Saturday, January 14, 2012
Manning likely to face court martial
From The Hindu
Snapped on camera after more than a year in military confinement,
he cut a diminutive figure as he was marched to his pre-trial court hearing
between two Army officers. Bradley Manning, the military intelligence analyst
charged with the biggest leak of state secrets in United States history, faces
the prospect a court martial and consequently, a higher likelihood of a lifetime
prison sentence.
At the hearings that were recently completed in Fort Meade,
Maryland, Mr. Manning's attorney David Coombs had argued that there was a lack
of adequate security at the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility in
Iraq, where Mr. Manning worked. He also centred defence arguments on the Army's
insufficient response to his client's emotional problems.
Defence argument
On the first day of the pre-trial hearing Mr. Coombs challenged
the process itself and asked Investigating Officer Colonel Paul Almanza to
recuse himself on the grounds that the latter was a Department of Justice
prosecutor in the case against WikiLeaks, the online whistleblower that
published a vast trove of U.S. State Department cables.
Mr. Coombs went on to argue that the U.S. Army's charges against
Mr. Manning were excessive and he reportedly made a plea to reduce the charges
from 22 to three.
One of the most serious charges that Mr. Manning is facing is
“aiding the enemy”, which is a capital offence. However, prosecutors and the
investigating officer in the pre-trial hearing have concurred that they will not
seek the death penalty but life imprisonment for Mr. Manning.
Following Col. Alamanza's recommendation that Mr. Manning be sent
to a full court martial, Jeff Patterson of the Bradley Manning Support Network
said he was “disappointed” by the development but was “far from surprised.”
“I sat in that courtroom and watched a Department of Justice
employee pretending to be an impartial judge,” Mr. Patterson was quoted as
saying. He further hinted that the prosecution had been able to present all its
desired witnesses, but had blocked the defence team from calling “all but a few”
witnesses that it had requested.
Labels: Bradley Manning, Iraq war, U.S. Embassy cables, Wikileaks
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Rumsfeld faces mounting torture allegations
From The Hindu
Donald Rumsfeld, former United States Defence Secretary, learned this week that he would be sued by not one but three U.S. citizens over allegations of torture by the U.S. military in Iraq.
This week the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago upheld a lower court’s decision that two American men who had filed a civil lawsuit against Mr. Rumsfeld could move forward with the case notwithstanding efforts by the Bush and Obama administrations to block it.
The latest blow for Mr. Rumsfeld came in the wake of last week’s decision by a District Judge to allow an American military contractor to sue Mr. Rumsfeld for the alleged imprisonment and torture that he was subjected to by the U.S. army in Iraq.
According to the decision this week the two men, Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel, were working with a private security company in Iraq in 2006 when they grew increasingly concerned that their firm was engaging in bribery and other illicit activities.
The court documents suggested that when they notified U.S. authorities in early 2006, they were imprisoned by the U.S. military, taken to Camp Cropper in Baghdad and “subjected to harsh interrogations and physical and emotional abuse.” Specifically they alleged that they were subjected to “sleep and food deprivation, threats of violence, actual violence and prolonged solitary confinement.”
Similarly the first individual permitted to sue Mr. Rumsfeld was an army veteran who worked as a translator for the U.S. marines in the restive Anbar province when he was detained for nine months at Camp Cropper. Allegedly that individual, currently unidentified, was suspected of passing on classified information to the enemy and helping anti-coalition forces enter Iraq.
While he was not charged with any crime, his lawyers “say he was preparing to return to the U.S. on annual leave when he was detained without justification and ... repeatedly abused, then released without explanation in August 2006.”
Both in his case and in the cases of Vance and Ertel, the plaintiffs have argued that Mr. Rumsfeld personally approved torture as an interrogation technique. The appeals court agreed with the plaintiffs that they had sufficiently argued that the decisions were made at the highest levels of government.
“We agree with the district court that the plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to show that Secretary Rumsfeld personally established the relevant policies that caused the alleged violations of their constitutional rights during detention,” the court ruled.
Mike Kanovitz, lawyer for one of the plaintiffs, was quoted as saying that the U.S. military seemed to want to hold his client behind bars to prevent him from talking about an important contact he made with a leading Sheik while helping to collect intelligence in Iraq.
“The U.S. government wasn't ready for the rest of the world to know about it, so they basically put him on ice,” Mr. Kanovitz reportedly said, adding, “If you've got unchecked power over the citizens, why not use it?”
