Pardon Private Bradley Manning Stand-Out-Central Square, Cambridge, Wednesdays, 5:00 PM – Support The Bradley Manning International Day OfSolidarity February 23, 2013 –The 1000th Day Of Pre-Trial Confinement

Let’s Redouble Our Efforts To Free Private Bradley Manning-President Obama Pardon Bradley Manning -Make Every Town Square In America (And The World) A Bradley Manning Square From Boston To Berkeley to Berlin-Join Us In Central Square, Cambridge, Ma. For A Stand-Out For Bradley- Wednesdays From 5:00-6:00 PM

Support And Build The Bradley Manning International Day Of Solidarity February 23, 2013 –The 1000^thDay Of Pre-Trial Confinement

***********
Beginning in September 2011, in order to publicize Private Manning’s case locally, there have been weekly stand-outs (as well as other more ad hocand sporadic events) in various locations in the Greater Boston area starting in Somerville across from the Davis Square Redline MBTA stop on Friday afternoons and later on Wednesdays. Lately this stand-out has been held each week on Wednesdays from 5:00 to 6:00 PM at Central Square, Cambridge, Ma. (small park at the corner of Massachusetts Avenue and Prospect Street just outside the Redline MBTA stop, renamed Manning Square for the duration of the stand-out) in order to continue to broaden our outreach. Join us there in calling for Private Manning’s freedom. President Obama Pardon Private Manning Now!
***********
The Private Bradley Manning case is headed toward an early summer trial now scheduled for June 2013. The news on his case over the past several months (since about April 2012) has centered on the many pre-trial motion hearings including recent defense motions to dismiss for lack of speedy trial. Private Manning’s pre-trial confinement is now at 900 plus days and will be over 1000 days by the time of trial. That motion, still not ruled on as of this writing, is expected to be decided by the next round of pre-trial hearings in late February.

The defense contends that the charges should be dismissed because the military by its own statutes (to speak nothing of that funny old constitutional right to a speedy trial guarantee that our plebeian forbears fought tooth and nail for against the bloody British and later made damn sure was included in the Amendments when the founding fathers“forgot” to include it in the main document) should have arraigned Private Manning within 120 days after his arrest. They hemmed and hawed for almost 600 days before deciding on the charges and a court martial. Nobody in the convening authority, as required by those same statutes, pushed the prosecution forward in a timely manner. There were no serious efforts to push the work of the classifying agencies (the agencies that would determine what level of security classification had been allegedly violated) throughout most of that time although the government knew what documents it was going to proffer at the Article 32 hearing well before that work was finished. In fact the court-martial convening authority, in the person of one Colonel Coffman, seems to have seen its role as mere “yes man, ” a “rubber stamp” in the defense’s words, to each of the government’s eight requests for delays without explanation (and without informing the defense in order to take their objection). Apparently the Colonel saw his role as a mere clearing agent for whatever excuse the government gave, mainly endless addition time for clearing various classified documents a process that need not have held up the proceedings. The defense made timely objection to each governmental request after the fact to no avail.

Testimony from military authorities at pre-trial hearings in November 2012 about the reasons for the lack of action ranged from the lame to the absurd (mainly negative responses to knowledge about why some additional delays were necessary. One “reason” sticks out as a reason for excusable delay -some officer needed to get his son to a swimming meet and was thus “unavailable” for a couple of days. I didn’t make this up. I don’t have that sense of the absurd. Jesus, a man, a presumably innocent man, was rotting in Obama’s jails and they let him rot a little longer because of some damn swim meet.). The prosecution, obviously, has argued that the government has moved might and main to move the case along and had merely waited until all leaked materials had been determined before proceeding.

We shall see but here is a good statement of the situation right now and the options for the Bradley Manning Support Network:

“Three years is not a speedy trial

On Bradley Manning’s 964^th day in prison without trial, both parties argued over the defense’s motion to dismiss charges for lack of a speedy trial. Under Rule for Court Martial 707, the military was supposed to arraign Bradley in 120 days, but it took over 600. Under Uniform Code for Military Justice Article 10, prosecutors are obligated to maintain diligence in trying the accused. Defense lawyer David Coombs explained to the court that rather than being proactive, the military was reactive, waiting for months and months for other agencies to complete classification reviews, when it should have been hurrying those processes along to get to court-martial as quickly as possible. If Judge Lind finds Article 10 was violated, she must dismiss charges. If she dismisses charges “with prejudice,” meaning she finds that the military was prejudicial in denying Bradley a speedy trial, then Bradley will walk free. However, if she dismisses “without prejudice,” finding the delays were negligent but not malicious, the military could simply re-charge Bradley with all of the same offenses. She’ll rule at the next hearing, February 26 through March 1.”

******
The defense has also recently pursued a motion for a dismissal of the major charges (espionage/ indirect material aid to terrorists) on the basis of the minimal effect of any leaks on national security issues as against Private Manning’s claim that such knowledge was important to the public square (freedom of information issues important for us as well in order to know about what the hell the government is doing either in front of us, or behind our backs). Last summer witnesses from an alphabet soup list of government agencies (CIA, FBI, NSA, Military Intelligence, etc., etc.) testified that while the information leaked shouldn’t have been leaked that the effect on national security was de minimus. The Secretary of Defense at the time, Leon Panetta, also made a public statement to that effect. The prosecution argued, successfully at the time, that the mere fact of the leak of classified information caused irreparable harm to national security issues and Private Manning’s intent, even if noble, was not at issue.

The recent thrust of the motion to dismiss has centered on the defense’s contention been that Private Manning consciously and carefully screened any material in his possession to avoid any conflict with national security and that most of the released material had been over-classified (received a higher security level than necessary).(Much of the materials leaked, as per those parts published widely in the aftermath of the disclosures by the New York Times and other major outlets, concerned reports of atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan and diplomatic interchanges that reflected poorly, poorly to say the least, on that profession.) The Obama government has argued again that the mere fact of leaking was all that mattered. That motion has also not been fully ruled on and is now the subject of prosecution counter-motions and a cause for further trial delay.

Here is the latest from the Bradley Manning Support Network on this issue while will the subject of May pre-trial hearings:

“Turning whistle-blowing into treason

Meanwhile, in an attempt to curtail the defense’s ability to show Bradley Manning is a whistle-blower, the government moved to preclude discussion of his motive in determining his guilt or innocence. Judge Lind granted this motion in part: the defense will not be allowed to show Bradley’s motive, such as chatlog quotes showing that he wanted information to be free, in debating whether he knew Al Qaeda would have access to the cables he released (but it will be allowed to discuss motive during a potential sentencing portion). The military will have to prove that Bradley knew he was “dealing with the enemy” in passing information to WikiLeaks. The defense will be allowed to show that Bradley selected certain cables or types of cables to prove he knew which information would not cause harm to U.S. national security if made public. The government also moved to preclude discussion of over classification, trying to prevent the defense from arguing that documents released needn’t have been classified in the first place. Judge Lind decided to defer that ruling, and will make it at a later hearing. In this hearing, the military also said that it would still charge Bradley Manning with “aiding the enemy” if he’d released information to the New York Times instead of WikiLeaks, an argument that would effectively turn whistle-blowing into treason and one which troubled many journalists following the proceedings.”

