06/12/13 – Nathan Fuller – The Scott Horton Show

Hey, I'm Scott Horton here for WallStreetWindow.com.
Mike Swanson is a successful former hedge fund manager whose site is unique on the web.
Subscribers are allowed a window into Mike's very real main account and receive announcements and explanations for all his market moves.
Federal Reserve has been inflating the money supply to finance the bank bailouts and terror war overseas.
So, Mike's betting on commodities, mining stocks, European markets, and other hedges against a depreciating dollar.
Play along on paper or with real money and then be your own judge of Mike's investment strategies.
Find out what happens at WallStreetWindow.com.
All right, y'all, welcome back to the show.
Yeah, I'm Scott Horton.
ScottHorton.org is my website.
I keep all my interview archives there.
Sign up for that podcast feed, would you?
ScottHorton.org, you can sign up for the interview archives.
You can also find my whole show archives there, but there's more than 2,800 interviews going back to 2003 at ScottHorton.org.
And also follow me on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube at slashscotthortonshow, and there's a brand new speech posted at youtube.com/scotthortonshow on Iran and North Korea if you're interested in that kind of thing.
Okay, now to our guest today.
It's our friend Nathan Fuller from bradleymanning.org.
How's it going?
Hey, how are you doing?
I'm doing real good.
I appreciate you joining us today.
And you're there at Fort Meade, Maryland, where they're persecuting my main man, Bradley Manning, correct?
That they are, and continue to do so.
And you're sitting there in the audience watching this whole thing as it goes down, correct?
Yeah, I'm in the media room with about a dozen other journalists so far.
There were 70 on the first day, but that has diminished pretty quickly.
Yeah.
All right, well, yeah, substance is nothing.
They just want to headline most of those guys.
The first day is worth the headline.
But okay, so let's see.
It's been since, I guess, last Thursday, I think was when we last spoke, and last time I got a good update on what happened.
I guess, can we start with a little bit of a recap real quick here about, there's some pretty embarrassing stories for the prosecution, I think, last week, where they weren't doing a very good job.
Well, I would say yesterday was the bigger day, just as far as undermining the way the government has charged Manning in this case.
It was pretty embarrassing, I thought.
I mean, the government has long contended that Bradley released a video of a Karani airstrike.
It was a massacre in Afghanistan in a small village that killed scores, if not hundreds, of Afghan civilians, mostly women and children.
And so Bradley said to have released that video to WikiLeaks, but WikiLeaks has not published it.
And so the government contends that Bradley released it in November 2009 and in April 2010, and they're charging him with the November earlier release because they want to show him as someone who's harvesting information and leaking it throughout Iraq and the Army.
But yesterday's testimony pretty clearly rebutted that, as forensic expert David Shaver was testifying that there's no proof that there was any November 2009 release.
And Brad Bradley said as much in his plea when he made a guilty plea to lesser offenses in February.
He said, you know, I'll plead, go ahead and plead to the April offense, but there is no November offense.
And the government's saying, you know, we have we have the evidence to prove it.
But that kind of turned back on them yesterday and they didn't look so good.
OK, but now I'm sorry, I don't understand exactly what point was the prosecution attempting to prove by saying that he had leaked this earlier version?
So they're they're trying to show him as leaking throughout his entire time in Iraq.
He got to Iraq in November of 2009, and they want to say as soon as he got there, he was helping WikiLeaks leaking stuff right away.
But but as the evidence shows, it was several months later and after he witnessed various events, such as the one on December 24th, 2009, that really changed the way he saw things in Iraq and started realizing, you know, we don't really value non-American human life very much.
And then he wanted to get that out into the public.
You know, I'm having a good time.
Well, I mean, it's too bad.
It's a kind of a foregone conclusion, his persecution here.
But it is at least funny that for the record, the prosecution is completely inept and ridiculous throughout this entire kangaroo trial.
I mean, they could have gotten someone competent to do the kangaroo hearing, but no, they hired kangaroos to do it.
And in some cases telling blatant falsehoods, for example, in their opening statement, they said that forensics would show a clear match between these videos that that Banning released and one that was in a U.S.
Central Command folder.
And the evidence shows that that that cannot be proven.
Now, that's not true.
They might not even be lying.
They might actually just had no idea what they're talking about.
That's possible, although it sounds like it's me.
They know what they're doing.
It sounds like it to me, because if you think of the which not that I'm encouraging the government to hire a new qualified prosecutor or anything, but, you know, the story that we talked about last week where this was this made their opening statement.
And then on on direct examination to they claim that this Excel sheet that Manning was putting together proved that he had been conspiring for a long time to do what he did and maybe conspiring with us on.
That was going to go toward proving he was conspiring with Assange, acting at Assange's direction instead of a source journalist relationship, that they were co-conspirators and espionage kind of a thing.
And then his commanding officer conceded under cross-examination that, oh, yeah, no, I told him to make the Excel sheet.
Exactly.
It just shows that they're trying to malign his character, even when the facts just don't line up with what they're saying.
Supervisor saying he's doing his job as an intel analyst and the other who others who worked with him said he was the most organized that that they'd ever seen.
And, you know, especially especially well organized for someone so junior.
And and the prosecution wants to paint that as some conspiracy to commit journalism.
