In honor of her legacy, we are sharing this remembrance shared by the Philadelphia NLG Chapter:

Friends, as many of you have heard, our dearest friend, mentor and inspiration, Karen Detamore, died yesterday. This comes as a surprise to her family and to many of us, who had spoken with her recently about all the things she hoped and planned to be active in during this summer and beyond.

There will not be a service right now, probably a life celebration later in the summer. The family is happy to hear from friends and are at home right now. Karen had a lifetime commitment to the NLG, and the family is encouraging contributions to the NLG in her memory.

With the encouragement of Karen’s family, we will go forward with our plans for the NLG Philly fundraiser tomorrow night, and hope to see Harold and others there. The event will celebrate the NLG’s 75th anniversary and the history of our chapter, especially the contributions of local members, including, of course, a special tribute to Karen. The details are below (and attached) along with a brief summary of Karen’s fantastic work for social justice. We hope to see you all tomorrow!

Thursday May 3 (6-8pm)
William Way Community Center, Philadelphia Room
1315 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA

ABOUT KAREN DETAMORE

Karen Detamore, a member of the National Lawyers Guild for nearly 38 years, fought for the civil and legal rights of the downtrodden and
underrepresented her entire life. As a legal worker and lawyer, Karen consistently led an inspiring and successful life, devoted in service to the oppressed.

Karen joined the NLG in 1973 as a legal worker and continued as an active legal worker member until becoming a law student at Rutgers-Camden in 1979 and an attorney in 1983. From 1973 to 1976, Karen worked as a legal worker for Philadelphians for Equal Justice, an organization which was formed to assist victims of police misconduct and to educate the public about the problem. Within the NLG in that period, Karen also volunteered as part of the Wounded Knee Legal Defense/Offense Committee in South Dakota. She then worked from 1976-77 as a staff member for the National Lawyers Guild Military Law Project in Japan, providing legal assistance for individual service members. From 1978-79, she was the director of the NLG related Paralegal Studies Program of the Free Law School, a one year training program for public interest paralegal jobs. After law school, Karen worked from 1983-1989 as an attorney in private practice, serving veterans and military service members. From 1983 to 1984, she also worked as the Director of the Free Law School, now re-named “Legal Awareness Workshops.” While continuing her part-time private practice, in 1987 she became the National Coordinator for the Criminal Justice Program of the American Friends Service Committee.

For over 20 years from 1989 through mid-2009, Karen was Executive Director of Friends of Farmworkers, a statewide legal services organization providing legal representation and education to migrant and seasonal farmworkers. FOF has protected thousands of farm workers, defending them on issues related to their employment and their ability to organize. FOF has become an important and powerful legal advocacy group thanks in major part to Karen’s vision, dedication, intelligence, and strategy. She was forced to step down from her position at FOF in 2009 because of health issues.

While at FOF, Karen served as President of the Farmworker Project Group, a national organization representing the directors and managing attorneys of farmworker legal services programs, and represented farmworker programs as the chair of the National Legal Aid and Defender Association farmworker law section and as a representative to NLADA’s Civil Policy Group.

Karen has had a strong presence in Pennsylvania legal aid organizations and local and state bar associations. She served for two years as a member of the Pennsylvania Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights. She served for more than 10 years as President of the Pennsylvania Project Directors Corporation (an association of directors of all Pennsylvania legal services programs). Karen was one of the key leaders of the Public Interest Section of the Philadelphia Bar Association for the past 20 years and assumed numerous leadership roles within the Philadelphia Bar Association. She served as the chair of the Public Interest Section of the Philadelphia Bar Association and as an elected member of its Board of Governors.

Karen has been honored by the Pennsylvania Bar Association, the Pennsylvania Legal Aid Network, and the Peggy Browning Fund for her ongoing work in public interest law. Last year the Philadelphia Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild honored Karen for her years of service and went on to create the Karen Detamore Lifetime Achievement Award, to honor those whose lifetime of work parallels Karen’s many accomplishments and the values she always fought for.

