Tag Archives: Bradley Manning

Chelsea Manning Letter Acknowledges Her Authorization of @xychelsea Twitter Account

We are publishing – as a service to our readers and all supporters of heroic whistleblower and US political prisoner Chelsea Manning (this is not authorized by her or anything) – a text version of the handwritten letter released on 16 April 2015.  We just want to help disseminate this information as far and wide as possible.

The letter is legible but for some people difficult to read as it is in cursive handwriting, so we’ve made our own transcription of it.  It’s in two pages, on “official” Chelsea Manning Fort Leavenworth stationery and is signed by her. Here’s a .pdf of the two-page letter: Manning _4apr2015_Twitter account letter

The official Chelsea Manning Support Group is here.   The Chelsea Manning Legal Defense Fund is here.  And the new Chelsea Manning Twitter account can be found here.  We encourage all our readers to give generously to this most worthy cause!  We say: FREE CHELSEA MANNING NOW!

IWPCHI

Chelsea E. Manning
89289
1300 North Warehouse Road
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027-2304

                                                            2015.04.04

STATEMENT FOR: PUBLIC RELEASE

SUBJECT: @XYCHELSEA TWITTER ACCOUNT

Everyone,

  I want to thank all of those of you who are now
following my new Twitter account. It was pretty amazing
to get so many followers so quickly! It’s only possible
because of you all, out there, who care about the
things and people that I do.

  I wanted to set up this account awhile ago, but
I didn’t really have the time or energy to until I
began to start taking hormones a few months ago. So a few
weeks ago I asked my friend Trevor Fitzgibbon if he would
set up an account that I reserved in 2013, and he
agreed to help for no cost.

   This is a temporary arrangement until I can find
a way to either access my account more easily, or find
someone else willing to put in the labor of managing
the account, like Courage to Resist or another volunteer.

   The tweets, except for retweets, are verbatim dictated
over the phone to someone that I can call from here in Kansas.

(1)

[Page 2: IWPCHI]

                                                                                                    2014.04.04 [sic – IWPCHI]

SUBJECT: @XYCHELSEA TWITTER ACCOUNT

  I think this arrangement is the best way for me
to be able to stay in as much contact with all
of you who are out there and wanting to help me
and support me!

  And, again, I want to thank all of you for
your support and funding throughout my court-martial
and now my appeal! We’re working very hard and
I am hopeful that we can be successful if we
can keep funding the Chelsea Manning Support
Network’s Legal Defense Fund!

                         With Warm Regards,
Chelsea Manning

P.S. #itsreallyme =P

(2)

[End of letter – IWPCHI]

Advertisements

WikiLeaks US State Department Cables Reveal US Agency for International Development’s (USAID) Extensive Governmental Destabilization Efforts

We have read with interest the Guardian’s interview with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro published this past week.  It is clear how extensive the impact of the WikiLeaks and Snowden revelations has been: people who have been paying attention to what has been revealed about the US Government’s global police-state operations are seeing right through the lies coming out of Washington in an endless stream.

No longer are people wondering ‘if” the United States is involved in destabilization efforts aimed at those governments the US does not like; everyone KNOWS that if any government is facing opposition from the right, the United States Embassy in that country is probably at the center of the unrest.  From the Ukraine to Venezuela, wherever the global investments of the US capitalist class are threatened, the US Government of that capitalist class is swinging into action with every weapon in their arsenal, from the seemingly innocuous (to the unaware) Agency for International Development to the CIA, NSA and the US Military.

Maduro credits WikiLeaks with having revealed documentary proof that the US Government is behind the right-wing provocateurs organizing street violence against the Maduro government.  Maduro told the Guardian that Venezuela has been on the receiving end of a type of ” ‘unconventional war that the US has perfected over the last decades’, citing a string of US-backed coups or attempted coups from 1960s Brazil to Honduras in 2009.”

“Speaking in the Miraflores presidential palace in Caracas, the former bus driver and trade union leader said Venezuela’s opposition had ‘the aim of paralysing the main cities of the country, copying badly what happened in Kiev, where the main roads in the cities were blocked off, until they made governability impossible, which led to the overthrow of the elected government of Ukraine.’ The Venezuelan opposition had, he said, a ‘similar plan'”:

“They try to increase economic problems through an economic war to cut the supplies of basic goods and boost an artificial inflation”, Maduro said. “To create social discontent and violence, to portray a country in flames, which could lead them to justify international isolation and even foreign intervention.”

“Pointing to the large increases in social provision and reduction in inequality over the past decade and a half, Maduro said: ‘When I was a union leader there wasn’t a single programme to protect the education, health, housing and salaries of the workers. It was the reign of savage capitalism. Today in Venezuela, the working class is in power: it’s the country where the rich protest and the poor celebrate their social wellbeing.’ ”

[Source: The Guardian (UK): “Venezuela protests are sign that US wants our oil, says Nicolás Maduro”, by Seumas Milne and Jonathan Watts, 8 April 2014]

These statements show that if Maduro’s bourgeois reformist government hasn’t taken the proper steps to lead the Venezuelan working class in a revolutionary struggle to overthrow capitalism in Venezuela, it’s not because they are unaware of the magnitude of the financial and political attacks coming from Washington, D.C.  In fact, the Guardian article makes it clear that Maduro is bedazzled by the kid gloves of the US’ mailed fist: NGOs peddling “peaceful, democratic reforms” in Venezuela, and is prepared to allow that Trojan Horse of counterrevolution – the Vatican  – to work its “magic” in a “peace process” that will negotiate a “settlement” between the vicious, greedy Venezuelan capitalist class and the Venezuelan workers.  No compromise is possible between the working class and the exploiting capitalist class!  Venezuelan workers: arm yourselves and prepare to overthrow capitalism in Venezuela! And if the Maduristas continue to bar the path to workers socialist revolution, they will have to be pushed aside as well!  Those who seek compromise with the capitalists are the enemies of the working class!

Last week, the Associated Press revealed that the supposedly benign United States Agency for International Development (USAID) – a US government agency that publicly pretends to be a “no strings attached” organization that provides food assistance and other forms of non-political aid – was actually behind a secret program to create social unrest in Cuba with the ultimate aim of overthrowing that Stalinist degenerated workers state.

As usual, the Democratic Party rushed to the assistance of USAID, which they cherish as one of their most effective propaganda operations and weapons in the US capitalist class never-ending efforts to crush militant workers movements wherever they arise.  Obscenely, the Cuban government’s propaganda mouthpiece, Granma, favorably quoted anticommunist US Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy’s and lapped up the crocodile tears he shed over the revelations:

“Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy from Vermont, chairman of the Senate sub-committee overseeing State Department and Foreign Operations, said that the revelations were troubling.

” ‘There is the risk to young, unsuspecting Cuban cellphone users who had no idea this was a U.S. government-funded activity,’ he pointed out.”  As if this craven servant of the US capitalist class gives a shit about the rights of Cuban workers – or any workers anywhere in the world!”

[Source: Granma: “Revelations about U.S. Operations in Cuba corroborate President Raúl Castro’s assertions“, 4 April, 2014]

Leahy and the rest of the Democrats want you to believe that USAID’s running a secret destabilization program against Cuba is some kind of anomalous activity for this organization: it is no such thing!  USAID has been running covert operations against workers all over the world since its inception; they were an integral component of the US Government’s war crimes in Vietnam, having participated in the infamous counterinsurgency and “pacification” programs in Vietnam.  USAID has been repeatedly embroiled in military assistance and “drug control” programs that the US Government has used to make an “end run” around those rare US Congressional bans on direct US military aid to death-squad governments.

DOCUMENTS:

1:  REPORT TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES: SURVEY OF INTERNAL  AUDITS AND INSPECTIONS RELATING TO UNITED STATES ACTlVlTIES IN VIET NAM (1966)

2:  REPORT TO THE CONGRESS: Suggestions For Changes In U.S. Funding And Management Of Pacification And Development Programs In Vietnam (1972)

 President Maduro was not imagining things when he said that WikiLeaks had proof of US organization of antigovernment programs in Venezuela:  the Guardian’s Seumas Milne, in an article his paper published on 9 April,  provided a link to one such document from the US State Department Cables provided to WikiLeaks by working class hero Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning:

USAID/OTI PROGRAMMATIC SUPPORT FOR COUNTRY TEAM 5 POINT STRATEGY

Here we read about the US Agency for International Development’s “Office of Transition Initiatives” – a.k.a. “Office of Overthrowing Governments the US Capitalist Class Doesn’t Like”.

What is this supposedly “non-partisan” US Governmental agency doing in Venezuela?  Money is no object for USAID: in 2009, according to the WikiLeaks State Department cables,  it asked for a budget of $10,000,000.00 (up from $7 million the previous year) to spend on “transition initiatives” in Venezuela.  Let’s read the opening paragraphs of the USAID/OTI document we posted above:

“1. (S) During his 8 years in power, President Chavez has
systematically dismantled the institutions of democracy and
governance. The USAID/OTI program objectives in Venezuela
focus on strengthening democratic institutions and spaces
through non-partisan cooperation with many sectors of
Venezuelan society.
“2. (S) In August of 2004, Ambassador outlined the country
team’s 5 point strategy to guide embassy activities in
Venezuela for the period 2004 ) 2006 (specifically, from the
referendum to the 2006 presidential elections). The
strategy’s focus is: 1) Strengthening Democratic
Institutions, 2) Penetrating Chavez’ Political Base, 3)
Dividing Chavismo, 4) Protecting Vital US business, and 5)
Isolating Chavez internationally.
“3. (S) A brief description of USAID/OTI activities during
the aforementioned time period in support of the strategy
follows:

[…]

“5. (S) OTI has supported over 300 Venezuelan civil society
organizations with technical assistance, capacity building,
connecting them with each other and international movements,
and with financial support upwards of $15 million. Of these,
39 organizations focused on advocacy have been formed since
the arrival of OTI; many of these organizations as a direct
result of OTI programs and funding.

