Tweet
Journalists Kevin Gosztola (left), Adam Klasfeld of Courthouse News (center) and Alexa O’Brien (right) at Bradley Manning proceedings
Whenever members of the US media have heard Pfc. Bradley Manning is about to testify or make some kind of statement in military court at Fort Meade, where his court martial is taking place, the press pool has ballooned. Suddenly, many media organizations want to cover pretrial proceedings in this historic case.
This happened again when news spread Manning would be reading a 35-page statement he had typed up in confinement at Fort Leavenworth. The few reporters, who have gained notoriety for always being at Manning’s hearings, sent messages on Twitter and posted that Manning would be reading a statement. Well-established United States media organizations then planned to be at proceedings on February 28 to hear him present the statement.
The few independent, alternative and newswire reporters that have been covering each day of the proceedings are: independent journalist Alexa O’Brien, Courthouse News’ Adam Klasfeld, Nathan Fuller of the Bradley Manning Support Network and reporters from the Associated Press and Agence France Presse wire services. (I have also attended every single day of proceedings since December 2011 except for his one-day arraignment hearing in February 2012.)
In the past months, the Washington Post has been sending a reporter more regularly. Ed Pilkington of The Guardian has been periodically attending. The New York Times finally began to send a reporter after public editor Margaret Sullivan criticized the fact that no Times reporter had been covering developments in a significant hearing on how Manning was treated while in confinement in the brig at Marine Corps Base Quantico.
Reporters who do not attend the proceedings have depended on the few who have been there to cover Manning’s case. On February 28, journalists contacted Fuller to request a copy of Manning’s statement not realizing there wasn’t a copy available to distribute. When Manning’s defense lawyer, David Coombs, announced in court in the day after Election Day that Manning would be accepting responsibility for providing some of the charged information to WikiLeaks, it fell to the handful of lesser-known reporters to get this story out because there wasn’t even a reporter from a news wire service to report this development.
Compounding the reality that a relatively small amount of reporters are covering Manning’s court martial is the fact that judge’s rulings, judge’s orders, defense motions, government motions and/or transcripts are not made available to credentialed press. Coombs has posted many of the defense motions on his blog and O’Brien has been doing a public service by producing near verbatim transcripts of each day of the hearings. But neither Coombs nor O’Brien should have to be in a position where it becomes their obligation to ensure proceedings are transparent.
Journalists and media organizations (including this journalist) in a case brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) sued in military court to force the military to grant the press access to court records because the press has a First Amendment right to these documents.
On February 27, the US Army notified press a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) “Reading Room” had been setup for access to 84 pretrial documents that had been posted. It appeared to be a watershed moment where there would now be transparency. However, in reality, it was the product of the Army realizing it had two bad options and a choice had to be made: allow a major First Amendment ruling to occur that could force the US military to provide access to records in all court martials or voluntarily begin to post documents from Manning proceedings by applying FOIA criteria.
The process set up did not seem to be one where records would be made available in a timely fashion so journalists could use them in their reporting. The day of the ruling copies should be made available to the press so they can be referenced when putting up stories the moment news is breaking. Unfortunately, the military is putting documents, such as rulings that were read entirely in open court by the military judge, through a FOIA process.
No defense motions, government motions or transcripts (except for one partial transcript released for the CCR lawsuit) were posted to the “Reading Room.” The Army’s press release also said “pretrial documents” would be posted here. Should we expect trial documents to appear here when that takes place in June? And so, CCR is not done fighting because journalists’ First Amendment right to access records is still being obstructed.
Finally, there is the “aiding the enemy” charge, which Manning faces and is an “any person” offense. The government argues Manning “aided the enemy” by “knowingly” giving “intelligence to the enemy, through indirect means.” The “indirect means” is WikiLeaks, which published the “intelligence.” The “enemy” is none other than Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. The “intelligence,” according to the government, is US State Embassy cables and military incident reports (war logs) found on digital media seized in the SEAL Team raid on bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. (Note: The government has not demonstrated the information published constitutes “intelligence.”)