MaryCatherine  Roper
Staff  Attorney
ACLU  of Pennsylvania

The epic Bradley Manning prosecution – now involving two years of pretrial confinement during which the Constitution presumes him innocent while the administration, the Army and the media do all they can to render that presumption null and void – is emblematic of the changes that the United States has undergone during my sentient lifetime. Sad to say, current trends do not bode well, as the balance between “national security” and the people’s right to know the machinations of government is tipping ever more precipitously in favor of the former.

It is almost inevitable that, once one president asserts some claim of executive privilege, however bogus, succeeding presidents, regardless of pledges of openness and transparency, will seek to expand it. Richard Nixon unsuccessfully claimed privilege in refusing to turn over his White House tapes, but that did not stop Bill Clinton from raising similar claims when trying to quell the storm over Monica Lewinsky.

But those claims had to do with personal wrongdoing on the parts of the presidents. Following 9/11, the claims have had to do with the work of government. The assertions of privilege by George W. Bush and Barack Obama reflect efforts to keep citizens from being informed of the most important functions of government. President Obama, following his promise of a more open and transparent administration, has taken the assertion of executive privilege to unprecedented lengths. Attorney General Eric Holder claimed, in the wake of the assassination of American citizen Anwar Al-Awlaki, that “The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process” and that the secret process whereby the President decides who should live and who should die, with neither explanation nor review, is all that is now due.

That such a claim can even be made with a straight face and given any measure of credence demonstrates how far from constitutional values and the rule of law the United States has drifted over the past 40 years. Even worse, perhaps, is that the resistance to such assertions of executive authority is almost absent in the media and has not been taken up as a cause célèbre among broad swaths of the population. That is not to say that no one has spoken out. Rather, presidential claims of such unrestricted authority, which not that long ago would have been given no credence, now enjoy broad appeal and are questioned with distressing infrequency.

Take, for instance, the case of PFC Manning, who is facing charges tantamount to treason for allegedly releasing classified information often embarrassing to the government and which, in some cases, has provided evidence of possible war crimes. Manning is facing life in prison with no end in sight to his pretrial confinement, several months of which were in solitary. Because of the problems his defense lawyers have had getting relevant information from the prosecution, no trial date can even be set, much less assured. While many of us have defended the things Manning is alleged to have done, there has hardly been a wellspring of support for him. Worse, there has been little condemnation of the government for the things he is alleged to have revealed.

By contrast, when the Pentagon Papers were revealed in 1971 and published in The New York Times, the men who shone the light on them, Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo, enjoyed widespread support that made their prosecutions difficult. Ultimately, the espionage cases against them were dismissed because of government misconduct, but it cannot be gainsaid that the favor in which they were held by many, if not most, Americans was a major factor in their ultimate victory.

Even more remarkable is the case of the unknown burglars who exposed the FBI’s notorious Counter-Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO). The few members of this band broke into a small FBI office in Media, Pennsylvania. They found evidence of illegal FBI surveillance and dirty tricks which they promptly turned over to the news media. The ensuing scandal was not about people who unquestionably acted illegally, but over the greater illegality of COINTELPRO. No serious effort was ever made to identify the burglars, much less to prosecute them. All the fire was directed at the FBI.

One must ask, why has Bradley Manning been treated so differently? Any number of factors may be at play. First, he allegedly turned over his information, not to established media giants like  The New York Times and The Washington Post, but to Wikileaks. Could it be possible that the mass media did not assign as much significance to his case because they were not directly affected or subject to government response? After all, the Times had to defend its publication of the Pentagon Papers up to the Supreme Court.

