Friday, 14 June 2013

news from Xinhua China

US FBI chief defends surveillance programs

Updated: 2013-06-14 07:10
( Xinhua)


WASHINGTON - The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Robert Mueller on Thursday defended the classified phone and internet surveillance programs, which sparked controversy in the past week, and vowed to hold the leaker responsible for the disclosure.
Speaking at a hearing before the US House Judiciary Committee, Mueller said the disclosures about these secret surveillance programs have caused "significant harm to our nation and to our safety."
US FBI chief defends surveillance programs
FBI Director Robert Mueller testifies before the House Judiciary Committee hearing on Federal Bureau of Investigation oversight on Capitol Hill in Washington, June 13, 2013. [Photo/Agencies]

Mueller said the terrorists are consistently looking for ways to have secure communications, and the intelligence system can not afford losing the ability to get the terrorists' communications.
"We are going to be exceptionally vulnerable," he said.
He even suggested that if the surveillance programs had been in place before the Sept 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, they might have helped yield evidence of connections of the participants and derail the plan.
"If we had this program that opportunity would have been there," said Mueller.
Two classified National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance programs, one collecting US phone records and the other mining internet data, were revealed last week after leaks from the 29-year-old defense contractor Edward Snowden.
"As to the individual who has admitted to making these disclosures, he is the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation," said Mueller. While pledging that the FBI is "taking all necessary steps to hold the person responsible for these disclosures," Mueller declined to comment publicly on the details of the ongoing investigation.
US President Barack Obama and other officials of the US intelligence community have stressed that the congressional, executive and judicial levels provided oversight over these surveillance programs.
Obama also insisted that the tracking of internet activity had not applied to US citizens or people living in the country.
According to the Guardian and the Washington Post reports last Thursday, the NSA and the FBI had been secretly tapping directly into the central servers of nine US internet companies, extracting audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents and connection logs that enable analysts to track a person's movements and contacts over time.
The technology companies that participated in the programs reportedly include Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Apple.
Google and other major Internet companies denied news reports that they have given the NSA direct access to their servers to mine users' data and asked the government to disclose more details about the national security requests for their users' data.

Convicted U.S. spy Christopher Boyce: 'Snowden is doomed'

Convicted U.S. spy Christopher Boyce: 'Snowden is doomed'


By Peter Shadbolt, CNN
June 14, 2013 -- Updated 1026 GMT (1826 HKT)

Christopher Boyce, left, was jailed for 40 years in 1977 for espionage. He says he pities Snowden.
Christopher Boyce, left, was jailed for 40 years in 1977 for espionage. He says he pities Snowden.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Former spy and fugitive Christopher Boyce sold U.S. state secrets to the Soviets in the 1970s
  • On the run for two years, he was eventually arrested and jailed for 40 years for espionage
  • Out on parole in 2003 after serving 25 years, he is currently writing his memoirs
  • He says NSA leaker Edward Snowden is 'doomed' and has entered a world where he can trust no one
Editor's note: Convicted spy Christopher Boyce was jailed for 40 years for espionage in 1977 after selling U.S. secrets to the Soviet Union. In 1985, his story was turned into a Hollywood film -- "The Falcon and the Snowman" - starring Sean Penn and Timothy Hutton. Released in 2003, Boyce is currently working on his memoirs "The Falcon and The Snowman: American Sons."
(CNN) -- Sitting alone in a hotel room, unable to contact friends or family or even walk the teeming streets of Hong Kong without looking over his shoulder, there can be few who can claim to know the fear and isolation that NSA leaker Edward Snowden is living through.
One man, however, is better qualified than most.
Former spy, fugitive and convicted traitor, Christopher Boyce sold U.S. secrets to the former Soviet Union and dodged U.S. authorities for almost two years until his arrest in 1977 at the age of just 22.
Young, idealistic and driven by a mixture of political conviction and outlaw excitement, Boyce eventually received a 40-year sentence for espionage. In 1980, he escaped from the federal penitentiary in Lompoc, California and, while on the run, carried out a string of bank robberies in Idaho and Washington state -- crimes for which he says he carries a greater weight of remorse than for those of espionage.
Released on parole in 2003 after serving 25 years, Boyce now lives on America's West Coast and is working on his memoirs -- "The Falcon and The Snowman: American Sons" -- scheduled for release this year.
NSA defends surveillance