The military prosecutors’ effort to tie Manning’s act of whistleblowing to terrorism could set a powerful precedent for targeting dissidents or whistleblowers, including conscientious soldiers in the US military like Pfc. Bradley Manning. It also poses a distinct threat to freedom of the press. Sources should not be held liable for material published by media organizations because such information or reporting winds up in the hands of individuals or organizations the US government considers to be “enemies” of the United States.
The government has claimed in court if the New York Times had been given the material it would still have charged Manning with “aiding the enemy.” Any journalists or press organizations that care about protecting their sources and preserving the tradition of investigative journalism, particularly national security journalism, should be concerned.
This op-ed was cross-posted to the Freedom of the Press Foundation’s blog. The Foundation is dedicated to promoting and funding transparency journalism. That includes making it possible for US citizens to donate to WikiLeaks. For more on the Foundation, go here.
13 Comments
Thank you so much for keeping us up to date.
Chris Hedges mentioned you in his latest piece:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/we_are_bradley_manning_20130303/
(my computer is acting weird…I get so paranoid when that happens now)
I saw that he mentioned me (along with other journalists). That was good of him to acknowledge the people who have been most diligently covering.
Kevin might have good reason to be paranoid; especially considering what this post is really pointing out (we don’t have much of a free press left) but don’t worry about your computer acting strange, think of it as you are giving a job to one less fortunate (someone who had to take a job at Homeland Security)
Just get your news from here, FDL, and other Independent reports.
Oh, and as Americans we should all read news from here:
http://wikileaks.org/
Just do it! MSM will not give you news until they are forced to do so. Give them a run for their money by using alternative organizations.
I am especially excited that Kevin joined the CCR suit to get docs.
WHOOP! Go, Kevin! Just go for it!
I should add: http://wikileaksnews.net/
and Wikileaks Press
Bradley Manning has been imprisoned for more than a thousand days. This imprisonment has included torture to “break” him. But there are other victims of the Bradley Manning Persecution and Prosecution.
Some embedded reporters think they should be immune from any criticism. Except, these self important people do not hesitate to trash Bradley Manning, and other freedom fighters of the Resistance.
Fantastic Kevin. You and the other independent journalists are making a laughing stock of MSM. And they KNOW IT, but their so called “reporters” either don’t have the balls to tell their boss’s or only care about their paycheck. Kudos to all of you and thank you.
As to the first quoted sentence..
Of course they shouldn’t have to “ensure” proceedings are transparent, but the nature of the beast demands it, as it will NEVER do it on it’s own volition, your FOIA case notwithstanding. In fact, if they could get away with it, they would simply judge him guilty and convict him in absenteeism. After all, the military Enlistment Oath demands all military personnel to “obey Presidential orders”, and given the fact Obomination has already deemed Manning GUILTY, well then, I rest my case. This abomination of a “invent it as you go” trial is simply a formality.
Gills notwithstanding, what bothers me about these sub-human pond scum is WHEN and how did they shed all vestiges of human cognitive thinking. After all, they should surely know that to any human being with more than one fucking neuron between their ears, this replica of a Barnum and Baily Clown performance will illicit a cacophony of raucous side splitting laughter of biblical proportions from coast to coast. Although, given they are probably not used to “independent” journalists demanding via the FOIA, all documents that are relative to their little charade, I’d submit they are pouring over the FOIA Exemptions playbook like a pedophile with a Sears catalog of children’s clothing.
“In fact, if they could get away with it, they would simply judge him guilty and convict him in absenteeism.”
Well, the president kind of already did that, didn’t he? In a sense. And another general did the same thing recently. Is that not undue command influence? Does anyone know if that ever came up in the court? Would the defense have to try to bring that up (and did they)?
I mean, what happens if a general and the president of the U.S. says Manning is guilty and somehow this judge finds him not guilty? I’m not expecting that to happen, but that’s when you really see how command influence is a really serious problem for a judge, and obviously the defendant.
bingo!
I didn’t just join. I’ve been a part of the suit for months now. We are re-doubling our efforts to get the records, especially after the Army set up its “Reading Room” as a kind of weak solution to secrecy or lack of press access.
Bravo, Kevin.
Much appreciated.