Kevin, Michael, Welcome to the Lake.

Michael, Thank you for Hosting today’s Book Salon.

Kevin Thanks for being with me at FDL and talking about Bradley Manning and your and Greg Mitchell’s book “Truth and Consequences”—which is remarkable –up to date and compelling reading.

Lets get right into it—
Q you have been going to the pretrial ct martial proceedings at Ft Meade this last week—and there seems to be proceedings every month or so–
First, tell us what is going on? What are these proceedings about?

Hey Michael – It’s great to be doing the chat.

Great to have you—busy day. Did you see first question?

Each month we are having motion hearings that the military calls Article 39a sessions. It is an opportunity for the defense to introduce motions to raise objections with charges, etc.

How rigged is the system against Manning, esp since POTUS has already pronounced judgement. Anything more objective going on at the hearings or just more of the same railroading. Seems like the latter.

Q at one time tons of media and attention to Bradley esp during confinement in what I call the torture period—seems much less attention—am I right why?

And so, to add on to that basic answer, the defense has been doing everything they can to challenge how the military is handling discovery of evidence (i.e. how they are withholding key pieces of evidence) and they have used these hearings to challenge charges and even work to get charges dropped.

A lot of questions for you. What were results of efforts to get charges dropped especially the aiding the enemy charge–potential death penalty

You raise a good point. The undue command influence issue has not come up yet. In future hearings, I expect Coombs to make a motion and raise this issue.

To your larger point, yes, it’s a military court. Conviction is very likely to happen and the prosecution is accommodated regularly whereas the defense is not as much.

Is Manning’s lawyer competent? From the one picture I’ve seen, he seems that he may have just started shaving yesterday. Has he had any experience with cases like this?

You are right that Manning receives less attention. To share an anecdote — the media is dropping out and deciding to not cover because they are either uninterested or they can’t afford it. Unfortunately, a Telegraph editor yanked the guy they had covering Manning on Day 1 this past week. What did he go back to the office to cover? Mitt Romney

He’s an experienced lawyer. I’m not going to take the bait if you’ve come to get me to bash Coombs. I think he is trying everything he can to defend Manning properly.

I find it really outrageous. This concerns the leak of the greatest number of documents in US history–and their are all kinds of rights violations in the courts–and little coverage–yours and a few others.

Do the charges against Manning require the government prove that Manning intended specifically to pass information to Al Qaeda or does the government need only prove that Manning ought to have known that Al Qaeda may possibly read Wikileaks?

As to David Coombs–he is relentless–runs circles around the prosecution. But this is a military court with a hand picked judge and lots of secrecy.

Welcome to the Lake, when did you get interested in the case?

The results of efforts to get charges dropped so far have been abysmal for the defense. Every motion has been denied. The “aiding the enemy” charge was challenged in court this past week. Judge Denise Lind did not find Coombs’ arguments that it was being charged unconstitutionally to be valid. She did, however, say the prosecution (government) would have to prove that Manning had “knowledge” he would be aiding al Qaeda by passing on “intelligence” to WikiLeaks.

How many days in court has Manning had now, after close to two years in jail. Do you expect this drag out to another two years before it is decided?

Backing off from the legal issues for a moment, I wonder about the psychology of whistle blowers. I tend to think of them as pig-headed and righteous. In the cases I’ve known about (Enron, including the Fortune reporter who figured it out from Enron’s financial statements, Kwiatkowski, Edmonds, FBI agent from ??? wrt flight schools) they are more often women than men. Any general thoughts about whistleblower mentality that you’ve learned about from following Manning closely?

As to aiding the enemy–I think and believe the law requires an intent to aid al qaeda so far does not look like judge has gone there.

Yes, not to mention that is extremely frustrating for press. We are not able to access court filings. So, we frantically try to get down what the judge reads quickly into the record at a speed that almost nobody can keep up with. We try to “transcribe” but good luck with that. We all look like fools and many journalists have had it. We should be able to see court filings to check what we’ve heard to make sure we heard what was said correctly and to help us better understand what was said too.

