WikiLeaks: Army Opens Probe Into How Bradley Manning Allegedly Stole Files
Friday 24 December 2010
by: Nancy A. Youssef | McClatchy Newspapers | Report

A poster of Bradley Manning is posted to a tree during a rally in Virginia in support of the detained Private. (Photo: mar is sea Y / Flickr)
Washington - The U.S. Army has launched a wide-ranging investigation into how a private suspected of downloading thousands of secret reports and diplomatic cables and handing them over to WikiLeaks was able to do so and whether other soldiers should face criminal charges in the case, McClatchy has learned.
The Army confirmed the investigation, but wouldn't release details. An Army official familiar with the investigation told McClatchy that the six-member task force has been given until Feb. 1 to complete a report that will look at everything from how Pfc. Bradley Manning was selected for his job and trained to whether his superiors missed warning signs that he was downloading documents he had no need to read.
The report could change how the Army — the largest distributor of government security clearances — grants access to government documents as well as lead to recommendations of charges against soldiers who worked with Manning and may have been aware of his activities.
It's the second time in two years that Army procedures have been the subject of intense internal investigation. A similar probe was undertaken after an Army psychiatrist allegedly opened fire on fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, in November 2009, killing 13. That investigation focused, in part, on how superiors failed to notice signs that Maj. Nidal Hassan, who'd exchanged e-mails with a radical Yemeni-American cleric, might turn violent. The probe resulted in dozens of changes in Army procedures.
Manning was working as an intelligence specialist in Baghdad during 2009 and the early months of 2010 when he allegedly downloaded hundreds of thousands of classified documents.
Those documents reached WikiLeaks — Army officials have said they're not certain how — and have been published by the website in four separate bursts that began in April with the release of a video showing an Army helicopter firing on civilians in Baghdad, killing two Reuters news agency employees. The website also released tens of thousands of documents related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan before the current, ongoing publication of hundreds of thousands of State Department cables, which began Nov. 28.
Manning allegedly downloaded the documents while pretending to listen to music by Lady Gaga on headphones, a cover story, investigators say, to explain the sound of the computer's CD drive whirring as he copied the files. He's being held in solitary confinement at the Quantico Marine Base in Virginia on charges that could lead to a 52-year prison sentence. Some human rights groups charge that Manning is being mistreated, with no ability to exercise or access to news. The Defense Department has denied the claims.
Army Lt. Gen. Robert Caslen Jr., the commander of the Army General Command and Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., will lead the study, which was ordered by John McHugh, the Army secretary.
"Lt. Gen. Caslen has a very broad investigative mandate and he has been assured of the cooperation of both the Department of the Army and the U.S. Central Command as he proceeds. Lt. Gen. Caslen's investigation will not interfere nor conflict with the ongoing criminal investigation," Army spokesman Lt. Col. Christopher Garver said in a statement prepared in response to questions from McClatchy.
No other service branch is conducting a similar investigation, but the Army findings could lead to changes throughout the military. With more than 800,000 uniformed personnel, the Army issues more security clearances than any other government organization.
How Manning came to be an intelligence specialist will be a key question for the task force.
The U.S. government has three broad classes of classified documents — confidential, secret and top secret. Each service determines how much access a soldier needs, depending on the job. A central Defense Department agency, Defense Security Service, issues the clearances based on the soldier's job, need-to-know government secrets and a background check. Higher-level clearances also may include interviews by DSS. The length of time the clearance is in effect depends on the job and the level of access given.
"Officers normally have a security clearance, but not every enlisted soldier has a security clearance. Security clearances for enlisted soldiers are determined by the occupational specialty or by a specific position requirement," Garver said.
Access to secret documents can be lucrative, as some soldiers are able to reactivate their clearances after leaving the military, making them attractive to private contractors doing work for government agencies.
According to a 2009 U.S. Government Accountability Office report, about 2.4 million people have security clearances, down from 3 million in the 1990s. The drop, the GAO found, reflected the reduction in size of the Army, which went from 20 divisions to 10.
Despite the drop in numbers, soldiers increasingly have had access to a wider breadth of information, especially during the Iraq War. The idea was to get as much information to the war fighter as possible, as any tidbit could save lives.
But since WikiLeaks began publishing classified State Department cables that date back to 1966 and touch on nearly every international issue, the State Department removed its cables from the Defense Department's Secret Internet Protocol Router Network, or SIPRNet, the Pentagon's classified computer system, and the White House has ordered agencies across government to look for better ways to protect information.
The U.S. Justice Department also is conducting an investigation into whether to bring charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, though such a prosecution faces a number of challenges, including the apparent difficulty prosecutors are having tying Assange directly to Manning.
Manning, now 23, reportedly isn't cooperating with investigators, and Defense Department officials who've been briefed on the case said according to their most recent information, now months old, no direct tie has been established between Manning and Assange.
All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.



Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
Reasonably USArmy to revise
Fri, 12/24/2010 - 10:03 — Anonarcmous (not verified)Reasonably USArmy to revise procedures: inadmissible is treatment of Bradley Manning--but this is the return home of ugly predatory policies knowing no end in the name of patriotism.The appetit for war always increasing, to consumption of its own people for 1 reason or another.At what point does this stop?
President Dwight D.
Fri, 12/24/2010 - 10:46 — Anonymous (not verified)President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned;
"..., we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex."
