Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Catherina

(35,568 posts)
Fri Jul 19, 2013, 11:29 PM Jul 2013

Is The Military Fabricating Testimony in the Bradley Manning Trial?

Is The Military Fabricating Testimony in the Bradley Manning Trial?

...

Summary

Some rather crazy testimony came from Bradley Manning's former supervisor on Day 20. So crazy that the defense seems to be implying that it's outright fabricated ... including her recount of a "UFC" type fight that occurred between the two. Add this to her statements that the American flag "meant nothing to him," and she thought "in her gut" that Manning could have been a spy, while throwing in a slur that he appeared "faggotty" ... the prosecution seems to be going off the deep end trying to support their claims that he is enemy #1.

But it got even crazier in the afternoon session, with a witness claiming memory loss, the government trying to change the charges, the defense calling for a mistrial, and more. Nathan Fuller's full report below is a must-read.

Military struggles to support claim of Manning’s ‘disloyalty’; Govt tries to change charge sheet: trial report, day 20

By Nathan Fuller, Bradley Manning Support Network. July 19, 2013.

Bradley Manning’s former supervisor at Ft. Drum and then in Iraq, Specialist Jihrleah Showman, testified this morning that in a counseling session, Manning said that the American flag “meant nothing to him” and that he felt no “allegiance to this country or any people,” but that she never even wrote the statement down.

The government elicited that allegation in very brief rebuttal questioning, after which defense lawyer David Coombs spent nearly two hours drawing out her support for that statement, why she failed to document it at the time, and why she didn’t report it when first questioned for this investigation, implying throughout that Showman fabricated the allegation after Manning’s arrest. Coombs asked if Manning actually said that one shouldn’t have “blind allegiance” to a flag and shouldn’t be a blind “automaton,” which Showman denied.

Showman said that in an August 2009 counseling session in which Manning’s body language implied he was merely “putting up” with the conversation, she asked him why he joined the military. When he gave a boilerplate reason about wanting to broaden his knowledge and experience, she said she tapped the flag pin on her shoulder and asked what it meant to him, and that’s when she alleges Manning said he felt no allegiance to the U.S.

But she never wrote the statement down. Despite summarizing several other counseling sessions, in which she documented lesser details such as Manning’s “excessive caffeine consumption,” smoking habits, and tardiness to ‘formulation,’ she didn’t write down his statements of purported disloyalty. Showman said this was because she reported the incident to her direct supervisor, MSGT Paul David Adkins, and that he said he’d take care of it. She also said that he instructed her not to document the statement, because he was handling it from there.

Showman also said that in June 2009, she’d recommended Manning for ‘soldier of the month.’ This calls into question another claim she made, that before deploying to Iraq with him in October 2009, she had a “feeling in (her) gut” that Manning was a “spy.” That feeling apparently didn’t compel Showman to talk to anyone superior to Adkins, as he was directly above her in the chain of command, even though the unit commander had an “open-door policy.”

Showman was interviewed upon Manning’s arrest on May 27, 2010, by Army CID investigators, and she didn’t mention the ‘disloyalty’ statements then. However, in a sworn statement a month later, the comments were included.
...



http://www.activistpost.com/2013/06/trial-begins-for-military-whistleblower.html
16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Is The Military Fabricating Testimony in the Bradley Manning Trial? (Original Post) Catherina Jul 2013 OP
K&R Lies, homophobia, and never mind a testimony from the idwiyo Jul 2013 #1
The Commander in Chief already did that ... Scuba Jul 2013 #5
Forgot about that one. Thank you for reminding. idwiyo Jul 2013 #9
Show trials must be carried out in full, for maximum effect. dixiegrrrrl Jul 2013 #7
They should ask Putin for tips. I am sure he would be happy to oblidge. idwiyo Jul 2013 #10
Excellent read Hydra Jul 2013 #2
Yes, New York Times is "legitimate" Laughing Mirror Jul 2013 #12
I totally agree with that Hydra Jul 2013 #13
You mean you are hoping for a mistrial? Laughing Mirror Jul 2013 #14
K&R MotherPetrie Jul 2013 #3
K&R woo me with science Jul 2013 #4
It's not known as the Uniform Code of Marsupial Justice for nothing. hobbit709 Jul 2013 #6
In the way-back a Spec 4 wouldn't have been considered a supervisor HereSince1628 Jul 2013 #8
kick woo me with science Jul 2013 #11
Captain Kangaroo, your court is ready. n/t DirkGently Jul 2013 #15
"Seems to be implying"? brooklynite Jul 2013 #16

