Thursday, March 3, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, protests are planned in Iraq for tomorrow, crackdowns go into effect, Nouri's ground appears shakier, Bradley Manning faces new charges, and more.
This week on Raising Hope (episode "Snip, Snip," written by Mike Mariano, Fox, Tuesday nights, streams online), Virginia (Martha Plimpton) and Burt (Garret Dillahunt) have a pregnancy scare. When their adult son Jimmy (Lucas Neff) finds out, he holds a family meeting in the living room. Also present is Maw Maw (Cloris Leachman), Virginia's grandmother, who appears off in her own little world as she examines a remote control.
Jimmy: How could you be so irresponsible?
Virginia: We're responsible. We're also passionate and spontaneous.
Burt: Those would be our gladiator names if we were on American Gladiator. Which we still might do!
Virginia: Because we're spontaneous.
Jimmy: Okay, first of all, Gladiator sounds awesome. But no babies. One of you has to get fixed or spayed.
Burt: No way.
Virginia: You cannot decide that, Jimmy. That is a personal decision.
Burt: She's right. I think we should take a family vote. All those in favor of everyone keeping their original plumbing?
Virginia and Burt raise their hands.
Virginia: Sorry, Jimmy, you're out voted two to one.
Maw Maw: I vote with Jimmy!
Jimmy: Hold on! Two to two!
Burt: Only if she's lucid! She's only allowed to vote if she's lucid!
Virginia: Maw Maw, we are currently at war with what country?
Maw Maw: Iraq and Afghanistan.
Jimmy: Is she right?
Burt: I think so but I'm not sure.
Maw Maw: It's right, you morons. One more reason why you shouldn't have another baby.
Burt and Jimmy aren't the only ones who appear to have forgotten the wars. Yesterday the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan issued a [PDF format warning] press release
Asking if Iraq is "a forgotten mission," the bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan has released a special report to Congress warning that the U.S. Department of State faces large funding and contract-management challenges in Iraq once the U.S. military completes its agreed-upon withdrawal by the end of 2011.
To deal with Iraq's long-standing ethnic, religious, and regional rivalries, the State Department is working to set up two permanent and two temporary stations remote from the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. The department is also working with the Department of Defnse to deal with hundreds of functions currently provided by the U.S. military in Iraq.
State's taking on security, facilities management, air transport, and other tasks will require thousands of contractor employees. "Yet State is short of needed funding and program-management staff," the report says. "Very little time remains for State to develop requirements, conduct negotiations, and award competititve contracts for work that must begin at once. Inadequate support risks waste of funds and failure for U.S. policy objectives in Iraq and the region."
The report recommends that:
"1. Congress ensure adequate funding to sustain State Department operations in critical area of Iraq, including its greatly increased needs for operational contract support."
"2. The Department of State expand its organic capability to meet heightened needs for acquistion personnel, contract management, and contractor oversight."
"3. The Secretaries of State and Defense extend and intensify their collaborative planning for the transition, including executing an agreement to establish a single, sneior-level coordinator and decision-maker to guide progress and promptly address major issues whose resolution may exceed the authorities of departmental working groups."
Nathan Hodge's article in today's Wall St. Journal opens, "U.S. officials are beginning to talk about the possibility of keeping some troops in Iraq beyond 2011, complicating the Pentagon's plans to rein in military spending." Hodge also notes the new report from the Commission on Wartime Contracting which Mark Bruce (ABC News) covers as well as the hearing:
The State Department is not ready to assume leadership for the U.S. role in Iraq as the military draws down its mission there, Commissioners Grant Green and Michael Thibault of the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan argued before lawmakers today.
