Skip to main content

It's a secrecy circus at Ft. Meade this week. Tomorrow, the military judge presiding over the most important trial thus far in the 21st century, Col. Denise Lind, will hold an unprecedented closed hearing to determine how much of the trial against Wikileaks source Bradley Manning she will conduct in secret. AP Reports:

Government secrecy reaches a new level this week in the court-martial of Army Pfc. Bradley Manning . . .
The judge's secret hearing tomorrow was requested by the defense after
. . .  prosecutor Maj. Ashden Fein . . . said at Feb. 26 hearing that more than half of the government's 141 anticipated witnesses would testify about classified information, necessitating closure of up to 30 percent of the trial.
While the U.S. Code of Military Justice does allow limited closing of Court Martial proceedings, it can only be done in extremely limited circumstances related to specific evidence - not a blanket closure of entire portions.

The irony of holding a secret trial of a defendant accused of leaking secrets is not only undemocratic and antithetical to the constitutional principle of a public trial, but it also undermines Manning's defense by lending legitimacy to the government's secrecy assertions. Considering all classification experts agree that the government rampantly over-classifies information, Judge Lind should use this hearing to evaluate the government's secrecy claims without automatic deference when the prosecution insists on shutting out the press and the public for "national security" reasons.

Manning's trial is about the biggest leak in world history, which Manning said he disclosed because he saw the government hiding atrocities that the public should know about. It's a sick irony that the trial that could put him away for life has already been shrouded by the very secrecy Manning challenged.

The court martial proceedings are already inordinately difficult for the media and public to access. Here's my experience from attending Manning's riveting testimony describing how the military tortured him:

Spectators are not allowed to shift too much in their seats, unwrap anything in plastic, or turn the pages of their notebooks too loudly. The bailiff reads a statement before each proceeding that "the public is encouraged to attend" the Court Martial proceedings, but the conditions are hardly welcoming. (The only bathroom is a glorified porta potty.) The security rules change daily - sometimes you are wanded before entering, sometimes not; sometimes you are allowed to wait outside the courtroom, sometimes you are forced to line up; sometimes they dig through your purse with the gusto of my kids looking for an extra $10, sometimes they take a quick glance. My personal favorite is when they counted the pills in every single prescription bottle I had. My feminine products stopped the detailed mole hunt pretty quickly though.
The secrecy surrounding Manning's court martial has already made headlines and received more comprehensive coverage in the main-stream-media than the proceedings themselves, despite the fact that the charges against Manning - particularly the Espionage Act and Aiding the Enemy counts - could have tremendous negative impact on the ability of journalists to report actual news as opposed to government talking points. Two months ago, the New York Times took the military to task for the excessive secrecy of the Manning proceedings:
In Private Manning’s case, the issue before the court — whether leaking classified documents can be cast as aiding the enemy — has profound civic implications. People can disagree about what should happen to government employees who do the leaking, but it makes sense that such a fundamental question be debated with as much sunlight as possible.
After multiple journalists repeatedly criticized the secrecy and demonstrated their willingness to file Freedom of Information Act lawsuits challenging the lack of transparency, the media and public finally received a copy of the judge's key ruling on the Espionage Act.

But the new-found transparency has only gone so far. Now the parties will be debating in secret how much of the trial for leaking supposed secrets should be held in secret. Tomorrow's hearing will be 90% closed, which means even the intrepid journalists who've been navigating the constantly changing rules at Ft. Meade won't be able to cover it. (Hats off to Kevin Gosztola, Alexa O'Brien, Ed Pilkington, and Nathan Fuller.)

With so much hysteria surrounding Wikileaks and the government defaulting so often toward secrecy, Judge Lind should step in and protect Manning's right to a fair trial and the public's and the press' rights to witness and report on these historic proceedings that could forever impact their First Amendment rights.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm wondering if there isn't some advantage (11+ / 0-)

    for the defense in this proceeding.  They get a preview of parts of the prosecution case.

    Thanks as always for keeping on this important story.

    “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

    by jrooth on Tue May 07, 2013 at 07:25:10 AM PDT

  •  It's a matter of how little (19+ / 0-)

    the Security State believes in our system of justice...

    A: not much.

    From here on out, no one can escape the havoc wrought by the unmitigated Class, Climate and Terror Wars.

    by Words In Action on Tue May 07, 2013 at 07:28:15 AM PDT

  •  So you're advocating an open hearing... (4+ / 0-)

    ...to determine whether the trial should be secret?  That would mean the judge accepted the defense's theory of the case from the outset, which is a fine aspirational goal for any defense team but perhaps not very realistic!

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Tue May 07, 2013 at 08:28:51 AM PDT

    •  so (7+ / 0-)

      the public doesn't get to know, and the public doesn't get to know why it doesn't get to know?  And you have no problem with that?

      What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

      by happymisanthropy on Tue May 07, 2013 at 10:05:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There would be findings at the end.... (4+ / 0-)

        ...of the hearing, I assume.  That's when we would know.  If you acknowledge that there's such a thing as official secrets, then it's hard to have a public hearing in which material is evaluated for its official-secretness.  The real agenda here, I think, is that the diarist does not acknowledge the government's right to keep anything secret at all.

