Saturday, February 23, 2013

The Bradley Manning - Tribute 2/23/13

(Click to Listen)

[A human action becomes genuinely important when it springs from the soil of a clear-sighted awareness of the temporality and the ephemerality of everything human. It is only this awareness that can breathe any greatness into an action.
Vaclav Havel »] 

Army ‘Investigating’ Bradley Manning Support Network
Admits to 'Active Investigation'
by Jason Ditz, July 02, 2012

The military has been trying to pull out all the stops in its prosecution of Pfc. Bradley Manning for his alleged role in the WikiLeaks releases. The Bradley Manning Support Network, operators of the website and founded in 2010 with the goal of supporting the jailed whistleblower, has apparently found itself under military scrutiny as well.
According to a US Army response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, there is “an active investigation” ongoing against the network. The details of the investigation were kept secret by the Army, which, by way of declining the FOIA request, offered to provide documents after the “undetermined completion date.”
One can only imagine that the group’s efforts to aid in Manning’s defense, as well as their high profile criticism of the secrecy surrounding the trial, had the military hoping they could find some dirt on the group.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this is the revelation that the army is doing the investigating directly against the private civilian organization. Though the army clearly has a vested interested in the prosecution of Manning, moves against antiwar groups have usually been done by the FBI under the guise of anti-terror investigations.


Tom Beardshaw's Joined us from Wales
/ Multimedia Producer - the Radicalization of Bradley Manning

These are the things I can talk about which will add value:
The play (writers, director, cast, set, the location of Bradley's school),

 I can certainly mention Bradley's mum attended and the impact that had on the cast and crew, the multiplatform work I personally designed and produced

(livestream with live chat and live links to backstory material on the web,

the reach of that webcast - 10,000 viewers in 72 countries),

the elements of the story (it was an imagination of Bradley's life in Wales, intercut with his life in the US and when he was in the army,

the history of Welsh Radicalism, bullying and other themes).

The play was a political fantasy of Bradley's life, exploring the writer's imagination of what he experienced, thought and felt. And the feelings about Bradley in Wales, his Welshness...

OK. An additional point - most of the themes in the play about his time in Wales were set in school, often with a history teacher who was covering the history of radicalism here - the rebecca riots, the Merthyr Uprising. We have a long history of this... the first raising of the red flag in europe, the genesis of the NHS, etc etc...
12:18 PM

It was exploring how this might have affected him.. hence the title The Radicalition of Bradley Manning

Sure - but it's an archive - we did not archive the video as there was a focus on theatre as a live experience, but the archive page is here: There is quite a lot on the web - here are some links: A group for those interested in the play as it developed ; Article by the writer about why he was writing it ; ; A review:

Article on the future of digital in theatre -

The Bradley show is pioneering (Guardian)

Related Material:
Indefinite Detention Under the NDAA: the Great Attack on Civil Liberties You May Not Have Heard About
by ARIEL SCHNELLER on Feb 27, 2012 • 7:00 am3 Comments
On December 31, 2011, President Barack Obama signed the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law.  Many of you may not have heard of it because the holidays aren’t exactly conducive to keeping up with current events, but the NDAA represents one of the most dramatic attacks on civil liberties in this country in many years. While the NDAA contains many routine provisions related to defense spending, there are two particular provisions that should deeply trouble any American concerned with the encroachment upon civil liberties that has been the hallmark of post-9/11 America.
Section 1021 affirms that the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) authorizes detention of anybody whom the President determines was involved in the attacks of 9/11, as well as detention of anybody who substantially supports or is a member of al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces.  This detention is authorized so long as the hostilities authorized by the AUMF are ongoing.  Of course, because the battle against al-Qaeda may never end, Section 1021 is essentially a de facto authorization of indefinite detention.
Section 1022 states that if an individual is detained under the authority of Section 1021, that person must be held by the military. This mandate does not apply to a citizen or lawful resident of the United States.  Put these sections together and a scary picture emerges in which a person accused of being a member of a terrorist group, or even of substantially supporting one, can be detained by the military as long as the United States is at war with al-Qaeda.
This codification of indefinite detention is chilling because it represents how quickly and drastically our nation’s discourse about civil liberties has changed in just a few years. Fewer than four years ago we elected a president who explicitly and strongly campaigned on closing Guantanamo Bay, the internationally infamous facility in which terrorist suspects were being indefinitely detained.  Now that same president is signing a bill codifying some of the practices against which he had so vigorously campaigned.  So long as George W. Bush was indefinitely detaining terrorism suspects Democrats could criticize it as representing the worst of the Bush regime and civil libertarians could decry it as a panicked overreaction to 9/11.  And while it is true that Obama had long claimed to have the authority to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects prior to the passage of the NDAA, his position could be seen as representing only the viewpoint of one president trying to arrogate power.  But now indefinite detention is not a partisan issue, nor can it be described as a panicked reaction or an overreach by a greedy branch of government.  Instead, ten years after 9/11, it has been written into our laws by a bipartisan legislature that is codifying the practices of two presidencies from two different parties.  Imprisonment without trial, that hallmark of tyranny which seems so anathema to a nation that values freedom and a governmental system based on checks on government and due process, has been written into the laws of this country with shockingly little outcry from the American people.