"Is the State Department ready? The short answer is 'no,' and the short reason for that answer is that establishing and sustaining an expanded U.S. diplomatic presence in Iraq will require State to take on thousands of additional contractor employees that it has neither funds to pay nor resources to manage," Green testified before the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Mike Kellerman (Press TV -- link has text and video) adds: "Another couple hundred billion is estimated to pay for diplomats, CIA workers, para military advisors, embassy security, and tens of thousands of contractors. AT this Congressional hearing, several lawmakers balked at the projected price for Obama's long-term scheme to keep the American presence strong in Iraq indicating the government can no longer afford it. The US special inspector general for Iraq testified not only will it cost a lot at a time when budget cutters in Congress are slashing the State Department's budget but also the State Department is far from ready to take over the occupation of the country from the US military." If you want to end something, you work to end it. You don't, a few days after an election -- say, one in 2008 -- post a pathetic message on your supposed peace website that all is well and you're off. The Iraq War continues. Those of us who said "Out of Iraq Now!" need to figure out whether we meant it or not -- specifically "NOW!" -- or whether we were just lying to try to help Democrats do better in elections. I'm not sure what conclusion most will form but I was opposed to the Iraq War and meant it which is why I remain opposed to the Iraq War. Opposed -- not posing. There's a difference. Non-posers will gather across the country this month on the anniversary of the Iraq War with the biggest protest planned for DC. A.N.S.W.E.R. and March Forward! and others will be taking part in this action:
March 19 is the 8th anniversary of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Iraq today remains occupied by 50,000 U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands of foreign mercenaries.
The war in Afghanistan is raging. The U.S. is invading and bombing Pakistan. The U.S. is financing endless atrocities against the people of Palestine, relentlessly threatening Iran and bringing Korea to the brink of a new war.
While the United States will spend $1 trillion for war, occupation and weapons in 2011, 30 million people in the United States remain unemployed or severely underemployed, and cuts in education, housing and healthcare are imposing a huge toll on the people.
Actions of civil resistance are spreading.
On Dec. 16, 2010, a veterans-led civil resistance at the White House played an important role in bringing the anti-war movement from protest to resistance. Enduring hours of heavy snow, 131 veterans and other anti-war activists lined the White House fence and were arrested. Some of those arrested will be going to trial, which will be scheduled soon in Washington, D.C.
Saturday, March 19, 2011, the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, will be an international day of action against the war machine.
Protest and resistance actions will take place in cities and towns across the United States. Scores of organizations are coming together. Demonstrations are scheduled for San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and more.
The Iraq War isn't over. BBC News reports that a Haditha suicide bomber has taken his own life today and the lives of many around him. NPR's Mike Shuster (on the hourly headlines) says that the death toll could rise and that most of the victims are "police or army personnel who gathered at a bank to receive their pay." Reuters counts 10 dead so far with twenty-six injured.
In political news, the big news may be Ayad Allawi's announcement. Al Rafidayn reports the Iraqiya leader has given a TV interview in which he has declared he will have no part of the National Council on Supreme Policies. He termed his decision "final" and said Iraqiya could nominate or back someone else for that post if they want to. Iraiqy won the most votes in the March 7th elections which should have meant Ayad Allawi had first crack at forming a government but the Constitution wasn't followed. To end the stalemate, the US government increased the pressure on various parties resulting in an agreement largely brokered by the Kurds which gave Nouri the prime minister poster and would make Allawi head of the National Council on Supreme Polcies; however, that body has still not been created. For those who can remember, after the agreement there was much fan fair in Parliament the next day . . . except for Iraqiya walking out as it became obvious that their rewards in the agreement were not priority. Among those who walked away then was Allawi. It probably would have been smart for others in Iraqiya to have taken a stand back then when it might have made a difference. Dar Addustour reports the assertion that the National Council wil lbe formed. When? Iraq still doesn't have a full Cabinet. In related news, New Sabah reports that Iraqiya is stating Nouri is using his '100 days' (a time of review Nouri's given himself) not to reform, but to stall. Arab News reports: "The Chairman of the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council (SIIC), Ammar al-Hakin, and the Leader of al-Iraqiya Coalition, Iyad Allawi, have discussed on Wednesday the activiation of the agreements, reached among different Iraqi political parties, to activiate the national partnership to respond to the people's demands, an SIIC statement said on Thursday. In further related news, Alsumaria TV reports, "Al Sadr Front threatened to stop supporting the government of Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki if he keeps on his weak performance and failures. The front even hinted about allying with Iraqiya leader Iyad Allawi to form a parliamentary majority in case the government fails to provide its people the needed services within the six month deadline set by Sadr's referendum." UPI notes, "The party loyal to Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr could rally against the country's prime minister if he doesn't address national woes." The Econimist notes, ". . . Mr Maliki is becoming still more authoritarian. In January a supreme federal court ruling allowed several independent institutions, including the central bank and various committees that are meant to oversee elections, fight graft and uphold human rights, to fall under the control of the executive. Mr Maliki has been trying to place his allies in several of these outfits. Qassim Aboudi, who heads the electoral committee, said he feared that Mr Maliki would interfere even more in the next election than he did in the past one. Worst of all, reports have been circulating that security forces loyal to Mr Maliki are again running secret prisons where detainees are being tortured." Mediate notes that US House Rep Ron Paul appeared on Judge Andrew Napolitano's Fox Business News program Freedom Watch and noted Nouri's crackdown on protesters before stating, "I would say that our success at providing a free society for Iraq is a total failure and they do not have freedom. There's less fredom of religion there -- the Christians have all been run out. Even under the horrible dictator Saddam Hussein -- he was more tolerant of Christianity than the current government is in Iraq." Iraqi Christians remain in Iraq, many have been run out of their homes -- some have moved to northern Iraq, some have left the country.
