Wednesday, April 06, 2011
Manning charged with capital offence
Private Bradley Manning, the U.S. soldier who has been in detention for nine months on charges of supplying whistleblower website Wikileaks with sensitive government data, has been slapped with 22 new charges including “aiding the enemy,” punishable by death.
In the barrage of charges brought by the U.S. government against Mr. Manning, federal prosecutors argued that Mr. Manning, “without proper authority, knowingly give intelligence to the enemy, through indirect means,” between November 1 2009 and May 27 2010.
Since early 2010 Wikileaks went on to release a steady stream of private files pertaining to U.S. military engagements in Iraq, Afghanistan and ultimately State Department engagements around the world. In the ensuing crackdown by U.S. authorities Mr. Manning was arrested and held in solitary confinement at the military facility in Quantico, Virginia.
The list of charges announced this week included allegations that Mr. Manning “wrongfully and wantonly cause to be published on the internet intelligence belonging to the U.S. government, having knowledge that intelligence published on the internet is accessible to the enemy.”
Prosecutors in the case went on to argue that Mr. Manning's actions in this regard were prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and were of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
While not explicitly identifying who the “enemy” in question was, the charge sheet against Mr. Manning had aided the enemy when, based out of Contingency Operating Station Hammer in Iraq, he did “steal, purloin, or knowingly convert to his use or the use of another, a record or thing of value of the U.S...”
Numerous charges announced pertaining to computer file theft, in particular identifying the combined value of the files purportedly stolen as being in excess of $1,000 so as to attract a stronger potential penalty .
Media reported that he had said via his Twitter account that “aiding the enemy” was the most significant additional charge.
Among the questions raised regarding Mr. Manning's case was the issue of “why legal proceedings against him did not seem to be moving forward,” the New York Times argued. Though the Army said the delay was to evaluate his “mental capacity” at the defence's request, such an evaluation was still said to be pending.
In January this year a non-profit group called Psychologists for Social Responsibility wrote an open letter to Secretary of Defence Robert Gates in which it said that it was “deeply concerned about the conditions under which PFC Bradley Manning is being held,” citing in particular the fact that he was in solitary confinement for approximately 23 hours a day in a cell approximately six feet wide and twelve feet in length “for no discernable reason other than punishment...”
In the barrage of charges brought by the U.S. government against Mr. Manning, federal prosecutors argued that Mr. Manning, “without proper authority, knowingly give intelligence to the enemy, through indirect means,” between November 1 2009 and May 27 2010.
Since early 2010 Wikileaks went on to release a steady stream of private files pertaining to U.S. military engagements in Iraq, Afghanistan and ultimately State Department engagements around the world. In the ensuing crackdown by U.S. authorities Mr. Manning was arrested and held in solitary confinement at the military facility in Quantico, Virginia.
The list of charges announced this week included allegations that Mr. Manning “wrongfully and wantonly cause to be published on the internet intelligence belonging to the U.S. government, having knowledge that intelligence published on the internet is accessible to the enemy.”
Prosecutors in the case went on to argue that Mr. Manning's actions in this regard were prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and were of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
While not explicitly identifying who the “enemy” in question was, the charge sheet against Mr. Manning had aided the enemy when, based out of Contingency Operating Station Hammer in Iraq, he did “steal, purloin, or knowingly convert to his use or the use of another, a record or thing of value of the U.S...”
Numerous charges announced pertaining to computer file theft, in particular identifying the combined value of the files purportedly stolen as being in excess of $1,000 so as to attract a stronger potential penalty .
Media reported that he had said via his Twitter account that “aiding the enemy” was the most significant additional charge.
Among the questions raised regarding Mr. Manning's case was the issue of “why legal proceedings against him did not seem to be moving forward,” the New York Times argued. Though the Army said the delay was to evaluate his “mental capacity” at the defence's request, such an evaluation was still said to be pending.
In January this year a non-profit group called Psychologists for Social Responsibility wrote an open letter to Secretary of Defence Robert Gates in which it said that it was “deeply concerned about the conditions under which PFC Bradley Manning is being held,” citing in particular the fact that he was in solitary confinement for approximately 23 hours a day in a cell approximately six feet wide and twelve feet in length “for no discernable reason other than punishment...”
Labels: capital offence, judiciary, Private Bradley Manning
U.S. Supreme Court rules in favour of anti-gay church
From The Hindu
Resurrecting the United States’ centuries-old philosophical tussle between freedom of expression and hate-mongering, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in an 8-1 decision on Wednesday that the virulently anti-gay Westboro Baptist church could continue to picket funerals of U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan.