As a technical note,
there is a “Reply” button in the lower right hand of each comment. Pressing the “Reply” will pre-fill the commenter name and number you are replying to and helps for everyone in following the conversation.

(Note: If you’ve had to refresh your browser, Reply may not work correctly unless you wait for the page to complete loading)

Interested the minute I saw the collateral murder video

There is a trial date now – September 21. I heard through the grapevine that the prosecution is going to push the judge to move it to November and Coombs is pretty sure that they are going to get the trial date changed. It is typical for the trial date to be moved in a court martial process. There are three more motion hearings scheduled. He has been in court for 15-20 days now. He has been in detention (pre-trial confinement) for over 700 days and by September he will have been in detention for over 800 days.

The Defense mentioned that the SCIF site where Manning worked in Iraq had numerous people uploading/downloading content–ie, that Manning was not alone in his actions.

This also implies security holes by which information could have leaked (to China, Russia, al Qaeda, everyone) without the alleged help by Manning.

Has that defense argument been addressed by the judge yet?

I’m not baiting or bashing. Just asking. This is a Q I’ve been asking since the beginning and I have yet to get a decent answer. I’ve looked up Coombs on the web and there’s almost no info. It’s incredibly important that a person in Manning’s precarious position have the very best of the best of the best defense.

What are the significant difference between a court-martial and a civilian trial. No access to the documents, no recordings of the trial, transcripts?

I followed WikiLeaks when they released the Collateral Murder video but my interest really took off with the war logs releases and then it became my focus when the Cablegate release began.

Kevin–I know that secrecy has been an issue at these proceedings. We at Center for Constitutional Rights have filed papers to get documents such as court orders. Did that come up when you were there and how do you view the secrecy issues?

I notice that the implication that the alleged leaking activity may have led to the deaths of US troops is one that seems to be the justification for Manning’s demonization — even though there’s no evidence that any US troops died as a result.

For the “Collateral Murder” video to have had the effects attributed without proof to it, the people in Iraq would have to be totally ignorant, the way most Americans are made to be ignorant, of crucial events happening in their own lands. The video was released publicly nearly three years after the murders it documents; any revenge actions these murders might have triggered had long since been implemented when the mass of Americans finally had a chance to see the video.

What are the politics of having the conviction trial come before or after the national elections?

It’s so great to have Michael and Kevin discussing this today.

Kevin, I’m curious how you are treated by the court – has your coverage at FDL created any problems?

Michael can add to this answer, but from my reporting on this court martial (the first ever military legal proceeding that I have followed closely), yes — The military does not have to release court filings to the press. The legal matter expert who briefed us gave us some garbage answer that military prosecutors have ethical obligations and so they do not want their motions disclosed.

There’s also – and Coombs has said this constantly – a better tradition of offering defense and prosecution wide latitude for discovery of evidence. Now, whether this is true in this case or not, I don’t know. But in cases that aren’t as political as this one, it seems the military proceedings afford defendants more ability to get evidence from the government.

michael, thank you for hosting kevin’s book. i’ve just started the book but wanted to ask kevin — what did you learn researching it that surprised you the most?

The court martial trial will not have a jury, correct?

Yes, the judge determined CCR was not a party to the proceedings so the attorney you sent to address the court would not be allowed to do that.

The secrecy issues have been very pronounced. And this comes up in my book with coverage of how Manning’s defense has been stopped from getting depositions or testimony from original classification authorities (OCAs), who reviewed documents Manning is alleged to have leaked…

Adding to Kevin: Ct Martial claims no need to release court orders, motions etc. We at CCR think that is dead wrong and plan to litigate it. Public has right to see non-classified documents.
In general: Ct Martial vs. federal trial military justice is to justice as military music is to music

Judges have no life tenure. Juries are smaller and are all military. Unanimity is not required.

…Finally, Coombs might be getting damage assessment reports from the CIA, Defense Dept and State Dept that he has been trying to get but the government is withholding evidence. They are saying “damage assessment reports” aren’t “investigations.” So investigative files aren’t produced.

