Click on the headline to link to updates from the Occupy Boston website. Occupy Boston started at 6:00 PM, September 30, 2011. I will post important updates as they appear on that site.
Markin comment:
We know that we are only at the very start of an upsurge in the labor movement as witness the stellar exemplary actions by the West Coast activists on December 12, 2011. As I have pointed out in my remarks below this is the way forward as we struggle against the ruling class for a different more equitable society. Not everything went as well, or as well-attended, as expected including our rally in solidarity in Boston but we are still exhibiting growing pains in the post-encampment era.
***********
An Injury To One Is An Injury To All!-Defend All The Occupation Sites And All The Occupiers! Drop All Charges Against All Protesters Everywhere!
********
Fight-Don’t Starve-We Created The Wealth, Let's Take It Back! Labor And The Oppressed Must Rule!
********
A Five-Point Program As Talking Points
*Jobs For All Now!-“30 For 40”- A historic demand of the labor movement going back to the 1930s Great Depression the last time that unemployment, under-employment, and those who have just plain quit looking for work was this high in the American labor force. Thirty hours work for forty hours pay is a formula to spread the available work around. This is no mere propaganda point but shows the way forward toward a more equitable distribution of available work. Work that would be divided through local representative workers’ councils which would act, in one of its capacities, as a giant hiring hall where the jobs would be parceled out. This would be a simpler task now than when it was when first proposed in the 1930s with the vast increase in modern technology that could fairly accurately, via computers, target jobs that need filling and equitably divide up current work. Without the key capitalist necessity of keeping up the rate of profit the social surplus created by that work could be used to redistribute the available work at the same agreed upon rate rather than go into the capitalists’ pockets. The only catch, a big catch one must admit, is that no capitalist, and no capitalist system, is going to do any such thing so that it will, in the end, be necessary to fight for and win a workers government to implement this demand.
Organize the unorganized is a demand that cries out for solution today now that the organized sectors of the labor movement, both public and private, in America are at historic lows, just over ten percent of the workforce. Part of the task is to reorganize some of the old industries like the automobile industry, now mainly unorganized as new plants come on line and others are abandoned, which used to provide a massive amount of decent jobs with decent benefits but which now have fallen to globalization and the “race to the bottom” bad times. The other part is to ratchet up the efforts to organize the service industries, hospitals, hotels, hi-tech, restaurants and the like, that have become a dominant aspect of the American economy.
Organize the South-this low wage area, this consciously low-wage area, where many industries land before heading off-shore to even lower wage places cries out for organizing, especially among black and Hispanic workers who form the bulk of this industrial workforce. A corollary to organizing the South is obviously to organize internationally to keep the “race to the bottom” from continually occurring short of being resolved in favor of an international commonwealth of workers’ governments. Nobody said it was going to be easy.
Organize Wal-mart- millions of workers, thousands of trucks, hundreds of distribution centers. A victory here would be the springboard to a revitalized organized labor movement just as auto and steel lead the industrial union movements of the 1930s. To give an idea of how hard this task might be though someone once argued that it would be easier to organize a workers’ revolution that organize this giant. Well, that’s a thought.
Defend the right of public and private workers to unionize. Simple-No more Wisconsins, no more attacks on collective bargaining the hallmark of a union contract. No reliance on labor boards, arbitration, or bourgeois recall elections either. Unions must keep their independent from government interference. Period.
* Defend the working classes! No union dues for Democratic (or the stray Republican) candidates. Spent the dough on organizing the unorganized and other labor-specific causes (example, the November, 2011 anti-union recall referendum in Ohio).
*End the endless wars!- Immediate, Unconditional Withdrawal Of All U.S./Allied Troops (And Mercenaries) From Afghanistan! Hands Off Pakistan! Hands Off Iran! Hands Off The World!
*Fight for a social agenda for working people!. Quality Healthcare For All! Nationalize the colleges and universities under student-teacher-campus worker control! Forgive student debt! Stop housing foreclosures!
*We created the wealth, let’s take it back. Take the struggle for our daily bread off the historic agenda. Build a workers party that fights for a workers government to unite all the oppressed. Labor and the oppressed must rule!
Monday, December 19, 2011
The Latest From The "Minnesota Hands Off Honduras Coalition" Blog
Click on the headline to link to the latest from the Minnesota Hands Off Honduras Coalition Blog
Markin comment:
This is a great site to follow the situation in Honduras that, no question, gets almost no bourgeois media play. In English and Spanish which is a great help to arouse our Hispanic brothers and sisters here in the "heart of the beast" to help out in the struggle.
Markin comment:
This is a great site to follow the situation in Honduras that, no question, gets almost no bourgeois media play. In English and Spanish which is a great help to arouse our Hispanic brothers and sisters here in the "heart of the beast" to help out in the struggle.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
From The “West Coast Port Shutdown” Website-This Is Class War, We Say No More!-An Open Letter from America's Truck Drivers on Occupy the Ports
Click on the headline to link to the West Coast Port Shutdown website.
An Open Letter from America's Truck Drivers on Occupy the Ports
Submitted by admin on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 10:05
Originally Posted At cleanandsafeports.org
We are the front-line workers who haul container rigs full of imported and exported goods to and from the docks and warehouses every day.
We have been elected by committees of our co-workers at the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, Seattle, Tacoma, New York and New Jersey to tell our collective story. We have accepted the honor to speak up for our brothers and sisters about our working conditions despite the risk of retaliation we face. One of us is a mother, the rest of us fathers. Between the five of us we have 11children and one more baby on the way. We have a combined 46 years of experience driving cargo from our shores for America’s stores.
We are inspired that a non-violent democratic movement that insists on basic economic fairness is capturing the hearts and minds of so many working people. Thank you “99 Percenters” for hearing our call for justice. We are humbled and overwhelmed by recent attention. Normally we are invisible.
Today’s demonstrations will impact us. While we cannot officially speak for every worker who shares our occupation, we can use this opportunity to reveal what it’s like to walk a day in our shoes for the 110,000 of us in America whose job it is to be a port truck driver. It may be tempting for media to ask questions about whether we support a shutdown, but there are no easy answers. Instead, we ask you, are you willing to listen and learn why a one-word response is impossible?
We love being behind the wheel. We are proud of the work we do to keep America’s economy moving. But we feel humiliated when we receive paychecks that suggest we work part time at a fast-food counter. Especially when we work an average of 60 or more hours a week, away from our families.
There is so much at stake in our industry. It is one of the nation’s most dangerous occupations. We don’t think truck driving should be a dead-end road in America. It should be a good job with a middle-class paycheck like it used to be decades ago.
We desperately want to drive clean and safe vehicles. Rigs that do not fill our lungs with deadly toxins, or dirty the air in the communities we haul in.
Poverty and pollution are like a plague at the ports. Our economic conditions are what led to the environmental crisis.
You, the public, have paid a severe price along with us.
Why? Just like Wall Street doesn’t have to abide by rules, our industry isn’t bound to regulation. So the market is run by con artists. The companies we work for call us independent contractors, as if we were our own bosses, but they boss us around. We receive Third World wages and drive sweatshops on wheels. We cannot negotiate our rates. (Usually we are not allowed to even see them.) We are paid by the load, not by the hour. So when we sit in those long lines at the terminals, or if we are stuck in traffic, we become volunteers who basically donate our time to the trucking and shipping companies. That’s the nice way to put it. We have all heard the words “modern-day slaves” at the lunch stops.
There are no restrooms for drivers. We keep empty bottles in our cabs. Plastic bags too. We feel like dogs. An Oakland driver was recently banned from the terminal because he was spied relieving himself behind a container. Neither the port, nor the terminal operators or anyone in the industry thinks it is their responsibility to provide humane and hygienic facilities for us. It is absolutely horrible for drivers who are women, who risk infection when they try to hold it until they can find a place to go.
The companies demand we cut corners to compete. It makes our roads less safe. When we try to blow the whistle about skipped inspections, faulty equipment, or falsified logs, then we are “starved out.” That means we are either fired outright, or more likely, we never get dispatched to haul a load again.
It may be difficult to comprehend the complex issues and nature of our employment. For us too. When businesses disguise workers like us as contractors, the Department of Labor calls it misclassification. We call it illegal. Those who profit from global trade and goods movement are getting away with it because everyone is doing it. One journalist took the time to talk to us this week and she explains it very well to outsiders. We hope you will read the enclosed article “How Goldman Sachs and Other Companies Exploit Port Truck Drivers.”
But the short answer to the question: Why are companies like SSA Marine, the Seattle-based global terminal operator that runs one of the West Coast’s major trucking carriers, Shippers’ Transport Express, doing this? Why would mega-rich Maersk, a huge Danish shipping and trucking conglomerate that wants to drill for more oil with Exxon Mobil in the Gulf Coast conduct business this way too?
To cheat on taxes, drive down business costs, and deny us the right to belong to a union, that’s why.
The typical arrangement works like this: Everything comes out of our pockets or is deducted from our paychecks. The truck or lease, fuel, insurance, registration, you name it. Our employers do not have to pay the costs of meeting emissions-compliant regulations; that is our financial burden to bear. Clean trucks cost about four to five times more than what we take home in a year. A few of us haul our company’s trucks for a tiny fraction of what the shippers pay per load instead of an hourly wage. They still call us independent owner-operators and give us a 1099 rather than a W-2.
We have never recovered from losing our basic rights as employees in America. Every year it literally goes from bad to worse to the unimaginable. We were ground zero for the government’s first major experiment into letting big business call the shots. Since it worked so well for the CEOs in transportation, why not the mortgage and banking industry too?
Even the few of us who are hired as legitimate employees are routinely denied our legal rights under this system. Just ask our co-workers who haul clothing brands like Guess?, Under Armour, and Ralph Lauren’s Polo. The carrier they work for in Los Angeles is called Toll Group and is headquartered in Australia. At the busiest time of the holiday shopping season, 26 drivers were axed after wearing Teamster T-shirts to work. They were protesting the lack of access to clean, indoor restrooms with running water. The company hired an anti-union consultant to intimidate the drivers. Down Under, the same company bargains with 12,000 of our counterparts in good faith.
Despite our great hardships, many of us cannot — or refuse to, as some of the most well-intentioned suggest — “just quit.” First, we want to work and do not have a safety net. Many of us are tied to one-sided leases. But more importantly, why should we have to leave? Truck driving is what we do, and we do it well.
We are the skilled, specially-licensed professionals who guarantee that Target, Best Buy, and Wal-Mart are all stocked with just-in-time delivery for consumers. Take a look at all the stuff in your house. The things you see advertised on TV. Chances are a port truck driver brought that special holiday gift to the store you bought it.
We would rather stick together and transform our industry from within. We deserve to be fairly rewarded and valued. That is why we have united to stage convoys, park our trucks, marched on the boss, and even shut down these ports.
It’s like our hero Dutch Prior, a Shipper’s/SSA Marine driver, told CBS Early Morning this month: “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.”
The more underwater we are, the more our restlessness grows. We are being thoughtful about how best to organize ourselves and do what is needed to win dignity, respect, and justice.
Nowadays greedy corporations are treated as “people” while the politicians they bankroll cast union members who try to improve their workplaces as “thugs.”
But we believe in the power and potential behind a truly united 99%. We admire the strength and perseverance of the longshoremen. We are fighting like mad to overcome our exploitation, so please, stick by us long after December 12. Our friends in the Coalition for Clean & Safe Ports created a pledge you can sign to support us here.
We drivers have a saying, “We may not have a union yet, but no one can stop us from acting like one.”
The brothers and sisters of the Teamsters have our backs. They help us make our voices heard. But we need your help too so we can achieve the day where we raise our fists and together declare: “No one could stop us from forming a union.”
Thank you.
In solidarity,
Leonardo Mejia
SSA Marine/Shippers Transport Express
Port of Long Beach
10-year driver
Yemane Berhane
Ports of Seattle & Tacoma
6-year port driver
Xiomara Perez
Toll Group
Port of Los Angeles
8-year driver
Abdul Khan
Port of Oakland
7-year port driver
Ramiro Gotay
Ports of New York & New Jersey
15-year port driver
..
An Open Letter from America's Truck Drivers on Occupy the Ports
Submitted by admin on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 10:05
Originally Posted At cleanandsafeports.org
We are the front-line workers who haul container rigs full of imported and exported goods to and from the docks and warehouses every day.
We have been elected by committees of our co-workers at the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, Seattle, Tacoma, New York and New Jersey to tell our collective story. We have accepted the honor to speak up for our brothers and sisters about our working conditions despite the risk of retaliation we face. One of us is a mother, the rest of us fathers. Between the five of us we have 11children and one more baby on the way. We have a combined 46 years of experience driving cargo from our shores for America’s stores.
We are inspired that a non-violent democratic movement that insists on basic economic fairness is capturing the hearts and minds of so many working people. Thank you “99 Percenters” for hearing our call for justice. We are humbled and overwhelmed by recent attention. Normally we are invisible.
Today’s demonstrations will impact us. While we cannot officially speak for every worker who shares our occupation, we can use this opportunity to reveal what it’s like to walk a day in our shoes for the 110,000 of us in America whose job it is to be a port truck driver. It may be tempting for media to ask questions about whether we support a shutdown, but there are no easy answers. Instead, we ask you, are you willing to listen and learn why a one-word response is impossible?
We love being behind the wheel. We are proud of the work we do to keep America’s economy moving. But we feel humiliated when we receive paychecks that suggest we work part time at a fast-food counter. Especially when we work an average of 60 or more hours a week, away from our families.
There is so much at stake in our industry. It is one of the nation’s most dangerous occupations. We don’t think truck driving should be a dead-end road in America. It should be a good job with a middle-class paycheck like it used to be decades ago.
We desperately want to drive clean and safe vehicles. Rigs that do not fill our lungs with deadly toxins, or dirty the air in the communities we haul in.
Poverty and pollution are like a plague at the ports. Our economic conditions are what led to the environmental crisis.
You, the public, have paid a severe price along with us.
Why? Just like Wall Street doesn’t have to abide by rules, our industry isn’t bound to regulation. So the market is run by con artists. The companies we work for call us independent contractors, as if we were our own bosses, but they boss us around. We receive Third World wages and drive sweatshops on wheels. We cannot negotiate our rates. (Usually we are not allowed to even see them.) We are paid by the load, not by the hour. So when we sit in those long lines at the terminals, or if we are stuck in traffic, we become volunteers who basically donate our time to the trucking and shipping companies. That’s the nice way to put it. We have all heard the words “modern-day slaves” at the lunch stops.
There are no restrooms for drivers. We keep empty bottles in our cabs. Plastic bags too. We feel like dogs. An Oakland driver was recently banned from the terminal because he was spied relieving himself behind a container. Neither the port, nor the terminal operators or anyone in the industry thinks it is their responsibility to provide humane and hygienic facilities for us. It is absolutely horrible for drivers who are women, who risk infection when they try to hold it until they can find a place to go.
The companies demand we cut corners to compete. It makes our roads less safe. When we try to blow the whistle about skipped inspections, faulty equipment, or falsified logs, then we are “starved out.” That means we are either fired outright, or more likely, we never get dispatched to haul a load again.
It may be difficult to comprehend the complex issues and nature of our employment. For us too. When businesses disguise workers like us as contractors, the Department of Labor calls it misclassification. We call it illegal. Those who profit from global trade and goods movement are getting away with it because everyone is doing it. One journalist took the time to talk to us this week and she explains it very well to outsiders. We hope you will read the enclosed article “How Goldman Sachs and Other Companies Exploit Port Truck Drivers.”
But the short answer to the question: Why are companies like SSA Marine, the Seattle-based global terminal operator that runs one of the West Coast’s major trucking carriers, Shippers’ Transport Express, doing this? Why would mega-rich Maersk, a huge Danish shipping and trucking conglomerate that wants to drill for more oil with Exxon Mobil in the Gulf Coast conduct business this way too?
To cheat on taxes, drive down business costs, and deny us the right to belong to a union, that’s why.
The typical arrangement works like this: Everything comes out of our pockets or is deducted from our paychecks. The truck or lease, fuel, insurance, registration, you name it. Our employers do not have to pay the costs of meeting emissions-compliant regulations; that is our financial burden to bear. Clean trucks cost about four to five times more than what we take home in a year. A few of us haul our company’s trucks for a tiny fraction of what the shippers pay per load instead of an hourly wage. They still call us independent owner-operators and give us a 1099 rather than a W-2.
We have never recovered from losing our basic rights as employees in America. Every year it literally goes from bad to worse to the unimaginable. We were ground zero for the government’s first major experiment into letting big business call the shots. Since it worked so well for the CEOs in transportation, why not the mortgage and banking industry too?
Even the few of us who are hired as legitimate employees are routinely denied our legal rights under this system. Just ask our co-workers who haul clothing brands like Guess?, Under Armour, and Ralph Lauren’s Polo. The carrier they work for in Los Angeles is called Toll Group and is headquartered in Australia. At the busiest time of the holiday shopping season, 26 drivers were axed after wearing Teamster T-shirts to work. They were protesting the lack of access to clean, indoor restrooms with running water. The company hired an anti-union consultant to intimidate the drivers. Down Under, the same company bargains with 12,000 of our counterparts in good faith.
Despite our great hardships, many of us cannot — or refuse to, as some of the most well-intentioned suggest — “just quit.” First, we want to work and do not have a safety net. Many of us are tied to one-sided leases. But more importantly, why should we have to leave? Truck driving is what we do, and we do it well.
We are the skilled, specially-licensed professionals who guarantee that Target, Best Buy, and Wal-Mart are all stocked with just-in-time delivery for consumers. Take a look at all the stuff in your house. The things you see advertised on TV. Chances are a port truck driver brought that special holiday gift to the store you bought it.
We would rather stick together and transform our industry from within. We deserve to be fairly rewarded and valued. That is why we have united to stage convoys, park our trucks, marched on the boss, and even shut down these ports.
It’s like our hero Dutch Prior, a Shipper’s/SSA Marine driver, told CBS Early Morning this month: “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.”
The more underwater we are, the more our restlessness grows. We are being thoughtful about how best to organize ourselves and do what is needed to win dignity, respect, and justice.
Nowadays greedy corporations are treated as “people” while the politicians they bankroll cast union members who try to improve their workplaces as “thugs.”
But we believe in the power and potential behind a truly united 99%. We admire the strength and perseverance of the longshoremen. We are fighting like mad to overcome our exploitation, so please, stick by us long after December 12. Our friends in the Coalition for Clean & Safe Ports created a pledge you can sign to support us here.
We drivers have a saying, “We may not have a union yet, but no one can stop us from acting like one.”
