GCSEs, he returned to live with his father and new stepmother, with the promise of a job in software.

But neither the job nor the new family dynamic worked out, and within a year he was sleeping on friends' couches or in his pickup truck, making ends meet through casual jobs. "Bradley seems always to have been desperate to be wherever he wasn't," says Price. "He seemed like a guy who was permanently frustrated with the world." By October 2007, dreaming of the university future it offered through a military scholarship, Manning had enlisted in the US army.

It may seem a curious decision for the 20-year-old now openly gay and, say friends, increasingly politicised and indeed his military career seems to have soured very quickly. Within a month of arriving at his first posting he was on the brink of expulsion; peers have described bullying so severe Manning wet himself on more than one occasion.

A short posting to upstate New York was happier; he met his first serious boyfriend Tyler Watkins, a student at Boston's Brandeis university, and through him became involved in the Boston hacker community.

But once Manning had been posted to an isolated military base in the Iraqi desert in October 2009, that relationship, too, would quickly disintegrate. Forward Operating Base Hammer was an isolated, depressing place where morale was rock bottom and security slipshod.

Increasingly disillusioned with the US mission, Manning's behaviour deteriorated, culminating in his punching a female officer in the face and being told he would be demoted and discharged. Within days he had contacted the notorious hacker Adrian Lamo, writing: "If you had unprecedented access to classified networks 14 hours a day, seven days a week for eight-plus months, what would you do?" The rest has been rehearsed exhaustively during an eight-week trial.

In Haverfordwest on Tuesday, views on his actions, however, were mixed. "My view is that he shouldn't have done it," said David Thomas, visiting from nearby Swansea. "He took an oath. How naive was he?" To Callum Downes, however, manning a collection stall for a soldiers' charity called Afghan Heroes, the issue was more nuanced. "Nobody should leak secrets that will let an enemy to get the upper hand, but the government should not keep secrets from its people. All I know is, I have a couple of friends who are out there, and they hate it when they are kept in the dark."

Go here to read the rest:
Bradley Manning: the angry young man who turned whistleblower

Bradley Manning timeline | Chelsea Manning | The Guardian

17 December 1987

Bradley Manning is born in Crescent, Oklahoma to an American father and Welsh mother

November 2001

Manning and his mother move to Haverfordwest in Wales after his parents' divorce. The teenager shows an aptitude for computers at school, but returns to the US to live with his father in 2005

October 2007

At 19, joins the US army. His father had served as an intelligence analyst

October 2009

Manning is sent to Iraq, where he has access to top secret information. He is isolated and unhappy

November 2009 Makes contact with WikiLeaks for the first time after it leaked 570,000 pager messages from 9/11

January 2010

Downloads the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs

April 2010

WikiLeaks posts a video of Iraqi civilians and journalists being killed by a US helicopter gunship some time in July 2007

21 May 2010

Manning contacts hacker Adrian Lamo online, saying he is the source of the leaks. Lamo records the chats and hands them over to the US defence department and Wired.com

29 May 2010

Manning is arrested in Kuwait

5 June 2010

Charged with leaking classified information

25 July 2010

A series of reports on the Afghan war, based on US military internal logs, are published by the Guardian, the New York Times and other media groups

29 July 2010

Manning is moved to Quantico in the US, where he is held in a solitary cell

22 October 2010

Iraq war logs published, detailing civilian deaths, torture, summary executions and war crimes

28 November 2010

US embassy cables are published, revealing what diplomats really think about their postings

January 2011

Amnesty International denounces Manning's treatment at Quantico

11 March 2011

Manning's charges updated to 22 violations, including ''aiding the enemy'', which carries a life sentence

March 2011

US state department spokesman PJ Crowley calls Manning's treatment ''ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid'', and later resigns

20 March 2011

Daniel Ellsberg, Pentagon Papers whistleblower, is arrested for protesting against Manning's imprisonment

April 2011

The Guantnamo files are released, containing US's secret assessments of detainees

July 2011

Wired.com publishes chat logs between Manning and Lamo

16 December 2011 The first pre-trial hearing begins, and 4/5ths of defence witnesses are barred

March 2012

UN says Manning ''subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment''

August 2012

Prosecution reveals evidence that Manning's treatment at Quantico was ordered by a higher command

17 December 2012

Manning turns 25, his third birthday in prison without trial

28 February 2013

Pleads guilty to leaking military information

3 June 2013

Court martial begins

30 July 2013

Cleared of ''aiding the enemy'' but guilty of five espionage charges

Here is the original post:
Bradley Manning timeline | Chelsea Manning | The Guardian

Bradley Manning Sentenced to 35 Years for WikiLeaks

Watch WikiSecrets, FRONTLINEs investigation into Bradley Manning, Julian Assange and the largest intelligence breach in U.S. history, and The Private Life of Bradley Manning, a profile of the early years of the young soldier now accused of leaking more than half a million classified U.S. government documents.

Bradley Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison on Wednesday, after being convicted of espionage and other crimes related to the biggest intelligence breach in U.S. history.