“6. (S) Human Rights: OTI supports the Freedom House (FH)
“Right to Defend Human Rights” program with $1.1 million.
Simultaneously through Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI),
OTI has also provided 22 grants to human rights
organizations, totaling $726,000. FH provides training and
technical assistance to 15 different smaller and regional
human rights organizations on how to research, document, and
present cases in situations of judicial impunity through a
specialized software and proven techniques […]

“7. (S) Citizen Participation in Governance: Venezuelan
NGOs lack a long history of social activism. In response,
OTI partners are training NGOs to be activists and become
more involved in advocacy […]

“8. (S) Civic Education: One effective Chavista mechanism
of control applies democratic vocabulary to support
revolutionary Bolivarian ideology. OTI has been working to
counter this through a civic education program called
“Democracy Among Us”. This interactive education program
works through NGOs in low income communities to deliver five
modules: 1) Separation of Powers, 2) Rule of Law, 3) The
Role and Responsibility of Citizens, 4) Political Tolerance,
and 5) The Role of Civil Society. Separate civic education
programs in political tolerance, participation, and human
rights have reached over 600,000 people […]

 ————–
Penetrate Base/Divide Chavismo
————–
9. (S) Another key Chavez strategy is his attempt to divide
and polarize Venezuelan society using rhetoric of hate and
violence. OTI supports local NGOs who work in Chavista
strongholds and with Chavista leaders, using those spaces to
counter this rhetoric and promote alliances through working
together on issues of importance to the entire community.
OTI has directly reached approximately 238,000 adults through
over 3000 forums, workshops and training sessions delivering
alternative values and providing opportunities for opposition
activists to interact with hard-core Chavistas, with the
desired effect of pulling them slowly away from Chavismo. We
have supported this initiative with 50 grants totaling over
$1.1 million. There are several key examples of this:
10. (S) Visor Participativo: This is a group of 34 OTI
CARACAS 00003356 003.2 OF 004
funded and technically assisted NGOs working together on
municipal strengthening. They work in 48 municipalities
(Venezuela has 337), with 31 MVR, 2 PPT and 15 opposition
mayors. As Chavez attempts to re-centralize the country, OTI
through Visor is supporting decentralization. Much of this
is done through the municipal councils (CLPPs). The National
Assembly recently passed a law that creates groups parallel
to the mayor’s offices and municipal councils (and that
report directly to the president’s office). These groups are
receiving the lions share of new monies Chavez is pumping
into the regions, leaving the municipalities under-funded.
As Chavez attempts to re-centralize all power to the
Executive in the capital, local Chavista leadership are
becoming the opposition as their individual oxen are gored.
Visor has been providing these leaders with tools and skills
for leadership to counter the threat represented by the new
legislation […]”

We ask our readers to imagine the reaction of the US Government if ANY foreign government attempted to spend as much money causing political unrest inside the US!

Having been pointed in the direction of the WikiLeaks cables by Maduro and the Guardian, we thought we’d do a little searching for other USAID/OTI-tagged State Department Cables.  We went to the WikiLeaks PlusD website and typed “USAID/OTI” into the “Keywords” search box and… presto! 195 State Department cables popped up!

There is some tantalizing information on USAID/OTI’s ops in Sri Lanka, where a savage campaign of mass murder was instituted by the Sri Lankan government against the Tamil Tigers revolutionary party; there are a lot of documents relating to African countries, particularly Chad and Sudan.  There is plenty of evidence to show that USAID is up to its ears in US Government efforts to manipulate and channel political events in countries all over the world on to pathways that will fill the pockets of the US capitalist class with profits squeezed from the blood of the workers.

DOCUMENTS:

30May2003_SRI LANKA_ STATUS OF USAID-OFFICE OF TRANSITION INITIATIVES

 

In Venezuela, we see USAID/OTI throwing unlimited amounts of cash into purchasing politicians and manipulating elections.

DOCUMENT:

2006_USAID-OTI VENEZUELA ELECTION RELATED ACTIVITIES

A major national scandal was triggered when it was discovered that the US-sponsored “Sumate” organization, which pretends to be “a vote-monitoring group” had accepted a $300,000.00 donation from the United States Government.  The Chavistas accused the Sumate group’s leaders with treason and conspiracy; Sumate returned the money, saying that it was a grant from the US’ “National Endowment for Democracy”.  The WikiLeaks Cables tell a different story: the Sumate money came from the US State Department’s “DRL”: their  bogus “Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor”.  Although their Wikipedia article claims that they get “94 %” of their support from “private Venezuelan interests”, when the Chavistas leveled treason charges at them, it was the US Embassy in Caracas that they ran to for support.

Comic relief department: one of the principal leaders of the “Sumate” group, one  Maria Corina Machado  states on her Wikipedia biography (next to her smiling photo op with GW Bush in the Oval Office) that her father was a “steel entrepreneur”.   (And no, that does not mean that he repaired old pots and pans from a handcart on the streets of Caracas).

DOCUMENTS:

14AUG2006:_SUMATE ASKS FOR ASSISTANCE

9FEB2004_HUMAN RIGHTS STRATEGY FOR VENEZUELA

27MAR2009_REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO HELP STRENGTHEN LOCAL GOVTS AND CIVIL SOCIETY GROUPS

Here’s a bonus for those of you intrepid enough to have read all the way to the end of this article: a 27 August 2009 cable from Caracas alerting the State Department that a company called “Development Alternatives, Incorporated” (DAI), a front for the US Government through which the USAID/OTI office funneled millions of dollars to DAI, which ran agents for the US Government that were involved in organizing street protests against the Chavez government.  On August 26, the Chavez government initiated an investigation into DAI, which was run by two US citizens, Eduardo Fernandez and Erin Upton.  At issue were “unusually large cash transfers in 2007 and 2008” that were run through DAI by USAID.  “[T]his coincides with the December 2007 Constitutional Referendum and national state and local elections in 2008. The focus of the investigation will be the origin of these funds; DAI objectives in Venezuela; DAI fiscal status; and the destination of project funds.”

Having had the crap scared out of him by the Venezuelan government agents, even though, as the cable says, the officers “behaved in a polite and professional manner”, Fernandez immediately ran to the US Embassy for advice.  “DAI runs a 20-person office consisting of two Amcits Fernandez and financial officer Erin Upton, and 18 Venezuelans as program development officers and clerical staff. […] As part of its grant agreements, DAI commits to protect the identity of all grant beneficiaries. DAI files are structured so that financial information could be released without compromising identities. That said, DAI has 50 boxes of files on its premises that contain sensitive information and are vulnerable to seizure.

“Fernandez said that ‘the streets are hot,’ referring to growing protests against Chavez’s efforts to consolidate power, and ‘all these people (organizing the protests) are our grantees.’ Fernandez has been leading non-partisan training and grant programs since 2004 for DAI in Venezuela.

[…]

“Action Request ————– 7. (S) Post requests urgent guidance on the following issues: (1) whether Fernandez enjoys any immunity based on his official passport and visa, or whether he should appear before CICPC or any other Venezuelan authorities; (2 whether Mr. Fernandez should disclose any information and if so, what; (3) what DAI should do about its 50 boxes of files, some of which contain the names of persons directing DAI grantees; and (4) if Mr. Fernandez is considered to be working on behalf of the USG, should he remain in-country or to try to depart Venezuela before the September 1 police interview. ”

28AUG2009_GBRV POLICE TARGET USAID-OTI-FUNDED DEMOCRACY PROGRAMS

For Workers Socialist Revolution in Venezuela!  Workers of the World, Unite!

IWPCHI

 

 

 

 

 

Transcript of Bradley Manning’s Statement to Court, 28 February, 2013

http://www.bradleymanning.org/news/update-3113-bradley-mannings-statement-taking-responsibility-for-releasing-docs

Update 3/1/13: Bradley Manning’s statement taking responsibility for releasing docs

February 28, 2013. Rush transcript by Alexa O’Brien, originally published at alexaobrien.com. The Bradley Manning Support Network will republish the actual transcript of Bradley Manning’s statement as soon as it is made available.

This statement below was read by Private First Class Bradley E. Bradley at a providence inquiry for his formal plea of guilty to one specification as charged and nine specifications for lesser included offenses. He pled not guilty to 12 other specifications. This rush transcript was taken by journalist Alexa O’Brien at the Article 39(a) session of United States v. Pfc. Bradley Manning on February 28, 2013 at Fort Meade, MD, USA.

Judge Lind: Pfc. Manning you may read your statement.

Pfc. Bradley Manning: Yes, your Honor. I wrote this statement in the confinement facility. The following facts are provided in support of the providence inquiry for my court martial, United States v. Pfc. Bradley E. Manning.

Personal Facts.

I am a twenty-five year old Private First Class in the United States Army currently assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, HHC, US Army Garrison (USAG), Joint Base Myer, Henderson Hall, Fort Meyer, Virginia.

My [missed word] assignment I was assigned to HHC, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, NY. My primary military occupational specialty or MOS is 35 Foxtrot intelligence analyst. I entered active duty status on 2 October 2007. I enlisted with the hope of obtaining both real world experience and earning benefits under the GI Bill for college opportunities.

Facts regarding my position as an intelligence analyst.

