Bradley Manning Court-Martial: Secrecy and Injustice on TrialStephen Lendman Secrecy, lawlessness, and contempt for humanity define US policy. Evidence vital to Mannings defense is prohibited. Information refuting charges of aiding the enemy is barred from trial proceedings. Claiming its not relevant or harmful to national security doesnt wash. Excluding it reflects police state justice. On June 3, United States v. Bradley Manning court-martial proceedings began. Pre-trial, Obama pronounced him guilty by accusation. Doing so denies any possibility of judicial fairness. His word is final. We are a nation of laws, he claimed. We dont let individuals make decisions about how the law operates. (Manning) broke the law. No nation spurns inviolable laws more egregiously than America. Obama reflects the worst of US governance. He rules by diktat authority. He does so secretly. Hes waging war on humanity. He does so at home and abroad. With a stroke of his pen he could free Manning. Pronouncing guilt by accusation assures his conviction. Doing so publicly leaves no doubt. The Constitution mandates ALL criminal prosecutions. Pentagon ones arent exempt. Especially high-profile cases like Manning. If convicted, he faces possible life in prison. At issue is convicting him for doing the right thing. Mannings trial proceedings will be secret, not public. Doing so violates constitutional law. It mandates the right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury. Hes denied both. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) calls for trial within 120 days of restraint and arraignment. The Rule for Court Martial (RCM) 707 mandates the same thing. Its to assure speedy trial proceedings. Mannings been held over three years without trial. Hes been isolated throughout much of it. Doing so violates Eight Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishments. US statute laws were violated. So was UCMJs Article 13. It prohibits pre-trial confinement conditions any more rigorous than whats minimally needed to ensure the accused appears for court hearings. America should be on trial, not Manning! He revealed war crimes too egregious to be kept secret. He should be honored for doing so. Top culpable civilian and military officials should be held fully accountable. Justice demands no less. Manning faces 22 charges. He pleaded guilty to 10 lesser ones. He denied 12 greater ones. He called war logs given WikiLeaks some of the most important documents of our time. He chose ones he believed wouldnt cause harm to the United States. He hoped a national debate would follow his revelations. Its sorely needed more than ever. Americas obsessed with capturing and killing people, he said. Collateral murder is policy. US helicopter pilots gunned down innocent civilians. They murdered anyone trying to help them. Shooting wounded victims was like a child torturing ants with a magnifying glass, he said. He wanted everyone to know. Its their right. At issue are high crimes of war and against humanity. Theyre too grave to ignore. Mannings charges include 1917 Espionage Act violations. Doing so contradicts the laws intent. It doesnt deter Justice Department or Pentagon officials from using it. It passed shortly after Americas entry into WW I. Over time, its been amended numerous times. Originally it prohibited interfering with US military operations, supporting the nations enemies, promoting insubordination in the ranks, or obstructing military recruitment. In 1921, its most controversial provisions were repealed. In 2010, Manning was wrongfully charged under the Act. Technically its under Articles 104 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). It includes parts of the US Code. Colonel Denise Lind is both judge and jury. Official transcripts of proceedings will be kept secret. Weeks earlier, Freedom of the Press Foundation launched a campaign to crowd-fund a court stenographer. Mannings trial will have an enormous impact on press freedom and the rights of future whistleblowers, it said. The government refuses to make its transcripts available to the public. Floyd Abrams is a constitutional law expert. Yochai Benkler is Harvard Law Schools Berkman Professor of Entrepreneurial Legal Studies. In March 2013, their New York Times op-ed headlined Death to Whistle-Blowers? At issue is Mannings trial. If found guilty on serious charges, the prosecution will establish a chilling precedent: national security leaks may subject the leakers to a capital prosecution or at least life imprisonment. Former Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black once said: Whats more destructive than imposing capital penalties or imprisoning heroic whistleblowers for life for doing the right thing. According to Abrams and Benkler, Mannings leaks included important disclosures (and) their publication is protected by the First Amendment no less than the publication of the Pentagon Papers was. Both contributors agreed. WikiLeaks is part of the Fourth Estate. Its right to publish is no less than any other media organization or contributor. Over 350 media sources submitted applications to witness Mannings trial. Only 70 got permission. In other words, those considered safe may do so. Others are prohibited. Claiming space limitations denies others doesnt wash. Proceedings can be held anywhere. According to the Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF): FPF enlisted a reputable court stenographer firm. With permission, its stenographers will work in shifts. Doing so will provide a public record. All media sources will have access. Independent alternative ones are most important. People will learn what otherwise they wont know. On June 1, FPF headlined Crowd-funded Stenographers Denied Press Passes to the Bradley Manning Court Martial. It said three of its media partners were denied them. It remains to be seen if FPFs request discussed above will or wont fare better. Mannings trial will be held at Fort Meade, MD. On June 2,Bradley Manning.org headlined Nearly two thousand rally for Bradley Manning at Ft. Meade. They did so on June 1. Washington charged Manning with indirectly aiding the enemy. Saying so defies reason. It mocks fundamental constitutional rule of law principles. Mannings a political prisoner. Amnesty International (AI) claims otherwise. It refuses to name him a prisoner of conscience. From January 2012 January 2013, former Hillary Clinton aide Suzanne Nossel headed AI USA. Shes an imperial insider. Interim co-executive directors Bob Goodfellow and Frank Jannuzi replaced her. Theyve acted no less irresponsibly than she did. According to Francis Boyle: Amnesty International is primarily motivated not by human rights but by publicity. Second comes money. It relies on corporate foundations and other dubious sources to provide it. Services rendered in return are expected. Conflicts of interest are rife. The Bradley Manning Support Fund is 100% responsible for his legal expenses. Around 20,000 supporters contributed over $1.25 million. David Coombs represents Manning. On June 2, he said: 