Tweet
Pfc. Bradley Manning (photo by Department of Army)
A challenge against secrecy in court martial proceedings for Pfc. Bradley Manning, who is accused of releasing classified information to WikiLeaks, was filed in the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) on Thursday. The challenge—a petition for extraordinary relief—is being submitted to order the judge to grant the press and the public access to court filings, such as government motions, court orders and transcripts of proceedings.
As CCR notes in their press release, Salon blogger Glenn Greenwald, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!, The Nation magazine, Nation national security correspondent Jeremy Scahill, WikiLeaks, publisher Julian Assange and author of The Passion of Bradley Manning and contributing editor to The American Conservative, Chase Madar, have all signed on to the petition. I have also signed on to the challenge.
While I have concerns about the constitutional implications posed by a government intent to convict Manning in secret, I find that my experience as a credentialed media reporter, who has been attending Manning’s legal proceedings since December of last year, gives me the authority and obligation to oppose the ridiculousness that is the judge’s decision to dismiss concerns from the press about lack of access to court filings. And so, I support this challenge as a member of the press whose job has been complicated unnecessarily by the government’s penchant for secrecy in the Manning proceedings.
The filing notes “The restrictions on access to these basic documents in the case have made it exceedingly difficult for credentialed reporters to cover the proceedings consistent with their journalistic standards and obligations…These restrictions not only plainly violate the First Amendment and the common law, they undermine the very legitimacy of this important proceeding.” I wrote a “declaration” on these difficulties that was included in the submitted filing.
What the public should realize is no court filings means that reporters in the courtroom or Media Operations Center (MOC) at Fort Meade have one chance to get something down accurately. I have one opportunity to transcribe with all the proper context necessary for the public to understand what happened in key instances during the court proceedings. This is not easy because I have to scramble to keep up with the judge, who reads all court filings into the record to compensate for the fact that the government thinks sunlight is the best poison and not the best disinfectant.
Reporters have come together multiple times during hearings in the past months to compare notes because we are unable to reference anything after the proceedings for the day are over to verify that what we heard was written down properly. The scene is like one you might see in a high school classroom when students are asking each other if they were able to get down what the teacher said because it might be on an exam. Of course, members of the press don’t need to know this information to pass any test. They want to know this information so the public can know what is happening in one of the most significant cases in US history.
I have been asked why I have not been in the courtroom at Fort Meade yet. When I appeared on Democracy Now! in December, host Amy Goodman asked me if I was in the courtroom when I appeared to talk about the Article 32 hearing. I didn’t enjoy informing Goodman that I had not been in the courtroom. I think reporters that go into the courtroom definitely have more insight into the proceedings than those that remain in the Media Operations Center. But reporters cannot use computers in the courtroom.
I am unable to scribble notes and keep up with the judge. It is much easier to keep up if I am able to type. Secrecy in the proceedings puts me in an uncomfortable position: be in the courtroom and definitely miss key details or stay in the Media Operations Center and miss out on the scene in the courtroom so that I can ensure I get down most of what is stated by the defense, prosecution and judge in court.
The insanity of all this is amplified by the fact that the press and public can read transcripts in the military commission proceedings of the suspects, who allegedly were involved in the September 11th attacks, but the press and public cannot have access to the transcripts in the Manning legal proceedings.
The judge contends that the press have the Freedom of Information Act at their disposal and can make requests for any court filings. Such requests are unlikely to be filled before Manning is acquitted or convicted, and if convicted possibly sentenced and put in jail for life, without parole. By that time, reporters will have no use for the court filings.
Again, here is a list of media outlets that believe the proceedings should be more transparent:
ABC News; Advance Publications, Inc.; A. H. Belo Corporation; Allbritton Communications Company; ALM Media, LLC; American Society of News Editors; The Associated Press; Association of Alternative Newsweeklies; Atlantic Media, Inc.; Bloomberg News; Cable News Network, Inc.; CBS News; Cox Media Group, Inc.; Digital First Media; Digital Media Law Project; Dow Jones & Company, Inc.; The E.W. Scripps Company; First Amendment Coalition; Gannett Co., Inc.; Hearst Corporation; Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers Association; The McClatchy Company; Meredith Corporation; Military Reporters & Editors; MPA – The Association of Magazine Media; The National Press Club; National Press Photographers Association; NBC News; New York Daily News; The New York Times; Newspaper Association of America; The Newspaper Guild – CWA; The Newsweek/Daily Beast Company LLC; North Jersey Media Group Inc.; NPR, Inc.; Online News Association; POLITICO LLC; Radio Television Digital News Association; The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press; Reuters News; Society of Professional Journalists; Stephens Media LLC; Time Inc.; Tribune Company;USA TODAY; The Washington Post; and WNET
These organizations signed on to a letter sent by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) back in March. Weeks later, CCR sent a similar letter and then they escalated their effort to more substantive legal action when the Defense Department dismissed both letters.