*******
A defense motion for dismissal based on serious allegations of torturous behavior by the military authorities extending far up the chain of command (a three-star Army general, not the normal concern of someone so far up the chain in the matter of discipline for enlisted personal) while Private Manning was first detained in Kuwait and later at the Quantico Marine brig for about a year ending in April 2011 has now been ruled on. In late November and early December Private Manning himself, as well as others including senior military mental health workers, took the stand to detail those abuses over several days. Most important to the defense was the testimony by qualified military mental health professionals citing the constant willful failure of those who held Private Manning in close confinement to listen to, or act, on their recommendations during those periods

Judge Lind, the military judge who has heard all the pre-trial arguments in the case thus far, has essentially ruled unfavorably on that motion to dismiss given the potential life sentence Private Manning faces. As she announced at an early January pre-trial hearing the military acted illegally in some of its actions. While every Bradley Manning supporter should be heartened by the fact that the military judge ruled that he was subject to illegal behavior by the military during his pre-trial confinement her remedy, a 112 days reduction in any future sentence, is a mere slap on the wrist to the military authorities. No dismissal or, alternatively, no appropriate reduction (the asked for ten to one ratio for all his first year or so of illegal close confinement which would take years off any potential sentence) given the seriousness of the illegal behavior as the defense tirelessly argued for. And the result is a heavy-handed deterrent to any future military whistleblowers, who already are under enormous pressures to remain silent as a matter of course while in uniform, and others who seek to put the hard facts of future American military atrocities before the public.

Here is the Bradley Manning Support Network’s take on Judge Lind’s decision:

“Judge ruled abusive treatment at Quantico was unlawful, awards sentencing credit

Following over two weeks of testimony from Quantico guards and higher officers about keeping Bradley in a 6×8 cell for 23 hours a day and denying him exercise time and easy access to basic hygiene items Judge Denise Lind ruled that Bradley was treated harshly and awarded him 112 days off of a potential sentence. This is a meager rebuke and a scant reduction when compared to the life sentence Bradley could face, but it is an important symbolic vindication for those who fought so hard to raise awareness of the disturbing treatment and to move Bradley from Quantico.”

**********
Some other important recent news, this from the November 2012 pre-trail sessions, is the offer by the defense to plead guilty to lesser charges (wrongful, unauthorized use of the Internet, etc.) in order to clear the deck and have the major espionage /aiding the enemy issue (with a possibility of a life sentence) solely before the court-martial judge, Judge Lind (the one who has been hearing the pre-trial motions, not some senior officer, senior NCO lifer-stacked panel. A wise move, a very wise move.).

Since this defense ploy, an unusual one, and not commonly used or known about, according to knowledgeable sources, was the subject of some confusion, among supporters and the media so here is the Bradley Manning Support Network’s statement on the issue:

“Why, what it means, doesn’t mean, and what next

By Jeff Paterson, Bradley Manning Support Network. November 19, 2012. Published at Allvoices.com

Army Private Bradley Manning recently informed the military court that he was, in fact, the source of information published by WikiLeaks. While the 24 year old Intelligence Analyst, effectively, took responsibility for transferring classified documents, in violation of military regulations, he maintained that he was not guilty of all 22 charges against him.

“PFC Manning has offered to plead guilty to various offenses through a process known as“pleading by exceptions and substitutions,” explained Manning civilian defense attorney David Coombs on his blog. Manning is “attempting to accept responsibility for offenses that are encapsulated within, or are a subset of, the charged offenses…. PFC Manning is not pleading guilty to the specifications as charged by the government,” added Coombs. Nor is he “submitting a plea as part of an agreement or deal with the government.”…

…What does such a plea actually change?

The plea offered by Manning doesn’t change the charges against him, nor does it alter the possible maximum sentence of life in prison.

The presiding judge, US Army Colonel Denise Lind, may choose to reject Manning’s plea on technical grounds (if so, technically, Manning will have to unaccept responsibility). If the plea is accepted, the prosecution is free to present its case as planned. Manning’s plea offering only addresses three lesser aspects of a couple lesser charges, so the government could easily accept Manning’s plea and still“upcharge” him.

Manning’s plea could make the prosecution’s job easier, if they are relieved of the burden of proving he accessed documents and transferred them to WikiLeaks. Without this new twist, Manning’s court martial was expected to last at least six weeks, with possibly four of those weeks dedicated to testimony covering information technology-related forensic evidence–such as computer and router logs, login passwords, network access records, and hard drive images. The court martial might now become an expedited two or three week affair.

While the government’s burden of proof may have been reduced overall, it is important to understand that Manning is only admitting to violating military regulations that cover the approved usage of secure computers and the appropriate handling of information. During previous pre-trial hearings, Manning’s defense has shown that every member of his intelligence office in Iraq also violated these same regulations. While other soldiers didn’t share documents with WikiLeaks, they did install unauthorized video games and software and they shared a library of bootleg music and movies on secure Army computers. As Manning is the only soldier charged with any of these violations, the issue of selective prosecution is raised….

…The real defense

Manning’s attorney has long contended that the defense will show that the release of these documents brought little to no harm to U.S. national security, and that Manning’s motives were to expose crime, fraud, corporate malfeasance, and abuse. They hope to show that this was, indeed, the outcome. The prosecution’s position will remain that Manning’s motives and the actual outcomes are irrelevant during the guilt phase of trial. …”

Also there has been increased media attention by mainstream outlets around the case (including the previously knowingly oblivious New York Times), as well as an important statement by three Nobel Peace Laureates (including Bishop Tutu from South Africa) calling on their fellow laureate, United States President Barack Obama, to free Private Manning from his jails. Check the Bradley Manning Support Network -http://www.bradleymanning.org/ for details and future updates.

*Contribute to the Bradley Manning Defense Fund- as the trial date approaches funds are urgently needed! For link go to http://www.bradleymanning.org/ for

*Sign the online petition at the Bradley Manning Support Network (for link go to http://www.bradleymanning.org/ )at the Bradley Manning Support Network site to the Secretary of the Army to free Bradley Manning-1000 days is enough!

*Call (Comments: 202-456-1111), write (The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500),, e-mail (http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments)the White House to ask (or demand) President Obama to pardon Bradley Manning- In federal cases, and military cases are federal cases, the President of the United States can pardon the guilty and the innocent, the convicted and those awaiting trial- Free the whistleblower!

Custom Search

Web

The Contradictions of “Real Socialism”

The Conductor and the Conducted

by Michael A. Lebowitz

Books, New/Recently Released more on Marxism & Socialism

Paperback, 222 pages
ISBN-13: 978-1-58367-256-3
Cloth (ISBN-13: 978-1-58367-257-0)
July 2012
e-book available!
Kindle, Sony Reader, Nook

Price: $15.95 Quantity: PaperbackCloth [$65] + $49.05

We're Sorry

Inventory Restriction

Inventory Failure

Success!