The brothers and sisters of the Teamsters have our backs. They help us make our voices heard. But we need your help too so we can achieve the day where we raise our fists and together declare: “No one could stop us from forming a union.”
Thank you.
In solidarity,
Leonardo Mejia
SSA Marine/Shippers Transport Express
Port of Long Beach
10-year driver
Yemane Berhane
Ports of Seattle & Tacoma
6-year port driver
Xiomara Perez
Toll Group
Port of Los Angeles
8-year driver
Abdul Khan
Port of Oakland
7-year port driver
Ramiro Gotay
Ports of New York & New Jersey
15-year port driver
..
From The “West Coast Port Shutdown” Website-This Is Class War, We Say No More!-Press Release: OCCUPY MOVEMENT CLAIMS SUCCESS
Click on the headline to link to the West Coast Port Shutdown website.
Press Release: OCCUPY MOVEMENT CLAIMS SUCCESS
Submitted by admin on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 18:17
For immediate release – December 15, 2011
OCCUPY MOVEMENT CLAIMS SUCCESS IN COORDINATED “WALL STREET ON THE WATERFRONT” PORT SHUTDOWNS
RESPONDS TO OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL EMERGENCY RESOLUTION CALLING FOR GREATER REPRESSION
On Monday, December 12, in response to police attacks on Occupy camps across the nation, the Occupy Movement effectively shut down sea ports up and down the West Coast, including in Oakland, Portland, Seattle, and Longview, with partial shutdowns or support actions at Long Beach, San Diego, Hueneme (Ventura County), and Vancouver, B.C.. The “Wall Street on the Waterfront” campaign targeted the ports as sites of the corporate and financial power of the 1 %, and were particularly directed at the investment banking giant Goldman Sachs and grain exporter EGT, which has been in conflict with the ILWU/Longshore workers for refusing to hire union dockworker. The search from profits of these and other multinational corporations affect people's daily lives around the world, from determining the global flows of commodities and capital, to expropriating agricultural lands from indigenous peoples.
The coordinated shutdown, with support by Longshore workers, Teamsters, and independent truckers, demonstrates the continuing vitality and widespread appeal of the Occupy Movement.Support actions were held in numerous other cities. In Bellingham, WA protesters locked themselves to rail lines carrying Goldman Sachs goods. In Denver, CO, Salt Lake City, UT, and Albuquerque, NM, demonstrators blockaded Walmart distribution centers to protest its low wages and lack of adequate health care for workers. In New York, Occupy Wall Street protesters stormed financial institutions. Other support actions occurred in Houston, Tacoma, Coos Bay, Anchorage, Hawaii, Canada, Japan and elsewhere.
Despite concerted efforts to thwart the Oakland Port blockade by Mayor Jean Quan, the ILWU International leadership (which mounted an international media campaign) and the Port itself, which spent tens of thousands of dollars taking out full page newspaper ads, the Oakland Port blockade was a success. Teamsters did not go to work, and with few exceptions, Longshore workers and independent truckers did not cross the picket lines. A group of truck drivers parked their trucks and helped block a gate.
In dramatic contrast with the ILWU International leadership, rank and file workers have expressed extensive solidarity and support. For example, ILWU Local 21 President Dan Coffman from Longview, WA told a crowd of 10,000 in Oakland: “On behalf of Local 21, we want to thank the occupy movement for shedding light on the practices of the EGT and for the inspiration of our members."
In an “Open Letter from America's Truck Drivers on Occupy the Ports” (http://westcoastportshutdown.org/content/open-letter-americas-truck-drivers-occupy-ports), port drivers wrote: “We are inspired that a non-violent democratic movement that insists on basic economic fairness is capturing the hearts and minds of so many working people. ... Poverty and pollution are like a plague at the ports. ... Just like Wall Street doesn’t have to abide by rules, our industry isn’t bound to regulation. ...We receive Third World wages and drive sweatshops on wheels. ... We have never recovered from losing our basic rights as employees in America.”
Port Of Oakland Was Shut Down For 24 Hours
After the arbitrator sent workers home, ending the morning shift, 5-10,000 protesters re- assembled in the afternoon and marched from two locations to the Port to picket the evening shift. Marine veteran Scott Olsen, recovering after Oakland Police shot him in the head with a tear gas canister during an Occupy protest in October, led the march, joined by members of Iraq Veterans Against the War, Teamsters, the Feminist Block, and the Tactical Action Committee, among others. In response, Port workers cancelled the evening shift, and rescheduled it for 3:00 am.
As pledged in the event of police repression at any of the port actions (see
www.occupyoakland.org/2011/11/occupy-oakland-calls-for-total-west-coast-port-shutdown-on- 1212 ), several hundred protesters continued to picket at the Port gates until workers canceled the substitute shift and departed around 3:45 am.
The Port protests were peaceful, even as police in various cities rioted, caused injuries, and made arrests. For example, Seattle police used teargas. Houston police, hiding their names and badge numbers with tape, snatched protesters whom the fire department concealed under a giant inflatable tent while the police made arrests. Houston Police on horseback later re-attacked the crowd. In San Diego, police broke the picket line and violently arrested protestors. In Oakland, police beat a handful of protestors.
Proposed Resolution by Oakland City Council
On December 15, Oakland City Council members De La Fuente & Schaaf introduced an emergency resolution calling on Mayor Quan and the City Administrator to “use whatever lawful tools we have, including enforcement of all state laws and local municipal code regulations and requirements, to prevent future shut downs or disruptions of any port operations.”
“Threats of even greater repression by Oakland officials illustrates that they are more concerned with protecting business as usual for the one percent than addressing the concerns of the rest of us” said organizer Barucha Peller.
The divisive and repressive tactics of elected officials, global corporations and police goons will only strengthen our resolve to fight back with direct action, because we know that another world is possible.
Press Release: OCCUPY MOVEMENT CLAIMS SUCCESS
Submitted by admin on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 18:17
For immediate release – December 15, 2011
OCCUPY MOVEMENT CLAIMS SUCCESS IN COORDINATED “WALL STREET ON THE WATERFRONT” PORT SHUTDOWNS
RESPONDS TO OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL EMERGENCY RESOLUTION CALLING FOR GREATER REPRESSION
On Monday, December 12, in response to police attacks on Occupy camps across the nation, the Occupy Movement effectively shut down sea ports up and down the West Coast, including in Oakland, Portland, Seattle, and Longview, with partial shutdowns or support actions at Long Beach, San Diego, Hueneme (Ventura County), and Vancouver, B.C.. The “Wall Street on the Waterfront” campaign targeted the ports as sites of the corporate and financial power of the 1 %, and were particularly directed at the investment banking giant Goldman Sachs and grain exporter EGT, which has been in conflict with the ILWU/Longshore workers for refusing to hire union dockworker. The search from profits of these and other multinational corporations affect people's daily lives around the world, from determining the global flows of commodities and capital, to expropriating agricultural lands from indigenous peoples.
The coordinated shutdown, with support by Longshore workers, Teamsters, and independent truckers, demonstrates the continuing vitality and widespread appeal of the Occupy Movement.Support actions were held in numerous other cities. In Bellingham, WA protesters locked themselves to rail lines carrying Goldman Sachs goods. In Denver, CO, Salt Lake City, UT, and Albuquerque, NM, demonstrators blockaded Walmart distribution centers to protest its low wages and lack of adequate health care for workers. In New York, Occupy Wall Street protesters stormed financial institutions. Other support actions occurred in Houston, Tacoma, Coos Bay, Anchorage, Hawaii, Canada, Japan and elsewhere.
Despite concerted efforts to thwart the Oakland Port blockade by Mayor Jean Quan, the ILWU International leadership (which mounted an international media campaign) and the Port itself, which spent tens of thousands of dollars taking out full page newspaper ads, the Oakland Port blockade was a success. Teamsters did not go to work, and with few exceptions, Longshore workers and independent truckers did not cross the picket lines. A group of truck drivers parked their trucks and helped block a gate.
In dramatic contrast with the ILWU International leadership, rank and file workers have expressed extensive solidarity and support. For example, ILWU Local 21 President Dan Coffman from Longview, WA told a crowd of 10,000 in Oakland: “On behalf of Local 21, we want to thank the occupy movement for shedding light on the practices of the EGT and for the inspiration of our members."
In an “Open Letter from America's Truck Drivers on Occupy the Ports” (http://westcoastportshutdown.org/content/open-letter-americas-truck-drivers-occupy-ports), port drivers wrote: “We are inspired that a non-violent democratic movement that insists on basic economic fairness is capturing the hearts and minds of so many working people. ... Poverty and pollution are like a plague at the ports. ... Just like Wall Street doesn’t have to abide by rules, our industry isn’t bound to regulation. ...We receive Third World wages and drive sweatshops on wheels. ... We have never recovered from losing our basic rights as employees in America.”
Port Of Oakland Was Shut Down For 24 Hours
After the arbitrator sent workers home, ending the morning shift, 5-10,000 protesters re- assembled in the afternoon and marched from two locations to the Port to picket the evening shift. Marine veteran Scott Olsen, recovering after Oakland Police shot him in the head with a tear gas canister during an Occupy protest in October, led the march, joined by members of Iraq Veterans Against the War, Teamsters, the Feminist Block, and the Tactical Action Committee, among others. In response, Port workers cancelled the evening shift, and rescheduled it for 3:00 am.
As pledged in the event of police repression at any of the port actions (see
www.occupyoakland.org/2011/11/occupy-oakland-calls-for-total-west-coast-port-shutdown-on- 1212 ), several hundred protesters continued to picket at the Port gates until workers canceled the substitute shift and departed around 3:45 am.
The Port protests were peaceful, even as police in various cities rioted, caused injuries, and made arrests. For example, Seattle police used teargas. Houston police, hiding their names and badge numbers with tape, snatched protesters whom the fire department concealed under a giant inflatable tent while the police made arrests. Houston Police on horseback later re-attacked the crowd. In San Diego, police broke the picket line and violently arrested protestors. In Oakland, police beat a handful of protestors.
Proposed Resolution by Oakland City Council
On December 15, Oakland City Council members De La Fuente & Schaaf introduced an emergency resolution calling on Mayor Quan and the City Administrator to “use whatever lawful tools we have, including enforcement of all state laws and local municipal code regulations and requirements, to prevent future shut downs or disruptions of any port operations.”
“Threats of even greater repression by Oakland officials illustrates that they are more concerned with protecting business as usual for the one percent than addressing the concerns of the rest of us” said organizer Barucha Peller.
The divisive and repressive tactics of elected officials, global corporations and police goons will only strengthen our resolve to fight back with direct action, because we know that another world is possible.
From The “West Coast Port Shutdown” Website-This Is Class War, We Say No More!-Neighboring occupiers help Longview on December 12
Click on the headline to link to the West Coast Port Shutdown website.
Neighboring occupiers help Longview on December 12
Submitted by admin on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 09:35
Originally posted at D12 Action in Longview Washington
By Loretta Marie Long
On the morning of the West Coast Port Shutdown in Longview, Washington, not one longshoreman tried to cross a picket line filled with nearly 125 Occupy protesters. After ILWU International President Robert McEllrath wrote letters proclaiming the ILWU did not support the West Coast Port Shutdown, main-stream media described ill feelings between rank and file ILWU workers and Occupy members. Some news reports suggested that protesters might get roughed up or longshoremen might force their way through picket lines to get to work. But in Longview, Washington such fearful scenarios were only imaginary.
At around 7:30 am, a line of ILWU Local 21 workers drove past Weyerhaeusers’ log yard stacked high with Washington timber and headed toward the port terminal for their 8 am shift, more than likely curious if they would be able to make it to work or not. After driving under the Lewis and Clark Bridge and around the corner, the scene longshoremen discovered at the port gate undoubtedly warmed their hearts: close to 125 community and out-of-town protesters, bundled in scarves, hats and hoodies against the bitter cold, danced and marched clockwise around the port terminal entry. The protesters' voices bounced off the bridge foundation as they echoed chants magnified through a bullhorn.“Occupy. . . Shut it Down. . . Longview is a Union Town” followed by “Union rights are under attack. . . What do we do? . . . Stand up. . . Fight back.”
In the circle, protesters ranging in age from teenagers to senior citizens could be seen next to men wearing plaid or denim jackets with union letters on the back. Members of both labor and Occupy movements were marching shoulder to shoulder.
For the last six months, longshore workers had manned twenty-four hour picket tents outside Export Grain Terminal’s chain link fence, so they looked happy to see so many enthusiastic supporters. In response to the activists who were trying to shut down their port for the day, longshoremen honked and waved or quietly headed back to the union hall to wait for arbitrators to facilitate an agreement between the Port of Longview, ILWU, and The Pacific Maritime Association, ILWU’s employer for all of the shipping companies. At around 9 am, when a decision was made to shut down the Port of Longview because the protest had become “a health and safety hazard,” instead of going home, more than twenty port workers and their family members came back to watch the protest.
Even though longshore workers couldn’t represent their union in the protest, it was very clear occupiers were there partly to support ILWU workers in their fight against union-busting by EGT, a multi-national grain transport company that recently built a 200-million-dollar grain terminal on property leased to them by the Port of Longview. According to nwLaborPress and The Stand, in exchange for substandard wharfage and docking fees and substandard tax rates, EGT promised 200 jobs to local construction workers and 50 permanent jobs for longshore workers after the terminal was built. Instead of keeping their promises, however, project managers brought in out-of state and foreign workers to construct the terminal and paid laborers substandard wages. After the terminal was built, EGT representatives left negotiations with longshore workers and hired Operating Engineers Local 701 to do ILWU Local 21’s work.
Bill Proctor, a Longshore Union (ILWU) retiree, told Labor Notes in September “If that facility is allowed to go non-ILWU, other facilities will be tempted to follow suit. And the grain terminals on the coast are all going into contract bargaining next month.”
Vigorous, persistent protests fighting EGT’s labor violations brought heavy fines to ILWU. And now longshoremen aren't allowed to protest the third-party scab workers EGT hired because all 50,000 longshore workers on the West Coast have an injunction against them. They are not to interfere in any way with grain transport by blocking trains or workers. They are only allowed up to sixteen pickets outside EGT’s gates at any one time.
Kim Swart said that she showed up at the protest because her father, ILWU retiree Don Talbot, had worked on the docks driving crane since Swart was a young child. “I’m here trying to keep unions going, here to make sure we still have a middle class,” she said. “Being a longshoreman isn’t just a job—everyone’s family. We’re close-knit. We all jump in and fight for each other when we need to.” She said that unions are important to the entire community. “The mills and other businesses wouldn’t get the benefits they get if they didn’t have to keep up with the longshoremen’s wages and benefits.” She sat just to the side of the circling protesters holding a sign reading “Evil Global Takeover.”
Earlier that morning at 6:30 am, before the march started, a local activist and retired high-school history teacher stood on the frost-bitten sidewalk at the corner of Longview’s Industrial Way and Fifteenth Avenue. Larry Wagle whooped and yelled as he banged a three-foot wide metal sign reading “Help The Longshoremen” in large black letters. Wagle’s curly, thick white hair blew in the wind each time a semi truck drove by only a few feet away. He said he’s been participating in protests for working people since 1967 when he began standing up and organizing farm workers. These days, in Longview, Wagle can often be seen fighting corporate greed outside Walmart parking lots with huge signs and a bullhorn.
Next to Wagle, fifteen or twenty other protesters also carried signs with messages ranging from “It’s BeGGining to look a lot like Oligarchy” lit up by four Christmas lights to “Corporations are not people,” and “People are too big to fail!”
Bernadette O'Brien, a Longview resident who works with developmentally disabled adults in Columbia County, said she wasn’t at all fearful of attending the protest. “In a small town, cops are not the enemy. They’re part of the community. The only thing to be afraid of is frostbite!” She said she wasn’t a member of a union but she was attending the protest because funding for the most vulnerable citizens—the disabled, the elderly, those with mental health problems—is being severely cut. “I’m here because the rich guys won’t pay their fair share of taxes,” she said.
Zach, a young man wearing a bandana across his face, who didn't want to reveal his last name, had been living in Portland’s Occupy encampment for several months before they were evicted. In the pre-dawn light, he was serving free steaming coffee to the protesters. “Did you read in the paper that during the Portland eviction they were serving free champagne? That was us: Rumorz coffee.” He said that living with Occupy Portland was the most exciting community-building experience he’d ever lived through. “But it’s been a lot more difficult since the eviction because cops trashed all of our camping gear. I’ve been having to couch surf.” He came home to Longview for the December 12 event, he said, because “Something was actually happening in Longview! I couldn’t miss it.”
“I’m here to show support for longshoremen who are fighting EGT’s union busting and port truckers who are trying to unionize” said Scott Gibson, President of Laborers 483, a union that represents Portland Oregon’s municipal employees. He’d been up since 4:30 am and taken the bus from a Vancouver Park and Ride.
Wyatt McMinn, Vice President of Portland’s Painters and Tapers Local 10, said he was really excited to be on the bus with the protesters who had come up from Portland “Our local is in total solidarity with what is going on in Longview,” he said. “When the rich guys come after us, we have to show them we have the power to shut them down.”
While a dozen or so protestors stood on the street corner, more than a hundred protesters stood in the darkened gravel parking lot behind Ozzie’s Car and RV Wash. In the shadows, more protesters climbed off a yellow school bus to huddle around organizers and receive instructions while waiting for the march to begin.
Paul Nipper, one of the organizers for Longview’s D-12 action, had intentionally given local news media vague information hoping to prevent the Cowlitz County Sheriff from needlessly calling in extra riot police officers from Seattle. Occupy organizers feared an over-reaction by police because earlier this year, on September 7th , when nearly 400 ILWU members and supporters stood on railroad tracks trying to stop a train loaded with grain from reaching EGT’s terminal, 50 riot police were called in. According to David Groves, writing for The Stand, ILWU International President Robert McEllrath had been arrested, “escalating tensions between protesters and officers. In the confrontation that ensued, police beat protesters away with clubs and pepper spray. “
According to court documents titled “Recall of Mark Nelson Response from ILWU International and Local 21," in the months following the September 7th incident, police officers followed and harassed local longshore workers. In one incident, a police officer yanked a longshoreman from his car, by the hair, “without asking him to get out of his car even though his charge was 2nd degree trespassing and the officer was not in danger.” Another longshoreman was thrown to the ground in front of his child’s daycare center.
