Click on the headline to link
to the "Private Bradley Manning Support Network"for the latest
information on his case and activities on his behalf .
*********
We of the international
anti-war movement were not able to do much to affect the Bush- Obama Iraq war
timetable or, as of now, the Afghanistan one, but we can save the one hero of
that war, American soldier Private Bradley Manning. The Manning legal case, and
Private Manning as an exceptionally brave individual, can and should serve to
rally all those looking for a concrete way to express their anti-war outrage at
the continuing atrocious American imperial war policies. The message below can
serve as a continuing rationale for my (and your) support to this honorable
whistleblower.
*********
The following are remarks
that I have been focusing on of late to build support for Private Manning’s
cause at stand-outs, marches and rallies.
I stand in solidarity with
the alleged actions of Private Bradley Manning in bringing to light, just a
little light, some of the nefarious war-related doings of this government,
under Bush and Obama. Those precious bits of information leaked to Wikileaks
about American soldiers committing war atrocities in Iraq as chronicled in the
tape known on YouTube as “Collateral Murder” and the Iraq and Afghan War
Diaries. If he did such acts they are no crime. No crime at all in my eyes or
in the eyes of the vast majority of people who know of the case and of its
importance as an individual act of resistance to the unjust and barbaric
American-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I sleep just a shade bit easier
these days knowing that Private Manning may have exposed what we all knew, or
should have known- the Iraq war and the Afghan war justifications rested on a
flim-flam house of cards. American imperialism’s gun-toting flim-flam house of
cards, but cards nevertheless.
I am standing in solidarity
with Private Bradley Manning because I am outraged by the treatment meted out
to Private Manning, presumably an innocent man, by a government who alleges
itself to be some “beacon” of the civilized world. Bradley Manning has been
held in solidarity at Quantico, other locales, and now at Fort Leavenworth in
Kansas for over two years, and has been held without trial for longer, as the
government and its military try to glue a case together. The military, and its
henchmen in the Justice Department, have gotten more devious although not
smarter since I was a soldier in their crosshairs over forty years ago.
Many of us have become
somewhat inured to the constant cases of jackboot torturous behavior on the
part of the American military in places like Guantanamo, Bagram and other
national security hellhole black box locations against foreign nationals. We
have also become inured, or at least no longer surprised, when American
civilian citizens are subject to such actions, and more likely death.
However, as recent
allegations of pre-trial torturous conduct condoned by high military authority
(see the allegations and motion to dismiss charged on the Bradley Manning
Support Network website) by Private Manning’s civilian defense lawyer David
Coombs make clear, those acts are not confined to foreign nationals and American
civilian citizens. The torture of Private Manning, an American soldier, by the
American government should give us all pause. And should have us shouting to
the heavens for his release.
These are more than
sufficient reasons to stand in solidarity with Private Manning and will be
until the day this brave soldier is freed by his jailers. And I will continue
to stand in proud solidarity with Private Manning until that great day.
I urge everyone to sign the
petition calling on the American military to free Private Bradley Manning
either here or on the Bradley Manning Support Network website. And if we cannot
get Private Manning freed that way I urge everyone to begin a campaign in your
area to call on President Barack Obama, or whoever is president while Private
Manning is incarcerated, to pardon this brave soldier. The American president
has the constitutional authority to grant pardons to the guilty and innocent,
the convicted and those facing charges. I call on President Obama to pardon
Private Manning now.
***********“Why can’t you be reasonable?” judge asks military in case to limit secrecy in Bradley’s trial
The CCR argued its case at the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces today for transparency in Bradley Manning’s court-martial trial. Judges questioned why the government forced the issue to come to court at all.
By Nathan Fuller. October 10, 2012.
During oral arguments in the Center for Constitutional Rights’ lawsuit against the government seeking public access to basic court documents in Bradley Manning’s court-martial trial, judges for the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces demanded the government explain why it wouldn’t simply provide these documents in the first place.
When Army lawyer Capt. Chad Fisher said that the court wasn’t constitutionally required to provide public access to documents like prosecution briefs, transcripts, and rulings, Judge Margaret Ryan interrupted him to ask what she called a “common sense” question.
“Why can’t you just give it to them? Instead of making this a constitutional case, why can’t you just be reasonable?”
Fisher was unable to directly answer the question. Instead, he gave an array of responses that circumvented the basic issue: he repeated his belief that the court wasn’t obliged to make these records public, he said the fact that the public could attend the hearings meant they were “open,” he complained that the defense wasn’t asking the proper authority, and he reiterated the government’s position that the availability of FOIA provided sufficient public and press access.
The five judges repeatedly questioned and challenged each of Fisher’s points, particularly the idea that FOIA requests, to which the government frequently takes weeks, months, or even years to respond, provided sufficient and contemporaneous access, especially considering the fact that FOIA requests in this case have already been denied. They also pushed back on Fisher’s claim that “Nothing has been withheld” from the public and the press, based on the idea that attending the hearings amounts to fully accessing the proceedings.
“How is oral argument sufficient if you can’t read the briefs?” one judge asked.
“It’s not as if they’re speaking a foreign language,” Fisher responded.
But as journalists from the 30 major media outlets who submitted a supportive brief in this case explained, the media (and therefore the public) needs these documents to adequately cover the case:
But the judges, not seemingly satisfied with Fisher’s responses, kept returning to the more elemental point that the government could avoid this litigation and a potential ruling that would affect courts-martial to come by simply turning over the documents requested. The court already has a process in place to redact documents, the judges noted, and parties settle extrajudicial matters with a compromise out of court all the time, so it seems perfectly feasible for the government to comply with the CCR’s reasonable request for access to the documents.