Moreover, times have changed. While government is under attack as being bloated and intrusive in so many areas, its authority to wage war, legally or otherwise, following September 11, has not been questioned. There was hardly a peep from the mass media questioning the claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, even though those claims were disputed by weapons inspectors and, as to a nuclear arsenal, deemed unfounded by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

For too many, fear of “terrorism” has overcome devotion to civil liberties. Indeed, in the highest echelons of government, “terrorism” has become the bogeyman that justifies anything, however illegal and antithetical to fundamental human rights standards. It is the ace that trumps all criticism. If patriotism, as Samuel Johnson said, is the last resort of the scoundrel, then the sham justification of every infringement on liberty as “defense of the homeland from terrorism” is the foundation on which that resort is built in today’s United States. And that resort is a political Club Med, where wealth and power meet to make themselves wealthier and more powerful at the expense of the rest of the world.

Bradley Manning is not being prosecuted because his alleged actions damaged the United States, but because they exposed the damage being done to the United States and its people by those who purport to act on their behalf. The government can blithely ignore, or pay blood money for, the death and destruction it wreaks around the world, but since sunlight is the best disinfectant, it  will do all it can to keep its infectious practices in a dark cellar.

David Gespass is the president of the National Lawyers Guild, and a founding member of its Military Law Task Force. An attorney in private practice in Birmingham, Alabama, he is also an adjunct professor at University of Alabama School of Law.

Op-Ed for MLTF by Marjorie Cohn

Nobel Peace Prize nominee Bradley Manning has been formally charged with 22 counts including “aiding the enemy” and violations of the Espionage Act for leaking thousands of pages of documents and cables to Wikileaks. If convicted, Manning could serve the rest of his life in prison.

Manning has been held in custody for 19 months. During the first eight months, he was kept in solitary confinement in the military brig at Quantico, Virginia. Juan Ernesto Mendez, United Nations special rapporteur on torture, said that “Manning was subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in the excessive and prolonged isolation he was put in during the eight months he was in Quantico.” It was only after public pressure on Obama, including a letter by 250 law professors, that Manning was transferred to Ft. Leavenworth, where he is no longer in solitary confinement.

One of the things Manning is alleged to have leaked is the “Collateral Murder” video which depicts U.S. forces in an Apache helicopter killing 12 unarmed civilians, including two Reuters journalists, and wounding two children. People trying to rescue the wounded were also fired upon and killed. A U.S. tank drove over one body, cutting the man in half.

The actions of American soldiers shown in that video amount to war crimes under the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit targeting civilians, preventing the rescue of the wounded, and defacing dead bodies.

President Barack Obama proudly took credit for ending U.S. military involvement in Iraq. But he had tried for months to extend it beyond the December 31, 2011 deadline his predecessor negotiated with the Iraqi government. Negotiations between Obama and the Iraqi government broke down when Iraq refused to grant criminal and civil immunity to U.S. troops.

It was after seeing evidence of war crimes such as those depicted in “Collateral Murder” and the “Iraq War Logs,” also allegedly leaked by Manning, that the Iraqis refused to immunize U.S. forces from prosecution for their future crimes.

After a seven day hearing, during which the prosecution presented evidence that Manning leaked cables and documents, there was no evidence that leaked information imperiled national security or that Manning intended to aid the enemy with his actions.

On the contrary, in an online chat attributed to Manning, he wrote, “If you had free reign over classified networks… and you saw incredible things, awful things… things that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC… what would you do?”

Manning went on to say, “God knows what happens now. Hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms… I want people to see the truth… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.“

The U.S. government considers Manning one of America’s most dangerous traitors. Months ago, Obama spoke of Manning as if he had been proved guilty, saying, “He broke the law.” But Manning has not been tried, and is presumed innocent in the eyes of the law. If Manning had committed war crimes instead of exposing them, he would be a free man today.

Besides helping to end the Iraq war, the leaked cables helped spark the Arab Spring. When people in Tunisia read cables revealing corruption by the ruling family there, they took to the streets.

As the judge announced a recess at Manning’s arraignment, someone shouted, “Your honor! Isn’t it a soldier’s responsibility to report war crimes?” If Manning did what he is accused of doing, he should not be tried as a criminal. He should be hailed as a national hero, much like Daniel Ellsberg, whose release of the Pentagon Papers helped to expose the government’s lies and end the Vietnam War.

