RSN Fundraising Banner
Chelsea Manning Says 'Unlawful Surveillance' Spurred WikiLeaks Subpoena
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=34666"><span class="small">Lewis Beale, The Daily Beast</span></a>   
Thursday, 21 March 2019 12:46

Poulson writes: "Federal prosecutors believe that Chelsea Manning may have given 'false or mistaken' testimony during her 2013 court-martial for leaking classified material to WikiLeaks, Manning's attorney disclosed in a newly unsealed court filing."

Chelsea Manning. (photo: Suzanne Cordeiro/Reuters)
Chelsea Manning. (photo: Suzanne Cordeiro/Reuters)


Chelsea Manning Says 'Unlawful Surveillance' Spurred WikiLeaks Subpoena

By Kevin Poulson, The Daily Beast

21 March 19


A new filing also says prosecutors believe Manning may have given “false or mistaken” testimony about WikiLeaks.

ederal prosecutors believe that Chelsea Manning may have given “false or mistaken” testimony during her 2013 court-martial for leaking classified material to WikiLeaks, Manning’s attorney disclosed in a newly unsealed court filing.

Manning has been in jail since March 3, when a federal judge found her in contempt for refusing to testify in front of the Alexandria, Virginia, grand jury investigating WikiLeaks. The grand jury probe began in 2010, when the secret-spilling website began dumping hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables and U.S. Army field reports Manning leaked to Julian Assange during a deployment to Iraq.

At her court-martial in 2013, Manning gave a lengthy statement detailing her motives and accepting personal responsibility for the leaks. Now prosecutors are claiming they have new information that some of her testimony was inaccurate, according to Manning’s lawyer, who thinks someone has been spying on her client.

“The concern here is that the subpoena as a whole is the product of unlawful—and possibly misunderstood—electronic surveillance,” attorney Moira Meltzer-Cohen wrote in a March 1 motion to block the subpoena that was unsealed Wednesday.

The grand jury subpoena followed what Manning describes as a continuous pattern of physical and electronic surveillance against her that began after her early release from prison in 2017 on a clemency grant from President Obama.

“Since her release, Ms. Manning has experienced all manner of intrusive surveillance, including surveillance vans parked outside her apartment, federal agents following her, and strangers attempting to goad her into an absurdly contrived conversation about selling dual-use technologies to foreign actors,” wrote Meltzer-Cohen.

“In preliminary discussions, the prosecution indicated that they had reason to believe that Ms. Manning may have made statements inconsistent with her prior testimony,” the attorney wrote. “It is incumbent upon the court to direct the government to disclose not only electronic surveillance of Ms. Manning, but whether they intercepted communications authored and sent by third parties, as there are no such statements by Ms. Manning herself that would be at variance with her previous testimony.”

Manning argued that the subpoena violated her First Amendment free-speech and -association rights, abused the grand jury process, and relied on illegal surveillance. To keep Manning from successfully asserting a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, the Justice Department and the Army both issued her formal grants of immunity for any testimony she gave to the WikiLeaks grand jury.

U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton rejected Manning’s arguments this month and ordered her to testify. She refused, and was later taken into custody, where she can be held for as long as the current grand jury panel is seated.

Still under seal in the case is a sworn declaration Manning wrote in support of the surveillance claim, including “phone numbers and email addresses that she has reason to believe were subject to surveillance, and the range of dates on which such surveillance may have occurred; various places that may have been subject to surveillance, and the names of the lessees/licensees of those premises,” according to the motion.

Manning also described being the target of a Project Veritas-style hidden-camera sting in which an unknown “non-state actor” tried to get her talking about “unlawful uses of technology.”

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+21 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2019-03-21 15:47
Sounds like a standard issue DOJ/FBI perjury trap --


“In preliminary discussions, the prosecution indicated that they had reason to believe that Ms. Manning may have made statements inconsistent with her prior testimony,"


I think everyone on earth has made statements inconsistent with prior statements. Knowledge, contexts, and perspectives change over time. People forget certain details. Memories change over time. I don't think it is possible to make perfectly consistent statements about anything over time. But now, a normal human occurrence is being held as criminal.

It seems pretty clear that the DOJ wants to put Manning back in prison. This new round of legal assaults seems like double jeopardy. Manning went through all of this years ago and served her time. She should be free to start a new life, free from government surveillance and harassment.
 
 
+4 # jimallyn 2019-03-21 23:39
Chelsea Manning is a hero and should be given a medal for her work for the benefit of the American people and the world.
 
 
+4 # janie1893 2019-03-22 01:33
Chelsea, there are people working to get you out. Chin up, kiddo! You are still our hero.