idwiyo

(5,113 posts)
1. K&R Lies, homophobia, and never mind a testimony from the
Fri Jul 19, 2013, 11:53 PM
Jul 2013

witness for the prosecution, who has memory loss problems...

Why even bother? Why not just announce he is guilty as charged, and get this farce over with?

dixiegrrrrl

(60,010 posts)
7. Show trials must be carried out in full, for maximum effect.
Sat Jul 20, 2013, 08:07 AM
Jul 2013

Unless you are running top secret prisons, out of the public eye, like Gitmo.

Hydra

(14,459 posts)
2. Excellent read
Sat Jul 20, 2013, 12:08 AM
Jul 2013

I'm disappointed that the rules of the court martial allow the Prosecution so much leeway. They're not doing a good job of making their case, but Judge Lind can't dismiss the charges if they even have a shred of a point.

I found the info about the NYT email interesting. Bradley tried to do this the normal way and got nowhere. Everyone who rails at him for working with Wikileaks should notice that if there is no established and safe way to whistleblow, it won't stop the information from getting out. It will get out in ways that they would consider "worse."

Laughing Mirror

(4,185 posts)
12. Yes, New York Times is "legitimate"
Sat Jul 20, 2013, 12:08 PM
Jul 2013

because it is the so-called paper of record at the same time it is also the establishment organ that publishes government propaganda. Wikileaks, which only publishes the truth behind the propaganda, is therefore not only "illegitimate" but it is a terrorist organization because al-Qaeda possibly goes there for information. That's the way the prosecution, which is also both judge and jury, tries to frame this thing.

Bin Laden never looked at the New York Times, one must suppose.

It is really pathetic to watch in agony the disgusting manner in which Bradley Manning has been and is being and will be treated all because he embassarrased this sorry-ass excuse of a declining empire.

Hydra

(14,459 posts)
13. I totally agree with that
Sat Jul 20, 2013, 12:14 PM
Jul 2013

But if the NYT had published it in some alternate universe, I have to wonder if it would have been accepted better or if there would have been another excuse?

The Snowden slimers were probably all over Manning before this, but now he's their patron saint of "he had the courage to stay and be tortured and kangaroo courted!"

Strange world. I wish Manning hadn't felt uncertain about this and talked to that opportunist hacker...can only hope the Gov't's sloppy case gets him acquitted.

Laughing Mirror

(4,185 posts)
14. You mean you are hoping for a mistrial?
Sat Jul 20, 2013, 12:41 PM
Jul 2013

Because I'm wondering if a mistrial is even a possibility in a kangaroo court. I mean, it sounds like almost a contradiction in terms.

The judge did say, however, that the defense can change the plea to not guilty. If it were me I would plead not guilty to everything as a refusal to accept the absurdity of this court, these court proceedings, portions of which are even held in secret, away from reporters, behind closed doors.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
8. In the way-back a Spec 4 wouldn't have been considered a supervisor
Sat Jul 20, 2013, 08:24 AM
Jul 2013

a person responsible to staple burn bags maybe, but, I have trouble taking anything she says as a supervisor with much credibility.


brooklynite

(94,737 posts)
16. "Seems to be implying"?
Sat Jul 20, 2013, 12:49 PM
Jul 2013

So you're saying the Defense isn't courageous enough to outright challenge fraudulent evidence?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Is The Military Fabricati...