And Justice For All?

Originally published January 21, 2013

Just to be perfectly clear, I’m not a lawyer. My approach is to examine what I personally consider to be misconduct based on a layman’s interpretation of the existing legal standards and nothing more. Only a legal expert (lawyer, judge, etc.) would be qualified to determine whether an illegal act or one which constitutes misconduct has actually occurred.

That said, there have been several high profile cases in the news recently which are closely connected to demands for transparency and freedom of access to information and where corruption of our judicial system appears to be in the works.

1. Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, the site which leaks information provided by whistleblowers and/or hackers from around the world. Mr. Assange has not been charged with any crime;
2. Bradley Manning, charged with providing secret information to WikiLeaks;
3. Jeremy Hammond, charges related to the Stratfor hack; and
4. Aaron Swartz, charges related to the MIT/JSTOR hack; Mr. Swartz allegedly committed suicide and the charges against him have since been withdrawn.

 The specific charges don’t really matter in this context. What matters is how each of these cases are being/were handled by the Prosecution and/or Judge involved.

Julian Assange

In between WikiLeaks first major public release of data and their second major public release of data, Mr. Assange was investigated for alleged and very minor sex “crimes”. Acts so minor that they would not be considered crimes in most other countries and which rest almost entirely on personal testimony rather than objective, verifiable evidence. Mr. Assange was interviewed while in Sweden regarding those claims, no charges were laid and Mr. Assange’s freedom to leave Sweden was not restricted.

I could get into the sheer stupidity of these particular laws which allowed this situation to occur but I’m going to leave that alone for now. Anyone who knows the specifics knows how completely idiotic this entire thing is from start to finish. All I can say is that I strongly suggest that any male visiting Sweden not make the mistake of having sex there. Seriously.

Around the time of the second major leak, while Mr. Assange was in London, UK, the Prosecutor claimed that a second interview was required. Mr. Assange agreed to the interview but wanted to remain in the UK and either conduct it through a video feed or have the Prosecutor come to the UK to conduct it.

Mr. Assange was well within his rights to make such a request and the acceptance or denial of the request was a matter of Prosecutorial discretion. That is the prosecutor could have acceded to the request but wasn’t required to by law.

The Prosecutor exercised their discretion by insisting that the interview had to be conducted in Sweden but provided no explanation as to why this was necessary.

Meanwhile, it was discovered through the Stratfor hack that a Grand Jury had met in the US and had secretly indicted Mr. Assange.

The only reasonable conclusion one can come to which might explain the Prosecutor’s refusal to accede to the reasonable accommodations requested by Julian Assange, is that Sweden has agreed to extradite him to the US to face the charges laid against him there.

Is this Prosecutorial misconduct? And on what grounds?

“Prosecutorial misconduct is conduct which violates court rules or ethical standards of law practice.” (See detailed definitions at the end of the post).

In my opinion, if Sweden is using Prosecutorial discretion as their means of trying to get Julian Assange back to Sweden on false grounds (the allegations made against him for which he hasn’t been charged) and in order to act against him by extraditing him to the US it certainly would “violate …  the ethical standards of law practice”.

In order to restore the confidence in and perception of justice of the Swedish legal system all the Swedish Prosecutor has to do is interview Assange by video from the Ecuadorian Embassy and then either charge him or close the investigation.

The misconduct here and potential for further misconduct is patently obvious if they continue to refuse this reasonable and simple solution.

Bradley Manning
(Note: At the time I wrote this, Chelsea Manning was using her birth name, Bradley and birth gender. It wasn't until much later that she requested her gender transition be recognized).

Bradley Manning, a member of the US military, was arrested and charged with allegedly leaking secret information to WikiLeaks.

He was held in what can only be described as tortuous conditions for nine months between, July 2010 and April 2011. He continues to be held without bail and awaiting trial. He was arrested in May, 2010 and his trial will begin in June, 2013 after pre-trial hearings in February, 2013 are complete. (Trial Date Correction. 2013.01.23)

In this case Prosecutorial discretion was invoked in determining the charges which, according to the defense amounted to an attempt to intimidate Mr. Manning into testifying against Julian Assange by overcharging him based on overstating the alleged harm that occurred.

