|
14 June 2013
|
Exposed U.S. Atrocities and Lies-Truth-Teller on Trial: Free Bradley Manning!
FORT MEADE—On June 3, the court-martial of Bradley Manning, an
army intelligence analyst who released classified information in order to expose
the barbarism of U.S. military occupation and domination in Iraq, Afghanistan
and elsewhere, finally began. In more than three years of pretrial detention
aimed at destroying the mind, body and soul of this whistleblower, Manning was
held in torturous conditions of solitary confinement, deprived of sleep,
clothing and even his eyeglasses, while being taunted and poked at continually
by sadistic guards. Yet Manning courageously held fast to his political purpose:
to expose evidence of monstrous war crimes and everyday U.S. overlordship of
Third World countries.
On Saturday, June 1, some 1,000 supporters rallied in blistering
heat outside the Fort Meade Army base near Washington, D.C., to demand freedom
for Bradley Manning. Police blocked roads leading to the protest to obstruct
people from joining or seeing the rally and march. Print, radio and television
journalists from a large number of countries covered the protest, but the only
mainstream American media present was the right-wing Fox News. The conspicuous
absence of the U.S. capitalist press was consistent with its deliberate efforts
to bury Bradley Manning’s case because his truth-telling effectively puts the
U.S. government on trial. Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg
proclaimed Manning a hero for all humanity, addressing the audience of military
veterans, lesbian and gay rights activists, civil libertarians, antiwar radicals
and left organizations.
Despite the best efforts of the U.S. government and the subservient
“free press,” Manning’s case has become an international cause célèbre.
Concluding a 14-month investigation, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on
torture found the United States government guilty of cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment of Manning, violating his physical and psychological
well-being and the presumption of his innocence. The German Bundestag and
British Members of Parliament went on record protesting the physical and mental
abuse of Manning, while hundreds of law school professors signed a letter of
protest to President Obama. Meanwhile, the Commander-in-Chief prejudiced the
trial by publicly announcing in advance that Manning was guilty. The
court-martial opened amid outrage over new leaks exposing surveillance of
journalists, ordinary citizens and foreign nationals by the Obama White House,
which has ramped up assaults on civil liberties as part of the global “war on
terror.”
Manning is charged with 22 counts, including the capital offenses
of “espionage” and “aiding the enemy.” Although prosecutors say they are not
seeking a death sentence, just entombment for life in a military brig, the judge
could still impose that penalty. In a pretrial hearing earlier this year,
Manning pled guilty to ten lesser charges that carry a penalty of up to 20
years’ imprisonment. But the government has refused to negotiate, prosecuting
him to the max in order to terrify others into silent submission. Contrast the
prosecution of Bradley Manning, who has harmed no one, with that of Sergeant
Robert Bales, who deliberately murdered 16 Afghan civilians last year, most of
them women and children. The government has shown compassion for Bales, setting
aside the death penalty and entertaining an exculpatory narrative of this
killer’s emotional problems. Bradley Manning faces the full force of state
repression for exposing heinous actions by the likes of Bales.
The wording in the statute on “aiding the enemy” casts a very wide
net that could snare anyone in the government’s sights. It warns that anyone who
“gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any
intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly” will “suffer death or
such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.” Who
is the “enemy”? In the “war on terror,” there is no declared enemy state, there
are no defined battlefields, and this government knows no demilitarized
zones.
In Bradley Manning’s case, the government asserts that releasing
significant activity war logs (“SigActs”) from Afghanistan and Iraq constitutes
aiding the enemy because the death raid on Osama bin Laden included capture of a
laptop that had allegedly been used to access the WikiLeaks Web site. The London
Financial Times (5 June) quotes a lawyer at the Government Accountability
Project, who warned of the danger to everyone posed by Manning’s prosecution:
“Once the information is on the internet, everyone has access to it, including
terrorists and serial killers and all sorts of unsavoury people. If the FT
or The New York Times had been found at the bin Laden
compound, would that mean the newspapers were also aiding the enemy?”
