Saturday, June 26, 2010

Did 9/11 Justify the War in Afghanistan?
Using the McChrystal Moment to Raise a Forbidden Question

June 25, 2010 "Global Research"
By Prof. David Ray Griffin

There are many questions to ask about the war in Afghanistan.

One that has been widely asked is whether it will turn out to be “Obama’s Vietnam". This question implies another: Is this war winnable, or is it destined to be a quagmire, like Vietnam? These questions are motivated in part by the widespread agreement that the Afghan government, under Hamid Karzai, is at least as corrupt and incompetent as the government the United States tried to prop up in South Vietnam for 20 years.

Although there are many similarities between these two wars, there is also a big difference: This time, there is no draft. If there were a draft, so that college students and their friends back home were being sent to Afghanistan, there would be huge demonstrations against this war on campuses all across this country. If the sons and daughters of wealthy and middle-class parents were coming home in boxes, or with permanent injuries or post-traumatic stress syndrome, this war would have surely been stopped long ago.

People have often asked: Did we learn any of the “lessons of Vietnam”? The US government learned one: If you’re going to fight unpopular wars, don’t have a draft – hire mercenaries!

There are many other questions that have been, and should be, asked about this war, but in this essay, I focus on only one: Did the 9/11 attacks justify the war in Afghanistan?

This question has thus far been considered off-limits, not to be raised in polite company, and certainly not in the mainstream media....

This question has two parts: First, did these attacks provide a legal justification for the invasion of Afghanistan? Second, if not, did they at least provide a moral justification?

I. Did 9/11 Provide Legal Justification for the War in Afghanistan?

Since the founding of the United Nations in 1945, international law with regard to war has been defined by the UN Charter.

Measured by this standard, the US-led war in Afghanistan has been illegal from the outset.

Marjorie Cohn, a well-known professor of international law, wrote in November 2001:

“[T]he bombings of Afghanistan by the United States and the United Kingdom are illegal.”2

In 2008, Cohn repeated this argument in an article entitled “Afghanistan: The Other Illegal War.”.....

II. Did 9/11 Provide Moral Justification for the War in Afghanistan?

The American public has for the most part probably been unaware of the illegality of this war, because this is not something our political leaders or our corporate media have been anxious to point out.8 So most people simply do not know.

If they were informed, however, many Americans would be inclined to argue that, even if technically illegal, the US military effort in Afghanistan has been morally justified, or at least it was in the beginning, by the attacks of 9/11.

For a summary statement of this argument, we can turn again to the West Point speech of President Obama, who has taken over the Bush-Cheney account of 9/11. Answering the question of “why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place,” Obama said:

“We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women and children without regard to their faith or race or station. . . . As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda – a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam. . . . [A]fter the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden - we sent our troops into Afghanistan.”9

This standard account can be summarized in terms of three points:

1. The attacks were carried out by 19 Muslim members of al-Qaeda.

2. The attacks had been authorized by the founder of al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, who was in Afghanistan.

3. The US invasion of Afghanistan was necessary because the Taliban, which was in control of Afghanistan, refused to turn bin Laden over to US authorities.

On the basis of these three points, our political leaders have claimed that the United States had the moral right, arising from the universal right of self-defense, to attempt to capture or kill bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network to prevent them from launching another attack on our country.

The only problem with this argument is that all three points are false....

The claim that the Taliban refused to turn over Bin Laden has been repeatedly made by political leaders and our mainstream media.10 Reports from the time, however, show the truth to be very different....

. . . What Was the (Real) Motive for the Invasion?

....the United States had made the decision to invade Afghanistan two months before the 9/11 attacks.

At least part of the background to this decision was the United States’ long-time support for UNOCAL’s proposed pipeline, which would transport oil and natural gas from the Caspian Sea region to the Indian Ocean through Afghanistan and Pakistan.15 This project had been stymied through the 1990s because of the civil war that had been going on in Afghanistan since the Soviet withdrawal in 1989.