According to the Prosecution it’s perfectly acceptable to exaggerate charges and keep someone in prison without bail for approximately 2 years and 7 months. It will be over 3 years by the time the case is finally heard. A final ruling on whether the case will be dismissed on the grounds that it violates Manning's right to a speedy trial will be made at the end of February. (Correction based on new information)

Are these the “ethical standards of law practice” that the US commonly adheres to or are they simply acceptable depending on who the defendant is?

Jeremy Hammond

Jeremy Hammond’s case is perhaps the clearest of all.

Mr. Hammond was charged for the Stratfor hack.

Ironically, the Trial Judge was the spouse of a Stratfor client who has apparently and to date refused to recuse herself from the case. She insists it be dealt with in court.

If this Trial Judge does not recuse herself, in my opinion, it will be a clear and obvious case of Judicial Misconduct for which she should be removed from the bench.

“The recusal of a judge may be requested:

Where he himself or his spouse has a personal interest in the dispute;”

(See detailed definitions at the end of the post).

 Aaron Swartz

Aaron Swartz is the saddest of all.

Mr. Swartz was charged with the JSTOR/MIT hack.

According to his family, Mr. Swartz was pursued by the Prosecution to such a degree that he committed suicide. Apparently this is the second Hacker this particular Prosecutor has driven to suicide.

The fact that two of this Prosecutor’s defendants met the same fate says a lot about how he handles his cases and defendants in general. And while it’s possible that this isn’t technically considered misconduct one has to wonder why it's not acceptable to do the following to witnesses and is considered misconduct:

“Threatening, badgering or tampering with witnesses;”

But it’s apparently okay to do that to the defendant? How is one an “ethical standard of law practice.” and the other not?

One of the most basic premises in law is supposed to be “presumed innocent until proven guilty” so how do we rationalize treating defendants like criminals before they’ve been convicted, or in the case of Julian Assange before he’s even been charged with anything?

“Any person charged with an offence has the right ... to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.” --Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Definitions ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presumption of Innocence

A legal presumption that benefits a defendant in a criminal case and which results in acquittal in the event that the prosecutor does not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Any person charged with an offence has the right ... to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.

Rule of Law Definition:

That individuals, persons and government shall submit to, obey and be regulated by law, and not arbitrary action by an individual or a group of individuals.

Due Process Definition:

Fundamental procedural legal safeguards of which every citizen has an absolute right when a state or court purports to take a decision that could affect any right of that citizen.

Prosecutorial Discretion:

Discretionary powers exercised by the government's prosecution service such as whether to prosecute charge recommended by police, to stay an ongoing proceeding, plea bargaining, or the taking over of a private prosecution.

Prosecutorial Misconduct:

Prosecutorial misconduct is conduct which violates court rules or ethical standards of law practice. Examples, among others, may include:

Courtroom misconduct (making improper remarks or improperly introducing evidence designed to prejudice the jury: violating rules regarding selection of the jury; or making improper closing arguments);
Hiding, destroying or tampering with evidence, case files or court records;
Failing to disclose evidence that might tend to exonerate the defendant
Threatening, badgering or tampering with witnesses;
Presenting false or misleading evidence;
Selective or vindictive prosecution
Denial of a speedy trial rights
Use of unreliable and untruthful witnesses and snitches

Judicial Misconduct

Conduct on the part of a judge that is prohibited and which could lead to a form of discipline.

.... conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts, or (an inability) to discharge all the duties of office by reason of mental or physical disability.

(A) judge's conduct must be free from impropriety and the appearance of impropriety and that both his official and personal behavior be in accordance with the highest standard society can expect. The standard of conduct is higher than expected of lay people and also higher than that expected of attorneys. The ultimate standard must be conduct which constantly reaffirms fitness for the high responsibilities of judicial office, and judges must so comport themselves as to dignify the administration of justice and deserve the confidence and respect of the public.

Examples:

The use of a harsh and angry tone and demeanor,
Excessive arrogance,
Lack of impartiality,
Incompetence,
Improper political or even charitable or fund-raising activities,
Sexually harassing conduct,
Off-the-record, private communication with a litigant about a pending case,
Criminal conduct,
Conflict of interest,
An ethnic or racial slur,
Physical or mental disability,
Bankruptcy or insolvency,
Misuse of prestige of office,
Allowing cameras in the courtroom,
Receiving a bribe or gift from a litigant,
Making it public comment on a pending case or which shows prejudgment
Failure to recuse oneself in an appropriate case, and
Administrative mismanagement such as a failure to render a judgment in a reasonable amount of time.