        You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

        by Rich in PA on Tue May 07, 2013 at 10:30:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If it's so gol-darn secret (4+ / 0-)

          that you can't even discuss why it's secret in open court, then maybe your case shouldn't be depending on it.

          What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

          by happymisanthropy on Tue May 07, 2013 at 10:51:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Then there can't be prosecutions. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sebastianguy99, erush1345

            Of course, that's the goal of the defense and bully for them, but it's no basis for public policy.

            You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

            by Rich in PA on Tue May 07, 2013 at 11:23:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  he's (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              AoT, joe shikspack, Don midwest

              ALREADY PLEADED GUILTY to those charges which are not clearly bullshit, so your comment is nonsense.

              What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

              by happymisanthropy on Tue May 07, 2013 at 11:26:20 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Discussing why it's secret (0+ / 0-)

              and the secret itself are two different things.

              I used to run a top secret+ detachment for the AF during Vietnam and even the Bird Colonel base commander (or DCO for that matter) couldn't just walk in when he felt like it, and I was just an 0-3 Detachment Commander.  But I could explain to him why he couldn't, and really didn't want to know what I knew, once he understood that....I was a different command, a  tenant on his base, and if he was smart he would just go away and leave us alone....which he did....

              So his responsibility was to know that we had secrets.. the secrets we had were not his to know....need to know, "special" weapons and all that. Win-Win

              Without geometry, life is pointless. And blues harmonica players suck.

              by blindcynic on Tue May 07, 2013 at 11:07:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  or maybe that fool manning should never have (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            reginahny, erush1345

            dumped hundreds of thousands of unscreened data in the first place.

            the entire gist of this trial is that manning released classified information - but you think the public should see all that information to determine whether or not it should have been classified so the public can now determine whether or not to keep it from public view?  (convoluted much?)

            really - the ct on this issue is beyond the pale.

            and raddack is leading the pack in this nonsense.

            why am i not surprised...

            EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

            by edrie on Tue May 07, 2013 at 12:32:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  read the linked article's reasoning... (0+ / 0-)
            Lind's decision to hold the practice run out of public view has drawn mixed reactions from national security and legal experts. Air Force Reserve Lt. Col. David Frakt, who teaches at the University of Pittsburgh law school, called it a "great idea" for minimizing disruptions such as those at U.S. military commissions' cases involving terrorism detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Frakt defended Guantanamo detainees Mohammed Jawad and Ali Hamza al Bahlul in 2008 and 2009.
            "The judge wants the trial, when it happens, to go smoothly, and the last thing you want is some inadvertent disclosure," Frakt said.
            "What they don't want to do is to have a yo-yo effect—let the public in, send the public out, let the press in, send the press out," he said. "We have had that kind of circus atmosphere at Guantanamo, and it just looks very bad."

            Read more: Secrecy shrouds pretrial hearing in WikiLeaks case - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/...
            Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/...
            Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook

            EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

            by edrie on Tue May 07, 2013 at 03:25:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  There's a reason why trials (0+ / 0-)

              are open by default: witnesses are more likely to tell the truth, for one thing.

              Also it's harder for the prosecution to hide exculpatory evidence.

              Hell, just read Chapter 2 of James Russel Wiggins, Freedom or Secrecy (1964).  

              What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

              by happymisanthropy on Tue May 07, 2013 at 05:14:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  also (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT, greenbastard, joe shikspack, Jarrayy
          The real agenda here, I think, is that the diarist does not acknowledge the government's right to keep anything secret at all.
          Given that the defendant has already acknowledged the government's prerogative to keep secrets by pleading guilty to mishandling certain secrets, I'm not sure how you can seriously make this assertion.

          Excessive secrecy is causing orders of magnitude more harm to this country than excessive disclosure.  Manning is going to prison.  The bigger criminals are not.  Let's keep some perspective.

          What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

          by happymisanthropy on Tue May 07, 2013 at 11:34:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  richinpa - that isn't even why the hearing is (0+ / 0-)

      being closed.  the court is doing a "trial run" to see how to minimize disruptions by having the public leave when sensitive information is presented.

      this case is ABOUT "sensitive and classified" information - that people want to be able to be there to hear about it and blather on about it's import is just beyond me!

      this is more about the "expertise" of every person who has the ability to read or listen than those who actually are familiar with the total circumstance of an incident or communication.

      people here don't seem to realize that there is more to a single data file than the bytes on the computer.  situations need to be looked at in total, not in isolated bits and pieces.

      it's equivalant to saying one understands the complexity of the earth by examining one or two pepples.

      i am totally astounded by these constant postings that over-simplify complex issues.  and, the flames are then fanned by "very serious people who are known on the internet because they self-publish books and sell them and are good at promoting themselves".

      EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

      by edrie on Tue May 07, 2013 at 03:06:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Turn your head and Kafka nt (11+ / 0-)

    I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

    by JML9999 on Tue May 07, 2013 at 08:47:28 AM PDT

  •  Assange on Bradley Manning article from Monday (17+ / 0-)
    “The old media attempted to remove his alleged heroic qualities,” Assange said of Manning. “An act of heroism requires that you make a conscious act. It is not an unreasoned expression of madness or sexual frustration. It requires making a choice—a choice that others can follow. If you do something solely because you are a mad homosexual there is no choice. No one can choose to be a mad homosexual. So they stripped him, or attempted to strip him, of all his refinements.”
    “His alleged actions are a rare event,” Assange went on. “And why does a rare event happen? What do we know about him? What do we know about Bradley Manning? We know that he won three science fairs. We know the guy is bright. We know that he was interested in politics early on. We know he’s very articulate and outspoken. We know he didn’t like lies. ... We know he was skilled at his job of being an intelligence analyst. If the media was looking for an explanation they could point to this combination of his abilities and motivations. They could point to his talents and virtues. They should not point to him being gay, or from a broken home, except perhaps in passing. Ten percent of the U.S. military is gay. Well over 50 percent are from broken homes. Take those two factors together. That gets you down to, say, 5 percent—5 percent on the outside. There are 5 million people with active security clearances, so now you’re down to 250,000 people. You still have to get from 250,000 to one. You can only explain Bradley Manning by his virtues. Virtues others can learn from.”
    from the article The Death of Truth by Chris Hedges

    http://www.truthdig.com/...

    •  That article is your typical Assange garbage (4+ / 0-)

      repeating all of the old conspiracy theories and debunked claims as fact, right from the very beginning where they portray British police enforcing a British supreme court order to surrender Assange for a legally valid (reaffirmed three times by the British court system) warrant for rape (probable cause against him for the charges having been affirmed by the Swedish police, the Swedish prosecutor's office, the Svea court of appeals, and the supreme court) as "A tiny tip of the vast subterranean network of governmental and intelligence agencies".  And it just gets worse from there.Just to pick a random example out of all of the trash: (I hardly have a time to go into all five pages), here's a debunking of the "FBI stole his suitcase and computer" claim.  Heck, he even repeats the nonsense that the "Kissinger cables" were some kind of leak, rather than just Assange downloading publicly available data that journalists and biographers have been using since 2006, setting it on his own website, and calling it a new leak.  And oh, god, his remarks on the case.... no, I have to stop myself.

  •  Secret hearing was demanded by defense. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sviscusi, erush1345

    Prosecution wanted it to be open. But of course you never let the facts to get in the way of your agenda.

    •  Did you actually read the diary before (19+ / 0-)

      launching your personal attack?

      From the diary:

      The judge's secret hearing tomorrow was requested by the defense
      From you:
      Secret hearing was demanded by defense.
      From the diary:
      . . .  prosecutor Maj. Ashden Fein . . . said at Feb. 26 hearing that more than half of the government's 141 anticipated witnesses would testify about classified information, necessitating closure of up to 30 percent of the trial.
      From you:
      Prosecution wanted it to be open.
      •  What is the purpose of the diary then? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        reginahny, sebastianguy99, erush1345

        Defense demanded the hearing, it is being conducted.

        •  but but but...... DROOOONNNNNEEEEZZZZZ!!! (5+ / 2-)

          circling like flies above raddack's head telling her the gov'ment is BAAAAAD!

          i am so tired of the twisting and turning of very event (DEFENSE requested hearting...) into how the big bad government is so bad...

          Here's my experience from attending Manning's riveting testimony describing how the military tortured him:
          [italics added]

          because it is all about jesselyn all the time....

          perhaps this would be more credible if she didn't generalize so much.  WHICH journalists - name names - give cites - expand beyond the "me"

          After multiple journalists repeatedly criticized the secrecy and demonstrated their willingness to file Freedom of Information Act lawsuits challenging the lack of transparency, the media and public finally received a copy of the judge's key ruling on the Espionage Act.
          hers isn't "journalism" - it isn't even sloppy reporting - her screeds are posts with a bias that is so apparent that it proliferates in everything she writes:  government bad, government treated me badly, everybody who does anything is a victim, all those who are being tried (even when pleading out on many counts) are victims and innocent.

          her writing is so biased that any small points she might gain are overshadowed by the gross inaccuracies of her miscategorizations and accusations.

          EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

          by edrie on Tue May 07, 2013 at 12:44:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Question for you edrie: (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BradyB, Aunt Martha, CIndyCasella

            Do you ever read your sig line?  Maybe you should and not just read it but put it into practice.  It IS possible to disagree without being vicious.  Just sayin'.

            "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more." - from the prophet Jeremiah

            by 3goldens on Tue May 07, 2013 at 01:11:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  stating facts is not "vicious" - in my world, it (5+ / 0-)

              is called truth.

              i have little tolerance for those who abuse truth.  have YOU read all of her diaries?  how many do not circle back to jesselyn and her experience in the lindh case?  almost every single diary  returns to that issue (or the "whistleblower" issue which she promotes based on her own questionable behavior).

              i don't see my comment as "vicious" - believe me, if you wanted to see "vicious", i could provide it - but i don't and won't.  my comments are harsh because of the tone of her diaries, her misrepresentation and distortion of facts in this situation and others, her determination to excuse any behavior by anyone in an attempt (imho) to excuse her own lack of judgement and ethical responsibilities as a lawyer.

              ms raddack comes here almost daily with the same theme: government is bad, government can't be trusted because she says so.

              her diaries are an insult to the intelligence of the readers who disagree with her premises.  

              when i find her posts disingenuous and deceptive is my opinion - and i'll continue to express that opinon and welcome people to disgree on the facts presented both by her and by me.

              and, trust me when i say, my posts may be harsh, but they are far from "vicious".  you don't want to SEE me post vicious - and, quite frankly, neither do i.

              EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

              by edrie on Tue May 07, 2013 at 01:36:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thanks for admitting that it's all about (4+ / 0-)

                the diarist.  You're not disagreeing with the content of the diary, you're just simply engaging in personal attacks.

                •  i am disagreeing with the conspiracies ths diarist (2+ / 0-)

                  keeps pushing.  and, your hr to someone with whom you are engaging in discussion is against site rules.  again, reported.

                  EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                  by edrie on Tue May 07, 2013 at 01:43:03 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Actually, you're attacking the diarist, (6+ / 0-)

                    you have provided exactly zero evidence that she is engaging in conspiracies, you have provided no reason other than personal ones about the diarist to explain your comments about this diary, and I HRed you and then explained why I did so.  Again, it's excellent that you reported me so that your personal attacks against the diarist can be more widely seen.

                    •  perhaps you are unable to read what i continually (3+ / 0-)

                      am saying:

                      let me say it more clearly for you

                      i object to misleading misrepresentations of fact.
                      i object to manipulation of the facts to try to support previous questionable behavior of the poster.
                      i object to using this site as a bully pulpit for distorting issues based on bias.
                      i object to generalizations that would lead to questionable conclusions that are inaccurate based on facts.
                      i object to the continual attempts to group every lawbreaker as a whistleblower

                      disclaimer: someone i highly respect and call friend is a government whistleblower and was totally correct in his actions.  raddack's attempts to whitewash her own unethical behavior are an insult to those who act in good faith to correct situations within the government. raddack's actions (going to the press without full knowledge of the situation in which she intruded herself) have been used to promote her book, her popularity and her own agenda.  it is this that i find extremely troubling.

                      it is for this reason that i will challenge her premises when appropriate - and, in this situation (as others she has posted) i have challenged her veracity.  she is now a "public figure" - if she can't take the heat, she should leave the kitchen.  

                      it is sad and somewhat pathetic that she would need the "defense" of bloggers instead of returning and addressing these questions directly.  she has never once responded to any objection i have made to her posts.  nor does she respond to other critics.  why not?

                      at least, sirota would stand up and defend his position - for that, i give him credit.  raddack does these hit and run diaries then waits for others to "get her back".  

                      i have absolutely NO respect for her in regard to her assertations that all government is bad (did she think so BEFORE she took that government job and was dismissed or did this opinion come afterward? - this is a valid question, imho.)

                      many posters here have taken apart her statements over and over again - yet, there are a very few who also hold the "all government is bad" philosophy who vigorously and blindly defend that premise and her.  that is really a pity.

                      EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                      by edrie on Tue May 07, 2013 at 02:12:45 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Dear Aunt Martha, (4+ / 0-)

                  please do read what's actually written there, not what you think it says or want it to say.

                  Edrie is not engaging in personal attacks; she is expressing an opinion on the quality of the writing being put forth as "truth."

                  I realize that critical reading is not much done anymore, but try it for a time; it will open your mind and you'll learn from it.

                  There is no question that there is an unseen world. The problem is, how far is it from Midtown and how late is it open? -- Woody Allen

                  by Mnemosyne on Tue May 07, 2013 at 04:14:05 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  edrie's comments are (3+ / 0-)

              pretty much spot on in her assessment of that diarist's writing qualities.

              Radack isn't a particularly good writer, which applies to a great many people on the intertoobz. Just because you get to put your words into print does not make you a journalist.

              Inaccuracies, slanted writing, bias -- those are not journalism. And I recognize that many, perhaps most, people reading here have no idea what real reporting is, given that it is notable for its absence in American discourse of late.

              There is no question that there is an unseen world. The problem is, how far is it from Midtown and how late is it open? -- Woody Allen

              by Mnemosyne on Tue May 07, 2013 at 04:11:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  i had the great honor to work at cbs radio network (4+ / 0-)

                news - to work with the tv group, too - to work as crew on the macneil/leher newshour.

                i had the GREAT privilege to sit beside douglas edwards, sing our school song together with charles kuralt, arrange an interview with nureyev for reid collins, ALMOST become walter cronkite's personal assistant when he retired (but he wanted someone who could commit more than two years), to do research for special events, to sit with the editors and writers in that newsroom.

                i was the "stringer" (unpaid) reporting on the drunk who drove through the st paddy's parade in ny, stopped rather from saying that jim brady had died when all the other networks reported prematurely on his "death".

                i take "news" and "journalism" very seriously because i've seen it.  as a tem administrative assistant with cbs, i also had to read and sign the standards and practices manual - and, over the years, got to work in that newsroom for multiple vps, directors, etc.

                i love the news and i love the INTEGRITY of reporting.  that is why i give raddack hell for her lack of objectivity masked as "reporting".  make it an opinion piece and leave it at that - i'll still challenge the premise... just as i gave sirota hell for his misrepresentation of situations like the video ambushing and excoriation of dave obey in the halls of congress by tina whosywhatsit.

                truth is all we have to preserve a free society.  truth can be backed up with facts from multiple sources, tripled checked and verified and reported without coloration.

                that is why i don't remain silent.

                EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                by edrie on Tue May 07, 2013 at 04:26:08 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  HRed. (0+ / 0-)

            If you want to disagree with the diarist, it's quite possible to do so without all the personal attacks.

        •  Again, from the diary: (0+ / 0-)
          The judge's secret hearing tomorrow was requested by the defense after

              . . .  prosecutor Maj. Ashden Fein . . . said at Feb. 26 hearing that more than half of the government's 141 anticipated witnesses would testify about classified information, necessitating closure of up to 30 percent of the trial.

          •  if the hearing is "secret", then how does raddack (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            erush1345, Rei, reginahny

            or you, for that matter, know it is happening.

            this is a classic example of what i am objecting to in these diaries - all diaries - that use inflammatory words to color the subject being discussed.

            the hearing is CLOSED - a far cry from "secret".  it is being held within an environment that is not open to the public - there are transcripts, lawyers, court reporters (as in transcription) and others who will be present.

            the determination whether or not this information should be released for public perview will be made by the courts.

            or,

            are you suggesting we do away with the legal system entirely?  perhaps we should get rid of all government, too?

            we have a process for examining evidence and material - and it is NOT "secret".

            the use of the term "secret" implies the secret arrests, imprisonment, etc. of other regimes - and, yes, even with the bush administration.

            this is NOT the same, no matter how much raddack tries to make it so.  

            and, if you are defending her deliberate misrepresentation of what is happening, you need to seriously consider your own motivation here.

            EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

            by edrie on Tue May 07, 2013 at 02:50:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  the defenders of raddack are back... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          reginahny

          and it's a shame.  credibility has more to do with facts, imho.

          after searching and reading that ap article on another source than the one linked, i was highly amused to find that the ap reporter quotes raddack liberally (well, in quantity sense, that is) and he starts out saying that the government "secrecy" is at an all time high - then goes on to discredit his own premise with the statements from lt. col. david frakt, who teaches law in univ. of pittsburgh:

          Lind's decision to hold the practice run out of public view has drawn mixed reactions from national security and legal experts. Air Force Reserve Lt. Col. David Frakt, who teaches at the University of Pittsburgh law school, called it a "great idea" for minimizing disruptions such as those at U.S. military commissions' cases involving terrorism detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Frakt defended Guantanamo detainees Mohammed Jawad and Ali Hamza al Bahlul in 2008 and 2009.
          "The judge wants the trial, when it happens, to go smoothly, and the last thing you want is some inadvertent disclosure," Frakt said.
          "What they don't want to do is to have a yo-yo effect—let the public in, send the public out, let the press in, send the press out," he said. "We have had that kind of circus atmosphere at Guantanamo, and it just looks very bad."

          Read more: Secrecy shrouds pretrial hearing in WikiLeaks case - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/...
          Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/...
          Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook

          um... the reporter can't have it both ways - he can report differing opinions, using raddack and the law prof., but he crosses the line when he interjects his opinion into the article.

          sloppy writing and sloppy reporting in what was, otherwise, a fairly okay article, imho.  

          EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

          by edrie on Tue May 07, 2013 at 03:12:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  where did you get that? (3+ / 0-)

      Prosecution never wanted the hearing at all, I don't see anything saying they wanted it to be open.

      What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

      by happymisanthropy on Tue May 07, 2013 at 11:11:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Defense requested the hearing and wanted it (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        reginahny, erush1345

        to be secret. Yeah, prosecution didn't want it at all.

      •  the "CLOSED hearing" is an attempt to work (0+ / 0-)

        out the manner in which material will be introduced at trial.  it is described as a "dry run" to see how to present classified and sensitive information without having to clear the courtroom repeatedly.

        the CLOSED hearing is on procedure and how not to disrupt the flow of the trial.

        but you'd never know that from reading this diary.  and, more's the pity in that the article that describes why this hearing is being held at the defendant's request is well known to raddack.  she quotes it.  she is quoted IN it.

        so MY question directly to jesselyn

        WHY are you deliberately misleading in your content if you are aware of why this hearing is being conducted?  you were a lawyer.  you know courtroom procedure.  you know that the manner in which evidence is presented is often worked out in camera.

        WHY are you misrepresenting this information here, ms raddack?

        EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

        by edrie on Tue May 07, 2013 at 03:16:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Hippity-hoppity (4+ / 0-)

    Looking more and more like a kangaroo court.  Leaps to judgement and a secret pouch.

    One step removed from a military commission.

    50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

    by TarheelDem on Tue May 07, 2013 at 10:25:25 AM PDT

  •  Not quite sure about this. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thestructureguy, TooFolkGR

    The relevant statute is 10 USC § 949p–6 (Procedure for cases involving classified information) which requires that a judge hold an in camera (closed to the public) hearing for determining to what extent classified material will appear in the trial, what needs to be done in private, what can be safely redacted, etc. when requested by a formal declaration of the possibility of disclosure (which is what happened here.)  I don't see any evidence that this is unprecedented, given that the statute outlines this procedure pretty clearly.