In the mid-1990s, the US government had supported the Taliban with the hope that its military strength would enable it to unify the country and provide a stable government, which could protect the pipeline. By the late 1990s, however, the Clinton administration had given up on the Taliban.16

When the Bush administration came to power, it decided to give the Taliban one last chance. During a four-day meeting in Berlin in July 2001, representatives of the Bush administration insisted that the Taliban must create a government of “national unity” by sharing power with factions friendly to the United States. The US representatives reportedly said: “Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.”17

After the Taliban refused this offer, US officials told a former Pakistani foreign secretary that “military action against Afghanistan would go ahead . . . before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.”18

And, indeed, given the fact that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon occurred when they did, the US military was able to mobilize to begin its attack on Afghanistan by October 7.

It appears, therefore, that the United States invaded Afghanistan for reasons far different from the official rationale, according to which we were there to capture or kill Osama bin Laden.....

What about our own FBI? Its “Most Wanted Terrorist” webpage on “Usama bin Laden” does not list 9/11 as one of the terrorist acts for which he is wanted.24 When asked why not, the FBI’s chief of investigative publicity replied: “because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”25.....

False-Flag Attack

It appears, therefore, that 9/11 was the most elaborate example yet of a false-flag attack, which occurs when countries, wanting to attack other countries, orchestrate attacks on their own people while planting evidence to implicate those other countries.

Hitler did this when he was ready to attack Poland, which started the European part of World War II; Japan did it when it was ready to attack Manchuria, which started the Asian part of that war. In 1962, the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed false-flag attacks killing American citizens to provide a pretext for invading Cuba.63 This proposal was not put into effect because it was vetoed by President Kennedy. But in 2001, the White House was occupied by an administration that wanted to attack Afghanistan, Iraq, and several other predominantly Muslim countries,64 and so, it appears, evidence was planted to implicate Muslims.

. . . How the Collapse of WTC 7 Disproves the Al-Qaeda Theory

I turn now to the strongest evidence that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by insiders rather than foreign terrorists: the collapse of Building 7 of the World Trade Center, which is the subject of my most recent book, The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 Is Unscientific and False....


...the official rationale for our presence in Afghanistan is a lie. We are there for other reasons. Critics have offered various suggestions as to the most important of those reasons.110

Whatever be the answer to that question, however, we have not been there to apprehend the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Besides never being legally justified, therefore, the war in Afghanistan has never been morally justified.

This war, moreover, is an abomination.

In addition to the thousands of US and other NATO troops who have been killed or impaired for life, physically and/or mentally, the US-led invasion/occupation of Afghanistan has resulted in a huge number of Afghan casualties, with estimates running from several hundred thousand to several million.111

But whatever the true number, the fact is that the United States has produced a great amount of death and misery – sometimes even bombing funerals and wedding parties - in this country that had already suffered terribly and that, even if the official story were true, had not attacked America.

The fact that the official story is a lie makes our war crimes even worse.112

But there is a way out. As I have shown in this paper and even more completely elsewhere,113 the falsity of the official account of WTC 7 has now been demonstrated, leaving no room for reasonable doubt.

In his inaugural address, President Obama said, “We will restore science to its rightful place,”114 thereby pledging that in his administration, unlike that of his predecessor, science would again be allowed to play a determinative role in shaping public policy.

By changing his administration’s policy with regard to Afghanistan in light of the science of WTC 7, the president would not only fulfill one of his most important promises. He would also prevent the war in Afghanistan from becoming known as “Obama’s Vietnam.”115

These are just brief extracts from this excellent article - read it all!

"Global Research"

David Ray Griffin is the author of 36 books on various topics, including philosophy, theology, philosophy of science, and 9/11. His 2008 book, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé, was named a “Pick of the Week” by Publishers Weekly. In September 2009, The New Statesman ranked him #41 among “The 50 People Who Matter Today.” His most recent book is The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 is Unscientific and False (2009). His next book will be Cognitive Infiltration: An Obama Appointee’s Plan to Undermine the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory (September 2010). He wishes to thank Tod Fletcher, Jim Hoffman, and Elizabeth Woodworth for help with this essay.

Monday, June 21, 2010

The U.S. War Addiction:
Funding Enemies to Maintain Trillion Dollar Racket

By David DeGraw

June 19, 2010 - "AlterNet" -- A few recent news items help expose the true drivers of current wars around the world.

