On the First Day of the Manning Trial

By Julian Assange, Reader Supported News

05 June 13

s I type these lines, on June 3, 2013, Private First Class Bradley Edward Manning is being tried in a sequestered room at Fort Meade, Maryland, for the alleged crime of telling the truth. The court martial of the most prominent political prisoner in modern US history has now, finally, begun.

It has been three years. Bradley Manning, then 22 years old, was arrested in Baghdad on May 26, 2010. He was shipped to Kuwait, placed into a cage, and kept in the sweltering heat of Camp Arifjan.

"For me, I stopped keeping track," he told the court last November. "I didn't know whether night was day or day was night. And my world became very, very small. It became these cages... I remember thinking I'm going to die."

After protests from his lawyers, Bradley Manning was then transferred to a brig at a US Marine Corps Base in Quantico, VA, where - infamously - he was subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment at the hands of his captors - a formal finding by the UN. Isolated in a tiny cell for twenty-three out of twenty-four hours a day, he was deprived of his glasses, sleep, blankets and clothes, and prevented from exercising. All of this - it has been determined by a military judge - "punished" him before he had even stood trial.

"Brad's treatment at Quantico will forever be etched, I believe, in our nation's history, as a disgraceful moment in time" said his lawyer, David Coombs. "Not only was it stupid and counterproductive, it was criminal."

The United States was, in theory, a nation of laws. But it is no longer a nation of laws for Bradley Manning.

When the abuse of Bradley Manning became a scandal reaching all the way to the President of the United States and Hillary Clinton's spokesman resigned to register his dissent over Mr. Manning's treatment, an attempt was made to make the problem less visible. Bradley Manning was transferred to the Midwest Joint Regional Correctional Facility at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

He has waited in prison for three years for a trial - 986 days longer than the legal maximum - because for three years the prosecution has dragged its feet and obstructed the court, denied the defense access to evidence and abused official secrecy. This is simply illegal - all defendants are constitutionally entitled to a speedy trial - but the transgression has been acknowledged and then overlooked.

Against all of this, it would be tempting to look on the eventual commencement of his trial as a mercy. But that is hard to do.

We no longer need to comprehend the "Kafkaesque" through the lens of fiction or allegory. It has left the pages and lives among us, stalking our best and brightest. It is fair to call what is happening to Bradley Manning a "show trial". Those invested in what is called the "US military justice system" feel obliged to defend what is going on, but the rest of us are free to describe this travesty for what it is. No serious commentator has any confidence in a benign outcome. The pretrial hearings have comprehensively eliminated any meaningful uncertainty, inflicting pre-emptive bans on every defense argument that had any chance of success.

Bradley Manning may not give evidence as to his stated intent (exposing war crimes and their context), nor may he present any witness or document that shows that no harm resulted from his actions. Imagine you were put on trial for murder. In Bradley Manning's court, you would be banned from showing that it was a matter of self-defence, because any argument or evidence as to intent is banned. You would not be able to show that the 'victim' is, in fact, still alive, because that would be evidence as to the lack of harm.

But of course. Did you forget whose show it is?

The government has prepared for a good show. The trial is to proceed for twelve straight weeks: a fully choreographed extravaganza, with a 141-strong cast of prosecution witnesses. The defense was denied permission to call all but a handful of witnesses. Three weeks ago, in closed session, the court actually held a rehearsal. Even experts on military law have called this unprecedented.

Bradley Manning's conviction is already written into the script. The commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces, Barack Obama, spoiled the plot for all of us when he pronounced Bradley Manning guilty two years ago. "He broke the law," President Obama stated, when asked on camera at a fundraiser about his position on Mr. Manning. In a civilized society, such a prejudicial statement alone would have resulted in a mistrial.

To convict Bradley Manning, it will be necessary for the US government to conceal crucial parts of his trial. Key portions of the trial are to be conducted in secrecy: 24 prosecution witnesses will give secret testimony in closed session, permitting the judge to claim that secret evidence justifies her decision. But closed justice is no justice at all.

What cannot be shrouded in secrecy will be hidden through obfuscation. The remote situation of the courtroom, the arbitrary and discretionary restrictions on access for journalists, and the deliberate complexity and scale of the case are all designed to drive fact-hungry reporters into the arms of official military PR men, who mill around the Fort Meade press room like over-eager sales assistants. The management of Bradley Manning's case will not stop at the limits of the courtroom. It has already been revealed that the Pentagon is closely monitoring press coverage and social media discussions on the case.

This is not justice; never could this be justice. The verdict was ordained long ago. Its function is not to determine questions such as guilt or innocence, or truth or falsehood. It is a public relations exercise, designed to provide the government with an alibi for posterity. It is a show of wasteful vengeance; a theatrical warning to people of conscience.