Virtually all media (not just alternative or independent media) find the secrecy in these proceedings to be problematic. I find the secrecy to be reprehensible.
The government has already withheld evidence the defense has demanded access to concerning the alleged harm done by the leaks. The government’s legal justification for this maneuver is hard to discern when there is no record to reference. All the press and public can rely on to understand the government’s position is Manning’s defense lawyer David Coombs who, not surprisingly, is going to be opposed to the government obstructing his access to evidence.
Secrecy makes it likely Manning’s trial will be improper and unfair. As a soldier who is accused of one of the biggest leaks or security breaches in history, Manning deserves a trial that is much more open.
Kevin Gosztola is the co-author of the book, “Truth and Consequences: The US vs. Bradley Manning.”
14 Comments
It does say something about the case against Bradley that they are keeping everything secret. It says the case is weak and the judge wants to get Bradley convicted quietly probably before the election.
A recent article on this site explains that Obama has given carte blanche to a movie producer and screenplay writer in order to access classified GWOT info re: O’s hit on Bin Laden.
Obama has provided the hagiographers with a personal military liason fluffer.
So, you see, if any classified GWOT info makes them look good, it’s one thing. If it makes them look bad, it’s a matter for a secret Kangaroo Court to decide. With no meddling reporters.
Campaign Obama promised the most transparent gubmint ever. Instead, he expanded the GWOT and added a war on whistleblowers.
Agree. The USG believes it *needs* to convict Manning, which is both disturbing and sad.
Just saw yesterday that the next Julian Assange extradition decision will be handed down by the court in the UK next Wednesday.
More on Assange decision
Kind of surprised. Nobody seems to have said anything about who is signed on to this challenge.
Myself aside, what do you all think of this great group of people that have come together to challenge the government here? Good? Doesn’t matter?
We’re fighting so don’t feel so dejected. That’s debilitating and what the powers that be want us to feel so they can keep doing what they are doing.
Cynicism about the most likely result of the petition aside, that list is full of the big names, which is terrific. It *is* nice to know that journalists are fighting against government secrecy.
An interesting group who support transparency, Kevin.
A rather big slice of the mainstream media.
Will they actually fight for transparency in THIS case, or is this simply “posturing” just to make the fourth estate feel smug and kindly about itself?
Let’s see what happens, shall we?
Then, and only then will any of us be in a position to say whether it is “good”.
What is your take, have the media awoken or is this simply a form of sleep-walking, engendered by dreams of long ago, when the press actually reported the facts and NOT the propaganda?
Appreciate all that you do, Kevin.
DW
Very Informative piece.
I stupidly believed Judge Col. Denise Lind read so many documents aloud just to kindly share them with the courtroom audience. But now I understand that instead Col. Lind is simply helping the government (the prosecution) keep the sunlight out of her courtroom!
Obama will then campaign by stressing his strong stance on Homeland Security by touting his murder of Osama, his incarceration of B. Manning, and …
I’m sure there will be something else to complete the BS trifecta that will establish his rep as a tough guy and protector of the USA, I just don’t know what it will be, but it will probably be something else that circumvents the Rule of Law.
Kevin, I saw the Twitter mention by @theCCR. Thank you very much for joining with others to file the petition to the US Army Court of Criminal Appeals.
That is a huge MSM presence asking for more transparency. I only hope that if more exposure is offered to them they will not use it to denigrate Brad.
Kevin, thank you for signing onto the legal challenge and thank you for keeping us informed.
While I’m happy to see the variety of Media outlets signing onto the challenge I’d be even happier if they also reported to their readers/viewers why they have done so and why it’s important. The virtual blackout of news in the MSM on this case allows the government to get away with what they’re doing. If these MSM media outlets are serious about their challenge why aren’t they reporting about it like you, Greenwald, Democracy Now, etc?
It does surprise me to see so many Legacy Media sign-ons to this appeal, considering the virtual blackout of news about Bradley Manning’s case, and the Kangaroo Court assembled to convict him at the direction of the Commander in Chief. I mean, what could these Big Media representatives possibly care about access to transcripts? Are we to believe that being denied that access is what prohibits their covering hearings to date?
No. Kevin’s proved that excellent coverage is still possible. It would be nice if his fellow signees would inform their audience of the request they’ve all joined, if only to expose to their broad audience the repressive regime we live under.
Well done, Kevin. Keep it up, you are doing most excellent work.
Quick clarification: The “legacy media” signed on to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) letter in March. They are not party to or participants in the CCR effort.