In the meantime, there are 802 conferences — secret conferences. These happen in federal court but if they do they are supposed to be limited to administrative matters, like scheduling, email communications problems, logistics, etc. The judge/prosecution/defense are clearly talking about much more and the worst was in March when we didn’t start on Day 2 until 1:00 pm and when we did have the hearing it lasted one hour. Much of the business was worked out in secret on a protective order for classified information.

Also, regarding secrecy–a lot seems to happen outside the courtroom–it sometimes appears trial is not public at all. What has your experience been?

Kevin–you mentioned an issue regarding the prosecutions access to other agencies investigations, grand juries etc. Can the defense get those?

My reporting hasn’t created problems, although a public affairs person in the military did tell me after I appeared on RT – “You did a good job on TV yesterday” – which from anyone else would have been a compliment but to me that was kind of creepy.

I was called out of the room because MPs were convinced I was tweeting from the court room. I wasn’t. This happened in December during the Article 32 hearing.

But, really, what is interesting is the dynamic in the court room. There are a few corporate/establishment media outlets that can afford being present. There are independent/alternative news people that can afford to get themselves there and are interested. In total, hearings average about 10-15 people right now. The military will credential WikiLeaks Central. They gave credentials to Clark Stoeckley who drives the WikiLeaks Truck. So, it is great right now that media has low interest. They are giving credentials to anyone because they expected higher attention in the case and I don’t think they are seeing the kind of interest expected.

Your response indicates the military monitors tweets–and i think your book talks about that. And cellphones–can you get them in?

If I recall correctly, prior to the Collateral Murder vid, Wikileaks was mostly only “known” within the tech community, exposing computer and corporate shenanigans, how the hell does the USG think it can prove Manning “knew” AQ was reading Wikileaks when no one else was?

All research done came from being at the hearings. The most surprising thing for me has to be how tightly controlled everything is at Ft. Meade. Press have less freedom to move around on base than the public. And, most recently, the military had a Bradley Manning Support Network person “redact” his Free Bradley Manning decal on his car.

I can tell you this and you can say, “What did you expect?” No, if you are there, the scale of control coupled with the secrecy is alarming.

Bradley can choose to have a jury, if he wants.

Fascinating … the old media becomes truly anachronism.

Can you tell us the process for attending the hearing –media or not–
and give us some sense of the courtroom? are you in the meida room or the court room.

Would there be any advantage to Bradley having a jury?

I don’t really appreciate getting summaries of substantive deliberations that happen in the judge’s chamber. But that is how court proceedings open each morning. The judge gives a summarized report.

It must be mentioned that the government wanted to prevent Coombs from publishing even redacted versions of defense motions on his website. The government was not allowed to do this but that came up in court and it just show you how smugly arrogant the government has been in prosecuting Manning. (And they still redacted all defense motions that mention government responses. It is impossible to glean information from the defense motions posted.)

Often it depends on the reputation of the judge. but in general a jury gives you a few more shots at hanging the jury–although in the military unanimity is not required and they are military.

The defense is not being granted access to grand jury proceedings (which by the way they won’t say where it is and if it is the one in Alexandria, VA, but we assume it is.) They have, however, been told the government has to look over the grand jury testimony for any material relevant to their case.

Thanks. I kinda thought it was a rhetorical question but thought I’d ask anyway.

I am a lawyer I have been to court twice I cant follow the proceedings very well because i cant read any court papers in advance or at all Its like being in plato’s cave and only seeing the illusion of reality. Kevins reporting and book is remarkable because somehow he figures it out.

During the Article 32 hearing, a PowerPoint presentation was shown. Bradley had to make this presentation after he violated rules and posted some videos of himself on Facebook. In the presentation, he listed WikiLeaks as a place “the enemy” could go to get information.

Is this enough to convict? I don’t know. Does it suggest “knowing” WikiLeaks could be used to pass “intelligence” to “the enemy”? The government can probably make a pretty good argument to the military judge and she will probably be receptive to it.

Hard to believe with the secrecy etc that this is the most important court martial possibly ever–and much of it is behind closed doors. As a well known judge once said, Democracy Dies Behind Closed Doors

Michael, I heard the Law & Disorder program where you interviewed Greg Mitchell. It was good that someone on radio is keeping this alive.