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and past president of the National Lawyers Guild. She is co-author, with Kathleen Gilberd, of Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent.

On February 22, 2012, the Department of Defense made major changes to DOD Instruction 1325.06 (PDF download).

These changes appear to be part of a major military policy change that is designed to stifle and suppress a growing GI movement against the wars in the Middle East.

Some of the more troubling changes include:

Enclosure 3, section 2. OFF-POST GATHERING PLACES. Commanders have the authority to place establishments off-limits in accordance with established procedures when, for example, the activities taking place there at these establishments include, but are not limited to, counseling, encouraging, or inciting Service members to refuse to perform duty or to desert; pose a significant adverse effect on Service members’ health, morale, or welfare; or otherwise present a clear danger to the loyalty, discipline, or morale of a member or military unit.

The changes in this section certainly appear to be directed at the GI coffeehouses at Fort Hood, Joint Base Lewis-McChord and in Kaiserslautern, Germany. Free speech and GI Rights advocates need to be ready to respond to possible moves by commanders to place the coffeehouses off-limits under this newly revised regulation.

Also one could argue that a commander could place a Mennonite Church or a Quaker Meetinghouse on the off-limits list, since these establishments have been known to encourage their members to resist participation in war.

Enclosure 3, Section 8. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES

a. Military personnel must not actively advocate supremacist, extremist, or criminal gang doctrine, ideology, or causes, including those that advance, encourage, or advocate illegal discrimination based on race, creed, color, sex, religion, ethnicity, or national origin or those that advance, encourage, or advocate the use of force, violence, or criminal activity or otherwise advance efforts to deprive individuals of their civil rights.

b. Military personnel must reject active participation in criminal gangs pursuant to section 544 of Public Law 110-181 (Reference (i)) and in other organizations that advocate supremacist, extremist, or criminal gang doctrine, ideology, or causes; including those that attempt to create illegal discrimination based on race, creed, color, sex, religion, ethnicity, or national origin; advocate the use of force, violence, or criminal activity; or otherwise engage in efforts to deprive individuals of their civil rights. Active participation in such gangs or organizations is prohibited. Active participation includes, but is not limited to, fundraising; demonstrating or rallying; recruiting, training, organizing, or leading members; distributing material (including posting online); knowingly wearing gang colors or clothing; having tattoos or body markings associated with such gangs or organizations; or otherwise engaging in activities in furtherance of the objective of such gangs or organizations that are detrimental to good order, discipline, or mission accomplishment or are incompatible with military service.

c. Commanders have the authority to employ the full range of administrative and disciplinary actions, including administrative separation or appropriate criminal action, against military personnel who engage in activity prohibited in paragraphs 8.a. or 8.b. of this enclosure when such conduct or activity is detrimental to good order and discipline or is service discrediting.

d. The functions of command include vigilance about the existence of such activities; active use of investigative authority to include a prompt and fair complaint process; and use of administrative powers such as counseling, reprimands, orders, and performance evaluations to deter such activities.

e. The Military Departments shall ensure that the policy and procedures on prohibited activities in this Instruction are included in initial active duty training, precommissioning training, professional military education, commander training, and other appropriate Service
training programs.

On the surface, this section may not look so troubling. The military has, at least officially, long banned its members from active participation in hate groups. However, if read carefully, these changes are in fact very troubling. First, the DOD does not define the term “extremist” anywhere in this regulation, which opens the door for soldiers to be prosecuted for mere membership in peaceful organizations that are deemed to be “extremist.”

Secondly, the DOD has omitted the requirement (previously found in section 8 (c) above), that prohibited conduct or activity in a banned organization must be “detrimental to good order and discipline or is service discrediting.”

Third, the DOD has now banned even the wearing of clothing or colors off-post that would reflect membership in one of the loosely defined banned organizations.

