Chelsea Manning’s mother, 65, drowned in bath while heavily intoxicated with alcohol, inquest hears – MEAWW

Wikileaks whistleblower Chelsea Manning's mother reportedly drowned in her bathtub after drinking alcohol. 65-year-old Susan Manning was found dead at her Pembrokeshire, Wales residence in January, where she was submerged in the water while "heavily intoxicated," The Sun reported.

Chelsea (previously Bradley Manning) missed her mother's funeral as she was being held in a US detention center at the time, according to the report. The 33-year-old former Army intelligence analyst was behind bars for contempt between March 2019 and March 2020, after she refused to testify before a grand jury that was probing Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.

Susan reportedly returned to Wales after her marriage with US soldier Brian Manning broke down. In 2007, she suffered a stroke -- leaving her unable to travel to see her two children in the US. Susan was "sociable and well-liked by friends" but led a solitary life and "was drinking alcohol to an unknown excess," the inquest heard. Sharon Staples, her sister, spoke to her over the phone on January 9 this year. She could tell she was inebriated, which she said was "not unusual," but tried to convince her not to have a bath. The next day, however, no one could make contact with her. When Susan's brother-in-law Joe Staples went to the house with a key, he could not get in -- prompting him to alert the authorities. Responding officers discovered her lifeless body at the residence.

According to a toxicology report, Susan had 330mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood. For reference, the driving limit in the US and UK is 80mg. Coroner Paul Bennett told the inquest in Haverfordwest that alcohol had made a "significant contribution to her death" and ruled her demise accidental, noting thatshe "drowned in the bath while heavily intoxicated".

Susan's daughter Chelsea shot to prominence after she leaked a huge cache of top-secret US government cables to WikiLeaks and was jailed between 2010 and 2017. Manning first reached out to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in January 2010, per the report, but they never met in person.

The whistleblower went on to leak more than 750,000 classified documents related to questionable actions taken during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The bombshell trove constituted 251,287 diplomatic cables from foreign embassies and 482,232 Army reports.

Manning's court-martial began in 2013, and she was thrown behind bars after being found guilty on 20 counts. While these included violations of the Espionage Act, the whistleblower was acquitted of aiding the enemy -- a charge which carries the death penalty. However, Manning was sentenced in military court to 35 years in prison at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas

While she was known as Private Bradley Manning at the time of her arrest, she came out as transgender in 2013. Her sentence was commuted in January 2017 by former President Barack Obama. However, President Donald J. Trump, who was President-Elect at the time, said Manning should never have been released from prison and called her a "traitor".

In early 2019, she was back behind bars serving an indefinite sentence after she refused to testify to a grand jury. However, she was released earlier this year.

The Press Association asked Manning whether she regretted her decision to leak the classified cables, to which she replied: "I did what I did because of what I had available to me. In that timeframe, what I knew and what I understood, and the background that I had and who I am, the values set that I have, and also the short time that I had to make decisions. The way I see it, is I don't go back in time...what I really try to tell people is that if I had done anything differently it would have been a completely different person."

View post:
Chelsea Manning's mother, 65, drowned in bath while heavily intoxicated with alcohol, inquest hears - MEAWW

University of Iowa Health Care reduces hospitalizations through ‘virtual hospital’ model – kwwl.com

IOWA CITY, Iowa University of Iowa Health Care has been able to reduce hospitalizations and maintain bed capacity through a virtual hospital model. It is a tool used by its Home Treatment Team.

The hospital said if a patient walks into the hospital with mild COVID-19 symptoms, the staff will give the patient an oximeter, take their information and then send them home.From there, the hospital will monitor a patients symptoms by calling the patient every day.

There is a group of patients who have gotten sicker at home, saidDr. Bradley Manning, a University of Iowa hospitalist physician. We were able to identify that, bring them into the hospital and deliver hospital care for them early so that they didnt get sicker.

Recently, the state has experienced a slight decrease in hospitalizations over the last few days, but Dr. Manning is not attributing the slight decrease to virtual care.

I think part of the reason the hospitalizations are declining is just because the infection rate is declining, and people are doing what they need to do to stay safe, said Dr. Manning.But it doesnt hurt that some of the health care systems have adopted this model to keep more patients at home.

So far, the hospital has treated 1,000 patients virtually. According to Dr. Manning, a few smaller hospitals in the state are using the virtual hospital method to treat COVID-19 patients.

Link:
University of Iowa Health Care reduces hospitalizations through 'virtual hospital' model - kwwl.com

Forgotten lessons on the evil of intervention – newagebd.net

With her brother on her back a war-weary Korean girl passes a stalled M-26 tank in Haengju, Korea on June 9, 1951. Consortium News/US army/Major RV Spencer

The secrecy and deceit surrounding US war crimes has had catastrophic consequences in this century, writes James Bovard

THIS year is the 70th anniversary of the start of the Korean War, a conflict from which Washington policymakers learned nothing. Almost 40,000 American soldiers died in that conflict, which should have permanently vaccinated the nation against the folly and evil of foreign intervention. Instead, the war was retroactively redefined. As president Barack Obama declared in 2013, That war was no tie. Korea was a victory.

When politicians or generals appear itching to pull the United States into another foreign war, remember that truth is routinely the first casualty.

The war began with what president Harry Truman claimed was a surprise invasion on June 25, 1950, by the North Korean army across the dividing line with South Korea that was devised after World War II. But the US government had ample warnings of the pending invasion. According to the late Justin Raimondo, founder of antiwar.com, the conflict actually started with a series of attacks by South Korean forces, aided by the US military:

From 19451948, American forces aided [South Korean president Syngman] Rhee in a killing spree that claimed tens of thousands of victims: the counterinsurgency campaign took a high toll in Kwangju, and on the island of Cheju-do where as many as 60,000 people were murdered by Rhees US-backed forces.

The North Korean army quickly routed both South Korean and US forces. A complete debacle was averted after general Douglas MacArthur masterminded a landing of US troops at Inchon. After he routed the North Korean forces, MacArthur was determined to continue pushing northward regardless of the danger of provoking a much broader war.

By the time the US forces drove the North Korean army back across the border between the two Koreas, roughly 5,000 American troops had been killed. The Pentagon had plenty of warning that the Chinese would intervene if the US army pushed too close to the Chinese border. But the euphoria that erupted after Inchon blew away all common sense and drowned out the military voices who warned of a catastrophe. One US army colonel responded to a briefing on the Korea situation in Tokyo in 1950 by storming out and declaring, Theyre living in a goddamn dream land.

The Chinese military attack resulted in the longest retreat in the history of the USs armed forces a debacle that was valourised by allusion in the 1986 Clint Eastwood movie, Heartbreak Ridge. By 1951, the Korean War had become intensely unpopular in the United States more unpopular than the Vietnam War ever was. At least the war, which president Harry Truman insisted on mislabelling as a police action, destroyed the presidency of the man who launched it. By the time a ceasefire was signed in mid-1953, almost 40,000 Americans had been killed in a conflict that ended with borders similar to those at the start of the war.