I do think that a wrong word is constantly being used in regard to the whole Manning case. The word ‘prosecution’ is continually used. I think that you really mean ‘persecution.’ This case from start to finish is being handled in a star chamber or Spanish inquisition way. The govt persecutors can be as arrogant, nasty, and secretive as they want to be because they know that they will win and there is nothing the public can do about it. 0 has said that Manning broke the law, so no one involved on the military side will go against that unless s/he wants to lose a career and benefits.

Michael, do you have any research on military trials? How can a jury be impartial, when they all work for / report to the same Base Commander. Their promotions are controlled by that person. It reminds me of conflict of interest stories.

The process for attending as media is basically you have to be an accredited media organization or a recognized one and then you send your information. I then can go on base after dogs sniff my car or my ID gets buzzed (security protocol varies).

I am in the media center, not courthouse. I have not been in the courthouse yet. And this speaks to an issue that I imagine all courts have to confront – People want to use their computers to do their work. I want to post updates online during breaks. I want to use Twitter. I lose the privilege to do all of that if I am in the courtroom.

I intend to go see what it is like in the court room at some point, but I got to be honest that I don’t lose the ability to cover the story by not being in there. The feed I get from the courtroom gives me everything I need plus I get to hear and see how media reacts and then the military is there to brief us so I can get their official take on it all.

Of course–the enemy reads the NYT and reads that the President is engaged in warrantless wiretapping–that is why knowledge is not sufficient-
You must have an intent to aid the enemy–otherwise we have an awful lot of people aiding the enemy. But I am sad to say, so far the judge has not agreed.

The courtroom is sterile–no ability to use any device even if it is not transmitting. Its also small, antiseptic–almost like a big hospital room.
Q-I heard the feed went off to the media room?

What’s the judge’s background: education, how long has she been JAG, what other cases did she preside over, what were the outcomes?

Michael, you, as a lawyer, surely realize that any semblance of democracy at the federal level has been dead for a long while. You know all of the Acts and judicial interps better than I. I think that you are being optimistic in indicating that there is a chance it still exists.

This is critical. And I should not that the case of Marine Sgt. Gary Stein being discharged for posting anti-Obama comments on Facebook came up in the media center. The way the government is using the charge against Manning is foul because it does seem like if they are allowed to do this it would be easier to go after speech soldiers engage in that the military does not like.

I don’t have research on military trials. I was last familiar with them during Vietnam. We never did well, but on appeal often got sentences reduced.

It went off many times on the first day. Probably 50-60 times it had a glitch. And of course then we have no transcript or court filing to go check to see what we missed. Fort Meade always has Internet problems or feed problems. I swear it is because they have so many security mechanisms on networks, etc, that they are interfering with one another and creating problems.

Of course, federal courts have plenty of problems especially post 9/11 for anything to do with “terrorism.”

The judge actually heard the case of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, a “birther” who didn’t want to serve anymore because he thought Obama was not a citizen.

Kevin, how did you find time to do your share of the book and keep up you work at FDL? I see that you post often, maybe not as often as DDay, but often.

I find the no transcript to be remarkable. How can that be? What can possibly be the justification for not having a daily transcript. Its a writing contest—

Just want to add a note here: Bradley can have a jury with members that are no longer serving in the military and are older or he can have people who are currently serving in the military.

Kevin–lets get into the case a bit unless all our chatters are familiar. What are the charges? What is the substance of what Manning is claimed to have done?

The book was a necessity. It needed to get out. There needed to be a record. Moreover, someone needed to put together details on the experience and note the sordid and absurd aspects of it all. So, I did my work like I was supposed to do but early in the mornings I did writing and then on the weekends I wrote a lot too.

Here’s my thing about the government having “proof” AQ reads wikileaks. If they know for sure AQ is accessing that website, then they have IP addys. They can just go in and bin Laden (verb) all the remaining AQ guys and the wars are over. IANAL but it seems so easy to turn this around and against them (I’m also naive).

Although I suppose it’s really bad form, can’t Coombs just stand up and declare the whole thing to be a farcical, kangaroo court.