Read an excerpt here!
What was “real socialism”—the term which originated in twentieth-century socialist societies for the purpose of distinguishing them from abstract, theoretical socialism? In this volume, Michael A. Lebowitz considers the nature, tendencies, and contradictions of those societies. Beginning with the constant presence of shortages within “real socialism,” Lebowitz searches for the inner relations which generate these patterns. He finds these, in particular, in what he calls “vanguard relations of production,” a relation which takes the apparent form of a social contract where workers obtain benefits not available to their counterparts in capitalism but lack the power to decide within the workplace and society.
While these societies were able to claim major achievements in areas from health care to education to popular culture, the separation of thinking and doing prevented workers from developing their capacities as fully developed human beings. The relationship within “real socialism” between the vanguard as conductor and a conducted working class, however, did not only lead to the deformation of workers and those elements necessary for the building of socialism; it also created the conditions in which enterprise managers emerged as an incipient capitalist class, which was an immediate source of the crises of “real socialism.” As he argued in The Socialist Alternative: Real Human Development, Lebowitz stresses the necessity to go beyond the hierarchy inherent in the relation of conductor and conducted (and beyond the “vanguard Marxism” which supports this) to create the conditions in which people can transform themselves through their conscious cooperation and practice—i.e., a society of free and associated producers.
From the author’s preface:

This is not a book for those who already know everything important there is to know about “Real Socialism.” For those fortunate souls who have inherited or adopted the eternal verities of particular political sects on the left, empirical footnotes that strengthen their claim to leadership are the principal tasks of scholarship. As a result, the central question about this book for them is likely to be, “Is he with us or against us?” In short, is this book good for the chosen?
I presume, however, readers who begin with questions rather than answers. What was this phenomenon known as “Real Socialism,” or “Actually Existing Socialism,” a concept created in the twentieth century by the leaders of countries in order to distinguish their real experience from merely theoretical socialist ideas? What were its characteristics? How was this system reproduced? And why did it ultimately yield to capitalism without resistance from the working classes who were presumably its beneficiaries?

Where fresh insights are rare, indeed, Michael Lebowitz provides a bundle of them. Although no one will (or perhaps should) agree with everything here, the book provides rich material for badly-needed discussion.

—Paul Buhle, author, Marxism in the United States

‘The owl of Minerva only flies at dusk’—it was Hegel’s old maxim that seemed confirmed when in 1991 the Socialist Register published Michael Lebowitz’s article on the nature of ‘real socialism’ amid its very demise. This new book takes off from there, but its wings are buoyed by Lebowitz’s work since then, from Beyond Capital to The Socialist Alternative. The profound understanding in this new book of why twentieth-century attempts at constructing socialism failed must be an essential element in the socialist renewal emerging amid the first great capitalist crisis of the twenty-first century. It thus appears that the old wise owl also flies at dawn.

—Leo Panitch, editor, the Socialist Register

If we want socialism for the twenty-first century, we need to understand why the ‘real’ socialisms of the last century so often ended in capitalism. In this book, Lebowitz shows, theoretically and historically, that the socialism practiced in the Soviet Union and Central Europe was doomed because vanguard relations of production weakened the working class, ensuring that it would have no primary role in the battle ultimately won by the logic of capital (represented by managers) over the logic of the vanguard (represented by the party). We must, he concludes, reject vanguard Marxism and embrace a Marxist vision of socialism in which, from the beginning, the full development of human capacities is actively promoted. There is a lot to learn here.

—Martin Hart-Landsberg, professor of economics, Lewis and Clark College

One doesn’t have to agree with all the theses presented in Michael Lebowitz’s latest book in order to acknowledge that this is a major contribution to the international debate on Socialism of the Twenty-First Century. Drawing lessons from the dramatic failure of so-called “Real Socialism,” he argues, with powerful and persuasive logic, that a new society, based on values of solidarity and community, cannot be created by a state standing over and above civil society: only through autonomous organizations—at the neighborhood, community, and national levels—can people transform both circumstances and themselves.

—Michael Löwy, co-author, Che Guevara: His Revolutionary Legacy (with Olivier Besancenot)

What would Marx have thought had he lived to see the Soviet Union? Nobody has interpreted Marx to greater advantage to answer this question than renowned Marxist scholar Michael Lebowitz, who explains in The Contradictions of ‘Real Socialism’ why Marx would not have been pleased!

—Robin Hahnel, professor of economics, Portland State University

A riveting exploration of what can be learned from the first attempts to create socialist systems, specifically the period from 1950 through the 1980s. Lebowitz convincingly demonstrates that the distortions of the model developed in the Soviet Union and copied in eastern European countries (‘real socialism’) were caused by setting in motion two contradictory forces—ending up with the worst aspects of both capital and leadership and control by a ‘vanguard.’ He examines the development of ‘real socialism’ as a complex system, with the various parts explained and scrutinized in their interactions and interrelations as part of the system. Required reading for those interested in avoiding diversions and pitfalls in a post capitalist alternative—on the path to creating a system under social, instead of private, control in which the goal is meeting everyone’s basic needs and encouraging and allowing the full human development of all.

—Fred Magdoff, professor emeritus of plant and soil science, University of Vermont; co-author, What Every Environmentalist Needs to Know About Capitalism (with John Bellamy Foster)

We need this well-written book to understand that socialism did not die with the fall of the Berlin Wall.

—François Houtart, Executive Secretary of the World Forum for Alternatives

Michael A. Lebowitz is professor emeritus of economics at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada, and the author of The Socialist Alternative, Beyond Capital: Marx’s Political Economy of the Working Class (winner of the Isaac Deutscher Memorial Prize for 2004), Build It Now: Socialism for the Twenty-First Century, and Following Marx: Method, Critique and Crisis. He was Director, Program in Transformative Practice and Human Development, Centro Internacional Miranda, in Caracas, Venezuela, from 2006-11.