Certainly the videos and war logs leaked by Manning revealed no
secrets to the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan who were the direct victims of
the U.S. military’s bloody terror. It is the U.S. government itself, through its
drone attacks on civilians, air strikes, butchery and subjugation of entire
peoples and nations through imperialist occupations that fuels hatred of America
worldwide. Moreover, today’s terrorists were yesterday’s freedom fighters for
the U.S. government, which gave immense amounts of “material support” to Islamic
reactionaries to kill Soviet Army soldiers in Afghanistan who stood on the side
of women’s rights and social progress in the 1980s.
Through the Looking Glass to Fort Meade
The court-martial of Bradley Manning has huge implications for
everyone. At stake are the rights to read, write, associate and dissent, the
right to a speedy and fair trial, not to mention the right not to be tortured.
Yet the court-martial takes place far from adequate public scrutiny.
Representatives of the Partisan Defense Committee and Workers Vanguard
were among a total of 16 public spectators allowed in the tiny courtroom at
Fort Meade (a few more squeezed in if staff or media seats were vacated).
Hundreds of journalists were denied press credentials.
The trial was allegedly broadcast to a trailer seating a mere 35
more people, and to a 100-seat movie theater on the base. The Army’s live feed,
however, was the audiovisual equivalent of a redacted (blacked-out) Freedom of
Information Act file. The sound and picture continually went dead. By
coincidence or sick joke, the marquee in front of the theater announced the
day’s feature film: Oblivion. (We’re not making this up.) The mere 70
credentialed media were assigned to a distant “pit” that also had an often
broken live feed and where blogging, tweeting and broadcasting at will were
verboten.
A pretense of transparency covered the secrecy, lending a surreal,
topsy-turvy quality to the proceedings. Heavily armed soldiers and poisonously
saccharine public affairs officers acted as if they were earnestly serving the
public’s needs while in fact denying them. The military judge began the
court-martial by soliciting reassurance from the prosecution that, yes indeed,
everyone interested in attending the proceedings was accommodated—a blatant
lie.
The stalwarts who lined up under heavy guard for hours before the
start of the trial each day to snag a coveted courtroom seat were subjected to
vehicle inspections and ID checks, frisked, wanded and made to jump daily
wardrobe hurdles. Manning’s supporters wore black T-shirts with the word “truth”
in blazing white letters. Day one of the court-martial, the decision came down
that the word “truth” could not be worn in the courtroom. As the bailiff said,
“No attire that detracts from the dignity of these proceedings” would be
allowed. So people wore their shirts inside out to conceal the “truth.” But on
day two, a smiling soldier gripping an automatic weapon told them: “Y’all can
wear your shirts right side out today guys. Isn’t that great?”
In the courtroom, Bradley Manning was kept as isolated as possible
from his supporters. He was forbidden even to make eye contact or turn his head
to observe those who had traveled from around the country to show their
solidarity with him. Military police flanked the divider between the defense
table and the public seating, facing down Bradley Manning’s supporters,
allegedly for his protection.
Lifting the Veil
A big factor in the Bradley Manning court-martial is the
government’s zeal to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, still holed up
in the Ecuadorian embassy in London to avoid extradition to the U.S. via Sweden.
Vice President Joseph Biden declared Assange a “high-tech terrorist,” i.e., a
man with no rights and a target on his back. The hundreds of thousands of
documents released by Manning and published on WikiLeaks have helped expose the
everyday workings of the capitalist imperialist system. In addition to the Iraq
and Afghanistan war logs, diplomatic cables reveal that the U.S. compelled the
Haitian government to exempt American manufacturers from raising the starvation
wages of Haitian labor from 22 cents to 61 cents per hour, advised the Israelis
on how to tamp down an international scandal over conditions for Palestinians in
Gaza, among other acts of imperialist statesmanship.
Most spectacularly, in April 2010 WikiLeaks published a video under
the title “Collateral Murder” showing the July 2007 airstrike, amid laughter and
blood lust, by U.S. servicemen in Apache helicopters against civilians in
Baghdad. They killed 12 people in this airstrike, including two Reuters
employees, and wounded young children. The U.S. had repeatedly thwarted attempts
by Reuters to obtain the video footage through the Freedom of Information Act.
After determining that the video was already in public hands (David Finkel’s
book The Good Soldiers included a verbatim transcript from the video),
Manning sent it to WikiLeaks.