Editor's Note: With so many problems in the USA, it's no easy job to single out a handful of the most important, priority issues. But the enormous pile of wasted money spent on wars and the military-industrial complex has to be right at the top. Not only is the money spent an enormous destructive waste, but there's also the question of opportunity cost; just a fraction of war money could make major improvements to health care, schools and universities, and our decaying public infrastructure. The release of the Pentagon's Quadrennal Defense Review indicates that Obama intends to spend even more on war.

David DeGraw's article below sheds some light on the madness of war spending and the serious attempts made by the racketeers to make our wars self-perpetuating to keep the cash rolling in; infuriating as it is sickening.


Sunday, June 20, 2010

This letter from Len Aldis looks at some of the
flowing with the oil spill in the Gulf!

Why only BP, Mr. President?

In each of your statements relating to the BP damaging oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, you have lost no opportunity to attack BP as the cause and have demanded in no uncertain term that that must pay compensation to all who have, and will be affected, and to clean up the areas affected.

Any reasonable person would agree with you, no matter who causes damage to people or the environment and they should also clean up the areas. However Mr President, I find your arguments a bit one-sided.

The oil-rig ship “Discoverer Enterprise” hired by BP to drill for oil is owned by the American company Transocean.

It is, as it states on their website
“the first ultra-deepwater drillship with dual activity drilling technology, which aims to reduce the cost of an ultra deepwater development project by up to 40 percent.”

“This massive, multi-purpose vessel can work in the deepest waters being explored in the world today.” “Transocean holds 19 of the past 23 world records for drilling in the deepest waters.”

Why Mr President have you not demanded of Transocean that they too must pay compensation and clean up the damage caused?

Let me mention another American company that you will know: Halliburton, one of whose bosses was Dick Cheney, the former U.S. Vice-President.

Information has come from some congressional hearings on problems with the casings that were put around the bore hole in the sea bed and the cementing that is critical to sealing it up.

Halliburton did the cementing at the well, under contract to BP. It was given the task to inject cement to seal the casing in the bore hole so making it impossible for any seepage of gas and, further it was Halliburton that made the cement plug that would have allowed BP to return at a later date to begin production.

Last August, Halliburton was involved in the cementing of a well in Timor Sea off the coast of Australia that similarly blew out, sending thousands of gallons into the ocean.

Why, Mr President have you not demanded of Halliburton, that they also must pay compensation and help with the clean up?

Mr President, a little bit of history, you were just six-day old when U.S. Forces began spraying Agent Orange, amongst other chemicals, on the people and land of Vietnam. And the spraying continued until you reached the age of ten-years.

During that time 80,000,000 litres were used, destroying the forests and crops, and also killing thousands of Vietnamese. The number of abnormal births runs into the thousands, the number of Vietnamese seriously ill and suffering from deformities today runs into the millions.

Now I cannot blame you, as you were a child who grew to be a healthy young man, married and have two lovely children, quite a contrast to the many
Vietnamese affected by Agent Orange.

But, I do and will blame you for refusing to accept the responsibility as President for the damage done to the people and environment of Vietnam.

I also blame you for not forcing the chemical companies such as: Monsanto, Dow etc, who manufactured Agent Orange, to pay compensation to the Vietnamese victims and their families for the damage that they were and remain responsible for.

Let me also remind you that BP has already begun paying compensation and has agreed to clean up the areas they have soiled with the oil, something that the U.S. Governments since 1973 and the U.S. companies refuse to do for the damage they did to the people and land of Vietnam.

It is time Mr President for you and Monsanto etc to paraphrase the words you said of BP “to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the victims who have been harmed as a result of the U.S. action in using Agent Orange.”

Accept responsibility and pay compensation to the Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange.

Over to you Mr President.

Len Aldis June 16th 2010

Also published in the Baltimore Post.