The U.S. government had asked for no less than 60 years in prison for the 25-year-old Manning, along with a demotion in rank and a $100,000 fine, for passing classified documents to Wikileaks.

If you betray your country, you do not deserve the mercy of a court of law, Cpt. Joe Morrow, a lawyer for the government, told the military court on Monday, according to a reporter who was in the courtroom.

The defense, arguing that Manning had good intentions, had asked for a sentence that would not rob him of his youth.

In her ruling, Judge Col. Denise Lind reduced Mannings rank, and ruled he should be dishonorably discharged, but didnt levy the fine. Hell be eligible for parole after serving one-third of his sentence.

Under military commission rules, the sentence must be reviewed by the Office of the Convening Authority, which has the power to set aside or amend the sentence but not increase it.

Manning was acquitted of the most serious chargehe faced aiding the enemy which amounted to treason and would alone have sentenced him to life in prison. But the judge found him guilty of leaking the information and of espionage. All told, the charges he was convicted of could have led to a maximum of 136 years in prison. The judge later lowered that to a maximum of 90 years.

The sentencing hearing over the last few weeks focused on the actual impact of Mannings leak on U.S. interests. The government brought in 13 classified witnesses to testify to what it has maintained was substantial damage. Their testimony was closed to the public so its still not clear what evidence they presented or what damage, if any, Mannings leaks caused.

Earlier government reports suggested that while the leaks were embarrassing because they showed U.S. diplomats criticizing or mocking their counterparts, they didnt do major harm.

During the sentencing hearing, Manning apologized for any damage he caused. I am sorry for unintended consequence of my actions, he said. When I made these decisions, I believed I was going to help people, not hurt people.

An earlier recording smuggled out of the courtroom captured Manning in his own words explaining why he leaked the documents: He was troubled by U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and hoped the leak would encourage the public to scrutinize foreign policy.

I felt we were risking so much for people who seemed unwilling to cooperate with us, leading to frustration and hatred on both sides, he said.

In attempting to conduct counterterrorism and counterinsurgency, COIN operations, we became obsessed with capturing and killing the human targets on our lists, and on being suspicious of and avoiding cooperation with our host-nation partners and ignoring the second or third-order effects of our short term goals and missions.

I believed that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information contained within the [classified documents], this could spark a massive debate on the role the military in our foreign policy in general, and as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan might cause society to re-evaluate the need or even the desire to engage in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations and ignore the complex dynamics of the people living in the affected environment every day.

Since he was first arrested, Manning has spent three and a half years in military prisons,time that will be deducted from his sentence. For several months he was held in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day for several months, under conditions that Juan Mendez, the U.N.s special rapporteur on torture said were cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

The U.S. government didnt allow Mendez to interview Manning privately to determine exactly how he was treated, but the U.N. rep noted in a report 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.

The Obama administration has charged more people with violations of the Espionage Act for leaking classified information than all other administrations combined.

The most recent American to be indicted under the Espionage Act, Edward Snowden, remains in Russia under temporary asylum, irking the U.S. government, which had requested he return and face felony charges.

President Barack Obama said earlier this month that Snowden should stand trial: If, in fact, he believes that what he did was right, then, like every American citizen, he can come here, appear before the court with a lawyer and make his case.

Read more from the original source:
Bradley Manning Sentenced to 35 Years for WikiLeaks

A Plan to Let Soldiers Interact with the Army Cloud Using Their Own Devices Got a Bit Clouded – Forbes

After years of proposing Bring Your Own Device strategies, the U.S. Army has embarked on Phase III ... [+] of its BYOD Pilot.

The U.S. Army is testing a mobile device application that would let its Soldiers and DoD civilians access the Army Cloud using their personal cellphones or laptops. But theres some confusion about the app and the extent to which it will be used.

For context, its worth explaining that the Army and other services have enabled service members and DoD civilians to work remotely via Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) for over 15 years. The once ubiquitous BlackBerry phones that Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors and Marines carried for years exemplified remote work.

Uncle Sam paid for and supplied these devices and users were/are expected to conduct only official business on them, with the resulting phone in each hand a common sight among service people and government officials physically segregating their professional and personal communications. But a lot has changed in the last decade.

The Army and other branches followed and began to embrace the commercial technology evolution that has brought us digital cloud storage and software-as-a-service (SaaS). For the Army, and the rest of the world, that embrace became a bear hug when COVID-19 hit in 2020.

At the height of the Pandemic the Pentagon turned to a commercial solution for the vastly expanded telework work it believed was necessary to continue to function, enabling Microsoft MSFT Office 365 mobile capability for the military/civilian workforce. The capability was well received but in the span of less than a year DoD recognized it wasnt particularly secure. In June, 2021 Office 365 mobile capability was turned off.

To work remotely and access the cloud, users reverted to their GFE. As they did so, the folks running the DoD cloud enterprise were already asking the question - Do they have to use government funded devices?

Bring Your Own Device

With Microsoft Office 365 connectivity disabled, the DoD CIO and the respective service CIOs established separate pilot programs to assess the potential for military personnel and civilians to work remotely using their own cellphones and laptops. The Pentagon refers to this strategy and to the separate service pilots as Bring Your Own Device or BYOD.

