“This administration owes all Americans an honest explanation for their extraordinary retaliation against Bradley Manning,” said Jeff Paterson, a lead organizer of the Bradley Manning Support Network. “President Obama and Secretary Clinton need to produce sworn depositions under conditions where they are required to tell the truth about Bradley Manning.”

Legal observers have noted that President Obama and Secretary Clinton have already inserted themselves into the case by declaring Manning to be guilty and making unsubstantiated accusations that the WikiLeaks materials somehow harmed national security. Manning’s defense team has argued that these claims contradict the government’s own impact assessments, which military prosecutors have blocked from consideration during the proceedings. On Janurary 20, Manning’s lead defense counsel David Coombs filed another request for the “WikiLeaks Task Force” and other entities to produce these records.

On January 18, Col. Carl R. Coffman Jr. denied a separate request filed a week earlier by Manning’s defense team to conduct oral depositions of nine essential witnesses. Although names have been redacted from publicly available versions of these deposition requests, media analyses have shown that President Obama and Secretary Clinton are among those being called to testify.

“This determination is difficult to comprehend given the nature of the charges against PFC Manning. Today’s decision is yet another example of the government improperly impeding the defense’s access to essential witnesses,” according to a blog post by Coombs in response to that denial of evidence.

Although this set of witnesses was prevented by military officials from testifying during last month’s Article 32 hearing, and again with this most recent decision, Manning’s defense team intends to renew these deposition requests with the General Court-Martial Convening Authority.

The decision by Maj. Gen. Linnington comes as his office was barraged with several days of calls after the Bradley Manning Support Network tweeted his phone number. Supporters had called on Linnington to at least drop the most serious charge of “aiding the enemy.”

Last month, a video showing four uniformed U.S. Marines urinating on the bloodied corpses of dead Afghans went viral, returning – if briefly – to our national discussion the depravity of war and the inhumanity of those sent off to fight it.

The video also reignited debates about whether soldiers of these repugnant spectacles are merely “a few bad apples” running rogue or instead a disturbing manifestation of a more insidious, fundamental, and pervasive immorality at the heart of war. In doing so it recalled more obscene instances in the past, such as the Abu Ghraib torture scandal or some of Guantánamo’s darker secrets.

It also might have reminded you of the so-called “Kill Team,” the U.S. Army platoon in Afghanistan whose commander directed his soldiers to murder unarmed Afghani civilians, killed another himself, then removed and collected body parts as souvenirs.

Cpl. Jeremy Morlock with Staff Sgt. David Bram

The ‘Kill Team’ story got major media attention, spurred war-mentality discussions, and put the soldiers involved and their Staff Sergeant in charge on trial. But what came of their indictment?

Several soldiers were prosecuted in the incident, with varying severity. These include Pfc. Andrew Colmes, who pled guilty to the murder of innocent Afghan civilians and was sentenced to seven years in prison. Staff Sergeant David Bram was convicted of solicitation to commit murder, conspiracy to commit assault, and attempting to obstruct the investigation into the Kill Team’s rampage. He was sentenced to five years in prison, but he’ll be eligible for parole after the first three.

Then there’s Staff Sergeant Calvin Gibbs, dubbed the ringleader of the Kill Team. Gibbs was convicted of murdering a civilian, Marach Agha, and planting a weapon next to him to make it seem like he’d killed a militant. He was also convicted of murder for inciting one soldier to throw a grenade at a 15-year-old Afghan civilian, Gul Mudin, and another to shoot the boy afterward. Gibbs was said to play with Mudin’s corpse “as if it was a puppet,” collect teeth and finger bones, and keep part of the victim’s skull. Gibbs’ punishment was most severe, sentenced to life in prison, yet he will be eligible for parole in less than ten years. According to the Guardian, Gibbs’ “jurors acceded to the convicted soldier’s plea to have the hope of being reunited with his son.”

Compare this treatment with the prospective and intended treatment of Pfc. Bradley Manning. Whereas Gibbs, who murdered, conspired to murder, and treated war like deer-hunting bloodsport, was quietly tried and awarded the chance of extremely early parole, Manning could face life in prison without parole or even the death penalty, if his jurors so choose. What about Manning’s hope to reunite with his family after prison, or come to terms with his gender-identity crisis? Manning didn’t kill a soul – will his jurors accede to his plea for freedom?