Labels: Donald Rumsfeld, Iraq war, Torture allegations, whistleblowers
Thursday, December 02, 2010
U.S. tense over WikiLeaks plan
From The Hindu
There is a palpable rise in tensions at the State Department here, as WikiLeaks, the whistleblower website revealed via its Twitter account last week that its next release would be seven times the size of the Iraq War Logs release earlier in the summer.
The hacker-founded site, whose revelations provoked a powerful backlash at the Pentagon and elsewhere in the United States administration, added that it had faced 'intense pressure over [the upcoming release] for months.' The anticipated size of the upcoming release is 3 million documents.
Reacting to the announcement State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said, "If the past is prologue, that would mean that certain news organisations may well already be in possession of specific documents."
Reiterating the government's objections to the release he added that the State Department would continue evaluating the material that they thought was previously leaked from government sources to WikiLeaks. "We continue to make clear that this is harmful to our national security," he said, warning that 'it does put lives at risk. It does put national interests at risk.'
Touching on the State Departments efforts to put out messages to the U.S.' allies and partners around the world Mr. Crowley acknowledged that WikiLeaks had State Department cables in its possession.
He said, "We are prepared if this upcoming tranche of documents includes State Department cables. We are in touch with our posts around the world. They have begun the process of notifying governments that release of documents is possible in the near future." The U.S. Congress had been notified too, he said.
Commenting on the potential fallout of the planned release of documents Mr. Crowley admitted that the kinds of cables involved related to posts sent to and from Washington and they were classified.
The cables "involve discussions that we've had with government officials, with private citizens. They contain analysis. They contain a record of the day-to-day diplomatic activity that our personnel undertake," he said.
In a similar tone to reactions from Defence Secretary Robert Gates, following earlier releases of U.S. war documents by WikiLeaks, Mr. Crowley said that the State Department decried the expos. "These revelations... are going to create tension in our relationships between our diplomats and our friends around the world. We wish that this would not happen. But we are, obviously, prepared for the possibility that it will," he said.
Among the countries said to be notified about the possible release by WikiLeaks are India, Russia, Iceland, Iraq, Turkey, Israel, Norway, Denmark, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom.
The WikiLeaks site subsequently noted on its Twitter site that the U.K. government had issued a notice to U.K. news editors, 'asking to be briefed on upcoming WikiLeaks stories.'
There is a palpable rise in tensions at the State Department here, as WikiLeaks, the whistleblower website revealed via its Twitter account last week that its next release would be seven times the size of the Iraq War Logs release earlier in the summer.
The hacker-founded site, whose revelations provoked a powerful backlash at the Pentagon and elsewhere in the United States administration, added that it had faced 'intense pressure over [the upcoming release] for months.' The anticipated size of the upcoming release is 3 million documents.
Reacting to the announcement State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said, "If the past is prologue, that would mean that certain news organisations may well already be in possession of specific documents."
Reiterating the government's objections to the release he added that the State Department would continue evaluating the material that they thought was previously leaked from government sources to WikiLeaks. "We continue to make clear that this is harmful to our national security," he said, warning that 'it does put lives at risk. It does put national interests at risk.'
Touching on the State Departments efforts to put out messages to the U.S.' allies and partners around the world Mr. Crowley acknowledged that WikiLeaks had State Department cables in its possession.
He said, "We are prepared if this upcoming tranche of documents includes State Department cables. We are in touch with our posts around the world. They have begun the process of notifying governments that release of documents is possible in the near future." The U.S. Congress had been notified too, he said.
Commenting on the potential fallout of the planned release of documents Mr. Crowley admitted that the kinds of cables involved related to posts sent to and from Washington and they were classified.
The cables "involve discussions that we've had with government officials, with private citizens. They contain analysis. They contain a record of the day-to-day diplomatic activity that our personnel undertake," he said.
In a similar tone to reactions from Defence Secretary Robert Gates, following earlier releases of U.S. war documents by WikiLeaks, Mr. Crowley said that the State Department decried the expos. "These revelations... are going to create tension in our relationships between our diplomats and our friends around the world. We wish that this would not happen. But we are, obviously, prepared for the possibility that it will," he said.
Among the countries said to be notified about the possible release by WikiLeaks are India, Russia, Iceland, Iraq, Turkey, Israel, Norway, Denmark, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom.
The WikiLeaks site subsequently noted on its Twitter site that the U.K. government had issued a notice to U.K. news editors, 'asking to be briefed on upcoming WikiLeaks stories.'