Recusal

The recusal of a judge may be requested:

    Where he himself or his spouse has a personal interest in the dispute;

    Where he himself or his spouse is the creditor, debtor, presumed heir or donee of one of the parties;

    Where he himself or his spouse is related by blood or marriage with one of the parties or his or her spouse up to the fourth degree of kinship inclusive;

    Where there have been or have proceedings between himself or his spouse and with one of the parties or his or her spouse;

    Where he has, previously, had knowledge of the matter in the capacity of a judge or arbitrator or where the has counseled one of the parties;

    Where the judge or his spouse is entrusted of the administration of the property of one of the parties;

    Where there exists a link of subordination between the judge or his spouse and one of the parties or his or her spouse;

    Where there has been a notorious friendship or enmity between the judge and one of the parties....

"The party who wishes to recuse a judge shall have, on pain of inadmissibility, to do so as soon as he has knowledge of a ground of recusal.

"In no case may the request for recusal be made after the end of the oral arguments."

All of the above definitions are American. However, since American and Canadian law is somewhat based on British law I don’t expect the definitions to differ too greatly between countries nor have I bothered to check.

These definitions are intended to be nothing more than a general guide to this discussion.

A New Year and a New Era of Civil Rights

This blog post was originally posted on New Years Eve, 2012 for 2013. I believe that my comments are as relevant today as they were then, so I've decided that it's worth repeating my post this year. Hope you agree. In my opinion, humanity is standing on the precipice of something very significant, very new and as yet undefined. I believe that this New Civil Rights movement is the inspiration for the launch of the new. Added some additional points.

The last few years have been interesting ones for those of us who are paying attention to what is going on around us.

There has been a rising tide of mass movements around the world, the core demands of which have centered on rights irrespective of the political orientations of various groups, left, right or middle.

There has also been an opposing trend from the wealthy elites and the governments and states which they have purchased through corruption and the undermining of democratic processes. This trend has focused on repressive legislations, violent suppression of and criminalization of legitimate dissent and dissenters as well as criminal collusion between government and corporations to rob the taxpayer.

Robert F. Kennedy once said:

“It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a [person] stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope.”

American history is resplendent with great men and women who provided this type of inspiration to their populace and encouraged every man and woman to stand up against tyranny and injustice. The Constitution was designed to ensure the will of the people over-rode the will of the government or political, social, corporate elites.

The European Rationalists from the historic Age of Reason: Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau, Newton stood on the shoulders of the great Greek rational thinkers of ancient times and had much in common with Carvaka, an Indian atheist and materialist philosopher from the 7th century BCE. 

Inspired by the Rationalists came Americans like Thomas Paine who in turn inspired the American Revolution and Americas Founding Fathers.

It’s on the shoulders of people like these great men and women of the past, that the 1960s civil rights movement was born and now this new era of Civil Rights has been born. 

It’s those who have taken up the new flag of liberty that has been handed to them from those echoes of our past that are the strength and foundation of the Civil Rights era of the new millennium. People like Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Jacob Appelbaum, Bradley Manning, Barrett Brown, Anonymous, WikiLeaks, Occupy, Idle No More and many others. 

Not all on the list are known individuals. Some are nameless, faceless, and leaderless and this has become a key and component part of this New Civil Rights era.

Perhaps that’s because we learned not to idolize individuals or perhaps it’s because we know that our leaders will be targeted to destroy and disrupt our mass movements.

It doesn’t really matter why this new type of mass movement came into being except perhaps to some Ivory Tower academics.

What matters is that it has happened and with it has come the concept that it’s the issues not the political spectrum one belongs to that matters. This is the second key and component part of this New Civil Rights era.

The issues were nicely outlined in the recent CypherPunks book, CypherPunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet by Julian Assange with Jacob Appelbaum, Andy Muller-Maguhn and Jeremie Zimmermann.