Disasters

PERHAPS the biggest disaster of the Korean War was that intellectuals and foreign-policy experts succeeded in redefining the Korean conflict as an American victory. As Georgetown University professor Derek Leebaert noted in his book Magic and Mayhem, What had been regarded as a bloody stalemate transformed itself in Washingtons eyes; ten years later it had become an example of a successful limited war. Already by the mid-1950s, elite opinion began to surmise that it had been a victory. Leebaert explained, Images of victory in Korea shaped the decision to escalate in 19641965 helping to explain why America pursued a war of attrition.

Even worse, the notion that America has never lost a war remained part of the national myth, and the notion of having prevailed in Korea became a justification for going big in Vietnam. But as Leebaert noted, in Vietnam, [the US army] had forgotten everything it had learned about counterinsurgency in Korea as well.

When the American media noted the 70th anniversary of the start of the war this past June, they paid little or no attention to the wars dark side. The media ignored perhaps the wars most important lesson: the US government has almost unlimited sway to hide its own war crimes.

During the Korean War, Americans were deluged with official pronouncements that the US military was taking all possible steps to protect innocent civilians. Because the evils of communism were self-evident, few questions arose about how the United States was thwarting Red aggression. When a US Senate subcommittee appointed in 1953 by senator Joseph McCarthy investigated Korean War atrocities, the committee explicitly declared that war crimes were defined as those acts committed by enemy nations.

In 1999, 46 years after the cease fire in Korea, the Associated Press exposed a 1950 massacre of Korean refugees at No Gun Ri. US troops drove Koreans out of their village and forced them to remain on a railroad embankment. Beginning on July 25, 1950, the refugees were strafed by US planes and machine guns over the following three days. Hundreds of people, mostly women and children, were killed. The 1999 AP story was widely denounced by American politicians and some media outlets as a slander on American troops.

The Pentagon promised an exhaustive investigation. In January 2001, the Pentagon released a 300-page report purporting to prove that the No Gun Ri killings were merely an unfortunate tragedy caused by trigger-happy soldiers frightened by approaching refugees.

President Bill Clinton announced his regret that Korean civilians lost their lives at No Gun Ri. In an interview, he was asked why he used regret instead of apology. He declared, I believe that the people who looked into it could not conclude that there was a deliberate act, decided at a high-enough level in the military hierarchy, to acknowledge that, in effect, the government had participated in something that was terrible. Clinton specified that there was no evidence of wrongdoing high-enough in the chain of command in the army to say that, in effect, the government was responsible.

But the atrocities against civilians had been common knowledge among US troops 50 years earlier. As Charles Hanley, Sang-Hun Choe and Martha Mendoza noted in their 2001 book, The Bridge at No Gun Ri, the Pentagon in 1952 withdrew official endorsement from RKOs One Minute to Zero, a Korean War movie in which an army colonel played by actor Robert Mitchum orders artillery fire on a column of refugees. The Pentagon fretted that this sequence could be utilised for anti-American propaganda and banned the film from being shown on US military bases.

In 2005, Sahr Conway-Lanz, a Harvard University doctoral student, discovered a letter in the National Archives from the US ambassador to Korea, John Muccio, sent to assistant secretary of state Dean Rusk on the day the No Gun Ri massacre commenced. Muccio summarised a new policy from a meeting between US military and South Korean officials: If refugees do appear from north of US lines they will receive warning shots, and if they then persist in advancing they will be shot. The new policy was radioed to army units around Korea on the morning the No Gun Ri massacre began. The US military feared that North Korean troops might be hiding amidst the refugees. The Pentagon initially claimed that its investigators never saw Muccios letter but it was in the specific research file used for its report.

Slaughtering civilians

CONWAY-LANZS 2006 book Collateral Damage: Americans, Noncombatant Immunity, and Atrocity after World War II quoted an official US navy history of the first six months of the Korean War stating that the policy of strafing civilians was wholly defensible. An official army history noted, Eventually, it was decided to shoot anyone who moved at night. A report for the aircraft carrier USS Valley Forge justified attacking civilians because the army insisted that groups of more than eight to ten people were to be considered troops, and were to be attacked.

In 2007, the army recited its original denial: No policy purporting to authorise soldiers to shoot refugees was ever promulgated to soldiers in the field. But the Associated Press exposed more dirt from the US archives: More than a dozen documents in which high-ranking US officers tell troops that refugees are fair game, for example, and order them to shoot all refugees coming across river were found by the AP in the investigators own archived files after the 2001 inquiry. None of those documents was disclosed in the armys 300-page public report. A former air force pilot told investigators that his plane and three others strafed refugees at the same time of the No Gun Ri massacre; the official report claimed that all pilots interviewed knew nothing about such orders. Evidence also surfaced of massacres like No Gun Ri. On September 1, 1950, the destroyer USS DeHaven, at the armys insistence, fired on a seaside refugee encampment at Pohang, South Korea. Survivors say 100 to 200 people were killed.

Slaughtering civilians en masse became routine procedure after the Chinese army intervened in the Korean War in late 1950. MacArthur spoke of turning North Korean-held territory into a desert. The US military eventually expanded its definition of a military target to any structure that could shelter enemy troops or supplies. General Curtis LeMay summarised the achievements: We burned down every town in North Korea and some in South Korea, too. A million civilians may have been killed during the war. A South Korean government Truth and Reconciliation Commission uncovered many previously unreported atrocities and concluded that American troops killed groups of South Korean civilians on 138 separate occasions during the Korean War, The New York Times reported.

Truth delayed is truth defused. The Pentagon strategy on Korean War atrocities succeeded because it left facts to the historians, not the policymakers. The truth about No Gun Ri finally slipped out 10 presidencies later. Even more damaging, the rules of engagement for killing Korean civilians were covered up for four more US wars. If US policy for slaying Korean refugees had been exposed during that war, it might have curtailed similar killings in Vietnam (many of which were not revealed until decades after the war).

Former congressman and decorated Korean War veteran Pete McCloskey (R-California) warned, The government will always lie about embarrassing matters.

The same shenanigans permeate other US wars. The secrecy and deceit surrounding US warring has had catastrophic consequences in this century. The Bush administration exploited the 9/11 attacks to justify attacking Iraq in 2003, and it was not until 2016 that the US government revealed documents exposing the Saudi governments role in financing the 9/11 hijackers (15 of 19 were Saudi citizens). The Pentagon covered up the vast majority of US killings of Iraqi civilians until Bradley Manning and WikiLeaks exposed them in 2010. There are very likely reams of evidence of duplicity and intentional slaughter of civilians in US government files on its endlessly confused and contradictory Syrian intervention.