The alleged act in respect of which Bradley Manning is charged is an act of great conscience - the single most important disclosure of subjugated history, ever. There is not a political system anywhere on the earth that has not seen light as a result. In court, in February, Bradley Manning said that he wanted to expose injustice, and to provoke worldwide debate and reform. Bradley Manning is accused of being a whistleblower, a good man, who cared for others and who followed higher orders. Bradley Manning is effectively accused of conspiracy to commit journalism.

But this is not the language the prosecution uses. The most serious charge against Bradley Manning is that he "aided the enemy" - a capital offence that should require the greatest gravity, but here the US government laughs at the world, to breathe life into a phantom. The government argues that Bradley Manning communicated with a media organisation, WikiLeaks, who communicated to the public. It also argues that al-Qaeda (who else) is a member of the public. Hence, it argues that Bradley Manning communicated "indirectly" with al-Qaeda, a formally declared US "enemy", and therefore that Bradley Manning communicated with "the enemy".

But what about "aiding" in that most serious charge, "aiding the enemy"? Don't forget that this is a show trial. The court has banned any evidence of intent. The court has banned any evidence of the outcome, the lack of harm, the lack of any victim. It has ruled that the government doesn't need to show that any "aiding" occurred and the prosecution doesn't claim it did. The judge has stated that it is enough for the prosecution to show that al-Qaeda, like the rest of the world, reads WikiLeaks.

"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people," wrote John Adams, "who have a right and a desire to know."

When communicating with the press is "aiding the enemy" it is the "general knowledge among the people" itself which has become criminal. Just as Bradley Manning is condemned, so too is that spirit of liberty in which America was founded.

In the end it is not Bradley Manning who is on trial. His trial ended long ago. The defendant now, and for the next 12 weeks, is the United States. A runaway military, whose misdeeds have been laid bare, and a secretive government at war with the public. They sit in the docks. We are called to serve as jurists. We must not turn away.

Five Ways the US Can Have an Icelandic Revolution

By Carl Gibson, Reader Supported News

05 June 13

e have to nationalize the banks. We have to get rid of the government. We need to have access to the internet seen as a human right. We need to have a new Constitution," said Birgitta Jonsdottir, founder of the Icelandic Pirate Party. Jonsdottir, a lifelong political activist and recently re-elected member of the Icelandic parliament was describing the four central demands of the new political revolution sweeping Iceland since the financial collapse. "We can create power and be the government and be the media. If Iceland can do it, you can do it."

The struggle in Iceland is ongoing, but the nation's people have achieved monumental results in a relatively short amount of time due to the nature of their movement building. They managed to arrest and jail the bankers who wrecked the economy. When the government privatized public banking institutions to their friends, essentially for free, and made the people pay for their bailouts, the people threw them out of office and refused to give the banks their money. And since Iceland only recently achieved independence from Denmark in 1944, their boilerplate constitution had never been updated. The movement in Iceland successfully used direct democracy to crowdsource a new constitution via Facebook and Twitter, and that crowdsourced constitution was widely supported by the people as the official model for a new constitution.

While Iceland's politicians have since ignored the will of the people, a budding new political force in Iceland is building a movement in parliament to change that. We can learn from Iceland and accomplish similar goals here.

1.  Strive For Unity

Even though American and Icelandic cultures are different, the populism recently galvanized by Occupy can achieve the same goals that Iceland achieved if we organize around similar unifying principles. We have to first unite around class lines rather than fake ideological constructs. When we come across divisive issues like guns and abortion, we have to acknowledge that while we may have different opinions, we should instead find ways to agree on more unifying issues.

Example: Strive for unity and solidarity when coming across someone of different ideological leanings. If they say the government spends too much money, agree with them and then add that the U.S. spends way too much on maintaining an imperial military presence, and on an intrusive police and surveillance complex that only serves to violate our civil rights. If they bring up a divisive issue, tell them while you may have disagreeing opinions on that one issue, the other root causes of our problems should be addressed first and foremost. Remind them that it only serves those abusing their positions of power when the people are fighting one another instead of questioning their elected officials.

2.  Turn a Few Central Demands into Goals

To achieve unity, we need to center around just a few key goals. In Iceland, the Pirate Party's demands were fourfold: nationalize the banks, take back the government, establish free speech and access to the internet as human rights, and a write new constitution. The demands should be similar here – we should nationalize the Fed, declare a constitutional convention, declare this government illegitimate and elect new representatives, and allow free access to information for everyone. These must be part of a new political platform that can unite the political left and right against the corporate and financial interests that are holding our country hostage.

Example: Keep it basic. For starters, let's agree on a constitutional convention to address the most pressing issues, like corporate special interests and banks owning our government. Let's agree on an end to the police state that has proven it's more concerned with violating civil liberties than preventing terrorism. Let's agree on an end to private banks controlling our money supply and economic policy. And surely we can agree that the big banking institutions should be broken up and banksters jailed for defrauding millions of people out of their homes and savings. Let's start there.