At the court-martial, the prosecution tied itself in a knot of
contradictions. It asserted that Manning was taking direct orders from Assange,
selectively gathering information from a WikiLeaks “want list” of documents,
while simultaneously arguing that Manning harvested a thousand cables per hour
from the Internet—hardly a selective search. In a pretrial statement to the
court, Manning said that he submitted documents to WikiLeaks only after the
public editor for the New York Times failed to answer his repeated
messages regarding important information about Iraq and Afghanistan and the
Washington Post told him essentially that they could not care less.
Manning made an online submission of the Apache video to WikiLeaks
with an attached text explaining that “this is possibly one of the more
significant documents of our time removing the fog of war and revealing the true
nature of twenty-first century asymmetric warfare. Have a good day.” Manning
told the court: “I felt I had accomplished something that allowed me to have a
clear conscience based upon what I had seen and read about and knew were
happening in both Iraq and Afghanistan everyday.”
The problem for the Army is that Bradley Manning has a moral and
political conscience. He enlisted because he naively believed Army propaganda
about defending freedom and democracy and inscribed the word “humanist” on the
back of his dog tags. When he discovered that the star-spangled pretense to
freedom was used to cloak systematic torture, repression and killing, he used
his considerable computer skills to expose the truth.
Under skillful cross-examination by Manning’s defense attorney,
David Coombs, prosecution witnesses were compelled to acknowledge that Manning
was simply the best, most competent analyst among all the soldiers assigned to
intelligence at Forward Operating Base Hammer in Iraq, their “go to” guy
whenever competent, well-researched and clearly mapped information was required.
Witnesses acknowledged that Internet surfing and downloading were a widespread
practice at the base and even encouraged for professional development. Contrary
to prosecution allegations of “espionage,” cyber forensics specialists were
compelled to admit under cross-examination that Manning’s computers showed no
evidence of direct or indirect contact or financial transactions with foreign
powers or “enemy” forces and no evidence that he intended to bring harm to U.S.
troops or anyone else.
This was confirmed on day two of the court-martial with the
testimony of Adrian Lamo, a computer hacker and convicted felon who had allowed
Manning to confide in him and then turned him over to the Feds to secure his own
advantage with prosecutors. Lamo acknowledged under cross-examination that
Manning was not interested in making money by selling secrets to Russia or
China. Indeed, the government possesses the entirety of the Internet chats
between Lamo and Manning that prove Manning’s innocence of the most serious
charges.
Manning sought nothing except to spark a debate in the American
public to stop the monstrosities. His messages to Lamo, quoted in Chase Madar’s
book The Passion of Bradley Manning (Verso, 2013), included:
“I think I’ve been traumatized too much by reality, to care about
consequences of shattering the fantasy.
“I want people to see the truth...regardless of who they
are...because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a
public.”
Imperialist System in Advanced Decay
Lifting the veil on the U.S. war machine was a gutsy act of
conscience that objectively helps the victims and opponents of the imperialist
system. But the workings of this society will not change by making more
information publicly available. In that sense, Julian Assange and WikiLeaks
activists are hardly radicals. They are defiant liberals with a mastery of
Internet communications.
At the right end of the spectrum of Bradley Manning supporters are
reform-minded individuals who oppose his persecution because they want to
morally rearm the imperialist colossus in order to make it more effective. We
stand on the other side, fighting for the class interests of the working people
internationally. We appreciate what Bradley Manning, Julian Assange and others,
including, now, Edward Snowden, have done because the working class needs to be
educated as to the systematic workings of the state run by and for the
capitalist class.
As Marxists, we understand that imperialist occupations and wars
are inextricably part of the system of capitalist exploitation and not the
result of misguided policies. This system is based on the exploitation of labor
for private profit, buttressed by systematic racial segregation and oppression
that divides the working people. The American government, which pretends it is
“by and for the people,” is the executive committee of the capitalist class,
whose rule is maintained through the force and violence of special bodies of
armed men—the police, military and prisons. Opponents of this system must be won
to an understanding that it will take a series of socialist revolutions around
the world to overturn the capitalist order and establish socialist
egalitarianism through internationally planned and collectivized economies.
