Bradley Manning

[NYBURBS]

For those interested in helping in this kid's legal defense, you can go to the following link and click on the donate button:

http://www.bradleymanning.org/

As a background note, Bradley Manning has been charged with leaking government documents that ended up on wikileaks. I'm sure there are some that dislike what he did, but I'm also confident that there are others here (of varying political persuasions) that find what he did to be noble. He's looking at a long time in prison if convicted, and outside legal consul is a necessity for putting forth a thorough defense. Even if you can only give a small amount it will still help.

[Ben]

The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning's detention (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning/index.html)

By Glenn Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/author/glenn_greenwald/index.html)
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning/md_horiz.jpg Reuters/Jonathon Burch/AP/Salon

(updated below)
Bradley Manning, the 22-year-old U.S. Army Private accused of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks, has never been convicted of that crime, nor of any other crime. Despite that, he has been detained at the U.S. Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia for five months -- and for two months before that in a military jail in Kuwait -- under conditions that constitute cruel and inhumane treatment and, by the standards of many nations, even torture. Interviews with several people directly familiar with the conditions of Manning's detention, ultimately including a Quantico brig official (Lt. Brian Villiard) who confirmed much of what they conveyed, establishes that the accused leaker is subjected to detention conditions likely to create long-term psychological injuries.