In another incident listed in the response, a secretary for ILWU Local 21 reported having police spotlights shined into her bedroom window for several hours one night and her door busted down the next morning. A minister and longshore worker for ILWU 92 was arrested in front of all of his children while sitting down to breakfast. During another protest, where nine women from the ILWU Women’s Auxiliary sat down on railroad tracks to prevent a train carrying grain from reaching EGT, a police officer twisted the arm of a longshore workers’ mother so hard that he damaged her rotator cuff. A video circulated via Facebook shows longshoremen, who had been peacefully standing on the sidelines, try to stop the police officers from brutalizing their wives and mothers. In the video, police officers throw both longshoremen to the ground, smashing their faces into gravel. While kneeling into the back of one longshoreman’s knee, a police officer aggressively bends it. Even after the men are detained, one police officer can be seen shaking a canister of pepper spray before forcibly spraying the oil-based chemical into the eyes of one of the longshore workers.
Even though police stopped harassing local longshore workers after the recall effort was started, the videos of police brutality and the verbal reports of police officers’ behavior had many Occupy Longview protesters worried about the safety of the hundreds of protesters expected to arrive in Longview from Astoria, Portland, Vancouver and Bellingham. Occupy Longview organizers feared state police officers brought in from larger cities might be more likely to escalate a peaceful protest into a day filled with fear and violence.
After watching news reports showing confrontations between Occupy protesters and police across the country, many protesters marching around the Port of Longview terminal entry voiced surprise at seeing only one police car nearby. A uniformed police officer waited patiently in the gravel lot across the street from the terminal entrance. Most occupiers from Portland had seen rows of riot police at their recent evictions so the trust shown to activists with minimal policing was heartening.
“I’m happy today not to see where my kids’ education money gets needlessly spent,” Nipper said. “I’m happy not to see the riot gear, the weapons.”
Both Paul Nipper and his wife Amanda seemed thrilled by the successful and very peaceful protest. Amanda Nipper had been working tirelessly for the last three weeks while trying to help organize the protest. “It was like a second job,” she said. In addition to writing press releases, meeting minutes, and handouts for the protest, over the last week she’d been participating in two-hour conference calls every other day with Occupy organizers up and down the West Coast. At first, both organizers were worried they might not have enough people to pull off an effective protest. Since the Occupy Longview movement is just getting started, the twenty enthusiastic members showing up at meetings didn't seem like enough people. “We put out a battle call for help from neighboring Occupies and everyone joined forces,” she said, adding, “I’m amazed. I’m proud of every single person that’s standing out here.”
“I’ve been waiting for this for twenty years,” said Dan Smith, a retired fifth-grade teacher who has devoted his life to social activism.
Neighboring occupiers help Longview on December 12
Submitted by admin on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 09:35
Originally posted at D12 Action in Longview Washington
By Loretta Marie Long
On the morning of the West Coast Port Shutdown in Longview, Washington, not one longshoreman tried to cross a picket line filled with nearly 125 Occupy protesters. After ILWU International President Robert McEllrath wrote letters proclaiming the ILWU did not support the West Coast Port Shutdown, main-stream media described ill feelings between rank and file ILWU workers and Occupy members. Some news reports suggested that protesters might get roughed up or longshoremen might force their way through picket lines to get to work. But in Longview, Washington such fearful scenarios were only imaginary.
At around 7:30 am, a line of ILWU Local 21 workers drove past Weyerhaeusers’ log yard stacked high with Washington timber and headed toward the port terminal for their 8 am shift, more than likely curious if they would be able to make it to work or not. After driving under the Lewis and Clark Bridge and around the corner, the scene longshoremen discovered at the port gate undoubtedly warmed their hearts: close to 125 community and out-of-town protesters, bundled in scarves, hats and hoodies against the bitter cold, danced and marched clockwise around the port terminal entry. The protesters' voices bounced off the bridge foundation as they echoed chants magnified through a bullhorn.“Occupy. . . Shut it Down. . . Longview is a Union Town” followed by “Union rights are under attack. . . What do we do? . . . Stand up. . . Fight back.”
In the circle, protesters ranging in age from teenagers to senior citizens could be seen next to men wearing plaid or denim jackets with union letters on the back. Members of both labor and Occupy movements were marching shoulder to shoulder.
For the last six months, longshore workers had manned twenty-four hour picket tents outside Export Grain Terminal’s chain link fence, so they looked happy to see so many enthusiastic supporters. In response to the activists who were trying to shut down their port for the day, longshoremen honked and waved or quietly headed back to the union hall to wait for arbitrators to facilitate an agreement between the Port of Longview, ILWU, and The Pacific Maritime Association, ILWU’s employer for all of the shipping companies. At around 9 am, when a decision was made to shut down the Port of Longview because the protest had become “a health and safety hazard,” instead of going home, more than twenty port workers and their family members came back to watch the protest.
Even though longshore workers couldn’t represent their union in the protest, it was very clear occupiers were there partly to support ILWU workers in their fight against union-busting by EGT, a multi-national grain transport company that recently built a 200-million-dollar grain terminal on property leased to them by the Port of Longview. According to nwLaborPress and The Stand, in exchange for substandard wharfage and docking fees and substandard tax rates, EGT promised 200 jobs to local construction workers and 50 permanent jobs for longshore workers after the terminal was built. Instead of keeping their promises, however, project managers brought in out-of state and foreign workers to construct the terminal and paid laborers substandard wages. After the terminal was built, EGT representatives left negotiations with longshore workers and hired Operating Engineers Local 701 to do ILWU Local 21’s work.
Bill Proctor, a Longshore Union (ILWU) retiree, told Labor Notes in September “If that facility is allowed to go non-ILWU, other facilities will be tempted to follow suit. And the grain terminals on the coast are all going into contract bargaining next month.”
Vigorous, persistent protests fighting EGT’s labor violations brought heavy fines to ILWU. And now longshoremen aren't allowed to protest the third-party scab workers EGT hired because all 50,000 longshore workers on the West Coast have an injunction against them. They are not to interfere in any way with grain transport by blocking trains or workers. They are only allowed up to sixteen pickets outside EGT’s gates at any one time.
Kim Swart said that she showed up at the protest because her father, ILWU retiree Don Talbot, had worked on the docks driving crane since Swart was a young child. “I’m here trying to keep unions going, here to make sure we still have a middle class,” she said. “Being a longshoreman isn’t just a job—everyone’s family. We’re close-knit. We all jump in and fight for each other when we need to.” She said that unions are important to the entire community. “The mills and other businesses wouldn’t get the benefits they get if they didn’t have to keep up with the longshoremen’s wages and benefits.” She sat just to the side of the circling protesters holding a sign reading “Evil Global Takeover.”
Earlier that morning at 6:30 am, before the march started, a local activist and retired high-school history teacher stood on the frost-bitten sidewalk at the corner of Longview’s Industrial Way and Fifteenth Avenue. Larry Wagle whooped and yelled as he banged a three-foot wide metal sign reading “Help The Longshoremen” in large black letters. Wagle’s curly, thick white hair blew in the wind each time a semi truck drove by only a few feet away. He said he’s been participating in protests for working people since 1967 when he began standing up and organizing farm workers. These days, in Longview, Wagle can often be seen fighting corporate greed outside Walmart parking lots with huge signs and a bullhorn.
Next to Wagle, fifteen or twenty other protesters also carried signs with messages ranging from “It’s BeGGining to look a lot like Oligarchy” lit up by four Christmas lights to “Corporations are not people,” and “People are too big to fail!”
Bernadette O'Brien, a Longview resident who works with developmentally disabled adults in Columbia County, said she wasn’t at all fearful of attending the protest. “In a small town, cops are not the enemy. They’re part of the community. The only thing to be afraid of is frostbite!” She said she wasn’t a member of a union but she was attending the protest because funding for the most vulnerable citizens—the disabled, the elderly, those with mental health problems—is being severely cut. “I’m here because the rich guys won’t pay their fair share of taxes,” she said.
Zach, a young man wearing a bandana across his face, who didn't want to reveal his last name, had been living in Portland’s Occupy encampment for several months before they were evicted. In the pre-dawn light, he was serving free steaming coffee to the protesters. “Did you read in the paper that during the Portland eviction they were serving free champagne? That was us: Rumorz coffee.” He said that living with Occupy Portland was the most exciting community-building experience he’d ever lived through. “But it’s been a lot more difficult since the eviction because cops trashed all of our camping gear. I’ve been having to couch surf.” He came home to Longview for the December 12 event, he said, because “Something was actually happening in Longview! I couldn’t miss it.”
“I’m here to show support for longshoremen who are fighting EGT’s union busting and port truckers who are trying to unionize” said Scott Gibson, President of Laborers 483, a union that represents Portland Oregon’s municipal employees. He’d been up since 4:30 am and taken the bus from a Vancouver Park and Ride.
Wyatt McMinn, Vice President of Portland’s Painters and Tapers Local 10, said he was really excited to be on the bus with the protesters who had come up from Portland “Our local is in total solidarity with what is going on in Longview,” he said. “When the rich guys come after us, we have to show them we have the power to shut them down.”
While a dozen or so protestors stood on the street corner, more than a hundred protesters stood in the darkened gravel parking lot behind Ozzie’s Car and RV Wash. In the shadows, more protesters climbed off a yellow school bus to huddle around organizers and receive instructions while waiting for the march to begin.
Paul Nipper, one of the organizers for Longview’s D-12 action, had intentionally given local news media vague information hoping to prevent the Cowlitz County Sheriff from needlessly calling in extra riot police officers from Seattle. Occupy organizers feared an over-reaction by police because earlier this year, on September 7th , when nearly 400 ILWU members and supporters stood on railroad tracks trying to stop a train loaded with grain from reaching EGT’s terminal, 50 riot police were called in. According to David Groves, writing for The Stand, ILWU International President Robert McEllrath had been arrested, “escalating tensions between protesters and officers. In the confrontation that ensued, police beat protesters away with clubs and pepper spray. “
According to court documents titled “Recall of Mark Nelson Response from ILWU International and Local 21," in the months following the September 7th incident, police officers followed and harassed local longshore workers. In one incident, a police officer yanked a longshoreman from his car, by the hair, “without asking him to get out of his car even though his charge was 2nd degree trespassing and the officer was not in danger.” Another longshoreman was thrown to the ground in front of his child’s daycare center.
In another incident listed in the response, a secretary for ILWU Local 21 reported having police spotlights shined into her bedroom window for several hours one night and her door busted down the next morning. A minister and longshore worker for ILWU 92 was arrested in front of all of his children while sitting down to breakfast. During another protest, where nine women from the ILWU Women’s Auxiliary sat down on railroad tracks to prevent a train carrying grain from reaching EGT, a police officer twisted the arm of a longshore workers’ mother so hard that he damaged her rotator cuff. A video circulated via Facebook shows longshoremen, who had been peacefully standing on the sidelines, try to stop the police officers from brutalizing their wives and mothers. In the video, police officers throw both longshoremen to the ground, smashing their faces into gravel. While kneeling into the back of one longshoreman’s knee, a police officer aggressively bends it. Even after the men are detained, one police officer can be seen shaking a canister of pepper spray before forcibly spraying the oil-based chemical into the eyes of one of the longshore workers.
Even though police stopped harassing local longshore workers after the recall effort was started, the videos of police brutality and the verbal reports of police officers’ behavior had many Occupy Longview protesters worried about the safety of the hundreds of protesters expected to arrive in Longview from Astoria, Portland, Vancouver and Bellingham. Occupy Longview organizers feared state police officers brought in from larger cities might be more likely to escalate a peaceful protest into a day filled with fear and violence.
After watching news reports showing confrontations between Occupy protesters and police across the country, many protesters marching around the Port of Longview terminal entry voiced surprise at seeing only one police car nearby. A uniformed police officer waited patiently in the gravel lot across the street from the terminal entrance. Most occupiers from Portland had seen rows of riot police at their recent evictions so the trust shown to activists with minimal policing was heartening.
“I’m happy today not to see where my kids’ education money gets needlessly spent,” Nipper said. “I’m happy not to see the riot gear, the weapons.”
Both Paul Nipper and his wife Amanda seemed thrilled by the successful and very peaceful protest. Amanda Nipper had been working tirelessly for the last three weeks while trying to help organize the protest. “It was like a second job,” she said. In addition to writing press releases, meeting minutes, and handouts for the protest, over the last week she’d been participating in two-hour conference calls every other day with Occupy organizers up and down the West Coast. At first, both organizers were worried they might not have enough people to pull off an effective protest. Since the Occupy Longview movement is just getting started, the twenty enthusiastic members showing up at meetings didn't seem like enough people. “We put out a battle call for help from neighboring Occupies and everyone joined forces,” she said, adding, “I’m amazed. I’m proud of every single person that’s standing out here.”
“I’ve been waiting for this for twenty years,” said Dan Smith, a retired fifth-grade teacher who has devoted his life to social activism.
The Latest From The Private Bradley Manning Support Network-Free Bradley Manning Now! -Veterans and supporters of Bradley Manning demonstrate at gates of Fort Meade hearing
Click on the headline to link to the Private Bradley Manning Support Network for the latest information in his case.
Veterans and supporters of Bradley Manning demonstrate at gates of Fort Meade hearing
Reinforcements Arrive from Occupy Wall Street
FORT MEADE, MARYLAND — Eighteen months after he was first accused of revealing information to WikiLeaks, PFC Bradley Manning appeared before an Article 32 investigating officer this morning. Supporters began gathering outside the gates of Fort Meade to call for Manning’s freedom and denounce the proceedings as unjust. Inside the tightly-controlled military court room, lead defense counsel David Coombs challenged the investigating officer, Army Lt. Col. Paul Almanza, to recuse himself due to conflicts of interest.
“Military officials have begun conducting their star chamber prosecution after abusing Bradley Manning of his rights for eighteen months,” said Jeff Paterson, an organizer with the Bradley Manning Support Network, who was speaking from the vigil at Fort Meade. “The investigating officer is not only biased to produce an outcome that is favorable to his employer at the Justice Department — he’s under pressure from his Commander-in-Chief, who has already inappropriately weighed-in on this case.”
Supporters have long argued that PFC Manning could not receive a fair hearing due to unlawful command influence from President Obama, who publicly declared in April that the former Army intelligence analyst “broke the law.”
A bus carrying over 50 supporters from Occupy Wall Street arrived shortly after 9:00 AM as the media blackout began inside the courtroom. Former Army linguist Lt. Dan Choi, who was a prominent activist in the effort to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” greeted the new arrivals and spoke out in support of Manning.
“We must have the truth to achieve justice — and without justice we will never see true peace,” said Lt. Choi as he spoke to reporters. “Despite the best efforts of President Obama, troops are coming from Iraq this year because of information about the cover-up of war crimes that Bradley Manning is accused of revealing to the public.”
The Obama administration had sought to extend the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq well beyond the expiration of the current Status of Forces Agreement at the end of this year. Cables released via WikiLeaks in September showed that American military and diplomatic officials had covered up an atrocity that involved the execution of Iraqi civilians. The Iraqi parliament was forced by the ensuing public outrage to withdraw legal immunity from any future U.S. military presence in Iraq — a stipulation that the U.S. Defense Department would not accept.
Hundreds of supporters are planning to rally and march again tomorrow outside the gates of Fort Meade to mark Bradley Manning’s 24th birthday.
Veterans and supporters of Bradley Manning demonstrate at gates of Fort Meade hearing
Reinforcements Arrive from Occupy Wall Street
FORT MEADE, MARYLAND — Eighteen months after he was first accused of revealing information to WikiLeaks, PFC Bradley Manning appeared before an Article 32 investigating officer this morning. Supporters began gathering outside the gates of Fort Meade to call for Manning’s freedom and denounce the proceedings as unjust. Inside the tightly-controlled military court room, lead defense counsel David Coombs challenged the investigating officer, Army Lt. Col. Paul Almanza, to recuse himself due to conflicts of interest.
“Military officials have begun conducting their star chamber prosecution after abusing Bradley Manning of his rights for eighteen months,” said Jeff Paterson, an organizer with the Bradley Manning Support Network, who was speaking from the vigil at Fort Meade. “The investigating officer is not only biased to produce an outcome that is favorable to his employer at the Justice Department — he’s under pressure from his Commander-in-Chief, who has already inappropriately weighed-in on this case.”
Supporters have long argued that PFC Manning could not receive a fair hearing due to unlawful command influence from President Obama, who publicly declared in April that the former Army intelligence analyst “broke the law.”
A bus carrying over 50 supporters from Occupy Wall Street arrived shortly after 9:00 AM as the media blackout began inside the courtroom. Former Army linguist Lt. Dan Choi, who was a prominent activist in the effort to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” greeted the new arrivals and spoke out in support of Manning.
“We must have the truth to achieve justice — and without justice we will never see true peace,” said Lt. Choi as he spoke to reporters. “Despite the best efforts of President Obama, troops are coming from Iraq this year because of information about the cover-up of war crimes that Bradley Manning is accused of revealing to the public.”
The Obama administration had sought to extend the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq well beyond the expiration of the current Status of Forces Agreement at the end of this year. Cables released via WikiLeaks in September showed that American military and diplomatic officials had covered up an atrocity that involved the execution of Iraqi civilians. The Iraqi parliament was forced by the ensuing public outrage to withdraw legal immunity from any future U.S. military presence in Iraq — a stipulation that the U.S. Defense Department would not accept.
Hundreds of supporters are planning to rally and march again tomorrow outside the gates of Fort Meade to mark Bradley Manning’s 24th birthday.
The Latest From The Private Bradley Manning Support Network-Free Bradley Manning Now! -Day Two of the Bradley Manning Trial In Depth: Notes from a Courtroom Viewer in Bradley Manning’s Article 32 Hearing
Click on the headline to link to the Private Bradley Manning Support Network for the latest information in his case.
Day Two of the Bradley Manning Trial In Depth: Notes from a Courtroom Viewer in Bradley Manning’s Article 32 Hearing
December 17, 2011: Bradley Manning Support Network sent a representative into the courtroom to take notes for the public on what happened at Bradley Manning’s hearing. No recording devices (like cell phones or audio recorders) were allowed, so all these notes are hand-written and as accurate as written notes and memory allow. Notes were taken by Rainey Reitman, any omissions or inaccuracies are entirely her fault and not reflective of the Support Network positions. Please send corrections to rainey@bradleymanning.org
See day one here.
Getting to the Courtroom
Fort Meade, Maryland Today was just as chilly and grey as the yesterday, about what you would expect for December in Maryland. The hearing was scheduled to being at 10:00 AM and I arrive a bit after 9:15 AM. Knowing that the majority of the Manning supporters would likely be drawn to the rally outside the gates, I assumed (correctly) that it would not be difficult to get entrance. I was right; I was able to get into the courtroom and there was room to spare. As yesterday, our bags were searched and we went through metal detectors.