Another worrisome aspect of the NDAA is that it may authorize the indefinite detention even of American citizens captured within the United States.  The bill’s language is ambiguous: Section 1021 states that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens…” But Section 1022 says that the requirement that the detainees be held by the military does not apply to American citizens, a confusing clarification if American citizens are not eligible to be detained under 1021 in the first place.  Keep in mind that detention is authorized by a mere presidential determination that somebody has substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces.  The prospect that a president could use this wide grant of discretion to detain American citizens should disturb all of us.  Even if we do not fear that we ourselves will ever be detained, we should fear for what happens to democratic discourse, dissent and political action when the government is given the power to imprison people without trial based on mere allegations and with minimal process.

Even though you or I may never suffer due to the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA, we should not tolerate a system in which there is a very strong chance that people will be incarcerated for the rest of their lives without committing any crime or posing any threat to the United States.  While that may seem like an outlandish fear, our experience in Guantanamo illustrates just how fallible the Executive Branch can be in determining who needs to be confined without  trial.
The American Civil Liberties of Harvard Law encourages you all to make your voice heard and demand that Congress respect the principle that everybody deserves a day in court before being imprisoned for life.  We are circulating a petition demanding that Congress repeal Sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA.  To sign it, you can go to our online survey at

We also invite you to “The NDAA and Indefinite Detention in American Law,” a discussion with Professors Noah Feldman and Jack Goldsmith of the prime issues surrounding the NDAA.  The discussion will be co-sponsored by ACLU-HLS, the Federalist Society, and the American Constitution Society and will take place on Wednesday, February 29 from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. at Ames Courtroom.

Ariel Schneller, Law ’12, is a member of the executive board of American Civil Liberties Union, Harvard Law School Chapter.


Inside the Grand Jury:
DOJ Counterespionage Section: Attorney Patrick Murphy *
DOJ Counterespionage Section: Attorney Deborah Curtis *
Eastern District of Virginia: AUSA Bob Wiechering
Eastern District of Virginia: AUSA Tracy McCormick
Eastern District of Virginia: AUSA Karen Dunn
Unspecified number of Grand Jurors
Court Steganographer
David House

Directly outside the Grand Jury:
Mike Condon, FBI Agent from Washington, D.C. field office
James Farmer, Chief of Anti-Terrorism and National Security Unit at the
U.S. Attorney’s Office in D. Mass
Peter Krupp, David House’s attorney