Protests are called for tomorrow in Iraq. Jack Healy and Michael S. Schmidt (New York Times) report, "On Thursday night, the authorities banned all cars and motorcycles from the streets of Baghdad, making it hard for protesters to reach the central square. Similar bans were announced in Samarra and Kirkuk." Daniel Serwer (Washington Post) notes, "Iraqis have been thinking about what they need to do to achieve national reconciliation: Redefine the relationship between citizens and the state, reform education at all levels, suppress incitement, limit foreign interference in domestic politics. Members of parliament I spoke with wondered what it would take to produce a 'culture of forgiveness.' There was a healthy debate." At the Council on Foreign Relations, Raad Alkadiri offers this take of the protests thus far:
These protests have not reached the scale of those witnessed in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia, and demonstrators have not demanded regime change per se. Nonetheless, the tight security measures taken to contain the "day of rage" protests in Baghdad -- including blocking access to the city and putting a tight military cordon around Tahrir Square, the focal point of the demonstrations -- and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's efforts to link the unrest to al Qaeda and Baathist provocateurs suggest that his government is rattled. And with good cause, because if Baghdad cannot respond effectively to popular demands, the current government's political survival is no less at stake than those in Cairo, Tripoli, and Tunis.
Although there is undoubtedly an element of contagion influencing events in Iraq, which began with small demonstrations in Baghdad led by intellectuals and professionals, the protests there are driven by local grievances. Popular anger at the persistent lack of services -- especially electricity -- has been rising steadily over the past few years. Demonstrations protesting power shortages occurred in Basra last summer, expressing a frustration common to Iraqis across the country; some parts of Baghdad, for example, received around two hours of electricity per day from the national grid in early February. Iraqis also share growing resentment toward pervasive government corruption, a factor that has been particularly important in driving demonstrations against the regional administration in Kurdistan. Iraq ranked 175 out of 178 countries on Transparency International's 2010 corruption index. Meanwhile, there is broad resentment of the high salaries and generous benefits that public officials have granted themselves, especially given the government's apparent ineptitude.
None of these grievances is new; Iraqis have complained about poor services and unresponsive government since the U.S. invasion in 2003. But in the bloody, chaotic years that followed Hussein's fall, security was the biggest popular concern. Now that levels of violence have diminished, Iraqis' patience with their government's inadequacies is wearing thin.
Nayla Razzouk (Bloomberg News) notes that Saber al-Issawi, mayor of Baghdad, has tendered "his resignation [. . .] following street protests in the country to demand better living conditions and anti-corruption measures". The mayor of Falluja has resigned, Babil Province Governor Salman Nasser Hamidi has resigned and Basra Governor Shaltagh Abboud. In addition to the planned protests for tomorrow, Reuters notes that Moqtada al-Sadr has called for protests "against any possible US Military intervention in Libya, saying the US installed Gaddafi and now wants to remove him."