While segments of all of these movements push for specific interests, all of their causes and issues whether they are environmental, social, etc. can be boiled down to issues of Freedom and Civil Rights, when one examines why these problems are occurring. The specifics of this are for another blog post.

There are two aspects to this battle:

1. Legitimate dissent, that is the promotion of these issues and the lobby/public pressure for solutions
2. The right to engage in this legitimate dissent

Both aspects are under attack by the Corporacrats/wealthy elites and the governments/states that they have purchased through treasonous (dictionary  not legal definition) means like buying politicians and political parties as well as undermining democratic processes and our Constitutions around the globe.

trea·son noun \ˈtrē-zən\ : the crime of trying to overthrow your country's government or of helping your country's enemies during war. 

Full Definition of TREASON
1 :  the betrayal of a trust :  treachery
2 :  the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

Now, I can’t speak for anyone else but I consider active interference in elections (like that which Hillary Clinton engaged as demonstrated by her emails) to get certain people or parties elected an attempt to “overthrow the government”. I think one “betrays one’s country” when one advocates for and represents special interests (both internal and external) at the expense of the Canadian people and when one is elected for the purpose of representing the Canadian people. It’s also fraudulent misrepresentation. I consider this a criminal act and those who engage in this should not be above the law simply because they are members of the wealthy elite or corporatocracy or have been bought by them.

In fact, I would like to see the legal definition of Treason changed around the world, to one that is along the same lines as the dictionary definition.

So, we are walking into an era which is marked by the treasonous overthrow of numerous governments by people who are betraying our countries with impunity and using those illegal governments that they purchased to suppress legitimate dissent which is drawing attention to the other criminal acts being committed against us.

Criminal acts such as stealing billions of dollars of hard-earned tax payer funds to line the pockets of the corporate/wealthy elites in the form of corporate welfare, while impoverishing the tax payers further through the theft of funds from the social safety net and pensions; allowing the corporacrats and wealthy elites to rob the tax payer by engaging in billions of dollars worth of tax evasion with impunity; State/government criminal collusion with the corporatocracy to manipulate the economy, banks, etc. with impunity; inteference in the financial matters of citizens on the false grounds that everyone is a potential terrorist/criminal; illegal and criminal invasions into and the disruption of the lives of innocent citizens; etc. etc. etc.

Of course the corporatocracy wants to prevent legitimate dissent and exposure of these criminal acts. The only way they can do that is to ensure that the governments/states that they have bought and paid for implement repressive measures on the false grounds of terrorism and use those false grounds to silence those voices of dissent through both legal and illegal means. Much like they did during the COINTEL PRO (US) and RCMP Red Squad wrongdoings (Canada) eras. The strategies developed by these corrupt programs are being reintroduced again. 

This was most obvious during the G8/G20 Summits in Toronto, Ontario, Canada and the actions taken against demonstrators there as well as the treatment of Occupiers in Oakland, California, US.

Whether one agreed with the demonstrators or not, the violations of civil rights committed by JIG (Joint Investigations Group) and the Provincial Liberals, under the authority of the Canadian State and those committed by the Oakland Police/FBI under the authority of the American state, were shocking to say the least and reminiscent of a fascist police state.

The detention of at least one member of the US Military on false claims of alleged “mental illness” for simply writing a rational and coherent statement of dissent shows that our states/governments are sinking to new lows and showing more than just one sign of moving towards open world-wide fascism.

The treatments of Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Jeremy Hammond, Aaron Schwartz, Bradley Manning, Barrett Brown, et al (the list grows longer by the day) by various governments indicates an International criminal collusion of fascism and highlights the fact that these are global and not regional issues.

The apparently coordinated efforts to pass legislation similar to the NDAA and SOPA/ACTA in numerous countries around the world as well as at the international level (TPP/TISA) are also an indication that this is a global issue and not a regional one.

The malicious persecution of hundreds of thousands of innocent individuals around the globe some of whom are whistle-blowers, social activists, inventors and many of whom are people who have no idea why they’ve been targeted for this abuse is another sign. 