Record begins: 4:10pm
[David House is sworn in and informed of his rights]
Patrick Murphy: Would you please state your full name for the record?
David House: My name is David House.
PM: Did you meet Bradley Manning in January 2010?
DH: On the advice of counsel, I invoke my right to remain silent under
the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. I am concerned
that this grand jury is seeking information designed to infringe or
chill my associational privacy, and that of others, guaranteed by the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and that it is using
information obtained without a search warrant in violation of the Fourth
 Amendment to the United States Constitution. I define the preceding
statement as “invoke”, and when I say “I invoke” in the future I am
referring to this statement.
Deborah Curtis: Exhibit 1-A?
PM: Mr. House, please direct your attention to the screen behind you,
exhibit 1-A.
DC: I can’t make it bigger.
PM: Try… here, remove that bar on the side.
DC: That didn’t work.
DH: Do you guys need help?
DC: We just need to make it bigger. Can everyone see this okay?
PM: Ok… we’re going to continue.

[A still image from the Frontline PBS special is displayed on the
screen. Four figures are standing in front of the BUILDS logo, one
figure has her back turned.]

PM: Mr. House, can you identify the man on the right?
DH: I invoke.
PM: Can you identify the man standing second from right?
DH: I invoke.
PM: Ok, can you identify the person with bright-colored hair, standing
DH: I invoke.
PM: Are we to believe that identifying that individual would somehow
incriminate you?
DH: On the advice of counsel, I invoke my right to remain silent under
the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. I am concerned
that this grand jury is seeking information designed to infringe or
chill my associational privacy, and that of others, guaranteed by the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and that it is using
information obtained without a search warrant in violation of the Fourth
 Amendment to the United States Constitution.
PM: Ok, can you identify the man on the left?
PM: I would like to observe for the record that Mr. House is taking
DH: As to the previous question, I invoke.
PM: Why are you taking notes?
DH: Invoke.
Bob Wiechering: I’d like to recommend, at this point, that we take a
break and talk to your counsel.

[AUSAs and House leave the grand jury]
[Peter Krupp, House’s attorney, asserts House’s right to invoke]
[AUSAs and House return to the grand jury]

PM: What is your birthdate?
DH: March 14, 1987
PM: Where do you live?
DH: Can you restate the question?
PM: What is your address?
DH: I invoke.
PM: What is your current occupation?
DH: I invoke.
PM: Were you a senior in computer science at Boston University in
January 2010?
DH: I invoke.
PM: Isn’t it true that you told PBS Frontline that you were a senior at
Boston University in January 2010?
DH: I invoke.
PM: Do you know what a hackerspace is?
DH: I invoke.
PM: Do you know what BUILDS is, the acronym?
DH: I invoke.
Bob Wiechering: Mr. House, I notice you are taking notes. Attempting to
create your own transcript is a violation of rule 6(e) of this grand
jury. We have brought this to the attention of your counsel, and
although he feels differently on the matter, we assert that you must
stop taking notes at this time.
DH: Let me consult with my attorney.
[House leaves the grand jury room and returns one minute later]
DH: My lawyer asks that you refer all questions about notes to him.
BW: Let’s continue.
PM: Mr. House, are you involved with the Bradley Manning Support
DH: I invoke.
PM: Did you respond in the affirmative when asked by the FBI if you had
heard of known WikiLeaks associate Jacob Appelbaum?
PM: I would like to state for the record that Mr. House is not answering
 the question and is instead taking notes.
DH: I invoke.
PM: Do you intend to answer any of my questions, aside from your date of
 birth and your name?
DH: I invoke.
PM: Is that because of the phalanx of attorneys present here today?
Court Stenographer: I’m sorry, the what of attorneys?
PM: Phalanx… the phalanx of attorneys.
DH: As to the phalanx of attorneys, I invoke.
PM: At this time, I will let Deborah Curtis ask a few questions.
DC: Mr. House, have you ever been to the Oxford Spa restaurant in
Cambridge, MA?
DH: Allow me to consult with my attorney.
[House leaves the grand jury and returns one minute later.]
DH: As to the previous question, I invoke.
DC: You admitted to federal agents in Boston that you had met Bradley
Manning in January 2010, is that correct?
DH: I invoke.
DC: Isn’t it true that you spent the night of January 27 2010 with
Daniel Clark and Bradley Manning?
DH: Can you repeat the question?
DC: Isn’t it true that you spent the night of January 27 2010 with
Daniel Clark and Bradley Manning?
DH: One more time.
DC: Isn’t it true that you spent the night of January 27 2010 with
Daniel Clark and Bradley Manning?
PM: He’s writing it down.
DC: Are you getting this, are you writing it all down?
DH: Was the last question a question to be answered?
DC: Yes.
DH: I invoke.
DC: And the question before?
DH: I also invoke.
DC: Where did Danny Clark have breakfast on the morning of January 28,
DH: Allow me to consult with my attorney.
[House leaves the grand jury and returns one minute later.]
DH: As to the previous question, I invoke.
DC: Do you intend to answer any questions about Daniel Clark?
DH: Invoke.
DC: Do you intend to answer any questions about Bradley Manning?
DH: [Writing] Could you please repeat the question?
DC: Do you intend to answer any questions about Jacob Appelbaum?
DH: I invoke.
DC: At this time, we’d like to stop the proceedings. You are free to


