NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label Rule of Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rule of Law. Show all posts

03 July 2023

CommentaryPoliticsDemocracy, Voting, and Governance WHEN SHOULD CHRISTIANS BREAK THE LAW? ASK JESUS, NOT TRUMP 29JUN23


A supporter of former U.S. President Donald Trump and an anti-Trump demonstrator argue outside the courthouse where former President Donald Trump appeared for his arraignment on June 13, 2023. REUTERS/Marco Bello TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

 WISE words for me and all of us to consider. It is unfortunate so many Christians have turned away from the teachings of Jesus Christ to follow the apostacy, the hypocrisy of the alt-jesus movement created by political fascist, autocrats, oligarchs and adherents of trumpianity. We must try not to judge our brothers and sisters we disagree with (for me that is my entire immediate family) but must support them in loving prayer while holding true to our own faith and beliefs. This from Sojourners.....

WHEN SHOULD CHRISTIANS BREAK THE LAW? ASK JESUS, NOT TRUMP

During the summer weeks between Juneteenth and Independence Day, I find myself thinking about the best and the worst of the United States, a nation that promises “liberty and justice for all,” yet has so often failed to deliver it.

This year is no exception: As I get ready for fireworks and barbecues, I’m at once relieved the U.S. Supreme Court this week ruled against a legal theory that would have threatened the integrity of our elections and dismayed by reactions to the federal indictment of former President Donald Trump. The former is a victory for upholding the integrity of our electoral system; the latter is a threat to our constitutional commitment to equal justice under the law. Both rights — the right to vote and equal justice under the law — are indispensable to the freedoms we hold dear as Christians, from the right to assemble and protest to the right to worship freely.


I write this as someone painfully aware of the myriad ways in which equal justice under the law has rarely been achieved in the U.S., especially for Black and brown people. Just today, the Supreme Court ruled against affirmative action, a move that is likely to reduce the number of Black and brown students on some university campues. I also write as a Christian who believes deeply in the power of nonviolent civil disobedience, something I’ve participated in (and been arrested for) when facing laws or policies that I believe were deeply unjust, such as the Iraq War and the family separation policy under the Trump administration.


Yet as a Black man, a Christian, and a frequent protester, I still consider myself a staunch supporter of the rule of law. Here’s why:


When Christians think about the role of faith and the law of the land, we often turn to texts like Matthew 22:15-22 — the famous “render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” passage — or Romans 13:1-10, in which Paul writes, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.” Both passages have been misused to justify oppression, including slavery and patriarchy, as essential to Christian “obedience.” But I see something different: Both passages contrast human laws and human authority against the more foundational laws and authority of God — and understand that the latter always supersedes the former.


In Romans 13, the apostle Paul ties obedience to God’s expectation that governing authorities restrain evil and provide for the common good. The government, Paul writes, should be “God’s agent for your good” and “execute wrath on the wrongdoer.” In other words, laws and policies should be evaluated — and obeyed — based on the degree to which they promote the common good and restrain evil. And when governing authorities are unjust, the Bible offers examples of people who resisted, including the midwives defying Pharaoh (Exodus 1), Daniel and his friends defying Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 3), and Peter and John questioning religious authorities (Acts 4).


So how do we determine which laws are just and which are worth of defiance? Admittedly, this is difficult, especially in the context of a legal system that all too frequently applies laws unevenly along racial and economic lines. But as with so much else, we can look to the life and teachings of Jesus, who preached peace and nonviolence, yet confronted the unjust authorities of his day, even to the point of his own crucifixion. Through it all, Jesus always acted for the common good, particularly in the context of protecting the most vulnerable and marginalized.


Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. wrestles with this question directly in his seminal “Letter from Birmingham Jail”:


One may well ask: ‘How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?’ The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all’ … Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.


King is clear: The justness of a law or policy is based in whether it uplifts or degrades human beings. In other words, does the law or policy affirm human dignity or deny it? Does it expand who is included in “We the people…” or shrink it? Does it promote the common good or suffocate it?


But while we disobey unjust laws to obey the moral laws we have been given by God, there’s a flip side: As both Scripture and King make clear, when human laws do serve the common good or restrain evil, we should obey them.