It’s just sick. I imagine the public affairs people getting sick pleasure watching us all moan and groan about not have transcripts. I imagine they privately gain pleasure from watching us scramble to keep up with the judge. Even the legal matter expert cannot keep up (the guy who briefs us). He admits the judge goes too fast, but this is how things work, right? So he isn’t going to empathize with us openly ever.

I want to a pitch for the book–its a really clear explanation and has Kevin giving first hand reports from court. Q Kevin as its an ebook as well, are going to update as the trial moves on?

I think Jane pays him by the typed character.

It’s good to restate them. And let me say that in the book I write about how Coombs tries to get charges thrown out. He says Manning is being overcharged. The judge has not bought this argument.

Manning is charged with a federal offense – “aiding the enemy.” He is accused of 16 counts of engaging in conduct “prejudicial the good order and discipline” of the military (Article 134 offenses). He is charged with five counts of violating “lawful regulations” by adding unauthorized software to his computer.

I think when you were there, Coombs asked for dismissal of all charges–why and what was the result??

Was it in the Law & Disorder interview that it is pointed out that the charges are doubled by breaking down one charge into two or more parts?

I intend to do an ebook update. Please consider getting the print copy because I think you will find it is a great record to have. But, as I add e-book updates, you can for a few dollars buy the next chapter. The update is going to be really focused on secrecy & withholding of aspects and details in the proceedings.

And let me just add that I was given a window into the secrecy around Bradley Manning when I was at the hearing this week. Photojournalists have 2-3 seconds max, basically, to snap a photo of Manning. He is moved through a tunnel out of the courthouse to black SUVs with tinted windows. When he is moved out of the tunnel into the SUVs, photojournalists get one shot and it is the bare minimum the military has to give the press. I’ll have more on that in my update.

I have 2 hard copies–underlined everywhere–so I encourage people to get it. This is an utterly crucial case; we need to follow it; and then make sure we support Bradely

One aspect of the media has really annoyed me. Reporters Committee did a great letter on behalf of 46 media organizations (NYT WaPo) about all the secrecy and having no documents that are accessible. That was weeks ago. I think they never got a response. But despite that, nothing has happened except from CCR. Kevin–any sense of what is going on?

I would like to ask our library to purchase the book, but they can’t purchase an ebook that needs to be updated. Will there be a print version out that will incorporate the updates? I don’t want to wait until the trial court martial is over before the book gets in the library because everyone will regard it as old hat. The public needs to be aware of the basic unfairness prior to the trial court martial.

Is there anything juicy in the book you haven’t already revealed through your writing on FDL? And what is it? Inquiring minds and all…

Coombs asked for dismissal because the government did not understand basic military discovery rules, he said. The term is “Brady.” It is a term that relates to the obligation the government has to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense. They were not releasing classified information and originally did not think it was covered under the rules.

The judge denied the motion to dismiss charges.

There’s a print right now. Just have them buy that one. The updates are going to be additional anyway. All key information is in the book right now. I am just making use of new trends in publishing to keep people engaged in the story.

I’ll say this – press want to hire a court reporter. They are not going to wait for the military to grant access. So, without CCR or RCFP suing, this is what will happen. The big media will just pay someone experienced to create a transcript that they can reference and use.

I agree. Pretty sure we need to sue.

People who read the book get a nice bit about what it was like to drive Daniel Ellsberg from Fort Meade to Washington, DC. You might remember I appeared on RT with him. That was an amazing experience.

The book explains a lot including Bradley’s background etc., the charges and has a key section on some of the important cablegate revelations. Kevin, you might want to remind us of those?

Would you have anything to add to this thing about being “party to the proceedings”? I’ll understand if you can’t speak openly about this, but would you try to get Coombs to make a motion on behalf of this issue of press access? Or is it better to just file a suit outside of this?

I missed your RT appearance with Ellsberg. Was that on the Alyona show?

I think he had enough trouble getting his own redacted motions up. At this point the judge is utterly wooden and we will need to go up the military court system til Court of the Armed Forces which has civilians on–hopefully win there–and if not federal court.