The military police have designated a heated trailed with folding chairs for us to wait in during breaks. Today, they added a folded table, more chairs, and two water coolers with cups.
The Article 32
10:34 AM Bradley Manning entered with David Coombs and his two military-assigned attorneys. When the investigating officer, Lt. Col. Paul Almanza, arrived, he appeared to be chewing something (maybe a lozenge?). The IO reviewed the court room rules again, advising the spectators not the interrupt or have cellular phones or they could be subject to removal.
Almanza then began by asking Manning’s two military-appointed JAGs, Blouchard and Kemkes, whether they were both certified by military law and authorized to represent Bradley Manning. Blouchard and Kemkes confirmed they were.
Special Agent Toni Graham
Things moved much more quickly on day two of the pretrial hearing. The government called their first witness, Special Agent Toni Graham. S.A. Graham was in Hawaii, and unfortunately the connection was not ideal. The government spent time fiddling with the podium equipment in an attempt to call her, then pulled in a young military support technician with ear studs to help fix the issue. When at last Graham was on the phone, the connection was static-filled and her voice was nearly incomprehensible. She was asked to stand and raise her right hand, then swear to tell the truth, and then warned that if she needed to disclose sensitive information that she should note that and wait before making the disclosure.
Her confirmation was hard to understand at best. Media representatives and public spectators (myself among them) exchanged incredulous looks at the technical difficulties. Almanza interrupted, stating that he was having difficulty understand her response to a question. He asked whether she was on a cell phone or a land line, and Graham admitted she was on a cell phone but offered to move to her office so she could talk from a landline. The defense urged the court to ensure that Graham was in a place where she would be able to speak freely.
A recess was called, mere minutes after the hearing began, so Graham could make the thirty minute trip to her office line.
11:30 AM Everyone returned to their places, and Almanza quizzed the government about whether the technical difficulties were addressed. The lead attorney for the government, perhaps a bit chagrined, stated that the issue was resolved and it had been a problem with the courtroom connection. However, they’d switched to a different phone and had already called the first 2 witnesses to check the audio quality.
Toni Graham was again introduced and sworn in. Her position in the 102nd Military Police detachment was reviewed, and she stated she was in a place she could speak privately and with freedom. She admitted to having the AIR she had produced (ref number 00000184-190) on hand, but agreed upon defense request to set it aside and notify the court if she needed to refer to it.
Graham was a CID (criminal investigations) agent. In the Manning case, her primary duties were to protect, collect, and preserve digital device evidence. The prosecution asked her about her experience, and she said she worked on perhaps 100 cases per year. She was serving on a battalion in Baghdad on 27 May 2010 when she received instructions from her headquarters based on information from a confidential informant. She then received a search warrant from a military magistrate and developed a team, including Thomas Smith, a counter intelligence agent, and another individual.
Graham was charged with collecting the personal computer and additional digital devices related to the Bradley Manning investigation. She also canvassed acquaintances and collected his personal, SCIF computers, and 2 SIPR computers.
Graham also searched the Containerized Housing Unit (CHU) where Manning resided. She took a personal computer, hard drive, cell phone, 10 DVDs, and 1 CD marked with the word “secret: in a U.S. postal shipping package. She testified that there were perhaps 100 yards between the SCIF and CHU. She also took digital devices from the supply section, since she learned Manning had recently been reassigned to supplies. From the supply area she took another SIPR computer and one other computer. She also obtained a computer belonging to a Captain Bigalow, as allegedly Manning had used this computer. She also found out that Manning had used a secret scanner on two occasions, and so she collected that computer.
Graham testified that she’d received authorization to seize and search the devices via her commander, as well as with consent from Bigalow, and also through formal search authorization granted to her.
On June 11, 2010, the investigation was transferred to the Computer Crimes Investigating Unit (CCIU). That is because CCIU has additional technical expertise, and all of the evidence in this matter was computer-related. Graham described the evidence being moved to CCIU through a “controlled transfer” – physical evidence hand delivered and additional evidence sent via registered mail. Evidence was thus hand delivered to Kuwait, then to Virginia.
At this point the prosecution rested and defense attorney Major Matthew Kemkes stepped forward. Kemkes has a respectful, somewhat solemn, strikingly earnest style in his courtroom delivery. He came across as thoughtful, and seemed somehow more restrained than Coombs.
Kemkes began by asking Graham if she was the first lead agent in the investigation, which she confirmed. He then noted that it seemed she was a truly central figure in the investigation, since she was serving now as the government first witness. He asked whether she had been asked to attend the proceedings in person, and why she had not done so. She responded that she was in Hawaii and needed to seek approval in order to travel for the proceedings.
At this point Almanza halted the line of questioning, his voice hoarse, and asked about the purpose of this questioning. Kemkes replied with candor, reiterating earlier defense arguments about the need to have important witnesses on site for the proceedings for in-person cross-examination. Almanza was unconvinced, referring to his early finding about this issue.
Kemkes proceeded quickly. After a quick review of her credentials and history, Kemkes confirmed with Graham that she had received search authorization from a military magistrate before searching the CHU. He asked whether she had signed the 5/29/10 affidavit which stated that Bradley Manning had sent classified documents to outside sources and would share more. Graham responded that she had indeed signed the affidavit, and in fact had reviewed it recently (within the last 2 weeks). She confirmed that the affidavit did state the Manning had released TS-SCI information and cables onto the Internet. Upon questioning, she admitted that much of her affidavit was based on information from commanders at Ft. Belvoir who had received intelligence from a confidential informant. The affidavit also specifically mentioned an article in the Stars and Stripes military publication called “A Wiki for a World of Secrets.”
Kemkes was methodical in questioning the contents of the affidavit Graham provided. But he was quickly able to hone in on her primary reason for filing the affidavit: because she knew that the Apache helicopter video showing Reuters journalists was confidential information and that millions (5 million? 5 billion? she asked) of “unauthorized individuals” had viewed this document. She did mention that “There were other reasons that I did not provide in the affidavit,” but admitted that the primary ones were those listed in the affidavit itself, especially the release of the Apache helicopter video.
Kemkes asked whether Graham stood by the affidavit she signed, and she confirmed, stating that TS/SCI had been leaked onto the Internet.
Kemkes then asked how she would feel if she found out that the video in question was unclassified, if in fact the 8 million people who saw it had seen an unclassified video. Graham struggled to answer this question, and was skeptical of Kemkes’ assertion that the video was unclassified. Kemkes asked how Graham has heard that the video was classified when she filed her affidavit, and Graham said the information had come by way of the confidential informant
Kemkes then picked apart another statement Graham made in her affidavit. He noted that her affidavit stated Manning had been penetrating .mil and .gov accounts for over a year. Kemkes pointed out that the affidavit was produced in May 2010, and that Manning had only been deployed since November 2009. How, then, could Graham be sure that he was penetrating systems for over a year?
“I can’t say for sure he was going it for over a year,” Graham admitted. This information was also something she had gathered by way of the confidential informant’s report.
Kemkes asked Graham about a box containing DVDs she had collected on 7/12/09, including one disc labeled “secret.” He proceeded to ask about whether she had searched and inventoried other items beyond digital media? She said she had not. He asked whether she knew that Manning might have gender identity disorder, and she said in fact she had. Kemkes asked whether Graham has discovered any evidence about this issue when collecting evidence for the case. She could not recall. He asked if she had found anything like that, including medical pamphlets or articles printed from the Internet. She could not recall. Kemkes asked about a specific medical pamphlet from Canada that reviewed options for dealing with gender identity disorder, including changing one’s dress, hormone therapy, facial surgery, and gender reassignment. Graham again could not recall.
At this point the prosecution objected, asking for the relevance of the questioning. The objection was overruled.
Upon further questioning, Graham admitted that she had seen “several things about homosexuality” when collecting evidence from Manning’s CHU. Kemkes asked what Graham had done with these things. Graham replied “I left it in his room.” Kemkes now asked a few incredulous questions, asking how often she had encountered similar situations where soldiers had copies of Flight Into Hypermasculinity. Almanza admonished Kemkes, urging him to “try to focus on the thoroughness of the investigation.”
Asked again what she did with evidence about Manning’s sexuality, Graham said she “set it to the side.” She then said plainly that “we already knew before we arrived” that Manning was a homosexual. She added, awkwardly, “I don’t know if the proper term is transvestite.” [NB: based on the context, I don’t believe Graham was confused about the difference between a transvestite and a homosexual. Rather, I believe she was certain Manning was gay but uncertain whether other factors might also make him a transvestite. She might also have been searching for the word “transgender.”]
Graham explained that in the course of her evidence collection she had conducted 5 interviews and canvassed other people who knew Manning. All interviews were conducted face to face. Kemkes asked if she would agree that Manning didn’t have a lot of friends in the unit. Graham agreed. She was asked about his relative popularity, but the prosecution objected.
Kemkes defended his questioning to the IO, stating that these all helped better understand that situation and stating that “what is going on in my client’s mind is very important.”
Kemkes asked whether there was a belief noted in the interviews that Manning was gay. Graham said no, that it was not brought up. There was no mention in these interviews of behavioral issues or mental disturbance.
Kemkes noted that Graham’s affidavit was that major piece of documentation affecting the pre-trial confinement hearing of Bradley Manning. He asked Graham if she was now comfortable with that affidavit being the basis of his pretrial confinement. She statement merely “That was the information I had at the time.”
Here Kemkes stepped away from the speaker phone for the telephone next to the IO and briefly conferred with the defense team. At last he sat down, and the government stepped up for a brief round of questioning before the group broke for recess.
The government stepped up for a quick line of questioning, following an argument pattern the government seems keen to identify: that procedures were appropriately followed. The government asked whether, at the time Graham signed her affidavit, she as aware that TS/SCI information had been compromised. She said she was. [NB: a section of this questioning is unclear from my notes. Apologies.] She briefly discussed the confidential informant who provided them with information, noting that he was in direct contact with the FBI.
The government asked Graham whether there was evidence to suggest that the Apache airstrike video came from a classified system. She said there was. Graham explained that she had interviewed Captain Morton, who had recently returned from R&R. [NB: Graham at first could not remember Captain Morton’s name but remembered it after a moment.] According to Graham, Morton had apparently learned about the airstrike video from Bradley Manning. Morton was skeptical about it, but Manning pulled it from SIPRnet and sent a copy to her.
Now the prosecution was finished. Almanza reminded the prosecution that this was their chance to authenticate documents, at which point the defense objected. In the words of Kemkes, “The defense doesn’t believe you need to remind the government how to do their job.”
The objection was overruled.
[NB: I did not catch whether this witness was temporarily or permanently excused. If you caught that, please email me at rainey@bradleymanning.org]
Special Agent Calder Robinson
1:25PM The next individual called as a witness by the prosecution was Special Agent Calder, who also appeared telephonically from Germany. Robinson was with the Computer Crimes Investigative Unit (CCIU) in Germany, and in fact was in charge of the Europe Branch office for CID. He was asked to stand and raise his right hand, then swear to tell the truth. He was asked to put aside any notes he might have and admonished against disclosing classified information without first making the court aware. He confirmed that he was alone and could speak freely.
The government first established that Robinson was a competent CCIU agent. He had accumulated over 350 cases since he became a CCIU agent in March 2006, and he had received over 660 hours of training including training in forensic examination.
Upon questioning, Robinson related that he had received a call on 29 May 2010. Based on the information in that call, he traveled to Baghdad to take control of digital evidence, conducted a preliminary forensic examination, and then transported it elsewhere for further forensic examination. He traveled to Camp Liberty in Baghdad, which was considered the best nearby place to collect the data and conduct a preliminary forensic analysis. Robinsons main role was to obtain forensic images of the evidence and conduct the preliminary examination. He was asked what physical evidence specifically there was, and he had to refer to his notes.
After a moment looking at his notes, Robison related that he had dealt with
•a laptop belonging to Bigalow,
•the personal laptop and hard drive of Bradley Manning,
•several optical discs including one marked secret,
•2 SIPR machines (1 the assigned work station of Manning and 1 from the supply area),
•1 SIPR machine from another soldier
NB: I did not hear a mention of a cell phone being included in this list, even though a cell phone was previously alluded to. If you have notes from the hearing and noted a cell phone in this list, please email me at rainey@bradleymanning.org
Robinson explained that he imaged the hard drives and did a preliminary forensic examination. Imaging, he explained, was creating a bit-by-bit copy of the data on a device so that it could not be lost if the device was lost or damaged. The thoroughness of the imaging was verified because he created a secure hash of the data on both the original machine and the imaged copy, and compared the two hashes. If they were identical, he knew the copy was complete and identical. He used EnCase to image all of the computers and the 1 optical disc marked “secret.”
At this point, the prosecuting attorney finished up and defense attorney Captain Paul Blouchard stepped up to the speaker phone to address Robinson.
Blouchard reiterated that Robinson had collected hard drives from the digital devices. He then asked if Robinson knew if these computers were used by people other than Bradley Manning. Robinson hedged slightly, noting that this would be made clear in a full forensic analysis (which he didn’t do).
Upon request from Blouchard, Robinson explained the difference between imaging and forensic analysis. He said that imaging just meant creating a copy, whereas forensic analysis was a scientific process that could take weeks to months. Robinson was not involved in the full forensic analysis of the devices.
Blouchard asked if his certification was up to date at the time in question, and Robinson confirmed it was.
Blouchard then asked about the preliminary forensic analysis he conducted. Were the devices cat-card accessible? Robinson was unsure. Blouchard asked if the devices were password-protected. Robinson said that all but one of the devices was password protected – the exception being Bradley Manning’s personal computer.
Blouchard then asked about someone named Captain Turetko [NB: I am unsure if I have the spelling of this name correct. If you have a verified spelling, please email rainey@bradleymanning.org] Blouchard asked if Captain Turetko was involved in one image, and Robinson said he was not. Blouchard asked whether Robinson had instructed Turetko in obtaining network logs, and Robinson said someone from his unit had done so. He added that this was “typical” and that often a tech contact on location would collect network logs while CCIU was remote. Blouchard asked if Robinson had sent software or instructions to Turetko, and he said not that he recalled.
Blouchard then asked whether Robinson had come across any information in the preliminary forensic examination to indicate that Manning wanted to create an alter ego named Brianna Manning. Robinson, who had proved himself throughout to be an unflappable and somewhat reticent witness, said that he was familiar with the name but that it did not come up in the analysis. He was questioned about evidence around Manning’s emotional state, and Robinson mentioned that in the chat logs Manning referred to himself as “fragile.”
Blouchard asked if Robinson had seen evidence that Manning was gay. Robinson said he had not.
Blouchard asked about GAL (“Global address list”) but Robinson responded in the negative. Finally Blouchard asked whether there were other user profiles on the computers he worked on. Robinson said that Manning had a profile. When pressed about other profiles, he said that he did not recall.
At this point the defense rested. The prosecution asked Robinson a few clarifying questions. Honing in on the issue of Captain Turetko, Robinson confirmed upon questioning that Turetko obtained network logs for them. Network logs are, he explained, are the digital communications between computers. He confirmed that Turetko did not image anything.
At this point, Robinson was permanently excused from the pretrial hearing. He was warned against discussing the case with anyone.
Special Agent Mark Mander
1:47 PM Finally, at 1:47 PM, the government called a witness to appear in person. Mark Mander, a dark-haired man balding a bit, wore a dark suit and spoke with confidence.
The prosecution began by reviewing Mander’s credentials. He was from the Army Computer Crimes Investigative Unit. He had been with CIE since 1994 and had been with the CCIU for 4 years. He had taken over 300 hours of training in computer evidence collection, etc, and had worked on an estimated 20 cases. He had been involved as a case agent in the Manning proceedings since the evidence was transferred to Camp Liberty in Badghdad.
In describing how he’d ended up on the case, Mander explained that typically the CIU closest to the location of the alleged infringement would take the case. However, since there weren’t federal agents available in Iraq, there was a need to transfer the case to CCIU. Also, the technical subject matter of the case made it more suitable for CCIU.
On June 11, 2011, Mander personally took custody of the evidence.
Mander said that he obtained chats from Mr. Lamo; specifically, an agent from Mander’s office travelled to Adrian Lamo to obtain the Lamo’s computer and hard drive. Mander noted that it was his understanding that a copy of the chat logs in question were also found on property collected from Bradley Manning.
[NB: my notes here are slightly unclear, so have been omitted]
Mander described how CCIU attempted to go over SIPRnet to obtain a copy of the Granai airstrike video but was ultimately unsuccessful. Thus, they sent agents to Florida to obtain log files, folders, files, and documents in person. Lt. Col. Schmidtl (sp) provided background information about this video and a password. The file name in question was BE22PAX.zip
Mander described how Lamo had related that an individual he was acquainted with had been in contact with another person who was “bragging” that they were part of the effort to decrypt the Granai airstrike video. According to Mander, after several days of follow up, it was ascertained that the individual who was “bragging” was Jason Katz, previously employed at Brookhaven National Labs. Per Mander, Jason Katz had worked there from February 2009 to March 2010. He was then terminated from Brookhaven due to issues around misuse of computers. Brookhaven was able to obtain a forensic image of his work computer as well as his personal computer which had been connected to the work network.
When asked how Brookhaven was able to obtain these images, Mander explained that Katz had waived his rights away by signing an agreement as part of his employment at Brookhaven. Thus he had consented to having his computer searched and seized. Additionally, Mander said a search warrant was obtained. Through this, they were able to identify a file called B.zip on Katz’s computer [NB: unsure if personal or work computer] and within that folder a document titled BE22PAZ.wmv. Mander explained that this file was encrypted and password protected. When Mander provided the password given to him by Schmidtl, the file opened. It appeared to be the same video as the video of the Granai aistrike.
In the second week of June, 2 CCIU agents went to the State Department and obtained log files of people who accessed the State Department network. They also obtained “Firewall logs.”
[NB:My notes are a little unclear here and so have been omitted]
Mander also explained that Intel Link was like a search engine that allowed an individual to search documents on SIPRNet.
Mander noted that in the investigation they were able to collect an IP address that corresponded with Bradley Manning’s work computer.
Mander’s unit also collected logs from the CIA. They were particularly interested in keywords that had been search out. They also collected “centaur logs” also known as “F-Flow logs” which are basically connection logs, to show which IP address connected at exactly when and the traffic load.