While Edward Snowden's leaks allege that U.S. intelligence has been hacking networks around the world for years, the NSA's stated position is that the administration, Congress and the courts are all aware of and have oversight of the NSA programs exposed by Snowden. NSA has also rejected his claims they can tap into the phone or computer of any U.S. citizen, saying that legally obtained phone records have helped to thwart "dozens" of terrorist events.
In it he outlines how, in 1974, a clean-cut college kid -- the son of a respected former FBI agent -- lands a job at aerospace and defense firm TRW in Southern California where he sees misrouted Central Intelligence Agency cables that allegedly discuss destabilizing the Australian government -- then led by the center-left government of Gough Whitlam.
Whitlam's government was famously and controversially deposed in 1975 in what some argue amounted to a constitutional coup d'etat. The then governor-general, the British queen's representative in Australia, Sir John Kerr -- who occupied a largely ceremonial office -- invoked the rarely-used queen's reserve powers to fire a democratically elected government to resolve a long-standing political deadlock in the country.
According to accounts by Boyce, the governor-general was casually referred to in CIA circles as "our man, Kerr."
Only a few years earlier, Australia had been a key U.S. ally in the Vietnam War and Whitlam's government had already raised ire in Washington by withdrawing Australian troops within hours of taking office in 1972.
By 1975, the Whitlam government was asking uncomfortable questions about key U.S. military installations based in Australia and Boyce claims that the CIA had the Whitlam government firmly in its sights.
Appalled that the U.S. secret services would use its powers of surveillance and secret influence to depose the government of a U.S. ally, Boyce teamed up with a childhood friend -- Andrew Daulton Lee -- and embarked on a journey that made them one of the Cold War's most infamous spy teams.
The slow descent of the two former altar boys into a world of mistrust, madness and cold isolation was turned into a Hollywood hit for Sean Penn and Timothy Hutton, who starred in the 1985 movie "The Falcon and The Snowman."
Inside the mind of Edward Snowden
Trump: Snowden is bad news
Snowden: U.S. hacked targets in China
While 35 years separate his ill-starred foray into espionage and Snowden's decision to reveal the secret surveillance plans of the National Security Agency (NSA), Boyce told CNN he has a good idea what Snowden might be going through.
"I feel for the guy, and for what his life is going to become. I pity him," Boyce said.
"He's in for a world of hurt, for the rest of his life. I feel sorry for him. He's going to go through life not being able to trust anybody. And I think that in the end, it'll end badly for him -- one way or another, they'll get their hands on him. He's going to pay for it. He's doomed."
In one of only a handful of interviews Boyce has given since his arrest in 1977, he told CNN this week about his own motivations three decades ago and what Snowden is likely to face psychologically now he is pitted against the world's most powerful secret service.
CNN: When you see Snowden on the television, do you immediately recognize your situation in it?
Christopher Boyce: The major difference between Snowden and myself is that I didn't come out publicly with my information. Also, my motives were different. I was sworn to revenge. It certainly was a far different time and place. Up to that point in my life, my view of the (U.S.) Federal Government was that it had only gotten worse.
I grew up in a different time -- watching the Kennedy assassination, watching the race riots on television, and watching the U.S. government slide into the Vietnam War -- which was, to me, just about the most idiotic, stupid, evil exercise of power my country had ever pulled off.
I went to work as a contractor for the NSA, like Snowden, and what I discovered on the "twixes" (telex messages that were sent back and forth from U.S.-based CIA locations and CIA outposts in Australia) showed that we were undermining the government of Australia, an ally nation.
I don't know if Snowden views the U.S. government in the same way that I did -- maybe he does. He's uncovered things and made things public that sound, to me, as if they're illegal. Things that show the NSA and the CIA are lying to Congress. Perhaps in a way it is similar. But what Snowden has done is much different. My aim was to hurt the United States government. I suppose he's doing that too, but in a public way. Yet he's not as underhanded about it as I was.
CNN: In the light of his situation, what do you think he could be going through?
One way or another, they'll get their hands on him. He's going to pay for it. He's doomed
Christopher Boyce
Boyce: I think he's scared to death. I think that every single person he sees, he's wondering if that's the person that's coming for him. He's probably worried that there is a large group of people in Washington, D.C., trying to come up with some way of getting back at him, to get control of him, to lock him up for the rest of his life.
I don't know if he has an arrangement with the Chinese government. If he doesn't, I would be worried that the Chinese may deport him to the United States to gain some concession in return. I'd be terrified of that, if I were him. Who would trust the Chinese government? He is utterly vulnerable and knows that there are a lot of people who really want to hurt him now. If I were him, I would at this point probably be having second thoughts. Asking myself "What did I do? What have I brought down upon my head? Did I really do this?"