Since his arrest in May, Manning has been a model detainee, without any episodes of violence or disciplinary problems. He nonetheless was declared from the start to be a "Maximum Custody Detainee," the highest and most repressive level of military detention, which then became the basis for the series of inhumane measures imposed on him.
From the beginning of his detention, Manning has been held in intensive solitary confinement. For 23 out of 24 hours every day -- for seven straight months and counting -- he sits completely alone in his cell. Even inside his cell, his activities are heavily restricted; he's barred even from exercising and is under constant surveillance to enforce those restrictions. For reasons that appear completely punitive, he's being denied many of the most basic attributes of civilized imprisonment, including even a pillow or sheets for his bed (he is not and never has been on suicide watch). For the one hour per day when he is freed from this isolation, he is barred from accessing any news or current events programs. Lt. Villiard protested that the conditions are not "like jail movies where someone gets thrown into the hole," but confirmed that he is in solitary confinement, entirely alone in his cell except for the one hour per day he is taken out.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/TQiYAt8vnsI/AAAAAAAACx0/t4ZejxaVkv8/s400/manning.png (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/TQiYAt8vnsI/AAAAAAAACx0/t4ZejxaVkv8/s1600/manning.png)In sum, Manning has been subjected for many months without pause to inhumane, personality-erasing, soul-destroying, insanity-inducing conditions of isolation similar to those perfected at America's Supermax prison in Florence, Colorado: all without so much as having been convicted of anything. And as is true of many prisoners subjected to warped treatment of this sort, the brig's medical personnel now administer regular doses of anti-depressants to Manning to prevent his brain from snapping from the effects of this isolation.
Just by itself, the type of prolonged solitary confinement to which Manning has been subjected for many months is widely viewed around the world as highly injurious, inhumane, punitive, and arguably even a form of torture. In his widely praised March, 2009 New Yorker article (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_gawande) -- entitled "Is Long-Term Solitary Confinement Torture?" -- the surgeon and journalist Atul Gawande assembled expert opinion and personal anecdotes to demonstrate that, as he put it, "all human beings experience isolation as torture." By itself, prolonged solitary confinement routinely destroys a person’s mind and drives them into insanity. A March, 2010 article in The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law explains that (http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/03/22/solitary-confinement-and-mental-illness-us-prisons) "solitary confinement is recognized as difficult to withstand; indeed, psychological stressors such as isolation can be as clinically distressing as physical torture."
For that reason, many Western nations -- and even some non-Western nations notorious for human rights abuses (http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2005/04/19/tunisia-pledges-end-long-solitary-confinement) -- refuse to employ prolonged solitary confinement except in the most extreme cases of prisoner violence. "It’s an awful thing, solitary," John McCain wrote of his experience in isolated confinement in Vietnam. “It crushes your spirit." As Gawande documented: "A U.S. military study of almost a hundred and fifty naval aviators returned from imprisonment in Vietnam . . . reported that they found social isolation to be as torturous and agonizing as any physical abuse they suffered." Gawande explained that America’s application of this form of torture to its own citizens is what spawned the torture regime which President Obama vowed to end:
This past year, both the Republican and the Democratic Presidential candidates came out firmly for banning torture and closing the facility in Guantánamo Bay, where hundreds of prisoners have been held in years-long isolation. Neither Barack Obama nor John McCain, however, addressed the question of whether prolonged solitary confinement is torture. . . .
This is the dark side of American exceptionalism. . . . Our willingness to discard these standards for American prisoners made it easy to discard the Geneva Conventions prohibiting similar treatment of foreign prisoners of war, to the detriment of America’s moral stature in the world. In much the same way that a previous generation of Americans countenanced legalized segregation, ours has countenanced legalized torture. And there is no clearer manifestation of this than our routine use of solitary confinement . . . .
It's one thing to impose such punitive, barbaric measures on convicts who have proven to be violent when around other prisoners; at the Supermax in Florence, inmates convicted of the most heinous crimes and who pose a threat to prison order and the safety of others are subjected to worse treatment than what Manning experiences. But it's another thing entirely to impose such conditions on individuals, like Manning, who have been convicted of nothing and have never demonstrated an iota of physical threat or disorder.
In 2006, a bipartisan National Commission on America's Prisons was created and it called for the elimination of prolonged solitary confinement. Its Report (http://www.prisoncommission.org/pdfs/Confronting_Confinement.pdf) documented that conditions whereby "prisoners end up locked in their cells 23 hours a day, every day. . . is so severe that people end up completely isolated, living in what can only be described as torturous conditions." The Report documented numerous psychiatric studies of individuals held in prolonged isolation which demonstrate "a constellation of symptoms that includes overwhelming anxiety, confusion and hallucination, and sudden violent and self-destructive outbursts." The above-referenced article from the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law states: "Psychological effects can include anxiety, depression, anger, cognitive disturbances, perceptual distortions, obsessive thoughts, paranoia, and psychosis."