In the penultimate draft of the address, Eisenhower initially used the term military-industrial-congressional complex,
No longer will the young
Fri, 12/24/2010 - 10:58 — Anonymous (not verified)No longer will the young soldiers be considered for THEIR wars...not without caution....maybe NO MORE WARS!!
I wasn't aware of any formal
Fri, 12/24/2010 - 13:16 — Anonymous (not verified)I wasn't aware of any formal charges, a trial or a conviction. Did I miss something here? There may have been a confession but where is due process? Something is rotten here, even the media accepts and promotes guilt and conviction without this man having his day in court. Who will be next? You? Me?
Isn't this just like the US
Fri, 12/24/2010 - 14:29 — Anonymous (not verified)Isn't this just like the US government of today: let's not address the issue, which is a monumental breakdown of ethics, integrity and morality among the leadership in our Armed Forces, but let's instead try to figure out how to prevent decent soldiers like Brad Manning from exercising their duty by exposing Anti-American activity coming from within. As for the government bringing charges against Julian Assange....The Wikileaks documents are not damaging because of the actual information they contain, but because the reaction by the US government proves that our leadership is less interested in ethical, moral, and legal behavior and more interested in covering up personal and gov't corruption. We should be prosecuting Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Hayden, Ennis, the Wall Street banksters, Congressional money launderers and tax evaders, foreign corrupt officials moving their money illegally into this country, the Wall Street Banksters, Clintons and their cronies....but no, we'll prosecute those who dare to expose their dirty lies and secrets. We're a pathetic nation.
The U.S. military is and has
Fri, 12/24/2010 - 16:18 — Jim Davey (not verified)The U.S. military is and has been an abject failure for decades. Once we stopped declaring war, we have not won any of the "wars" we have fought, be it Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. On 9/11/2001 after TRILLIONS of dollars for "defense" (read military interventionism in foreign lands for corporate profit) since the end of WWII we can't defend the Pentagon, or even New York City. What we have done is bankrupt America to give corporate America PROFITS. The solution to this problem is only go to "war" by actually declaring war like the Constitution requires. The dirty little secret why we don't declare war is the existence of laws that prohibit excessive profits in a time of war. Imagine what would have happened on 9/12/2001 IF we had declared war ... Wall Street banks, Haliburton, Goldman Sacks, all the military contractors being forced to live with 15% profits .... ha ha ha ... bin Laden's head would have been on display at the Smithsonian on a silver platter, and Tora Bora would have been an new American resort in very short order. So what do we have now, an investigation into why the entire military chain of command can't secure secrets? Well good luck with ever turning THAT Titanic around in an iceberg field. I predict not a single officer will ever even get a reprimand for having all that top secret information available in a "war zone" for a low level kid to read. Oh, by the way, I served in the military in Southeast Asia for 37 consecutive months from 1967 to 1970, including 13 months in Special Operations ... so I have the right to say what I have said ... I'm no chicken-hawk like the typical NeoCons that keep striving for endless "war".
Bradley Manning is only
Fri, 12/24/2010 - 16:51 — Chris Herz (not verified)Bradley Manning is only another in a long string of courageous soldiers and officials serving aggressor regimes who became disgusted with the murderous criminality of his country. Both the Soviets and the Nazis had endless problems with persons of conscience leaking information to their enemies.
Of course that was before the USA decided to become the latest iteration of international Fascism.
Excellent, right-on
Sat, 12/25/2010 - 08:37 — S. Wolf Britain (not verified)Excellent, right-on comments!
See these article threads for more information on this matter, at:
truth-out.org/michael-whitney-bradley-mannings-detention66178
- and -
truth-out.org/the-torture-bradley-manning66147
"Signed",
wolfbritain.com
"...Manning was working as
Sat, 12/25/2010 - 13:14 — Bearzerker (not verified)"...Manning was working as an intelligence specialist in Baghdad during 2009 and the early months of 2010 when he allegedly downloaded hundreds of thousands of classified documents..."
"...Those documents reached WikiLeaks — Army officials have said they're not certain how —..."
OK, let me get this straight...
This Bradley Manning guy, is [only alleged to be] responsible for much of the information leak to Wikileaks.org?
If this is only an allegation, why is he in a cage enduring complete hate from all around him 24/7
is their no due process any longer?
what the fuck happened to the USA
VERY good question(s),
Sun, 12/26/2010 - 03:53 — S. Wolf Britain (not verified)VERY good question(s), "Bearzerker"!
Just removing the bold font
Thu, 12/30/2010 - 17:54 — S. Wolf Britain (not verified)Just removing the bold font code that "Bearzerker" neglected to close (so that if anyone else posts in this thread, it will not be bold text unless they insert the code to make it bold).
...Or, so I thought I was...
Fri, 12/31/2010 - 13:33 — S. Wolf Britain (not verified)...Or, so I thought I was...
Trying once more...
Fri, 12/31/2010 - 13:36 — S. Wolf Britain (not verified)Trying once more...
Testing...
Fri, 12/31/2010 - 17:38 — S. Wolf Britain (not verified)Testing...
(No subject)
Sat, 01/01/2011 - 09:55 — S. Wolf Britain (not verified)Testing once more...
Sat, 01/01/2011 - 09:56 — S. Wolf Britain (not verified)Testing once more...