When politicians or generals appear to be itching to pull the United States into another foreign war, remember that truth is routinely the first casualty. It is naive to expect a government that recklessly slays masses of civilians to honestly investigate itself and announce its guilt to the world. Self-government is a mirage if Americans do not receive enough information to judge killings committed in their name.

Consortiumnews.com, November 20. James Bovard, a USA Today columnist, is a policy adviser to the Future of Freedom Foundation.

Here is the original post:
Forgotten lessons on the evil of intervention - newagebd.net

The Korean War’s Forgotten Lessons on the Evil of Intervention – Consortium News

The secrecy and deceit surrounding U.S. war crimes has had catastrophic consequences in this century, writes JamesBovard.

With her brother on her back a war-weary Korean girl passes a stalled M-26 tank in Haengju, Korea, June 9, 1951. (U.S. Army, Maj. R.V. Spencer)

By James BovardJimBovard.com

This year is the 70th anniversary of the start of the Korean War, a conflict from which Washington policymakers learned nothing. Almost 40,000 American soldiers died in that conflict, which should have permanently vaccinated the nation against the folly and evil of foreign intervention. Instead, the war was retroactively redefined. As President Barack Obama declared in 2013, That war was no tie. Korea was a victory.

When politicians or generals appear itching to pull the United States into another foreign war, remember that truth is routinely the first casualty.[Click to Tweet]

The war began with what President Harry Truman claimed was a surprise invasion on June 25, 1950, by the North Korean army across the dividing line with South Korea that was devised after World War II. But the U.S. government had ample warnings of the pending invasion. According to the late Justin Raimondo, founder of antiwar.com, the conflict actually started with a series of attacks by South Korean forces, aided by the U.S. military:

From 1945-1948, American forces aided [South Korean President Syngman] Rhee in a killing spree that claimed tens of thousands of victims: the counterinsurgency campaign took a high toll in Kwangju, and on the island of Cheju-do where as many as 60,000 people were murdered by Rhees US-backed forces.

The North Korean army quickly routed both South Korean and U.S. forces. A complete debacle was averted after Gen. Douglas MacArthur masterminded a landing of U.S. troops at Inchon. After he routed the North Korean forces, MacArthur was determined to continue pushing northward regardless of the danger of provoking a much broader war.

Brigadier General Courtney Whitney (left), General of the Army Douglas MacArthur (seated) and Major General Edward Almond (right) observe the shelling of Inchon from the USS Mount McKinley. (U.S. Army, Nutter, Wikimedia Commons)

By the time the U.S. forces drove the North Korean army back across the border between the two Koreas, roughly 5,000 American troops had been killed. The Pentagon had plenty of warning that the Chinese would intervene if the U.S. Army pushed too close to the Chinese border. But the euphoria that erupted after Inchon blew away all common sense and drowned out the military voices who warned of a catastrophe. One U.S. Army colonel responded to a briefing on the Korea situation in Tokyo in 1950 by storming out and declaring, Theyre living in a goddamn dream land.

The Chinese military attack resulted in the longest retreat in the history of Americas armed forces a debacle that was valorized by allusion in the 1986 Clint Eastwood movie,Heartbreak Ridge.By 1951, the Korean War had become intensely unpopular in the United States more unpopular than the Vietnam War ever was. At least the war, which President Harry Truman insisted on mislabeling as a police action, destroyed the presidency of the man who launched it. By the time a ceasefire was signed in mid 1953, almost 40,000 Americans had been killed in a conflict that ended with borders similar to those at the start of the war.

Disasters

Perhaps the biggest disaster of the Korean war was that intellectuals and foreign-policy experts succeeded in redefining the Korean conflict as an American victory. As Georgetown University professor Derek Leebaert noted in his bookMagic and Mayhem,What had been regarded as a bloody stalemate transformed itself in Washingtons eyes; ten years later it had become an example of a successful limited war. Already by the mid-1950s, elite opinion began to surmise that it had been a victory. Leebaert explained, Images of victory in Korea shaped the decision to escalate in 1964-65 helping to explain why America pursued a war of attrition.

Even worse, the notion that America has never lost a war remained part of the national myth, and the notion of having prevailed in Korea became a justification for going big in Vietnam. But as Leebaert noted, in Vietnam, [the U.S. Army] had forgotten everything it had learned about counterinsurgency in Korea as well.

When the American media noted the 70th anniversary of the start of the war this past June, they paid little or no attention to the wars dark side. The media ignored perhaps the wars most important lesson: the U.S. government has almost unlimited sway to hide its own war crimes.

During the Korean War, Americans were deluged with official pronouncements that the U.S. military was taking all possible steps to protect innocent civilians. Because the evils of communism were self-evident, few questions arose about how the United States was thwarting Red aggression. When a U.S. Senate subcommittee appointed in 1953 by Sen. Joseph McCarthy investigated Korean War atrocities, the committee explicitly declared that war crimes were defined as those acts committed by enemy nations.

In 1999, 46 years after the cease fire in Korea, the Associated Press exposed a 1950 massacre of Korean refugees at No Gun Ri. U.S. troops drove Koreans out of their village and forced them to remain on a railroad embankment. Beginning on July 25, 1950, the refugees were strafed by U.S. planes and machine guns over the following three days. Hundreds of people, mostly women and children, were killed. The 1999 AP story was widely denounced by American politicians and some media outlets as a slander on American troops.

The Pentagon promised an exhaustive investigation. In January 2001, the Pentagon released a 300-page report purporting to prove that the No Gun Ri killings were merely an unfortunate tragedy caused by trigger-happy soldiers frightened by approaching refugees.

President Bill Clinton announced his regret that Korean civilians lost their lives at No Gun Ri. In an interview, he was asked why he used regret instead of apology. He declared, I believe that the people who looked into it could not conclude that there was a deliberate act, decided at a high-enough level in the military hierarchy, to acknowledge that, in effect, the Government had participated in something that was terrible. Clinton specified that there was no evidence of wrongdoing high-enough in the chain of command in the Army to say that, in effect, the Government was responsible.

2008 photo showing concrete abutment outside the No Gun Ri bridge, where investigators white paint identifies bullet marks and embedded fragments from U.S. Army gunfire in the 1950 shooting of South Korean refugees. (Cjthanley, CC BY-SA 3.0, Wikimedia Commons)

But the atrocities against civilians had been common knowledge among U.S. troops 50 years earlier. As Charles Hanley, Sang-Hun Choe and Martha Mendoza noted in their 2001 book, The Bridge at No Gun Ri,the Pentagon in 1952 withdrew official endorsement from RKOsOne Minute to Zero,a Korean War movie in which an Army colonel played by actor Robert Mitchum orders artillery fire on a column of refugees. The Pentagon fretted that this sequence could be utilized for anti-American propaganda and banned the film from being shown on U.S. military bases.