'Idle No More' Printer-Friendly E-Mail This Jan 19, 2013 By Socialist Alternative (CWI in Canada), reporters First Nations challenge Harper government’s resource exploitation The Idle No More movement of First Nations (Canada’s indigenous people) is the biggest challenge to Canadian Prime Minister Harper’s right-wing agenda since he won a majority government in May 2011. Idle No More was started by four women in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, in November 2012, with the first National Day of Action on 10 December. Just over a month later, there have been hundreds of rallies and demonstrations in every city and many smaller communities across Canada, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from the U.S. border to the North West Territories. The protests have also blocked border crossings to the U.S. and railway lines for several hours, with warnings of more to come. Because of the legal and strategic position of First Nations, although they are only 3% of the population, they have the potential to seriously derail Harper’s plans. First Peoples and Canada The relation between the settler governments of Canada and the First Peoples (who were in what became Canada before the colonization by European rulers), has always been difficult, if not harmful for the indigenous peoples. It has also not always been easy for the settler capitalist government of Canada. After all, the first two military actions of new Canadian government were in 1870 and 1885 against the Métis and First Nations on the prairies. In many parts of Canada the First Nations signed agreements, or ‘treaties’, with the government of Canada or the British Crown before confederation in 1867. In these treaties the First Nations gave up most of their lands to the settlers and lost many rights to follow migrating animals and to fish in their traditional ways. In return the First Nations were granted some minor concessions, such as entitlement to some financial benefits and, in some cases, some off-reserve hunting and fishing rights. They retained a small portion of their former lands, held in common ownership (called a reserve) and they had the right to some decision-making on the reserve. This control was often undermined and changed by the government and its representatives. Although they lost most of their lands, unlike many oppressed and minority groups around the world, the First Nations still had some land that was theirs, albeit with limits on their control. This gives them a space to organize and a base for their identity and defense. Control of territory is vital to a nation. Also importantly the treaties recognized the First Nation as an entity to be negotiated with by the Crown or government of Canada. The Indian Act (first version passed in 1876) created the concept of ‘status Indians’, the definition of which restricted the number of people of First Nations descent that were entitled to some benefits in compensations for giving up their lands. In addition, there are non-status Indians and Métis who, although of aboriginal descent, have no rights under the Indian Act. Today there are nearly 900,000 status Indians, over 400,000 Métis and at least 200,000 non-status Indians. There have been and continue to be struggles and court cases about the definitions and rights of Métis and non-status Indians. In recent years, there have been several new land agreements which, though differing from earlier treaties, have settled a land claim with some land and resources being granted to the control of Aboriginal people. These include the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, finalized in 1978, establishment of the territory of Nunavut in the Arctic for Inuit people in 1999, and the Nisga’a settlement of 2000 in British Colombia. There are also many outstanding, unsettled land claims. The British and then Canadian rulers have, in various ways over the years, carried out systematic attempts to destroy First Nations as distinct peoples in Canada, by destroying their means of living, murder, smallpox, missionaries, residential schools, banning cultural events and undermining their languages. The Indian Act and its amendments attacked the Aboriginal people’s languages and banned their traditional cultural and religious activities. The Potlatch ceremonies, common to many First Nations, were declared illegal. To undermine any resistance, First Nations were barred from forming political organizations and under these rules First Nation leaders were jailed for trying to organize. Aboriginal children (both First Nations and Inuit) were required to attend schools which were conducted in an alien culture. Many were removed from their families and societies and forced to attend residential, boarding schools where they were prohibited from speaking their native language, with severe punishment if they were caught uttering a single word. The schools were mostly run by religious organizations which imposed various forms of Christianity on the children. Many children were mistreated, some were forced-sterilized, and physical and sexual abuses were widespread. Children died in these schools; with estimates ranging from a few thousand to 50,000 – but the number is unknown because no one ever counted! The aim of these policies was to ‘assimilate’ the First Nations, wiping them out as a separate group in Canadian society. As late as 1969, the Canadian government proposed to abolish the Indian Act and with it any unique status for First Nations in Canadian society. However, the opposition to this proposal was so great, it was never implemented. In spite of all the attacks of the colonial governments, the First Nations survived and in recent decades the First Nations have begun to reverse their long decline. The potlatches were allowed after 1951; the residential schools declined from the 1960s with the last one closing in 1996. First Nations have worked to retain their surviving languages and revived and developed their cultures to accommodate the changed world they live in. They have asserted their rights to have a say over their lives and communities and to be part of shaping Canadian policies. Their population has recovered from the decimation which reduced their total population to less than 120,000 in 1921. Now they are the fasting growing section of the population of Canadian residents, and half of all First Nations are under the age of 25 years. Conservatives’ agenda In 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper famously stated, “You won’t recognize Canada when I’m through with it,” and he has been working to deliver that promise since getting a majority in the House of Commons. He has weakened environmental protections, forced workers in disputes back to work, cut taxes for the corporations and much more. The Conservatives here are abandoning manufacturing – Canada has lost over 500,000 manufacturing jobs in a decade. They are also undermining jobs in the public services, the not-for-profit sector and retail. Former British Prime Minister Thatcher dreamed of an economy based on the finance sector; Harper dreams of an economy based on resource extraction and export. This is where they see profits – especially if the workers are low paid, temporary foreign workers without legal rights (as is proposed for a new coal mine in northern BC). Many of the minerals, oil, coal and gas that companies want to exploit lie under (or access to the resources passes through) land covered by treaties or land claims. Central to expanding resource extraction is the gutting of environmental regulations and overcoming the barriers of the First Nations’ treaty rights. The Conservatives also would like to eventually see First Nations assimilated, with no unique status in Canada, and reserve land privatized and eventually broken up and sold off. Attacking the ownership and control of their land is central to destroying the First Nations. Harper’s strategy has been to continue the long-established divide-and-rule between status and non-status, on-and off-reserve, First Nations and Métis, and between the different nations. He has also worked to cut deals with the more compliant leaders to open up their lands for resource extraction. Idle No More, however, has thrown in a big wrench in Harper‘s agenda for dealing with First Nations. Attawapiskat and Chief Theresa Spence Attawapiskat is a First Nation centered on a reserve in the far north of Ontario with a population on the reserve of about 1,800 people, with nearly 90% unemployment, which is only accessible by an ice road in winter and boat or airplane in summer. The cost of freight means everything there is very expensive. For example, it costs $250,000 to build a house. The Chief, Theresa Spence, made national news when in November 2011 she declared a state of emergency, as many houses lacked heating and families were sleeping in storage sheds, shacks or run-down trailers, often with no running water, while the temperature outside went as low as -40 Celsius. Chief Spence demanded the federal government provide resources to deal with the problems. The Conservative’s response was to criticize the Band council and impose a third party manager, a private consultant, who was paid $1,300 per day from the council’s funds, to take over running the community. Since then, the federal government have sent in an auditor to inspect the council’s books to further divert attention from their own failures. Attawapiskat illustrates the contrast between the wealth of resources being extracted and the poverty of many First Nations’ communities. Just 90 kilometers from the community is the DeBeer’s Victor diamond mine, which produces 600,000 carats worth of diamonds per year. On December 11, 2012, Chief Theresa Spence started a hunger strike, only taking liquids, to demand that Stephen Harper and the Governor General, the Queen’s representative in Canada (as many treaties were signed with the Crown before the government of Canada was established) meet with First Nations’ leaders “because the treaty’s been violated [for] so many years and it’s time for the Prime Minister to honor the treaties and respect our leaders.” Idle No More In less than two months, Idle No More has gone from a few people to a movement that is rocking Canadian politics. This support has revealed the huge anger in the First Nations communities. The initial demands were around Bill C-45, the Conservatives’ Omnibus bill, which they claim is about budget implementation which they pushed through Parliament using their majority, without any real debate. However the Bill amends over 60 laws and attacks many previous gains of the Canadian people, such as on pensions. The Bill changes the Indian Act so it will be easier to lease reserve land, even if most of the people on the reserve oppose it. The Bill also further weakens environmental laws in Canada further undermining the environmental assessment processes and removing 99% of all of Canada’s waterways from protection from construction, such as a pipeline or power line. Before C-45 was passed, over 2 million lakes and over 8,500 rivers were protected, now only 97 lakes and 62 rivers are protected. The movement also flows from a host of other long-simmering issues. Reserves are some of the poorest places in Canada. Around 40% of reserves do not have clean safe running water. There are many battles over resource development. First Nations in BC are overwhelmingly opposed to the plans to build three pipelines for oil, bitumen and natural gas across the province, which will bring little or no economic benefits and the guarantee of environmental pollution. While some communities have had some benefits from resource extraction, many more are suffering, such as at Fort Chipewyan downstream of the Alberta Tar Sands. The Idle No More movement has grown, and its demands have become focused. A key demand is that there are nation-to-nation relations between the First Nations and the Canadian government – something the Conservatives will do everything to resist as it challenges their entire agenda. Initially, Harper totally ignored the Idle No More movement and Chief Spence’s hunger strike, as he thought he had enough First Nations leaders that he could cut deals with. He dismissed these movements from below, as many capitalist leaders often do as they judge movements by their official leaders. However as Idle No More grew in support across the country, this pushed many chiefs to be more militant and demand change. The movement has opened up disagreements within the First Nations over strategy, but overall it is pushing more determined action. Under the growing pressure from Idle No More, Harper was forced to agree to meet the First Nations chiefs. However, a substantial number of chiefs refused to attend as they saw it as a talking shop; as the Manitoba chiefs said, “Unfortunately, the prime minister has been very dictatorial and unrelenting in his position to control and set the agenda for this meeting." So far, they are right. Harper has not moved on anything; he has just offered more talks. Idle No More is a movement from the grassroots; it is not chiefs but ordinary First Nations. With half of all First Nations under the age of 25, the movement is youthful and energetic. It has also united status Indians across the country with non-status and Métis. There is a mood of anger and determination among First Nations. Grand Chief Gordon Peters of Ontario said that aboriginal protesters will block major roads and rail lines in Ontario, if their demands are not met. Derek Nepinak, Manitoba Grand Chief, said Idle No More has enough people to "bring the Canadian economy to its knees. It can stop Prime Minister Harper’s resource development plan and his billion-dollar plan to develop resources in our ancestral territories. We have the warriors that are standing up now that are willing to go that far. So we’re not here to make requests. We’re here to demand attention and to demand an end to 140 years of colonial rule.” No doubt, the young people of Idle No More have taken inspiration from Occupy and the Quebec students’ victory. They, in turn, are inspiring many other Canadians to fight back against the Conservatives. What socialists say Idle No More has gained widespread support from non-Aboriginal Canadians, who have been welcomed on the rallies, and on some demonstrations there have been union banners. As well as non-Native Canadians attending the rallies, they should encourage their organizations, especially unions and environmental groups, to also support the movement. The solidarity of non-Aboriginals is important to help the struggle and to show that many Canadians are opposed to the mistreatment of First Nations. First Nations, union members, environmentalists and others all have a common interest in defeating the Harper government. Idle No More demands fundamental changes in the relation between the Canadian state and First Nations. However it is unlikely Harper and the Conservatives will agree to such change. While pushing this government, a growing number of Idle No More activists are realizing that Harper and his government have to go. Socialist Alternative – Canada supports Idle No More. We recognize that a long-term solution requires replacing the present colonial state that serves the interest of capitalism. This state will always seek to exploit First Nations, workers and the environment to generate profits for the minority. We want a government that abides by and respects treaties and resource rights. We support the right to self-determination and self-government for all Aboriginal peoples. Canada should become a voluntary socialist association of the Canadas – including First Nations, Inuit and Quebec, as well as the majority in English speaking Canada. Glossary • Aboriginal: The descendants of the original inhabitants of North America. The Canadian Constitution recognizes three groups of Aboriginal people — Indians, Métis and Inuit. • Status Indian: A person who is registered as an Indian under the Indian Act. • Non-Status Indian: An Indian person who is not registered as an Indian under the Indian Act. • Inuit: Aboriginal people in Northern Canada, with a distinct culture and technologies from other Aboriginals in Canada (formerly called ‘Eskimo’) • Métis: People of mixed First Nation and European ancestry who identify themselves as Métis, • First Nation: Although First Nation has no legal definition, it is widely used to replace the word "Indian", which is seen as derogatory and incorrect. It is used to describe their community and their organization. "First Nations peoples" refers to the both Status and non-Status.