Gibbs was not kept in solitary confinement for ten months against his will. He wasn’t forced to strip naked in prison at night as Manning was in Quantico. Gibbs’ Article 32 hearing was not delayed 18 months and then held so as to minimize media access. His Commander-in-Chief did not declare Gibbs guilty before he even stepped inside a courtroom, as President Obama declared of Manning eight full months before his hearing. Well-known former governors did not demand that Gibbs be executed.

Or consider another ongoing military investigation. Marine Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich is being tried for his alleged involvement in the 2005 Haditha killings, in which Marines murdered 24 Iraqi civilians. In what witnesses describe as a massacre, Wuterich ordered his squad to “shoot first, ask questions later.” His Marines then shot two dozen unarmed Iraqis, including women and children. If convicted of all charges, Wuterich would face life in prison. Yet at his Article 32 pre-trial hearing, the Investigating Officer, a fellow Marine officer, recommended the major charges be dropped in favor of a lesser one, negligent homicide, that’d only carry a maximum 3-year sentence. But that wasn’t enough: Sgt. Wuterich was just awarded a plea deal in which he pled guilty to “dereliction of duty,” which carries minimal punishment, and then the military judge in his case recommended that he spend no time in jail at all.

Furthermore, it was recently revealed that Sergeant Sanick Dela Cruz testified that Wuterich, his commander, killed five Iraqis and then ordered Dela Cruz to lie about it. Dela Cruz only testified against Wuterich in exchange for immunity – the government dismissed murder charges against him when he agreed to testify in Wuterich’s trial. So Dela Cruz, who also admitted to urinating on one of Wuterich’s corpses, will get off with no jail time, for bringing to light these war crimes and military abuses. The irony is not lost on anyone familiar with Manning’s case: Manning was never accused of murder, desecrating dead bodies, or covering up crimes, but he’s looking at a caged life with no hope for parole or freedom, while actual murderers and those who lied for them get lessened charges or full immunity.

So why is Manning treated this way? In 2010, Admiral Mike Mullen said that WikiLeaks’ source for the Afghan War Logs “might already have on [his] hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family,” a year and half before Manning’s pre-trial hearing. Google searches for Mullen’s comments on Staff Sgt. Gibbs’ murder, photos playing with dead bodies, and body-part trophies yield no results.

Video of the Apache helicopter incident in New Baghdad

As Charles Davis writes for Al Jazeera, “While killing unarmed civilians for sport may not be officially sanctioned policy, it doesn’t threaten the functioning of the war machine as much as a soldier standing up and refusing to be complicit in mass murder.” In other words, Wuterich’s and Gibb’s murders don’t interfere with America’s wars in the Middle East in any meaningful way. They’re embarrassing when made public and incur scorn from the international community, but they don’t have any real effect on U.S. foreign policy. By contrast, Bradley Manning’s alleged actions, in highlighting grave abuses, airing diplomatic secrets, and calling attention to otherwise unnoticed crimes, are considered an impediment to American policy. According to CNN, negotiations between the Iraqi government and the Obama Administration broke down over a dispute about immunity for U.S. soldiers there, specifically due to a cable released by WikiLeaks. Due to this breakdown, the U.S. had to fulfill its promise to withdraw troops from Iraq, leading many to credit Bradley Manning with helping end the nearly 8-year occupation.

Comparing Wuterich or Gibbs with Pfc. Manning sheds much-needed light on some ugly truths of the U.S. justice system. Referencing the Kill Team specifically, Davis suggests that if Manning “had murdered civilians and desecrated their corpses – if he had the moral capacity to commit war crimes, not the audacity to expose them – he’d be better off today.”

But the government would argue that Pfc. Manning’s case is of special interest, and therefore deserves magnified punishment, because he indirectly “aided the enemy.” This is the charge that carries the potential death penalty, that Manning’s lawyer requested be dropped in the Article 32 hearing, and that leads prominent pundits to declare Manning a “traitor.” This will be the charge that sets a precedent in the war on whistle-blowing.

It will also surely be distorted by Manning’s prosecutors, because if the military disciplined soldiers based on honest assessments of what truly “aids the enemy” – and what does not – it would require harsher punishment for soldiers following orders and leniency for an intelligence private releasing improperly classified documents he believes the public should see.