Enclosure 3, Section 9. PREVENTIVE ACTIVITIES

a. Commanders should remain alert for signs of future prohibited activities. They should intervene early, primarily through counseling, when observing such signs even though the signs may not rise to active advocacy or active participation or may not threaten good order and discipline, but only suggest such potential. The goal of early intervention is to minimize the risk of future prohibited activities.

b. Examples of such signs, which, in the absence of the active advocacy or active participation addressed in paragraphs 8.a and 8.b are not prohibited, could include mere membership in criminal gangs and other organizations covered under paragraph 8.b. Signs could also include possession of literature associated with such gangs or organizations, or with related ideology, doctrine, or causes. While mere membership or possession of literature normally is not prohibited, it may merit further investigation and possibly counseling to emphasize the importance of adherence to the Department’s values and to ensure that the Service member understands what activities are prohibited.

This entire section is completely new to the regulation, and requires that commanders be alert for “future prohibited activities.” While the regulation tries to skirt the line of not violating the First Amendment (i.e. “mere membership or possession of literature” is not prohibited), it makes it clear that commanders are expected to “investigate” such soldiers, which will inevitably result in negative counseling statements (blackmarks against a soldier’s record) and subsequent harassment from NCO’s (non-commissioned officers).

As a whole, the newly revised DOD Instruction 1325.06 poses serious dangers for the civil liberties of all military servicemembers. We at the Military Law Task Force of the National Lawyers Guild remain ready to do our part to protect soldiers in need. Please do not hesitate to contact us, if we can be of assistance.

UPDATE ADDED ON FEBRUARY 25, 2012: In section 8 (b) above, the DOD bans organizations that “attempt to create illegal discrimination based on race, creed, color, sex, religion, ethnicity, or national origin.” Interesting enough, in the post-DADT era, sexual orientation didn’t make the list.

February 22, 2012

Growing up in small-town Oklahoma, one of my greatest influences was the Boy Scouts. I learned some of my first lessons in civics through the Boy Scout Handbook. The Handbook told me that the United States was a different kind of nation, a nation composed of people with roots from around the world, but united by certain shared ideals — democracy and due process of law. I took that message to heart because I thought it was proven by the history I learned in school.

Later, I learned that the Handbook and History class didn’t tell the whole story. America’s history wasn’t always so noble. We as a nation have not always been on the side of “liberty and justice,” and sometimes our noble words have really been “bounced checks on the Bank of Justice” (to paraphrase Dr. King’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech). But I believe that our collective failure to always live up to those ideals does not negate their value to the soul of our Union, always striving to be “more perfect.”

These ideas have been pressing on my mind lately as I think of the case of accused Wikileaks whistleblower PFC Bradley Manning.

After almost two years of delay, PFC Manning will likely be tried this summer before a US Army court-martial. While the world watches how this case unfolds, I think it will become clear that our nation is on trial too. There are two charges pending : (1) through its gross overreaction to real security threats, the US has forsaken any semblance of democracy, and (2) The US government does not respect due process of law.

If we are a democracy, which requires informed citizens, why has critical information about the wars in the Middle East been kept from us? It should not have been necessary for a private first class in the Army to allegedly leak this information in the first place. If anything, we as a nation should be thanking PFC Manning for performing this important national service.

And are we really a nation that protects due process of law, when PFC Manning’s treatment has included:

1. Solitary confinement for 10 of the 19 months he has been in confinement thus far,
2. Cruel and humiliating treatment during much of his confinement, including periods when his clothing was taken away by prison officials,
3. A preliminary (Article 32) hearing that was conducted by a biased hearing officer, who was chosen by the same officials that chose to bring charges against PFC Manning,
4. The denial of almost all of his request witnesses at that same Article 32 hearing, and finally
5. A trial whose outcome will be determined by a jury panel composed solely of high ranking members, who have been handpicked by the same officials who are PFC Manning’s accusers.

It is not too late for the US to undo this injustice, by dismissing all charges against Bradley Manning.