3. Be the Banks

Even at the local level, we can take power back from Wall Street by taking over city councils and state legislatures. Any local or state government can issue public bank charters, like North Dakota has been doing since the early 20th century. With enough initial capital invested by the community, a public bank can store all tax revenues from the government and start to make loans on their initial deposit base. And unlike Wall Street, these banks won't charge obscene interest rates on an entrepreneur trying to get a small business loan, a student applying for a college loan, or a homeowner trying to get a mortgage. The bank's profits are returned to the people to be used on schools, healthcare and infrastructure updates.

Example: The community of Vashon Island, Washington, created a public bank that merged with the Puget Sound Cooperative Community Credit Union, and now 16% of the population has invested $20 million in the public bank. Bill Moyer, cofounder of the Vashon-based Backbone Campaign, who serves on the board of the new credit union, told me the community embraced it so much that they had even driven a JPMorgan Chase bank out of business several years ago, and those bank employees now work at the credit union. <

4. Be the Government

Birgitta Jonsdottir, Noam Chomsky, and David Cobb of Move to Amend all identify themselves as pragmatic anarchists. They perceive anarchy as nonviolently questioning the legitimacy of any authority or hierarchy, and empowering people through direct democracy. But unlike hardline anarchists, they see electoral politics as a tool for social change in movement building. In Iceland, Jonsdottir's movement fought for a central goal of online freedom through grassroots organizing, recognizing inherent value in art, music and creativity, and having a unifying platform for their foray into electoral politics. In the last election, Iceland's Pirate Party got 5% of the vote and gained 3 seats in the 63-seat Icelandic Parliament.

Example: Here, we're already starting to finally hear revolutionary talk in the U.S. Senate. Don't take my word for it – watch any of the videos of Senator Elizabeth Warren grilling the government's bank regulators in committee hearings for failing at their jobs. She's gotten dumbfounded reactions from SEC and Treasury Dept. officials when asking them how HSBC, Europe's largest bank, didn't face criminal charges for laundering money for the incredibly violent Sinaloa drug cartel in Mexico. She got Ben Bernanke to say the big banks should be broken up. And she introduced a bill that would make student loan interest rates drop to the same preferential interest rate that the criminal banks get. She may even seek the presidency.

"I was one of the first people to start saying Elizabeth Warren should run for president," Rolling Stone investigative journalist Matt Taibbi told me at the 2013 Public Banking Institute conference. "I don't think she can be bought out."

Taibbi later talked about his experience with open and transparent government – Bernie Sanders inviting him to come spend a month with him, while he was still a Vermont congressman, to see all of the process for what it was. Sanders has since become one of the most populist members of the U.S. Senate, speaking regularly about the growing economic inequality in the U.S., and one of the most outspoken defenders of Social Security.

"I pitched the story to my editor, and he was like, 'Oh, Bernie Sanders? He's the one who cares, right?'" Taibbi said.

5. Crowdsource a New Constitution

Birgitta Jonsdottir said she believed in Thomas Jefferson's words that it was necessary for every next generation to rise up and revolt, as power is destined to corrupt those who have it. She says this revolutionary mindset also applies to the constitution, because the needs and goals of each new generation are different from the last as the world and its people constantly adapt to new events and face new challenges. Iceland did this by organizing communities at local gathering spots like pubs and cafes. Then they accepted submissions for constitutional revisions via social media, which she says is one of the reasons the internet must remain completely free. The Pirate Party is determined to force Parliament to allow the people's new constitution to become law.

Example: The Move to Amend coalition already has nearly 300,000 supporters of their We the People constitutional amendment. It would add language to the constitution that says only people have constitutional rights, not corporations, and that money does not equal political speech. They now have roughly 160 local affiliates and are planning to canvass neighborhoods in the summer and fall.

"We hope to have half a million signatures by the end of the year," MTA spokesman David Cobb said. "People are ready to get their whole communities fired up about this stuff.

The group ArticleV.org is calling for a new constitutional convention. According to Article V of the U.S. Constitution, the people can convene to write a new constitution if two-thirds of the states have agreed to it. The group's attorneys have found that out of all the applications submitted, there are 42 to 45 states who have all filed legitimate applications. Only 38 states are necessary for an Article V convention to take place, so it should already be happening. Dan Marks of ArticleV.org has officially submitted those applications to congressional parliamentarians for a new constitutional convention to be officially recognized by Congress.

If we begin the process of re-drafting a new constitution via social media like Iceland did, we could even have a new set of values for the next generations to live by if an Article V convention can be triggered. We could even submit amendments Reddit-style, where submissions are upvoted and downvoted by everyone participating online, and the best ones with the widest approval are submitted as a basis for a new Constitution. Amendments could even be crowdsourced via an official Twitter hashtag, like this.

We're on the precipice of a revolution here. Everybody is pissed. We all know what we want. We have examples all over the world of solutions to implement. All it takes is a little organizing.