South Koreans fleeing south in mid-1950 after the North Korean army invaded. (U.S. Defense Department, Wikimedia Commons)

In 2005, Sahr Conway-Lanz, a Harvard University doctoral student, discovered a letter in the National Archives from the U.S. ambassador to Korea, John Muccio, sent to Assistant Secretary of State Dean Rusk on the day the No Gun Ri massacre commenced. Muccio summarized a new policy from a meeting between U.S. military and South Korean officials: If refugees do appear from north of U.S. lines they will receive warning shots, and if they then persist in advancing they will be shot. The new policy was radioed to Army units around Korea on the morning the No Gun Ri massacre began. The U.S. military feared that North Korean troops might be hiding amidst the refugees. The Pentagon initially claimed that its investigators never saw Muccios letter but it was in the specific research file used for its report.

Slaughtering Civilians

Unidentified unit of 1st Cavalry Division withdraws southward, July 29, 1950, the day a division battalion pulled back from No Gun Ri after killing large numbers of trapped South Korean refugees there. (U.S. Army, Wikimedia Commons)

Conway-Lanzs 2006 bookCollateral Damage: Americans, Noncombatant Immunity, and Atrocity after World War IIquoted an official U.S. Navy history of the first six months of the Korean War stating that the policy of strafing civilians was wholly defensible. An official Army history noted, Eventually, it was decided to shoot anyone who moved at night. A report for the aircraft carrier USSValley Forgejustified attacking civilians because the Army insisted that groups of more than eight to ten people were to be considered troops, and were to be attacked.

In 2007, the Army recited its original denial: No policy purporting to authorize soldiers to shoot refugees was ever promulgated to soldiers in the field. But the Associated Press exposed more dirt from the U.S. archives: More than a dozen documents in which high-ranking U.S. officers tell troops that refugees are fair game, for example, and order them to shoot all refugees coming across river were found by the AP in the investigators own archived files after the 2001 inquiry. None of those documents was disclosed in the Armys 300-page public report. A former Air Force pilot told investigators that his plane and three others strafed refugees at the same time of the No Gun Ri massacre; the official report claimed that all pilots interviewed knew nothing about such orders. Evidence also surfaced of massacres like No Gun Ri. On Sept. 1, 1950, the destroyer USSDeHaven,at the Armys insistence, fired on a seaside refugee encampment at Pohang, South Korea. Survivors say 100 to 200 people were killed.

In this July 1950 U.S. Army file photograph once classified top secret, South Korean soldiers walk among some of the thousands of South Korean political prisoners shot at Taejon, South Korea, early in the Korean War. (Major Abbott/U.S. Army, Wikimedia Commons)

Slaughtering civilians en masse became routine procedure after the Chinese army intervened in the Korean war in late 1950. MacArthur spoke of turning North Korean-held territory into a desert. The U.S. military eventually expanded its definition of a military target to any structure that could shelter enemy troops or supplies. Gen. Curtis LeMay summarized the achievements: We burned down every town in North Korea and some in South Korea, too. A million civilians may have been killed during the war. A South Korean government Truth and Reconciliation Commission uncovered many previously unreported atrocities and concluded that American troops killed groups of South Korean civilians on 138 separate occasions during the Korean War, TheNew York Timesreported.

Truth delayed is truth defused. The Pentagon strategy on Korean War atrocities succeeded because it left facts to the historians, not the policymakers. The truth about No Gun Ri finally slipped out 10 presidencies later. Even more damaging, the Rules of Engagement for killing Korean civilians were covered up for four more U.S. wars. If U.S. policy for slaying Korean refugees had been exposed during that war, it might have curtailed similar killings in Vietnam (many of which were not revealed until decades after the war).

Former congressman and decorated Korean War veteran Pete McCloskey (R-Calif.) warned, The government will always lie about embarrassing matters.

The same shenanigans permeate other U.S. wars. The secrecy and deceit surrounding U.S. warring has had catastrophic consequences in this century. The Bush administration exploited the 9/11 attacks to justify attacking Iraq in 2003, and it was not until 2016 that the U.S. government revealed documents exposing the Saudi governments role in financing the 9/11 hijackers (15 of 19 whom were Saudi citizens). The Pentagon covered up the vast majority of U.S. killings of Iraqi civilians until Bradley Manning and WikiLeaks exposed them in 2010. There are very likely reams of evidence of duplicity and intentional slaughter of civilians in U.S. government files on its endlessly confused and contradictory Syrian intervention.

When politicians or generals appear itching to pull the United States into another foreign war, remember that truth is routinely the first casualty. It is naive to expect a government that recklessly slays masses of civilians to honestly investigate itself and announce its guilt to the world. Self-government is a mirage if Americans do not receive enough information to judge killings committed in their name.

James Bovard is a policy adviser to The Future of Freedom Foundation. He is aUSA Todaycolumnist and has written forThe New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, New Republic, Readers Digest, Playboy, American Spectator, Investors Business Daily,and many other publications. He is the author ofFreedom Frauds: Hard Lessons in American Liberty(2017, published by FFF);Public Policy Hooligan(2012);Attention Deficit Democracy(2006);The Bush Betrayal(2004);Terrorism and Tyranny(2003);Feeling Your Pain(2000);Freedom in Chains(1999);Shakedown(1995);Lost Rights(1994);The Fair Trade Fraud(1991); andThe Farm Fiasco(1989). He was the 1995 co-recipient of the Thomas Szasz Award for Civil Liberties work, awarded by the Center for Independent Thought, and the recipient of the 1996 Freedom Fund Award from the Firearms Civil Rights Defense Fund of the National Rifle Association. His bookLost Rightsreceived the Mencken Award as Book of the Year from the Free Press Association. HisTerrorism and Tyrannywon Laissez Faire Books Lysander Spooner award for the Best Book on Liberty in 2003. Read hisblog. Send himemail.

This article was originally published in the September 2020 edition ofFuture of Freedomand on the authors blog and is reprinted with the his permission.

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those ofConsortium News.

Please Contributeto Consortium News

Donate securely with

Click on Return to PayPal here.

Or securely by credit card or check by clicking the red button:

Read this article:
The Korean War's Forgotten Lessons on the Evil of Intervention - Consortium News

Pentagon counterspy report shows threats growing – Washington Times

The compromise of defense secrets remains a growing problem and the war on terror has limited the Pentagons ability to conduct effective counterintelligence, according to a report by the Defense Science Board.

The report called for new methods to make stealing more difficult for those with access to classified information, including behavior analysis of cleared workers and identifying dangerous people; advanced computer network monitoring; and watermarking classified documents, both digital and paper.

For almost two decades, the counterintelligence mission has not received the sustained and focused attention that it needs to protect the nation from stand-alone actors or actors working under the direction of a foreign intelligence service, said Eric D. Evans, chairman of the science board.

The damage that such actors can cause to U.S. national security has grown substantially as classified information is increasingly stored on computers, making more of it available to retrieve and easier to spread, he added.

Mr. Evans stated in a memorandum to the undersecretary of defense for research and engineering that adversaries have made a concerted effort to access classified and business proprietary information, either to thwart U.S. national security objectives or to advance their own military and civil sectors.