The Supreme Court’s decision upholds an earlier ruling issued by a federal appeals court in Virginia, which overturned a preliminary verdict in favour of the father of a slain soldier. That man, Albert Snyder, father of a 20-year-old marine, Lance-Corporal Matthew Snyder, had taken issue with his son’s funeral service being disrespected by the Westboro Baptist protestors.
In the immediate vicinity of Mr. Snyder’s funeral proceedings the church members were reported to have carried placards saying “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “You're Going to Hell,” and numerous derogatory terms for gay persons.
The church, described by some as “the most detested church group in America,” has regularly appears during military funerals in support of its view that god was punishing the U.S. for its tolerance of homosexuality and the U.S.’ military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq were manifestations of that punishment.
In the ruling of the apex court, Chief Justice John Roberts argued that “Speech is powerful... It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and – as it did here – inflict great pain.”
Yet, he said, arguing for the majority on the bench, under the First Amendment it was unconstitutional to “react to that pain by punishing the speaker.” Rather, he argued, the constitution’s commitment to free speech required protection of even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.
In his dissenting note Justice Samuel Alito wrote that “The verbal attacks that severely wounded petitioner in this case complied with the new Maryland law regulating funeral picketing.”
However, “Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case,” he said. Justice Alito was reported to have added that the Westboro church “may speak out in many ways in many places and should not be allowed to capitalize on the private grief of others.”
Resurrecting the United States’ centuries-old philosophical tussle between freedom of expression and hate-mongering, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in an 8-1 decision on Wednesday that the virulently anti-gay Westboro Baptist church could continue to picket funerals of U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan.
The Supreme Court’s decision upholds an earlier ruling issued by a federal appeals court in Virginia, which overturned a preliminary verdict in favour of the father of a slain soldier. That man, Albert Snyder, father of a 20-year-old marine, Lance-Corporal Matthew Snyder, had taken issue with his son’s funeral service being disrespected by the Westboro Baptist protestors.
In the immediate vicinity of Mr. Snyder’s funeral proceedings the church members were reported to have carried placards saying “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “You're Going to Hell,” and numerous derogatory terms for gay persons.
The church, described by some as “the most detested church group in America,” has regularly appears during military funerals in support of its view that god was punishing the U.S. for its tolerance of homosexuality and the U.S.’ military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq were manifestations of that punishment.
In the ruling of the apex court, Chief Justice John Roberts argued that “Speech is powerful... It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and – as it did here – inflict great pain.”
Yet, he said, arguing for the majority on the bench, under the First Amendment it was unconstitutional to “react to that pain by punishing the speaker.” Rather, he argued, the constitution’s commitment to free speech required protection of even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.
In his dissenting note Justice Samuel Alito wrote that “The verbal attacks that severely wounded petitioner in this case complied with the new Maryland law regulating funeral picketing.”
However, “Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case,” he said. Justice Alito was reported to have added that the Westboro church “may speak out in many ways in many places and should not be allowed to capitalize on the private grief of others.”
Labels: anti-gay church, judiciary, U.S. Supreme Court
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Arrested filmmaker has left U.S.
From The Hindu
Vijay Kumar, the Indian filmmaker arrested in the United States and jailed for 20 days for carrying brass knuckles and “Jihadi literature” in his baggage, has left the U.S. for India, his lawyer has confirmed.
Speaking to The Hindu on Tuesday evening Mr. Kumar’s attorney, Grant Scheiner, said “Mr. Kumar is safely out of Houston.” He hoped that appropriate action would be taken to ensure that such an event did not occur again in the future.
Mr. Kumar’s departure from Houston marks the culmination of a difficult few weeks for him. Trapped in the U.S., initially under suspicion of terror related activities although his intentions were entirely benign, Mr. Kumar faced an ordeal in a Texas jail, where he had to subsist on only bread and water. He also had no certainty as to when he would be released.
Mr. Scheiner had earlier said that Mr. Kumar’s arrest was a mistake of law combined with excessive caution in a post-9/11 era, and as a result he had been slapped with both a criminal case, for possessing the brass knuckles, and an immigration case, after his visa revoked by the immigration authorities.
While Mr. Kumar had unwittingly violated a Texas law forbidding persons from carrying brass knuckles at airports, he had entirely abided by federal law on this matter. The real problem, his attorney earlier said, was that federal law was not consistent with the state law.
The suspicions of terror-related activities also turned out to be entirely unfounded, with the ironic twist that Mr. Kumar’s so-called “Jihadi literature” was material that Mr. Kumar was carrying for use during a lecture he was set to deliver to the Hindu Congress of America on interfaith discussion between Hindus and Muslims and the harms of terrorism.
Vijay Kumar, the Indian filmmaker arrested in the United States and jailed for 20 days for carrying brass knuckles and “Jihadi literature” in his baggage, has left the U.S. for India, his lawyer has confirmed.