It would also require investigating prominent U.S. politicians. In late 2010, American officials including former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, former secretary of homeland security Tom Ridge, former White House homeland security adviser Frances Townsend and former attorney general Michael Mukasey attended a forum held by supporters of the Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK), a group the United States has designated a terrorist organization since 1997. As Glenn Greenwald writes,

“Even though the actions of these Bush officials violate every alleged piety about bashing one’s own country on foreign soil and may very well constitute a felony under U.S. law, they will be shielded from criticisms because they want to use the Terrorist group to overthrow a government that refuses to bow to American dictates.”

If the U.S. was genuine in disciplining those who “aid the enemy,” they’d be investigating and indicting U.S. officials openly supporting a group the U.S. deems a terrorist organization.

They’d also be paying closer attention to what those they’ve captured have to say. On the rare occasions when suspected militants are caught and tried, they say what radicalized them toward terror is the American killing of Middle Eastern civilians. As Chase Madar writes,

“terrorists themselves have freely confessed that what motivated their acts of wanton violence has been the damage done by foreign military occupation back home or simply in the Muslim world. Asked by a federal judge why he tried to blow up Times Square with a car bomb in May 2010, Pakistani-American Faisal Shahzad answered that he was motivated by the civilian carnage the U.S. had caused in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.”

Examine again what Sgt. Gibbs and his soldiers did in Afghanistan: killing innocent Afghani civilians (including a 15-year-old boy), removing their fingers, playing with their corpses. This is what provides rhetorical ammunition for Al Qaeda and its offshoots, who can point to events like this as catalysts for their rage. This is indirectly “aiding the enemy” as a blatant and obscene symbol of American invasion.

This is also the type of behavior that Pfc. Manning is accused of revealing. One State Department cable that WikiLeaks published documents a harrowing atrocity in Iraq, “wherein one man, four women, two children, and three infants were summarily executed.” The killings were illegal, a US airstrike attempted to destroy the evidence, and yet no soldiers have been held accountable. Releasing this cable did not “aid the enemy”; it’s the killing itself that spawns outrage and radical militancy.

Sgt. Gibbs, Sgt Wuterich, and the soldiers who followed their orders have confessed to the blood on their hands, and they will be granted plea deals and near-immunity. Defense Secretary Robert Gates declared that claims of damage done as a result of WikiLeaks’ releases were “significantly overwrought,” and yet Pfc. Manning could be sent to prison for life.

But Manning’s case is not truly about disciplining a soldier for “aiding the enemy” at all. If it were, Sergeants Gibbs and Wuterich would be those on high-profile trial, worrying they may never be free again. Instead, Manning’s trial is about punishing the messenger to dissuade those who find his courage inspiring. It sends a clear message that no matter the abuse, shedding desperately needed light on unpunished crimes will not be tolerated.

Bradley Manning being escorted to the courthouse for the Pretrial Hearing

While trial dates have not yet been announced, we know the trial will take place within 120 days of today’s court martial announcement. We will organize international demonstrations in protest of the injustices against Bradley Manning, both in how he was treated in prison at Quantico, and how his whistle-blower motivations are being ignored by military and government officials.

We are asking now that individuals and organizations who wish to see Bradley Manning acknowledged as a whistle-blower, freed, and his mistreatment accounted for, pledge to stand with us during the trial.

Individuals who can help organize events in your town/city: Sign our Trial Action Pledge to help organize support for Bradley!

Organizations that wish to endorse these events and potentially help publicize and organize them: Check out our new Organizational Endorsement Pledge!

“Government secrecy is literally out of control” reads the Salon.com headline by Justin Elliott. The Obama administration campaigned on promises of transparency and openness but “several pieces of news about government secrecy emerged this week that show just how far away the United States has gotten from the principle of open government.” This isn’t only a story about Bradley Manning and WikiLeaks – it is also a story about ongoing over-classification of information. “There are still 50,000 ages of government record relating to the JFK assassination” that have yet to be released even though an act was passed to make sure they were released, he writes. The government has been classifying so much information, that it is almost impossible that they could have ever done so following proper procedures. In order to de-classify the material, as they must do, it would take an enormous team – there is a backlog of over 400 million pages. It took two years to declassify 26.6 million pages. The task is impossible – and we must wonder how and why so much information is being classified in the first place. (Read more)