It is long past time for the United States to address the insider threat and reduce damage caused by leaked or stolen national security information, he declared.

The report focuses on insider threats the intelligence term for people with access to intelligence who disclose that information to spies or news media.

The compromise of defense secrets is a large and growing problem of individuals working for or with the U.S. government leaking or stealing national security information, said Robert Nesbit and William Schneider, co-chairmen of a board task force that produced the August report. The reports bottom line: Leaks and theft of secrets by insiders are enhanced by the outsider threat foreign spy services.

Yet counterintelligence (CI) operations continue to focus on a case-by-case approach with a strong law enforcement emphasis in dealing with escalating foreign intelligence threats, the report said.

National CI resources (with a few noteworthy exceptions) are concentrated within the United States rather than engaging the foreign intelligence services abroad, thus ceding an advantage to the adversary.

The task force recommends integrating proactive counterintelligence operations within larger national security strategy and planning.

The purpose would be twofold: 1) to develop an understanding of foreign intelligence organizations, motives, targets, tools and vulnerabilities; and 2) to develop policy options to weaken the adversarys intelligence enterprise as U.S. national security objectives might dictate, the report said.

The report is the latest criticism of U.S. counterintelligence weaknesses that have resulted in a string of disasters stretching from Beijing to Tehran.

Beginning in 2010, the CIA lost an estimated 27 agents in China because of poor counterintelligence. The losses were the result of Chinese spies inside the CIA or a breakdown of agent communication security.

A similar disaster occurred in Iran. In 2019, Air Force counterintelligence officer Sgt. Monica Witt defected to Iran, where the government claimed to have arrested as many as 40 people it identified as CIA agents.

The report concludes that without actionable intelligence regarding foreign spy activities, the Pentagon will continue to be at a severe disadvantage in identifying and containing insider threats. Pentagon counterintelligence also needs a major technology upgrade in operations and advanced data processing to improve counterspy efforts.

The report also identifies 44 Pentagon departments and agencies it says have been quite slow in meeting standards used to identify insider threats.

A significant number of costly compromises resulted from insiders circumventing the security on classified [Defense Department] and intelligence community networks with relative ease, the report said. Despite lessons learned from high-profile insider cases, well-established and high-priority security controls continue to be absent or are malfunctioning. It is difficult to imagine a good excuse for this neglect.

The first recommendation in the unclassified report was not disclosed and was listed as for official use only.

Other recommendations include requiring the Pentagons insider threat program office to produce better risk-rating tools and to create a technology sensor array that can be used to better identify threats. Improved cybercontrols are needed throughout the Pentagon to encrypt classified data in all removable media and mobile devices.

The Pentagon also needs to target foreign spies confidence in the value and validity of stolen secrets. That can be done by expanding the use of data obfuscation technology encryption, tokenization and irreversible data-masking.

Michael Griffin, the former undersecretary of defense for research and engineering who requested the study in 2018, stated in an annex to the report that the United States has suffered extensive losses of critical national security data to adversaries.

Two of the most spectacular cases, he said, were former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, who stole 1.7 million NSA documents, and NSA contractor Harold T. Martin III, who stole around 50 terabytes of data from the NSA over 20 years.

Army Pvt. Bradley Manning, who stole 750,000 documents, also illustrates the scale of the problem, Mr. Griffin said.

The purloined data confer extensive insights into U.S. capabilities that cost hundreds of billions of dollars to create, sustain and protect, Mr. Griffin said.

The task force was made up of 20 current and former officials, including former National Counterintelligence Executive Michelle Van Cleave; former DIA counterintelligence officer Nicholas Eftimiades, a China counterspy specialist; and Richard Haver, who conducted several damage assessments for U.S. intelligence agencies.

KISSINGER REDUX?

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the architect of the pro-business appeasement policies toward China, is set to make a comeback, should presumptive President-elect Joe Biden assume office.

Mr. Kissinger said during a conference Monday that a Biden administration should return to the accommodationist policies of the past in order to avoid a World War I-level catastrophe in U.S.-Chinese relations.

America and China are now drifting increasingly toward confrontation, and theyre conducting their diplomacy in a confrontational way, Mr. Kissinger, 97, told Bloomberg News. The danger is that some crisis will occur that will go beyond rhetoric into actual military conflict.

Mr. Kissinger has continued to advise officials of the Trump administration despite his disagreements with President Trumps new, tougher approach to dealing with Beijing. He has met with Mr. Trump and was a private adviser to the Trump administrations first defense secretary, James Mattis.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the leading force behind the current get-tough China policy, also has had conversations with Mr. Kissinger.

Mr. Biden is widely expected to return to the less-confrontational policies favored by large corporations that are seeking access to Chinas vast market of consumers.

NAVARRO ON INTERNAL CHINA DEBATE

White House official Peter Navarro continues to be the most formidable infighter for President Trumps America First policies toward China.

Mr. Navarro, assistant to the president and director of trade and manufacturing policy, has clashed with the pro-China trade officials in the administration over policy, notably Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and White House National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow, both of whom are said to favor pro-business policies.

Mr. Navarro indirectly commented on the internal debate during a briefing for reporters last week on the executive order barring U.S. financial investment in Chinese companies linked to the Peoples Liberation Army.

The order is aimed at blocking more than $500 billion in investments by Chinese military-linked companies in U.S. and foreign markets.

Asked if there was a vigorous debate within the administration on the new order, Mr. Navarro said only: President Trump is president. He took the action today with full support of this administration.

Contact Bill Gertz on Twitter at @BillGertz.

Visit link:
Pentagon counterspy report shows threats growing - Washington Times

The Korean War’s Forgotten Lessons on the Evil of Intervention – CounterPunch

Photograph Source: Jonathan Cutrer CC BY 2.0

This year is the 70th anniversary of the start of the Korean War, a conflict from which Washington policymakers learned nothing. Almost 40,000 American soldiers died in that conflict that should have permanently vaccinated the nation against the folly and evil of foreign intervention. Instead, the war was retroactively redefined. As Barack Obama declared in 2013, That war was no tie. Korea was a victory.

The war began with what Harry Truman claimed was a surprise invasion on June 25, 1950, by the North Korean army across the dividing line with South Korea that was devised after World War Two. But the U.S. government had ample warnings of the pending invasion. According to the late Justin Raimondo, founder of antiwar.com, the conflict actually started with a series of attacks by South Korean forces, aided by the U.S. military: From 1945-1948, American forces aided [South Korean President Syngman] Rhee in a killing spree that claimed tens of thousands of victims: the counterinsurgency campaign took a high toll in Kwangju, and on the island of Cheju-do where as many as 60,000 people were murdered by Rhees US-backed forces.

The North Korean army quickly routed both South Korean and U.S. forces. A complete debacle was averted after Gen. Douglas MacArthur masterminded a landing of U.S. troops at Inchon. After he routed the North Korean forces, MacArthur was determined to continue pushing northward regardless of the danger of provoking a much broader war.

