Let Bradley Go Free

Because of the alleged transfer of classified data to WikiLeaks, a U.S. Army security analyst will be put on trial for exposing war crimes.

Bradley Manning, the 22-year-old U.S. Army intelligence analyst in detention for the past 10 months, is accused of having provided disclosure platform WikiLeaks with classified video material taken by AH-64 Apache attack helicopters in Iraq. The videos show how nine Iraqi civilians and two Reuters reporters were killed by deliberate attack by the helicopters on July 12, 2007. The horrific images are underscored by the snickering comments made by the helicopter crew for whom the war seems to be just a big video game. Following the deadly volley from the helicopter’s 30-mm onboard cannon, they then turn their sights on another Iraqi who arrives on the scene in a van as he drives his children to school. He stops when he sees one of the severely wounded journalists lying on the sidewalk and gets out of his van to help him. Another volley of cannon fire from the helicopter kills both men; the children in the van barely escaped death when Ethan McCord, a U.S. soldier on the ground, disobeyed the orders of his platoon leader to quit “wasting my time on these MFing kids,” and get back to security duties. McCord rescued the two wounded children and delivered them to medical personnel.

On April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks posted the video documentation of this war crime on the Internet under the title “Collateral Murder” (www.collateralmurder.com). The classified video material from the gunship’s cameras was widely broadcast internationally. The U.S. government first went into panic mode and instructed the Department of Homeland Security to find the organizational source of the leak and plug it.

On May 26, 2010, Bradley Manning was arrested at U.S. Forward Operating Base Hammer in Iraq and was subsequently held in detention at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait. No formal charges were filed against him. The only thing known is that he is being held in connection with the leaked video materials even though proof of a connection between Manning and WikiLeaks cannot be established. While Manning sits behind bars for reporting a war crime, no charges have been filed against the helicopter crew for their inhumane actions. In response to the Reuters report, the responsible military authorities state that the helicopter crew acted in accordance with the laws of war and within prevailing guidelines for military action. In other words, everything was legal.

Little by little, information has been trickling in concerning the charges against Manning. The information suggests that Manning confided in a hacker named Adrian Lamo. During his hacking career over the years, Lamo, an American of Columbian origin, is said to have hacked into the computer systems of The New York Times and the Microsoft Corporation, among others. The computer magazine Wired referred to Lamo as “the homeless hacker” because he wandered throughout the United States with no apparent permanent address. His condition is described as unstable due to years of ingesting psychedelic substances. In other words, he’s a classic cyber-junkie. Somewhere along the line, he attracted the interest of law enforcement personnel and he was fined and imprisoned for various offenses. If one is to believe the information released since Manning’s arrest, Lamo must have had an epiphany during this timeframe that caused him to switch sides. He became a mole working for the security authorities. Lamo’s father says it’s obvious why his son did what he did and blames the FBI for the Wired story.

Assuming that the chat room story is genuine, then Manning must have known nothing of Lamo’s conversion and continued anonymously confiding in him online. That’s the only way he would have confessed to Lamo that he had stolen the video and document files. When Lamo reportedly told Manning he was sure he must be very busy, Manning replied, “If you had unprecedented access to classified networks 14 hours a day 7 days a week for 8+ months, what would you do?”

The online dialog between the chat partners who had never met is said to have lasted for five days. Lamo brought in the security agencies as of the third day. Then the military police struck and put Manning out of circulation. But the question remains whether the supposed chat scenario wasn’t just a security ploy for media consumption so they wouldn’t have to reveal the real reason behind Manning’s arrest. Only a public trial would shed any light on that.

By July 6, 2010, the military court revealed that Manning would be charged with betraying state secrets and endangering national security. Those charges are punishable by 52 years in prison. Besides the video material, Manning is said to be responsible for the unauthorized release to WikiLeaks of thousands of classified U.S. documents dealing with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in addition to classified diplomatic dispatches.

After Manning’s arrest became public knowledge and he had been transferred from Kuwait to the Marine Corps prison in Quantico, Virginia, WikiLeaks made it known that it had received the video as well as a number of related documents from a number of different military whistle blowers. Manning will be the lone scapegoat for something behind which there is a whole network of players. WikiLeaks never had any contact with Manning, but will assist in his defense nevertheless. Manning invoked his Fifth Amendment rights from the start and refuses to cooperate with the prosecution in any way.

The Internet platform FreeBradley.org warns against doing harm to Manning by celebrating him as a hero for being the “leak in the system.” An attorney in San Francisco is quoted as saying, “In political cases, authorities opportunistically treat speculation and innuendo as fact. The government desperately needs a fall guy to divert attention from its own misdeeds. Prosecutors would happily exploit statements by Manning’s self-styled defenders in this case.”

Effective support for Bradley Manning has to be based on the fact that irrespective of his actual conduct, he is being blamed by those who feel that publicly exposing classified evidence of war crimes committed by the United States and NATO forces should be punished.