The strategies used in these cases are ones that were developed by organizations like the German Stasi and the KKK. They have been updated and refined by organizations like Palantir, HBGary, etc. This is the case no matter what methods are used involving illegal acts by corporations producing these often experimental technologies involving intentional medical malpractice and murder by physicians and sometimes other parts of the health system, psyops involving intentional psychiatric malpractice by psychiatrists, gaslighting, disinformation and smear campaigns often involving illegal and criminal acts by state personnel, civil servants, elected officials, etc. and much more. The medical, psychiatric personnel and public servants engaging in these activities as well as torture in places like Guantanomo are violating their ethics and responsibility towards citizens.

These are the reasons that this New Civil Rights era was born and these are the reasons why the momentum is increasing despite the attempts to suppress this legitimate dissent through both fear and legislation.

Robert F. Kennedy also said:

“A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. “

“The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission. “

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

I don’t doubt for one second that the corporatocracy sees legitimate dissent, constitutional restrictions, and democratic structures as terrorist threats since they certainly are a threat to their corruption and ability to engage in the commission of crimes with impunity.

However, it’s far more accurate to say that the corporatocracy itself is treasonous and they should be held accountable for that and their other criminal acts.

To the governments, corporacrats and wealthy elites of the world: 

The people of the world are saying: “Expect us. We are not afraid. You should be.”

The CypherPunks are saying: We want “privacy for the powerless, transparency for the powerful.”

And I’m saying: I want “transparency of the state, corporations and wealthy elites; privacy for the people; accountability and justice for everyone and no-one is above the law.”

We all have much in common irrespective of our political, social, cultural, religious beliefs and that is what this new era of Civil Rights is all about.

 

V: Would you... dance with me?
Evey Hammond: Now? On the eve of your revolution?
V: A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having!

Assange Statement on the First Day of Manning Trial from WikiLeaks

Assange Statement on the First Day of Manning Trial 

copied from WikiLeaks

Monday 3rd June 2013, 22:00 GMT

Statement by Julian Assange

As I type these lines, on June 3, 2013, Private First Class Bradley Edward Manning is being tried in a sequestered room at Fort Meade, Maryland, for the alleged crime of telling the truth. The court martial of the most prominent political prisoner in modern US history has now, finally, begun.

It has been three years. Bradley Manning, then 22 years old, was arrested in Baghdad on May 26, 2010. He was shipped to Kuwait, placed into a cage, and kept in the sweltering heat of Camp Arifjan.

"For me, I stopped keeping track," he told the court last November. "I didn’t know whether night was day or day was night. And my world became very, very small. It became these cages... I remember thinking I’m going to die."

After protests from his lawyers, Bradley Manning was then transferred to a brig at a US Marine Corps Base in Quantico, VA, where - infamously - he was subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment at the hands of his captors - a formal finding by the UN. Isolated in a tiny cell for twenty-three out of twenty-four hours a day, he was deprived of his glasses, sleep, blankets and clothes, and prevented from exercising. All of this - it has been determined by a military judge - "punished" him before he had even stood trial.

"Brad’s treatment at Quantico will forever be etched, I believe, in our nation’s history, as a disgraceful moment in time" said his lawyer, David Coombs. "Not only was it stupid and counterproductive, it was criminal."

The United States was, in theory, a nation of laws. But it is no longer a nation of laws for Bradley Manning.

When the abuse of Bradley Manning became a scandal reaching all the way to the President of the United States and Hillary Clinton’s spokesman resigned to register his dissent over Mr. Manning’s treatment, an attempt was made to make the problem less visible. Bradley Manning was transferred to the Midwest Joint Regional Correctional Facility at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

He has waited in prison for three years for a trial - 986 days longer than the legal maximum - because for three years the prosecution has dragged its feet and obstructed the court, denied the defense access to evidence and abused official secrecy. This is simply illegal - all defendants are constitutionally entitled to a speedy trial - but the transgression has been acknowledged and then overlooked.

Against all of this, it would be tempting to look on the eventual commencement of his trial as a mercy. But that is hard to do.

We no longer need to comprehend the "Kafkaesque" through the lens of fiction or allegory. It has left the pages and lives among us, stalking our best and brightest. It is fair to call what is happening to Bradley Manning a "show trial". Those invested in what is called the "US military justice system" feel obliged to defend what is going on, but the rest of us are free to describe this travesty for what it is. No serious commentator has any confidence in a benign outcome. The pretrial hearings have comprehensively eliminated any meaningful uncertainty, inflicting pre-emptive bans on every defense argument that had any chance of success.