When one exacerbates the harms of prolonged isolation with the other deprivations to which Manning is being subjected, long-term psychiatric and even physical impairment is likely. Gawande documents that "EEG studies going back to the nineteen-sixties have shown diffuse slowing of brain waves in prisoners after a week or more of solitary confinement." Medical tests conducted in 1992 on Yugoslavian prisoners subjected to an average of six months of isolation -- roughly the amount to which Manning has now been subjected -- "revealed brain abnormalities months afterward; the most severe were found in prisoners who had endured either head trauma sufficient to render them unconscious or, yes, solitary confinement. Without sustained social interaction, the human brain may become as impaired as one that has incurred a traumatic injury." Gawande's article is filled with horrifying stories of individuals subjected to isolation similar to or even less enduring than Manning's who have succumbed to extreme long-term psychological breakdown.
Manning is barred from communicating with any reporters, even indirectly, so nothing he has said can be quoted here. But David House, a 23-year-old MIT researcher who befriended Manning after his detention (and then had his laptops, camera and cellphone seized (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/11/09/manning) by Homeland Security when entering the U.S.) is one of the few people to have visited Manning several times at Quantico. He describes palpable changes in Manning's physical appearance and behavior just over the course of the several months that he's been visiting him. Like most individuals held in severe isolation, Manning sleeps much of the day, is particularly frustrated by the petty, vindictive denial of a pillow or sheets, and suffers from less and less outdoor time as part of his one-hour daily removal from his cage.
This is why the conditions under which Manning is being detained were once recognized in the U.S. -- and are still recognized in many Western nations -- as not only cruel and inhumane, but torture. More than a century ago, U.S. courts understood that solitary confinement was a barbaric punishment that severely harmed the mental and physical health of those subjected to it. The Supreme Court's 1890 decision in In re Medley (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?friend=%3C%20riend%3E&navby=case&court=us&vol=134&invol=160&pageno=171) noted that as a result of solitary confinement as practiced in the early days of the United States, many "prisoners fell, after even a short confinement, into a semi-fatuous condition . . . and others became violently insane; others still, committed suicide; while those who stood the ordeal better . . . [often] did not recover sufficient mental activity to be of any subsequent service to the community." And in its 1940 decision in Chambers v. Florida (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=309&invol=227), the Court characterized prolonged solitary confinement as "torture" and compared it to "[t]he rack, the thumbscrew, [and] the wheel."
The inhumane treatment of Manning may have international implications as well. There are multiple proceedings now pending (http://www.sacc.org.uk/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=90&catid=29) in the European Union Human Rights Court, brought by "War on Terror" detainees contesting their extradition to the U.S. on the ground that the conditions under which they likely will be held -- particularly prolonged solitary confinement -- violate the European Convention on Human Rights, which (along with the Convention Against Torture) bars EU states from extraditing anyone to any nation where there is a real risk of inhumane and degrading treatment. The European Court of Human Rights has in the past found detention conditions violative of those rights (in Bulgaria) where "the [detainee] spent 23 hours a day alone in his cell; had limited interaction with other prisoners; and was only allowed two visits per month." From the Journal article referenced above:
International treaty bodies and human rights experts, including the Human Rights Committee, the Committee against Torture, and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture, have concluded that solitary confinement may amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. They have specifically criticized supermax confinement in the United States because of the mental suffering it inflicts.
Subjecting a detainee like Manning to this level of prolonged cruel and inhumane detention can thus jeopardize the ability of the U.S. to secure extradition for other prisoners, as these conditions are viewed in much of the civilized world as barbaric. Moreover, because Manning holds dual American and U.K. citizenship (his mother is British), it is possible for British agencies and human rights organizations to assert his consular rights against these oppressive conditions. At least some preliminary efforts are underway in Britain to explore that mechanism as a means of securing more humane treatment for Manning. Whatever else is true, all of this illustrates what a profound departure from international norms is the treatment to which the U.S. Government is subjecting him.
* * * * *
The plight of Manning has largely been overshadowed by the intense media fixation on WikiLeaks, so it's worth underscoring what it is that he's accused of doing and what he said in his own reputed words about these acts. If one believes the authenticity of the highly edited chat logs of Manning's online conversations with Adrian Lamo (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/wikileaks-chat/) that have been released by Wired (that magazine inexcusably continues to conceal large portions of those logs), Manning clearly believed that he was a whistle-blower acting with the noblest of motives, and probably was exactly that. If, for instance, he really is the leaker of the Apache helicopter attack video -- a video which sparked very rare and much-needed realization about the visceral truth of what American wars actually entail -- as well as the war and diplomatic cables revealing substantial (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/iraq-detainee-abuse-torture-saddam) government (http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/12/wikileaks-cable-obama-quashed-torture-investigation) deceit (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/12/09/obama_yemen_saudi_houthi_conflict/index.html), brutality (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69L54J20101024), illegality (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un) and corruption (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101201/ts_nm/us_wikileaks_britain_usa), then he's quite similar to Daniel Ellsberg. Indeed, Ellsberg himself said the very same thing about Manning in June on Democracy Now (http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/17/wikileaks_whistleblowers) in explaining why he considers the Army Private to be a "hero":