Socialist Alternative, P.O. Box 45343, Seattle WA 98145 Phone: (206)526-7185 Comments? Suggestions for improving our web page? Please email info@SocialistAlternative.org

Custom Search

Web

The Contradictions of “Real Socialism”

The Conductor and the Conducted

by Michael A. Lebowitz

Books, New/Recently Released more on Marxism & Socialism

Paperback, 222 pages
ISBN-13: 978-1-58367-256-3
Cloth (ISBN-13: 978-1-58367-257-0)
July 2012
e-book available!
Kindle, Sony Reader, Nook

Price: $15.95 Quantity: PaperbackCloth [$65] + $49.05

We're Sorry

Inventory Restriction

Inventory Failure

Success!

Read an excerpt here!
What was “real socialism”—the term which originated in twentieth-century socialist societies for the purpose of distinguishing them from abstract, theoretical socialism? In this volume, Michael A. Lebowitz considers the nature, tendencies, and contradictions of those societies. Beginning with the constant presence of shortages within “real socialism,” Lebowitz searches for the inner relations which generate these patterns. He finds these, in particular, in what he calls “vanguard relations of production,” a relation which takes the apparent form of a social contract where workers obtain benefits not available to their counterparts in capitalism but lack the power to decide within the workplace and society.
While these societies were able to claim major achievements in areas from health care to education to popular culture, the separation of thinking and doing prevented workers from developing their capacities as fully developed human beings. The relationship within “real socialism” between the vanguard as conductor and a conducted working class, however, did not only lead to the deformation of workers and those elements necessary for the building of socialism; it also created the conditions in which enterprise managers emerged as an incipient capitalist class, which was an immediate source of the crises of “real socialism.” As he argued in The Socialist Alternative: Real Human Development, Lebowitz stresses the necessity to go beyond the hierarchy inherent in the relation of conductor and conducted (and beyond the “vanguard Marxism” which supports this) to create the conditions in which people can transform themselves through their conscious cooperation and practice—i.e., a society of free and associated producers.
From the author’s preface:

This is not a book for those who already know everything important there is to know about “Real Socialism.” For those fortunate souls who have inherited or adopted the eternal verities of particular political sects on the left, empirical footnotes that strengthen their claim to leadership are the principal tasks of scholarship. As a result, the central question about this book for them is likely to be, “Is he with us or against us?” In short, is this book good for the chosen?
I presume, however, readers who begin with questions rather than answers. What was this phenomenon known as “Real Socialism,” or “Actually Existing Socialism,” a concept created in the twentieth century by the leaders of countries in order to distinguish their real experience from merely theoretical socialist ideas? What were its characteristics? How was this system reproduced? And why did it ultimately yield to capitalism without resistance from the working classes who were presumably its beneficiaries?

Where fresh insights are rare, indeed, Michael Lebowitz provides a bundle of them. Although no one will (or perhaps should) agree with everything here, the book provides rich material for badly-needed discussion.

—Paul Buhle, author, Marxism in the United States

‘The owl of Minerva only flies at dusk’—it was Hegel’s old maxim that seemed confirmed when in 1991 the Socialist Register published Michael Lebowitz’s article on the nature of ‘real socialism’ amid its very demise. This new book takes off from there, but its wings are buoyed by Lebowitz’s work since then, from Beyond Capital to The Socialist Alternative. The profound understanding in this new book of why twentieth-century attempts at constructing socialism failed must be an essential element in the socialist renewal emerging amid the first great capitalist crisis of the twenty-first century. It thus appears that the old wise owl also flies at dawn.

—Leo Panitch, editor, the Socialist Register

If we want socialism for the twenty-first century, we need to understand why the ‘real’ socialisms of the last century so often ended in capitalism. In this book, Lebowitz shows, theoretically and historically, that the socialism practiced in the Soviet Union and Central Europe was doomed because vanguard relations of production weakened the working class, ensuring that it would have no primary role in the battle ultimately won by the logic of capital (represented by managers) over the logic of the vanguard (represented by the party). We must, he concludes, reject vanguard Marxism and embrace a Marxist vision of socialism in which, from the beginning, the full development of human capacities is actively promoted. There is a lot to learn here.

—Martin Hart-Landsberg, professor of economics, Lewis and Clark College

One doesn’t have to agree with all the theses presented in Michael Lebowitz’s latest book in order to acknowledge that this is a major contribution to the international debate on Socialism of the Twenty-First Century. Drawing lessons from the dramatic failure of so-called “Real Socialism,” he argues, with powerful and persuasive logic, that a new society, based on values of solidarity and community, cannot be created by a state standing over and above civil society: only through autonomous organizations—at the neighborhood, community, and national levels—can people transform both circumstances and themselves.

—Michael Löwy, co-author, Che Guevara: His Revolutionary Legacy (with Olivier Besancenot)

What would Marx have thought had he lived to see the Soviet Union? Nobody has interpreted Marx to greater advantage to answer this question than renowned Marxist scholar Michael Lebowitz, who explains in The Contradictions of ‘Real Socialism’ why Marx would not have been pleased!