Late yesterday, new charges were lodged against Bradley Manning. The rest of the snapshot will be devoted to issues having to do with Iraq War veteran Bradley. Monday April 5th, WikiLeaks released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7th, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." Manning has been convicted in the public square despite the fact that he's been convicted in no state and has made no public statements -- despite any claims otherwise, he has made no public statements. Manning has been at Quantico in Virginia, under military lock and key, for months. David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) reports that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty if convicted. David E. Coombs is Bradley's attorney and provides a walk through on Article 104. Like many, Sophie Elmhirst (New Statesman) emphasizes the possibility of the death penalty. Elmhirst notes:
Last week, I met David House, the only person allowed to visit Manning at the Marine Corps Brig in Quantico, Virginia apart from his lawyer, David Coombs (the full article is in this week's magazine). Manning has been held there since 29 July 2010, and House has been visiting him since September, and has noticed his rapid deterioration. Manning, who is held under a Prevention Of Injury (POI) order, spends 23 hours a day alone in his cell, and is now unable to speak at any length or with coherence. He is allowed out for an hour to walk in circles around an empty room. For three days in January he was put on suicide watch, his glasses were removed and he was kept in his cell for 24 hours a day, although his psychological evaluations have stated that he is not a risk to himself. He has also gained weight and appears exhausted.
Most recently, House told me, he has appeared almost catatonic, barely able to communicate at all. "I can't really describe how bizarre it is to see a 110-pound, five-foot-three individual done up in chains from his hands to his feet, connected at the waist, so he can't really move," he said. Pentagon officials maintain that Manning receives the same treatment and privileges as all other prisoners held in what the military calls 'maximum custody' ". But House points out that Manning is the only maximum-custody detainee at Quantico, "so he is being treated like himself".
Could he face the death penalty? He could. If found guilty, he could even be put to death. How likely is that? It was less likely in 2005 because we had a movement against the Iraq War. But the reality is that it's an illegal war and that the 2002 authorization doesn't say go to war. That wouldn't be hard to establish in court -- you have various Democrats who voted for it in 2002 -- including some who ran for the party's presidential nomination -- and insisted after that this was not a vote for war, it was a vote for inspections and on and on. Meaning, if it is on record by the very people who voted for the authorization that the measure did not declare war, it would be very hard to establish that this was a legal war. (It's an illegal war by every international law. We're sticking to national issues due to the fact that this case, if prosecuted, would be in military courts at the start. On appeal, it would leave the confines of the military.)
Does the military want to be arguing -- with US soldiers still on the ground in Iraq -- that Bradley allegedly aided the enemy? No, they don't.
They don't want to because that opens up two defense avenues. The first is, where is the proof that anyone was aided -- burden of proof, even in the military court, would be on the prosecution to prove their charge. The second is the legality issue.
Reality: US troops aren't leaving Iraq at the end of 2011. You can accept that reality or not. But it's not happening. The US military cannot continue to hold Bradley as they have been doing. The outcry is building. So a trial of some form (or an agreement) had to start (or be reached) in the near future. The military does not want a legality issue on the war. We've seen that in case after case. Think of Camilo Mejia's case or anyone else's. The military doesn't want that but this charge invites that. You cannot claim that someone's actions have aided the enemy and not give them the right to respond as to "what legally defined enemy?" which is the issue of the (domestic) legality of the Iraq War.
It's a stupid charge on their part because it actually expands the case the defense could make -- even if the prosecution insists "We won't go for the death penalty," making that charge expands the scope. During Vietnam, case after case had to be dropped because of the legality issue -- I'm referring to cases which did include charges of 'aiding the enemy.' One of the reasons Jane Fonda was never charged with any crime was that the Justice Dept did not want to get into a court battle over the legality of what the US was doing in Vietnam. Charging her -- as some reactionary members of Congress wanted at the time -- with "aiding the enemy" or "treason" would require the Justice Dept explaining that the US was at war with what Congressional proclamation? (Only Congress can declare war legally in the US.) Putting the war on trial, especially when it is ongoing, is not something that any branch of the government seeks.
What may be happening is that this may be an effort to scare Bradley. The military may have reached a dead end or a wall and, with little to no additional options on ways to attempt to force something out of him, they may have decided to drop a number of new charges on him all at once in the hope that they can intimidate or scare him or his attorney.