By the time the U.S. forces drove the North Korean army back across the border between the two Koreas, roughly 5,000 American troops had been killed. The Pentagon had plenty of warning that the Chinese would intervene if the U.S. Army pushed too close to the Chinese border. But the euphoria that erupted after Inchon blew away all common sense and drowned out the military voices who warned of a catastrophe. One U.S. Army colonel responded to a briefing on the Korea situation in Tokyo in 1950 by storming out and declaring, Theyre living in a goddamn dream land.

The Chinese military attack resulted in the longest retreat in the history of Americas armed forces a debacle that was valorized by allusion in the 1986 Clint Eastwood movie, Heartbreak Ridge. By 1951, the Korean War had become intensely unpopular in the United States more unpopular than the Vietnam War ever was. At least the war, which Truman insisted on mislabeling as a police action, destroyed the presidency of the man who launched it. By the time a ceasefire was signed in mid 1953, almost 40,000 Americans had been killed in a conflict that ended with borders similar to those at the start of the war.

Perhaps the biggest disaster of the Korean war was that intellectuals and foreign-policy experts succeeded in redefining the Korean conflict as an American victory. As Georgetown University professor Derek Leebaert noted in his book Magic and Mayhem, What had been regarded as a bloody stalemate transformed itself in Washingtons eyes; ten years later it had become an example of a successful limited war. Already by the mid-1950s, elite opinion began to surmise that it had been a victory. Leebaert explained, Images of victory in Korea shaped the decision to escalate in 1964-65 helping to explain why America pursued a war of attrition. Even worse, the notion that America has never lost a war remained part of the national myth, and the notion of having prevailed in Korea became a justification for going big in Vietnam. But as Leebaert noted, in Vietnam, [the U.S. Army] had forgotten everything it had learned about counterinsurgency in Korea as well.

When the American media noted the 70th anniversary of the start of the war this past June, they paid little or no attention to the wars dark side. The media ignored perhaps the wars most important lesson: the U.S. government has almost unlimited sway to hide its own war crimes.

During the Korean War, Americans were deluged with official pronouncements that the U.S. military was taking all possible steps to protect innocent civilians. Because the evils of communism were self-evident, few questions arose about how the United States was thwarting Red aggression. When a U.S. Senate subcommittee appointed in 1953 by Sen. Joseph McCarthy investigated Korean War atrocities, the committee explicitly declared that war crimes were defined as those acts committed by enemy nations.

In 1999, forty-six years after the cease fire in Korea, the Associated Press exposed a 1950 massacre of Korean refugees at No Gun Ri. U.S. troops drove Koreans out of their village and forced them to remain on a railroad embankment. Beginning on July 25, 1950, the refugees were strafed by U.S. planes and machine guns over the following three days. Hundreds of people, mostly women and children, were killed. The 1999 AP story was widely denounced by American politicians and some media outlets as a slander on American troops.

The Pentagon promised an exhaustive investigation. In January 2001, the Pentagon released a 300-page report purporting to prove that the No Gun Ri killings were merely an unfortunate tragedy caused by trigger-happy soldiers frightened by approaching refugees.

Bill Clinton announced his regret that Korean civilians lost their lives at No Gun Ri. In an interview, he was asked why he used regret instead of apology. He declared, I believe that the people who looked into it could not conclude that there was a deliberate act, decided at a high-enough level in the military hierarchy, to acknowledge that, in effect, the Government had participated in something that was terrible. Clinton specified that there was no evidence of wrongdoing high-enough in the chain of command in the Army to say that, in effect, the Government was responsible.

But the atrocities against civilians had been common knowledge among U.S. troops 50 years earlier. As Charles Hanley, Sang-Hun Choe, and Martha Mendoza noted in their 2001 book, The Bridge at No Gun Ri, the Pentagon in 1952 withdrew official endorsement from RKOs One Minute to Zero, a Korean War movie in which an Army colonel played by actor Robert Mitchum orders artillery fire on a column of refugees. The Pentagon fretted that this sequence could be utilized for anti-American propaganda and banned the film from being shown on U.S. military bases.

In 2005, Sahr Conway-Lanz, a Harvard University doctoral student, discovered a letter in the National Archives from the U.S. ambassador to Korea, John Muccio, sent to Assistant Secretary of State Dean Rusk on the day the No Gun Ri massacre commenced. Muccio summarized a new policy from a meeting between U.S. military and South Korean officials: If refugees do appear from north of U.S. lines they will receive warning shots, and if they then persist in advancing they will be shot. The new policy was radioed to Army units around Korea on the morning the No Gun Ri massacre began. The U.S. military feared that North Korean troops might be hiding amidst the refugees. The Pentagon initially claimed that its investigators never saw Muccios letter but it was in the specific research file used for its report.

Conway-Lanzs 2006 book Collateral Damage: Americans, Noncombatant Immunity, and Atrocity after World War IIquoted an official U.S. Navy history of the first six months of the Korean War stating that the policy of strafing civilians was wholly defensible. An official Army history noted, Eventually, it was decided to shoot anyone who moved at night. A report for the aircraft carrier USS Valley Forge justified attacking civilians because the Army insisted that groups of more than eight to ten people were to be considered troops, and were to be attacked.

In 2007, the Army recited its original denial: No policy purporting to authorize soldiers to shoot refugees was ever promulgated to soldiers in the field. But the Associated Press exposed more dirt from the U.S. archives: More than a dozen documents in which high-ranking U.S. officers tell troops that refugees are fair game, for example, and order them to shoot all refugees coming across river were found by the AP in the investigators own archived files after the 2001 inquiry. None of those documents was disclosed in the Armys 300-page public report. A former Air Force pilot told investigators that his plane and three others strafed refugees at the same time of the No Gun Ri massacre; the official report claimed that all pilots interviewed knew nothing about such orders. Evidence also surfaced of massacres like No Gun Ri. On September 1, 1950, the destroyer USS DeHaven, at the Armys insistence, fired on a seaside refugee encampment at Pohang, South Korea. Survivors say 100 to 200 people were killed.

Slaughtering civilians en masse became routine procedure after the Chinese army intervened in the Korean war in late 1950. MacArthur spoke of turning North Korean-held territory into a desert. The U.S. military eventually expanded its definition of a military target to any structure that could shelter enemy troops or supplies. Gen. Curtis LeMay summarized the achievements: We burned down every town in North Korea and some in South Korea, too. A million civilians may have been killed during the war. A South Korean government Truth and Reconciliation Commission uncovered many previously unreported atrocities and concluded that American troops killed groups of South Korean civilians on 138 separate occasions during the Korean War, the New York Times reported.