The Army, Navy and Air Force each have their own BYOD Pilots though the Armys Pilot - now in Phase III - is likely the most mature. The goal of BYOD the Army says is to extend the convenience of teleworking on just one device to Soldiers and Army civilians. Essentially, its another app on your phone. A service member can walk out of the Pentagon or off-base, go to the store and still be connected to official business via his or her personal device.

BYOD may also save the service considerable money Army CIO, Dr. Raj Iyer says.

Army CIO Dr. Raj Iyer says its BYOD Pilot is demonstrating the convenience and potential cost ... [+] savings of having Army personnel use their own devices for official business.

We know that there are savings to be had. If you look at the total cost of ownership of government furnished cellphones and how much we pay for data services from the telecom providers, theres an opportunity to reduce those costs by switching to BYOD.

How much potential savings from dropping GFEs/data could be realized is one of a number of issues relating to BYOD over which there has been some confusion. Chief among these has been what kind of work it will enable users to do.

Lieutenant General John B. Morrison, the Armys Deputy Chief of Staff for Command, Control, Communications, Cyber Operations and Networks (G-6), emphasizes that BYOD is largely for administrative work. Technically, it is cleared to carry up to Impact Level 5 (IL 5) information including unclassified and controlled unclassified information the Army says. It is not for use for classified work, communications or data sharing.

Moreover, the Army BYOD Pilot is limited to the strategic administrative level, typically for in-garrison users within the U.S. However, the G-6 is working through use cases outside the continental U.S. LTG Morrison says so personnel in Europe, Africa or South Korea may theoretically be using their own devices through BYOD one day.

Deputy Chief of Staff, G-6 Lt. Gen. John B. Morrison, Jr. emphasizes that the Army's BYOD Pilot is ... [+] evolving and will go forward based on its productivity, security and a cost-driven business case.

While General Morrison says there has been no discussion of using the Bring Your Own Device approach in tactical scenarios at this time, he does not rule out the possibility. That would surely raise additional security concerns and Morrison adds, Were very mindful of the capability some of our adversaries have to use cellphones to do direction-finding and identification.

But for now, BYOD is a tool that replaces the GFEs mostly carried by those at the Army leadership level Morrison says. That includes a fair number of people. Phase III of the pilot will extend to 20,000 users.

Dr. Iyer says it can fully scale to over 20,000 users including National Guardsmen and Reservists whom the Army has also included in the Pilot. If, as LTG Morrison says, the Army will use Phase III to look at other use cases BYOD may have to expand beyond the above number.

The user population brings the BYOD proposition back to cost. If the Army can eliminate the need to provide 20,000 devices, it could probably save come coin. But this proposition has some wrinkles.

For one, both Gen. Morrison and Dr. Iyer stress that the Pilot (and ultimately a program) are strictly voluntary. However if the user base is smaller than anticipated, the cost of acquiring the commercial license for the BYOD app and maintaining its link to the Army cloud may outweigh the savings from handing out fewer phones.

The participation of Guardsmen (both Army and Air Force) and Reservists introduces another nuance to the cost equation. In addition to LTG Morrison and Dr. Iyer, I spoke with Kenneth C. McNeill, CIO at the National Guard Bureau who affirmed that Phase II BYOD testing with Guard Soldiers and Airmen went quite well.

He points out that only a relative handful of Guardsmen (and Reservists) actually have GFEs. To communicate and conduct official business, they have to go to an Armory or other post. When they respond to hurricanes, floods or [provide] whatever support theyre asked to, McNeill said, this will give them the capability to stay connected, pre and post mobilizing.

But since Guardsmen and Reservists who volunteer to use their own phones currently have no GFEs, their participation effectively represents no saving. The convenience may be welcome but Morrison acknowledges, We will do due diligence on whether it fiscally makes sense to move this forward.

Some in the cybersecurity community have already been asking whether moving forward with BYOD makes sense. While Army BYOD is not a classified system, penetrating it would still yield potential insights for U.S. adversaries like China which has derived real benefit over the last three decades from open-source intel, let-alone controlled information.

The Army is cognizant of this and with security foremost in mind, it has given BYOD a Halo.

A Security Halo

The key to BYOD is the ability to securely connect users personal devices to the Armys enterprise cloud environment. Known as cArmy, the services cloud currently offers shared services in the Amazon AMZN Web Services (AWS) and Microsoft Azure clouds at IL 2, 4 and 5.

To enable BYOD the Army turned to Hypori, a Virginia-based SaaS firm which has developed Halo cloud-access software. Halo renders applications and data that reside inside the cArmy cloud on a users device as pixels.

These virtual images allow users to interact and work within cArmy, without any actual transfer of data. Raj Iyer describes Halo-enabled phones as dumb display units which show representations of email, scheduling, spreadsheets or other applications hosted by cArmy. None of it resides on the users device.

This approach largely shifts security from the device to the cloud itself. It allows the service to focus its efforts on defending a single point - cArmy - rather than a collection of phones or laptops. The Army controls access to the cloud (right down to physical access to its servers) and constantly monitors the environment.