The fact is, he can never come back home.
He's totally separated from everything he has ever known, from his family. He is always going to be a fugitive, until they get him. And eventually, they will. He will never see his family again unless they go to him. And if they do go to him, he'll no longer be in hiding. The only way that he can truly hide is to abandon his whole past, his entire life.
When he realizes that, he's going to be racked with depression. I would imagine that his stress levels are at a point where they could actually make him physically sick. I'm sure everything is gnawing at him. And he's isolated. If I were him, I'd latch onto a couple of reporters that I trusted. He has a lot of enemies now. He has the whole intelligence community of the United States after him, including all of its allies. I sure as hell wouldn't trust the Chinese government, if I were him.
CNN: At what point, in your case, did you realize there was no going back? Were you fully aware, at the time, of the scope and depth of the trouble you would be in?
Boyce: I realized immediately that there was no stepping back, that I was doomed, and that my life would never go back to the way it was before. I was surrounded by an impending sense of doom, knowing this was something that could not end well. I imagine he will probably start drinking heavily. That's what I did. Think of it: How much bigger trouble can you possibly get into? How could you make more enemies, more people who would like to kill you, than by doing what he has done? He's got to be having second thoughts about it. He has to go someplace where he's safe, and I don't know if China is it.
CNN: To what extent were you motivated ideologically and to what extent were you motivated by the excitement of being an outlaw? In your opinion, how much ego is involved in the whistleblower's mindset?
I imagine he will probably start drinking heavily. That's what I did. Think of it: How much bigger trouble can you possibly get into?
Christopher Boyce
Boyce: Edward Snowden is 29. I was 21. At that age, I felt indestructible. Nothing bad could ever happen to me, or so I thought. You just don't think about these things when you're young. You believe that bad things happen to other people. But you learn, after a while, that that's not true.
My view of the government at the time was that it was just a monstrosity that was getting worse and worse. I didn't like it. I was motivated to hurt the government. I was nuts. I thought I was going to wage a one-man war against the Federal Government and that I was going to make them pay for all the rotten things they had done and were still doing.
Ego played a great part in that -- having my own secrets, being in the know of something, getting (one) over on the bastards. It's an all-empowering feeling, in a somewhat demented way. But what you're really doing is just walking into a buzz-saw. It certainly was exciting. I'm sure Snowden feels a similar excitement. But that excitement, after a while, is not a good excitement -- it becomes terror.
CNN: Considering the minimal amount of damage the information that you sold to the Soviet Union caused, do you think your sentence was out of all proportion with the crime you committed? There is a sense with these whistleblower cases that the leaker has stepped into a zone where normal laws no longer apply. Do you think the secret services are more interested in exacting revenge in the cases of Assange and Manning than in protecting the interests of the state they serve?
Boyce: Regarding my sentence for espionage, I don't know if the punishment was disproportionate. That's for someone else to decide. Of course, I'm a bit prejudiced on that. I certainly think they decided to make an example out of me. There were very few espionage arrests before I was arrested. People never went to court -- the government didn't want these things brought out. In my situation, however, they decided to make an example. And then I escaped from Lompoc federal penitentiary for 19 months. And then I decided to rob some banks. I can say that the sentence I was given for bank robbery was certainly just.
Do I think the government wants revenge against Snowden? Absolutely, they want revenge. They want to ensure anyone who even thinks about doing what he did does so with fear in their hearts.
With respect to these agencies wanting to protect the interests of the states they serve, I ask this question: Is it in the interest of the United States and the American people to have billions of their communications secretly monitored by a government? And to have Congress lied to about it? I don't think that's in the interest of the American people. Is the interest of the United States government the same as the interest of the American people? Not always. Not in this situation, anyway.
Of course, there's still a lot that has to be played out. But I think that revenge is the key driving force by those individuals who stand to get into a heap of trouble as a result of these secrets being made public -- the big shot bureaucrats in the national intelligence community. Not that it's in the interest of the American people to be kept in the dark about it, but simply because of the repercussions those individuals behind the scenes could face. They could be retired early, or lose their pensions, or be disgraced, or be hauled in front of Senate subcommittees, or all manner of bad things. I'm sure there are many things the NSA and CIA don't want the public to know about, principally because the players behind the scenes could get into serious trouble if it became known.