To this end, the U.S. proletariat must take a side in defense of
the peoples oppressed by the American rulers. In opposing the occupations of
Iraq and Afghanistan, we stated that every blow struck against imperialist
forces was in the objective interests of the international working class and
called for class struggle against the U.S. rulers at home. At the same time, as
is evident from the intercommunal slaughter in Iraq and the nightmarish
oppression of women in Afghanistan, bourgeois nationalists and Islamic
fundamentalists are implacable enemies of the toilers of their own countries.
Throughout the neocolonial world, the emancipation of the exploited and the
oppressed will require uniting the proletariat in struggle for its own class
rule, linked to the fight for socialist revolution in the imperialist centers.
What a Tangled Web They Weave
At a panel discussion of Bradley Manning supporters in Washington,
D.C., on the eve of the court-martial, Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State
Department official who was sacked for putting a link to a WikiLeaks posting on
his personal blog, described the lunacy about leaks in the Obama administration.
Firewalls on State Department computers block employees from looking at
WikiLeaks or even BBC or CNN reports that mention WikiLeaks postings of State
Department cables that are accessible on the State Department’s own computers
(not to mention on smart phones or personal computers). Van Buren dissected the
purpose of the madness in a blog post (27 September 2011) about his firing: “DS
[Bureau of Diplomatic Security] monitoring my blog is like a small-town cop
pulling over every African-American driver: vindictive, selective
prosecution.”
Van Buren, who worked at the same base in Iraq as Manning, told the
discussion that the question he asks himself now is why didn’t he leak the
cables himself. Van Buren proudly turned up for his last day of work at the
State Department in a Bradley Manning T-shirt. To his surprise, many co-workers
had their pictures taken with him.
Government secrecy is spreading faster than bubonic plague as a
result of the race to erect a vast security state after the terrorist attacks on
September 11, 2001. The WikiLeaks haul is but a tiny portion of the towering
mountain range of classified government documents. The number of such documents
is itself a state secret, but it is estimated that in 2010 the U.S. was
producing an annual avalanche of 560 million pages labeled classified
information. Simply to shuffle so much material requires a huge increase in
security clearances. A Washington Post study in 2010 concluded that over
854,000 people—more than one and a half times the population of Washington,
D.C.—held top-secret security clearances.
Obama has charged more people under the 1917 Espionage Act for
releasing information to the public than all prior administrations combined.
Daniel Ellsberg, a military analyst who famously released the Pentagon Papers
during the Vietnam War, which shed light on the U.S. war in Indochina, was the
first person prosecuted under the Espionage Act for releasing classified
information to the public. An outspoken and tireless advocate for Bradley
Manning, Ellsberg remarked: “I’m sure that President Obama would have sought a
life sentence in my case” (Washington Post, 5 June).
The Espionage Act was one of an array of repressive measures
adopted after U.S. imperialism’s entry into World War I to criminalize antiwar
activity. It mandated imprisonment for any act deemed to interfere with
recruitment of troops. Socialist Party leader Eugene V. Debs was imprisoned
under the Espionage Act and stripped of his citizenship for speaking against the
war. Spooked by the Bolshevik Revolution, as well as by domestic unrest and
anarchist agitation, in 1918 Congress passed the Sedition Act as amendments to
the Espionage Act, making it a crime to criticize the “U.S. form of government.”
Ellsberg’s 1971 prosecution took place in the context of convulsive
social struggles that wrested gains in this country, especially the civil rights
and Black Power movements. Most importantly, the losing U.S. war in Vietnam was
changing the political climate and relationship of forces. The fact that America
was getting its ass kicked engendered a defeatist wing of the bourgeoisie, which
was willing to cut U.S. losses in Vietnam following the destruction of the
Indonesian Communist Party—then the largest such party in the capitalist
world—in a 1965 coup and subsequent bloodbath encouraged by Washington. Liberals
like those who run the New York Times, which printed the Pentagon Papers
leaked by Ellsberg, thought the U.S. should “bring the boys home.” The
Vietnamese workers and peasants were soon successful in driving out the
militarily and economically mightier U.S. imperialists.
As Marxists in the belly of the beast, “our boys” were the North
Vietnamese and the South Vietnamese National Liberation Front (NLF) fighters,
who were fighting for social revolution. In the context of a draft army, our
comrades accepted conscription with their working-class brothers and fought for
soldiers’ civil liberties and to win servicemen to the revolutionary
internationalist understanding that the enemy was U.S. imperialism, not the NLF.