And it’s through this lens of “obey laws that serve the common good” that I feel alarmed at reactions to Trump’s federal indictment, in which he has been charged with 37 felony counts of mishandling classified documents and obstruction of justice. According to recent polling, 81 percent of Republicans said politics is driving the case. While other elected officials, including former President Barack Obama, former Vice President Mike Pence, and President Joe Biden have been investigated for possession of classified documents, each of these politicians cooperated to quickly return the documents. The charges brought against Trump, by contrast, allege that Trump misled his own attorneys and the government to retain the documents in question.


The charges brought against Trump have a clear impact on the common good: Mishandling classified documents poses a risk to national security and obstructing justice undermines our ability to hold folks accountable for wrongdoing — which in turn can undermine our ability to stop others from acting similarly in the future (consider how prosecutions of Jan. 6 insurrectionists have helped deter further political violence). In seeking to hang on to classified documents despite the good faith efforts of public servants to reclaim them and a court subpoena, Trump was serving no one but himself.


As with anyone else accused of a crime, Trump should be presumed innocent until proven guilty; he deserves a fair trial in which the evidence brought against him — including the tape made public this week in which he confesses to knowingly sharing highly classified documents — is carefully reviewed and considered by a jury. He, like everyone else, deserves equal treatment under the law.


But Trump has long exhibited the characteristics of “strongman” leaders who seek to be above the law. When things don’t go his way, Trump makes himself the perpetual victim, claiming that any charge brought against him — whether by the FBI, the media, or the Justice Department— is a political witch hunt. And this sense that he’s above the law has not only put Trump in a serious legal bind of his own making, but it’s also put our nation’s commitment to democracy to an unprecedented test.


Regardless of what happens in his case, Trump’s claim that his indictment is politically motivated serves only to help himself. Just as Trump’s lies about the results of the 2020 election simultaneously decreased confidence in our electoral system while energizing his own supporters, claiming that his federal indictment is a witch hunt decreases confidence in our justice system while inflaming the supporters who are eager to see Trump become the 2024 Republican candidate. In other words, Trump continues to uplift himself while degrading confidence in our democracy — a tested tactic of strongmen and fascist leaders the world over and counter to God’s teaching about laws.


As fireworks boom this Independence Day, I will be praying that our country strives ever closer to realize our commitment to deliver equal treatment under the law — whether you’re a recent immigrant, a person living at the margins of our society, a CEO of major corporation, or a former president. And while I’m grateful for this country, particularly because of its highest ideal of extending liberty and justice for all, that love of country never supersedes my commitment to living out what Jesus called the two greatest commandments: to love God with all my mind, body, and soul and to love my neighbors as I love myself.

Adam Russell Taylor is president of Sojourners and author of A More Perfect Union: A New Vision for Building the Beloved CommunityFollow him on Twitter @revadamtaylor.

 



29 August 2017

Trump is dragging us toward a full-blown crisis. Here’s what has to happen now. & Trump asked Sessions about closing case against Arpaio, an ally since ‘birtherism’ 28&26AUG17


IT is no surprise the fascist drumpf/trump-pence administration has pardoned arpaio, they all share a total disrespect for the rule of law and the American justice system. This administration is trying to govern as authoritarian rulers past and present, their attacks on the American judicial system, courts, judges and even NOT MY pres drumpf's/trump's Attorney General jeff sessions is a serious threat to our Republic. And don't think NOT MY pres drumpf/trump is the only threat to American democracy. NOT MY vice-pres pence is involved in all of this and is even more of a threat because he is a career politician. From the Washington Post......
* WHY TRUMP PARDONED ARPAIO: Paul Krugman doesn’t mince words:
Arpaio, with his racism and authoritarianism, really is his kind of guy. … standing up for white people who keep brown people down pleases Trump’s base, whom he’s going to need more than ever as the scandals creep closer and the big policy wins he promised keep not happening.
This was sadly predictable, given the deafening cheers that greeted Trump’s hint at a coming Arpaio pardon at his recent Arizona rally.
Trump is dragging us toward a full-blown crisis. Here’s what has to happen now.
  