Len Aldis. Secretary
Britain-Vietnam Friendship Society

Flat 2, 26 Tomlins Grove
London E3 4NX
Tel & Fax: 0208 980 7146
Mobile: 0779 657 1017
Skype: Len.Aldis


Introduction: A Legacy Revisited
Agent Orange is still damaging lives in Vietnam. The time has come for America to act.
by Walter Isaacson

Agent of Influence
The realpolitik case for compensating Vietnam.
by Geoffrey Cain and Joshua Kurlantzick

The Environmental Consequences of War
Why militaries almost never clean up the messes they leave behind.
by Clay Risen

A Hard Way to Die
Why hundreds of thousands of Vietnam vets with Agent Orange–related diseases have been made to suffer without VA health care.
by Phillip Longman





Hanoi, June 17, 2010

On June 16, 2010 in Hanoi , members of the US–Vietnam Dialogue Group on Agent Orange announced their “Action Plan” to resolve the Agent Orange problem in Vietnam . On this meaningful occasion for the victims of Agent Orange in Vietnam , the Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin (VAVA) formally states the following.

On behalf of all victims of Agent Orange, VAVA sincerely thanks all the people who, with strong dedication and great effort, developed this “Action Plan” with goals and programs to be funded in the amount of $300 million US dollars over a period of 10 years.

As an organization representing all the victims of Agent Orange in Vietnam , VAVA has been concerned for many years with mobilizing and coordinating support for the victims in whatever ways possible. We believe that:

1/ This is an action plan of individuals -- citizens of Vietnam and the U.S. They may perceive reality from different angles, arising from their particular areas of expertise and professional fields, but they share the aspiration to completely resolve the Agent Orange issue, not only for humanitarian reasons, but also in the hope of creating conditions for our two peoples to advance relations on a higher level. Coming together, they called themselves the US–Vietnam Dialogue Group on Agent Orange. After spending time to study the situation and discuss the issues, they felt a need for an action plan to build the foundations and goals for the next efforts.

2/ It is clear that, in the next 10 years, Vietnam will spend billions of dollars addressing the Agent Orange problem. Much of this amount will be spent on monthly assistance payments to those most seriously affected and for meeting urgent needs of victims. While the action plan and proposed budget of $300 million US dollars is absolutely modest compared to the actual scope of what is needed to address the suffering of the people and the damage to the environment caused by Agent Orange, the effort is well appreciated and highly valued in this time when Vietnam is still poor and the needs of victims are immense.

3/ Looking back at the challenging years of the past, in perception as well as regarding real solutions to alleviate the Agent Orange tragedy, a 10-year action plan with a price tag of $300 million US dollars represents the efforts of individuals in the Dialogue Group but also the tireless efforts of individuals and organizations in Vietnam, the U.S., and in many countries, and many international forums, especially those of the victims of Agent Orange in Vietnam, contributing to the building of the foundation and conditions for this type of plan to come into being, including the building and developing of friendly relations between the US and Vietnam.

4/ The cooperation in completing this plan of action demonstrates that the government and people of the two countries can cooperate and together resolve the remaining post-war problems. We hope that this plan, together with action plans of other individuals and people’s organizations, will lay a firm and positive foundation for the two governments to initiate stronger cooperation to resolve the Agent Orange and other remaining post-war issues.

5/ The “Action Plan” is a program of ideas and goals. It does not detail the specific action and implementation methods. It is important that when and if the “Action Plan” is implemented, the Vietnamese government, social organizations and individuals in Vietnam and abroad will also have their own programs. In order to avoid duplication and stepping on each others toes, we hope that this “Action Plan” will be promptly followed by a detailed plan for implementation for each of its projects, to help create common understanding for coordination of efforts. The close coordination between mass organizations and between the two governments not only will improve the effectiveness of each of the projects, but also contribute greatly to a closer, more cooperative, and greater understanding between our two peoples. As an organization working closely day by day, minute by minute with victims of Agent Orange, with a deep understanding of their physical and mental needs, we are ready to coordinate or to participate in this project or any other project.

6/ We hope that all projects and their implementation will be faithful to the title of this Announcement “ADDRESSING THE LEGACY OF AGENT ORANGE IN VIETNAM.” However, we would like to note that after years of bearing the pain of diseases on their bodies, many victims of Agent Orange, especially those who have aged and those suffering severe conditions, are now living in much more extreme poverty due to their inability to work and the need for expensive daily medical treatment. For them, 10 years or even 5 years is an eternity-- too long to sustain. Thus, while implementation of the “Action Plan” is being discussed, studied and planned, we hope that these victims’ needs for immediate relief and will be given the highest priority because they absolutely and urgently need care now.