In order to enlist in the Army I took the Standard Armed Services Aptitude Battery or [ASVAB?]. My score on this battery was high enough for me to qualify for any enlisted MOS positon. My recruiter informed me that I should select an MOS that complimented my interests outside the military. In response, I told him that I was interested in geopolitical matters and information technology. He suggested that I consider becoming an intelligence analyst.

After researching the intelligence analyst position, I agreed that this would be a good fit for me. In particular, I enjoyed the fact that an analyst could use information derived from a variety of sources to create work products that informed the command of its available choices for determining the best course of action or COA’s. Although the MOS required working knowledge of computers, it primarily required me to consider how raw information can be combined with other available intelligence sources in order to create products that assisted the command in it’s situational awareness or SA.

I accessed that my natural interest in geopolitical affairs and my computer skills would make me an excellent intelligence analyst. After enlisting I reported to the Fort Meade military entrance processing station on 1 October 2007. I then traveled to and reported at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri on 2 October 2007 to begin basic combat training or BCT.

Once at Fort Leonard Wood I quickly realized that I was neither physically nor mentally prepared for the requirements of basic training. My BCT experience lasted six months instead of the normal ten weeks. Due to medical issues, I was placed on a hold status. A physical examination indicated that I sustained injuries to my right soldier and left foot.

Due to those injuries I was unable to continue ‘basic’. During medical hold, I was informed that I may be out processed from the Army, however, I resisted being chaptered out because I felt that I could overcome my medical issues and continue to serve. On 2[8 or 20?] January 2008, I returned to basic combat training. This time I was better prepared and I completed training on 2 April 2008.

I then reported for the MOS specific Advanced Individual Training or AIT on 7 April 2008. AIT was an enjoyable experience for me. Unlike basic training where I felt different from the other soldiers, I fit in did well. I preferred the mental challenges of reviewing a large amount of information from various sources and trying to create useful or actionable products. I especially enjoyed the practice of analysis through the use of computer applications and methods that I was familiar with.

I graduated from AIT on 16 August 2008 and reported to my first duty station, Fort Drum, NY on 28 August 2008. As an analyst, Significant Activities or SigActs were a frequent source of information for me to use in creating work products. I started working extensively with SigActs early after my arrival at Fort Drum. My computer background allowed me to use the tools of organic to the Distributed Common Ground System-Army or D6-A computers to create polished work products for the 2nd Brigade Combat Team chain of command.

The non-commissioned officer in charge, or NCOIC, of the S2 section, then Master Sergeant David P. Adkins recognized my skills and potential and tasked me to work on a tool abandoned by a previously assigned analyst, the incident tracker. The incident tracker was viewed as a back up to the Combined Information Data Network Exchange or CIDNE and as a unit, historical reference to work with.

In the months preceding my upcoming deployment, I worked on creating a new version of the incident tracker and used SigActs to populate it. The SigActs I used were from Afghanistan, because at the time our unit was scheduled to deploy to the Logar and Wardak Provinces of Afghanistan. Later my unit was reassigned to deploy to Eastern Baghdad, Iraq. At that point, I removed the Afghanistan SigActs and switched to Iraq SigActs.

As and analyst I viewed the SigActs as historical data. I believed this view is shared by other all-source analysts as well. SigActs give a first look impression of a specific or isolated event. This event can be an improvised explosive device attack or IED, small arms fire engagement or SAF engagement with a hostile force, or any other event a specific unit documented and recorded in real time.

In my perspective the information contained within a single SigAct or group of SigActs is not very sensitive. The events encapsulated within most SigActs involve either enemy engagements or causalities. Most of this information is publicly reported by the public affairs office or PAO, embedded media pools, or host nation HN media.

As I started working with SigActs I felt they were similar to a daily journal or log that a person may keep. They capture what happens on a particular day in time. They are created immediately after the event, and are potentially updated over a period of hours until final version is published on the Combined Information Data Network Exchange. Each unit has it’s own Standard Operating Procedure or SOP for reporting recording SigActs. The SOP may differ between reporting in a particular deployment and reporting in garrison.

In garrison a SigAct normally involves personnel issues such as driving under the influence or DUI incidents or an automobile accident involving the death or serious injury of a soldier. The reports starts at the company level and goes up to the battalion, brigade, and even up to the division level.

In deployed environment a unit may observe or participate in an event and a platoon leader or platoon sergeant may report the event as a SigAct to the company headquarters and the radio transmission operator or RTO. The commander or RTO will then forward the report to the battalion battle captain or battle non-commissioned officer or NCO. Once the battalion battle captain or battle NCO receives the report they will either (1) notify the battalion operations officer or S3; (2) conduct an action, such as launching a quick reaction force; or (3) record the event and report and further report it up the chain of command to the brigade.

The reporting of each event is done by radio or over the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network or SIPRNet, normally by an assigned soldier, usually junior enlisted E-4 and below. Once the SigAct is recorded, the SigAct is further sent up the chain of command. At each level, additional information can either be added or corrected as needed. Normally within 24 to 48 hours, the updating and reporting or a particular SigAct is complete. Eventually all reports and SigActs go through the chain of command from brigade to division and division to corp. At corp level the SigAct is finalized and [missed word].

The CIDNE system contains a database that is used by thousands of Department of Defense–DoD personel including soldiers, civilians, and contractors support. It was the United States Central Command or CENTCOM reporting tool for operational reporting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Two separate but similar databases were maintained for each theater– CIDNE-I for Iraq and CIDNE-A for Afghanistan. Each database encompasses over a hundred types of reports and other historical information for access. They contain millions of vetted and finalized directories including operational intelligence reporting.

CIDNE was created to collect and analyze battle-space data to provide daily operational and Intelligence Community (IC) reporting relevant to a commander’s daily decision making process. The CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A databases contain reporting and analysis fields for multiple disciplines including Human Intelligence or HUMINT reports, Psychological Operations or PSYOP reports, Engagement reports, Counter Improvised Explosive Device or CIED reports, SigAct reports, Targeting reports, Social and Cultural reports, Civil Affairs reports, and Human Terrain reporting.

As an intelligence analyst, I had unlimited access to the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A databases and the information contained within them. Although each table within the database is important, I primarily dealt with HUMINT reports, SigAct reports and Counter IED reports, because these reports were used to create a work-product I was required to published as an analyst.

In working on an assignment I looked anywhere and everywhere for information. As an all-source analyst, this was something that was expected. The D6-A systems had databases built in, and I utilized them on a daily basis. This simply was–the search tools available on the D6-A systems on SIPRNet such as Query Tree and the DoD and Intellink search engines.

Primarily, I utilized the CIDNE database using the historical and HUMINT reporting to conduct my analysis and provide a back up for my work product. I did statistical analysis on historical data including SigActs to back up analysis that were based on HUMINT reporting and produce charts, graphs, and tables. I also created maps and charts to conduct predictive analysis based on statistical trends. The SigAct reporting provided a reference point for what occurred and provided myself and other analysts with the information to conclude possible outcome.

Although SigAct reporting is sensitive at the time of their creation, their sensitivity normally dissipates within 48 to 72 hours as the information is either publicly released or the unit involved is no longer in the area and not in danger.

It is my understanding that the SigAct reports remain classified only because they are maintained within CIDNE– because it is only accessible on SIPRnet. Everything on CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A to include SigAct reporting was treated as classified information.

Facts regarding the storage of SigAct Reports.

As part of my training at Fort Drum, I was instructed to ensure that I create back ups of my work product. The need to create back ups was particularly acute given the relative instability and reliability of the computer systems we used in the field during deployment. These computer systems included both organic and theater provided equipment (TPE) D6-A machines.

The organic D6-A machines we brought with us into the field on our deployment were Dell [missed word] laptops and the TPE D6-A machines were Alienware brand laptops. The [M90?] D6-A laptops were the preferred machine to use as they were slightly faster and had fewer problems with dust and temperature than the theater provided Alienware laptops. I used several D6-A machines during the deployment due to various technical problems with the laptops.

With these issues several analysts lost information, but I never lost information due to the multiple backups I created. I attempted to backup as much relevant information as possible. I would save the information so that I or another analyst could quickly access it whenever a machine crashed, SIPRnet connectivity was down, or I forgot where the data was stored.

When backing up information I would do one or all of the following things based on my training:

[(1)] Physical back up. I tried to keep physical back up copies of information on paper so that the information could be grabbed quickly. Also, it was easier to brief from hard copies of research and HUMINT reports.

(2) Local drive back up. I tried to sort out information I deemed relevant and keep complete copies of the information on each of the computers I used in the Temporary Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility or T-SCIF, including my primary and secondary D6-A machines. This was stored under my user profile on the desktop.

[(3)] Shared drive backup. Each analyst had access to a ‘T’ drive– what we called ‘T’ drive shared across the SIPRnet. It allowed others to access information that was stored on it. S6 operated the ‘T’ drive.

[(4)] Compact disk rewritable or CD-RW back up. For larger datasets I saved the information onto a re-writable disk, labeled the disks, and stored them in the conference room of the T-SCIF. This redundancy permitted us to not worry about information loss. If the system crashed, I could easily pull the information from a secondary computer, the ‘T’ drive, or one of the CD-RWs.

If another analysts wanted to access my data, but I was unavailable she could find my published products directory on the ‘T’ drive or on the CD-RWs. I sorted all of my products or research by date, time, and group; and updated the information on each of the storage methods to ensure that the latest information was available to them.

During the deployment I had several of the D6-A machines crash on me. Whenever one of the computer crashed, I usually lost information but the redundancy method ensured my ability to quickly restore old backup data and add my current information to the machine when it was repaired or replaced.