Manus Island/Media is not permitted

Not a single journalist has been allowed into the controversial Manus Island detention centre in Papua New Guinea since it reopened to Australian refugees nine months ago.

SBS Dateline's Mark Davis tries to change that and uncover what the Australian Government is hiding behind the security fence.

In exclusive interviews with detention centre guards and an inmate, Mark learns of attempted suicides and self-harm among the desperate asylum seekers.
"They go crazy, they start cutting themselves and trying to hang themselves," one guard tells Mark after agreeing to speak anonymously.
One of the reasons, it emerges for the first time, is that there hasn't been a single processing interview to assess their claims since the centre opened last August.

But in trying to gain access, Mark has to contend with having his footage deleted by the authorities, a bugged car and endless bureaucracy.
The Australian Government insists that it's Papua New Guinea preventing journalists from seeing the detention centre for themselves, but PNG Prime Minister Peter O'Neill tells a different story.
“We have allowed every visitor in our country to go to any part of the country if they so desire, so there’s no restrictions on our part,” O’Neill says. “I can assure you that you are free to go to Manus any time you want.”

If there wasn't a vote in hate, fear and prejudice then there would be no gain in pandering to any of them. The great Australian shame is that not only are there votes to be had here, but that this is the heartland in which our political game is lost and won.

Australia's political heartland: hate, fear, prejudice

Posted Thu Jun 6, 2013 7:59am AEST
The great Australian shame is that not only are there votes to be had in hate, fear and prejudice, but that this is the heartland in which our political game is lost and won, writes Jonathan Green.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard: "(The Government has a plan) to stop foreign workers being put at the front of the queue with Australian workers at the back".
Media/football identity Eddie McGuire: "Get Adam Goodes down for it do you reckon?"
So where does it come from, this simultaneous sense of shame and licence over racism in this country?
Our twin capacity to tolerate a political discussion that fixes on stopping the boats and Aussie jobs while generating storms of righteous indignation over high-profile instances of racial abuse and denigration?
In all the suddenly inward looking wonder since a single hurled syllable from an irate 13-year-old set off this latest pricking of the national racial conscience, the role of our leaders has been all but ignored, the critical mood set by those who would guide, inform and govern us.
How can we be so detached from what is one of the ugly realities of Australian democracy: that there are votes in a subtle dog whistle to racist sentiment, that an appeal to xenophobia or worse is at the very core of some our most significant and constant national discussions.
What else is at the heart of the bipartisan embrace of our cold-hearted policy aimed at resisting the arrival of refugees from war, hunger, poverty, oppression and simple fear? Policy that masks an appeal to a suburban distaste for an imagined invading mass of 'others' with pious mouthings over the safety of lives at sea and noble distaste for the 'evil trade' of people smugglers.
We value the assumed order, dignity and righteous process of 'the queue'.
We honour the now timeworn maxim: "we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come". But surely we also sense the darker truth at the heart of this discussion: that there are votes in pandering to xenophobia and outright racist loathing and fear.
It's the sentiment that lies in the populist pit Kevin Rudd feared when he warned of a "race to the bottom" in refugee policy. This issue in our politics is a comprehensive failure of vision, execution and communication … and has been prosecuted with an eye not to the realities of global human movement, but against the prejudices of a populist rump, voters whose preconceptions of asylum seekers as disease-laden, terror-tainted, queue jumpers have been pandered to by successive administrations.
Why? Because it has been a political convenience to do so.
Watch the recent parliamentary rhetoric, from Coalition spokesman Scott Morrison who railed against the ASIO "light touch" that has allowed the ready egress of boat-borne 'jihadists', to Werriwa MP Laurie Ferguson who challenged the PM on Tuesday to make plainer the ALP strategy for arresting the flow of refugees.
Without more sound and fury waged against the tide of boats and their fearsome cargo, the ALP would be 'dead' in western Sydney, clearly the heartland of national concern over questions of orderly migration.
And all of this dark heat around an issue that is essentially a fabrication created for purely political purpose. The trickle of boat-borne arrivals does not by any objective international measure constitute a crisis. What it does constitute is an opportunity to rake fear in a sometimes xenophobic and insular public.
And it's not just in migration that exploiting a sense of racial disquiet can be a political positive.
What else other than a subtle racist underlay could have enabled the quickly imposed apartheid of the NT intervention, policy at first carried out by our armed forces under the cover of a suspended race discrimination act and that years later still leaves citizens innocent of any offence other than their race with limited control over their own income and the most mundane details of their daily life.
We should think on this when we wonder how it is that somehow, weirdly, inexplicably, racism seems so ever present, such a purulent constant under a thin scab of well-cultivated, sometimes cynical, civility.
And it is of course too quick and easy to blame our politicians for the populism that uses the community’s darker instincts as an easy path to votes.
Politics is nothing if not a mirror of the society it serves … that it, in every sense, represents. We provide the clay they work with.
If there wasn't a vote in hate, fear and prejudice then there would be no gain in pandering to any of them. The great Australian shame is that not only are there votes to be had here, but that this is the heartland in which our political game is lost and won.
The likes of Eddie McGuire aren't even a pimple on its backside … and in many ways the star chambers that assemble around these public transgressions just blind us to the greater reality of a public whose blind-peeping anxieties breed an agenda that turns that suburban fear to populist political profit.
Jonathan Green is the presenter of Sunday Extra on Radio National and a former editor of The Drum. View his full profile here.

