David House (Manning activist): 1st Amendment lawsuit against U.S. govt goes forward...

[Luminous Animal]

The judge rules...

An individual’s First Amendment rights may not be violated simply because a search uncovers expressive material…However, the search in this case is alleged to have targeted specifically House’s expressive material concerning the Support Network. The complaint further alleges that the agents stopped him at the border because of his association with Manning and the Support Network. When agents Santiago and Louck stopped House while he was en route to his connecting flight, they directed him to surrender the electronic devices he was carrying. They questioned him for an extended period of time only after seizing his devices. When the agents questioned House, they did not ask him any questions related to border control, customs, trade, immigration, or terrorism and did not suggest that House had broken the law or that his computer may contain illegal material or contraband. Rather, their questions focused solely on his association with Manning, his work for the Support Network, whether he had any connections to WikiLeaks, and whether he had contact with anyone from WikiLeaks during his trip to Mexico. Thus, the complaint alleges that House was not randomly stopped at the border; it alleges that he was stopped and questioned solely to examine the contents of his laptop that contained expressive material and investigate his association with the Support Network and Manning.

http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/03/29/judge-refuses-to-dismiss-manning-supporters-lawsuit-against-suspicionless-laptop-search/

[sabrina 1]

1. Excellent.

A federal judge allowed a lawsuit against the US government that charges an activist was targeted for his “lawful association” with the Bradley Manning Support Network, an organization initially established to help raise funds for Pfc. Bradley Manning who is accused of releasing classified information to WikiLeaks.

If they could do that to him, we all have to worry about stopped and questioned if we, eg, follow Manning's support group on twitter, which I do. I truly admire House, he is so principled and so intelligent. I saw him a few months ago in an interview and he was incredibly impressive. Any country that harasses the family and friends of someone who is in trouble with the law is no better than the Soviet Union or any other oppressive country.

I hope he wins this case, not just for him, it is an important case for the country and the courts are the only places left that can protect our civil liberties.

[Dragonfli]

2. This is a bit off topic, but only a bit, I consider Manning to be a political prisoner

There will be more such political prisoners now that we do that, there always is.

[sabrina 1]

4. Yes, I would feel a lot better about this case if it was not a military tribunal.

His chances of a fair trial are practically nil in the situation he is in. At least in a civilian court he would have a chance of a fair hearing.

[Dragonfli]

6. The way he was held, the obvious military animosity towards him, the mistreatment

Last edited Sat Mar 31, 2012, 03:02 AM - Edit history (2)

severe enough to get the UN to notice (either due to the personal animosity of his direct jailers or as ordered from above) and the presumption of guilt as proclaimed by the President (CAC of the military) would appear to negate a fair military trial.

All of this for the alleged crime of embarrassing his government by posting THEIR actions in THEIR words. Such severe punishment and lack of real due process speaks for it'self, the cause of his detention and the extremity of it IS political.

In many cases (probably most) military justice that is also based on due process of law is fair and adequate to try military personnel.

This case is different in so many ways, for all of the reasons stated above I believe he can accurately be described as a political prisoner and may not be able to receive fair treatment from ANY COURT under the government that is holding him as a political prisoner.

I do not easily or lightly classify a prisoner of the US to be a "political prisoner" and if I am correct (for the reasons stated) we will soon, or have already, crossed a line I never though our country would cross, a line that is not easily retreated from.

This would then be only the beginning
There will then be more

[sabrina 1]

7. There is also the secrecy regarding the whole case. The refusal to respond to press questions

which should never happen in a so-called open society.

From his attorney:

[link:http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/03/30/us-government-aims-to-protect-secrecy-in-bradley-manning-court-martial-proceedings/|
US Government Aims to Protect Secrecy in Bradley Manning’s Court Martial]

Our office has received several inquires regarding access to court filings by the parties. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Center for Constitutional Rights have both submitted letters indicating that the public is not adequately being informed of the proceedings. Each organization has stated that the lack of accessibility to court filings promotes the perception that issues are being decided behind closed doors. The organizations also believe the lack of transparency undercuts the public’s confidence in the fairness of the military justice system.