A WikiLeaks lawyer tells of her chance run in, at the Sundance Film festival, with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. Holder is a key figure in the governments ongoing crackdown on whistle-blowers, and in the governments attack on WikiLeaks. At Bradley Manning’s article 32 hearing, it became clear that the government was going after Bradley Manning as part of its strategy against WikiLeaks,

“it was apparent during the Manning hearing that concerns about the U.S. seeking Assange’s extradition are justified. Repeated references were made to the relationship between the Manning proceedings and the Justice Department’s ongoing criminal investigation into Assange and WikiLeaks. Manning’s defense counsel stated explicitly that the Justice Department had an interest in plea-bargaining with Manning in order to get him to implicate Assange, and argued that the number of charges against Manning (particularly those carrying life imprisonment) was designed to pressure him into making a deal.”

Holder however has been unwilling to comment publicly, and so it was fortunate that one of WikiLeaks lawyers managed to find herself sitting near him. “As the lights dimmed and the film began, I wondered: How could I speak to Eric Holder?” she writes. With little time, Robinson engaged Holder, politely guiding the conversation from one of government legacy, before gently introducing herself as a lawyer from WikiLeaks, and concluding with the question so many have asked – “will the Department of Justice state publicly whether or not you intend to prosecute Julian?”. “We will see” he replied. (Read more)

Isolation is torture. Evelyn Leopold writes about two US cases where prisoners have been abused with extended solitary confinement. Bradley Manning spent ten months in solitary, and recently a
US judge resigned “after being accused of… jailing offenders in solitary confinement without access to lawyers.” These cases highlight the need for someone to “watch the watchers”, as there are few institutional practices in place to guard against these kinds of abuse. The UN is one organization working to monitor prisoner abuse, but the U.N. special rapporteur on torture, Juan Mendez has repeatedly been denied access to confidentially visit Bradley Manning. We will continue to pressure the Obama administration to allow Juan Mendez access to Bradley Manning so that he can report on the treatment Bradley received. (Read more)

In the midst of all of this serious news, we thought you might like to hear this tidbit: Julian Assange is scheduled to do a guest spot on the Simpson’s, in which he plays himself. This news comes after the news that he will be hosting is own talk show on Russia Today, beginning in March.

Students in Berlin stand in support of human rights and Bradley Manning.

Isolation is a Form of Torture

UN journalist Evelyn Leopold writes that, according to UN Torture Investigator Juan Mendez, solitary confinement “can cause serious mental and physical damage and be considered torture.” Mendez would know – as Leopold documents, Mendez was jailed for a year and a half and tortured in Argentina’s “Dirty War” in 1976.

Leopold’s report, with more information on prisoner abuse and the United States’ massive incarceration, is here, and more details of Mendez’s personal case are here.

Juan Mendez is still attempting to obtain an official visit with Pfc. Bradley Manning to investigate his treatment in Quantico, but the Obama Administration has refused his requests.

U.S. Intelligence Implementing Secrecy Measures

Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper said it will take five years to implement new intelligence measures that would make leaking information more difficult. One such measure is “tagging” pieces of information, to indicate who shared that information.

Clapper also says US Intelligence is working to separate data points from how that data was collected. The full CBS/AP report is here.

So the Obama Administration is working to install technical safeguards to shore up its information, but it’s doing nothing to alleviate the United States’ massive classification problem. While this new software will cost American taxpayers more, it also ignores the existing costs associated with the government’s problem of classifying many documents which should be public in the first place.

Other News

Handy for legal scholars seeking to learn about this case, WikiLeaks Central has published a chronological list explaining the order in which charges against Bradley were added.

The Baltimore Sun has published another excellent letter-to-the-editor from a Bradley Manning supporter, this time entitled “Manning leaks helped end war, saved lives.” Supporter Richard J. Ochs writes:

Why is it that people who violate the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice by torturing prisoners do not get punished (“Ex-CIA officer charged over leaks to journalists,” Jan. 24), but people who report such crimes to the press get the book thrown at them? The code specifies that it is a crime to violate the Geneva Convention, which bans torture. The convention, like all signed treaties, is considered to be “the highest law of the land” by the U.S. Constitution.

That, we feel, is an excellent question.

Whistleblowers Conference at Berkeley

In about three weeks, from Feb 17-19, a whistle-blowers conference entitled “Occupy Truth” will be held at UC Berkeley. Bradley Manning Support Network organizers plan on attending; however, the Feb 17, 7pm, panel on Bradley Manning has been cancelled.