Hypori's Halo cloud software connects mobile devices to applications in the cloud via a pixel ... [+] presentation. No data is actually transferred to or from the edge device.

If an anomaly pops up inside cArmy, the Armys Enterprise Cloud Management Agency tells me that it is confident it can rapidly detect and identify an intrusion and defend the BYOD environment. Halo-enabled BYOD has been repeatedly red-teamed Iyer says, passing these evaluations with flying colors and outperforming the solutions the Navy and Air Force have chosen.

Despite their high level of confidence in Halo, both Iyer and General Morrison acknowledge that one can never-say-never in cybersecurity matters. The same centralization in the cloud allows U.S. adversaries to focus their own resources on a single target - cArmy.

While no data rests on the device, the vulnerabilities that always exist at the intersection between hardware, software and the internet remain as does the threat of what the Army cannot control. That stretches from the industrial architecture underpinning the cloud and cloud vendors (Amazon, Microsoft) to the risk of insider exploits.

One of the most notable cloud breaches was publicly acknowledged last May when news broke that in 2019 a former AWS employee exploited her knowledge of cloud server vulnerabilities at Capital One COF and more than 30 other companies to steal the personal information of over 100 million people, including names, dates-of-birth, and social security numbers. The possibility of such an insider breach of BYOD or other cloud systems rings as real to the Army as the name, Bradley Manning.

Even though the Army BYOD is currently intended for non-classified work, LTG Morrison stresses that, Weve baked cybersecurity in early and often and well do it again if we go live and do continual assessments to ensure that we adequately secure the capability were providing.

What was interesting to us about Halo was that we could implement it on devices that were unmanaged, Dr. Iyer says.

Other BYOD solutions come with a Mobile Device Management (MDM) approach which requires the environment (cloud) owner to take control of the device, typically to ensure security and compliance issues. For users, MDM raises privacy concerns which might prove a significant obstacle to adoption. But there is no MDM with Halo. The Army does not control the users device and cannot see beyond its own cloud boundary.

Before BYOD, one of the things we consistently heard from our users was that they didnt want their cellphones to be monitored or wiped if there was any potential [data] spillage, Iyer acknowledges.

The Army G-6 is confident enough in the privacy and security of Halo that I was told that there would be no obstacle to users having it on their phones - right next to Tinder, Reddit, or even TikTok.

Convenience or Burden?

As noted, adoption will be key to BYOD. General Morrison notes that the cost savings it may help the Army realize are up there in terms of importance with the productivity gains and security expected with BYOD. Its success in delivering on this trio of elements will determine a path beyond the current Pilot.

We will do due diligence on whether it fiscally makes sense to move this forward, Morrison affirms.

Users may ultimately have to weigh the convenience of using their own devices for official business with the cost. Some observers have already questioned whether BYOD simply shifts the burden of ownership of appropriate devices with sufficient data plans, identity security, and personal accountability from the government to the individual.

Having the right phone may or may not be a hurdle. In fact, my discussions with the G-6, General Morrison, Dr. Iyer and Hypori illustrated some cloudiness on the issue.

According to the G-6 there will be a list of approved devices which would not include phones no longer supported by their original equipment manufacturers like older Android and Apple versions. An iPhone 6, for example, wouldnt be acceptable. (Nor presumably, would a Huawei phone.) A signed user agreement for BYOD would also require that device owners maintain the latest security updates to remain eligible to work via the app.

However, Raj Iyer differed with the strict notion of approved devices, telling me that a user could bring just about anything to BYOD. Because it is an unmanaged solution, there are no specific requirements for what cellphone you bring. God forbid if you have a BlackBerry somewhere, that might work too.

I was later told Dr. Iyer was joking about the BlackBerry but the impression is that almost anything goes. To be sure I checked with Hypori CEO, Jared Shepard.

Shepard re-emphasized that Hypori Halo is a zero-trust platform which assumes that all edge devices are compromised. By design, it does not allow interaction of data from the protected environment with the device.

But he added, As a Security best practice we recommend that only devices that are still supported [updated and patched] by the manufacturers be allowed. This allows a tremendous amount of flexibility for devices new and old [many 4-6yrs old or more]. Currently iPhone 6 and 7 are still supported by Apple.

We will learn how this capability reacts to different kinds of phones that are out there, Morrison concludes.

As with other aspects of BYOD, the Army will have to have consistent messaging on its user requirements. These include identity. According to Iyer, BYOD employs multi-factor authentication (MFA, passwords augmented by scanning a fingerprint or entering a code received by phone for example).

However, the user identification system employed may also limit devices that can be used with BYOD. For example, Cisco Systems Duo MFA device requirements include a Secure Startup mode and a Cisco-approved operating system (Android 7 or higher) among other things.

Dr. Iyer points out that the Armys enterprise IT management system not only identifies but tracks BYOD phone locations. If a phone operating in Washington DC pops up three hours later in China, somethings obviously wrong. Devices will generally have to indicate active use inside the U.S. While the Army wont have access to personal data, dropping a GFE device wont allow users to go un-tracked.