I stored the backup CD-RW with larger datasets in the conference room of the T-SCIF or next to my workstation. I marked the CD-RWs based on the classification level and its content. Unclassified CD-RWs were only labeled with the content type and not marked with classification markings. Early on in the deployment, I only saved and stored the SigActs that were within or near operational environment.

Later I thought it would be easier to just to save all of the SigActs onto a CD-RW. The process would not take very long to complete and so I downloaded the SigActs from CIDNE-I onto a CD-RW. After finishing with CIDNE-I, I did the same with CIDNE-A. By retrieving the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A SigActs I was able to retrieve the information whenever I needed it, and not rely upon the unreliable and slow SIPRnet connectivity needed to pull. Instead, I could just find the CD-RW and open up a pre-loaded spreadsheet.

This process began in late December 2009 and continued through early January 2010. I could quickly export one month of the SigAct data at a time and download in the background as I did other tasks.

The process took approximately a week for each table. After downloading the SigAct tables, I periodically updated them, by pulling the most recent SigActs and simply copying them and pasting them into the database saved on the CD-RW. I never hid the fact that I had downloaded copies of both the SigAct tables from CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A. They were stored on appropriately labeled and marked CD-RW, stored in the open.

I viewed this the saving copies of CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A as for both for my use and the use of anyone within the S2 section during the SIPRnet connectivity issues.

In addition to the SigAct tables, I had a large repository of HUMINT reports and Counter IED reports downloaded from CIDNE-I. These contained reports that were relevant to the area in and around our operational environment in Eastern Baghdad and the Diyala Province of Iraq.

In order to compress the data to fit onto a CD-RW, I used a compression algorithm called ‘bzip2′. The program used to compress the data is called ‘WinRAR’. WinRAR is an application that is free, and can be easily downloaded from the internet via the Non-Secure Internet Relay Protocol Network or NIPRnet. I downloaded WinRAR on NIPRnet and transfered it to the D6-A machine user profile desktop using a CD-RW. I did not try to hide the fact that I was downloading WinRAR onto my SIPRnet D6-A machine or computer.

With the assistance of the bzip2 algorithm using the WinRAR program, I was able to fit All of the SigActs onto a single CD-RW and relevant HUMINT and Counter ID reports onto a separate CD-RW.

Facts regarding my knowledge of the WikiLeaks Organization or WLO.

I first became vaguely aware of the WLO during my AIT at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, although I did not fully pay attention until the WLO released purported Short Messaging System or SMS messages from 11 September 2001 on 25 November 2009. At that time references to the release and the WLO website showed up in my daily Google news open source search for information related to US foreign policy.

The stories were about how WLO published about approximately 500,000 messages. I then reviewed the messages myself and realized that the posted messages were very likely real given the sheer volume and detail of the content.

After this, I began conducting research on WLO. I conducted searched on both NIPRnet and SIPRnet on WLO beginning in late November 2009 and early December 2009. At this time I also began to routinely monitor the WLO website. In response to one of my searches in 2009, I found the United States Army Counter Intelligence Center or USACIC report on the WikiLeaks organization. After reviewing the report, I believed that this report was possibly the one that my AIT referenced in early 2008.

I may or may not have saved the report on my D6-A workstation. I know I reviewed the document on other occasions throughout early 2010, and saved it on both my primary and secondary laptops. After reviewing the report, I continued doing research on WLO. However, based upon my open-source collection, I discovered information that contradicted the 2008 USACIC report including information that indicated that similar to other press agencies, WLO seemed to be dedicated to exposing illegal activities and corruption.

WLO received numerous award and recognition for its reporting activities. Also, in reviewing the WLO website, I found information regarding US military SOPs for Camp Delta at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and information on the then outdated rules of engagement for ROE in Iraq for cross-border pursuits of former members of Saddam Hussein [missed word] government.

After seeing the information available on the WLO website, I continued following it and collecting open sources information from it. During this time period, I followed several organizations and groups including wire press agencies such as the Associated Press and Reuters and private intelligence agencies including Strategic Forecasting or Stratfor. This practice was something I was trained to do during AIT, and was something that good analysts were expected to do.

During the searches of WLO, I found several pieces of information that I found useful in my work product in my work as an analyst, specifically I recall WLO publishing documents related to weapons trafficking between two nations that affected my OP. I integrated this information into one or more of my work products.

In addition to visiting the WLO website, I began following WLO using Instand Relay Chat or IRC Client called ‘XChat’ sometime in early January 2010.

IRC is a protocol for real time internet communications by messaging and conferencing, colloquially referred to as chat rooms or chats. The IRC chat rooms are designed for group communication discussion forums. Each IRC chat room is called a channel– similar to a Television where you can tune in or follow a channel– so long as it is open and does not require [missed word].

Once you [missed word] a specific IRC conversation, other users in the conversation can see that you have joined the room. On the Internet there are millions of different IRC channels across several services. Channel topics span a range of topics covering all kinds of interests and hobbies. The primary reason for following WLO on IRC was curiosity– particularly in regards to how and why they obtained the SMS messages referenced above. I believed that collecting information on the WLO would assist me in this goal.

Initially I simply observed the IRC conversations. I wanted to know how the organization was structured, and how they obtained their data. The conversations I viewed were usually technical in nature but sometimes switched to a lively debate on issue the particular individual may have felt strongly about.

Over a period of time I became more involved in these discussions especially when conversations turned to geopolitical events and information technology topics, such as networking and encryption methods. Based on these observations, I would describe the WL organization as almost academic in nature. In addition to the WLO conversations, I participated in numerous other IRC channels acros at least three different networks. The other IRC channels I participated in normally dealt with technical topics including with Linux and Berkley Secure Distribution BSD operating systems or OS’s, networking, encryption algorithms and techniques and other more political topics, such as politics and [missed word].

I normally engaged in multiple IRC conversations simultaneously–mostly publicly, but often privately. The XChat client enabled me to manage these multiple conversations across different channels and servers. The screen for XChat was often busy, but its screens enabled me to see when something was interesting. I would then select the conversation and either observe or participate.

I really enjoyed the IRC conversations pertaining to and involving the WLO, however, at some point in late February or early March of 2010, the WLO IRC channel was no longer accessible. Instead, regular participants of this channel switched to using the Jabber server. Jabber is another internet communication [missed word] similar but more sophisticated than IRC.

The IRC and Jabber conversations, allowed me to feel connected to others even when alone. They helped pass the time and keep motivated throughout the deployment.

Facts regarding the unauthorized storage and disclosure of the SigActs.

As indicated above I created copies of the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A SigAct tables as part of the process of backing up information. At the time I did so, I did not intend to use this information for any purpose other than for back up. However, I later decided to release this information publicly. At that time, I believe and still believe that these tables are two of the most significant documents of our time.

On 8 January 2010, I collected the CD-RW I stored in the conference room of the T-SCIF and placed it into the cargo pocket of my ACU or Army Combat Uniform. At the end of my shift, I took the CD-RW out of the T-SCIF and brought it to my Containerized Housing Unit of CHU. I copied the data onto my personal laptop. Later at the beginning of my shift, I returned the CD-RW back to the conference room of the T-SCIF. At the time I saved the SigActs to my laptop, I planned to take them with me on mid-tour leave and decide what to do with them.

At some point prior to my mid-tour, I transfered the information from my computer to a Secure Digital memory card from my digital camera. The SD card for the camera also worked on my computer and allowed me to store the SigAct tables in a secure manner for transport.

I began mid-tour leave on 23 January 2010, flying from Atlanta, Georgia to Reagan National Airport in Virginia. I arrived at the home of my aunt, Debra M. Van Alstyne, in Potomac, Maryland and quickly got into contact with my then boyfriend, Tyler R. Watkins. Tyler, then a student at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts, and I made plans for me to visit him him Boston, Massachusetts [missed word].

I was excited to see Tyler and planned on talking to Tyler about where our relationship was going and about my time in Iraq. However, when I arrived in the Boston area Tyler and I seemed to become distant. He did not seem very excited about my return from Iraq. I tried talking to him about our relationship but he refused to make any plans.

I also tried to raising the topic of releasing the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A SigAct tables to the public. I asked Tyler hypothetical questions about what he would do if he had documents that he thought the public needed access to. Tyler really didn’t have a specific answer for me. He tried to answer the questions and be supportive, but seemed confused by the question in this context.

I then tried to be more specific, but he asked too many questions. Rather than try to explain my dilemma, I decided to just drop the conversation. After a few days in Waltham, I began to feel really bad. I was over staying my welcome, and I returned to Maryland. I spent the remainder of my time on leave in the Washington, DC area.

During this time a blizzard bombarded the mid-atlantic, and I spent a significant period of time essentially stuck in my aunt’s house in Maryland. I began to think about what I knew and the information I still had in my possession. For me, the SigActs represented the on the ground reality of both the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I felt that we were risking so much for people that seemed unwilling to cooperate with us, leading to frustration and anger on both sides. I began to become depressed with the situation that we found ourselves increasingly mired in year after year. The SigActs documented this in great detail and provide a context of what we were seeing on the ground.

In attempting to conduct counter-terrorism or CT and counter-insurgency COIN operations we became obsessed with capturing and killing human targets on lists and not being suspicious of and avoiding cooperation with our Host Nation partners, and ignoring the second and third order effects of accomplishing short-term goals and missions. I believe that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information contained within the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A tables this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general as [missed word] as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan.

I also believed the detailed analysis of the data over a long period of time by different sectors of society might cause society to reevaluate the need or even the desire to even to engage in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations that ignore the complex dynamics of the people living in the effected environment everyday.