The fact is that what Lamo reports Manning is saying has a very familiar and persuasive ring to me. He reports Manning as having said that what he had read and what he was passing on were horrible -- evidence of horrible machinations by the US backdoor dealings throughout the Middle East and, in many cases, as he put it, almost crimes. And let me guess that -- he’s not a lawyer, but I'll guess that what looked to him like crimes are crimes, that he was putting out. We know that he put out, or at least it's very plausible that he put out, the videos that he claimed to Lamo. And that's enough to go on to get them interested in pursuing both him and the other.
And so, what it comes down, to me, is -- and I say throwing caution to the winds here -- is that what I've heard so far of Assange and Manning -- and I haven't met either of them -- is that they are two new heroes of mine.
To see why that's so, just recall some of what Manning purportedly said about why he chose to leak, at least as reflected in the edited chat logs published by Wired:
Lamo: what's your endgame plan, then?. . .
Manning: well, it was forwarded to [WikiLeaks] - and god knows what happens now - hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms - if not, than [sic] we're doomed - as a species - i will officially give up on the society we have if nothing happens - the reaction to the video gave me immense hope; CNN's iReport was overwhelmed; Twitter exploded - people who saw, knew there was something wrong . . . Washington Post sat on the video… David Finkel acquired a copy while embedded out here. . . . - i want people to see the truth… regardless of who they are… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.
if i knew then, what i knew now - kind of thing, or maybe im just young, naive, and stupid . . . im hoping for the former - it cant be the latter - because if it is… were fucking screwed (as a society) - and i dont want to believe that we’re screwed.
Manning described the incident which first made him seriously question the U.S. Government: when he was instructed to work on the case of Iraqi "insurgents" who had been detained for distributing so-called "insurgent" literature which, when Manning had it translated, turned out to be nothing more than "a scholarly critique against PM Maliki":
i had an interpreter read it for me… and when i found out that it was a benign political critique titled "Where did the money go?" and following the corruption trail within the PM’s cabinet… i immediately took that information and *ran* to the officer to explain what was going on… he didn’t want to hear any of it… he told me to shut up and explain how we could assist the FPs in finding *MORE* detainees…
i had always questioned the things worked, and investigated to find the truth… but that was a point where i was a *part* of something… i was actively involved in something that i was completely against…
And Manning explained why he never considered the thought of selling this classified information to a foreign nation for substantial profit or even just secretly transmitting it to foreign powers, as he easily could have done:
Manning: i mean what if i were someone more malicious- i could've sold to russia or china, and made bank?
Lamo: why didn’t you?
Manning: because it's public data
Lamo: i mean, the cables
Manning: it belongs in the public domain -information should be free - it belongs in the public domain - because another state would just take advantage of the information… try and get some edge - if its out in the open… it should be a public good.
That's a whistleblower in the purest and most noble form: discovering government secrets of criminal and corrupt acts and then publicizing them to the world not for profit, not to give other nations an edge, but to trigger "worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms." Given how much Manning has been demonized -- at the same time that he's been rendered silent by the ban on his communication with any media -- it's worthwhile to keep all of that in mind.
But ultimately, what one thinks of Manning's alleged acts is irrelevant to the issue here. The U.S. ought at least to abide by minimal standards of humane treatment in how it detains him. That's true for every prisoner, at all times. But departures from such standards are particularly egregious where, as here, the detainee has merely been accused, but never convicted, of wrongdoing. These inhumane conditions make a mockery of Barack Obama's repeated pledge to end detainee abuse and torture, as prolonged isolation -- exacerbated by these other deprivations -- is at least as damaging, as violative of international legal standards, and almost as reviled around the world, as the waterboard, hypothermia and other Bush-era tactics that caused so much controversy.
What all of this achieves is clear. Having it known that the U.S. could and would disappear people at will to "black sites," assassinate them with unseen drones, imprison them for years without a shred of due process even while knowing (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7092435.ece) they were innocent (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/21/pundits), torture them mercilessly, and in general acts as a lawless and rogue imperial power created a climate of severe intimidation and fear. Who would want to challenge the U.S. Government in any way -- even in legitimate ways -- knowing that it could and would engage in such lawless, violent conduct without any restraints or repercussions?
That is plainly what is going on here. Anyone remotely affiliated with WikiLeaks, including American citizens (and plenty of other government critics), has their property seized and communications stored at the border without so much as a warrant. Julian Assange -- despite never having been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime -- has now spent more than a week in solitary confinement with severe restrictions under what his lawyer calls "Dickensian conditions." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/14/julian-assange-bail-sweden) But Bradley Manning has suffered much worse, and not for a week, but for seven months, with no end in sight. If you became aware of secret information revealing serious wrongdoing, deceit and/or criminality on the part of the U.S. Government, would you -- knowing that you could and likely would be imprisoned under these kinds of repressive, torturous conditions for months on end without so much as a trial: just locked away by yourself 23 hours a day without recourse -- be willing to expose it? That's the climate of fear and intimidation which these inhumane detention conditions are intended to create.
* * * * *
Those wishing to contribute to Bradley Manning's defense fund can do so here (http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/content/view/858/1/). All of those means are reputable, but everyone should carefully read the various options presented in order to decide which one seems best.