Iyer says he has seen tremendous excitement about BYOD on social media, suggesting a population eager to embrace the scheme. But given its rollout largely to a group of more senior Army and civilian users, there may be less enthusiasm for yoking ones personal device (and consumer data plan) to BYOD than for a broader cross-section of the Army.

Indeed, one senior Army National Guard officer with a background in cybersecurity told me that while he thinks BYOD may be a useful convenience in the future, hed likely stick with his GFE. Since BYOD is strictly voluntary, potentially eligible users could elect to stay with their government furnished phones prompting a question as to whether personnel who decline to participate might worry about the career implications of taking a pass on BYOD.

This is not going to be viewed favorably or unfavorably, Dr. Iyer assures. I believe that the majority of our users will want it.

Kenneth McNeill thinks people will eventually get comfortable with the idea and says theres already a sizeable group of Guardsmen and Reservists volunteering. General Morrison characterizes early adopters as BYOD champions, people who are helping craft the tactics, techniques and procedures for its use. As Phase III progresses the Army will evaluate its expanded mix of users, continually reassessing the Pilot and iterating the app. How BYOD will ultimately take shape isnt known yet Morrison acknowledges.

Were being very pragmatic, he stresses. That includes putting BYOD through several legal reviews. Army personnel and DoD civilians will have the last word, ultimately making it clear to the service whether theyre comfortable enough with the privacy, security, cost and convenience of personal devices as a gateway to the Army cloud to bring their own.

Go here to read the rest:
A Plan to Let Soldiers Interact with the Army Cloud Using Their Own Devices Got a Bit Clouded - Forbes

Jarren Duran moved to right field with Jackie Bradley Jr. in center as Boston Red Sox look to avoid sweep Thu – MassLive.com

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. -- For the first time since June 4, Jarren Duran is playing in right field for the Red Sox on Thursday night.

Boston moved Duran to right and put Jackie Bradley Jr. in center for its series finale against the Rays at Tropicana Field. All season, it has been Duran in center with Bradley manning right field. But with an eye on defense, manager Alex Cora decided to make the switch as the Red Sox look to avoid being swept in a four-game series.

I think here, its very spacious and Jackies one of the best defenders in the big leagues, Cora said. He showed it yesterday. Put the kid (Duran) in right field. He should be good. One thing about him, he has been really good to his right so far since he got called up. Im not saying hes struggled to his left but he has been better to his right.

Cora said the Red Sox would do the same thing in New York, where theyll start a three-game series Friday night. Bradley is a far superior defender to Duran, who has mostly played in center throughout his minor league career.

Jeter Downs is back at second base in place of Trevor Story, who is out for the second straight night with a right hand contusion. Downs is batting ninth behind Bradley. Kevin Plawecki is catching righty Kutter Crawford and Franchy Cordero is at first base.

First pitch is scheduled for 7:10 p.m. ET.

FIRST PITCH: 7:10 p.m. ET

TV CHANNEL: NESN, MLB Network

LIVE STREAM: fuboTV - If you have cable and live in the New England TV market, you can use your login credentials to watch via NESN on mobile and WiFi-enabled devices. If you dont have cable, you can watch the game via fuboTV, in New England | Watch NESN Live

RADIO: WEEI 93.7 FM

PITCHING PROBABLES: RHP Kutter Crawford (2-2, 4.50 ERA) vs. RHP Drew Rasmussen (5-3, 3.11 ERA)

RED SOX LINEUP:

1. RF Jarren Duran

2. 3B Rafael Devers

3. DH J.D. Martinez

4. SS Xander Bogaerts

5. LF Alex Verdugo

6. 1B Franchy Cordero

7. C Kevin Plawecki

8. CF Jackie Bradley Jr.

9. 2B Jeter Downs

RAYS LINEUP:

1. 3B Yandy Daz

2. 1B Ji-Man Choi

3. DH Harold Ramrez

4. 2B Jonathan Aranda

5. C Christian Bethancourt

6. RF Josh Lowe

7. SS Taylor Walls

8. LF Luke Raley

9. CF Brett Phillips

Related links:

David Ortiz urges Red Sox to sign Rafael Devers, Xander Bogaerts: they represent Boston better than anyone else, we have to lock them in

Boston Red Sox promote former first-round pick Jay Groome to Triple-A Worcester

Could Boston Red Sox trade a lefty reliever? Examining the case to deal Austin Davis or Josh Taylor before Aug. 2 deadline

Here is the original post:
Jarren Duran moved to right field with Jackie Bradley Jr. in center as Boston Red Sox look to avoid sweep Thu - MassLive.com

Explained: Julian Assange extradition order and charges against the Wikileaks founder – The Indian Express

A London court on Wednesday ordered the extradition of the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to the United States, the latest but not the last step in a long-running battle in British courtrooms. The order to extradite Assange, who is being sought by the US in connection with charges under the Espionage Act, must be signed by the British home secretary, Priti Patel. Assange has four weeks to appeal to her directly, and he also has the right to take his case to the English High Court after she issues her decision.

We take a look back at what the case is against the WikiLeaks founder and why has the trial dragged on for so long.

Why is Assange wanted in the US?