At my aunt’s house I debated what I should do with the SigActs– in particular whether I should hold on to them– or expose them through a press agency. At this point I decided that it made sense to try to expose the SigAct tables to an American newspaper. I first called my local news paper, The Washington Post, and spoke with a woman saying that she was a reporter. I asked her if the Washington Post would be interested in receiving information that would have enormous value to the American public.

Although we spoke for about five minutes concerning the general nature of what I possessed, I do not believe she took me seriously. She informed me that the Washington Post would possibly be interested, but that such decisions were made only after seeing the information I was referring to and after consideration by senior editors.

I then decided to contact [missed word] the most popular newspaper, The New York Times. I called the public editor number on The New York Times website. The phone rang and was answered by a machine. I went through the menu to the section for news tips. I was routed to an answering machine. I left a message stating I had access to information about Iraq and Afghanistan that I believed was very important. However, despite leaving my Skype phone number and personal email address, I never received a reply from The New York Times.

I also briefly considered dropping into the office for the Political Commentary blog, Politico, however the weather conditions during my leave hampered my efforts to travel. After these failed efforts I had ultimately decided to submit the materials to the WLO. I was not sure if the WLO would actually publish these SigAct tables [missed a few words]. I was concerned that they might not be noticed by the American media. However, based upon what I read about the WLO through my research described above, this seemed to be the best medium for publishing this information to the world within my reach.

At my aunts house I joined in on an IRC conversation and stated I had information that needed to be shared with the world. I wrote that the information would help document the true cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the individuals in the IRC asked me to describe the information. However, before I could describe the information another individual pointed me to the link for the WLO web site online submission system. After ending my IRC connection, I considered my options one more time. Ultimately, I felt that the right thing to do was to release the SigActs.

On 3 February 2010, I visited the WLO website on my computer and clicked on the submit documents link. Next I found the submit your information online link and elected to submit the SigActs via the onion router or TOR anonymizing network by special link. TOR is a system intended to provide anonymity online. The software routes internet traffic through a network of servers and other TOR clients in order to conceal the user’s location and identity.

I was familiar with TOR and had it previously installed on a computer to anonymously monitor the social media website of militia groups operating within central Iraq. I followed the prompts and attached the compressed data files of CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A SigActs. I attached a text file I drafted while preparing to provide the documents to the Washington Post. It provided rough guidelines saying ‘It’s already been sanitized of any source identifying information. You might need to sit on this information– perhaps 90 to 100 days to figure out how best to release such a large amount of data and to protect its source. This is possibly one of the more significant documents of our time removing the fog of war and revealing the true nature of twenty-first century asymmetric warfare. Have a good day.’

After sending this, I left the SD card in a camera case at my aunt’s house in the event I needed it again in the future. I returned from mid-tour leave on 11 February 2010. Although the information had not yet been publicly by the WLO, I felt this sense of relief by them having it. I felt I had accomplished something that allowed me to have a clear conscience based upon what I had seen and read about and knew were happening in both Iraq and Afghanistan everyday.

Facts regarding the unauthorized storage and disclosure of 10 Reykjavik 13.

I first became aware of the diplomatic cables during my training period in AIT. I later learned about the Department of State or DoS Net-centric Diplomacy NCD portal from the 2/10 Brigade Combat Team S2, Captain Steven Lim. Captain Lim sent a section wide email to the other analysts and officer in late December 2009 containing the SIPRnet link to the portal along with the instructions to look at the cables contained within them and to incorporate them into our work product.

Shortly after this I also noticed the diplomatic cables were being reported to in products from the corp level US Forces Iraq or US-I. Based upon Captain Lim’s direction to become familiar with its contents, I read virtually every published cable concerning Iraq.

I also began scanning the database and reading other random cables that piqued my curiosity. It was around this time– in early to mid-January of 2010, that I began searching the database for information on Iceland. I became interested in Iceland due to the IRC conversations I viewed in the WLO channel discussing an issue called Icesave. At this time I was not very familiar with the topic, but it seemed to be a big issue for those participating in the conversation. This is when I decided to investigate and conduct a few searches on Iceland and find out more.

At the time, I did not find anything discussing the Icesave issue either directly or indirectly. I then conducted an open source search for Icesave. I then learned that Iceland was involved in a dispute with the United Kingdom and the Netherlands concerning the financial collapse of one or more of Iceland’s banks. According to open source reporting much of the public controversy involved the United Kingdom’s use of anti-terrorism legislation against Iceland in order to freeze Icelandic access for payment of the guarantees for UK depositors that lost money.

Shortly after returning from mid-tour leave, I returned to the Net Centric Diplomacy portal to search for information on Iceland and Icesave as the topic had not abated on the WLO IRC channel. To my surprise, on 14 February 2010, I found the cable 10 Reykjavik 13, which referenced the Icesave issue directly.

The cable published on 13 January 2010 was just over two pages in length. I read the cable and quickly concluded that Iceland was essentially being bullied diplomatically by two larger European powers. It appeared to me that Iceland was out viable options and was coming to the US for assistance. Despite the quiet request for assistance, it did not appear that we were going to do anything.

From my perspective it appeared that we were not getting involved due to the lack of long term geopolitical benefit to do so. After digesting the contents of 10 Reykjavik 13 I debated whether this was something I should send to the WLO. At this point the WLO had not published or acknowledged receipt of the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A tables. Despite not knowing that the SigActs were a priority for the WLO, I decided the cable was something that would be important. I felt that I would be able to right a wrong by having them publish this document. I burned the information onto a CD-RW on 15 February 2010, took it to my CHU, and saved it onto my personal laptop.

I navigated to the WLO website via a TOR connection like before and uploaded the document via the secure form. Amazingly, when WLO published 10 Reykjavik 13 within hours, proving that the form worked and that they must have received the SigAct tables.

Facts regarding the unauthorized storage and disclosure of the 12 July 2007 aerial weapons team or AW team video.

During the mid-February 2010 time frame the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division targeting analysts, then Specialist Jihrleah W. Showman discussed a video that Ms. Showman had found on the ‘T’ drive.

The video depicted several individuals being engaged by an aerial weapons team. At first I did not consider the video very special, as I have viewed countless other war porn type videos depicting combat. However, the recording of audio comments by the aerial weapons team crew and the second engagement in the video of an unarmed bongo truck troubled me.

As Showman and a few other analysts and officers in the T-SCIF commented on the video and debated whether the crew violated the rules of engagement or ROE in the second engagement, I shied away from this debate, instead conducting some research on the event. I wanted to learn what happened and whether there was any background to the events of the day that the event occurred, 12 July 2007.

Using Google I searched for the event by its date by its general location. I found several new accounts involving two Reuters employees who were killed during the aerial weapon team engagement. Another story explained that Reuters had requested for a copy of the video under the Freedom of Information Act or FOIA. Reuters wanted to view the video in order to understand what had happened and to improve their safety practices in combat zones. A spokesperson for Reuters was quoted saying that the video might help avoid the reoccurrence of the tragedy and believed there was a compelling need for the immediate release of the video.

Despite the submission of the FOIA request, the news account explained that CENTCOM replied to Reuters stating that they could not give a time frame for considering a FOIA request and that the video might no longer exist. Another story I found written a year later said that even though Reuters was still pursuing their request. They still did not receive a formal response or written determination in accordance with FOIA.

The fact neither CENTCOM or Multi National Forces Iraq or MNF-I would not voluntarily release the video troubled me further. It was clear to me that the event happened because the aerial weapons team mistakenly identified Reuters employees as a potential threat and that the people in the bongo truck were merely attempting to assist the wounded. The people in the van were not a threat but merely ‘good samaritans’. The most alarming aspect of the video to me, however, was the seemly delightful bloodlust they appeared to have.

The dehumanized the individuals they were engaging and seemed to not value human life by referring to them as quote “dead bastards” unquote and congratulating each other on the ability to kill in large numbers. At one point in the video there is an individual on the ground attempting to crawl to safety. The individual is seriously wounded. Instead of calling for medical attention to the location, one of the aerial weapons team crew members verbally asks for the wounded person to pick up a weapon so that he can have a reason to engage. For me, this seems similar to a child torturing ants with a magnifying glass.

While saddened by the aerial weapons team crew’s lack of concern about human life, I was disturbed by the response of the discovery of injured children at the scene. In the video, you can see that the bongo truck driving up to assist the wounded individual. In response the aerial weapons team crew– as soon as the individuals are a threat, they repeatedly request for authorization to fire on the bongo truck and once granted they engage the vehicle at least six times.

Shortly after the second engagement, a mechanized infantry unit arrives at the scene. Within minutes, the aerial weapons team crew learns that children were in the van and despite the injuries the crew exhibits no remorse. Instead, they downplay the significance of their actions, saying quote ‘Well, it’s their fault for bringing their kid’s into a battle’ unquote.

The aerial weapons team crew members sound like they lack sympathy for the children or the parents. Later in a particularly disturbing manner, the aerial weapons team verbalizes enjoyment at the sight of one of the ground vehicles driving over a body– or one of the bodies. As I continued my research, I found an article discussing the book, The Good Soldiers, written by Washington Post writer David Finkel.

In Mr. Finkel book, he writes about the aerial weapons team attack. As, I read an online excerpt in Google Books, I followed Mr. Finkel’s account of the event belonging to the video. I quickly realize that Mr. Finkel was quoting, I feel in verbatim, the audio communications of the aerial weapons team crew.

It is clear to me that Mr. Finkel obtained access and a copy of the video during his tenue as an embedded journalist. I was aghast at Mr. Finkel’s portrayal of the incident. Reading his account, one would believe the engagement was somehow justified as ‘payback’ for an earlier attack that lead to the death of a soldier. Mr. Finkel ends his account by discussing how a soldier finds an individual still alive from the attack. He writes that the soldier finds him and sees him gesture with his two forefingers together, a common method in the Middle East to communicate that they are friendly. However, instead of assisting him, the soldier makes an obscene gesture extending his middle finger.