7/ Finally, we hope that this “Action Plan” will be implemented not only by those who are best qualified, but also by those who are most dedicated and humanitarian and who possess the highest cooperative spirit.

On behalf of 3 million victims of Agent Orange in Vietnam , we hope that this “Action Plan” becomes a reality, and we thank the individuals and organizations who contributed to this “Plan”.

National Office of the Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin


Nguyen Van Rinh



This response to the Action Plan from Len Aldis:

The attachment has my thoughts/views on the plan by the Dialogue Group that was published this week. It has received wide publicity due to the figure of $300 million. Which, in my view is peanuts knowing the number of victims in Vietnam and the size of the problem for the clean up of the sites, let alone recovering the land, forests etc etc.
However, enjoy the reading.

Addressing the legacy of Agent Orange in Vietnam

The Declaration and Plan of Action report published by the Aspen Institute June 2010, is to be welcomed in so far as the publicity it has received in the media of many countries. Welcomed as it has brought the issue of Agent Orange to many thousands of people who were perhaps not aware of the horrific legacy its use left to the people and land of Vietnam. The media appear to be attracted more to the total figure of $300 million given as the amount needed to cope with AO in the country, than to the proposed plan that is to be spread over ten-years as is the $300 million.

There are on reading through the document, a number of questions I have and would like to raise them here in the hope that it will lead to a discussion on the document and its proposals.

Let me deal with the “Declaration”. It states, “In the 35 years since the end of the war, the United States and Vietnam have made great progress towards friendly relations.” Sorry not correct, the figure should 16 years. The authors have forgotten the international embargo imposed on Vietnam in 1973 by the US, sadly fully supported, and was only lifted in 1994, 16 years ago. This may be a small point to some when dealing with the essence of the plan, but having carried out an horrendous war on Vietnam, then to impose an international embargo that set the country back from recovering many years, points to me a sad lack of historic fact by the authors.

No wonder, as is stated later “A majority of Americans who have been polled to date agree that it is time to lay those issues aside.” How many years will elapse before the American will lay aside 9/11? That tragic incident has led to an illegal war on Iraq, the deaths of over a million innocent Iraqi’s and the land poisoned by the use of such weapons as Depleted Uranium (DU), the effects of which are being felt by the people of Iraq and those who served in that war.

The two goals on Page 2

  • Clean dioxin-contaminated soil and restore ecosystems; and
  • Expand services to people with disabilities linked to dioxin, and to push people with other forms of disability (hereafter referred to as people with disabilities), and to their families.

Are welcome but I question when it is stated, “Achieving these goals will require the combined efforts of governments, businesses and NGO’s.” Am I correct in assuming that “governments” mean the U.S. and Vietnam? And “businesses” will mean Monsanto, Dow Chemicals and the other 34 American companies that manufactured Agent Orange etc? It would be useful to know. As I find it surprising that the companies are not even mentioned throughout the whole document. Are they not to be involved in cleaning up the mess they made?

The NGO’s involvement is understood, but would expect that they be chosen very carefully for the work they will need to carry out.

Under the section “The Context”, the document states that since 1987, the US Govt has provided £47 million for various programmes supporting the Vietnamese with disabilities. This relates in part to injuries caused by explosives left over from wartime. Although such aid was and is welcome, the authors have missed an opportunity in not stating that the US government should pay the $3-5 billion promised by President Nixon under article 21 of the Paris Agreement. To date not one cent has been paid. And when the figure proposed by the document is $300 million, the omission of $3-5 billion speaks volumes.

There is a very worrying piece later on the documents states; “Unused stocks of herbicides were collected at Da Nang, Bien Hoa and Tuy Hoa after 1971. Damaged barrels were disposed of in local landfills, while the remaining herbicide was rebarreled for shipping to the South Pacific. It was destroyed there by incineration in 1977.”