—Robin Hahnel, professor of economics, Portland State University

A riveting exploration of what can be learned from the first attempts to create socialist systems, specifically the period from 1950 through the 1980s. Lebowitz convincingly demonstrates that the distortions of the model developed in the Soviet Union and copied in eastern European countries (‘real socialism’) were caused by setting in motion two contradictory forces—ending up with the worst aspects of both capital and leadership and control by a ‘vanguard.’ He examines the development of ‘real socialism’ as a complex system, with the various parts explained and scrutinized in their interactions and interrelations as part of the system. Required reading for those interested in avoiding diversions and pitfalls in a post capitalist alternative—on the path to creating a system under social, instead of private, control in which the goal is meeting everyone’s basic needs and encouraging and allowing the full human development of all.

—Fred Magdoff, professor emeritus of plant and soil science, University of Vermont; co-author, What Every Environmentalist Needs to Know About Capitalism (with John Bellamy Foster)

We need this well-written book to understand that socialism did not die with the fall of the Berlin Wall.

—François Houtart, Executive Secretary of the World Forum for Alternatives

Michael A. Lebowitz is professor emeritus of economics at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada, and the author of The Socialist Alternative, Beyond Capital: Marx’s Political Economy of the Working Class (winner of the Isaac Deutscher Memorial Prize for 2004), Build It Now: Socialism for the Twenty-First Century, and Following Marx: Method, Critique and Crisis. He was Director, Program in Transformative Practice and Human Development, Centro Internacional Miranda, in Caracas, Venezuela, from 2006-11.

Pardon Private Bradley Manning Stand-Out-Central Square, Cambridge, Wednesdays, 5:00 PM – Support The Bradley Manning International Day OfSolidarity February 23, 2013 –The 1000th Day Of Pre-Trial Confinement

Let’s Redouble Our Efforts To Free Private Bradley Manning-President Obama Pardon Bradley Manning -Make Every Town Square In America (And The World) A Bradley Manning Square From Boston To Berkeley to Berlin-Join Us In Central Square, Cambridge, Ma. For A Stand-Out For Bradley- Wednesdays From 5:00-6:00 PM

***********
Since September 2011, in order to publicize Private Manning’s case locally, there have been weekly stand-outs (as well as other more ad hocand sporadic events) in various locations in the Greater Boston area starting in Somerville across from the Davis Square Redline MBTA stop on Friday afternoons and later on Wednesdays. Lately this stand-out has been held each week on Wednesdays from 5:00 to 6:00 PM at Central Square, Cambridge, Ma. (small park at the corner of Massachusetts Avenue and Prospect Street just outside the Redline MBTA stop, renamed Manning Square for the duration of the stand-out) in order to continue to broaden our outreach. Join us there in calling for Private Manning’s freedom. President Obama Pardon Private Manning Now!
***********
The Private Bradley Manning case is headed toward an early summer trial now scheduled for June 2013. The news on his case over the past several months (since about April 2012) has centered on the many pre-trial motion hearings including recent defense motions to dismiss for lack of speedy trial. Private Manning’s pre-trial confinement is now at 900 plus days and will be over 1000 days by the time of trial. That motion, still not ruled on as of this writing, is expected to be decided by the next round of pre-trial hearings in late February.

The defense contends that the charges should be dismissed because the military by its own statutes (to speak nothing of that funny old constitutional right to a speedy trial guarantee that our plebeian forbears fought tooth and nail for against the bloody British and later made damn sure was included in the Amendments when the founding fathers“forgot” to include it in the main document) should have arraigned Private Manning within 120 days after his arrest. They hemmed and hawed for almost 600 days before deciding on the charges and a court martial. Nobody in the convening authority, as required by those same statutes, pushed the prosecution forward in a timely manner. There were no serious efforts to push the work of the classifying agencies (the agencies that would determine what level of security classification had been allegedly violated) throughout most of that time although the government knew what documents it was going to proffer at the Article 32 hearing well before that work was finished. In fact the court-martial convening authority, in the person of one Colonel Coffman, seems to have seen his role as mere “yes man, ” a “rubber stamp” in the defense’s words, to each of the government’s eight requests for delays without explanation (and without informing the defense in order to take their objection). Apparently the Colonel saw his role as a mere clearing agent for whatever excuse the government gave, mainly endless addition time for clearing various classified documents a process that need not have held up the proceedings. The defense made timely objection to each governmental request to no avail.

Testimony from military authorities at pre-trial hearings in November 2012 about the reasons for the lack of action ranged from the lame to the absurd (mainly negative responses to knowledge about why some additional delays were necessary. One “reason” sticks out as a reason for excusable delay -some officer needed to get his son to a swimming meet and was thus “unavailable” for a couple of days. I didn’t make this up. I don’t have that sense of the absurd. Jesus, a man, a presumably innocent man, was rotting in Obama’s jails and they let him rot a little longer because of some damn swim meet). The prosecution, obviously, has argued that the government has moved might and main to move the case along and had merely waited until all leaked materials had been determined before proceeding.

We shall see but here is a good statement of the situation right now and the options for the Bradley Manning Support Network:

“Three years is not a speedy trial

On Bradley Manning’s 964^th day in prison without trial, both parties argued over the defense’s motion to dismiss charges for lack of a speedy trial. Under Rule for Court Martial 707, the military was supposed to arraign Bradley in 120 days, but it took over 600. Under Uniform Code for Military Justice Article 10, prosecutors are obligated to maintain diligence in trying the accused. Defense lawyer David Coombs explained to the court that rather than being proactive, the military was reactive, waiting for months and months for other agencies to complete classification reviews, when it should have been hurrying those processes along to get to court-martial as quickly as possible. If Judge Lind finds Article 10 was violated, she must dismiss charges. If she dismisses charges “with prejudice,” meaning she finds that the military was prejudicial in denying Bradley a speedy trial, then Bradley will walk free. However, if she dismisses “without prejudice,” finding the delays were negligent but not malicious, the military could simply re-charge Bradley with all of the same offenses. She’ll rule at the next hearing, February 26 through March 1.”

******
The defense has also recently pursued a motion for a dismissal of the major charges (espionage/ indirect material aid to terrorists) on the basis of the minimal effect of any leaks on national security issues as against Private Manning’s claim that such knowledge was important to the public square (freedom of information issues important for us as well in order to know about what the hell the government is doing either in front of us, or behind our backs). Last summer witnesses from an alphabet soup list of government agencies (CIA, FBI, NSA, Military Intelligence, etc., etc.) testified that while the information leaked shouldn’t have been leaked that the effect on national security was de minimus. The Secretary of Defense at the time, Leon Panetta, also made a public statement to that effect. The prosecution argued, successfully at the time, that the mere fact of the leak of classified information caused irreparable harm to national security issues and Private Manning’s intent, even if noble, was not at issue.

The recent thrust of the motion to dismiss has centered on the defense’s contention been that Private Manning consciously and carefully screened any material in his possession to avoid any conflict with national security and that most of the released material had been over-classified (received higher security level than necessary).(Much of the materials leaked, as per those parts published widely in the aftermath of the disclosures by the New York Times and other major outlets, concerned reports of atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan and diplomatic interchanges that reflected poorly on that profession.) The Obama government has argued again that the mere fact of leaking was all that mattered. That motion has also not been fully ruled on and is now the subject of prosecution counter- motions and a cause for further trial delay.