Jeremy Hammond
alleged stratfor hacker

A judge at Tuesday’s bail hearing, Loretta A. Preska, portrayed Jeremy as a terrorist more dangerous than murders and sexual predators, denied his bail and, before Jeremy and a gathering of his friends and family, announced the sentence he would face if found guilty: 360 months to life. It is very difficult to find the words to express the pain we feel after the court’s decision Tuesday to deny bail for Jeremy Hammond. It is an inconsolable sadness that relates those that share it to one another and solidifies our commitment to Jeremy’s cause. Jeremy, only 27 years old, has spent most of his young life contributing to charitable efforts and acting on his principles to right what he perceives as wrong. Now, due to his contributions to the Anonymous collective, Jeremy could, if found guilty, spend 30+ years in prison.

Jeremy was vilified and his contributions bastardized. All of this was done with absolute impunity by those prosecuting him. The court, however, underestimated the weight of Jeremy’s contributions and the passion his actions and the actions of other Anons have inspired in so many people. Most importantly, the court underestimated the Anonymous collective and the networks supporting Anons facing prosecution. There is no comfort for us so long as Anons are prosecuted. If a life sentence is what the State deems an appropriate punishment for the so called crimes that Jeremy is alleged of having committed, then it is our lives that we are willing to commit to Jeremy’s cause and to the cause of all Anons facing prosecution. We will not weary. We will not be discouraged.
We will seek the truth and find justice in unjust laws and the unjust rulings of an unjust State. Hacktivists are not criminals! Jeremy is not alleged of a crime that has not equally exposed the corruption and exploitation of the very State prosecuting him. Lady justice is blind! Where is the justice when those whom she has anointed are just as guilty as those they are prosecuting? Those prosecuting our fellow Anons call Jeremy and those like him criminal, but when Wikileaks publishes their releases it is they who are the criminals and they and their affiliates who face prosecution. The means by which the crimes of our State were exposed are, perhaps, illegal but “When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty.” With this being said, we beg to argue, what right does Loretta A. Preska have to preside over Jeremy’s bail hearing while documents leaked from the very hack Jeremy is accused of having committed show that her husband, Thomas J. Kaveler, was himself a client of Strafor; &

Jeremy has been demonized to such an extent that those who know him can not even recognize the person prosecutors portray him as in court while the very person responsible for securing the sanctity of his trial is herself directly associated with the crimes Jeremy is accused of having committed. The truth is great and and wants to be known. The truth is, Jeremy has done no wrong and those determined to prosecute him are guilty. The State is guilty of protecting their own interest, especially in their pursuit to prosecute those they consider dangerous to their agenda. Jeremy Hammond is and will always be a hero and his contributions to the Anonymous collective are and will always be an example for which others will follow. An example for which we, the Anonymous Solidarity Network, will continue to commemorate.

[Isn't it the moment of most profound doubt that gives birth to new certainties Perhaps hopelessness is the very soil that nourishes human hope perhaps one could never find sense in life without first experiencing its absurdity...
Vaclav Havel »]