The individual apparently dies shortly thereafter. Reading this, I can only think of how this person was simply trying to help others, and then he quickly finds he needs help as well. To make matter worse, in the last moments of his life, he continues to express his friendly gesture– only to find himself receiving this well known gesture of unfriendliness. For me it’s all a big mess, and I am left wondering what these things mean, and how it all fits together. It burdens me emotionally.

I saved a copy of the video on my workstation. I searched for and found the rules of engagement, the rules of engagement annexes, and a flow chart from the 2007 time period– as well as an unclassified Rules of Engagement smart card from 2006. On 15 February 2010 I burned these documents onto a CD-RW, the same time I burned the 10 Reykjavik 13 cable onto a CD-RW. At the time, I placed the video and rules for engagement information onto my personal laptop in my CHU. I planned to keep this information there until I redeployed in Summer 2010. I planned on providing this to the Reuters office in London to assist them in preventing events such as this in the future.

However, after the WLO published 10 Reykjavik 13 I altered my plans. I decided to provide the video and the rules of engagement to them so that Reuters would have this information before I re-deployed from Iraq. On about 21 February 2010, I described above, I used the WLO submission form and uploaded the documents. The WLO released the video on 5 April 2010. After the release, I was concern about the impact of the video and how it would been received by the general public.

I hoped that the public would be as alarmed as me about the conduct of the aerial weapons team crew members. I wanted the American public to know that not everyone in Iraq and Afghanistan are targets that needed to be neutralized, but rather people who were struggling to live in the pressure cooker environment of what we call asymmetric warfare. After the release I was encouraged by the response in the media and general public, who observed the aerial weapons team video. As I hoped, others were just as troubled– if not more troubled that me by what they saw.

At this time, I began seeing reports claiming that the Department of Defense an CENTCOM could not confirm the authenticity of the video. Additionally, one of my supervisors, Captain Casey Fulton, stated her belief that the video was not authentic. In her response, I decided to ensure that the authenticity of the video would not be questioned in the future. On 25 February 2010, I emailed Captain Fulton, a link to the video that was on our ‘T’ drive, and a copy of the video published by WLO that was collected by the open source center, so she could compare them herself.

Around this time frame, I burned a second CD-RW containing the aerial weapons team video. In order to made it appear authentic, I placed a classification sticker and wrote Reuters FOIA REQ on its face. I placed the CD-RW in one of my personal CD cases containing a set of ‘Starting Out in Arabic CD’s.’ I planned on mailing out the CD-RW to Reuters after our re-deployment, so they could have a copy that was unquestionably authentic.

Almost immediately after submitting the aerial weapons team video and rules of engagement documents I notified the individuals in the WLO IRC to expect an important submission. I received a response from an individual going by the handle of ‘ox’– at first our conversations were general in nature, but over time as our conversations progressed, I accessed this individual to be an important part of the WLO.

Due to the strict adherence of anonymity by the WLO, we never exchanged identifying information. However, I believe the individual was likely Mr. Julian Assange [he pronounced it with three syllables], Mr. Daniel Schmidt, or a proxy representative of Mr. Assange and Schmidt.

As the communications transfered from IRC to the Jabber client, I gave ‘ox’ and later ‘pressassociation’ the name of Nathaniel Frank in my address book, after the author of a book I read in 2009.

After a period of time, I developed what I felt was a friendly relationship with Nathaniel. Our mutual interest in information technology and politics made our conversations enjoyable. We engaged in conversation often. Sometimes as long as an hour or more. I often looked forward to my conversations with Nathaniel after work.

The anonymity that was provided by TOR and the Jabber client and the WLO’s policy allowed me to feel I could just be myself, free of the concerns of social labeling and perceptions that are often placed upon me in real life. In real life, I lacked a closed friendship with the people I worked with in my section, the S2 section.

In my section, the S2 section supported battalions and the 2nd Brigade Combat Team as a whole. For instance, I lacked close ties with my roommate to his discomfort regarding my perceived sexual orientation. Over the next few months, I stayed in frequent contact with Nathaniel. We conversed on nearly a daily basis and I felt that we were developing a friendship.

Conversations covered many topics and I enjoyed the ability to talk about pretty much everything, and not just the publications that the WLO was working on. In retrospect that these dynamics were artificial and were valued more by myself than Nathaniel. For me these conversations represented an opportunity to escape from the immense pressures and anxiety that I experienced and built up through out the deployment. It seems that as I tried harder to fit in at work, the more I seemed to alienate my peers and lose respect, trust, and support I needed.

Facts regarding the unauthorized storage and disclosure of documents related to the detainments by the Iraqi Federal Police or FP, and the Detainee Assessment Briefs, and the USACIC United States Army Counter Intelligence Center report.

On 27 February 2010, a report was received from a subordinate battalion. The report described an event in which the Federal Police or FP detained 15 individuals for printing anti-Iraqi literature. On 2 March 2010, I received instructions from an S3 section officer in the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division Tactical Operation Center or TOC to investigate the matter, and figure out who the quote ‘bad guys’ unquote were and how significant this event was for the Federal Police.

Over the course of my research I found that none of the individuals had previous ties to anti-Iraqi actions or suspected terrorist militia groups. A few hours later, I received several [playlist?] from the scene– from this subordinate battalion. They were accidentally sent to an officer on a different team on the S2 section and she forwarded them to me.

These photos included picture of the individuals, pallets of unprinted paper and seized copies of the final printed material or the printed document; and a high resolution photo of the printed material itself. I printed up one [missed word] copy of a high resolution photo– I laminated it for ease of use and transfer. I then walked to the TOC and delivered the laminated copy to our category two interpreter.

She reviewed the information and about a half and hour later delivered a rough written transcript in English to the S2 section. I read the transcript and followed up with her, asking her for her take on the content. She said it was easy for her to transcribe verbatim, since I blew up the photograph and laminated it. She said the general nature of the document was benign. The document, as I had sensed as well, was merely a scholarly critique of the then current Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

It detailed corruption within the cabinet of al-Maliki’s government and the financial impact of his corruption on the Iraqi people. After discovering this discrepancy between the Federal Police’s report and the interpreter’s transcript, I forwarded this discovery to the top OIC and the battle NCOIC. The top OIC and the overhearing battle captain informed me that they didn’t need or want to know this information anymore. They told me to quote “drop it” unquote and to just assist them and the Federal Police in finding out, where more of these print shops creating quote’ anti-Iraqi literature’ unquote.

I couldn’t believe what I heard and I returned to the T-SCIF and complained to the other analysts and my section NCOIC about what happened. Some were sympathetic, but no one wanted to do anything about it.

I am the type of person who likes to know how things work. And, as an analyst, this means I always want to figure out the truth. Unlike other analysts in my section or other sections within the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, I was not satisfied with just scratching the surface and producing canned or cookie cutter assessments. I wanted to know why something was the way it was, and what we could to correct or mitigate a situation.

I knew that if I continued to assist the Baghdad Federal Police in identifying the political opponents of Prime Minister al-Maliki, those people would be arrested and in the custody of the Special Unit of the Baghdad Federal Police and very likely tortured and not seen again for a very long time– if ever.

Instead of assisting the Special Unit of the Baghdad Federal Police, I decided to take the information and expose it to the WLO, in the hope that before the upcoming 7 March 2010 election, they could generate some immediate press on the issue and prevent this unit of the Federal Police from continuing to crack down in political opponents of al-Maliki.

On 4 March 2010, I burned the report, the photos, the high resolution copy of the pamphlet, and the interpreters hand written transcript onto a CD-RW. I took the CD-RW to my CHU and copied the data onto my personal computer. Unlike the times before, instead of uploading the information through the WLO website submission form. I made a Secure File Transfer Protocol or SFTP connection to a file drop box operated by the WLO.

The drop box contained a folder that allowed me to upload directly into it. Saving files into this directory. Allowed anyone with log in access to server to view and download them. After uploading these files to the WLO, on 5 March 2010, I notified Nathaniel over Jabber. Although sympathetic, he said that the WLO needed more information to confirm the event in order for it to be published or to gain interest in the international media.

I attempted to provide the specifics, but to my disappointment, the WLO website chose not to publish this information. At the same time, I began sifting through information from the US Southern Command or SOUTHCOM and Joint Task Force Guantanamo, Cuba or JTF-GTMO. The thought occurred to me– although unlikely, that I wouldn’t be surprised if the individuals detainees by the Federal Police might be turned over back into US custody– and ending up in the custody of Joint Task Force Guantanamo.

As I digested through the information on Joint Task Force Guantanamo, I quickly found the Detainee Assessment Briefs or DABs. I previously came across the document’s before in 2009 but did not think much about them. However, this time I was more curious in this search and I found them again.

The DABs were written in standard DoD memorandum format and addressed the commander US SOUTHCOM. Each memorandum gave basic and background information about a detainee held at some point by Joint Task Force Guantanamo. I have always been interested on the issue of the moral efficacy of our actions surrounding Joint Task Force Guantanamo. On the one hand, I have always understood the need to detain and interrogate individuals who might wish to harm the United States and our allies, however, I felt that what we were trying to do at Joint Task Force Guantanamo.

However, the more I became educated on the topic, it seemed that we found ourselves holding an increasing number of individuals indefinitely that we believed or knew to be innocent, low level foot soldiers that did not have useful intelligence and would be released if they were still held in theater.