    That being said, so much of the Manning trial has been frustratingly secretive and, as far as I can tell, off the rails as far as the unusual circumstances of his detention have gone.  Your diary is (as usual) a bit of a mess, but I second this quote you pulled from the NYTimes:

    People can disagree about what should happen to government employees who do the leaking, but it makes sense that such a fundamental question be debated with as much sunlight as possible.
    Amen to that.

    Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

    by pico on Tue May 07, 2013 at 11:00:26 AM PDT

    •  the problem with this case is that manning (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      reginahny, erush1345

      dumped hundreds of thousands of unscreened data files - those are the issue - what was classifed - what has to be held from public eye - that can't be determined in an open hearing...

      AND that is the crux of the case against manning.

      people like jesselyn, people with an underlying agenda, only muddy the waters by attempting to torque this to fit her own personal grudge agenda based on her releasing sealed court documents to a reporter.

      if she can vindicate others who do the same, perhaps she feels this will somehow vindicate her own serious lack of judgement and ethics.

      i'd like to see a discussion of the manning issue lead by someone who isn't already tainted and who doesn't push a narcissistic viewpoint as a shell to what is happening.

      sadly, due to her self-involvement in this issue, i'm thinking many of us who would like to participate more in the discussion of the manning trial are simply avoiding it.

      negative impact from a biased poster has those effects, imho.

      EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

      by edrie on Tue May 07, 2013 at 12:49:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  For what it's worth: (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        erush1345, edrie, reginahny

        1. With the caveat that this is an informal, I-don't-have-all-the-evidence comment, I think Manning is probably guilty, and probably will be found guilty;
        2. I think the circumstances of his detention have been unjustifiable and troubling, and ought to be publicized as much as possible;
        3. My beef with Jesselyn isn't her advocacy or her motivations, but the consistent and sometimes misleading sloppiness of her work, and that's as far as I want to take it.

        Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

        by pico on Tue May 07, 2013 at 01:48:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Media credentials (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joe shikspack, 3goldens, Don midwest

    On Twitter, a week or so ago, I saw some things about how the requirements for media credentials were going to change for the Manning trial. I got the impression that Alexa O'Brien was not going to be able to go to Ft. Meade.  Is this true and is Keven going to be able to attend?


    "Justice is a commodity"

    by joanneleon on Tue May 07, 2013 at 11:18:52 AM PDT

  •  The UCMJ is NOT like civilian law (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    edrie, sebastianguy99, erush1345

    Nor should it be. Manning signed away many civilian rights when he signed up for the Army. This has been ruled on many times.

    I support secret hearings in this case absolutely. IT deals with classified information. It must be held in secret and again, this has been ruled on many times.

    As far as Manning goes, I do not think he will be punished enough for his crimes against his nation. The man is as guilty as any other spy and deserves life in prison at best.

    That's my opinion of this fiasco and the smarmy spy who all too many are all too quick to idolize.

    •  Ah, the UCMJ. So should Manning be freed (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RF, joe shikspack, 3goldens

      since the UCMJ says Manning should have gotten a trial within 4 months, not two years?

      http://usmilitary.about.com/...

      "In most cases, imposing pretrial confinement "starts the clock." After imposing pretrial confinement, the command must usually bring the case to trial within 120 days, or risk having the case overturned on appeal."

      •  What's the statute itself say? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NT Toons

        "In most cases" sounds like a giant loophole, so I'm curious what the actual text is.

        For me the really damning one is 10 USC § 813.13:

        No person, while being held for trial, may be subjected to punishment or penalty other than arrest or confinement upon the charges pending against him, nor shall the arrest or confinement imposed upon him be any more rigorous than the circumstances require to insure his presence, but he may be subjected to minor punishment during that period for infractions of discipline.
        If even a fraction of the reports are true, I don't know how this hasn't been violated repeatedly.

        Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

        by pico on Tue May 07, 2013 at 01:39:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  the idea that any member of the service with (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      reginahny, Walt starr, erush1345

      access to a computer can "decide" to release unscreened data because...

      do we actually KNOW the "because"?  i've read his transcripted phone conversations and it isn't clear at all why he did this.

      then we get raddack and her one-trick-pony GOVERNMENT IS BAAD! postings that further muck up the waters.

      i'd like to see a diary or series of diaries actually follow this trial and the real issues without the melodrama inserted by raddack and her followers.  that's the real pity here - the real issues aren't being examined at all here... just the raddackization of the issue.

      EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

      by edrie on Tue May 07, 2013 at 12:53:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So you agree (0+ / 0-)

        that exposing war crimes is a worse crime than committing war crimes?

        What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

        by happymisanthropy on Tue May 07, 2013 at 02:44:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  so, do YOU agree that exposing over 700,000 (0+ / 0-)

          data files without reviewing them is egregious?

          what is your philosophy on this - that a broken clock is right twice a day?

          and, how about the damage and harm done by the other 699,998 files that were released without consideration?

          EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

          by edrie on Tue May 07, 2013 at 03:20:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  breaking the rules (0+ / 0-)

            is the only way any information worth knowing can escape from the black hole.

            My philosophy is that Manning should be prosecuted for leaking and treated like other leakers.  Singling him out for extraordinary treatment because he embarrassed the criminals is insulting to the concept of democratic governance.