I urge all people of conscience to join the campaign to free Bradley Manning.

James M. Branum (center) participates in a demonstration marking the start of Bradley Manning's Article 32 hearing.

Oklahoma Center for Conscience and Peace Research
PRESS RELEASE

BRADLEY MANNING NOMINATED FOR NOBEL PEACE PRIZE BY OKLAHOMA GROUP

Accused whistleblower deserves the prize for casting light on war crimes committed in Iraq, nomination states

The Oklahoma Center for Conscience and Peace Research (OCCPR) announced on Tuesday that it has nominated US Army Private First Class Bradley Manning for the Nobel Peace Prize.

In its nomination, OCCPR stated that it chose Bradley Manning because of his alleged role in leaking documents and other evidence of war crimes, corruption and lies related to the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the notorious “collateral murder” video (downloadable online at www.collateralmurder.org) which US forces firing on unarmed Iraqi civilians, members of the press
and children.

“Bradley Manning should have received full whistle-blower protections for his actions but instead has
served 19 months in prison without a trial, including 10 months spent in solitary confinement,” said
James M. Branum, OCCPR Legal Director.

“We understand that PFC Manning will be placed on a military show-trial, where his guilt will be
determined by a ‘jury’ hand-picked by the very command that is accusing him. We have no doubt
that, absent international pressure, PFC Manning will be found guilty and sentenced to life in prison or
possibly even given the death penalty, without a hint of justice applied in his case. We have made this
nomination in the hopes that it might lead to renewed attention and concern given to his plight.”

OCCPR has exhibited its support for Manning since news of his arrest was first announced, holding
a number of rallies and advocacy events on his behalf. “Because Bradley is an Oklahoma native, we
feel a special responsibility to show that there are Oklahomans who support him, seek his freedom
and will continue to work for his cause,” said Rena Guay OCCPR Executive Director. “We have
spoken to media from around the world about our interest in the Manning case, because the whole
world is watching what the United States will do to someone who they believe has exposed secrets
about war crimes, diplomatic doublespeak and policy hypocrisy.”

OCCPR was founded in 2004 and works to increase understanding of conscientious objection
and resistance to war. Its founders include religious and veteran groups; its fiscal sponsor is Joy
Mennonite Church of Oklahoma City.

For more information:

James M. Branum
405-494-0562
legal@centerforconscience.org

#

MLTF Chair James M. Branum particpated in a discussion about Bradley Mannings's case on Russia Today network..

The Russia Today network hosted a debate on US Army whistleblower Bradley Manning. They invited MLTF Chair James M. Branum, of Oklahoma City, to join the panel to argue on behalf of Private Manning.

Other participants included Bob Meola in Berkeley, CA (commissioner of the Berkeley Peace & Justice Commission) and Seton Motley in Washington, DC (of the Less Government Foundation). The moderator was Peter Lavelle in the RT.com studios in Moscow. Each joined the conversation from studios in their home cities.

The full broadcast can also be viewed here: RT.com: “Mannings Trials” (CrossTalk Episode – December 16, 2011)

An Open Letter to the Winter Patriot

As the occupy movement continues to grow in defiance of the heavy-handed police action determined to squelch it, a natural question emerges: What point will the military be summoned to contain the cascade of popular dissent?  And if our nation’s finest are brought into this struggle to stand between the vested authority of the state and the ranks of those who petition them for a redress of grievance, what may we expect the outcome to be?

How Private Warmongers and the US Military Infiltrated American Universities (Part 1)

A matrix of closely tied university-based strategic studies ventures, the so-called Grand Strategy Programs (GSP), have cropped up on a number of elite campuses around the country, where they function to serve the national security warfare state.

In tandem with allied institutes and think tanks across the country, these programs, centered at Yale University, Duke University, the University of Texas at Austin, Columbia University, Temple University and, until recently, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, illustrate the increasingly influential role of a new breed of warrior academics in the post-9/11 United States.