Free Bradley Manning demonstration in Germany. 1/21/12.

War on Whistleblowers

Several political writers have opined on the stark contrasts in yesterday’s news. Sgt. Wuterich, who ordered the killing of 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians, received a plea deal that would give him up to a maximum of 3 months in jail; meanwhile, the DoJ charged former CIA analyst John Kiriakou with four felony counts for allegedly disclosing information about United States torture.

Salon’s Glenn Greenwald summed up the lessons learned from these events:

The Rules of American Justice are quite clear:
(1) If you are a high-ranking government official who commits war crimes, you will receive full-scale immunity, both civil and criminal, and will have the American President demand that all citizens Look Forward, Not Backward.
(2) If you are a low-ranking member of the military, you will receive relatively trivial punishments in order to protect higher-ranking officials and cast the appearance of accountability.
(3) If you are a victim of American war crimes, you are a non-person with no legal rights or even any entitlement to see the inside of a courtroom.
(4) If you talk publicly about any of these war crimes, you have committed the Gravest Crime — you are guilty of espionage – and will have the full weight of the American criminal justice system come crashing down upon you.

FireDogLake’s David Dayen summarized similarly:

Just to recap the last 24 hours in the rule of law: if you order the massacre a village of Iraqis, you will get your charges reduced to “dereliction of duty” and get sentenced to no more than three months confinement. Furthermore, the rest of your colleagues that participated in the incident will not serve any jail time. By contrast, if you blow the whistle on the torture of a terrorist suspect, you will go to jail, at least if the government has its way.

Greenwald’s article, along with many people on Twitter, also contrasted Bradley Manning’s treatment. While Sgt. Wuterich will get a couple mere months in prison, Pfc. Manning could face the rest of his life in jail, not to mention the 20 months he’s already been imprisoned, or the 10 he spent in psychologically torturous solitary confinement.

Legal Questions Answered

Salon’s Justin Elliott answers some frequently asked questions about Bradley Manning’s all-but-confirmed upcoming court martial trial. Whether it does move to trial with all charges still rests with Major General Michael Linnington, but Elliott explains the process anyway.

Elliott covers how the judge and jury are selected, potential sentencing, and the possibility of appeals. The full article is here.

Other News

Occupy Long Beach held a Free Bradley Manning rally on Sunday. In attendance were some members of Military Families Speak Out, families of soldiers who are against the wars. “We do need to know the real cost of war,” said Pat Alviso, mother of a four-tour Iraq soldier. “If releasing those documents is what it takes, then you have to do the right thing.”

On Saturday, a 100 person Free Bradley Manning took place in Berlin, Germany. Photos from the event are available here.

Olympia, Washington

Bradley Manning, a 24-year-old Army intelligence analyst, faces life in prison for allegedly sharing the “Collateral Murder” video of a US helicopter attack that killed 11 civilians and wounded two children in Baghdad, Iraq with the WikiLeaks website. Bradley has also been charged with blowing the whistle on the “Iraq War Logs”, the “Afghan Diaries”, the “Gitmo Files”, and embarrassing US State Department cables. All of the documents released have added significantly to public knowledge of war crimes, civilian casualties, government corruption, and the over-classification of information. No one has been harmed and the information has helped fuel pro-democratic protests globally.

God knows what happens now. Hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms… I want people to see the truth… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.
–an online chat attributed to Bradley Manning

Bradley Manning Support Network campaign organizer Jeff Paterson will provide a multi-media presentation to include:

• An overview of US v. Bradley Manning

• His report from the Fort Meade courtroom where Bradley had his first court hearing after 18 months of pre-trial confinement

• Updates on the international grassroots campaign

• Introduction to the new Courage to Resist book, About Face: Military Resisters Turn Against War—from Army Lt. Ehren Watada to PFC Bradley Manning, and two dozen other stories. Published by PM Press, September 2011.

In August 1990, Marine artilleryman Corporal Jeff Paterson became the first of many US military personnel to refuse to fight in Iraq. Today, Jeff is the project director of Courage to Resist, an Oakland-based organization dedicated to supporting GI war resisters and conscientious objectors, and helps lead the campaign to support Bradley Manning.