It is welcome that some Republicans stepped forward to condemn President Trump’s pardon of former Maricopa County (Ariz.) sheriff Joe Arpaio. But something more is needed right now: We also need to hear a loud, clanging alarm from Republicans and Democrats alike that signals to Trump in unequivocal terms that any pardons in the context of the Russia probe will be met by a forceful and immediate response from Congress.
This would be for the good of the country, of course, because it might help avert a full-blown constitutional crisis. But it would also be to the benefit of the GOP and even Trump himself — though he might not be capable of appreciating that right now.
In an interview with me, Rep. Adam Schiff (Calif.) — the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee — argued strenuously that Trump’s pardon of Arpaio needs to be seen as a signal to those of his supporters who have been implicated in the Russia affair.
“The purpose for which the pardon was granted — to a political supporter of the birther movement — sends a message that if you have the president’s back, if you’re one of his supporters, he won’t necessarily wait until the end of a criminal case to give you a pardon,” Schiff told me. “He is telegraphing to anyone involved in his political campaign that as long as they stick with him, the possibility of a pardon is open, just the way it was for Arpaio.”
Trump pardoned Arpaio on Friday night, in advance of Arpaio’s sentencing, plainly aware that Hurricane Harvey would overshadow his act. At his Arizona rally, he suggested that “Sheriff Joe” had been convicted for “doing his job.” This is an implicit endorsement of the act that got Arpaio convicted of criminal contempt of court — refusing a judge’s command that he stop violating the constitutional rights of Latino immigrants. So perhaps Trump thinks Arpaio’s conviction was faulty. Meanwhile, Trump’s announcement of the pardon cited Arpaio’s alleged “service,” hinting that he deserves mercy. But neither argument has been elaborated upon. We have since learned that Trump had planned to pardon Arpaio, a campaign loyalist, well before there was any conviction, and that he viewed this as a way to please his base.
So Trump has offered no serious rationale for pardoning Arpaio. It is true that the pardon power appears absolute. But as multiple legal experts have pointed out, this particular use of it takes us into uncharted territory: Trump has signaled leniency toward law enforcement officials who refuse to obey judicial commands that they remain constrained by the Constitution, if they are loyal to Trump, or if his “base” will thrill to it. As Harvard’s Noah Feldman argued, Trump’s move appears to “threaten the very structure on which his right to pardon is based,” which risks “breaking the basic structure of the legal order” and constitutes an “abuse of the pardon power to break the system itself.”
And it could get worse. Schiff told me that the manner in which this pardon was done reasonably suggests it may be a signal to officials getting caught up in the Russia probe. “I don’t think it’s lost on anyone that the president is sending a message to those who worked on his campaign that he is not beyond using the pardon power to protect them and protect himself,” Schiff said. He added that Trump showed that “he’s willing to do it even prior to sentence,” which signals that he might be prepared to exercise it “to fend off any further criminal proceedings.”
“There are a number of ways that this could be applied to those who are either asking for immunity in the Russia probe or are exposed to potential liability,” Schiff said.
Grounds for impeachment?
Legal experts told me that if Trump were to do this, it could constitute grounds for impeachment — even if his legal power to do it is uncontested.
“If a president uses a pardon to buy the silence of a defendant or suspect in a criminal case, the witness will still go free,” Robert Bauer, a former White House counsel under Barack Obama, told me. “But the president could face impeachment. Congress is not bound by the requirements for formal legal liability: A High Crime as a basis for impeachment might overlap with the version in the legal system, but there is no requirement that it do. Congress makes its own determination in judging whether the president should remain in office.”
“Congress could pretty clearly use this as a basis for impeachment,” Martin Redish, a professor of constitutional law at Northwestern University, added in an email to me. “This isn’t just another controversial move by a controversial president. This is the first salvo in a war for the survival of American constitutionalism.”
Now, we do not know whether Trump will go through with something like this. We do not even know where special counsel Robert S. Mueller’s probe is heading. But the point is that members of Congress could be putting Trump on notice right now that if he does resort to such measures, Congress will not tolerate it.
“When it comes to this president’s trampling of our constitutional norms, silence is complicity,” Schiff told me. “People need to send a message to the president that the pardon power cannot be used as a way of preventing the implementation of justice when it comes to the Russia probe or any other.”
Schiff said that if a clear alarm is not sounded, the message Trump will get is that “he won’t face a political price or a constitutional crisis if he were to pardon anyone else who is a supporter of is, no matter what their violation may be.”
Obviously, Trump — who fired the FBI director over the Russia probe after reportedly demanding his loyalty, and publicly raged at his attorney general for failing to protect him from it — cannot be dissuaded from such a course of action via appeals to norms or to the rule of law or to any sense of obligation to the American public, which deserves a full accounting of the Russia affair. But Trump does appear to have a survival instinct of sorts that kicks in at moments like this: He reportedly was seriously considering trying to remove Mueller but was talked out of it by his staff.
And so, if Trump is persuaded that Congress will not tolerate it if Trump exercises pardons in the context of the Russia probe, perhaps he’d be less likely to go through with it, which could ultimately spare him from facing a congressional response. True, we can argue all day over whether Republicans actually would or wouldn’t impeach Trump if he went full authoritarian in this manner. But isn’t it in their best interests to do whatever they can right now to avoid a scenario in which they would be faced with this choice?
Greg Sargent writes The Plum Line blog, a reported opinion blog with a liberal slant -- what you might call “opinionated reporting” from the left.
  Follow @theplumlinegs