On April 5, 2010, a 39-minute video was released by a website called wikileaks.org that showed gun-sight footage of two US AH-64 Apache helicopters in action during the Iraqi insurgency against the US occupation in 2007. The video showed the helicopter crew firing indiscriminately and killing civilians and two Reuters war correspondents. For nearly three years, Reuters had sought access to this video that would have shed light on the killing of its correspondents, via the US Freedom of Information Act but had failed.

Assange has been wanted by the US since 2010 when WikiLeaks released nearly 4,00,000 documents called the Iraq War Logs from the US Department of Defense databases by the intelligence analyst Bradley Manning (who later referred to herself as Chelsea), who acted as a whistle-blower. Manning had copied these files into a CD-ROM and uploaded them onto a WikiLeaks dropbox.

WikiLeaks promptly released the war logs that were published by a host of media organisations and exposed human rights abuses by occupation forces besides the increased fatality counts in Iraq. Later, WikiLeaks also published then presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clintons aide John Podestas emails before the 2016 presidential elections. While the WikiLeaks portal was maintained and sustained by hundreds of volunteers, the site was represented publicly by its founder and director Julian Assange. In December 2018, the website also published a searchable database of more than 16,000 procurement requests that were made by US embassies around the world.

The WikiLeaks model using cryptographic tools to protect sources and allowing for anonymous leaks of sensitive information (that could also be in public interest) to be published suddenly brought forth a new model of extensive investigative journalism into areas that were relatively kept in the dark from the public eye.

What were the charges brought against him?

The Barack Obama administration started investigation of the Manning leaks, and Manning was convicted by court martial in July 2013 for violating the Espionage Act and underwent rigorous imprisonment before her sentence was commuted in January 2017. However, the administration had decided that it would not pursue criminal charges against Assange and WikiLeaks.

Things changed under former President Donald Trump as he charged Assange of collaborating in a conspiracy with Manning to crack the password of a Defence Department network to publish classified documents and communications on WikiLeaks in a sealed indictment in April 2017. These charges were unsealed in 2019.

Later, the Trump administration further charged Assange with violating the Espionage Act of 1917 and he was indicted on 17 new charges related to the Act at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. These charges carry a maximum sentence of 170 years in prison.

The trial in the UK

Assange waged a prolonged legal battle against his extradition following his arrest in London in 2019, after he spent seven years holed up inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in an effort to avoid detention. After then Ecuador President Lenin Moreno revoked his asylum and his citizenship on April 11, 2019, following Assanges disputes with Ecuador authorities, he underwent imprisonment for 50 weeks for bail violations during his refuge at the Ecuador Embassy in London.

A district judge, Vanessa Baraitser, ruled in January 2021 that he could not be extradited to the US because of concerns about his mental health and the possibility of suicide in a US prison with stringent incarceration conditions. However, bail was denied to Assange as he was assessed as a flight risk and US prosecutors were allowed an appeal which they filed on January 15, 2021.

On December 10, 2021, the High Court ruled in favour of the US following the Joe Biden administrations assurances on the terms of Assanges possible incarceration that it would not hold him at the highest security prison facility and that if he were convicted, he could serve his sentence in his native Australia if he requested it.

Assange appealed against the verdict in the British Supreme Court, but on March 14, the Court refused permission to appeal. Finally, a London court this week ordered the extradition.

Newsletter | Click to get the days best explainers in your inbox

See more here:
Explained: Julian Assange extradition order and charges against the Wikileaks founder - The Indian Express

Culture of impunity – The News International

Many rights activists might have been confused by an unashamed justification offered by the US ruling elite for a March 2019 American air strike on Syrians that killed around 80 people, mostly women and children. But for those sitting in the power corridors of Washington, it is business as usual.

The lethal March 18 strike, targeting the town of Baghuz on the Euphrates River, had triggered calls for an inquiry into the matter. The area which was targeted by the strike forms the Syrian-Iraq border, where members of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), with US air support, were besieging the last few IS fighters in the war-torn Arab republic which was under the decades-long rule of the al-Assad family.

Justifying the action, the US Central Command argued that because some women and children had taken up arms for IS, whether through indoctrination or choice, they could not strictly be classified as civilians. It claimed the context for the airstrikes was a desperate last stand by IS. The Isis pocket included thousands of fighters and family members including women and children, said Captain Bill Urban, the Central Command spokesman.

The remaining fighters including some women and child combatants, along with many Isis family members, including some who were likely held against their will, decided to make a determined stand in an area that included buildings, tunnels and cliffs. Multiple entreaties to Isis to allow family members to depart the area were rebuffed, and thousands of family members remained in the area of the fighting.

Recalling the incident, Urban claimed that on the morning of March 18, IS fighters launched a counterattack on SDF positions that lasted several hours, during which an SDF position was in danger of being overrun, and US special forces called in an airstrike. He said that they were unaware that a drone with a high-definition video footage was in the area and relied on a standard definition feed from another drone.

According to the Central Command account, the drones over Baghuz had used all their Hellfire missiles, so the air support available came from F-15s, which dropped three bombs. The bombs killed at least 16 IS fighters, according to the US military assessment. It also confirmed four civilian deaths.