US bases in Australia a setback for peace

The new Australia-US deal will allow for 250 US marines to be stationed in Darwin next year, increasing to 2500 by 2016. There will be increased US military ship visits to Darwin and other ports in northern Australia. There will be more US warplanes, including B-52 bombers, based in Darwin. More joint US-Australian military exercises will take place on Australian soil.

US military equipment will be stored in northern Australia, including cluster bombs. These weapons indiscriminately scatter explosive “bomblets” that remain deadly long after conflicts have ended and mainly harm civilians.

Looking Back on the Road to Folly

The expected Iraqi oil bonanza never materialized.  Today, Iraq pumps less oil than under Saddam. He threw out western big oil; today, the big US and foreign oil firms are creeping back, hoping to exploit Iraq’s riches.  Some 34,000 guards are being hired to protect Iraq’s pipelines.  Perhaps Libya’s “liberated” oil may lessen some of the disappointment over Iraqi oil.

President Obama has vowed all US combat troops will quit Iraq by December, 2011.   But a shell game is under way.  Two or more heavy US mechanized combat brigades are moving just a few hours drive south to new bases in Kuwait, ready to quickly intervene to prop up the tame Maliki regime in Baghdad.

Washington is trying to keep 10,000-20,000 US combat troops in Iraq, rebranded “trainers” and “anti-terrorism forces.”  Iraq has balked but may yet give in.   The new, huge, heavily fortified US Embassy in Baghdad will have 16,000 employees and its own private army of mercenaries.  What happens to the 100,000 other US-paid mercenaries in Iraq is uncertain.  One certainty: $34 billion US aid lost through fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan will never be recovered.

Army schedules Dec. 16 pretrial hearing for PFC Bradley Manning

This will be PFC Manning’s first appearance before a court and the first time he will face his accusers after 17 months in confinement. In a blog post this morning, Manning’s lead counsel, David Coombs, notified supporters that the pretrial phase is scheduled to last five days.

Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window

New Drone Sensor Could Instantly Spot Any Shooter

Study suggests feelings of guilt may be a top factor in PTSD

Teaching Children War

The Under-Examined Story of Fallujah

Army Wants Grenade ‘Bots to Fly, Spy, Then Kill

Top Marine says service embracing gay ban repeal

Half of Vets Returning From Iraq and Afghanistan Need Medical Attention

Joining the ranks of hundreds of Occupy offshoots that have sprouted up in cities across the country, veterans are enlisting in the grass-roots movement in increasing numbers, even ascending to leadership positions.

They are also among the movement’s first casualties.

A sidebar article offers insight into the rights of military personnel and veterans to protest.

Military officials said troops are free to participate in Occupy rallies but are prohibited from wearing their uniforms or presenting themselves as official spokespeople for the military.

That goes for those who have been discharged from active duty or drilling Reserve units but are still in the Individual Ready Reserve. All service members incur an eight-year obligation to the military — regardless of contract length — and are subject to involuntary recall from the IRR at any time during that period.

While it’s rare for veterans in IRR status to be charged for violating uniform rules, it’s not unheard of.

MLTF Executive Director Kathleen Gilberd was interviewed for this piece, and her contribution helped clarify the the concerns of troops and commanders alike.

Even when they aren’t technically breaking any rules, troops can find themselves facing repercussions, legal experts said.

“Commanders can sometimes get a little overzealous when they see someone at a protest on TV that they don’t like,” said Kathleen Gilberd, executive director of the Military Law Task Force, a San Diego-based advocacy group. “The rights are pretty clear, so often what happens is commands will informally harass them.”

Troops should be especially wary of attending protests where violence is likely, she said.

“The regulations say you shouldn’t go to a demonstration where violence or a ‘breach of the peace’ is likely to occur. But that’s pretty vague,” Gilberd said.

And commanders shouldn’t use that rule as a catchall to keep troops from attending rallies they don’t like.

“They can’t just say ‘don’t go there’ because they think something might happen,” Gilberd said.