Trump asked Sessions about closing case against Arpaio, an ally since ‘birtherism’
  

As Joseph Arpaio’s federal case headed toward trial this past spring, President Trump wanted to act to help the former Arizona county sheriff who had become a campaign-trail companion and a partner in their crusade against illegal immigration.
The president asked Attorney General Jeff Sessions whether it would be possible for the government to drop the criminal case against Arpaio, but was advised that would be inappropriate, according to three people with knowledge of the conversation.
After talking with Sessions, Trump decided to let the case go to trial, and if Arpaio was convicted, he could grant clemency.
So the president waited, all the while planning to issue a pardon if Arpaio was found in contempt of court for defying a federal judge’s order to stop detaining people merely because he suspected them of being undocumented immigrants. Trump was, in the words of one associate, “gung-ho about it.”
“We knew the president wanted to do this for some time now and had worked to prepare for whenever the moment may come,” said one White House official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the action.
Responding to questions about Trump’s conversation with Sessions, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said, “It’s only natural the president would have a discussion with administration lawyers about legal matters. This case would be no different.”
The Justice Department declined to comment.
Trump’s Friday-evening decision to issue his first pardon for Arpaio was the culmination of a five-year political friendship with roots in the “birther” movement to undermine President Barack Obama. In an extraordinary exercise of presidential power, Trump bypassed the traditional review process to ensure that Arpaio, who was convicted of contempt of court, would face no time in prison.
Trump’s pardon, issued without consulting the Justice Department, raised a storm of protest over the weekend, including from some fellow Republicans, and threatens to become a stain on the president’s legacy. His effort to see if the case could be dropped showed a troubling disregard for the traditional wall between the White House and the Justice Department, and taken together with similar actions could undermine respect for the rule of law, experts said.
Arpaio faced up to six months in prison and was due to be sentenced in October. During his 23 years as Maricopa County sheriff, Arpaio was a lightning rod, in part because of his aggressive crackdown on illegal immigrants. He also was accused of racial profiling, failure to investigate sex crimes, poor treatment of prisoners and other instances of police misconduct.
To Trump, however, Arpaio is an American hero — a man who enlisted in the military at 18 after the outbreak of the Korean War, worked as a beat cop in Washington and Las Vegas and as a special agent investigating drug crimes around the world, then was elected sheriff in the epicenter of the nation’s roiling immigration debate.
Arpaio’s age weighed on Trump, some of his confidants said. The 71-year-old president could not stomach seeing an 85-year-old he admired as a law-and-order icon wasting away in a jail cell.
Trump’s spring inquiry about intervening in Arpaio’s case is consistent with his alleged attempts to influence the federal investigation of Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser. Trump also made separate appeals in March to Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats and National Security Agency Director Michael S. Rogers to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.
Trump’s pardon of Arpaio “was his backhand way of doing what he wanted to do at the front end,” said Robert Bauer, a former White House counsel in the Obama administration. “He just wanted to kill the prosecution off. He couldn’t do it the one way, so he ended up doing it the other way. This is just another vivid demonstration of how far removed from an appropriate exercise of the pardon power this was.”
Presidents can set law enforcement priorities, but they are expected to steer clear of involvement in specific cases to avoid the perception of politicizing the impartial administration of justice.
Trump backed off the Arpaio case after being advised it would be inappropriate, but that he even tried is “beyond the pale,” said Chiraag Bains, a former senior counsel in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.
Bains said he believes Trump “has a sense that the chief executive controls everything in the executive branch, including the exercise of criminal power. And that is just not the way the system is set up.”​
Trump and Arpaio became brothers in arms five years ago. As they saw it, the two provocateurs — one a celebrity real estate developer, the other a polarizing sheriff — were pursuing justice in the form of supposed evidence that Obama’s birth certificate was fraudulent.
As caretakers of the false “birther” conspiracy, Trump and Arpaio relentlessly probed Obama’s birth in Hawaii and nurtured a lie to damage the legitimacy of the nation’s first African American president.
“There was no collusion,” Arpaio said in an interview Saturday. “I started my birth certificate investigation around the same time he did his.”
The Manhattan mogul sent Arpaio a fan letter and flattered him on social media. “Congratulations to @RealSheriffJoe on his successful Cold Case Posse investigation which claims @BarackObama’s ‘birth certificate’ is fake,” Trump tweeted in 2012.