Anything can happen, the future is not foretold. But based on past experiences in the US, this plays more like an intimidation tactic by the government -- and an incredibly desperate one at that. Ellen Nakashima (Washington Post) notes the military has stated they will not seek the death penalty. That only makes it more likely that this was a desperation move on the part of prosecutors who know they need to move forward on the case but apparently have little or no case at present. Although it has allowed for some to run around like chickens with their heads cut off and I'm sure the prosecutors are loving that. Meanwhile Glenn Greenwald's demonstrating yet again what a poor legal mind he has. Link here and provided just for the purpose of laughter. (Heads up came from three friends who are Constitutional lawyers.) At one point, GG's going on about military law while indicating that he doesn't understand it. The chief thing to remember with the military court is that it does have civilian oversight in the appeals process. (It was US District Court Judge Benjamin Settle, for example, who ruled in Ehren Watada's favor.) Even worse than GG's alarmist attitude is what he does when he realizes he hasn't a clue about the issues involved. US citizen Bradley Manning will supposedly face a (US) military court. Not sure of the issues (but too scared to admit it), GG looking for an expert and thinks he found one in an "international law professor." No, GG, no. That espeically is producing howls of laughter in the legal community. I know the small, online world tends to think GG's a brilliant legal mind up there with Atticus Finch but he repeatedly demonstrates that he's just not that smart -- neither when it comes to thinking on his feet or strategizing. (Which is how the White House managed to Rick-roll him on ObamaCare all those months.) The charges against Bradley are not "international law" charges. They are domestic military charges. He should have called any number of attorneys familiar with domestic law, especially military law, such as Eugene Fidell. Fidell's always popular with the press and, in fact, Charlie Savage (New York Times) has already spoken to him about the new charges:
Eugene Fidell, who teaches military law at Yale Law School, noted that several of the charges seemed to be describing the same basic act, but in different ways. He said that it was "typical for military prosecutors to draft charges in as many ways as possible," and he predicted that the defense would challenge the redundancies later in the process.
"We're potentially entering a new chapter with this set of charges," Mr. Fidell said.
That's one opinion. There are others. AP's David Disneau finds some -- unlike GG, to find out what could happen, Dishneau goes to military law experts. If you're presenting someone as an expert on a sujbect, they need to be not just an expert but an expert whose expertise applies to the issue at hand. Again, GG's a laugh-laugh. It's only the online world that thinks he's all that. If he hadn't tossed his lot in online with Democrats (he's not a Democrat), he wouldn't have his fame -- such as it is -- but if you tell blind partisans (of either party) just what they want to hear often enough, they'll hail you as a genuis. Of course, most of the praise comes from people who have never sat foot in courtroom, let alone taken even one legal course. You'd think even the mindless, reading today's column, would realize there's some sort of cognitive problem with GG -- presenting Bradley as guilty and then, in his final paragraph, noting Bradley's been convicted of nothing. Which is it?
And we bring it up not just because of GG -- we rarely mention him, he has no use to us. But we note him today because GG's part of the problem. 'What will sway the public!!!!!' Time and again, that's what GG's inflated nonsense is about. Now you can make an argument that attempts to persuade and is still coherent and factual. When you are unable to do that, you just keep upping the ante -- lying -- and end up like John Nichols, who, Bob Somerby points out today, helped start (another) huge lie on the left, it spread like wildfire and people had egg on their face. We don't need that. We all make enough mistakes on our own (and I'm sure I make more than anyone else) without relying on people who have record of stretching, bending, distorting and molesting the truth.
GG makes some idiotic claims -- and he's far from alone today -- how does that hurt anyone? I don't care about Glenn Greenwald and his cult will continue to fawn over him. But the reason we have screamed and pissed people off on the Bradley Manning issue is because I do give a damn about Bradley. I do care when Bill Quigley -- at the Center for Constitutional Rights website -- is calling Bradley the leaker. I do care that Bradley be able to enter a plea and not have one assigned to him -- either by the government stooges or by my fellow idiots on the left. The charges have always been serious ones against Bradley in terms of punishment. It is no one's business -- that includes Daniel Ellsberg who has pissed off the Manning family with some of his public statements -- but Bradley's to make a claim or assertion. He can -- and will -- do that through his attorney. He may be innocent. He may be guilty and want to plead innocent. He may want to plead guilty. But that's his plea. And that CCR would feature Quigley's crazy -- an attorney at a website for attorneys -- calling Bradley the leaker when Bradley's never identified himself as that is beyond crazy.