Truth delayed is truth defused. The Pentagon strategy on Korean War atrocities succeeded because it left facts to the historians, not the policymakers. The truth about No Gun Ri finally slipped out ten presidencies later. Even more damaging, the Rules of Engagement for killing Korean civilians were covered up for four more U.S. wars. If U.S. policy for slaying Korean refugees had been exposed during that war, it might have curtailed similar killings in Vietnam (many of which were not revealed until decades after the war).

Former congressman and decorated Korean War veteran Pete McCloskey (R-Calif.) warned, The government will always lie about embarrassing matters. The same shenanigans permeate other U.S. wars. The secrecy and deceit surrounding U.S. warring has had catastrophic consequences in this century. The Bush administration exploited the 9/11 attacks to justify attacking Iraq in 2003, and it was not until 2016 that the U.S. government revealed documents exposing the Saudi governments role in financing the 9/11 hijackers (15 of 19 whom were Saudi citizens). The Pentagon covered up the vast majority of U.S. killings of Iraqi civilians until Bradley Manning and WikiLeaks exposed them in 2010. There are very likely reams of evidence of duplicity and intentional slaughter of civilians in U.S. government files on its endlessly confused and contradictory Syrian intervention.

When politicians or generals appear itching to pull the United States into another foreign war, remember that truth is routinely the first casualty. It is naive to expect a government that recklessly slays masses of civilians to honestly investigate itself and announce its guilt to the world. Self-government is a mirage if Americans do not receive enough information to judge killings committed in their name.

This essay was originally published by Future of Freedom Foundation.

Read more:
The Korean War's Forgotten Lessons on the Evil of Intervention - CounterPunch

Obama Commutes Bradley (Chelsea) Manning & Oscar Lopez …

President Spite is not finishednot by a long shot. Today, the president, signaling to all future traitors that theyll get away with their evil ways, commuted the sentence of Bradley Manning. As a reminder, this is what Mr. Manning did:

President Obama shortened the sentence of Chelsea Manning, a former U.S. Army soldier who admitted to leaking secret government documents to WikiLeaks. She had been sentenced to serve 35 years behind bars.

Under the Presidents order, Mannings sentence will expire on May 17, 2017.

Bradley Manning Courtesy of National Public Radio

Mannings espionage aided the enemy:

These battlefield reports are what Wikileaks refers to as the Afghan War Diary, a trove of over 91,000 reports covering the war in Afghanistan from 2004 to 2010. Wikileaks withheld 15,000 of these reports from its initial release because even the anti-government group recognized the sensitivity of their contents. Still, the diary covers a range of topics: Improvised Explosives Devices encountered, offensive operations, taking enemy fire, engagement with possible hostile forces, talking with village elders, numbers of wounded, dead, and detained, kidnappings, broader intelligence information and explicit threat warnings from intercepted radio communications, local informers or the [Afghan] police.

It is easy to see why bin Laden would have an interest in the Wikileaks material. The files gave al Qaeda insight into how the U.S.-led coalition viewed the Afghan war.

I am absolutely convinced that Manning decided to have the sex-change to disguise himself once out of prison. Well see what helooks like May 17th, 2017 when hes sprung.

Oscar Lopez-Rivera, Wikimedia Commons

Meanwhile, unrepentant domestic terrorist Oscar Lopez-Rivera goes free:

Lopez-Rivera has been in federal prison since 1981, after he was convicted of seditious conspiracy and arms trafficking in connection with his leadership of the FALN, the notorious left-wing terrorist group that perpetrated more than 130 attacks on U.S. soil from the mid 1970s through the mid 1980s, killing six and wounding many more. Most members of the FALN, which purported to fight for Puerto Rican independence but maintained deep ties to Fidel Castros Cuba, were long ago captured and imprisoned, and many of them have already served their time and been released.But Lopez-Rivera remains unrepentant about his crimes, and hes hardly been a model prisoner: In one of two failed attempts to escape, he conspired with others insideand outside his prison to kill his way to freedom, attempting to procuregrenades, rifles, plastic explosives, bulletproof vests, blasting caps, and armor-piercing bullets. After the FBI thwarted this plan, another 15 years was added to Lopezs original 55-year sentence.

His crimes were vicious and to this day, hes never shown an ounce of remorse. Why is Obama letting this scum free? Perhaps this was a deal with Cuba? Who knows?

Bottom line, Barack Obama has no problem with Wikileaks, communists, or evil traitors unless it embarrasses him personally. If they harm the United States and her citizens? Barack Obama, America-hater til the end, is your friend.

Read the original:
Obama Commutes Bradley (Chelsea) Manning & Oscar Lopez ...

Pte Bradley Manning The Celtic League

US URGED TO END ILL-TREATMENT OF WIKILEAKS SUSPECT

The Celtic League has urged the US government to rethink its treatment of Pte Bradley Manning, currently detained by the US military following the Wikileaks revelations.

Letters of protest (see below) have been sent to the US embassies in Dublin, Paris and London.The US treatment of Pte Manning has been criticised by a broad range of US and International bodies and has drawn specific comment from the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture (see YouTube interview link):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2rAyWEcEAQ

Bradley Manning has joint US/British nationality and his mother is Welsh. He spent part of his youth in Haverfordwest in Wales and attended school there. His case has been raised in the UK parliament by Welsh MP and human rights advocate Ann Clwyd.

Text of Embassy letters below:

The AmbassadorDaniel M RooneyU S Embassy42 Elgin RoadBallsbridgeDublin 4Ireland

30/04/11

Dear Mr Ambassador,

I write to express our concern about the treatment of US Military detainee Private Bradley Manning. I understand that recently conditions for Pte Manning have been somewhat improved in that his detention in solitary confinement which has lasted almost a year has now been lifted and his access to communication has improved. However we note with concern the detailed criticisms of his detention voiced by a broad range of opinion from American legal academics to the UN Special Rapporteur on torture.

It is also disturbing that the United States has refused unmonitored access by the UN Special Rapporteur to Pte Manning and we would urge that this decision by the US government is reversed.

The United States is seen as a champion of democracy, freedom and human rights globally. Reference to our own web site and the comments that we make about human rights issues world wide will show that we draw heavily on and set great store by the statistics that the US State Department (Bureau of Democracy Labour and Human rights) compiles annually.

The US government demeans itself and undermines its status in the areas of human rights and freedom by its treatment of Pte Manning. We urge your government to ameliorate its mean spirited stance towards Pte Manning and base the conduct of his case on principle not prejudice.

Yours sincerely,

J B Moffatt (Mr)Director of Information

J B Moffatt (Mr)Director of InformationCeltic League

30/04/11

The Celtic League has branches in the six Celtic Countries. It works to promote cooperation between these countries and campaigns on a broad range of political, cultural and environmental matters. It highlights human rights abuse, monitors all military activity and focuses onm socio-economic issues.

TEL (UK)01624 877918 MOBILE (UK)07624 491609

Internet site at:

Home

https://groups.yahoo.com/group/celtic_league/

See original here:
Pte Bradley Manning The Celtic League

WikiLeaks published 75,000 classified US military documents on the Afghanistan War 10 years ago – American Military News

It has been 10 years since WikiLeaks published tens of thousands of classified U.S. military documents regarding the Afghanistan War.

