What Would You Do in Bradley Manning's Shoes?

By Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News

03 June 13

he trial of Bradley Manning began with opening statements today. The Army opened the case asking the question "What would you do if you had access to classified networks 14 hours a day?" It was the theme of their opening argument, which detailed what they would prove during the coming weeks.

Another recurring theme dealt with WikiLeaks. The prosecutor kept coming back to communications with Julian Assange, implying that Manning was guided throughout by Assange.

The Army's theme opens things up for the defense to inquire "What would you do if you witnessed atrocities and had access to classified information?" It seems that was where Defense Attorney David Coombs was prepared to go.

The theme of the defense was that Manning was transformed on December 24, 2009. It was Christmas Eve and a convoy was travelling through a hotspot in Iraq when communication was lost with the convoy. Manning was sent to find out what was happening. He was unable to get any information and things were tense in his unit. News finally came that the convoy made it through with no casualties. A celebration ensued. Everyone was elated but Bradley Manning. The full story was that a vehicle with 5 civilians was taken out by the lead vehicle. For Bradley Manning, the continued celebration changed him.

From that day on Manning, when reading daily reports, could not forget the innocent family that was killed. Coombs argued that Manning was not the usual recruit. His dog tags were altered to bear the word "human" on the back. His humanity was important to him, as was the value of human life. Manning followed the news, including politics, saw the spin of the politicians in Washington and knew that it was not the reality of what was going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Coombs argued that Manning was a troubled young man who wanted the world to know what was really going on.

As we reported Saturday, access to the media center was restricted to 70, with over 250 reporters denied admission. RSN filed a motion to increase access. While our motion was not directly acknowledged by the judge, on two occasions she questioned the Army Prosecutor as to the status of public access. The Army asserted that nobody was denied access but with only a handful of reporters in the overflow, one has to question the whereabouts of the other 250 denied credentials. The limiting of the number admitted to the media center clearly impacted the amount of coverage this Court-Martial is receiving. I am viewing the proceedings in a public overflow area. The broadcast keeps cutting out, and I was unable to hear the closing of the defense's opening argument...and several key moments while the prosecutor laid out his case. If I had been in the media center, I would have been able to hear the whole case.

There is also an overflow area in a trailer near the courthouse, but those here could not hear the first half hour because there was no audio.

In the overflow, I have no access to my computer or cell phone. I had to come out to the car to file this report. None of the public spectators are allowed to have cell phones either in the overflow area that is in a building across the street from the court. One member of the public apparently accidently got their cell phone in and is now barred from public viewing area. Ironically his name is Daniel Ellsberg.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.