As is upping the ante. What Bradley's experiencing does qualify as torture. You don't have to add to it, you don't have to inflate it. What's going on is already bad enough. His attorney David E. Coombs notes the military felt the need to strip Bradley of all his clothing for over seven hours. Now if we wanted to live in Speculation City, I could rip them apart over that and what they may have been trying to do in terms of humiliation. But Bradley's never spoken of his sexuality to the press and we've left that out of the snapshots because Adrian Llamo is a liar and a convicted felon. We're not interested in the many lies that sewage mouth repeatedly spouts. (And as we noted long ago, a real prosecution does not let Llamo leak the way he has. Llamo's leaking long ago indicated he wasn't a witness in a future trial, he was part of the prosecution.) 7 hours without clothing. In his cold cell. For what reason? We don't know but we know that's not right. But some today will overlook that grave injustice -- which is a violation of military policy. Even if Bradley were to be put on suicide watch, he would be placed in scrubs. He would not be forced to be naked for hours. The military has violated their own guidelines. But, again, some today will overlook it. They'll hear about it and think, "Oh, well, that's minor! The US military wants to execute him!!!!"
What is being done to Bradley now is already outrageous. When your way of 'helping' him is to focus on what might happen as you let your horses run free (nod to Prince) all over Crazy Town, you make the outrageous actions of the US military seem far less than what they are. That's one reason why we don't docu-drama an ongoing legal case. Another reason is that once you start lying, there is the risk that your lie will be exposed. If and when that happens, that one lie goes to your entire presentation. "They lied about __ and if they would lie about ___, who knows what else they would lie about." So when Coombs responds to Pentagon flack Geoff Morrell's assertions, you're undercutting him (and Bradley) if you're forever 'improving' on the story.
Let's deal with another way some of the 'helpers' are harming. The Cult of St. Julian tries to tie Assange with Bradley. There's no reason to do that. Despite claims by Julian Assange that they would support Bradley (whom Assange has always stated may or may not be the whistle blower because WikiLeaks does not know the person who lead the data) and his legal defense, they didn't. Shamed on the national stage, WikiLeaks finally ponied up a small amount -- $15,000. From a review by Marcus Baram (Huffington Post) of Daniel Domscheit-Berg's Inside WikiLeaks: My Time With Julian Assange at the World's Most Dangerous Website:
The arrest of U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning for allegedly copying and leaking classified information represented the worst moment in the history of WikiLeaks, writes Domscheit-Berg. The arrest prompted the group to debate the effectiveness of its mechanism for protecting sources -- could a document be so dangerous for a source that WikiLeaks should not publish it? Domscheit-Berg also reveals that the organization let down Manning after promising to hire lawyers and raise $100,000 for his defense. By the end of 2010, only $15,000 had been transferred to Manning's support network. "I have to admit that we at WL, myself included, utterly failed on this score," he writes.
That's despicable. And there are reasons not to link them beyond that. While Julie plays martyr, Bradley's facing real hardships. And has been for months now. If Bradley is the leaker, he's the one who risked by leaking. He should be the focus. (If he's not the leaker, his being held is even more outrageous.)
And according to Julian Assange, the US government is trying to link him to Bradley. So why the cult of St. Julian wants to equate the two over and over is beyond me -- because they like doing the prosecutor's work or are they just that stupid?
If he's the leaker -- big if at this point -- the public record still would only (thus far) reflect a connection between Bradley and WikiLeaks -- no connection between him and Julian Assange would be established. If you really live in fear that St. Julie's going to be tried in the US, stop poisoning a potential jury pool by doing the government's work for them.
Equally true is Bradley's never received the support or attention his case warrants. Even World Can't Wait -- one of the few to truly work the Collateral Murder video -- refuses to treat him as his own important story and lumps him in with Julian Assange. As Assange grows more toxic, that's not a smart strategy for Bradley. It's not necessary to feel a damn thing towards non-reporter Julian Assange in order to support Bradley. But, as usual, the ego maniac Julie eats up all the left's attention.