Speaking to The Hindu on Tuesday evening Mr. Kumar’s attorney, Grant Scheiner, said “Mr. Kumar is safely out of Houston.” He hoped that appropriate action would be taken to ensure that such an event did not occur again in the future.
Mr. Kumar’s departure from Houston marks the culmination of a difficult few weeks for him. Trapped in the U.S., initially under suspicion of terror related activities although his intentions were entirely benign, Mr. Kumar faced an ordeal in a Texas jail, where he had to subsist on only bread and water. He also had no certainty as to when he would be released.
Mr. Scheiner had earlier said that Mr. Kumar’s arrest was a mistake of law combined with excessive caution in a post-9/11 era, and as a result he had been slapped with both a criminal case, for possessing the brass knuckles, and an immigration case, after his visa revoked by the immigration authorities.
While Mr. Kumar had unwittingly violated a Texas law forbidding persons from carrying brass knuckles at airports, he had entirely abided by federal law on this matter. The real problem, his attorney earlier said, was that federal law was not consistent with the state law.
The suspicions of terror-related activities also turned out to be entirely unfounded, with the ironic twist that Mr. Kumar’s so-called “Jihadi literature” was material that Mr. Kumar was carrying for use during a lecture he was set to deliver to the Hindu Congress of America on interfaith discussion between Hindus and Muslims and the harms of terrorism.
Labels: Indian filmmaker, judiciary, Vijay Kumar
Thursday, September 09, 2010
Indian filmmaker pleads guilty, subsisted on “bread and water”
From The Hindu
Indian filmmaker Vijay Kumar, who was arrested at an airport in Houston for carrying brass knuckles, may be able to leave the United States within “five to seven days”, according to his lawyer. His lawyer also said that Mr. Kumar was forced to survive on bread and water for the last 20 days he spent in jail.
Speaking to The Hindu, Mr. Kumar’s attorney Grant Scheiner said that at a hearing for his client, Mr. Kumar pled no contest to the lesser charge of a misdemeanour and agreed to voluntarily leave the U.S. He was awarded “credit for time served”, which meant that the 20 days he spent in jail would constitute his sentence.
Regarding Mr. Kumar’s condition, Mr. Scheiner said that he was “pretty upbeat” now that there was light at the end of tunnel, although he was disappointed that the authorities had not realised earlier that he posed no terror threat.
Also Mr. Scheiner said that Mr. Kumar had to subsist on bread and water for all 20 days of his imprisonment because he was vegetarian and the jail authorities only supplied him with meals consisting of meat and bread.
Mr. Kumar had earlier faced a more serious felony charge when he was discovered to be carrying brass knuckles packed within his checked-in baggage. While this was completely legal under federallaw, federal law is not consistent with Texas law — which forbids carrying brass knuckles in any baggage or on one’s person — and thus Mr. Kumar had fallen afoul of the latter.
His case was further complicated when what was described as “Jihadi literature” was found in his luggage too. Yet in an ironical twist to the tale, it emerged that the material related to Mr. Kumar’s plans to deliver a lecture to the Hindu Congress of America on interfaith discussion between Hindus and Muslims and the harms of terrorism.
Harder to obtain visa in future
Mr. Scheiner said that despite there being little doubt that Mr. Kumar was not in any way linked to terrorism — even the judge in the criminal case had reduced his bail from $50,000 to $5,000 for that reason — his incarceration for 20 days in a Houston jail reflected “heightened suspicion after 9/11”.
While Mr. Kumar’s voluntary departure from the U.S. still leaves him with the possibility of getting a U.S. visa in the future, Mr. Scheiner said that as a result of his misdemeanour conviction and visa revocation, it would definitely be harder to obtain any U.S. visa.
Providing a rare glimpse at the excessively cautious nature of the U.S. homeland security legal apparatus, Mr. Scheiner said that at Mr. Kumar’s immigration hearing, the government attorney “opposed voluntary departure, citing threat to national security”.
The prosecutor did so on the grounds that the investigation of Mr. Kumar’s luggage left doubt as to whether there might have been explosive residues. However, Mr. Scheiner said, the judge in the case had pointed out that the investigation of the luggage had clearly yielded a false positive test and there was no suggestion that Mr. Kumar had carried any explosives.
At the end of the case, Mr. Scheiner said, it was clear that Mr. Kumar’s arrest was a mistake of law, and he could have been acquitted earlier. His incarceration on the immigration charges also made him lose the will to fight on in the criminal case, and so he was left with a misdemeanour conviction.
Labels: Indian filmmaket, judiciary, pleads guilty, Vijay Kumar
Subscribe to Comments [Atom]