On 18 June 2010, Mander described contacted Deborah van Alstyne of Potomac, MD – Manning’s aunt. Mander was accompanied by 4 other agents from CCIU an Department of State. In this initial visit, they discussed Manning’s childhood and family life. Van Alstyne stated that in one of the contacts she had with Manning in Iraq, he had asked about the public reception of the 2007 apache video. After his arrest, Mander said that Manning asked van Alstyne to make a post on his Facebook wall referencing the video.
Mander testified that they searched the home of Deborah, specifically a basement room where Manning’s things were. They were particularly looking for digital media. They also collected a computer that van Alstyne said belonged to Manning and was kept on and connected to the Internet, though she did not know what it did.
But this was not the end of Mander’s time with Manning’s family. A few months later, Mander returned. When Manning was apprehended and held in Kuwait, the government collected all of Manning’s items and placed them in a container. Manders said they made every effort to get a military magistrate to authorize a search or the container, but before it was resolved the container was shipped to van Alstyne’s home (Manning’s home of record). Mander went back to van Alstyne to see if he could obtain the container.
It turned out that Manning’s aunt had saved the box. It was intact and unopened, and she surrendered it to Mander. Van Alstyne also allowed Mander to conduct a second search of the basement. This second search was fruitful, in part because the basement had been organized and all of Manning’s effects had been placed in plastic boxes. On this second search, they were able to find memory cards, a hard drive, optical media discs. The most significant finding was an SD memory card with various bits of information, some of it classified.
As they identified the digital media, they would photograph it in its original location and then place it on the bed. Then van Alstyne verified that the items in question belonged to Manning.
More coming soon! Unfortunately, I got a late start transcribing my notes tonight and didn’t finish everything. I’ll try to add more before I go into court tomorrow, but if I don’t have time I’ll add to it tomorrow evening when I do my daily update. Still remaining was the defense cross-examination of Mander, the testimony of Special Agent Troy Bettencourt, and the lengthy testimony of Captain Steven Lin, who served with Manning in Iraq.
I’d also like to invite individuals curious about the trial to come down to the courtroom tomorrow; we start at 9 AM.
Resources
EnCase http://www.guidancesoftware.com/forensic.htm
Geanai airstrike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granai_airstrike
News articles
Bradley Manning Pre-Trial: Live Blog, Day 2
http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2011/12/17/bradley-manning-pre-trial-live-blog-day-2/
Bradley Manning Defense Reveals Alter Ego Named ‘Breanna Manning’
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/bradley-manning-defense-reveals-alter-ego-named-brianna-manning/
Testimony in Manning’s WikiLeaks case shows breadth of evidence
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-wiki-manning-20111218,0,918767.story
Private Bradley Manning court martial: investigators found classified information in bedroom basement
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8963882/Private-Bradley-Manning-court-martial-investigators-found-classified-information-in-bedroom-basement.html
Private Bradley Manning wanted to call himself ‘Breanna’ on Twitter, US military court is told
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8963582/Private-Bradley-Manning-wanted-to-call-himself-Breanna-on-Twitter-US-military-court-is-told.html
WikiLeaks lawyers protest at denial of full access to Manning hearing
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/17/wikileaks-lawyers-protest-manning-hearing?newsfeed=true
Prosecution to Present its Case Against Manning
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/17/prosecution_to_present_its_case_against_manning_3/
Day Two of the Bradley Manning Trial In Depth: Notes from a Courtroom Viewer in Bradley Manning’s Article 32 Hearing
December 17, 2011: Bradley Manning Support Network sent a representative into the courtroom to take notes for the public on what happened at Bradley Manning’s hearing. No recording devices (like cell phones or audio recorders) were allowed, so all these notes are hand-written and as accurate as written notes and memory allow. Notes were taken by Rainey Reitman, any omissions or inaccuracies are entirely her fault and not reflective of the Support Network positions. Please send corrections to rainey@bradleymanning.org
See day one here.
Getting to the Courtroom
Fort Meade, Maryland Today was just as chilly and grey as the yesterday, about what you would expect for December in Maryland. The hearing was scheduled to being at 10:00 AM and I arrive a bit after 9:15 AM. Knowing that the majority of the Manning supporters would likely be drawn to the rally outside the gates, I assumed (correctly) that it would not be difficult to get entrance. I was right; I was able to get into the courtroom and there was room to spare. As yesterday, our bags were searched and we went through metal detectors.
The military police have designated a heated trailed with folding chairs for us to wait in during breaks. Today, they added a folded table, more chairs, and two water coolers with cups.
The Article 32
10:34 AM Bradley Manning entered with David Coombs and his two military-assigned attorneys. When the investigating officer, Lt. Col. Paul Almanza, arrived, he appeared to be chewing something (maybe a lozenge?). The IO reviewed the court room rules again, advising the spectators not the interrupt or have cellular phones or they could be subject to removal.
Almanza then began by asking Manning’s two military-appointed JAGs, Blouchard and Kemkes, whether they were both certified by military law and authorized to represent Bradley Manning. Blouchard and Kemkes confirmed they were.
Special Agent Toni Graham
Things moved much more quickly on day two of the pretrial hearing. The government called their first witness, Special Agent Toni Graham. S.A. Graham was in Hawaii, and unfortunately the connection was not ideal. The government spent time fiddling with the podium equipment in an attempt to call her, then pulled in a young military support technician with ear studs to help fix the issue. When at last Graham was on the phone, the connection was static-filled and her voice was nearly incomprehensible. She was asked to stand and raise her right hand, then swear to tell the truth, and then warned that if she needed to disclose sensitive information that she should note that and wait before making the disclosure.
Her confirmation was hard to understand at best. Media representatives and public spectators (myself among them) exchanged incredulous looks at the technical difficulties. Almanza interrupted, stating that he was having difficulty understand her response to a question. He asked whether she was on a cell phone or a land line, and Graham admitted she was on a cell phone but offered to move to her office so she could talk from a landline. The defense urged the court to ensure that Graham was in a place where she would be able to speak freely.
A recess was called, mere minutes after the hearing began, so Graham could make the thirty minute trip to her office line.
11:30 AM Everyone returned to their places, and Almanza quizzed the government about whether the technical difficulties were addressed. The lead attorney for the government, perhaps a bit chagrined, stated that the issue was resolved and it had been a problem with the courtroom connection. However, they’d switched to a different phone and had already called the first 2 witnesses to check the audio quality.
Toni Graham was again introduced and sworn in. Her position in the 102nd Military Police detachment was reviewed, and she stated she was in a place she could speak privately and with freedom. She admitted to having the AIR she had produced (ref number 00000184-190) on hand, but agreed upon defense request to set it aside and notify the court if she needed to refer to it.
Graham was a CID (criminal investigations) agent. In the Manning case, her primary duties were to protect, collect, and preserve digital device evidence. The prosecution asked her about her experience, and she said she worked on perhaps 100 cases per year. She was serving on a battalion in Baghdad on 27 May 2010 when she received instructions from her headquarters based on information from a confidential informant. She then received a search warrant from a military magistrate and developed a team, including Thomas Smith, a counter intelligence agent, and another individual.
Graham was charged with collecting the personal computer and additional digital devices related to the Bradley Manning investigation. She also canvassed acquaintances and collected his personal, SCIF computers, and 2 SIPR computers.
Graham also searched the Containerized Housing Unit (CHU) where Manning resided. She took a personal computer, hard drive, cell phone, 10 DVDs, and 1 CD marked with the word “secret: in a U.S. postal shipping package. She testified that there were perhaps 100 yards between the SCIF and CHU. She also took digital devices from the supply section, since she learned Manning had recently been reassigned to supplies. From the supply area she took another SIPR computer and one other computer. She also obtained a computer belonging to a Captain Bigalow, as allegedly Manning had used this computer. She also found out that Manning had used a secret scanner on two occasions, and so she collected that computer.
Graham testified that she’d received authorization to seize and search the devices via her commander, as well as with consent from Bigalow, and also through formal search authorization granted to her.
On June 11, 2010, the investigation was transferred to the Computer Crimes Investigating Unit (CCIU). That is because CCIU has additional technical expertise, and all of the evidence in this matter was computer-related. Graham described the evidence being moved to CCIU through a “controlled transfer” – physical evidence hand delivered and additional evidence sent via registered mail. Evidence was thus hand delivered to Kuwait, then to Virginia.
At this point the prosecution rested and defense attorney Major Matthew Kemkes stepped forward. Kemkes has a respectful, somewhat solemn, strikingly earnest style in his courtroom delivery. He came across as thoughtful, and seemed somehow more restrained than Coombs.
Kemkes began by asking Graham if she was the first lead agent in the investigation, which she confirmed. He then noted that it seemed she was a truly central figure in the investigation, since she was serving now as the government first witness. He asked whether she had been asked to attend the proceedings in person, and why she had not done so. She responded that she was in Hawaii and needed to seek approval in order to travel for the proceedings.
At this point Almanza halted the line of questioning, his voice hoarse, and asked about the purpose of this questioning. Kemkes replied with candor, reiterating earlier defense arguments about the need to have important witnesses on site for the proceedings for in-person cross-examination. Almanza was unconvinced, referring to his early finding about this issue.
Kemkes proceeded quickly. After a quick review of her credentials and history, Kemkes confirmed with Graham that she had received search authorization from a military magistrate before searching the CHU. He asked whether she had signed the 5/29/10 affidavit which stated that Bradley Manning had sent classified documents to outside sources and would share more. Graham responded that she had indeed signed the affidavit, and in fact had reviewed it recently (within the last 2 weeks). She confirmed that the affidavit did state the Manning had released TS-SCI information and cables onto the Internet. Upon questioning, she admitted that much of her affidavit was based on information from commanders at Ft. Belvoir who had received intelligence from a confidential informant. The affidavit also specifically mentioned an article in the Stars and Stripes military publication called “A Wiki for a World of Secrets.”
Kemkes was methodical in questioning the contents of the affidavit Graham provided. But he was quickly able to hone in on her primary reason for filing the affidavit: because she knew that the Apache helicopter video showing Reuters journalists was confidential information and that millions (5 million? 5 billion? she asked) of “unauthorized individuals” had viewed this document. She did mention that “There were other reasons that I did not provide in the affidavit,” but admitted that the primary ones were those listed in the affidavit itself, especially the release of the Apache helicopter video.
Kemkes asked whether Graham stood by the affidavit she signed, and she confirmed, stating that TS/SCI had been leaked onto the Internet.
Kemkes then asked how she would feel if she found out that the video in question was unclassified, if in fact the 8 million people who saw it had seen an unclassified video. Graham struggled to answer this question, and was skeptical of Kemkes’ assertion that the video was unclassified. Kemkes asked how Graham has heard that the video was classified when she filed her affidavit, and Graham said the information had come by way of the confidential informant
Kemkes then picked apart another statement Graham made in her affidavit. He noted that her affidavit stated Manning had been penetrating .mil and .gov accounts for over a year. Kemkes pointed out that the affidavit was produced in May 2010, and that Manning had only been deployed since November 2009. How, then, could Graham be sure that he was penetrating systems for over a year?
“I can’t say for sure he was going it for over a year,” Graham admitted. This information was also something she had gathered by way of the confidential informant’s report.
Kemkes asked Graham about a box containing DVDs she had collected on 7/12/09, including one disc labeled “secret.” He proceeded to ask about whether she had searched and inventoried other items beyond digital media? She said she had not. He asked whether she knew that Manning might have gender identity disorder, and she said in fact she had. Kemkes asked whether Graham has discovered any evidence about this issue when collecting evidence for the case. She could not recall. He asked if she had found anything like that, including medical pamphlets or articles printed from the Internet. She could not recall. Kemkes asked about a specific medical pamphlet from Canada that reviewed options for dealing with gender identity disorder, including changing one’s dress, hormone therapy, facial surgery, and gender reassignment. Graham again could not recall.
At this point the prosecution objected, asking for the relevance of the questioning. The objection was overruled.
Upon further questioning, Graham admitted that she had seen “several things about homosexuality” when collecting evidence from Manning’s CHU. Kemkes asked what Graham had done with these things. Graham replied “I left it in his room.” Kemkes now asked a few incredulous questions, asking how often she had encountered similar situations where soldiers had copies of Flight Into Hypermasculinity. Almanza admonished Kemkes, urging him to “try to focus on the thoroughness of the investigation.”
Asked again what she did with evidence about Manning’s sexuality, Graham said she “set it to the side.” She then said plainly that “we already knew before we arrived” that Manning was a homosexual. She added, awkwardly, “I don’t know if the proper term is transvestite.” [NB: based on the context, I don’t believe Graham was confused about the difference between a transvestite and a homosexual. Rather, I believe she was certain Manning was gay but uncertain whether other factors might also make him a transvestite. She might also have been searching for the word “transgender.”]
Graham explained that in the course of her evidence collection she had conducted 5 interviews and canvassed other people who knew Manning. All interviews were conducted face to face. Kemkes asked if she would agree that Manning didn’t have a lot of friends in the unit. Graham agreed. She was asked about his relative popularity, but the prosecution objected.
Kemkes defended his questioning to the IO, stating that these all helped better understand that situation and stating that “what is going on in my client’s mind is very important.”
Kemkes asked whether there was a belief noted in the interviews that Manning was gay. Graham said no, that it was not brought up. There was no mention in these interviews of behavioral issues or mental disturbance.
Kemkes noted that Graham’s affidavit was that major piece of documentation affecting the pre-trial confinement hearing of Bradley Manning. He asked Graham if she was now comfortable with that affidavit being the basis of his pretrial confinement. She statement merely “That was the information I had at the time.”
Here Kemkes stepped away from the speaker phone for the telephone next to the IO and briefly conferred with the defense team. At last he sat down, and the government stepped up for a brief round of questioning before the group broke for recess.
The government stepped up for a quick line of questioning, following an argument pattern the government seems keen to identify: that procedures were appropriately followed. The government asked whether, at the time Graham signed her affidavit, she as aware that TS/SCI information had been compromised. She said she was. [NB: a section of this questioning is unclear from my notes. Apologies.] She briefly discussed the confidential informant who provided them with information, noting that he was in direct contact with the FBI.
The government asked Graham whether there was evidence to suggest that the Apache airstrike video came from a classified system. She said there was. Graham explained that she had interviewed Captain Morton, who had recently returned from R&R. [NB: Graham at first could not remember Captain Morton’s name but remembered it after a moment.] According to Graham, Morton had apparently learned about the airstrike video from Bradley Manning. Morton was skeptical about it, but Manning pulled it from SIPRnet and sent a copy to her.
Now the prosecution was finished. Almanza reminded the prosecution that this was their chance to authenticate documents, at which point the defense objected. In the words of Kemkes, “The defense doesn’t believe you need to remind the government how to do their job.”
The objection was overruled.
[NB: I did not catch whether this witness was temporarily or permanently excused. If you caught that, please email me at rainey@bradleymanning.org]
Special Agent Calder Robinson
1:25PM The next individual called as a witness by the prosecution was Special Agent Calder, who also appeared telephonically from Germany. Robinson was with the Computer Crimes Investigative Unit (CCIU) in Germany, and in fact was in charge of the Europe Branch office for CID. He was asked to stand and raise his right hand, then swear to tell the truth. He was asked to put aside any notes he might have and admonished against disclosing classified information without first making the court aware. He confirmed that he was alone and could speak freely.
The government first established that Robinson was a competent CCIU agent. He had accumulated over 350 cases since he became a CCIU agent in March 2006, and he had received over 660 hours of training including training in forensic examination.
Upon questioning, Robinson related that he had received a call on 29 May 2010. Based on the information in that call, he traveled to Baghdad to take control of digital evidence, conducted a preliminary forensic examination, and then transported it elsewhere for further forensic examination. He traveled to Camp Liberty in Baghdad, which was considered the best nearby place to collect the data and conduct a preliminary forensic analysis. Robinsons main role was to obtain forensic images of the evidence and conduct the preliminary examination. He was asked what physical evidence specifically there was, and he had to refer to his notes.
After a moment looking at his notes, Robison related that he had dealt with
•a laptop belonging to Bigalow,
•the personal laptop and hard drive of Bradley Manning,
•several optical discs including one marked secret,
•2 SIPR machines (1 the assigned work station of Manning and 1 from the supply area),
•1 SIPR machine from another soldier
NB: I did not hear a mention of a cell phone being included in this list, even though a cell phone was previously alluded to. If you have notes from the hearing and noted a cell phone in this list, please email me at rainey@bradleymanning.org
Robinson explained that he imaged the hard drives and did a preliminary forensic examination. Imaging, he explained, was creating a bit-by-bit copy of the data on a device so that it could not be lost if the device was lost or damaged. The thoroughness of the imaging was verified because he created a secure hash of the data on both the original machine and the imaged copy, and compared the two hashes. If they were identical, he knew the copy was complete and identical. He used EnCase to image all of the computers and the 1 optical disc marked “secret.”
At this point, the prosecuting attorney finished up and defense attorney Captain Paul Blouchard stepped up to the speaker phone to address Robinson.
Blouchard reiterated that Robinson had collected hard drives from the digital devices. He then asked if Robinson knew if these computers were used by people other than Bradley Manning. Robinson hedged slightly, noting that this would be made clear in a full forensic analysis (which he didn’t do).
Upon request from Blouchard, Robinson explained the difference between imaging and forensic analysis. He said that imaging just meant creating a copy, whereas forensic analysis was a scientific process that could take weeks to months. Robinson was not involved in the full forensic analysis of the devices.
Blouchard asked if his certification was up to date at the time in question, and Robinson confirmed it was.
Blouchard then asked about the preliminary forensic analysis he conducted. Were the devices cat-card accessible? Robinson was unsure. Blouchard asked if the devices were password-protected. Robinson said that all but one of the devices was password protected – the exception being Bradley Manning’s personal computer.
Blouchard then asked about someone named Captain Turetko [NB: I am unsure if I have the spelling of this name correct. If you have a verified spelling, please email rainey@bradleymanning.org] Blouchard asked if Captain Turetko was involved in one image, and Robinson said he was not. Blouchard asked whether Robinson had instructed Turetko in obtaining network logs, and Robinson said someone from his unit had done so. He added that this was “typical” and that often a tech contact on location would collect network logs while CCIU was remote. Blouchard asked if Robinson had sent software or instructions to Turetko, and he said not that he recalled.
Blouchard then asked whether Robinson had come across any information in the preliminary forensic examination to indicate that Manning wanted to create an alter ego named Brianna Manning. Robinson, who had proved himself throughout to be an unflappable and somewhat reticent witness, said that he was familiar with the name but that it did not come up in the analysis. He was questioned about evidence around Manning’s emotional state, and Robinson mentioned that in the chat logs Manning referred to himself as “fragile.”