Question. Where are those landfills where the damaged barrels were dumped? Are the sites known? Are they leaking? How many barrels were dumped?

The Vietnamese people are entitled to know, and know NOW. Will they be dug up and removed? Or contained on site?

Phase one of the programmes 2010-2012 at a cost of $29.7 million looks to me to be a low figure. As do the costing of the other phases. Can these figures be reviewed?

The containment of contaminated soil at Da Nang airport has still to be explained. I have raised this question in previous emails. Perhaps we can be answered now. How it is to be contained? For how long? How secure? And who will carry out the maintenance of the site of containment? These questions apply to the other Hot Spots.

Len Aldis

June 2010

Who is Afraid of a Real Inquiry?

Uri Avnery's Column

If a real Commission of Inquiry had been set up (instead of the pathetic excuse for a commission), here are some of the questions it should have addressed:
  1. What is the real aim of the Gaza Strip blockade?
. . . .
  1. Why was it decided in the end to appoint a pathetic committee, devoid of any legal powers, which will lack all credibility both in Israel and abroad?

And, finally, the question of questions:

  • What is our political and military leadership trying to hide?


data & Daily updated occupation related reading

To receive a weekly compilation of anti-occupation articles, including oppositional articles in the Israeli media

subscribe to The Other Israel

by writing in the subject line "Send me TOI" to:

Most recent compilation at

Ongoing protests against the occupation photographed at

Friday, June 18, 2010

Wikileaks Soldier Reveals Orders for "360 Rotational Fire"

You Want us to Kill Women and Children on the Street?

By Ralph Lopez

"If someone in your line gets hit with an IED, 360 rotational fire. You kill every motherf*cker on the street."

Myself and Josh and a lot of other soldiers were just sitting there looking at each other like, "Are you kidding me? You want us to kill women and children on the street?"

Click here to read all of this excellent but disturbing article, and the public comments at the end

And in case you missed it . . .


"Americans Have a Right to Know"

By Ray McGovern, Daniel Ellsberg and Coleen Rowley

It is a safe bet that NSA, CIA, FBI and other agencies have been instructed to do all possible to make an example of Wikileaks leader, Australian-born Julian Assange, and his colleagues. Much is at stake -- for both Pentagon and freedom of the press.


Truth Through a Soda Straw

By John Grant

There is no reason why Americans should not see what US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing in their name and with their tax resources. In a free society, the fact something may discredit the military is the military’s problem. Using the power of courts, prisons or worse to quash the truth is, as a Times editorial put it, disgraceful.


The Strange and Consequential Case of Bradley Manning, Adrian Lamo and WikiLeaks

Must Read - By Glenn Greenwald

From the start, this whole story was quite strange for numerous reasons. In an attempt to obtain greater clarity about what really happened here, I've spent the last week reviewing everything I could related to this case and speaking with several of the key participants (including Lamo, with whom I had a one-hour interview last night that can be heard on the recorder below.

Click on the headings to read all these insightful articles


A Safe Haven For Investigative Journalists Everywhere

WikiLeaks Inspired "New Media Haven" Proposal Passes In Icelandic Parliament

Reykjavik, Iceland

The WikiLeaks advised proposal to build an international "new media haven" in Iceland, with the world's strongest press and whistleblower protection laws, and a "Nobel" prize for Freedom of Expression, has unanimously passed the Icelandic Parliament.


Wikileak Case Echoes Pentagon Papers

By Coleen Rowley and Robert Parry

Though there are historic parallels between the actions of Manning today and those of Ellsberg in 1971, a major difference is the attitude of the mainstream U.S. news media, which then fought to publish Ellsberg’s secret history
but now is behaving more like what former CIA analyst Ray McGovern calls the “fawning corporate media” or FCM.



WikiLeaks is Asking for Urgent Help
Courage is Contagious

By David Heath

We face difficult times.



“Leaking This Information is the Act of a Hero.”

By Mike Gogulski

In the 70s, the persecution of Daniel Ellsberg only caused support for him to increase. Somehow, it seems like the same will not be true for Bradley Manning unless thoughtful & concerned citizens do something about it.