In the case against Army private and alleged WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning, the prosecution presented yesterday an e-mail Manning allegedly sent to a friend regarding the "Collateral Murder" video he is accused of leaking:
. . .. a May 2010 e-mail that was sent to an acquaintance — and that Manning apparently thought he had encrypted — said, “I was the source of the 12 July 07 video from the Apache weapons team which killed two journalists and injured two kids.”
If Manning actually sent the e-mail the prosecution is claiming he sent, here's what he is referring to:
How outrageous does the video have to be for us to take notice? If Manning's alleged e-mail had said "This is a video of U.S. troops murdering innocent civilians," would that be enough for us to pay attention to the apparent crimes depicted rather than the source? I discussed the whistleblowing aspects of Manning's case last year:
The U.S. government, and many commenters here on Kos (particularly on my diary yesterday), have vilified Manning as a "traitor" and a "criminal," despite the fact that his case is still in the early stages, and the government has a pretty poor track record when it comes to Espionage Act prosecutions of alleged "leakers," who are more often than not whistleblowers. Exhibit A: the government's wildly oversold and massively failed case against National Security Agency whistleblower Thomas Drake.
Yet, the media consistently avoids the arguably more necessary conversation about why our soldiers were gunning down journalists and children as if the killings were a video game, and asking the more serious question of why the Army gave all of the soldiers involved in the "Collateral Murder" video a pass while bringing the full force of the criminal justice system down upon Manning. How horrific does a "Collateral Murder" video need to be for us to wake up?
Jesselyn Radack is National Security & Human Rights Director for the Government Accountability Project, the nation's leading whistleblower protection and advocacy organization.
Tuesday, 20 December 2011
PFC Manning voluntarily joined the Army with all of it's shortcomings freely and by doing so is now subject to the UCMJ. When he selected his Military Occupational Speciality (MOS) as an Intelligence Analyst, he was required to undergo a security background investigation as part of holding that specialty.
To gain and maintain access to classified defense information and his assignment to the analytical center, he signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA). This is a contract between PFC Manning and the Government (Army) that he would not discuss, divulge or share the information he accessed with others that did not have a security clearance and the need-to-know that information. In this he violated a contract, if the charges are correct.
He also allegedly inserted a program into a classified system whereby he was able to data-mine information selectively and then transfer that restricted information to 'music' CD's for removal to unsecure areas with the intent to distribute that information outside the secure area and with or without a need-to-know.
As I can't tell your affiliation with either the military or government, I'm not sure how to address your unusual comments concerning a military oath being an entrapment or that his forwarding of classified information was not damaging to US relations with other countries. That determination was NOT his to make. He took a solemn oath to defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Millions of others have taken that same oath and performed their duty to the best of their ability. PFC Manning violated that oath and did so at his own peril.
Whatever other issues he had concerning his sexuality, his supervisors or his personal life, might have some bearing upon sentencing mitigation should he go to trial and be convicted, but they don't effect his violation of his oath or contract as a soldier and a man.
Tuesday, 20 December 2011
He's alleged to have threatened and hit a supervisor and violated his non-disclosure agreement he signed to have access to compartmented information needed for his selected military specialty. Manning enlisted into the US Army voluntarily, warts and all, and according to some reports, could have and should have gotten out during basic training when he had the opportunity.
Further, placed his own agenda above that of his personal and professional honor by deliberately inserting a program to allow him access to data he would not have normally been able to access, downloaded these files to a music CD improperly brought into a secure area and which he previously wiped clean and then in violation of known security regulations, removed the data from the secure area after downloading and improperly shared that data with a person or persons not cleared to have access to that information or with a demonstrated need-to-know that information.
He made decisions that were not his to make and possibly jeopardized our ability to interact with other governments and provided intelligence assets' identities to others that could harm them for their association with the US. There were other ways for him to report his concerns but he chose to violate laws, regulations, contracts and breached his honor. His gender identity issues are not germane to the security matters at hand except possibly for sentencing mitigation should he proceed to courts-martial and be convicted.