Here is the latest from the Bradley Manning Support Network on this issue while will the subject of May pre-trial hearings:

“Turning whistle-blowing into treason

Meanwhile, in an attempt to curtail the defense’s ability to show Bradley Manning is a whistle-blower, the government moved to preclude discussion of his motive in determining his guilt or innocence. Judge Lind granted this motion in part: the defense will not be allowed to show Bradley’s motive, such as chatlog quotes showing that he wanted information to be free, in debating whether he knew Al Qaeda would have access to the cables he released (but it will be allowed to discuss motive during a potential sentencing portion). The military will have to prove that Bradley knew he was “dealing with the enemy” in passing information to WikiLeaks. The defense will be allowed to show that Bradley selected certain cables or types of cables to prove he knew which information would not cause harm to U.S. national security if made public. The government also moved to preclude discussion of over classification, trying to prevent the defense from arguing that documents released needn’t have been classified in the first place. Judge Lind decided to defer that ruling, and will make it at a later hearing. In this hearing, the military also said that it would still charge Bradley Manning with “aiding the enemy” if he’d released information to the New York Times instead of WikiLeaks, an argument that would effectively turn whistle-blowing into treason and one which troubled many journalists following the proceedings.”

********
A defense motion for dismissal based on serious allegations of torturous behavior by the military authorities extending far up the chain of command (a three-star Army general, not the normal concern of someone so far up the chain in the matter of discipline for enlisted personal) while Private Manning was first detained in Kuwait and later at the Quantico Marine brig for about a year ending in April 2011 has now been ruled on. In late November and early December Private Manning himself, as well as others including senior military mental health workers, took the stand to detail those abuses over several days. Most important to the defense was the testimony by qualified military mental health professionals citing the constant willful failure of those who held Private Manning in close confinement to listen to, or act, on their recommendations during those periods

Judge Lind, the military judge who has heard all the pre-trial arguments in the case thus far, has essentially ruled unfavorably on that motion to dismiss given the potential life sentence Private Manning faces. As she announced at an early January pre-trial hearing the military acted illegally in some of its actions. While every Bradley Manning supporter should be heartened by the fact that the military judge ruled that he was subject to illegal behavior by the military during his pre-trial confinement her remedy, a 112 days reduction in any future sentence, is a mere slap on the wrist to the military authorities. No dismissal or, alternatively, no appropriate reduction (the asked for ten to one ratio for all his first year or so of illegal close confinement which would take years off any potential sentence) given the seriousness of the illegal behavior as the defense tirelessly argued for. And the result is a heavy-handed deterrent to any future military whistleblowers, who already are under enormous pressures to remain silent as a matter of course while in uniform, and others who seek to put the hard facts of future American military atrocities before the public.

Here is the Bradley Manning Support Network’s take on Judge Lind’s decision:

“Judge ruled abusive treatment at Quantico was unlawful, awards sentencing credit

Following over two weeks of testimony from Quantico guards and higher officers about keeping Bradley in a 6×8 cell for 23 hours a day and denying him exercise time and easy access to basic hygiene items Judge Denise Lind ruled that Bradley was treated harshly and awarded him 112 days off of a potential sentence. This is a meager rebuke and a scant reduction when compared to the life sentence Bradley could face, but it is an important symbolic vindication for those who fought so hard to raise awareness of the disturbing treatment and to move Bradley from Quantico.”

**********
Some other important recent news, this from the November 2012 pre-trail sessions, is the offer by the defense to plead guilty to lesser charges (wrongful, unauthorized use of the Internet, etc.) in order to clear the deck and have the major espionage /aiding the enemy issue (with a possibility of a life sentence) solely before the court-martial judge, Judge Lind (the one who has been hearing the pre-trial motions, not some senior officer, senior NCO lifer-stacked panel. A wise move, a very wise move.). Also there has been increased media attention by mainstream outlets around the case (including the previously knowingly oblivious New York Times), as well as an important statement by three Nobel Peace Laureates (including Bishop Tutu from South Africa) calling on their fellow laureate, United States President Barack Obama, to free Private Manning from his jails. Check the Bradley Manning Support Network -http://www.bradleymanning.org/ for details and future updates.

*Contribute to the Bradley Manning Defense Fund- as the trial date approaches funds are urgently needed!

*Sign the online petition at the Bradley Manning Support Network site to the Secretary of the Army to free Bradley Manning-1000 days is enough!

*Call, write, e-mail the White House to ask President Obama to pardon Bradley Manning- in federal cases the President of the United States can pardon the guilty and the innocent, the convicted and those awaiting trial- Free the whistleblower!

Recent rulings in Bradley’s pre-trial hearings–Trial delayed until June

digg

Judge Lind will rule on the defense motion to dismiss the charges based on the lack of a speedy trial at the next pre-trial hearing, February 26, 2013

By the Bradley Manning Support Network. January 23, 2013.
Bradley Manning, a 24-year-old Army intelligence analyst, is accused of releasing the Collateral Murder video, which shows the killing of unarmed civilians and two Reuters journalists by a US Apache helicopter crew in Iraq. He is also accused of sharing the Afghan War Diary, the Iraq War Logs, and series of embarrassing US diplomatic cables. These documents were published by the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks, and they have illuminated such issues as the true number and cause of civilian casualties in Iraq, along with a number of human rights abuses by U.S.-funded contractors and foreign militaries, and the role that spying and bribes play in international diplomacy. He has twice been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his heroic and noble actions. For over 960 days he has been imprisoned without trial, 11 months of which were spent in solitary confinement at Quantico prison, where his treatment has since been judged to have amounted to unlawful pretrial punishment.
Winter recap: torture hearings, trial delays, motive debates, and more
Pre-trial hearings at Ft. Meade brought new developments for Pfc. Bradley Manning’s defense, including four months of sentencing credit, another three-month trial delay, debates over the failure to try Manning within reasonable time, and an effort to make whistle-blowing treasonous.
Bradley Manning has been to Ft. Meade for three hearings in the last two months, including the marathon Article 13 motion surrounding Bradley’s torturous nine months in Quantico, a 112-day reduction in a potential sentence, speedy trial litigation, arguments over how motive will play into the ‘aiding the enemy’ charge, and another court-martial delay. The trial is now scheduled to start June 3, 2013, with pretrial hearings set for February 26 – March 1 and May 21-24.
Judge ruled abusive treatment at Quantico was unlawful, awards sentencing credit
Following over two weeks of testimony from Quantico guards and higher officers about keeping Bradley in a 6×8 cell for 23 hours a day and denying him exercise time and easy access to basic hygiene items Judge Denise Lind ruled that Bradley was treated harshly and awarded him 112 days off of a potential sentence. This is a meager rebuke and a scant reduction when compared to the life sentence Bradley could face, but it is an important symbolic vindication for those who fought so hard to raise awareness of the disturbing treatment and to move Bradley from Quantico.
Read more: Bradley takes the stand, puts military captors on trial and
Judge rules Manning was illegally treated, awards 112 days credit
Three years is not a speedy trial
On Bradley Manning’s 964^th day in prison without trial, both parties argued over the defense’s motion to dismiss charges for lack of a speedy trial. Under Rule for Court Martial 707, the military was supposed to arraign Bradley in 120 days, but it took over 600. Under Uniform Code for Military Justice Article 10, prosecutors are obligated to maintain diligence in trying the accused. Defense lawyer David Coombs explained to the court that rather than being proactive, the military was reactive, waiting for months and months for other agencies to complete classification reviews, when it should have been hurrying those processes along to get to court-martial as quickly as possible. If Judge Lind finds Article 10 was violated, she must dismiss charges. If she dismisses charges “with prejudice,” meaning she finds that the military was prejudicial in denying Bradley a speedy trial, then Bradley will walk free. However, if she dismisses “without prejudice,” finding the delays were negligent but not malicious, the military could simply re-charge Bradley with all of the same offenses. She’ll rule at the next hearing, February 26 through March 1.