UPDATE: I was contacted by Lt. Villiard, who claims there is one factual inaccuracy in what I wrote: specifically, he claims that Manning is not restricted from accessing news or current events during the prescribed time he is permitted to watch television. That is squarely inconsistent with reports from those with first-hand knowledge of Manning's detention, but it's a fairly minor dispute in the scheme of things.

[Ben]

YouTube - Bradley Manning Tortured? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INWRS7jFreI)

[Ben]

Here is the first part of the interview with GLENN GREENWALD:

YouTube - Alleged WikiLeaks Leaker US Army Private Bradley Manning Imprisoned under Inhumane Conditions 1 of 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38XVejFoHsI)

[Ben]

YouTube - PFC Bradley Manning Being Held In Torture Like Conditions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FkDyW3ZM5w)

[Ben]

Here is the first part of the interview with GLENN GREENWALD:

YouTube - Alleged WikiLeaks Leaker US Army Private Bradley Manning Imprisoned under Inhumane Conditions 1 of 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38XVejFoHsI)

Here's the full interview w/ Glenn Greenwald:

YouTube - Glen Greenwald on Julian Assange Release and Bradley Manning - Democracy NOW! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9pXe7nY7U0)

[russtafa]

Let him rot the traitor

[onmyknees]

For those interested in helping in this kid's legal defense, you can go to the following link and click on the donate button:

http://www.bradleymanning.org/

As a background note, Bradley Manning has been charged with leaking government documents that ended up on wikileaks. I'm sure there are some that dislike what he did, but I'm also confident that there are others here (of varying political persuasions) that find what he did to be noble. He's looking at a long time in prison if convicted, and outside legal consul is a necessity for putting forth a thorough defense. Even if you can only give a small amount it will still help.

I'm curious as to your motivation here Burbs. I understand Ben is obsessed with Assange and Manning, and if he could get his hands on secret documents, he'd be on his way to the NY Times editorial board faster than you could snap your fingers. That's his gig...he's either an anarchist or simply doesn't understand the need for government secrets. I don't think he's a bad guy...just naive. I understand on a humanistic level some might muster some compassion for Manning, but it's clear to me he's a disgruntled DADT supporter, and has done much damage to our country. One might be able to make a case for Assange, but not Manning. I know younger people can often times make mistakes, but we're not talking about DUI here...this is stealing confidential government documents and leaking them to the owner of a web site for one reason only. To damage the US. I have compassion for folks struggling in crime ridden neighborhoods trying to raise families, or steel workers that have no hope of returning to work, but I won't be contributing a dime to Manning. He'll never be a free man again. I wouldn't use the word noble in the same sentence with Manning and Assange. Let's ask Ben where the 50K that Assange promised to Manning's defense fund will finally be given. What say you Ben ?????????????? And no copying and pasting allowed.

[Ben]

I, actually, like Ron Paul.... Ron Paul is a constitutionalist. (Albeit I disagree with Ron Paul about free markets. I mean, the financial sector approximated free market conditions and, well, look what happened -- ha! ha!)
And the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Now, well, we can debate whether or not Assange is a journalist.
And, again, Bradley Manning is the ONE who committed the crime. Albeit he hasn't been convicted.
And, as I've said b4, if Assange is guilty of rape he should be thrown in a cage for a very long time.


YouTube - Ron Paul Defends Wikileaks: Don't Kill the Messenger - Change our Foreign Policy! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lcN4uvN_r4&feature=player_embedded)

[Ben]

YouTube - Jane Hamsher: Private Manning Tortured? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXMv6lCHvUM)

[onmyknees]

YouTube - Jane Hamsher: Private Manning Tortured? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXMv6lCHvUM)

I'd like to engage Ben, but I'm not going to even look at that You Tube vid. If it's from the Ed show, it needs to be fact checked 10 ways to Sunday. There's more misinformation and distortions comming from that show than from a KGB double agent.
Go back to the drawing board and get us some reliable info, cause that's not gettin' it !!!!!!!!

