Protest Bradley's 1,000th day in prison!
On February 23, the Bradley Manning Support Network is calling for supporters to take action internationally. Bradley has been denied his right to a speedy trial. This day will mark his 1,000th day imprisoned without trial. Enough is enough. Please register events here, and contact firstname.lastname@example.org for assistance.
Soldiers have the right to a speedy trial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Constitution. Judge Lind will rule on the motion to dismiss the charges against Bradley days after he will have spent 1,000 days imprisoned without trial.
For following his conscience and standing up for Americans' right to know what our government is doing with our tax dollars, young whistle-blower Bradley Manning has spent three birthdays in prison. His excellent legal defense continues to fight hard against a government prosecution that hinders attempts to access important evidence at every turn.
In addition to aggressively persecuting Bradley with the Espionage Act and an egregious “aiding the enemy” charge, the military subjected him to unlawful pretrial punishment and have denied him his Constitutionally-mandated right to a speedy trial. Bradley's pretrial treatment has been wholly un-American. It's up to us as fellow citizens to see that our Constitutional rights are upheld and to ensure that the military isn’t given a free pass for their mistreatment of Bradley.
Join us on Saturday, February 23, in protesting Bradley's 1,000th day in prison. We welcome protests at military recruiting centers and other locations of high visibility, as well as teach-ins at community centers in preparation for larger protests during the court martial.
Reach out to Campaign Organizer Emma Cape for handouts, posters, and assistance in working with the media.
Transparency isn’t treason: New York Times journalists criticize “aiding the enemy” charge
Pressure is mounting on the government to drop the unprecedenteded and dangerous charges that have been laid by overzealous prosecutors. Both the LA Times and NYT journalists argue the government is being unreasonable, and that the charges seriously threaten the freedom of the press.
Unprecedented charges that have been laid against Bradley Manning threaten the freedom of the press.
Last week in Fort Meade, MD, government prosecutors said that if PFC Bradley Manning had released documents to the New York Times instead of WikiLeaks, they would still charge him with indirectly ‘aiding the enemy,’ which carries a life sentence.
This would be unprecedented: never before has a soldier been sent to jail for ‘aiding the enemy’ as a result of giving information to a news outlet. Government prosecutors argue that Manning needn’t have intended to aid the enemy; merely that he knew Al Qaeda could use the information is enough. This would turn all government whistle-blowing into treason: a grave threat to both potential sources and American journalism.
Following this contention in court, the Los Angeles Times called on the government to drop the ‘aiding the enemy’ charge, writing in an editorial, “That charge strikes us as excessive in the absence of evidence that Manning consciously colluded with hostile nations or terrorists.”
Since then, even higher-profile media members have condemned the military’s pernicious claim and the precedent it would set. In an email in which she explained she couldn’t speak on behalf of her newspaper but could comment as a lifelong journalist and a former newspaper editor, New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan said, “The implications for press freedom in the Bradley Manning prosecution trouble me, as does the federal government’s unprecedented targeting, in recent years, of whistleblowers and those who leak to the press. The issues certainly aren’t black and white, but if the public expects the press to do its crucial job in our democracy, people ought to be more worried than they apparently are. And I agree with the Los Angeles Times editorial that the “aiding the enemy” charge, which could result in a life sentence, is excessive.”Read more ...