Bradley manning/Shhhhh

Manning trial shines light on a culture of secrecy

Posted Thu Jun 6, 2013 9:19am AEST
The low-key coverage the US media seems to have given to the Bradley Manning case suggests the country that holds itself up as a beacon of democracy is struggling to come to terms with what the trial reveals about America itself, writes Jane Cowan.
For a case centred on the biggest leak of secrets in American history, a massive data dump that sent the US government into a tailspin, the Manning court martial has a remarkably anticlimactic sense of going through the motions. As far as courtroom drama goes, the first week saw hardly a flourish.
There's no shortage, though, of dramatic characterisations of how damaging Bradley Manning's leaks were. Hillary Clinton has described a kind of diplomatic Armageddon, saying "disclosures like these tear at the fabric of responsible government."
Barack Obama's highest ranking military commander, the then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen suggested Bradley Manning might have "blood on his hands".
But by some calculations what Private Manning leaked was less than 1 per cent of what the US government classifies every year.
"If you have a government like our government that is radically over-classifying secrets then occasionally you're going to have a radical counterforce - which is a massive leak of those secrets."
That quote comes from Alex Gibney. The Academy award-winning director created the new documentary We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks which casts Bradley Manning as the moral centre of the tale.
Gibney recalls being at Guantanamo Bay filming some establishing shots when a minder stopped them, saying, "You can't shoot that mountain, that mountain is classified."
Says Gibney: "When we start classifying Mother Earth you know we've got a problem."
Private Manning and WikiLeaks have shown up the dilemma of managing sensitive material: classify too much and you run the risk that those who work day in day out with this information see so many innocuous documents stamped secret that they lose respect for the system.
In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks there was a move to improve information sharing and get rid of the "silos" that had meant one hand of the vast American intelligence network didn't always know what the other was up to.
These days some 4 million Americans have a security clearance that lets them access classified material. As a lowly Private First Class Bradley Manning had apparent free rein to roam around inside confidential databases from his work station in dusty Fort Hammer, Iraq, download hundreds of thousands of files and copy them onto discs labelled as Lady Gaga songs. Private Manning's abuse of his security clearance could well bias the system against further information sharing.
Then there's the question of where leaks fit in the workings of a democracy. Journalism arguably relies on people who know something the public doesn't speaking out of turn to reporters - often about things the powers that be would prefer people didn't know. As documentary filmmaker Alex Gibney puts it, "There are times when leaking secrets are important as a kind of pressure valve so we can hold the government to account."
At worst the Manning case threatens to criminalise public criticism of the government. At the same time a grand jury has been examining whether the US government can go after the big fish in this equation, the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, as the publisher of the leaked material.
All this unfolds under a president who campaigned as the whistleblower's best friend and promised to usher in a "new era of open government". In reality, the Obama administration has gone after leakers with a vengeance. His attorney-general Eric Holder has pursued six government officials for alleged leaks under the World War I-era Espionage Act - more than all his predecessors put together.
There have been six prosecutions of leakers but this is the first of the cases to reach trial. In tandem, unprecedented scrutiny of reporters has provoked outcry across the political spectrum. Obama's Justice Department secretly obtained two months of phone records from Associated Press journalists as part of a probe investigating who told AP about a plot by an Al Qaeda affiliate in Yemen to bomb an airliner.
In a separate case, investigators seized two days worth of Fox reporter James Rosen's personal emails and electronically tracked his movements at the State Department to see who his source was. Most troublesome to journalists - an FBI agent reportedly claimed there was evidence Rosen broke the law as an aider and abettor or a co-conspirator over his discussions with the alleged leaker.