In the midst of this questioning, Fisher did concede what the CCR has long observed: that Guantanamo tribunals – hardly beacons of transparency – were less secretive than Bradley Manning’s court-martial, because the public could access filed briefs and transcripts to those proceedings.
The CCR’s Kadidal fielded a similar though not quite as lengthy barrage of questioning from the appeals court judges. The first issue they raised was whether this court even has jurisdiction to make a ruling on this case, as their jurisdiction has been narrowly limited and it isn’t clear that they have standing to make a ruling that affects the press and public alike. Kadidal responded that the government hadn’t raised this issue in their replies, and so he would need an additional 10 days to file a supplement that addresses the court’s jurisdiction.
Judge Ryan also wanted to know whether there was precedent for this court to compel the production of documents that didn’t yet exist. She was referring to the CCR’s request for transcripts of RCM 802 conferences, the private telephonic meetings Judge Denise Lind holds between Ft. Meade hearings with both the defense and the prosecution. She also wanted Kadidal to account for how exactly the documents would hypothetically be produced: who would transcribe the hearings, or who would pay a stenographer?
Kadidal responded that an audio file would be acceptable, but on the issue more generally, he said he believes the court should make a First Amendment ruling granting the press the right to these documents and let lower courts adjudicate the logistics. Judges replied that it was unclear that the First Amendment affords contemporaneous access to these documents: in other words, it might be wholly constitutional for the court to provide these documents after the fact.
Kadidal will submit his jurisdictional supplement in 10 days, and the government will submit a reply less than a week later. It’s unclear when or if this court will issue a ruling, or when exactly the parties might return to court. We’ll update our coverage of this case as it unfolds.
By Nathan Fuller. October 10, 2012.
The CCR’s Shayana Kadidal
When Army lawyer Capt. Chad Fisher said that the court wasn’t constitutionally required to provide public access to documents like prosecution briefs, transcripts, and rulings, Judge Margaret Ryan interrupted him to ask what she called a “common sense” question.
“Why can’t you just give it to them? Instead of making this a constitutional case, why can’t you just be reasonable?”
Fisher was unable to directly answer the question. Instead, he gave an array of responses that circumvented the basic issue: he repeated his belief that the court wasn’t obliged to make these records public, he said the fact that the public could attend the hearings meant they were “open,” he complained that the defense wasn’t asking the proper authority, and he reiterated the government’s position that the availability of FOIA provided sufficient public and press access.
The five judges repeatedly questioned and challenged each of Fisher’s points, particularly the idea that FOIA requests, to which the government frequently takes weeks, months, or even years to respond, provided sufficient and contemporaneous access, especially considering the fact that FOIA requests in this case have already been denied. They also pushed back on Fisher’s claim that “Nothing has been withheld” from the public and the press, based on the idea that attending the hearings amounts to fully accessing the proceedings.
“How is oral argument sufficient if you can’t read the briefs?” one judge asked.
“It’s not as if they’re speaking a foreign language,” Fisher responded.
But as journalists from the 30 major media outlets who submitted a supportive brief in this case explained, the media (and therefore the public) needs these documents to adequately cover the case:
“Journalists rely heavily on court documents to gain and provide to readers the background of and context surrounding a legal controversy — awareness and understanding of which is often necessary to accurately report on the dispute. Prior access to the materials also allows reporters, the overwhelming majority of whom have no legal background or education, to process the oftentimes complex legal theories at their own pace, or to interview a legal expert who could explain the issues, so they are better equipped to understand what is transpiring in a proceeding they attend.”Shayana Kadidal, the CCR lawyer arguing in court today, similarly contended earlier this year that providing openness-in-name-only effectively “choked off” coverage of Manning’s hearings.
But the judges, not seemingly satisfied with Fisher’s responses, kept returning to the more elemental point that the government could avoid this litigation and a potential ruling that would affect courts-martial to come by simply turning over the documents requested. The court already has a process in place to redact documents, the judges noted, and parties settle extrajudicial matters with a compromise out of court all the time, so it seems perfectly feasible for the government to comply with the CCR’s reasonable request for access to the documents.
In the midst of this questioning, Fisher did concede what the CCR has long observed: that Guantanamo tribunals – hardly beacons of transparency – were less secretive than Bradley Manning’s court-martial, because the public could access filed briefs and transcripts to those proceedings.
The CCR’s Kadidal fielded a similar though not quite as lengthy barrage of questioning from the appeals court judges. The first issue they raised was whether this court even has jurisdiction to make a ruling on this case, as their jurisdiction has been narrowly limited and it isn’t clear that they have standing to make a ruling that affects the press and public alike. Kadidal responded that the government hadn’t raised this issue in their replies, and so he would need an additional 10 days to file a supplement that addresses the court’s jurisdiction.
Judge Ryan also wanted to know whether there was precedent for this court to compel the production of documents that didn’t yet exist. She was referring to the CCR’s request for transcripts of RCM 802 conferences, the private telephonic meetings Judge Denise Lind holds between Ft. Meade hearings with both the defense and the prosecution. She also wanted Kadidal to account for how exactly the documents would hypothetically be produced: who would transcribe the hearings, or who would pay a stenographer?
Kadidal responded that an audio file would be acceptable, but on the issue more generally, he said he believes the court should make a First Amendment ruling granting the press the right to these documents and let lower courts adjudicate the logistics. Judges replied that it was unclear that the First Amendment affords contemporaneous access to these documents: in other words, it might be wholly constitutional for the court to provide these documents after the fact.
Kadidal will submit his jurisdictional supplement in 10 days, and the government will submit a reply less than a week later. It’s unclear when or if this court will issue a ruling, or when exactly the parties might return to court. We’ll update our coverage of this case as it unfolds.
No comments:
Post a Comment