I also recall that in early 2009 the, then newly elected president, Barack Obama, stated that he would close Joint Task Force Guantanamo, and that the facility compromised our standing over all, and diminished our quote ‘moral authority’ unquote.

After familiarizing myself with the Detainee Assessment Briefs, I agree. Reading through the Detainee Assessment Briefs, I noticed that they were not analytical products, instead they contained summaries of tear line versions of interim intelligence reports that were old or unclassified. None of the DABs contained the names of sources or quotes from tactical interrogation reports or TIR’s. Since the DABs were being sent to the US SOUTHCOM commander, I assessed that they were intended to provide very general background information on each of the detainees and not a detailed assessment.

In addition to the manner in which the DAB’s were written, I recognized that they were at least several years old, and discussed detainees that were already released from Joint Task Force Guantanamo. Based on this, I determined that the DAB’s were not very important fro either an intelligence or a national security standpoint. On 7 March 2010, during my Jabber conversation with Nathaniel, I asked him if he thought the DAB’s were of any use to anyone.

Nathaniel indicated, although he did not believe that they were of political significance, he did believe that they could be used to merge into the general historical account of what occurred at Joint Task Force Guantanamo. He also thought that the DAB’s might be helpful to the legal counsel of those currently and previously held at JTF-GTMO.

After this discussion, I decided to download the data. I used an application called Wget to download the DAB’s. I downloaded Wget off of the NIPRnet laptop in the T-SCIF, like other programs. I saved that onto a CD-RW, and placed the executable in my ‘My Documents’ directory on my user profile, on the D6-A SIPRnet workstation.

On 7 March 2010, I took the list of links for the detainee assessment briefs, and Wget downloaded them sequentially. I burned the data onto a CD-RW, and took it into my CHU, and copied them onto my personal computer. On 8 March 2010, I combined the Detainee Assessment Briefs with the United States Army Counterintelligence Center reports on the WLO, into a compressed IP file. Zip files contain multiple files which are compressed to reduce their size.

After creating the zip file, I uploaded the file onto their cloud drop box via Secure File Transfer Protocol. Once these were uploaded, I notified Nathaniel that the information was in the ‘x’ directory, which had been designated for my own use. Earlier that day, I downloaded the USACIC report on WLO.

As discussed about, I previously reviewed the report on numerous occasions and although I saved the document onto the work station before, I could not locate it. After I found the document again, I downloaded it to my work station, and saved it onto the same CD-RW as the Detainee Assessment Briefs described above.

Although my access included a great deal of information, I decided I had nothing else to send to WLO after sending the Detainee Assessment Briefs and the USACIC report. Up to this point I had sent them the following: the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A SigActs tables; the Reykjavik 13 Department of State Cable; the 12 July 2007 aerial weapons team video and the 2006-2007 rules of engagement documents; the SigAct report and supporting documents concerning the 15 individuals detained by the Baghdad Federal Police; the USSOUTHCOM and Joint Task Force Guantanamo Detainee Assessment Briefs; a USACIC report on the WikiLeaks website and the WikiLeaks organization.

Over the next few weeks I did not send any additional information to the WLO. I continued to converse with Nathaniel over the Jabber client and in the WLO IRC channel. Although I stopped sending documents to WLO, no one associated with the WLO pressures me into giving more information. The decisions that I made to send documents and information to the WLO and the website were my own decisions, and I take full responsibility for my actions.

Facts regarding the unauthorized disclosure of Other Government Documents.

One 22 March 2010, I downloaded two documents. I found these documents over the course of my normal duties as an analysts. Based on my training and the guidance of my superiors, I look at as much information as possible.

Doings so provided me with the ability to make connections that others might miss. On several occasions during the month of March, I accessed information from a Government entity. I read several documents from a section within this Government entity. The content of two of these documents upset me greatly. I had difficulty believing what this section was doing.

On 22 March 2010, I downloaded the two documents that I found troubling. I compressed them into a zip file named blah.zip and burned them onto a CD-RW. I took the CD-RW to my CHU and saved the file to my personal computer.

I uploaded the information to the WLO website using the designated prompts.

Facts regarding the unauthorized storage and disclosure of the Net Centric Diplomacy Department of State Cables.

In late March of 2010, I received a warning over Jabber from Nathaniel, that the WLO website would be publishing the aerial weapons team video. He indicated that the WLO would be very busy and the frequency and intensity of our Jabber conversations decrease significantly. During this time, I had nothing but work to distract me.

I read more of the diplomatic cables published on the Department of State Net Centric Diplomacy. With my insatiable curiosity and interest in geopolitics I became fascinated with them. I read not only the cables on Iraq, but also about countries and events that I found interesting.

The more I read, the more I was fascinated with the way that we dealt with other nations and organizations. I also began to think the documented backdoor deals and seemingly criminal activity that didn’t seem characteristic of the de facto leader of the free world.

Up to this point,during the deployment, I had issues I struggled with and difficulty at work. Of the documents release, the cables were the only one I was not absolutely certain couldn’t harm the United States. I conducted research on the cables published on the Net Centric Diplomacy, as well as how Department of State cables worked in general.

In particular, I wanted to know how each cable was published on SIRPnet via the Net Centric Diplomacy. As part of my open source research, I found a document published by the Department of State on its official website.

The document provided guidance on caption markings for individual cables and handling instructions for their distribution. I quickly learned the caption markings clearly detailed the sensitivity of the Department of State cables. For example, NODIS or No Distribution was used for messages at the highest sensitivity and were only distributed to the authorized recipients.

The SIPDIS or SIPRnet distribution caption was applied only to recording of other information messages that were deemed appropriate for a release for a wide number of individuals. According to the Department of State guidance for a cable to have the SIPDIS [missed word] caption, it could not include other captions that were intended to limit distribution.

The SIPDIS caption was only for information that could only be shared with anyone with access to SIPRnet. I was aware that thousands of military personel, DoD, Department of State, and other civilian agencies had easy access to the tables. The fact that the SIPDIS caption was only for wide distribution made sense to me, given that the vast majority of the Net Centric Diplomacy Cables were not classified.

The more I read the cables, the more I came to the conclusion that this was the type of information that should become public. I once read a and used a quote on open diplomacy written after the First World War and how the world would be a better place if states would avoid making secret pacts and deals with and against each other.

I thought these cables were a prime example of a need for a more open diplomacy. Given all of the Department of State cables that I read, the fact that most of the cables were unclassified, and that all the cables have a SIPDIS caption.

I believe that the public release of these cables would not damage the United States, however, I did believe that the cables might be embarrassing, since they represented very honest opinions and statements behind the backs of other nations and organizations.

In many ways these cables are a catalogue of cliques and gossip. I believed exposing this information might make some within the Department of State and other government entities unhappy. On 22 March 2010, I began downloading a copy of the SIPDIS cables using the program Wget, described above.

I used instances of the Wget application to download the Net Centric Diplomacy cables in the background. As I worked on my daily tasks, the Net centric Diplomacy cables were downloaded from 28 March 2010 to 9 April 2010. After downloading the cables, I saved them on to a CD-RW.

These cables went from the earliest dates in Net Centric Diplomacy to 28 February 2010. I took the CD-RW to my CHU on 10 April 2010. I sorted the cables on my personal computer, compressed them using the bzip2 compression algorithm described above, and uploaded them to the WLO via designated drop box described above.

On 3 May 2010, I used Wget to download and update of the cables for the months of March 2010 and April 2010 and saved the information onto a zip file and burned it to a CD-RW. I then took the CD-RW to my CHU and saved those to my computer. I later found that the file was corrupted during the transfer. Although I intended to re-save another copy of these cables, I was removed from the T-SCIF on 8 May 2010 after an altercation.

Facts regarding the unauthorized storage and disclosure of Garani, Farah Province Afghanistan 15-6 Investigation and Videos.

[NB Pfc. Manning plead ‘not guilty’ to the Specification 11, Charge II for the Garani Video as charged by the government, which alleged as November charge date. Read more here.]

In late March 2010, I discovered a US CENTCOM directly on a 2009 airstrike in Afghanistan. I was searching CENTCOM I could use as an analyst. As described above, this was something that myself and other officers did on a frequent basis. As I reviewed the incident and what happened. The airstrike occurred in the Garani village in the Farah Province, Northwestern Afghanistan. It received worldwide press coverage during the time as it was reported that up to 100 to 150 Afghan civilians– mostly women and children– were accidentally killed during the airstrike.

After going through the report and the [missed word] annexes, I began to review the incident as being similar to the 12 July 2007 aerial weapons team engagements in Iraq. However, this event was noticeably different in that it involved a significantly higher number of individuals, larger aircraft and much heavier munitions. Also, the conclusions of the report are more disturbing than those of the July 2007 incident.

I did not see anything in the 15-6 report or its annexes that gave away sensitive information. Rather, the investigation and its conclusions were– what those involved should have done, and how to avoid an event like this from occurring again.

After investigating the report and its annexes, I downloaded the 15-6 investigation, PowerPoint presentations, and several other supporting documents to my D6-A workstation. I also downloaded three zip files containing the videos of the incident. I burned this information onto a CD-RW and transfered it to the personal computer in my CHU. I did later that day or the next day– I uploaded the information to the WL website this time using a new version of the WLO website submission form.

Unlike other times using the submission form above, I did not activate the TOR anonymizer. Your Honor, this concludes my statement and facts for this providence inquiry.”

[Source: Bradley Manning Support Network; Alexa O’Brien]

IWPCHI

US, UK Governments: Hands Off Julian Assange and WikiLeaks!

There have been new developments today in the case of Julian Assange, founder of the whistle-blower group WikiLeaks.