The Obama White House defends the prosecutions on national security grounds but has been accused of brandishing the spy law "like a club" to silence the squeaky wheels inside government.
"What's astonishing here is that never before has the government argued that newsgathering... asking a source to provide sensitive information, is itself illegal," legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union Gabe Rottman told Fox News.com.
Diplomacy is surely difficult without the ability to operate with a degree of secrecy, but there is still such a thing as the public interest.
As for the aiding the enemy charge - even Manning's critics have begun to say it's a bridge too far, especially when Private Manning has already offered to plead guilty to charges that would keep him behind bars for two decades. The prosecution argues the 25-year-old put intelligence into the hands of Al Qaeda; that material he leaked was found inside Osama Bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. It's unclear so far whether prosecutors are saying he intended to help America's enemies. They do say he was driven by arrogance, that he was seeking personal notoriety.
The judge has ruled Bradley Manning only had to have reason to believe the leaks would hurt national security. She's indicated his motivations will only be considered in the sentencing phase not in finding innocence or guilt. But it has to be said that the evidence heard in the space of a few days has shown a distinct lack of any hatred of America or sympathy for its adversaries. The defence argues PFC Manning knew the material he leaked was embarrassing but deliberately selected things he didn't believe the enemy could use.
Think of the Abu Ghraib revelations - you could argue the release of the photos of detainee abuse aided the enemy at least in the propaganda sense. But does that justify keeping the citizenry in the dark? Private Manning's critics say he broke the law - and he acknowledges that. But his supporters, and his lawyers, say he was answering to a higher cause - the public good.
Ironically - or perhaps not - for a case about leaking, the Manning court martial has been shrouded in secrecy to the point where some reporters are writing about a "cloak and dagger" feel. On the first day, Manning supporters in the courtroom were forced to turn their t-shirts inside out so the word 'truth' emblazoned in white letters couldn't be seen. The next day a military spokesman briefing reporters at Fort Meade conceded that may have been overly zealous.
As many as one third of the government's 141 witnesses are expected to give testimony in secret, meaning journalists and the public won't hear it. Many court filings are impossible to view and there has been no access to court orders and motions filed. The Freedom of the Press Foundation has resorted to crowd funding to pay for a transcriber so records of the proceedings can be available in something like real time.
Lawyer Michael Ratner from the Centre for Constitutional Rights has said "I sit in that courtroom and it seems like a completely secret proceeding to me". His organisation, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and a collection of reporters are challenging the lack of public access. The military did release more than 500 documents as the trial began this week - including a photo of a noose Private Manning made from a bed sheet while he was being detained in Kuwait, something that was presented in evidence six months ago.
The Army says there's "no specific trigger" for the release of documents and the military has been working to process as many records as possible. In February the military began releasing Judge Denise Lind's older rulings amid numerous Freedom of Information Act requests. Eugene Fidell, a military law teacher Yale has described the Manning trial as "a train that's run badly off the tracks". It plays out at what he says could be a tipping point for the military justice system, with dismay over its handling of sexual assaults.
Perhaps this muddy terrain accounts for the once-over-lightly treatment the Manning case has so often received from much of the US media. Even on the first day of the long-awaited trial it was hard to find meaningful coverage of it on network TV and it didn't make the front page of either the New York Times or the Washington Post. There's every sign a country that holds itself up as a beacon of democracy around the world is struggling to come to terms with Bradley Manning and what he's shown America about itself.
Jane Cowan is an ABC correspondent based in Washington. View her full profile here.