“The campaign to free Bradley Manning” Pacific Northwest Jan/Feb 12 tour leaflet

By Michael Hastings, The Rolling Stone. January 18, 2012

…When I arrive for my last day with Assange, I’m 45 minutes early. Most of his staff have gone home for the holidays, and he’s alone in the house with only his personal assistant to keep him company. Assange is huddled over a laptop in the dining room he has turned into his office, monitoring what has become his sole focus over the past few days: the trial of Bradley Manning, the 24-year-old Army private alleged to have provided the diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks. Assange has two lawyers representing him in the Maryland courtroom, and his name has been mentioned virtually every day during the initial hearing. The government’s strategy, it has become clear, is to pressure Manning to implicate Assange in espionage – to present his work at WikiLeaks as the act of a spy, not a journalist…

Why is WikiLeaks so focused on defending Bradley Manning?

Manning is alleged to be one of our sources, regardless of whether those allegations are true or not. He has now sat in various U.S. military prisons for the past 600 days as a result of what we published. So we feel that we owe him a duty of care. I have heard from people close to his defense that it is their view that the abuse of him was in order to get him to testify against us…

And they’re going after Manning, who is facing a life sentence, to get him to say that you’re a spy?

To be another chess piece on the board in the attack on us. The U.S. government is trying to redefine what have been long-accepted journalistic methods. If the Pentagon is to have its way, it will be the end of national-security journalism in the United States.

Read the complete interview at The Rolling Stone’s website

Defense discovery request regarding damage assessments

By David Coombs, attorney for Bradley Manning at armycourtmartialdefense.info. January 20, 2012

The defense filed another discovery request today seeking information regarding the numerous damage assessments completed by the government. Thus far, the government has failed to provide this information to the defense.

Government continues to deny access to key witnesses

By David Coombs, attorney for Bradley Manning at armycourtmartialdefense.info. January 18, 2012

Earlier today, Colonel Carl R. Coffman Jr., denied the defense’s request to conduct oral depositions of nine essential witnesses. These same witnesses were requested by the defense at the Article 32 hearing, but denied by Lieutenant Colonel Paul Almanza. Each of the requested witnesses would have testified concerning whether the charged information was or was not classified and whether there was any harm to national security from this information becoming public.

Colonel Coffman determined that the difficulty, expense, and/or effect on military operations outweighed the significance of the expected testimony. This determination is difficult to comprehend given the nature of the charges against PFC Manning. Today’s decision is yet another example of the government improperly impeding the defense’s access to essential witnesses.

Based upon Colonel Coffman’s decision, the defense intends to renew its request to depose these witnesses with the General Court-Martial Convening Authority, Major General Michael S. Linnington, and, if necessary, with the military judge.

Somerville MA activists for Bradley Manning

By Jillian Fennimore, Somerville Blog. January 19, 2012.

Freeman Z, Susan McLucas and Bob Bowes (from left to right) have been transforming Davis Square into Bradley Manning Square every Friday from 1 to 2 p.m. since September 2011, distributing literature, holding signs, speaking and collecting signatures in support of Army Intelligence Analyst PFC Bradley Manning, the alleged WikiLeaks whistle blower who has been in military custody for a year and a half for releasing secrets about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the infamous video, CollateralMurder.com.

CANCELLED

Saving Private Bradley Manning
Accused WikiLeaks whistle-blower
Friday, February 17, 2012 from 7:00pm to 8:30pm
UC Berkeley’s International House
2299 Piedmont Ave, Berkeley, California

Bradley Manning, a 24-year-old Army intelligence analyst, faces life in prison for allegedly sharing the “Collateral Murder” video of a US helicopter attack that killed 11 civilians and wounded two children in Baghdad, Iraq with the WikiLeaks website. Bradley has also been charged with blowing the whistle on the “Iraq War Logs”, the “Afghan Diaries”, the “Gitmo Files”, and embarrassing US State Department cables. All of the documents released have added significantly to public knowledge of war crimes, civilian casualties, government corruption, and the over-classification of information. No one has been harmed and the information has helped fuel pro-democratic protests globally. For this, Bradley faces life in prison at a military court martial this spring. Free Bradley Manning!

Daniel Ellsberg
Pentagon Papers whistle-blower who helped end the Vietnam War

US Army Colonel Ann Wright (ret)
Diplomat who resigned in protest of the Iraq War

Ray McGovern
Former CIA analyst

Jeff Paterson
Bradley Manning Support Network organizer