These claims of the US military officials fly in the face of the allegations levelled by some current and former Pentagon officials who believe there had been a cover-up of a likely war crime. They were not the only one to cast doubt over the way the strike was carried out, but according to Western media reports, the Air Force lawyer, Lt Col Dean Korsak, had also taken up the matter with the Pentagon inspector general, but the subsequent report made no mention of the strike. This forced Korsak to send details of the incident to the US Senate Armed Services Committee. It seems that Korsak was apprehensive about a possible retaliation from military officials for sending this to the committee. He expressed this fear in his correspondence with the committee.

According to the emails obtained by the New York Times, Korsak wrote, Im putting myself at great risk of military retaliation for sending this. The lawyer reportedly accused senior ranking US military officials of intentionally and systematically circumventing the deliberate strike process. Gene Tate, a civilian analyst in the inspector generals office, who complained about the lack of action, was forced out of his job.

It is quite unfortunate that anyone who tries to expose the wrongdoing of the military industrial complex and warmongers is either sent packing or punished to teach lessons to others. Bradley Manning was punished for speaking truth to power. Edward Snowden had to flee the most democratic country of the world after revealing the machinations of the US ruling elite while Julian Assange is suffering from inhumane treatment for challenging the mighty American political leadership and US allies.

While conscientious US citizens and dissenting voices in other parts of the Western capitalist world suffer the consequences of daring to challenge the mighty rulers of the modern world, war criminals like Henry Kissinger, George W Bush, Tony Blair and their acolytes strut around the world lecturing people on peace. Kissinger was responsible for military coups in a number of developing countries, which stoked chaos and unrest, leading to brutal killings of thousands of people.

Tony Blair concocted lies about the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and still unashamedly justifies his immoral stance on the invasion of the Arab country by the US. Bushs assertions regarding Iraq also turned out to be apocryphal, but he still has the moral audacity to lecture states about the importance of morality in international affairs.

Even before the 2004 Iraq invasion, the worst war crimes were committed against the people of Iraq. More than 500,000 children died because of the inhumane sanctions imposed on the country at the behest of the US and other Western powers. The sanctions forced a few conscientious Americans and UN officials to voice concern over the plight of Iraqi people, but the civilised Western democratic world remained unmoved. Former US secretary state Madeleine Albright unabashedly justified these killings of Iraqi children. The US invasion added to the countrys woes, plunging the country into a sectarian frenzy.

The aggression and ensuing civil war claimed more than 2.5 Iraqi lives besides destroying its infrastructure, causing its plundering by Washington and its allies, and tearing down its social fabric. Since those who played havoc with the lives of Iraqis remained unaccounted for, they were encouraged to sow chaos in Syria, Libya and other parts of the world as well.

Iraq was not the first country to be invaded and destroyed on a false claim, but many in the past were also devastated on the basis of deception and fabrication. Lies were invented or some small incidents were blown out of proportion to achieve ulterior motives and obnoxious goals. For instance, the threat of Vietcong was exaggerated to justify an invasion of one of the worlds poorest countries, in the 1960s.

The offer of Vietnamese communist groups to hold polls in the north was rejected. The country was ruthlessly bombed, killing more than three million people. Laos and Cambodia were not spared either. The three conflicts are estimated to have caused more than five million deaths; millions others were maimed or wounded. No one was held accountable for such crimes.

This lack of accountability is to be blamed on the sense of impunity that the American ruling class has been enjoying for decades. It is this sense which prevents Washington from accepting the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC), prompting it to threaten the court and declaring the UN irrelevant if the global body dares to deviate from the line drawn by the mighty state of America. This strange belief in American exceptionalism prompts the US to raise a hue and cry over war crimes in several parts of the world but prevents it from sending its own soldiers to places where they can be prosecuted.

Some critics believe if an impartial inquiry is conducted into all the conflicts that occurred during the last three hundred years, a number of American presidents and senior officials would be in the dock, answering for the wrongdoing that they committed while in power. Applying the principles of war crimes and strengthening the ICC could be one of the ways to end this culture of impunity that seems to have penetrated in all sections of American life.

The writer is a freelance journalist.

Email: egalitarianism444@ gmail.com

Original post:
Culture of impunity - The News International

Punishing the conscientious – The News International

In this world of narrow nationalism and blind patriotism, it is difficult to follow the dictates of ones conscience. Most people are influenced by state propaganda and the rhetoric of their leaders, failing to realize that states are created by human beings that can commit mistakes, sometimes even grave blunders, plunging humanity into an abyss of barbarism.

Veneration of national political entities and obeisance to populist demagogues pushed the world towards the verge of destruction several times in the past 100 years. The fanatical personality cult of the 1930s and 1940s turned Germans and Italians into mobs of hero worshippers while chauvinism blinded the Japanese and other modern nations that pushed the world towards a terrible conflagration during the two world wars.

The English, French, American and other nations were not immune to this collective insanity that had swept through Europe and several other parts of the globe. The consequences were catastrophic: more than 10 million perished during the first mass slaughter also known as World War I; the second mass bloodshed claimed around 70 million lives.