The government of Ecuador has granted Assange – who is now living in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London – asylum and permission to move to Ecuador, where he will be free to continue to fight extradition charges to Sweden that might end up placing him in the hands of the US government.   Members of the US Government – Republicans and Democrats – have branded Assange and his supporters everything from “terrorists” to “a clear and present danger to America” who should be prosecuted under the draconian Espionage Act of 1917 , which has been used to imprison US activists and politicians who opposed the military draft during wartime.  One of the act’s first victims was Eugene Debs, one of the founders of the International Workers of the World (IWW) , who had broken the law by making a speech in Canton, Ohio in 1918 in which he “urg[ed] resistance to the military draft.  This was not a crime, but an act of heroic defense of the interests of the working class internationally; nevertheless, the US government obtained a conviction and sentenced him to 10 years in prison, 5 of which he served.   So much for the US’ vaunted Bill of Rights and “Freedom of Speech”!  When push comes to shove, the Bill of Rights isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on, especially when the US capitalist class has war profiteering on its mind!  In wartime especially – and remember, the “War on Terror” is a war that will never end – the “Bill of Rights” gets run through a shredder and wall-to-wall censorship becomes the order of the day.

The Obama administration has unleashed the Justice Dept. bloodhounds to track down whistleblowers at all costs in order to keep the worlds largest closet full of skeletons locked up tight. The Democrats – who like to call themselves the “friends of labor” – thus expose themselves once again to the entire world as being actually among the greatest enemies of labor, not just in the US but internationally!

Assange is in an extremely difficult position, as he has been facetiously indicted by Swedish authorities with various sex crimes under circumstances that clearly indicate that the charges are being made as part of a concerted effort to crush Wikileaks by imprisoning its founder on false charges.    He was in the UK fighting his extradition to Sweden on multiple grounds and due to the strong belief  – shared by many human rights lawyers – that the Swedish charges are simply a pretext to bring Assange to Sweden, at which time Sweden will turn him over to US authorities, who wish to prosecute Assange – an Australian national – under US espionage laws.  The US government has been howling for Assange’s blood for years, furious at him and his organization for repeatedly exposing US corporate crimes as well as US military war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.   Wikileaks’ release of over 250,000 secret emails from the US State Department as well as their publication of the leaked Afghan and Iraq War Logs, the distribution via Internet of a US Defense Department video of a US helicopter crew slaughtering civilians in Iraq, all aroused US government hatred and the allegation that the documents and video were “stolen” by former US Army intelligence operative Bradley Manning (who is now being held by the US military under conditions that amount to torture) and handed over to Wikileaks, in violation of US law.

As representatives of the working class of the world, we see these cases differently: “stealing” secret US government documents – which are kept secret only in order to hide the true nature of the hypocrisy and savagery of the US government from the working class of the United States – and publicly exposing them to the light of day is a tremendous service to the working class internationally and especially in the US.  We do not see this as a crime, we see it as a heroic act of solidarity with the working class against the bloodthirsty US capitalist class and their bought-and-paid-for government.  The phoniness of the US’ sham “democracy” is nowhere better illustrated than in the texts of the State Department cables, where candid “secret” US government assessments of the US governments “allies” around the globe are exposed as showing the vast gulf that exists between the US’ government’s public statements and what the denizens of “Foggy Bottom” really think.  Exposing the duplicity of US “diplomats” who hide the bloody designs of the US ruling capitalist class behind velvety phrases created to blind the workers of the world to the true nature of US imperialism is a revolutionary act of heroism that might save the lives of millions of workers caught in the cross-hairs of – or economically drafted directly into the service of – the US war machine!

Likewise, WikiLeaks’ acquisition and public display of the US war crimes video dubbed “Collateral Murder” tears the mask off the State Department’s obscene claim that the United States’ military invasion and occupation of Iraq is intended to bring “democracy” to the people of Iraq.  This video clearly shows the typical depravity of US soldiers after years of brainwashing by the US Military into believing that all Iraqis are “the enemy” and can be slaughtered with impunity.  It shows how just a few years in the US military can turn a nice 18 year old youth into a murderous thug who kills men, women and children as if they were just animated figures in a video game.

The Independent Workers Party calls on the workers of the world to defend WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, Bradley Manning and all the brave people who seek to expose the vast and sordid history of US War Crimes and the US capitalist class’ systematic robbery and mass murder of workers all over the world.  Protests should immediately be called to march to the UK’s embassies wherever they exist and to make clear the outrage the workers of the world feel at seeing the UK government’s brutal attacks on Mr. Assange and their flagrant flouting of international law by outrageously stating their intent to storm the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in order to seize Mr. Assange and deport him to Sweden.

This entire case shows how far the supposedly hallowed “rights” of “freedom of speech” actually protect a citizen of a capitalist country like England or the US.   Human rights in bourgeois democracies like these only exist so long as the people exercising their rights do not come into direct conflict with the basic functioning of the capitalist system.  The moment a worker goes out on strike or starts to oppose military recruitment – or even tries to tell the truth about what is being done secretly by a capitalist government in the name of the citizens of that nation – it’s “goodbye “Bill of Rights”, hello jail!” – or worse.

This is why we must organize a working class party here in the US to create a coherent movement that fights against every attempt by the capitalist class to revoke even the smallest shred of the Bill of Rights.  The attempt by successive US governments – led by Republicans and Democrats – to gag whistleblowers who heroically fight to get the truth out to the world about what horrible crimes are being committed by US corporations and the US government must be fought by the working class of the US with all our might.  Today they attack Julian Assange and Bradley Manning and their supporters – tomorrow they will come after you, and your friends and your supporters!  Your unions!  Your political organizations!  This might look to you, today, to be “someone else’s fight”; but if you allow yourselves to be fooled into believing that, you can be assured that tomorrow, it will be YOUR ASS that will be in the sling!

Workers of the World, Unite!  UK, US Government hands off Julian Assange and WikiLeaks!  Free Bradley Manning!

IWPCHI

Unlike the Hollywood Version, the Real Life Version of “Law and Order” in America is Broke-Ass Broken

[Source: Los Angeles Times: “LA County Law enforcers accused of withholding key evidence” 11 July, 2012]

The ACLU of Southern California’s website has an article as well:”Lawsuit targets Baca and Cooley for concealing evidence in criminal trials“.

We really don’t like that headline from the ACLU.  Unless you are living in LA, you have no idea who “Baca and Cooley” are.  And the ACLU are too smart to be that dumb when it comes to knowing how Google Searches work.

This is a deliberate attempt by the ACLU to keep this story a local one.   And it’s not a local one, it’s a national one: not only because LA is the second largest city in the US, but because every g-ddamned D.A. in the United States and every g-ddamned police department in the US of A does the same damned thing every day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year and 366 days in Leap Years too.  And the ACLU knows this better than anyone.

This is a bit off-topic, but by the way: isn’t it strange that the Hollywood producers who make us want to puke over and over with their cop-loving, DA-loving fairy tale shows like “NYPD Blue” and “Law and Order”, in spite of hiring actual cops and having actual DAs as advisors to their show to provide “realism” never seem to be able to come to grips with the actual criminally unjust reality of these organizations… hey…wait a minute…!

The real reason is, of course, that ALL these Hollywood cop shows exist for one reason and one reason only: to spread the lie that the US Justice System “works” and is “fair and balanced”.  They are all pro-cop, pro-DA, pro- Justice Department propaganda.  And in spite of the fact that millions of US workers and their families have family members languishing right now as we speak in US jails by the MILLIONS – they LOVE these shows!

One of the strangest experiences we’ve ever had is getting tossed in that shithole Crook County Jail jail in Crook County, Illinois and being forced to watch endless hours of “Law and Order” and “The Closer”.  But don’t try to change the channel, because the inmates LOVE THAT SHIT!

And one of the most important parts of this pro-cop propaganda is: always talk to the cops!  EVERYONE in these shows ALWAYS talks to the cops when they get picked up, instead of doing what every defense attorney in the land would tell them: “Keep your mouth shut until you have an attorney present!  Demand your right to an attorney the moment you are arrested and refuse to make ANY statements until an attorney is present, and only then if that attorney advises you to do so.”   On TV, even in murder cases, everyone talks, talks, talks to the cops.  In real life, you are talking yourself into jail.  Or the gas chamber!

The other big thing the Hollywood pro-cop propaganda shows “educate” the working class to do is: COP OUT.  An unbelievable 98.5% of cases in some Crook County courtrooms result in a GUILTY PLEA – even when the defendant could easily win his or her case!

The Crook County D.A.s have a 98% – plus conviction rate – in a county full of crooked cops!  That is positively Saddam-esque, that conviction rate!  Yet judges and D.A.s run election and re-election campaigns proudly claiming these absurd conviction rates and the newspapers and the ACLU and the unions and everyone else applauds and votes these frauds into positions of greater and greater responsibility.  The next thing you know, they’re defending the  torturing of “terror” suspects and the torture of whistleblowers like Bradley Manning  – and advocating the assassination of U.S. citizens on Presidential orders!

Back on-topic: we really think this lawsuit could have legs and become a major scandal.  But in a country where the two political parties continually cover for each other when it comes to exposes of treason and war crimes (as the Obama Administration has repeatedly done for the Bush Administration) who knows what, if anything will happen?  It is highly doubtful that any of these criminals, like Cooley and Baca will ever see the inside of a jail, no matter what monstrous crimes they’ve committed.

After all: it’s not like they stole a bunch of cookies from a restaurant or something!

Please join The Independent Workers Party so we can put an end to this madness.

The ACLU’s complaint can be read or downloaded here:  http://www.aclu-sc.org/cases/douglas/writ/

IWPCHI

iwpchi@rocketmail.com