Three years later, in July 2015, when Trump swooped into Arpaio’s hometown of Phoenix for the first mega-rally of his upstart presidential campaign, the sheriff returned the favor by testifying on stage to “the silent majority” that Trump had begun to awaken.
Backstage at that rally, Arpaio recalled, the two men talked about their shared birthday — June 14, which is Flag Day. Their friendship blossomed and Arpaio became a fan favorite at Trump rallies. “I had a gut feeling that he was going to win,” Arpaio said.
Even as Trump went on to win last November, however, Arpaio lost his reelection — and that was the least of his troubles.
Federal prosecutors filed criminal charges against Arpaio last October. Trump was paying attention to the case and he called Arpaio to check in on him around Thanksgiving, according to the former sheriff. That’s when Arpaio told the president-elect that his wife, Ava, had cancer.
On July 31, Arpaio was convicted by a judge, as opposed to a jury. Arpaio and his lawyer, Mark Goldman, said they did not contact Trump during this period, nor ask anyone in the administration for a pardon.
“I didn’t ask for the pardon,” Arpaio said. “He wanted to do it because I think he understood what I was going through.”
Inside the West Wing, the pardon process was set in motion. Senior policy adviser Stephen Miller, who had gotten to know Arpaio through their work on immigration policy during the campaign, advocated internally for the pardon, as did chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon, according to people familiar with the deliberations.
The White House Counsel’s Office had quietly begun preparing the paperwork and communications staffers had started drawing up talking points when Trump foreshadowed his intentions Aug. 15 by retweeting a Fox News storyreporting that the president was “seriously considering” pardoning Arpaio.
Around the same time, Arpaio received a call from the White House Counsel’s Office asking whether he would accept a pardon if one were issued. He told the presidential lawyer that he would, according to Goldman.
The drumbeat culminated Tuesday when Trump returned to the Phoenix Convention Center — the site of the July 2015 rally — for a “Make America Great Again” campaign event.
As Air Force One rumbled toward Arizona, Sanders tried to douse speculation by telling reporters that the president would have “no discussion” and “no action” pertaining to Arpaio at the rally.
Arpaio said he was eager to attend the rally and visit with the president backstage, but decided, “I didn’t want to cause any harm or riots, so I stayed away, which really hurt me.”
When Arpaio heard Sanders say Trump would not talk about a pardon, he said he turned to his wife and told her, “Don’t believe anything you hear because I know how he is.”
Sure enough, Trump bellowed from the stage, “I’m just curious: Do the people in this room like Sheriff Joe?”
The crowd burst into applause.
“Was Sheriff Joe convicted for doing his job?” Trump asked.
More applause.
“He should have had a jury, but you know what? I’ll make a prediction,” the president said. “I won’t do it tonight, because I don’t want to cause any controversy. . . But Sheriff Joe can feel good.”
Arpaio and his legal team did not feel very good the next night, when they read a CBS News report that Trump was being advised not to pardon Arpaio until after his sentencing.
Goldman wrote a two-page letter to White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn II, sent on Friday morning, saying, “Hopefully this is more fake news,” and telling McGahn that a delay until after sentencing “would place Sheriff Arpaio in an untenable and unprecedented position.”
Without a pardon, Goldman said, Arpaio could be “sentenced, handcuffed, given a ‘perp walk’ and incarcerated” and “left to languish in federal custody.”
McGahn did not immediately reply, but a few hours later, at about 6:30 p.m. D.C. time, another lawyer in his office called Goldman’s co-counsel to double-check that Arpaio would accept a pardon. A few minutes later, an email arrived from the White House with a single page attachment: an “Executive Grant of Clemency” for Arpaio signed by Trump in his thick, black script, complete with a golden Justice Department seal.
Goldman printed out three copies of the document and drove out to Arpaio’s home in Fountain Hills, a suburb of Phoenix, where the former sheriff was getting ready to take his wife to dinner at Arrivederci, an Italian restaurant, to celebrate Ava’s 86th birthday.
“Of course, his first question was, ‘Is this a fake document?’ ” Goldman recalled. “We know the sheriff has looked into fake documents.”
The Arpaios still went out for their spaghetti dinner. As of Saturday, Arpaio had not heard from Trump personally, but said if the president were to call he would advise him to take a lesson from his Arizona adventures.
“If they can do it to me, they can do it to anybody, including the president of the United States,” Arpaio said. Alluding to the Russia probe, he said, “He’s been under a lot of fire right now, him and his family, and I’ve been through the fire quite a while.”
Philip Rucker is the White House Bureau Chief for The Washington Post. He previously has covered Congress, the Obama White House, and the 2012 and 2016 presidential campaigns. He joined The Post in 2005 as a local news reporter.
  Follow @PhilipRucker