Blouchard asked if Robinson had seen evidence that Manning was gay. Robinson said he had not.
Blouchard asked about GAL (“Global address list”) but Robinson responded in the negative. Finally Blouchard asked whether there were other user profiles on the computers he worked on. Robinson said that Manning had a profile. When pressed about other profiles, he said that he did not recall.
At this point the defense rested. The prosecution asked Robinson a few clarifying questions. Honing in on the issue of Captain Turetko, Robinson confirmed upon questioning that Turetko obtained network logs for them. Network logs are, he explained, are the digital communications between computers. He confirmed that Turetko did not image anything.
At this point, Robinson was permanently excused from the pretrial hearing. He was warned against discussing the case with anyone.
Special Agent Mark Mander
1:47 PM Finally, at 1:47 PM, the government called a witness to appear in person. Mark Mander, a dark-haired man balding a bit, wore a dark suit and spoke with confidence.
The prosecution began by reviewing Mander’s credentials. He was from the Army Computer Crimes Investigative Unit. He had been with CIE since 1994 and had been with the CCIU for 4 years. He had taken over 300 hours of training in computer evidence collection, etc, and had worked on an estimated 20 cases. He had been involved as a case agent in the Manning proceedings since the evidence was transferred to Camp Liberty in Badghdad.
In describing how he’d ended up on the case, Mander explained that typically the CIU closest to the location of the alleged infringement would take the case. However, since there weren’t federal agents available in Iraq, there was a need to transfer the case to CCIU. Also, the technical subject matter of the case made it more suitable for CCIU.
On June 11, 2011, Mander personally took custody of the evidence.
Mander said that he obtained chats from Mr. Lamo; specifically, an agent from Mander’s office travelled to Adrian Lamo to obtain the Lamo’s computer and hard drive. Mander noted that it was his understanding that a copy of the chat logs in question were also found on property collected from Bradley Manning.
[NB: my notes here are slightly unclear, so have been omitted]
Mander described how CCIU attempted to go over SIPRnet to obtain a copy of the Granai airstrike video but was ultimately unsuccessful. Thus, they sent agents to Florida to obtain log files, folders, files, and documents in person. Lt. Col. Schmidtl (sp) provided background information about this video and a password. The file name in question was BE22PAX.zip
Mander described how Lamo had related that an individual he was acquainted with had been in contact with another person who was “bragging” that they were part of the effort to decrypt the Granai airstrike video. According to Mander, after several days of follow up, it was ascertained that the individual who was “bragging” was Jason Katz, previously employed at Brookhaven National Labs. Per Mander, Jason Katz had worked there from February 2009 to March 2010. He was then terminated from Brookhaven due to issues around misuse of computers. Brookhaven was able to obtain a forensic image of his work computer as well as his personal computer which had been connected to the work network.
When asked how Brookhaven was able to obtain these images, Mander explained that Katz had waived his rights away by signing an agreement as part of his employment at Brookhaven. Thus he had consented to having his computer searched and seized. Additionally, Mander said a search warrant was obtained. Through this, they were able to identify a file called B.zip on Katz’s computer [NB: unsure if personal or work computer] and within that folder a document titled BE22PAZ.wmv. Mander explained that this file was encrypted and password protected. When Mander provided the password given to him by Schmidtl, the file opened. It appeared to be the same video as the video of the Granai aistrike.
In the second week of June, 2 CCIU agents went to the State Department and obtained log files of people who accessed the State Department network. They also obtained “Firewall logs.”
[NB:My notes are a little unclear here and so have been omitted]
Mander also explained that Intel Link was like a search engine that allowed an individual to search documents on SIPRNet.
Mander noted that in the investigation they were able to collect an IP address that corresponded with Bradley Manning’s work computer.
Mander’s unit also collected logs from the CIA. They were particularly interested in keywords that had been search out. They also collected “centaur logs” also known as “F-Flow logs” which are basically connection logs, to show which IP address connected at exactly when and the traffic load.
On 18 June 2010, Mander described contacted Deborah van Alstyne of Potomac, MD – Manning’s aunt. Mander was accompanied by 4 other agents from CCIU an Department of State. In this initial visit, they discussed Manning’s childhood and family life. Van Alstyne stated that in one of the contacts she had with Manning in Iraq, he had asked about the public reception of the 2007 apache video. After his arrest, Mander said that Manning asked van Alstyne to make a post on his Facebook wall referencing the video.
Mander testified that they searched the home of Deborah, specifically a basement room where Manning’s things were. They were particularly looking for digital media. They also collected a computer that van Alstyne said belonged to Manning and was kept on and connected to the Internet, though she did not know what it did.
But this was not the end of Mander’s time with Manning’s family. A few months later, Mander returned. When Manning was apprehended and held in Kuwait, the government collected all of Manning’s items and placed them in a container. Manders said they made every effort to get a military magistrate to authorize a search or the container, but before it was resolved the container was shipped to van Alstyne’s home (Manning’s home of record). Mander went back to van Alstyne to see if he could obtain the container.
It turned out that Manning’s aunt had saved the box. It was intact and unopened, and she surrendered it to Mander. Van Alstyne also allowed Mander to conduct a second search of the basement. This second search was fruitful, in part because the basement had been organized and all of Manning’s effects had been placed in plastic boxes. On this second search, they were able to find memory cards, a hard drive, optical media discs. The most significant finding was an SD memory card with various bits of information, some of it classified.
As they identified the digital media, they would photograph it in its original location and then place it on the bed. Then van Alstyne verified that the items in question belonged to Manning.
More coming soon! Unfortunately, I got a late start transcribing my notes tonight and didn’t finish everything. I’ll try to add more before I go into court tomorrow, but if I don’t have time I’ll add to it tomorrow evening when I do my daily update. Still remaining was the defense cross-examination of Mander, the testimony of Special Agent Troy Bettencourt, and the lengthy testimony of Captain Steven Lin, who served with Manning in Iraq.
I’d also like to invite individuals curious about the trial to come down to the courtroom tomorrow; we start at 9 AM.
Resources
EnCase http://www.guidancesoftware.com/forensic.htm
Geanai airstrike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granai_airstrike
News articles
Bradley Manning Pre-Trial: Live Blog, Day 2
http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2011/12/17/bradley-manning-pre-trial-live-blog-day-2/
Bradley Manning Defense Reveals Alter Ego Named ‘Breanna Manning’
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/bradley-manning-defense-reveals-alter-ego-named-brianna-manning/
Testimony in Manning’s WikiLeaks case shows breadth of evidence
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-wiki-manning-20111218,0,918767.story
Private Bradley Manning court martial: investigators found classified information in bedroom basement
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8963882/Private-Bradley-Manning-court-martial-investigators-found-classified-information-in-bedroom-basement.html
Private Bradley Manning wanted to call himself ‘Breanna’ on Twitter, US military court is told
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8963582/Private-Bradley-Manning-wanted-to-call-himself-Breanna-on-Twitter-US-military-court-is-told.html
WikiLeaks lawyers protest at denial of full access to Manning hearing
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/17/wikileaks-lawyers-protest-manning-hearing?newsfeed=true
Prosecution to Present its Case Against Manning
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/17/prosecution_to_present_its_case_against_manning_3/
The Latest From The Private Bradley Manning Support Network-Free Bradley Manning Now! -Bradley Manning Trial In Depth: Day One-Notes from a Courtroom Viewer in Bradley Manning’s Article 32 Hearing
Click on the headline to link to the Private Bradley Manning Support Network for the latest information in his case.
Bradley Manning Trial In Depth: Notes from a Courtroom Viewer in Bradley Manning’s Article 32 Hearing
December 16, 2011: Bradley Manning Support Network sent representatives into the courtroom to take notes for the public on what happened at Bradley Manning’s hearing. No recording devices (like cell phones or audio recorders) were allowed, so all these notes are hand-written and as accurate as written notes and memory allow. Notes were taken by Rainey Reitman, any omissions or inaccuracies are entirely her fault and not reflective of the Support Network positions. Please send corrections to rainey@bradleymanning.org
Getting into the Courtroom
7:35 AM
Manning’s pretrial hearing (called the Article 32) began on December 16, 2011 at Fort Meade in Maryland. The weather was chilly and grey, but lightened as the day progressed. Members of the public and media who wished to attend the trial were processed through the main visitors entrance. Fort Meade prepared for an enormous turnout — designating a soccer-field sized parking lot for trial attendees and setting up an overflow spectator theater with video feed from the trial that could hold 100 people.
I was one of the first dozen individuals from the public to arrive in the visitor processing area, reaching the courthouse shortly after 7:30 AM. The courthouse was cordoned off with metal gating with guards at possible entrances. Individuals who wished to go in were told to leave electronic devices in their cars and then sent to a heated trailer to wait on folding chairs for security screening. Everyone who entered the facility went through a metal detector and had purses and bags individually searched. Of those in the trailer seeking entrance, the majority appeared to be Manning supporters coming from far and wide to attend — Toronto, New York, Boston, San Francisco.
Two of Julian Assange’s lawyers (see last page of notes) were also present, as was a citizen journalist from WLCentral.org.
Twenty members of the public were eventually processed and held in a small outdoor enclosure just outside the court. After perhaps twenty minutes, we were allowed entrance and settled quietly into the back of the room.
The Article 32
Bradley Manning sat on the left side of the courtroom, his back to the public viewers. He spoke with quiet animation to the military-appointed attorney by his side, though his words were inaudible to us. At 8:55 AM, Manning’s second military-appointed attorney arrived with David Coombs, his civilian attorney and the leader of his defense team. In the first row of seats behind Manning sat the rest of the legal defense team, including a computer forensics expert and David Coombs’ wife.
There were 9 members of the press present (7 taking notes and 2 sketch artists). It is possible additional members of the media were present but not clearly distinguishable.
At 9:04 AM, Lt Colonel Paul Almanza, the investigating officer presiding over the Article 32 hearing, entered the room. He moved quickly and carried a large sheaf of documents.
The hearing began with Almanza reading carefully from notes regarding the appropriate conduct of public attendees. He reiterated that cellular phones and interruptions were forbidden in order
“to protect the dignity and decorum of these proceedings” and warned that failure to follow these rules would result in an individual being removed from the courtroom.
Almanza spoke softly and carefully, displaying no sign of self-consciousness in these early moments of the proceeding. His eyes moved from the paper in his hands to Manning and back, not flickering over to the spectators. He began his interactions with the defense team by establishing that Manning had been appropriately notified of the pretrial hearing on November 28, 2011, and that the defense counsel had offered witnesses and evidence to include in the hearing.
Almanza then asked Manning whether he had the charge sheet in front of him. Manning, in his first spoken public statement since his arrest 18 months earlier, said “Yes sir, I do.”
Manning was then asked a series of other questions about whether he understood his rights and other administrative matters, to which Manning offered affirmative, respectful responses. His voice was unchanged except when questioned about his legal team and whether he was satisfied with his current legal representation. His answer again was “Yes, sir,” but here his voice changed in tone, adding emphasis and depth.
Almanza reviewed Manning’s rights, including his right to be present in the court throughout the length of the proceedings, the right to cross examine witnesses, the right to provide information as part of the proceedings, the right to legal counsel, the right to call witnesses for the investigating officer to examine, and the right to be silent or to speak in either sworn or unsworn statements. Unsurprisingly, any statements Manning makes in the pretrial can be used against him in the trial.
At this point, Almanza reviewed his own status in the case. A Department of Justice employee, he admitted to seeing some media coverage of the Manning case prior to being detailed to the position. The government did not have additional questions about this matter, but Coombs had a number.
Coombs rose for every statement he made in the court, and for questioning the investigating officer he actually stepped out from behind the table and approached the investigating officer. Coombs was particularly interested in learning how the convening authority had become aware of Almanza’s name. Almanza was unable to answer that question, stating that he’d received a call in August 2010.
Coombs also questioned whether Almanza had taken a course with Coombs in school (Almanza was not sure). He also questioned Almanza’s experience. Almanza had tried 6 court martials, in which all defendants plead guilty, one of which was a mixed plea. Almanza had prosecuted about 20 cases from 2002 to 2004.
Upon questioning by Coombs, Almanza also acknowledged that the Department of Justice (his employers) has an ongoing investigation around WikiLeaks. Almanza asserted that he hadn’t spoken to anyone at the Department of Justice about the investigation.
After the initial round of questioning, Coombs became more aggressive in his questioning of the investigating office. Oddly, as the questions became more probing, Almanza became more soft spoken and slightly less organized in his responses, correcting himself several times. Coombs was particularly keen on the exact dates on which Almanza was detailed to investigating officer of the Manning case, and when he left the DOJ. Almanza admitted that he was detailed on 12/2 but continued to work in his civilian position at the Department of Justice until 12/12, but stated that he did no more work for the DOJ after that. (NB: this issue comes up later (see below), when Coombs states that the defense received an email from Almanza after 12/12 from Almanza’s civilian Department of Justice email account, thus indicated Almanza was still “wearing the hat” of the DOJ.)
Coombs also questioned what impressions Almanza had formed about the case before stepping in as investigating officer. Almanza admitted he had read articles about the case, but that after he had learned he would be detailed to the case had avoided reading articles whose headlines indicated they were about Manning. Almanza said that, when he heard about he case, his initial impression was that if the allegations were true, this was a serious matter. But he insisted that he did not form an opinion based on what he read in the paper because the paper isn’t always accurate and isn’t always the full story.
At the point, Coombs outlined his full argument against Almanza and asked Almanza to recuse himself from the trial. Speaking eloquently, with broad gestures and stepping back and forth across the court room, Coombs argued that there were four primary reasons that Almanza must recuse himself from the proceedings:
1.Almanza’s position at the Department of Justice, which has an open investigation into the matter of Wikileaks, could bias him in the proceedings. As a career prosecutor at the Department of Justice, a reasonable person could see that Almanza might be biased in the case against Manning. Additionally, the Department of Justice has not ruled out taking over the trial of Bradley Manning altogether. And furthermore, Almanza had denied Coombs’ request to access information about the Department of Justice’s investigation into Wikileaks.
2.Almanza’s one-sided approval of witnesses. The government submitted a list of 20 people to be called as witnesses. It was merely a list – no explanation provided for why those individuals were called. Every one of those witnesses was approved by Almanza. The defense called 48 witnesses, providing a multi-page document explaining why each witness was important to the case. Of those, 10 were in common with the government and were approved. Of the remaining 38 witnesses called by the defense, only 2 were approved. NB: statements made by Almanza later in the proceedings seemed to indicate another 2 were later approved, after the original request was made and upon receiving additional legal counsel.
3.Refusal to close the hearing during certain sensitive portions. Coombs requested that the hearing be closed to the public during a limited portion of the proceeding while discussing information that he felt could damage his client’s ability to receive a fair trial. Almanza refused.
4.Accepting unsworn statements against objections. Coombs explained that the government had delayed the hearing again and again in order to allow for a review of certain classified information by two witnesses who could speak to how the information was classified and the potential harm it may have caused. Coombs felt it was extraordinarily important that the defense be offered the opportunity to question these witnesses in person during the proceedings. But Almanza rejected the request, allowing these two witnesses to provide unsworn statements as part of the hearing. Coombs cited RCM 405, stating that unsworn statements were inadmissible as evidence over objections.
Here Coombs spoke more broadly and passionately about the case, noting that Manning was facing the death sentence over these issues. He urged the court to let him cross examine these witnesses over the appropriate classification of documents, noting that this was of primary importance to the trial because this was the real issue. Coombs asked “Where is the damage? Where is the harm?” Without the opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses, the public and the investigating officer would never know.
Concluding his arguments, Coombs handed a rather thick typed sheaf of papers to the prosecution and Almanza, a motion asking that Almanza be removed. He sat down again, sipping water.
Almanza asked if the prosecution would like to respond, and the prosecution said it would first need to review the documents. Around 10 AM, a recess was called.
At 11:32 AM the court reconvened, Bradley Manning again escorted to his seat flanked by attorneys who towered above him. As before, he did not turn to face the audience at any point; the audience was able to catch a glimpse of his face only as he was brought in and out of the court room.
As the court reconvened, the defense asked that the investigating officer seek contact the Chief Trial Advisor for a recommendation on the issue.
The government was then allowed to question the investigating officer. The questions were simple and the answers brief. Had Almanza reviewed any material about Bradley Manning or WikiLeaks in his position at the Department of Justice? No. Had he conversed with anyone at the Department of Justice about Manning or WikiLeaks? No. Had he followed procedures in agreeing upon the 15 witnesses, considering the difficulty or expense of bringing them to the proceedings and what they would add? Yes. Had he prepared a written finding of his witness list? Yes. Had he consulted with a legal advisor on this matter? Yes. Did he consult with a legal advisor on his interpretation of the rules regarding unsworn witnesses and objections? Yes.
The government created several themes in their questioning and later arguments for keeping Almanza as investigating officer: that procedures were followed, that written findings were created that could be reviewed by judge or appellate court in the future, that legal advise was sought on important matters.
The government asked Almanza whether he felt he could serve as an unbiased judge in this matter, to which Almanza said he could. The government summarized the answers that Amanza had provided and finished by asserting that Almanza could continue to serve as an unbiased and impartial judge.
At this point, Almanza hesitated, then corrected the prosecuting attorney, stating that the standard was not whether he was unbiased but whether a reasonable person, knowing all the facts, could believe that he was not likely to be biased. The prosecution parroted Almanza’s language back to him, stating that the prosecution believed a reasonable person would find Almanza to be free of any potential bias.
David Coombs was quick to argue the issue of perceived bias, noting that Almanza’s interpretation of the standard (“that a reasonable person, knowing all the facts, would believe”) and asserted that no reasonable person would believe that someone working for the Department of Justice would be free of the specter of bias. In fact, Coombs noted that the defense had received emails from Almanza from the Department of Justice email address even after 12/12. Almanza countered that the Department of Justice was large and he worked in an area focusing on child exploitation and obscenity, not anything to do with WikiLeaks.
Coombs responded that the standard did not take into account whether the Department of Justice was large, merely whether or not a reasonable person could believe, knowing the facts, that Almanza could be biased. Coombs then pointed out that the media was already questioning the possibility of impartiality.
He noted that the defense had received emails from Almanza from the Department of Justice email address on 12/12 and after, indicating the Almanza was still wearing the hat of the DOJ.
Almanza also noted that he was not a trial attorney currently, focusing on policy and legislation in his current position. He restated his concerns about closing the trial for “very limited pieces of information that could taint my client’s ability to get a fair trial.” And Coombs noted again that the case “rises and falls” on whether information is correctly classified.