            What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

            by happymisanthropy on Tue May 07, 2013 at 03:38:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  i don't think he was singled out for embarrassing (0+ / 0-)

              anyone - he leaked over 700,000 to a person he knew would publish the entirety online without screening.

              that, to me, is huge.

              he put lives at risk, endangered relations between this nation and our allies, he did serious damage that we may not fully understand for decades.

              the limited "trust" between allies has been damaged seriously - and, quite frankly, i WANT that communication open so that we can prevent future conflict before it occurs.

              these weren't just "breaking the rules" - manning engaged in a serious, damaging release of classified information in spite of his own oath to refrain from doing so.

              had he sent specific files to members of the military or to congress, i might be more tolerant, HOWEVER, it was the manner in which he chose to release these files without considering the consequences of his actions.

              EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

              by edrie on Tue May 07, 2013 at 03:43:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  asdf (0+ / 0-)
                he put lives at risk, endangered relations between this nation and our allies, he did serious damage that we may not fully understand for decades.
                We won't fully understand the benefits of his actions either.  And since the military industrial complex always overstates the danger of excessive disclosure by at least a hundredfold, I'm confident the good will vastly exceed the bad.
                 
                the limited "trust" between allies has been damaged seriously - and, quite frankly, i WANT that communication open so that we can prevent future conflict before it occurs.
                If we're lying to our allies, then they shouldn't trust us.  If other countries are more skeptical of Niger documents next time around, that's an objectively good thing.
                these weren't just "breaking the rules" - manning engaged in a serious, damaging release of classified information in spite of his own oath to refrain from doing so.
                Speaking about the leak in 2010, then Defense Secretary Robert Gates seemed to agree, saying: "Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest."
                If even a made man calls it "fairly modest," I'm going with that over unspecified unsubstantiated assertions.
                had he sent specific files to members of the military or to congress, i might be more tolerant, HOWEVER, it was the manner in which he chose to release these files without considering the consequences of his actions.
                What good would that do?  The beast is not going to discipline itself, and congress is totally useless when it comes to reining in the military-industrial complex.

                Oh, and FWIW Manning did talk to his chain of command about his concerns before going public.  It went nowhere.

                What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

                by happymisanthropy on Tue May 07, 2013 at 04:44:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  your post has many troubling aspects here. (0+ / 0-)

                  first off, the lt. col. was not a "made man", as you so refer.  that is, as i am sure you well know, an expression for a mafia killer.  it is insulting and offensive to the highest degree.

                  as for "lying to our allies" - some of those correspondences contained private comments made not to our allies but about our allies.  have you NEVER said anything about another person privately that expressed frustration and anger?  really?  not every word is supposed to be spread across the front page of the media.

                  and why won't we understand how his behavior and actions affect the situation in a war zone?  well, duh, because we are NOT in a position to have ALL the facts!  i don't want anyone who goes off half-cocked with a smattering of knowledge making decisions that cause harm to others.  bloated self-importance can kill people when indescriminately acted on.

                  and, on that note, quite frankly, i do NOT want uninformed sofa sitters deciding they are in a position of knowledge to decide what should and should not be considered classified information.  (referring to the jerk, assange, here)

                  if you think nothing should ever be private, then perhaps you'd not object to the release of all your bank, medical, personal files to be published on the internet for everyone to speculate what they mean.

                  just because the internet exists, it is NOT a reason to think everything should be posted on it.

                  so, manning didn't get his attention he wanted - that justifies releasing unscreened files to the friggin' internet?

                  i find this line of reasoning totally beyond comprehension.

                  EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                  by edrie on Tue May 07, 2013 at 05:08:04 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  jkl; (0+ / 0-)
                    first off, the lt. col. was not a "made man", as you so refer.  that is, as i am sure you well know, an expression for a mafia killer.  it is insulting and offensive to the highest degree.
                    The person quoted was the Secretary of Defense, not some lieutenant colonel.  And the military-industrial complex hasn't gotten less corrupt since General Butler accurately described war as a racket.
                    as for "lying to our allies" - some of those correspondences contained private comments made not to our allies but about our allies.  have you NEVER said anything about another person privately that expressed frustration and anger?  really?  not every word is supposed to be spread across the front page of the media.
                    The world's a tough place.  They'll get over it.  The idea that a country will forgive trade policies that drive their farmers to suicide, but will hold a grudge forever about calling their ambassador fat, is not worth serious contemplation.
                    and why won't we understand how his behavior and actions affect the situation in a war zone?  well, duh, because we are NOT in a position to have ALL the facts!  i don't want anyone who goes off half-cocked with a smattering of knowledge making decisions that cause harm to others.  bloated self-importance can kill people when indescriminately acted on.
                    The soldiers on patrol don't have all the facts either, yet we allow them to literally kill people.  Real deaths, not theoretical ones.  How can that be acceptable, if killing people can get people killed?