Soldiers whose views the Spartacist League supported issued the G.I.
Voice newsletter, which demanded the immediate and unconditional withdrawal
of all American troops from Vietnam and other occupied countries, an end to
racism in the armed forces and an end to deployment of GIs against strikes and
political protest at home. Advice to inductees in the very first issue of
G.I. Voice (February 1969) resonates in the Bradley Manning case today:
“Our position is that while we are in the Army we must obey all legal orders. At
the same time, we are citizens and do not give up our Constitutional rights
because we put on a uniform.”
There is no conscription today and we do not volunteer to serve for
U.S. imperialism. We recognize, however, that the armed forces include many
thousands of working-class and minority men and women who end up there because
this capitalist society offers them no jobs or affordable education. Their
disaffection with the military is expressed in statistics of desperation.
Suicide is now the leading cause of death among active duty troops, including
those in combat.
Outside the court-martial, Afghanistan war vet Jacob George spoke
with WV about the impact Bradley Manning’s actions had on him and other
veterans. He and other mostly Southern vets launched ARTTE (A Ride to the End).
They bicycle around the country to play bluegrass and folk music, speaking out
against the war. He said people “would listen to the music but they weren’t too
awesomely impressed about the message. Nor was the media willing to give it much
coverage. When the Afghan War Logs were released later on in 2010,
overnight the national discourse and the public attitude about the
war in Afghanistan shifted. All of a sudden, people wanted to hear what we had
to say.” He continued, “I definitely saw a shift after Manning released that
information, and it also contributed to my healing, because as a veteran it gave
me a voice.”
American “Democracy”: Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie
With his silver-tongued double-speak about “justice” and “freedom,”
Obama, who was vaulted into office with the overt or backhanded support of the
reformist left, has enhanced the repressive state machinery inherited from
George W. Bush and put his own stamp on the global “war on terror.” The
administration’s Tuesday power breakfasts draw up kill lists for targeted
assassinations and drone attacks, like the one in September 2011 that killed
U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen. And Obama is largely given a free hand to
do so by Democratic Party-loyal liberals, black elected officials and labor
misleaders. Obama stands in a long tradition of Democratic presidents who
shredded civil liberties at home while escalating American military intervention
around the world.
The “progressive” Woodrow Wilson—an ardent segregationist—led the
U.S. into World War I. Establishing the League of Nations (predecessor to the
United Nations), which Bolshevik leader V.I. Lenin called “a den of thieves,”
Wilson blathered that “diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public
view.” Meanwhile, his Espionage Act and Sedition Act gave the government wide
latitude for censorship. He also signed an executive order requiring all public
employees to “support government policy; both in conduct and in sympathy.”
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was at the helm of U.S. imperialism in
World War II. FDR established the classification of government information in
the modern era and expanded the definition of military installations to include
any commercial manufacture of munitions or equipment for the Army or Navy, thus
ratcheting up repression of labor in the burgeoning defense industries. Under
FDR, people of Japanese descent were defined as “an enemy race,” and Roosevelt
had everyone fitting that description removed to internment camps. In August
1945, knowing that Japan was ready to surrender, Roosevelt’s Democratic
successor, Harry S. Truman, dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
annihilating the civilian population. With Executive Order 9835, Truman
established the Federal Employee Loyalty Program to investigate and deny
employment where “there is a reasonable doubt as to the loyalty of the person
involved.”
As Leon Trotsky, co-leader of the 1917 Russian Revolution alongside
Lenin, observed, “Imperialism with its dark plans of conquest and its robber
alliances and deals, developed the system of secret diplomacy to the highest
level.” It took a bourgeois social revolution, the great French Revolution of
1789, to establish the Archives Nationales for the express purpose of
enabling the people to keep an eye on the government. When the workers came to
power in Russia, one of their first orders of business was to open the files of
the former capitalist government and publicize the truth behind its lies and
diplomatic secrets to the workers of the world. It will take a proletarian
socialist revolution in America to get the whole truth about U.S. imperialism’s
global and domestic machinations and put an end to the exploitation and racist
oppression of capitalist class rule. The Spartacist League is dedicated to
building the Marxist revolutionary workers party necessary to achieve this
purpose.
No comments:
Post a Comment