[onmyknees]

Ed Schultz Stumbles Into Candor, Reveals Actual Reason for Lack of GOP guests

By Jack Coleman (http://www.newsbusters.org/bios/jack-coleman.html) | December 26, 2010 | 07:55
[/URL]
Ed Schultz, liberal radio host and MSNBC action hero, has a pronounced aversion to Republicans/conservatives/right wingers coming on his cable show.

Why? Depends on when Schultz explains the reason.

Here he was on his radio show this past Monday ([URL="http://media.eyeblast.org/newsbusters/static/2010/12/2010-12-20-XAA-SCHULTZ-SchOnGOP.wav"]audio (http://www.newsbusters.org/bios/jack-coleman.html)) --

You do not see Republican senators on "The Ed Show" on MSNBC. I don't want 'em! I don't want 'em and I'm getting sick of righties on my show anyway. I'm getting sick, I mean, we might have 2011, there might not be any freakin' righties. I'm sick of 'em!
All of a day later, again on his radio show, Schultz let slip the actual reason for his dearth of conservative guests. Turns out that Schultz has sought their company, but, go figure, they're disinclined (audio (http://media.eyeblast.org/newsbusters/static/2010/12/2010-12-21-XAA-SCHULTZ-SchOnGOP.wav)) --

Of course, I don't put right-wing people on that are of any significance. (laughs) Um, 'cause they won't come on the program. And I don't want to talk to 'em anyway.
Schultz discovering his lack of interest in "right-wing people" -- after they turn down his invitations. Those guests were probably sour anyway.

[Ben]

I think we disagree on everything -- ha! ha! ha! And that's okay. We've different opinions... and come from opposite sides of the political spectrum. That's fine.
Our experiences shape our opinions. (What's the saying: a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged.)
Anyway, we disagree. That's fine.
Oh, we both like Mint... -- :)

[Ben]

What About the Others?