The Defense, in an effort to address the above concern, has requested authority to publish its motions and the Government’s responses on our website. The Government has opposed this request. The Court has issued an Interim Order that the Defense may publish appropriately redacted versions of its motions, but only after the Government is provided with an opportunity to review the redacted filings and raise any objection with the Court.

What are they afraid of? No free society should conduct a trial like this in secrecy. This is unacceptable or should be.

[Dragonfli]

8. Occam's Razor: it is not so much fear as it is silencing and punishing a political prisoner

There are so many things that stink to high heaven. Many I am sure, we will never even hear of. They all point to the same horrible conclusion and it's times like these that I wish I were too stupid to see it.

I could use some bliss, even at the cost of ignorance.

[msanthrope]

9. Manning chose the venue. Mr. Manning chose to live under the UCMJ...and he also

chose not to follow the MWPA of 1988. He could have given all of his 'evidence' to any congressperson, and been immune to prosecution.

Instead, he chose to sell/give his information to a commercial enterprise. He will pay the price for that.

[Dragonfli]

10. He gave it to the press so to speak, he chose the modern version, giving it to a congress critter

would have insured the information would be buried.

I am confused, I thought you were a lawyer, before a trial one usually alleges someone has committed a crime, assumptions alone appear to work better for you.

"he will pay the price for that" I thought this was about justice in your mind and not vindictive punishment, if that is all this is about then perhaps the physical and psychological torture he received could be considered time served on the sentence of "making him pay"

I learn new things from lawyers every day

[msanthrope]

11. Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders would have buried it? I think not.

I am sorry you are confused.

[Dragonfli]

12. It doesn't matter what I think or you thought, he had to trust them or not

Not us.

You are the one confused, whistle-blowers can only blow a whistle that exists, he embarrassed a government with their own words and has been treated like a political prisoner because of it.

You are mostly confused about what type of country this is, sorry, once was, It is closer to other forms of government now than it is to what I grew up with. There will always be those that cheer on the strong daddy figure such governments provide and as with Ken Brockman, You for one will welcome our "new alien overlords".

I hope you enjoy your new, more authoritarian Gov't.

[msanthrope]

13. Well, then he will pay the price for trusting Adrian Lamo and Julian Assange. nt

[Dragonfli]

14. Boy, you are really hung up on this "paying a price thing". Peace, I hope you get help for that. /nt

[sabrina 1]

15. Yes, like all the other whistleblowers who were treated so well over the past number of years.

He's a smart man, he had already been told to be quiet about torture by his superiors and he knew full well what would happen if he went outside of them to Congress. His goal was to try to stop war crimes. Congress hasn't been exactly on top of that issue. In fact Congress thinks War Crimes are not a problem. So he went to a venue often chosen by Whistleblowers when they know the chances of getting anything done elsewhere are pretty much zero. That in fact, he would most likely have been prevented from informing the American people of the war crimes he witnessed, had he gone to Congress.

This all looks great on paper. We keep pretending we are a moral country that abides by the law. His superiors made it crystal clear to him that covering up war crimes, ignoring them, not to mention what the WH said about 'moving forward', is the real policy of the entire US Government.

How many war criminals have been prosecuted so far, other than the few scapegoats from Abu Ghraib which only happened after another whistle-blower released tapes that could not be denied.

[msanthrope]

3. The court denied injunctive relief and his 4th Amendment claim that would have classified the search

of his electronic devices as "non-routine" and invasive. That was the most significant claim.

Not bad for a 12(b)(6). I expect the rest to be dismissed in the Motion for Summary Judgment. There is no First Amendment exception to border searches, and I expect that discovery will reveal some interesting tidbits about a certain grand jury in Virginia.

I am still surprised that Mr. House was stupid enough to carry information about donors--including personal observations regarding donors, through customs on an unencrypted device.

[midnight]

5. Glad to hear this issue is going forward and will be reviewed in a court room.