Yes, the background on Bradley is really good. Greg wrote this part. A lot of it actually comes from excellent reports Denver Nicks did (and he has his own book coming out in May). But then, in the Article 32 in December, we got a lot of information about Bradley and what happened with him in the military. It is very heart-wrenching because he bought into this idea that he could get stability and he did this for his father but then while in the military he is this young man with mental problems that was not gaining anything from the military. The military was making him even more miserable. He was becoming even more uncomfortable with his feelings that he was really a transgender person.

Yes.

You also give your opinion and compare what Manning allegedly did with the Haditha massacre, other war crimes etc. Can you tell us what you feel about this? What was Haditha? etc

We get into Cablegate revelations. For all those people following the chat, here’s a list of revelations I made 100 days after the Cablegate release began. I did this to counter the argument that “nothing new” was revealed.

100 Revelations to Mark the 100th Day of Cablegate

I happen to think the revelations from Cablegate that have had the most impact are the revelations on Saleh concealing US drone use in Yemen, the corruption in Tunisia, the details about how the Bush administration was interfering in the Spanish justice system to stop torture investigations and the State Department spying on people at the UN, etc.

Daniel Ellsberg and Kevin Gosztola Discuss Bradley Manning Trial on RT

For the record, is it this show?

http://rt.com/programs/alyona-show/ron-paul-youth-wars/

Lady I owe you a drink. Champagne for the newlywed.

The Haditha massacre involved the killing of 24 unarmed civilians by US military in Iraq. It happened in 2005. Sgt. Frank Wuterich was one of the soldiers put on trial for war crimes. He ordered his soldiers to “shoot first, ask questions later.” He got a very, very very lean sentence. Chances are he will be able to have a fine career despite what happened, if he wants.

On the other hand, Bradley does not look to have much of a future and he exposed war crimes in Iraq – incidents maybe less sensational but comparable to Wuterich’s crime.

This is something Manning supporters picked up on when Wuterich did not really go to jail. They were concerned. They made the comparison.

Now I find myself wanting to compare the court martial of Manning to the court martial of Sgt. Robert Bales, who is accused of massacring Afghani civilians. Generals have apparently sent letters to Bales’ lawyer wishing him luck. I know Coombs has not been encouraged to fight for Manning to not go to jail for life.

Its hard not to. Were I a sketch artist I would have a drawing of the people killed in the courtroom watching–the Reuters journalists, the 100,000 + Iraq civilians etc.

I know the book discusses the painfulness of Manning’s career in the military, but it also gives us information both from chat logs and Coombs about motivation–what do you document in the book?

That would be a powerful image. Wish I could get Sgt. Shawn Sales, the sketch artist who did the court room sketch on the cover of my book, to do that.

Aloha, Kevin and Michael, mahalo for the book and this salon…!

Being a 20 yr. Vet, I’m very pessimistic about Bradley’s court martial, in that, he will be found ultimately guilty, but, I don’t think he’ll receive the Death Penalty, it’s been a mighty long time since it’s been imposed, what are your thoughts, Kevin, on the sentencing phase…?

This is what Coombs has said in court – “The government has told you a lot about how things happened…We are trying to tell you why things happened. That’s just as important.”

But the government does not want Coombs to talk about this. This does not matter. What matters is whether he did the act or not. It essentially removes any possibility of a whistleblower defense. If you break the rules, you are guilty. Coombs trying to fight this.

The motivation was to start discussion. It was idealistic. He thought people needed to see the information he was seeing. Coombs is now arguing Manning was selective. He could have released all the information on SIPRNet if he had wanted to but he didn’t. He used discretion because he was concerned about specific issues/subjects. That’s Coombs’ argument, which he is testing now.

I had an argument this morning at the dog park with some guy about this. He had no problem accepting that 100s of thousands of innocent civilians have died, to protect the US from whatever. But since the US had to protect itself, and he didn’t want to pay for it, he’s retiring to South America. The cognitive dissonance was deafening and he’s a democrat.

Have the conditions, which many believe amounted to torture, Bradley was held under at Quantico figured in the proceeding?