FBI in pursuit of Snowden/SBS news

The FBI says it has started taking steps to prosecute Edward Snowden for exposing secret US surveillance programs.
The United States has launched a criminal investigation and is taking "all necessary steps" to prosecute Edward Snowden for exposing secret US surveillance programs, the FBI director says.
"As to the individual who has admitted to making these disclosures, he is the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation," FBI Director Robert Mueller told the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday.
"These disclosures have caused significant harm to our nation and to our safety. We are taking all necessary steps to hold the person responsible for these disclosures," he said.
The FBI chief's comments offered the first explicit confirmation that the US government was pursuing Snowden, the 29-year-old American IT specialist who has admitted to leaking information about far-reaching surveillance programs.
Snowden, who worked as a subcontractor handling computer networks for the National Security Agency, is now in Hong Kong, where he has vowed to contest any US attempt to extradite him.
Mueller defended the collection of American phone records and internet traffic as legal programs that were approved by a judge and were in accordance with the Constitution.

shock horror murdoch divorce photo etc

Rupert Murdoch files for divorce from third wife Wendi Deng

Updated 1 hour 1 minute ago
Media mogul Rupert Murdoch has filed for divorce from his third wife, Wendi Deng, after 14 years of marriage.
The 82-year-old billionaire chairman of News Corporation filed for divorce from his 44-year-old wife in the New York Supreme Court.
"I can confirm for the record that Rupert filed in New York State Supreme Court this morning for divorce," his spokesman Steven Rubenstein said.
"The line from the filing says 'the relationship between Mr Murdoch and Wendi has broken down irretrievably'."
The couple, who have been married since 1999, met in China and have two daughters.
Mr Murdoch's spokesman would not confirm any further details, including arrangements on the custody of the couple's two children.
The divorce proceedings come just days before major changes to the structure of News Corporation.
Mr Murdoch's last divorce reportedly cost him $1.7 billion.