Coombs was passionate in his defense, perhaps indicating that his courtroom style would be expansive, well-organized arguments that constantly related the trial of Bradley Manning to larger issues of government secrecy. At one point, he turned and spoke directly to the courtroom behind him. Almanza quickly interrupted, “Mr. Coombs, who are you addressing?”
“The public,” replied Coombs, “Because this is a public trial.”
After this mild reproof, Coombs kept his eyes forward in addressing Almanza. The court broke for another recess, Coombs ending by urging Almanza to recuse himself and mentioning that he would in fact be asking Defense Appellate Division Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) to review the case. He asked Almanza to stay the hearing until Defense Appellate Division ACCA could make a decision.
We were recessed again, and would not have another lengthy speech from Coombs today.
1:38 PM We reconvened briefly. The rules for behavior in the court were reviewed. Then Almanza dove right in.
He explained that the Chief Trial Judge wasn’t able to be reached. They defense team urged Almanza to hold off on deciding whether to recuse himself until speaking with the Chief Trial Judge.
Almanza then denied the request to recuse himself. He stated that he would prepare a written documentation of his decision and send that the Defense Appellate Division ACCA along with a full transcript of the morning’s proceedings. The prosecution had to call for the full transcript to be prepared (apparently only a summarized transcript had been previously called for), and that the verbatim transcript would then go to the Defense Appellate Division for their consideration. This transcript wasn’t going to be available to the public, unfortunately, only to Defense Appellate Divisin ACCA and only for the portion of the proceedings up until this point.
We recessed. At 2:17 PM, David Coombs stated there would be at least 10 more minutes of recess. At 2:47 PM, Coombs again said there would be at least 10 more minutes of recess.
At 3:06 PM, we reconvened very briefly for Almanza to state that we would not recuse himself and summarized his earlier points: that while he was a deputy chief of the Department of Justice, he worked in child exploitation and obscenity and not on matters related to WikiLeaks; that he had spoken to his legal advisor and added witnesses based on a more-informed understanding of the legal rules; that he felt a reasonable person, knowing all the facts, would not believe he was biased. He concluded that a verbatim transcript was being prepared for the writ only.
Another recess.
At 3:25 PM, we reconvened for the last time that day. Almanza may have been a bit flustered; he left his charge sheet in the judge’s quarters and had to go get it. Almanza reiterated that his sole function was to serve as an impartial judge in these proceeding. He reminded Manning of his rights, and asked Manning if he would like the charges read aloud.
Manning declined.
As the hearing drew to a close, Almanza brought up the issue of classified documents. He stated that certain classified information might be brought up in the course of the hearing and that a determination would need to be made about whether to close the hearing at that time. He specifically mentioned, but did not elaborate upon, “three protective orders.”
The proceedings ended. Alamanza asked for the hearing to begin again on Saturday at 10 AM. Individuals who sat through many long hours of recess seemed reluctant to leave, lingering in the pews. One Manning supporter, a veteran named Nate Goldschlag, shouted as he left the court room “You’re a hero.” Manning didn’t turn around but the others in the room shot nervous looks to the military police, who did not visibly react. One of the MPs followed the man outside and asked him not to return the next day. See video describing incident: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYj5Bi_Kg_Q
Other things to note: Two lawyers for Assange were in attendance. At some point during the proceeding, they filed a writ for extraordinary relief or access to the proceedings. The document is here at the Center for Constitutional Rights (HT Kevin Gosztola for finding the writ online).
Additional Resources:
David Coombs’ blog
http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/
Bradley Manning Support Network blog:
http://www.bradleymanning.org
News Coverage:
Guardian: Bradley Manning hearing: defence lawyer turns fire on military accusers
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/16/bradley-manning-hearing-defence-lawyer?newsfeed=true
Hearing officer in Manning case is a Justice Department employee in civilian life
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/hearing-officer-in-manning-case-is-a-justice-department-employee-in-civilian-life/2011/12/16/gIQAMZN1yO_story.html
Manning’s lawyer asks military to stop WikiLeaks hearing
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/breaking/bs-md-bradley-manning-20111216,0,3698797.story
Investigator in WikiLeaks Case Refuses Recusal
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/17/us/bradley-manning-accused-of-aiding-wikileaks-will-appear-in-military-court.html?_r=1
Bradley Manning Trial: Lawyer wants judge removed
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70560.html
Bradley Manning Pre-Trial Hearing: Live Blog
http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2011/12/16/bradley-manning-pre-trial-hearing-live-blog/
Bradley Manning Trial In Depth: Notes from a Courtroom Viewer in Bradley Manning’s Article 32 Hearing
December 16, 2011: Bradley Manning Support Network sent representatives into the courtroom to take notes for the public on what happened at Bradley Manning’s hearing. No recording devices (like cell phones or audio recorders) were allowed, so all these notes are hand-written and as accurate as written notes and memory allow. Notes were taken by Rainey Reitman, any omissions or inaccuracies are entirely her fault and not reflective of the Support Network positions. Please send corrections to rainey@bradleymanning.org
Getting into the Courtroom
7:35 AM
Manning’s pretrial hearing (called the Article 32) began on December 16, 2011 at Fort Meade in Maryland. The weather was chilly and grey, but lightened as the day progressed. Members of the public and media who wished to attend the trial were processed through the main visitors entrance. Fort Meade prepared for an enormous turnout — designating a soccer-field sized parking lot for trial attendees and setting up an overflow spectator theater with video feed from the trial that could hold 100 people.
I was one of the first dozen individuals from the public to arrive in the visitor processing area, reaching the courthouse shortly after 7:30 AM. The courthouse was cordoned off with metal gating with guards at possible entrances. Individuals who wished to go in were told to leave electronic devices in their cars and then sent to a heated trailer to wait on folding chairs for security screening. Everyone who entered the facility went through a metal detector and had purses and bags individually searched. Of those in the trailer seeking entrance, the majority appeared to be Manning supporters coming from far and wide to attend — Toronto, New York, Boston, San Francisco.
Two of Julian Assange’s lawyers (see last page of notes) were also present, as was a citizen journalist from WLCentral.org.
Twenty members of the public were eventually processed and held in a small outdoor enclosure just outside the court. After perhaps twenty minutes, we were allowed entrance and settled quietly into the back of the room.
The Article 32
Bradley Manning sat on the left side of the courtroom, his back to the public viewers. He spoke with quiet animation to the military-appointed attorney by his side, though his words were inaudible to us. At 8:55 AM, Manning’s second military-appointed attorney arrived with David Coombs, his civilian attorney and the leader of his defense team. In the first row of seats behind Manning sat the rest of the legal defense team, including a computer forensics expert and David Coombs’ wife.
There were 9 members of the press present (7 taking notes and 2 sketch artists). It is possible additional members of the media were present but not clearly distinguishable.
At 9:04 AM, Lt Colonel Paul Almanza, the investigating officer presiding over the Article 32 hearing, entered the room. He moved quickly and carried a large sheaf of documents.
The hearing began with Almanza reading carefully from notes regarding the appropriate conduct of public attendees. He reiterated that cellular phones and interruptions were forbidden in order
“to protect the dignity and decorum of these proceedings” and warned that failure to follow these rules would result in an individual being removed from the courtroom.
Almanza spoke softly and carefully, displaying no sign of self-consciousness in these early moments of the proceeding. His eyes moved from the paper in his hands to Manning and back, not flickering over to the spectators. He began his interactions with the defense team by establishing that Manning had been appropriately notified of the pretrial hearing on November 28, 2011, and that the defense counsel had offered witnesses and evidence to include in the hearing.
Almanza then asked Manning whether he had the charge sheet in front of him. Manning, in his first spoken public statement since his arrest 18 months earlier, said “Yes sir, I do.”
Manning was then asked a series of other questions about whether he understood his rights and other administrative matters, to which Manning offered affirmative, respectful responses. His voice was unchanged except when questioned about his legal team and whether he was satisfied with his current legal representation. His answer again was “Yes, sir,” but here his voice changed in tone, adding emphasis and depth.
Almanza reviewed Manning’s rights, including his right to be present in the court throughout the length of the proceedings, the right to cross examine witnesses, the right to provide information as part of the proceedings, the right to legal counsel, the right to call witnesses for the investigating officer to examine, and the right to be silent or to speak in either sworn or unsworn statements. Unsurprisingly, any statements Manning makes in the pretrial can be used against him in the trial.
At this point, Almanza reviewed his own status in the case. A Department of Justice employee, he admitted to seeing some media coverage of the Manning case prior to being detailed to the position. The government did not have additional questions about this matter, but Coombs had a number.
Coombs rose for every statement he made in the court, and for questioning the investigating officer he actually stepped out from behind the table and approached the investigating officer. Coombs was particularly interested in learning how the convening authority had become aware of Almanza’s name. Almanza was unable to answer that question, stating that he’d received a call in August 2010.
Coombs also questioned whether Almanza had taken a course with Coombs in school (Almanza was not sure). He also questioned Almanza’s experience. Almanza had tried 6 court martials, in which all defendants plead guilty, one of which was a mixed plea. Almanza had prosecuted about 20 cases from 2002 to 2004.
Upon questioning by Coombs, Almanza also acknowledged that the Department of Justice (his employers) has an ongoing investigation around WikiLeaks. Almanza asserted that he hadn’t spoken to anyone at the Department of Justice about the investigation.
After the initial round of questioning, Coombs became more aggressive in his questioning of the investigating office. Oddly, as the questions became more probing, Almanza became more soft spoken and slightly less organized in his responses, correcting himself several times. Coombs was particularly keen on the exact dates on which Almanza was detailed to investigating officer of the Manning case, and when he left the DOJ. Almanza admitted that he was detailed on 12/2 but continued to work in his civilian position at the Department of Justice until 12/12, but stated that he did no more work for the DOJ after that. (NB: this issue comes up later (see below), when Coombs states that the defense received an email from Almanza after 12/12 from Almanza’s civilian Department of Justice email account, thus indicated Almanza was still “wearing the hat” of the DOJ.)
Coombs also questioned what impressions Almanza had formed about the case before stepping in as investigating officer. Almanza admitted he had read articles about the case, but that after he had learned he would be detailed to the case had avoided reading articles whose headlines indicated they were about Manning. Almanza said that, when he heard about he case, his initial impression was that if the allegations were true, this was a serious matter. But he insisted that he did not form an opinion based on what he read in the paper because the paper isn’t always accurate and isn’t always the full story.
At the point, Coombs outlined his full argument against Almanza and asked Almanza to recuse himself from the trial. Speaking eloquently, with broad gestures and stepping back and forth across the court room, Coombs argued that there were four primary reasons that Almanza must recuse himself from the proceedings:
1.Almanza’s position at the Department of Justice, which has an open investigation into the matter of Wikileaks, could bias him in the proceedings. As a career prosecutor at the Department of Justice, a reasonable person could see that Almanza might be biased in the case against Manning. Additionally, the Department of Justice has not ruled out taking over the trial of Bradley Manning altogether. And furthermore, Almanza had denied Coombs’ request to access information about the Department of Justice’s investigation into Wikileaks.
2.Almanza’s one-sided approval of witnesses. The government submitted a list of 20 people to be called as witnesses. It was merely a list – no explanation provided for why those individuals were called. Every one of those witnesses was approved by Almanza. The defense called 48 witnesses, providing a multi-page document explaining why each witness was important to the case. Of those, 10 were in common with the government and were approved. Of the remaining 38 witnesses called by the defense, only 2 were approved. NB: statements made by Almanza later in the proceedings seemed to indicate another 2 were later approved, after the original request was made and upon receiving additional legal counsel.
3.Refusal to close the hearing during certain sensitive portions. Coombs requested that the hearing be closed to the public during a limited portion of the proceeding while discussing information that he felt could damage his client’s ability to receive a fair trial. Almanza refused.
4.Accepting unsworn statements against objections. Coombs explained that the government had delayed the hearing again and again in order to allow for a review of certain classified information by two witnesses who could speak to how the information was classified and the potential harm it may have caused. Coombs felt it was extraordinarily important that the defense be offered the opportunity to question these witnesses in person during the proceedings. But Almanza rejected the request, allowing these two witnesses to provide unsworn statements as part of the hearing. Coombs cited RCM 405, stating that unsworn statements were inadmissible as evidence over objections.
Here Coombs spoke more broadly and passionately about the case, noting that Manning was facing the death sentence over these issues. He urged the court to let him cross examine these witnesses over the appropriate classification of documents, noting that this was of primary importance to the trial because this was the real issue. Coombs asked “Where is the damage? Where is the harm?” Without the opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses, the public and the investigating officer would never know.
Concluding his arguments, Coombs handed a rather thick typed sheaf of papers to the prosecution and Almanza, a motion asking that Almanza be removed. He sat down again, sipping water.
Almanza asked if the prosecution would like to respond, and the prosecution said it would first need to review the documents. Around 10 AM, a recess was called.
At 11:32 AM the court reconvened, Bradley Manning again escorted to his seat flanked by attorneys who towered above him. As before, he did not turn to face the audience at any point; the audience was able to catch a glimpse of his face only as he was brought in and out of the court room.
As the court reconvened, the defense asked that the investigating officer seek contact the Chief Trial Advisor for a recommendation on the issue.
The government was then allowed to question the investigating officer. The questions were simple and the answers brief. Had Almanza reviewed any material about Bradley Manning or WikiLeaks in his position at the Department of Justice? No. Had he conversed with anyone at the Department of Justice about Manning or WikiLeaks? No. Had he followed procedures in agreeing upon the 15 witnesses, considering the difficulty or expense of bringing them to the proceedings and what they would add? Yes. Had he prepared a written finding of his witness list? Yes. Had he consulted with a legal advisor on this matter? Yes. Did he consult with a legal advisor on his interpretation of the rules regarding unsworn witnesses and objections? Yes.
The government created several themes in their questioning and later arguments for keeping Almanza as investigating officer: that procedures were followed, that written findings were created that could be reviewed by judge or appellate court in the future, that legal advise was sought on important matters.
The government asked Almanza whether he felt he could serve as an unbiased judge in this matter, to which Almanza said he could. The government summarized the answers that Amanza had provided and finished by asserting that Almanza could continue to serve as an unbiased and impartial judge.
At this point, Almanza hesitated, then corrected the prosecuting attorney, stating that the standard was not whether he was unbiased but whether a reasonable person, knowing all the facts, could believe that he was not likely to be biased. The prosecution parroted Almanza’s language back to him, stating that the prosecution believed a reasonable person would find Almanza to be free of any potential bias.
David Coombs was quick to argue the issue of perceived bias, noting that Almanza’s interpretation of the standard (“that a reasonable person, knowing all the facts, would believe”) and asserted that no reasonable person would believe that someone working for the Department of Justice would be free of the specter of bias. In fact, Coombs noted that the defense had received emails from Almanza from the Department of Justice email address even after 12/12. Almanza countered that the Department of Justice was large and he worked in an area focusing on child exploitation and obscenity, not anything to do with WikiLeaks.
Coombs responded that the standard did not take into account whether the Department of Justice was large, merely whether or not a reasonable person could believe, knowing the facts, that Almanza could be biased. Coombs then pointed out that the media was already questioning the possibility of impartiality.
He noted that the defense had received emails from Almanza from the Department of Justice email address on 12/12 and after, indicating the Almanza was still wearing the hat of the DOJ.
Almanza also noted that he was not a trial attorney currently, focusing on policy and legislation in his current position. He restated his concerns about closing the trial for “very limited pieces of information that could taint my client’s ability to get a fair trial.” And Coombs noted again that the case “rises and falls” on whether information is correctly classified.
Coombs was passionate in his defense, perhaps indicating that his courtroom style would be expansive, well-organized arguments that constantly related the trial of Bradley Manning to larger issues of government secrecy. At one point, he turned and spoke directly to the courtroom behind him. Almanza quickly interrupted, “Mr. Coombs, who are you addressing?”
“The public,” replied Coombs, “Because this is a public trial.”
After this mild reproof, Coombs kept his eyes forward in addressing Almanza. The court broke for another recess, Coombs ending by urging Almanza to recuse himself and mentioning that he would in fact be asking Defense Appellate Division Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) to review the case. He asked Almanza to stay the hearing until Defense Appellate Division ACCA could make a decision.
We were recessed again, and would not have another lengthy speech from Coombs today.
1:38 PM We reconvened briefly. The rules for behavior in the court were reviewed. Then Almanza dove right in.
He explained that the Chief Trial Judge wasn’t able to be reached. They defense team urged Almanza to hold off on deciding whether to recuse himself until speaking with the Chief Trial Judge.
Almanza then denied the request to recuse himself. He stated that he would prepare a written documentation of his decision and send that the Defense Appellate Division ACCA along with a full transcript of the morning’s proceedings. The prosecution had to call for the full transcript to be prepared (apparently only a summarized transcript had been previously called for), and that the verbatim transcript would then go to the Defense Appellate Division for their consideration. This transcript wasn’t going to be available to the public, unfortunately, only to Defense Appellate Divisin ACCA and only for the portion of the proceedings up until this point.
We recessed. At 2:17 PM, David Coombs stated there would be at least 10 more minutes of recess. At 2:47 PM, Coombs again said there would be at least 10 more minutes of recess.
At 3:06 PM, we reconvened very briefly for Almanza to state that we would not recuse himself and summarized his earlier points: that while he was a deputy chief of the Department of Justice, he worked in child exploitation and obscenity and not on matters related to WikiLeaks; that he had spoken to his legal advisor and added witnesses based on a more-informed understanding of the legal rules; that he felt a reasonable person, knowing all the facts, would not believe he was biased. He concluded that a verbatim transcript was being prepared for the writ only.
Another recess.
At 3:25 PM, we reconvened for the last time that day. Almanza may have been a bit flustered; he left his charge sheet in the judge’s quarters and had to go get it. Almanza reiterated that his sole function was to serve as an impartial judge in these proceeding. He reminded Manning of his rights, and asked Manning if he would like the charges read aloud.
Manning declined.
As the hearing drew to a close, Almanza brought up the issue of classified documents. He stated that certain classified information might be brought up in the course of the hearing and that a determination would need to be made about whether to close the hearing at that time. He specifically mentioned, but did not elaborate upon, “three protective orders.”