Bradley Manning may not give evidence as to his stated intent (exposing war crimes and their context), nor may he present any witness or document that shows that no harm resulted from his actions. Imagine you were put on trial for murder. In Bradley Manning’s court, you would be banned from showing that it was a matter of self-defence, because any argument or evidence as to intent is banned. You would not be able to show that the ’victim’ is, in fact, still alive, because that would be evidence as to the lack of harm.

But of course. Did you forget whose show it is?

The government has prepared for a good show. The trial is to proceed for twelve straight weeks: a fully choreographed extravaganza, with a 141-strong cast of prosecution witnesses. The defense was denied permission to call all but a handful of witnesses. Three weeks ago, in closed session, the court actually held a rehearsal. Even experts on military law have called this unprecedented.

Bradley Manning’s conviction is already written into the script. The commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces, Barack Obama, spoiled the plot for all of us when he pronounced Bradley Manning guilty two years ago. "He broke the law," President Obama stated, when asked on camera at a fundraiser about his position on Mr. Manning. In a civilized society, such a prejudicial statement alone would have resulted in a mistrial.

To convict Bradley Manning, it will be necessary for the US government to conceal crucial parts of his trial. Key portions of the trial are to be conducted in secrecy: 24 prosecution witnesses will give secret testimony in closed session, permitting the judge to claim that secret evidence justifies her decision. But closed justice is no justice at all.

What cannot be shrouded in secrecy will be hidden through obfuscation. The remote situation of the courtroom, the arbitrary and discretionary restrictions on access for journalists, and the deliberate complexity and scale of the case are all designed to drive fact-hungry reporters into the arms of official military PR men, who mill around the Fort Meade press room like over-eager sales assistants. The management of Bradley Manning’s case will not stop at the limits of the courtroom. It has already been revealed that the Pentagon is closely monitoring press coverage and social media discussions on the case.

This is not justice; never could this be justice. The verdict was ordained long ago. Its function is not to determine questions such as guilt or innocence, or truth or falsehood. It is a public relations exercise, designed to provide the government with an alibi for posterity. It is a show of wasteful vengeance; a theatrical warning to people of conscience.

The alleged act in respect of which Bradley Manning is charged is an act of great conscience - the single most important disclosure of subjugated history, ever. There is not a political system anywhere on the earth that has not seen light as a result. In court, in February, Bradley Manning said that he wanted to expose injustice, and to provoke worldwide debate and reform. Bradley Manning is accused of being a whistleblower, a good man, who cared for others and who followed higher orders. Bradley Manning is effectively accused of conspiracy to commit journalism.

But this is not the language the prosecution uses. The most serious charge against Bradley Manning is that he "aided the enemy" - a capital offence that should require the greatest gravity, but here the US government laughs at the world, to breathe life into a phantom. The government argues that Bradley Manning communicated with a media organisation, WikiLeaks, who communicated to the public. It also argues that al-Qaeda (who else) is a member of the public. Hence, it argues that Bradley Manning communicated "indirectly" with al-Qaeda, a formally declared US "enemy", and therefore that Bradley Manning communicated with "the enemy".

But what about "aiding" in that most serious charge, "aiding the enemy"? Don’t forget that this is a show trial. The court has banned any evidence of intent. The court has banned any evidence of the outcome, the lack of harm, the lack of any victim. It has ruled that the government doesn’t need to show that any "aiding" occurred and the prosecution doesn’t claim it did. The judge has stated that it is enough for the prosecution to show that al-Qaeda, like the rest of the world, reads WikiLeaks.

“Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people," wrote John Adams, "who have a right and a desire to know.”

When communicating with the press is "aiding the enemy" it is the "general knowledge among the people" itself which has become criminal. Just as Bradley Manning is condemned, so too is that spirit of liberty in which America was founded.

In the end it is not Bradley Manning who is on trial. His trial ended long ago. The defendent now, and for the next 12 weeks, is the United States. A runaway military, whose misdeeds have been laid bare, and a secretive government at war with the public. They sit in the docks. We are called to serve as jurists. We must not turn away.

Free Bradley Manning.


No copyright has been asserted for this document. Julian Assange has entered it into the public domain.