Yeah.
Well, and, you know, again, I just my gut tells me, I mean, obviously they want to embellish, they want to paint him in the worst light.
My gut tells me that these prosecutors are actually just really bad, Nathan, because I'll tell you, I one time testified at an armed robbery trial of the Kwik-E-Mart and I talked to this.
This is just a it's not a military thing, whatever.
It's just a local Austin felony prosecution.
Right.
But I talked with the assistant D.A. at the coffee shop and I told her this is everything that I know.
This is what you can get out of me on the stand as far as implicating this guy or whatever, whatever.
And then two days later, I show up in court and I basically had to hold her hand and question myself in order to tell my damn story.
I just told her my whole story.
And yet she couldn't for the life of her begin to figure out how to try to get it out of me.
And because she was a stupid idiot and I'm thinking that's what's going on here.
Yeah.
I mean, it seems they want to make these claims and then try to prove them later.
And I think they would have done a lot better had they looked looked at the evidence first and realized that and realized how much the evidence lines up with Bradley's plea.
Had they accepted Bradley's plea, they would have clear evidence to prove it.
They would have him in jail for up to 20 years.
And that was not good enough for them.
So that shows a pretty big problem, I think.
OK, now part of what they're claiming, too, is that, well, was it they're saying Osama himself or somebody in Al-Qaeda had a WikiLeaks document, a Manning document on their computer?
Has that testimony come out yet?
That testimony hasn't come out yet, but it's been referred to.
They claim that Osama bin Laden and actually the defense does stipulate this happened, that Osama bin Laden asked for WikiLeaks documents from another member of Al-Qaeda.
Al-Qaeda member sent him back to the Department of Defense and or, you know, Afghan war logs, essentially, but that they have not proved that that substantially aided the enemy.
They have not proved that Bradley intended for that to happen or that that's any anything different.
And, you know, I mean, bin Laden also had Bob Woodward's books, which contained top secret information, and they haven't claimed that that's any different yet.
So we're going to see how that's going to play out.
Right.
Yeah, thank goodness for Bob Woodward.
That's probably the first time anybody said that since the 1970s.
At least, I think.
But yeah, he does make a great example there, although he's not a military guy, not right now, or at least not as far as we know.
We we think he retired from Navy intelligence.
Right.
Right.
But he's still pretty happy to publish anonymous sources for top secret info.
Right.
All right.
And now here's the thing, too, that I think is real important.
I'm sorry because I called you a little bit late and we're almost running out of time here.
But could you give us just 30 seconds on what Adrian Lamo, the rat, had to admit about Bradley Manning last week?
Yeah, I mean, he was asked flat out, did Bradley intend to or have any kind of anti-American or or helping the terrorist kind of kind of language?
And he said, you know, as we well know, no, that did not happen.
But he did admit that he trusted that Bradley trusted him, that Adrian said he even saw a little of himself in in Bradley, someone who wanted to seek the truth.
But that apparently was not enough to help Lamo keep him confidential.
Right.
And he also confessed to Denny that he tried to tempt Manning with trees and to sell the for personal gains and sell the secrets to Russia, China, and that Manning basically laughed in his face about it.
Right.
The information.
Thank you, Nathan.
You're great, man.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
That's the great Nathan Fuller.
Everybody from Bradley Manning dot org.
We'll be right back.
No, man, I'm late.
Sure hope I can make my flight.
Stand there.
Me, I am standing here.
Come here.
Oh, OK.
Hands up.
Turn around.
Oh, easy into the scanner.
Oh, what's this in your pants?
Hey, slow down.
It's just my hold it right there.
Your wallet has tripped the metal detector.
What's this?
The Bill of Rights.
That's right.
It's just a harmless stainless steel business card sized copy of the Bill of Rights from Security Edition dot com.
Therefore exposing the TSA is a bunch of liberty destroying goons who've never protected anyone from anything.
Sir, now give me back my wallet and get out of my way.
Got a plane to catch.
Have a nice day.
Play a leading role in the security theater with the Bill of Rights Security Edition from Security Edition dot com.
It's the size of a business card, so it fits right in your wallet and it's guaranteed to trip the metal detectors wherever the police state goes.
That's Security Edition dot com.
And don't forget their great Fourth Amendment socks.
Hey, guys, I got his laptop.
Over at AIPAC, the leaders of the Israel lobby in Washington, D.C., they're constantly proclaiming unrivaled influence on Capitol Hill, and they should be proud.
The NRA and AARP's efforts make them look like puppy dogs in comparison to the campaigns of intimidation regularly run by the neoconservatives and Israel firsters against their political enemies.
But the Israel lobby does not remain unopposed at the Council for the National Interest.
They put America first, insisting on an end to the empire's unjustified support for Israel's aggression against its neighbors and those whose land it occupies and pushing back against the lobby's determined campaign in favor of U.S. attacks against Israel's enemies.
CNI also does groundbreaking work on the trouble with evangelical Christian Zionism and neocon-engineered Islamophobia and drumming up support for this costly and counterproductive policy.
Please help support the efforts of the Council for the National Interest to create a peaceful, pro-American foreign policy.
Just go to Council for the National Interest dot org and click Donate under About Us at the top of the page.
And thanks.