Labels: Iraq war, Pentagon, Wikileaks
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Nation awaits key Obama speech on Iraq drawdown
From The Hindu
United States President Barack Obama is scheduled to make a major policy speech today, to mark the end of combat operations in Iraq and underscore his administration’s fulfilled promise in that regard.
In a relatively rare televised speech from the Oval Office, Mr. Obama will argue that since he assumed office, the White House has brought nearly 100,000 U.S. troops home from Iraq, and “millions of pieces of equipment have been removed, and hundreds of bases have been closed or transferred to Iraqi Security Forces”.
However in a curtain-raiser to his speech he emphasised that although the U.S.’ combat mission in Iraq was ending, its “commitment to an Iraq that is sovereign, stable and self-reliant continues”. Mr. Obama added that as the mission in Iraq changed from combat to “advise and assist”, 50,000 U.S. troops would remain in Iraq even as Iraqi Security Forces assumed full responsibility for the security of their country from September 1 onwards.
Seeking to dispel any fears that the U.S. would be washing its hands of the country, Mr. Obama said, “We will forge a strong partnership with an Iraq that still faces enduring challenges.”
“Nation at war”
Admitting that for nearly a decade, the U.S. had been a “nation at war” and that the war in Iraq had “at times divided us”, he however added that one thing all Americans could agree upon was that “our brave men and women in uniform... have put their lives on the line and endured long separations from their family and loved ones”.
With the November Congressional elections around the corner, Mr. Obama may seek to capture some of the political capital that the return of troops and the end of an expensive military campaign will afford. However, critics have pointed out that Iraq is still rocked by waves of political violence and insurgent networks have been “battered but not defeated”.
In this context, James Phillips and Lisa Curtis of the Heritage Foundation argued that in order to prevent further deterioration in the situation the President “should signal that the U.S. remains firmly engaged as a dependable ally of Iraq and dispel the growing perception that Washington is intent on a quick exit regardless of the dangerous consequences of such a gamble”.
They further said that the President should make every effort to avoid squandering the hard-won security gains of the surge by withdrawing too many troops too fast. “Iraq still needs substantial U.S. military, diplomatic, and political support to defeat various insurgent groups, stave off a possible return to civil war, and contain Iran’s expanding influence,” they noted.
Labels: Iraq combat operations, Iraq war, President Barack Obama
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Anti-war protest in U.S.
From The Hindu
On the seventh anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, thousands of people from across the United States on Saturday converged on Lafayette Square, opposite the White House in Washington DC. The rally then marched through downtown DC, halting en route at the premises of military contractor Halliburton, the Mortgage Bankers Association and The Washington Post offices.
While the protest drew a smaller crowd than the tens of thousands who marched during the final years of the Bush administration, the ANSWER coalition, the main organiser, said momentum was building due to disenchantment with President Obama's troop surge decision for Afghanistan. Other participating groups included Veterans for Peace, Military Families Speak Out and the National Council of Arab Americans and activists such as Ralph Nader and Cindy Sheehan.
In a statement the ANSWER coalition said,
“People from all over the country are organising to converge on Washington, D.C., and on the West Coast to demand the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all U.S. and NATO forces from Afghanistan and Iraq.”
Instead of war, we will demand funds so that every person can have a job, free and universal health care, decent schools, and affordable housing, said the coalition statement.
According to some reports the rally could prove to be significant as it was the “first massive, nationally coordinated effort to challenge U.S. foreign policy since President Obama took office.” Though the costs and scope of U.S. military engagements have expanded under Mr. Obama, the anti-war movement has thus far been largely silent since January 2008.
However with Saturday's protest march, the movement signalled that it had revived and was capable of challenging the Obama administration on its foreign policy strategies.
The ANSWER coalition said though “the enthusiasm and desire for change after eight years of the Bush regime was the dominant cause that led to election of a big Democratic Party majority in both Houses of Congress and the election of Barack Obama to the White House… [it was now] obvious to all that waiting for politicians to bring real change… is simply a prescription for passivity by progressives and an invitation to the array of corporate interests from military contractors to the banks, to big oil, to the health insurance giants that dominate the political life of the country.”
It is time to be back in the streets, the ANSWER 0statement added.
Labels: ANSWER, Barack Obama, Iraq war, Lafayette Square, U.S., US, Washington DC
Subscribe to Comments [Atom]