Ellen Nakashima is a national security reporter for The Washington Post. She focuses on issues relating to intelligence, technology and civil liberties.
  Follow @nakashimae


15 January 2011

Bradley Manning Support Network Supporters Newsletter 15JAN11

UPDATES on Bradley Manning and links for opportunities to show your support. Share with family and friends and support the cause financially if you can.
Bradley Manning Support Network Supporters Newsletter
Exposing War Crimes Is Not A Crime!
* * * * * * * * * *
January 15, 2010
Issue: 2.2

Bradley Manning Speaks About His Conditions
Friend and supporter David House recounts a visit to see Bradley at the Quantico brig, where it became clear that the Pentagon's public spin sharply contradicts the reality of Bradley Manning's detainment
http://my.firedoglake.com/blog/2010/12/23/bradley-manning-speaks-about-his-conditions/

Bradley Manning and the Rule of Law
The evidence shows Manning, if guilty of what he is accused, is a patriot and not a traitor. He did not give the documents to a foreign adversary, he is accused of giving them to the media to spur debate and create a more perfect union that did not routinely violate the law and lie to its people.
http://www.bradleymanning.org/15963/bradley-manning-and-the-rule-of-law/
Psychologists for Social Responsibility open letter to Robert Gates on Manning's confinement
"Psychologists for Social Responsibility calls upon [Secretary of Defense Gates] to rectify the inhumane, harmful, and counterproductive treatment of PFC Bradley Manning immediately."
http://www.bradleymanning.org/15952/psychologists-for-social-responsibility-open-letter-to-robert-gates-on-mannings-confinement/

Confinement Conditions Update
A brief blog post by Bradley Manning's lawyer, David E. Coombs, regarding the ongoing process to improve P.F.C. Manning's conditions.
http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2011/01/confinement-conditions-update.html

Assange: Manning "a Political Prisoner"
Julian Assange boldly covers a range of topics, including Bradley Manning, in an interview with Cenk Uygur on MSNBC.
http://www.bradleymanning.org/15884/assange-manning-a-political-prisoner/

Bradley Manning: One Soldier Who Really Did "Defend Our Freedom"
While wars are fought for the sole benefit of the moneyed elite, Bradley Manning chose to fight for and defend the basic principles of a functioning democracy.
http://www.bradleymanning.org/15918/bradley-manning-one-soldier-who-really-did-defend-our-freedom/

Song for Bradley Manning
David Rovics wrote a catchy tune in support of Bradley Manning!
http://www.youtube.com/user/drovics?feature=mhum#p/a/u/0/z_eood7DUwI

What Can I Do?
Join the fray! Learn ten simple ways we've come up with for you to help Bradley Manning (plus one more written in the comments section by a very helpful supporter). Together we can!
http://www.bradleymanning.org/what-can-i-do/

The Bradley Manning Support Network is an ad hoc, international grassroots effort to help accused whistle blower Pfc. Bradley Manning.
www.bradleymanning.org