The proceedings ended. Alamanza asked for the hearing to begin again on Saturday at 10 AM. Individuals who sat through many long hours of recess seemed reluctant to leave, lingering in the pews. One Manning supporter, a veteran named Nate Goldschlag, shouted as he left the court room “You’re a hero.” Manning didn’t turn around but the others in the room shot nervous looks to the military police, who did not visibly react. One of the MPs followed the man outside and asked him not to return the next day. See video describing incident: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYj5Bi_Kg_Q
Other things to note: Two lawyers for Assange were in attendance. At some point during the proceeding, they filed a writ for extraordinary relief or access to the proceedings. The document is here at the Center for Constitutional Rights (HT Kevin Gosztola for finding the writ online).
Additional Resources:
David Coombs’ blog
http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/
Bradley Manning Support Network blog:
http://www.bradleymanning.org
News Coverage:
Guardian: Bradley Manning hearing: defence lawyer turns fire on military accusers
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/16/bradley-manning-hearing-defence-lawyer?newsfeed=true
Hearing officer in Manning case is a Justice Department employee in civilian life
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/hearing-officer-in-manning-case-is-a-justice-department-employee-in-civilian-life/2011/12/16/gIQAMZN1yO_story.html
Manning’s lawyer asks military to stop WikiLeaks hearing
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/breaking/bs-md-bradley-manning-20111216,0,3698797.story
Investigator in WikiLeaks Case Refuses Recusal
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/17/us/bradley-manning-accused-of-aiding-wikileaks-will-appear-in-military-court.html?_r=1
Bradley Manning Trial: Lawyer wants judge removed
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70560.html
Bradley Manning Pre-Trial Hearing: Live Blog
http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2011/12/16/bradley-manning-pre-trial-hearing-live-blog/
The Latest From The Private Bradley Manning Support Network-Free Bradley Manning Now! All Out In Support of Bradley’s Pre-Trial Hearing On December 16th Vigil &17th March And Rally At Fort Meade, Maryland
Click on the headline to link to the Private Bradley Manning Support Network for the lates information in his case.
From the American Left History blog, dated March 17, 2011
Why I Will Be Standing In Solidarity With Private Bradley Manning At Quantico, Virginia On Sunday March 20th At 2:00 PM- A Personal Note From An Ex-Soldier Political Prisoner
Markin comment:
Of course I will be standing at the front gate to the Quantico Marine Base on March 20th because I stand in solidarity with the actions of Private Bradley Manning in bringing to light, just a little light, some of the nefarious doings of this government, Bush-like or Obamian. If he did such acts. I sleep just a shade bit easier these days knowing that Private Manning (or someone) exposed what we all knew, or should have known- the Iraq war and the Afghan war justification rested on a house of card. American imperialism’s house of cards, but cards nevertheless.
Of course I will be standing at the front gate to the Quantico Marine Base on March 20th because I am outraged by the treatment of Private Manning meted to a presumably innocent man by a government who alleges itself to be some “beacon” of the civilized world. The military has gotten more devious although not smarter since I was soldier in their crosshairs over forty years ago. Allegedly Private Manning might become so distraught over his alleged actions that he requires extraordinary protections. He is assumed, in the Catch-22 logic of the military, to be something of a suicide risk on the basis of bringing some fresh air to the nefarious doings of the international imperialist order. Be serious. I, however, noticed no "spike” in suicide rates among the world’s diplomatic community once they were exposed, a place where such activities might have been expected once it was observed in public that most of these persons could barely tie their own shoes.
Now the two reasons above are more than sufficient reasons for my standing at the front gate to the Quantico Marine Base on March 20th although they, in themselves, are only the appropriate reasons that any progressive thinking person would need to show up and shout to the high heavens for Private Manning’s freedom. I have an addition reason though, a very pressing personal reason. As mentioned above I too was in the military’s crosshairs as a soldier during the height of the Vietnam War. I will not go into the details of that episode, this comment after all is about soldier Manning, other than that I spent my own time in an Army stockade for, let’s put it this way, working on the principle of “what if they gave a war and nobody came.” Forty years later I am still working off that principle, and gladly. But here is the real point. During that time I had outside support, outside civilian support, that rallied on several occasions outside the military base where I was confined. Believe me that knowledge helped me through the tough days inside. So on March 20th I am just, as I have been able to on too few other occasions over years, paying my dues for that long ago support. You, brother, are a true winter soldier.
Private Manning I hope that you will hear us, or hear about our rally in your defense. Better yet, everybody who read this join us and make sure that he can hear us loud and clear. And let us shout to those high heavens mentioned above-Free Private Bradley Manning Now!
******
And, of course, I will be standing in support of Private Manning December 17th.
*******
Army schedules Dec. 16 pretrial hearing for PFC Bradley Manning
November 21, 2011.
Bradley Manning Support Network.
Today the United States Army scheduled an Article 32 pretrial hearing for PFC Bradley Manning, the Army intelligence specialist accused of releasing classified material to WikiLeaks. The pretrial hearing will commence on December 16 at Fort Meade, Maryland. (Army News Release PDF)
This will be PFC Manning’s first appearance before a court and the first time he will face his accusers after 17 months in confinement. In a blog post this morning, Manning’s lead counsel, David Coombs, notified supporters that the pretrial phase is scheduled to last five days.
Here is the full text of his update:
“The Article 32 hearing for PFC Bradley Manning will begin on December 16, 2011 at Fort Meade, Maryland. The hearing is expected to last approximately five days. With the exception of those limited times where classified information is being discussed, the hearing will be open to the public.
The primary purpose of the Article 32 hearing is to evaluate the relative strengths and weaknesses of the government’s case as well as to provide the defense with an opportunity to obtain pretrial discovery. The defense is entitled to call witnesses during the hearing and to also cross examine the government’s witnesses. Each witness who testifies is placed under oath; their testimony can therefore be used during the trial for impeachment purposes or as prior testimony should the witness become unavailable.
Our office is committed to providing the best representation for PFC Manning during this upcoming hearing. Achieving this goal is the sole focus of the lawyers, experts, and administrative staff working on this case. Given our focus, we will not be granting any media interviews or responding to any media inquiries. However, recognizing the public’s interest and the growing support for PFC Manning, we will be issuing regular public releases. The goal of these releases is to keep PFC Manning’s supporters informed and to assist the media in providing accurate information about this case.”
Supporters will be present outside Fort Meade when he arrives on December 16 and as part of a day of action on his 24th birthday, December 17.
“The charges against Bradley Manning are an indictment of our government’s obsession with secrecy,” said Daniel Ellsberg, who released the Pentagon Papers and accelerated the end of hostilities in Vietnam forty years ago. “Manning is accused of revealing illegal activities by our government and its corporate partners that must be brought to the attention of the American people. The Obama administration lacks the courage to confront the crimes and injustices that now stand exposed.”
Manning’s supporters assert that the information he is accused of making public was wrongly and illegally classified, and that whoever leaked the information should be protected as a whistle-blower. The WikiLeaks revelations include the “Collateral Murder” video, which shows the killing of Iraqi civilians and Reuters journalists, as well as diplomatic cables that have embarrassed governments and corporations around the world. Another cable related to the cover-up of a war crime contributed to the early exit of troops from Iraq by the end of this year.
PFC Manning’s confinement conditions drew strong reactions and protests from legal scholars, politicians, and human rights advocates from around the world. He was confined for ten months at a Quantico Marine base, where he faced extreme conditions in which he was forced to stand naked and was kept in isolation. P.J. Crowley, then-spokesperson for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was forced to resign after he called Manning’s treatment “ridiculous, counterproductive and stupid.” Juan Mendez, the United Nations’ rapporteur on torture, still seeks to meet with Manning, unmonitored, as part of an official investigation of evidence of abuse.
The Bradley Manning Support Network will continue to provide updates as they become available.
************
Vigil for Bradley, attend the pre-trial hearing
VIGIL FOR BRADLEY
START OF COURT MARTIAL PROCEEDINGS
ARTICLE 32 PRE-TRAIL HEARING
Fort Meade Main Gate
Maryland 175 & Reece Rd
Fort Meade, MD 21113 (map)
Rally for Bradley at Fort Meade leaflet PDF
VIGIL (or attend the hearing)
Friday, December 16th, 8am to 5pm
RALLY & MARCH
Saturday, December 17th, Noon to 3pm
The Fort Meade Main Gate is located in Odenton, Maryland, 25 miles northeast of Washington DC, between Washington DC and Baltimore, Maryland.
DEC. 17th MARCH
After a rally and vigil, supporters will march via the sidewalk along MD 175/Rouse Pkwy/Annapolis Rd, one mile, to Maryland 175 & Llewellyn Ave (the military court room is located on Llewellyn Ave one mile from the gate). Afterwards, we’ll march back to the main gate.
MARC TRAIN
Shuttle van will be made available from the Odenton MARC train station, located on the MARC Penn Line between Washington, D.C. and Baltimore, MD. It is 2.5 miles from the Fort Meade Main Gate. The station is on Amtrak’s high-speed Northeast Corridor; however, Amtrak does not stop at this station.
DRIVING
From Washington, DC: Go to MD-295 N towards BALTIMORE to US 175 EAST. Follow 175 EAST until you come to the Reece Road intersection (there is a traffic light). From Baltimore, MD: Go to MD-295 S towards WASHINGTON to US 175 EAST. Follow 175 EAST until you come to the Reece Road intersection (there is a traffic light).
SUPPORTERS ATTENDING THE PROCEEDINGS
Those wishing to attend the proceedings should go to the Visitor Control Center (near the intersection of Maryland 175 & Reece Rd, Fort Meade, MD 21113) when it opens at 7:30am (and certainly no later than 8:15am). All other gates are for military I.D. card holders only.
You do not need to pre-register. Each person will need a valid state or federal photo ID such as a driver’s license or state photo ID card.
Anyone driving on to Fort Meade will be required to submit their driver’s license, vehicle registration, and printed (not digital) proof of insurance. Your vehicle will be subject to search. Consider walking on base if there are any questions at all regarding your vehicle and paperwork.
The proceedings are likely to start at 9am daily at the Magistrate Court, 4432 Llewellyn Ave, Fort Meade, MD 20755. The court room is 1.5 miles from the Visitor Control Center. The pre-trial hearing will break from Friday, December 23 until January 2 if needed.
MEDIA ATTENDING THE PROCEEDINGS
Contact the Fort Meade Public Affairs office for information at 301-677-1361
INFORMATION FOR SUPPORTERS
Contact Courage to Resist at 510-488-3559
From the American Left History blog, dated March 17, 2011
Why I Will Be Standing In Solidarity With Private Bradley Manning At Quantico, Virginia On Sunday March 20th At 2:00 PM- A Personal Note From An Ex-Soldier Political Prisoner
Markin comment:
Of course I will be standing at the front gate to the Quantico Marine Base on March 20th because I stand in solidarity with the actions of Private Bradley Manning in bringing to light, just a little light, some of the nefarious doings of this government, Bush-like or Obamian. If he did such acts. I sleep just a shade bit easier these days knowing that Private Manning (or someone) exposed what we all knew, or should have known- the Iraq war and the Afghan war justification rested on a house of card. American imperialism’s house of cards, but cards nevertheless.
Of course I will be standing at the front gate to the Quantico Marine Base on March 20th because I am outraged by the treatment of Private Manning meted to a presumably innocent man by a government who alleges itself to be some “beacon” of the civilized world. The military has gotten more devious although not smarter since I was soldier in their crosshairs over forty years ago. Allegedly Private Manning might become so distraught over his alleged actions that he requires extraordinary protections. He is assumed, in the Catch-22 logic of the military, to be something of a suicide risk on the basis of bringing some fresh air to the nefarious doings of the international imperialist order. Be serious. I, however, noticed no "spike” in suicide rates among the world’s diplomatic community once they were exposed, a place where such activities might have been expected once it was observed in public that most of these persons could barely tie their own shoes.
Now the two reasons above are more than sufficient reasons for my standing at the front gate to the Quantico Marine Base on March 20th although they, in themselves, are only the appropriate reasons that any progressive thinking person would need to show up and shout to the high heavens for Private Manning’s freedom. I have an addition reason though, a very pressing personal reason. As mentioned above I too was in the military’s crosshairs as a soldier during the height of the Vietnam War. I will not go into the details of that episode, this comment after all is about soldier Manning, other than that I spent my own time in an Army stockade for, let’s put it this way, working on the principle of “what if they gave a war and nobody came.” Forty years later I am still working off that principle, and gladly. But here is the real point. During that time I had outside support, outside civilian support, that rallied on several occasions outside the military base where I was confined. Believe me that knowledge helped me through the tough days inside. So on March 20th I am just, as I have been able to on too few other occasions over years, paying my dues for that long ago support. You, brother, are a true winter soldier.
Private Manning I hope that you will hear us, or hear about our rally in your defense. Better yet, everybody who read this join us and make sure that he can hear us loud and clear. And let us shout to those high heavens mentioned above-Free Private Bradley Manning Now!
******
And, of course, I will be standing in support of Private Manning December 17th.
*******
Army schedules Dec. 16 pretrial hearing for PFC Bradley Manning
November 21, 2011.
Bradley Manning Support Network.
Today the United States Army scheduled an Article 32 pretrial hearing for PFC Bradley Manning, the Army intelligence specialist accused of releasing classified material to WikiLeaks. The pretrial hearing will commence on December 16 at Fort Meade, Maryland. (Army News Release PDF)
This will be PFC Manning’s first appearance before a court and the first time he will face his accusers after 17 months in confinement. In a blog post this morning, Manning’s lead counsel, David Coombs, notified supporters that the pretrial phase is scheduled to last five days.
Here is the full text of his update:
“The Article 32 hearing for PFC Bradley Manning will begin on December 16, 2011 at Fort Meade, Maryland. The hearing is expected to last approximately five days. With the exception of those limited times where classified information is being discussed, the hearing will be open to the public.
The primary purpose of the Article 32 hearing is to evaluate the relative strengths and weaknesses of the government’s case as well as to provide the defense with an opportunity to obtain pretrial discovery. The defense is entitled to call witnesses during the hearing and to also cross examine the government’s witnesses. Each witness who testifies is placed under oath; their testimony can therefore be used during the trial for impeachment purposes or as prior testimony should the witness become unavailable.
Our office is committed to providing the best representation for PFC Manning during this upcoming hearing. Achieving this goal is the sole focus of the lawyers, experts, and administrative staff working on this case. Given our focus, we will not be granting any media interviews or responding to any media inquiries. However, recognizing the public’s interest and the growing support for PFC Manning, we will be issuing regular public releases. The goal of these releases is to keep PFC Manning’s supporters informed and to assist the media in providing accurate information about this case.”
Supporters will be present outside Fort Meade when he arrives on December 16 and as part of a day of action on his 24th birthday, December 17.
“The charges against Bradley Manning are an indictment of our government’s obsession with secrecy,” said Daniel Ellsberg, who released the Pentagon Papers and accelerated the end of hostilities in Vietnam forty years ago. “Manning is accused of revealing illegal activities by our government and its corporate partners that must be brought to the attention of the American people. The Obama administration lacks the courage to confront the crimes and injustices that now stand exposed.”
Manning’s supporters assert that the information he is accused of making public was wrongly and illegally classified, and that whoever leaked the information should be protected as a whistle-blower. The WikiLeaks revelations include the “Collateral Murder” video, which shows the killing of Iraqi civilians and Reuters journalists, as well as diplomatic cables that have embarrassed governments and corporations around the world. Another cable related to the cover-up of a war crime contributed to the early exit of troops from Iraq by the end of this year.
PFC Manning’s confinement conditions drew strong reactions and protests from legal scholars, politicians, and human rights advocates from around the world. He was confined for ten months at a Quantico Marine base, where he faced extreme conditions in which he was forced to stand naked and was kept in isolation. P.J. Crowley, then-spokesperson for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was forced to resign after he called Manning’s treatment “ridiculous, counterproductive and stupid.” Juan Mendez, the United Nations’ rapporteur on torture, still seeks to meet with Manning, unmonitored, as part of an official investigation of evidence of abuse.
The Bradley Manning Support Network will continue to provide updates as they become available.
************
Vigil for Bradley, attend the pre-trial hearing
VIGIL FOR BRADLEY
START OF COURT MARTIAL PROCEEDINGS
ARTICLE 32 PRE-TRAIL HEARING
Fort Meade Main Gate
Maryland 175 & Reece Rd
Fort Meade, MD 21113 (map)
Rally for Bradley at Fort Meade leaflet PDF
VIGIL (or attend the hearing)
Friday, December 16th, 8am to 5pm
RALLY & MARCH
Saturday, December 17th, Noon to 3pm
The Fort Meade Main Gate is located in Odenton, Maryland, 25 miles northeast of Washington DC, between Washington DC and Baltimore, Maryland.
DEC. 17th MARCH
After a rally and vigil, supporters will march via the sidewalk along MD 175/Rouse Pkwy/Annapolis Rd, one mile, to Maryland 175 & Llewellyn Ave (the military court room is located on Llewellyn Ave one mile from the gate). Afterwards, we’ll march back to the main gate.
MARC TRAIN
Shuttle van will be made available from the Odenton MARC train station, located on the MARC Penn Line between Washington, D.C. and Baltimore, MD. It is 2.5 miles from the Fort Meade Main Gate. The station is on Amtrak’s high-speed Northeast Corridor; however, Amtrak does not stop at this station.
DRIVING
From Washington, DC: Go to MD-295 N towards BALTIMORE to US 175 EAST. Follow 175 EAST until you come to the Reece Road intersection (there is a traffic light). From Baltimore, MD: Go to MD-295 S towards WASHINGTON to US 175 EAST. Follow 175 EAST until you come to the Reece Road intersection (there is a traffic light).
SUPPORTERS ATTENDING THE PROCEEDINGS
Those wishing to attend the proceedings should go to the Visitor Control Center (near the intersection of Maryland 175 & Reece Rd, Fort Meade, MD 21113) when it opens at 7:30am (and certainly no later than 8:15am). All other gates are for military I.D. card holders only.
You do not need to pre-register. Each person will need a valid state or federal photo ID such as a driver’s license or state photo ID card.
Anyone driving on to Fort Meade will be required to submit their driver’s license, vehicle registration, and printed (not digital) proof of insurance. Your vehicle will be subject to search. Consider walking on base if there are any questions at all regarding your vehicle and paperwork.
The proceedings are likely to start at 9am daily at the Magistrate Court, 4432 Llewellyn Ave, Fort Meade, MD 20755. The court room is 1.5 miles from the Visitor Control Center. The pre-trial hearing will break from Friday, December 23 until January 2 if needed.
MEDIA ATTENDING THE PROCEEDINGS
Contact the Fort Meade Public Affairs office for information at 301-677-1361
INFORMATION FOR SUPPORTERS
Contact Courage to Resist at 510-488-3559
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)