Why he thought the US had to protect itself in Iraq is crazy. That war was was the major war crime of the last decade if not more.

Thanks for stopping in for the discussion.

I will be very surprised if he gets the death penalty. The last person to get a military death sentence was Ronald Gray. He appealed and has not been killed yet.

Manning will get life without parole at most.

If you break the rules, you are guilty. Coombs trying to fight this.

That’s exactly why I think he will be found guilty, but, I don’t think the ‘aiding and abetting the enemy’ charge will stick…! Even the Judge sounded skeptical when she ruled on it…!

I agree I would be shocked at the death penalty So far prosecutor has said they are not requesting it. But a life sentence is completely out of line. The Ellsberg case fell apart because of govt. misconduct. I would like to see this one go down.
Q Kevin–if you can answer– Bradley needs more support; people should get your book. What else can they do???

The defense is trying to get the government to hand over video of Manning being stripped naked and made to sleep without any clothing. This set off a media storm and ultimately helped get him moved to Leavenworth. The government says the video the defense wants does not exist. Coombs indicated Manning might testify to prove it does exist.

He couldn’t grasp the reason that the only country in the world that had to protect itself, was due to it’s own malfeasance. Nor could he grasp the fact that innocents are killed daily. I was stunned.

Always amazing. Same at Gitmo–videos made of everything in cells etc–govt claimed had none.
Water boarding destroyed the tapes.
Sure they had the tape of Manning stripped. Q is who destroyed it?

As we come to the end of this great Book Salon discussion,

Kevin, Thank you for stopping by the Lake and spending the afternoon with us discussing your new book and the trial of Bradley Manning.

Michael, Thank you very much for Hosting this great Book Salon.

Everyone, if you would like more information:

Kevin’s website and book (Truth and Consequences)

Michael’s website (Center for Constitutional Rights/CCRJustice.org) and twitter

Thanks all, Have a great weekend.

Tomorrow: Kendra Pierre-Louis /Green Washed: Why We Can’t Buy Our Way To A Green Planet; Hosted by Riki Ott

If you want to contact the FDL Book Salon: FiredoglakeBookSalon@gmail.com

Manning will get life without parole at most.

That’s my thoughts too…! I’m actually hoping it’ll be less than that, and, given credit for time served and some sort of acknowledgement of the flagrant treatment he’s received…!

What if anything did you hear about how Bradley is dong? What are his conditions like now? Do you know where he is between court appearances?

Mahalo, Bev, for putting together another awesome Book Salon…! *g*

Supporters should be doing what they can to help the Support Network keep up their billboard campaigns. They have billboards going up in DC (may even have one already). They can also write to Bradley.

HHC USAG Attn: PFC Manning
239 Sheridan Ave, Bldg 417
JBM-HH, VA 22211

Manning really appreciates the support. Coombs actually told Support Network people personally during lunch recess that he appreciates all that they are doing. People can help in this way.

They can also help by not tuning out. The government is counting on people to be apathetic, supportive or cynical to convict Bradley Manning and give him maximum punishment. If the cynicism or apathy can be transformed into opposition to the way this is handled, if there is resistance, the outcome could be significantly different. The government is counting on an outcome not mattering to the public.

The military likes to keep that secret. They won’t disclose confinement location. But, he is at Leavenworth in between motion hearings.

Thanks Bev. Great book salon.

Thanks, Michael, for hosting.

Thanks, Bev, for putting this on.

I hope everyone who has the book has enjoyed it. I hope if you have not gotten a book you read it at some point.

Thanks all. I really appreciate all the support from FDL.

And thanks Kevin and Michael too.

Mahalo, Kevin and Michael, for all your work on exposing the Nakedness of our Emperor…! ;-)

This discussion is oh so informative. It yet behooves me why the govt can justify ruining the life of a man, because it will not face the truth. And sadly a truth of it’s own creation.

Is this court going to declare that the gov has AQ’s IP addys and can at anytime go in and take AQ out, but traitorously has chosen not to and has chose to use the information from snooping on those IP addys ONLY to tell the court that AQ reads Wikileaks?