Amidst this hysteria of nationalism, few individuals dared to challenge the myopic view of their people, questioning the rationale of waging an insane war that had the potential of wiping out the entire humanity. Bertrand Russell, Jean Paul Sartre and a number of other conscientious individuals did not succumb to the frenzy of chauvinism, refusing to justify the annihilation of cities, blitzkrieg of towns and devastation of villages in the name of protecting petty national interests. Those who could not take to streets against the horror of wars, penned heart-wrenching accounts of atrocities committed by all sides during the battles or depicted the inhumanity of humans through their art, drama and poetry.

It was the valour of these noble personalities that established the basis of the anti-war movement in modern times. Their spirit of resistance inspired successive generations in the West who staged massive demonstrations against the Vietnam War, besides speaking against the possible horrors of any nuclear wars, prompting people to mobilise themselves against the plans of the Western ruling elite to annihilate the world in a war of total destruction. It was this awareness that prompted the Russian leadership to back out amidst the tensions that arose from the Cuban Missile Crisis, reminding Washington as well that people would not support any militaristic adventure that could jeopardise their very existence. This defiance by people also deterred the two global powers in the decade of the 1980s from plunging the world into a nuclear holocaust.

The spirit of anti-war sentiment did not fade away with the demise of the Soviet Union. In fact, it got momentum during the first Gulf war and the bombardment of Yugoslavia. The illegal invasion of the US against Iraq also prompted millions of people who vehemently opposed the US aggression, reminding the sole superpower that opposition to war-mongering still matters.

Although such movements could not prevent the invasions, they created a strong revulsion against military adventures in different strata of Western society. Perhaps it was this abomination and horrors of atrocities committed during the conflict that encouraged people like Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and many others to expose obnoxious plans of American ruling elites of imposing wars and conflicts on the world. Journalists like Julian Assange helped the gullible American people see the real face of their civilized leaders who not only destroy state after state under false excuses but also order civilian killings in the name of protecting national interests and the countrys security. It seems that the Western ruling elite considers such individuals a great threat, forcing Snowden to flee the country, imprisoning Assange and teaching a tough lesson to Manning.

Recently another conscientious American has been punished for venting his anger against the killing of innocent civilians in Afghanistan. Daniel Hale Nashville, a former air force intelligence analyst, was handed down a 45-month imprisonment on Tuesday for leaking top secret information about the US governments drone strike programme to a journalist.

It seems that Nashville refused to buy the argument of his ruling elite which asserts that drone strikes were meant to only target terrorists. He told the court that he was motivated by guilt and a desire for transparency when he disclosed to an investigative reporter details of a military drone programme that he believed was indiscriminately killing civilians in Afghanistan far from the battlefield.

His statement in court should be incorporated into the syllabus of schools not only in the West but across the world because it reflects the desire of an altruistic person to prevent killings in general and that of innocent civilians in particular. According to Western media, he said, I believe that it is wrong to kill, but it is especially wrong to kill the defenceless. He claimed that he had shared what in his view was necessary to dispel the lie that drone warfare keeps us safe, that our lives are worth more than theirs.

Charges against the air force officer had been brought by the administration of Donald Trump, an erratic chief executive of the US who also dropped the mother of all bombs on one of the poorest countries of the world where Nashville was posted in August 2012, witnessing the horrors of the conflict himself. Disregarding Nashvilles conscience, the judge blinded by dictates of national interests sent the air force officer behind bars, saying that it would deter others.

The drone strikes had been ordered by the sagacious Barack Obama, the first black chief executive in the US whose victory had triggered euphoria among many doves who had hoped that the US would be dictated by the norms of international law and not the whims of any powerful incumbent of the Oval Office but such hopes were dashed to dust when the Obama administration ordered one of the largest drone operations in recent US history. Instead of the former chief executive being summoned for ordering such killings, a conscientious officer has been punished for speaking truth to power.

Such punishment is a blot on the American judicial system. It will create an impression that the lives of Americans are more important than those of others. How can revelations of such illegal activities harm America's national interests? How can they undermine American security? Which terrorist used this information to harm Americans? His revelations only belied the tall claims of the American administrations that drone strikes were precise. Is it not a fact that it targeted hundreds or possibly thousands of innocent civilians in countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and others? Is it not true that such strikes carry no legal weight and are illegal under international laws?

It is very unfortunate that the corporate media is busy fawning over billionaires for shooting into space, while ignoring their real job which is to search for the truth. They however prefer to highlight celebrity gossip and futile errands of the super rich instead of at least following up on such revelations. The world has witnessed more than 240 conflicts since 1945. Washington has been involved in most of these conflicts on one or another pretext, which turned out to be completely concocted.

If the world is to avoid more deaths and destruction, we need conscientious people like Nashville not only in the streets of the mighty state but in all parts of the Western world. Punishing the conscientious is shameful. It is rather the war-mongers who caused the destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and other states that should be behind bars.

The writer is a freelance journalist.

Email: [emailprotected]

Read the rest here:
Punishing the conscientious - The News International