On July 25, 2010, WikiLeaks published 75,000 documents on the Afghanistan War, most of which were classified documents and ranged from January 2004 to December 2009. It is known to be one of the largest ever U.S. military leaks.

The six-year dump of secret documents brought to light highly sensitive information, such as specific Taliban attacks, deaths of hundreds of civilians, friendly-fire deaths, psychological warfare tactics, Irans extensive covert campaign to support the Taliban in Afghanistan, and more.

WikiLeaks claimed to have an additional 15,000 documents on the Afghanistan War, which it refrained from posting while the U.S. Department of Justice considered charges againstWikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

Assangecalled the document leak the most comprehensive history of a war ever to be published, during the course of the war, and compared its significance to that of the Pentagon Papers released in the 1970s.

WikiLeaks went on to publish more than 391,000 additional classified U.S. military documents with the Iraq War Logs in October 2010.

The Department of Justice accused Assangeof conspiring with former U.S. intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, who was an Army Private named Bradley Manning at the time.

The indictment alleges that in March 2010, Assange engaged in a conspiracy with Chelsea Manning, a former intelligence analyst in the U.S. Army, to assist Manning in cracking a password stored on U.S. Department of Defense computers connected to the Secret Internet Protocol Network (SIPRNet), a U.S. government network used for classified documents and communications, a Department of Justice releasestated in 2019.

Assange is accused of helping Manning breach Pentagon computers, which made it possible for the pair to collect the documents. The two communicated in real-time, during which Assange helped Manning crack passwords to DOD profiles.

The tactic made it more difficult for investigators to determine how the leak happened.

Manning was convicted and served out seven years of a 35-year sentence, which was commuted by former President Barack Obama in January 2017, just days before he left office. Manning was released from prison in May 2017.

Assange has been in Londons Ecuadoran Embassy since 2012, but was arrestedafterEcuadoran President Lenin Moreno withdrew Assanges asylum, citing repeated violations of international law. He is currently imprisoned in Londons HM Prison Belmarsh.

If extradited to the U.S., Assange faces up to 170 years in prison under the Espionage Act of 1917, under which he was indicted on 17 charges.

Read the original here:
WikiLeaks published 75,000 classified US military documents on the Afghanistan War 10 years ago - American Military News

Accused Whistleblower Bradley Manning Begins Court …

Yesterday, Friday, December 16th, at Fort Meade, twenty-three year old United States Army Private, Bradley E. Manning, stood for an Article 32 hearing. This hearing was the first legal proceeding Manning has faced in the eighteen months since his arrest, in May 2010. Manning is being accused of, ... aiding the enemy; wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the internet knowing that it is accessible to the enemy; theft of public property or records; transmitting defense information; fraud and related activity in connection with computers; and for violating Army Regulations 25-2 Information Assurance and 380-5 Department of the Army Information Security Program. (The U.S. Army Military District of Washington, Media Advisory)

In 2009, Manning was stationed near Baghdad as a Specialist. There he had enormous access to classified government intelligence. Manning is alleged to have contacted Wikileaks, the online not-for-profit whistleblower organization that has become infamous via publishing millions of secret government leaked informations, in November 2009. It is presumed that Manning began leaking private cables shortly thereafter. In May 2010, Manning was arrested when, Adrian Lamo, a well-known computer hacker, informed the FBI that Manning had confided, in online conversations, that he had downloaded government material and passed it to WikiLeaks. Purported leaked material includes, among other things, 250,000 government cables and the video 'Collateral Murder'. This video shows Baghdad 2007 airstrikes that explicate: the casual radio chatter between the US soliders, the ground units involved, the murders of unarmed citizens, and the executions of war correspondents carrying cameras mistaken for weapons.

Since July 2010, Manning has been held in maximum custody, in the Marine Corps Brig, in Quantico,Virginia. Inside sources state that Manning has been held in solitary confinement, for extensive periods, and has been routinely exposed to conditions tatamount to torture.

Bradley Manning's case has ignited passionate controversy, across multiple fronts. Anti-war and free speech activists herald Manning as a hero - for releasing documents, that, the activists say, keep the government accountable for their acts. Others claim that Manning is a traitor and had aided the enemy. Daniel Ellsberg, arguably the country's most famous whistleblower, who in 1971, as a military analyst, released highly classified Pentagon documents that detailed the US's involvement in Vietnam, has stated that, The charges against Bradley Manning are an indictment of our governments obsession with secrecy. Manning is accused of revealing illegal activities by our government and its corporate partners that must be brought to the attention of the American people. The Obama administration lacks the courage to confront the crimes and injustices that now stand exposed... If Bradley Manning did what hes accused of, then hes a hero of mine and I think he did a great service to this country.

Beyond the immediate the ethical debates surrounding information access and a democractic government's necessary accountability, further controversy has mounted on both: the treatment of Manning while serving in the military and since his treatment post-arrest. Numerous accounts detail that he was excessively bullied while serving in the military. Accounts state that this bullying stemmed from his effiminate nature and, furthermore, for being openly gay pre-enlistment. It is unclear, at this time, if the defense will argue that Manning was mentally unfit to serve. Evidence bears multiple sources detailing their belief that Manning wasn't emotionally/mentally stable. At one point, it appears that Manning was set for discharge, due to possible instability, but was then recycled back into the forces. Manning was also demoted, in May 2010, from Specialist to Private First Class after punching an officer. Several accounts cite his instability was due to his growing dissatisfaction with the military, deep questions on governmental motives, and the excessive bullying he faced due to his gender performance and sexual orientation. As Manning has received little-to-no mental attention throughout these periods, the reality is unclear.

Deep contention has also broken out over the potentially torturous conditions that Manning is alleged to be suffering while in confinement, the 22 charges he faces, and the potential for Manning to face capital punishment. Recently, over 50 members of European Parliament wrote a signed letter protesting this treatment, stated inordinate charges, and the fact that Manning had yet to face trial after well-over a year in confinement.

These hearings are equivalent to a grand jury hearing. They could last up-to five days. In this process, a military judge will determine if there is sufficient evidence to court-martial. Manning's defense has attempted to call almost 50 witnesses, including President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, to the pre-trial hearing. The government has opposed all defense witnesses but the ten they were already intending to call. The defense declares that these witness denials disallows for a fair hearing.

At this time, the US government contends that they do not wish to seek the death penalty. If convicted, Manning faces life in prison.

At yesterday's proceedings Manning's lawyers requested for Lt. Col. Paul Almanza, the presiding officer, to be removed from the hearings, due to alleged bias. The Army appeals court rejected their request late Friday.

Manning's hearing resumes today, December 17th, 2011. Today is also the soldier's 24th birthday.

Read the original here:
Accused Whistleblower Bradley Manning Begins Court ...