                    You don't seem to have addressed my point, either.

                    and, on that note, quite frankly, i do NOT want uninformed sofa sitters deciding they are in a position of knowledge to decide what should and should not be considered classified information.  (referring to the jerk, assange, here)
                    I agree, Assange seems to be a jerk.  However, as public information has become a strictly adversarial matter, with the Pentagon wanting to feed the public as many lies and as little true information as possible, I'm not horribly offended if there's one deeply imperfect person in the entire goddamned planet fighting for the opposite extreme position.

                    Remember the New York Fucking Times sitting on the story of unconstitutional warrantless wiretapping until after the 2004 election?  Good times.

                    if you think nothing should ever be private, then perhaps you'd not object to the release of all your bank, medical, personal files to be published on the internet for everyone to speculate what they mean.
                    Strawman.
                    just because the internet exists, it is NOT a reason to think everything should be posted on it.
                    Strawman.  
                    so, manning didn't get his attention he wanted - that justifies releasing unscreened files to the friggin' internet?
                    I'm not Brad Manning, so I can't answer what kind of attention he might or might not have wanted.  But I do feel strongly that anyone who sees evidence of war crimes and has no effective means to ensure their timely prosecution does have an obligation to do whatever he can to stop or minimize future war crimes.  That would include the public embarrassment of those who refuse to stop the war crimes.
                    i find this line of reasoning totally beyond comprehension.
                    And I find incomprehensible the reasoning that an individual soldier should quietly accept war crimes as long as their chain of command approves.  The oath is to defend the constitution, and then to uphold the laws.  Obeying orders is tertiary.

                    What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

                    by happymisanthropy on Tue May 07, 2013 at 06:06:36 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  ad hoc (0+ / 0-)

            "exposing over 700,000 data files without reviewing them is egregious"

            People keep saying this like it means something.  Manning is just one guy, which is why he went to responsible organizations to actually vet the documents before releasing them.  First he went to the mainstream press like the New York Times and the Washington Post.  After they ignored him, he went to Wikileaks, who did review and redact the files.

            And Manning was revealing war crimes.  Where's the prosecution of Dick Cheney for leaking Valerie Plame's covert status "indiscriminately"?  And Manning leaked files classified Secret.  Where are the indictments of high level officials from the Obama Administration and New York Times staff for publication of Top Secret information?

  •  oh, good grief! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    erush1345, reginahny

    the article linked in the diary has massive quotes by raddack in the interview, yet the very article explains quite succinctly WHY this closed hearing is being held.

    An unidentified prosecution witness will testify during that closed hearing in a "dry run." Defense attorneys say that could allow the judge to find ways to avoid closing the courtroom to the public during the presentation of classified evidence. Lind and attorneys for both sides have suggested there are a number of options to shield sensitive material, including closing parts of the trial; redacting documents; using written summaries as evidence to omit sensitive details; or even using code words for classified information.

    [snip]

    Lind's decision to hold the practice run out of public view has drawn mixed reactions from national security and legal experts. Air Force Reserve Lt. Col. David Frakt, who teaches at the University of Pittsburgh law school, called it a "great idea" for minimizing disruptions such as those at U.S. military commissions' cases involving terrorism detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Frakt defended Guantanamo detainees Mohammed Jawad and Ali Hamza al Bahlul in 2008 and 2009.

    Read more: Secrecy shrouds pretrial hearing in WikiLeaks case - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/...
    Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/...
    Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook

    the whole "secrecy" meme by this ap reporter seems to come from one source:  raddack.

    the explanation why the closed hearing is being held isn't to keep the public out as much as it is to try to find a way to keep the trial from unnecessary disruptions (something, btw, that would also be detrimental to manning in his trial).

    700,000 files released indescriminately to wikileaks - without considering the consequences to what might be contained within those files, such as - names of informants, people on the other side that are "friendly" to america and who might help with ending the conflict.  information that might cause diplomatic disruptions between america and her allies (and, did, btw).

    and THIS is who folks are defending on this site?  for WHAT?

    so every person, whether qualified by having ALL the information in a situation or not, could sit at pruiently examine everything written and done by everyone?

    if that's the case, the next time someone needs brain surgery, call me.  i'm not trained, but i'm sure i can find a manual online somewhere...

    EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

    by edrie on Tue May 07, 2013 at 03:01:49 PM PDT

  •  exactly how is this relevant? (0+ / 0-)

    it is bizarre to see this in the diary - and, frankly, i don't give a crap about jesselyn's "feminine products" - that quote is totally irrelevant to this issue AND why i find her diaries disturbing.  it is NOT always about her "feminine products" - it is about the manning trial, the court procedures, etc.

    sheesh!

    Spectators are not allowed to shift too much in their seats, unwrap anything in plastic, or turn the pages of their notebooks too loudly. The bailiff reads a statement before each proceeding that "the public is encouraged to attend" the Court Martial proceedings, but the conditions are hardly welcoming. (The only bathroom is a glorified porta potty.) The security rules change daily - sometimes you are wanded before entering, sometimes not; sometimes you are allowed to wait outside the courtroom, sometimes you are forced to line up; sometimes they dig through your purse with the gusto of my kids looking for an extra $10, sometimes they take a quick glance. My personal favorite is when they counted the pills in every single prescription bottle I had. My feminine products stopped the detailed mole hunt pretty quickly though. [emphasis added]
     

    EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

    by edrie on Tue May 07, 2013 at 03:33:47 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site