This is what "Bradley" and his defence team if lawyers are willing to concede in military court as established and irrefutable, uncontested fact.
His defence team is formally acknowledging as a statement of fact that during Operation Neptune Spear on 2 May 2011, the US acquired documents from UBL's computer establishing that UBL had requested and received DoD data disclosed by Manning to Assange and posted to Wikileaks, making them public domain.
That's one thing.
this may or may not be true - parts of it may be true, more than likely little or none of it is.
That's fine.
It's a fairly stupid and incriminating act for a lawyer and defendant to put their name to a signed document agreeing to the fact that all of these things are true and they accept them without having been there and witnessing the recovery firsthand, but that's fine.
That's point two of the statement of fact.
Manning is formally and legally acknowledging that from his point of view, this is true.
The problem is point one in the formal statement of fact.
The problem is this.
This isn't true, everyone knows it isn't true, no part of it is true and it's all clearly and completely proven to be untrue.
Here, Bradley Manning and his lawyers are signing a formal admission to the court, for public consumption, putting their names and endorsement in support of the assertion that it IS true, and is indeed an established and agreed upon matter of fact.
It really isn't.
It's a completely lie.
And "Bradley Manning" is signing totally incriminating formal court declarations supportive of the quite ludicrous notion that not only is it true, it's indisputable and uncontroversial.
All of which is ludicrous if he's actually attempting to defend and justify his actions and avoid punishment.
Which he quite clearly isn't. He's doing the opposite.
But why? Let's deconstruct what he's actually accused of doing:-
People say this is like the Pentagon Papers and Daniel Ellsberg.
It isn't.
What Ellsberg leaked was a historical report, an internal, comprehensive history of the Vietnam war through to 1969.
It was old information, it was an archival research study intended for reference, he self-censored it before leaking it and all of it was classified below Top Secret.
The reason this is an important distinction to make is that Ellsberg DID have access to Top Secret material - and he didn't leak it.
He still hasn't, and won't to this day. He leaked classified and sensitive materials, but nothing judged to be injurious to national security.
No one has ever leaked and published such Top,Secret material because even in civilian court, that's an offence punishable by 30 years to Life.
There have been espionage cases where people have stolen Top Secret material and sold it or given it to a foreign power, but they have never published it in bulk.
Ostensibly, what "Bradley Manning" did was this - he took mass amounts of the most privileged and sensitive material available and just gave it to a foreign national, without self-censoring it or even checking what he was handing over - there could have been nuclear launch codes in there.
"Manning" didn't self-censor or edit what he gave to Wikileaks to gauge its sensitivity and appropriateness to be made public - Wikileaks did, applying their own arbitrary measure of editorial control on the material.
But all the stuff they didn't publish - which is a lot more - they still have. They may have kept it, they may have sold it. But they still have it.
Manning allegedly (and neither he nor his advocates dispute this) just gave a bunch of Top Secret information to man from another country he had never met.
That's precisely what people in the armed forces are supposed never to do. Because its treason.
My thesis instead is this: if the Pentagon say he did this, if he says that he did this and if his defence counsel say he did this....
And yet he STILL isn't YET in the stockade at Fort Mead.... Now, years later after the fact...
Surely to most obvious explanation being overlooked for this glaring incongruity is:
He Didn't Do This.
And None of This is True.
Hear me out here,
The first point is this : if what he and his defence are saying is true, and that is his defence, then he doesn't have a defence.
He goes to jail, and he goes today, end of story.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice does not have a whilstleblower defence for the disclosure of Top Secret material to foreign nationals.
The second point is this: we KNOW that Julian Assange is an intelligence front.
He's not a leaker and he's not an activist.
He's a fraud.
So, you have to ask the question : if Assange is a fraud, and they know he's a fraud as surely they must, the suspicion has to be raised - is the guy accused of leaking stuff to him also a fraud?
Look at it objectively - are they handling his military trial by the book or are they doing odd things and deviating conspicuously from established operating proceedures?
Answer: Yes, they are.
Is it really reasonable to believe that any serving member of the US Military would really disclose mass bulk Top Secret information to a silver-haired Aussie weirdo with questionable bedroom manners just on a whim?
And is it reasonable to accept that such a person is still not in jail for doing so?
He should have been jailed within days. Here we are years later, with no end in sight.
This is Theatre.
.