Turning whistle-blowing into treason
Meanwhile, in an attempt to curtail the defense’s ability to show Bradley Manning is a whistle-blower, the government moved to preclude discussion of his motive in determining his guilt or innocence. Judge Lind granted this motion in part: the defense will not be allowed to show Bradley’s motive, such as chatlog quotes showing that he wanted information to be free, in debating whether he knew Al Qaeda would have access to the cables he released (but it will be allowed to discuss motive during a potential sentencing portion). The military will have to prove that Bradley knew he was “dealing with the enemy” in passing information to WikiLeaks. The defense will be allowed to show that Bradley selected certain cables or types of cables to prove he knew which information would not cause harm to U.S. national security if made public. The government also moved to preclude discussion of overclassification, trying to prevent the defense from arguing that documents released needn’t have been classified in the first place. Judge Lind decided to defer that ruling, and will make it at a later hearing. In this hearing, the military also said that it would still charge Bradley Manning with “aiding the enemy” if he’d released information to the New York Times instead of WikiLeaks, an argument that would effectively turn whistle-blowing into treason and one which troubled many journalists following the proceedings.
Read more: Judge limits Manning’s whistle-blower defense, pretrial confinement nears 1,000 days and Transparency isn’t treason: New York Times journalists criticize “aiding the enemy” charge
The defense is currently determining which classification information it will need to present during the court-martial. Once it notifies the government of that information, prosecutors have 60 days to determine how to handle those documents in court. They can redact, substitute, or summarize them, or they can ask the court to hold closed sections, open only to the judge, defense, prosecution, and security experts with sufficient clearances. Therefore, the trial is tentatively scheduled to begin June 3, 2013.
Read more: Court-martial delayed again, expected to start June 3
Remaining proceedings:

• 26 February – 1 March, 2013: Accused plea and anticipated speedy trial ruling
• 21 May – 24 May, 2013: How to deal with classified information during trial (either substituting or redacting documents or closing portions of the trial to the press and public)
• 3 June, 2013: Tentative trial start date; trial expected to last about six weeks

Recent rulings in Bradley’s pre-trial hearings–Trial delayed until June

digg

Judge Lind will rule on the defense motion to dismiss the charges based on the lack of a speedy trial at the next pre-trial hearing, February 26, 2013

By the Bradley Manning Support Network. January 23, 2013.
Bradley Manning, a 24-year-old Army intelligence analyst, is accused of releasing the Collateral Murder video, which shows the killing of unarmed civilians and two Reuters journalists by a US Apache helicopter crew in Iraq. He is also accused of sharing the Afghan War Diary, the Iraq War Logs, and series of embarrassing US diplomatic cables. These documents were published by the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks, and they have illuminated such issues as the true number and cause of civilian casualties in Iraq, along with a number of human rights abuses by U.S.-funded contractors and foreign militaries, and the role that spying and bribes play in international diplomacy. He has twice been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his heroic and noble actions. For over 960 days he has been imprisoned without trial, 11 months of which were spent in solitary confinement at Quantico prison, where his treatment has since been judged to have amounted to unlawful pretrial punishment.
Winter recap: torture hearings, trial delays, motive debates, and more
Pre-trial hearings at Ft. Meade brought new developments for Pfc. Bradley Manning’s defense, including four months of sentencing credit, another three-month trial delay, debates over the failure to try Manning within reasonable time, and an effort to make whistle-blowing treasonous.
Bradley Manning has been to Ft. Meade for three hearings in the last two months, including the marathon Article 13 motion surrounding Bradley’s torturous nine months in Quantico, a 112-day reduction in a potential sentence, speedy trial litigation, arguments over how motive will play into the ‘aiding the enemy’ charge, and another court-martial delay. The trial is now scheduled to start June 3, 2013, with pretrial hearings set for February 26 – March 1 and May 21-24.
Judge ruled abusive treatment at Quantico was unlawful, awards sentencing credit
Following over two weeks of testimony from Quantico guards and higher officers about keeping Bradley in a 6×8 cell for 23 hours a day and denying him exercise time and easy access to basic hygiene items Judge Denise Lind ruled that Bradley was treated harshly and awarded him 112 days off of a potential sentence. This is a meager rebuke and a scant reduction when compared to the life sentence Bradley could face, but it is an important symbolic vindication for those who fought so hard to raise awareness of the disturbing treatment and to move Bradley from Quantico.
Read more: Bradley takes the stand, puts military captors on trial and
Judge rules Manning was illegally treated, awards 112 days credit
Three years is not a speedy trial
On Bradley Manning’s 964^th day in prison without trial, both parties argued over the defense’s motion to dismiss charges for lack of a speedy trial. Under Rule for Court Martial 707, the military was supposed to arraign Bradley in 120 days, but it took over 600. Under Uniform Code for Military Justice Article 10, prosecutors are obligated to maintain diligence in trying the accused. Defense lawyer David Coombs explained to the court that rather than being proactive, the military was reactive, waiting for months and months for other agencies to complete classification reviews, when it should have been hurrying those processes along to get to court-martial as quickly as possible. If Judge Lind finds Article 10 was violated, she must dismiss charges. If she dismisses charges “with prejudice,” meaning she finds that the military was prejudicial in denying Bradley a speedy trial, then Bradley will walk free. However, if she dismisses “without prejudice,” finding the delays were negligent but not malicious, the military could simply re-charge Bradley with all of the same offenses. She’ll rule at the next hearing, February 26 through March 1.

Turning whistle-blowing into treason
Meanwhile, in an attempt to curtail the defense’s ability to show Bradley Manning is a whistle-blower, the government moved to preclude discussion of his motive in determining his guilt or innocence. Judge Lind granted this motion in part: the defense will not be allowed to show Bradley’s motive, such as chatlog quotes showing that he wanted information to be free, in debating whether he knew Al Qaeda would have access to the cables he released (but it will be allowed to discuss motive during a potential sentencing portion). The military will have to prove that Bradley knew he was “dealing with the enemy” in passing information to WikiLeaks. The defense will be allowed to show that Bradley selected certain cables or types of cables to prove he knew which information would not cause harm to U.S. national security if made public. The government also moved to preclude discussion of overclassification, trying to prevent the defense from arguing that documents released needn’t have been classified in the first place. Judge Lind decided to defer that ruling, and will make it at a later hearing. In this hearing, the military also said that it would still charge Bradley Manning with “aiding the enemy” if he’d released information to the New York Times instead of WikiLeaks, an argument that would effectively turn whistle-blowing into treason and one which troubled many journalists following the proceedings.
Read more: Judge limits Manning’s whistle-blower defense, pretrial confinement nears 1,000 days and Transparency isn’t treason: New York Times journalists criticize “aiding the enemy” charge
The defense is currently determining which classification information it will need to present during the court-martial. Once it notifies the government of that information, prosecutors have 60 days to determine how to handle those documents in court. They can redact, substitute, or summarize them, or they can ask the court to hold closed sections, open only to the judge, defense, prosecution, and security experts with sufficient clearances. Therefore, the trial is tentatively scheduled to begin June 3, 2013.
Read more: Court-martial delayed again, expected to start June 3
Remaining proceedings:

• 26 February – 1 March, 2013: Accused plea and anticipated speedy trial ruling
• 21 May – 24 May, 2013: How to deal with classified information during trial (either substituting or redacting documents or closing portions of the trial to the press and public)
• 3 June, 2013: Tentative trial start date; trial expected to last about six weeks