Bradley Manning, Solitary Confinement and Selective Outrage

By JEAN CASELLA and JAMES RIDGEWAY

For the past few weeks, progressive online media sources have been alive with outrage against the conditions in which accused Wikileaker Bradley Manning is being held. Manning is in 23-hour-a-day solitary confinement at a Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia, denied sunlight, exercise, possessions, and all but the most limited contact with family and friends. He has now been in isolation for more than seven months. The cruel and inhuman conditions of his detention, first widely publicized by Glenn Greenwald on Salon and expanded upon by others, are now being discussed, lamented, and protested throughout the progressive blogosphere (ourselves included). Few of those taking part in the conversation hesitate to describe Manning's situation as torture.
Meanwhile, here at Solitary Watch (http://solitarywatch.com/), we've been receiving calls and emails from our modest band of readers, all of them saying more or less the same thing: We're glad Bradley Manning's treatment is getting some attention, but what about the tens of thousands of others who are languishing in solitary confinement in U.S. prisons and jails? According to available data, there are some 25,000 inmates in long-term isolation in the nation's supermax prisons, and as many as 80,000 more in solitary in other prisons and jails. Where is the outrage–even among progressives–for these forgotten souls? Where, even, is some acknowledgment of their existence?
A few of the writers who champion Manning have, to be fair, mentioned in passing the widespread use of solitary confinement in the United States. A very few have gone further: One powerful piece by Lynn Parramore on New Deal 2.0, for example, uses the Manning case as an opportunity to document and denounce the brutal realities of solitary confinement. She urges readers to "remember the thousands of people being tortured in American prisons, including Bradley Manning, and let us send our own message back to our government: We are Americans…Most assuredly, we will not accept torture in our name. Not of the accused. Not of the mentally ill. Not even of convicted criminals."
But Parramore's piece is an anomaly. More often, progressive writers–and their readers, if comments are any measure–have gone to some lengths to distinguish Bradley Manning from the masses of other prisoners being held in similar conditions. Whether explicitly or implicitly, they depict Manning as exceptional, and therefore less deserving of his treatment and more worthy of our concern.
Frequently, writers and readers make the point that Manning is being subjected to these condition while he is merely accused , rather than convicted, of a crime. Perhaps they need to be introduced to the 15-year-old boy who, along with several dozen other juveniles, is being held is solitary in a jail in Harris County, Texas, while he awaits trial on a robbery charge. He is one of hundreds–if not thousands–of prisoners being held in pre-trial solitary confinement, for one reason or another, on any given day in America. Most of them lack decent legal representation, or are simply too poor to make bail.
We have also seen articles suggesting that the treatment Manning is receiving is worse than the standard for solitary confinement, since he is deprived even of a pillow or sheets for his bed. Their authors should review the case of the prisoners held in the St. Tammany Parish Jail in rural Louisiana. According to a brief by the Louisiana ACLU, "After the jail determines a prisoner is suicidal, the prisoner is stripped half-naked and placed in a 3′ x 3′ metal cage with no shoes, bed, blanket or toilet…Prisoners report they must curl up on the floor to sleep because the cages are too small to let them lie down. Guards frequently ignore repeated requests to use the bathroom, forcing some desperate people to urinate in discarded containers…People have been reportedly held in these cages for days, weeks, and months." The cells are one-fourth the size mandated by local law for caged dogs.
There is, rightly, concern over the damage being done to Manning's mental health by seven months in solitary. Seldom mentioned is the fact that an estimated one-third to one-half of the residents of America's isolation units suffer from mental illness, and solitary confinement cells have, in effect, become our new asylums. Witness the ACLU of Montana's brief on a 17-year-old mentally ill inmate who "was so traumatized by his deplorable treatment in the Montana State Prison that he twice attempted to kill himself by biting through the skin on his wrist to puncture a vein." During his ten months in solitary confinement, he was tasered, pepper sprayed, and stripped naked in view of other inmates, and "his mental health treatment consists of a prison staff member knocking on his door once a week and asking if he has any concerns."
Finally, many have argued that the nature of Manning's alleged crimes renders him a heroic political prisoner, rather than a "common" criminal. Those who take this line might want to look into the "Communications Management Units" at two federal prisons, where, according to a lawsuit filed last year by the Center for Constitutional Rights, prisoners are placed in extreme isolation "for their constitutionally protected religious beliefs, unpopular political views, or in retaliation for challenging poor treatment or other rights violations in the federal prison system." Or they might investigate the aftermath of the recent prison strike in Georgia, in which several inmates have reportedly been thrown into solitary for leading a nonviolent protest against prison conditions.
All of these cases are "exceptional," but only in that they earned the attention of some journalist or advocate. Most prisoners held in solitary confinement are, by design, silent and silenced. Most of their stories–tens of thousands of them–are never told at all. And solitary confinement is now used as a disciplinary measure of first resort in prisons and jails across the country, so its use is anything but exceptional.
All across America, inmates are placed in isolation for weeks or months not only for fighting with other inmates or guards, but for being "disruptive" or disobeying orders; for being identified as a gang member (often by a prison snitch or the wrong kind of tattoo); or for having contraband, which can include not only a weapon but a joint, a cell phone, or too many postage stamps. In Virginia, a dozen Rastafarians were in solitary for more than a decade because they refused to cut their dreadlocks, in violation of the prison code. In many prisons, juveniles and rape victims are isolated "for their own protection" in conditions identical to those used for punishment. And for more serious crimes, the isolation simply becomes more extreme, and more permanent: In Louisiana, two men convicted of killing a prison guard have been in solitary confinement for 38 years.
Moreover, if solitary confinement is torture–or at the very least, cruel and inhuman punishment–it shouldn't matter what a prisoner has done to end up there. As Lynn Parramore writes, "The placement of human beings in solitary confinement is not a measure of their depravity. It is a measure of our own."
The treatment of Bradley Manning, which has introduced many on the left to the torment of solitary confinement, may present an opportunity for them to measure their own humanity. They might begin by asking themselves whether prison torture is wrong, and worthy of their attention and outrage, only when it is committed against people whose actions they admire.

Jean Casella and James Ridgeway edit Solitary Watch (http://solitarywatch.com/), where this essay originally appeared.

[NYBURBS]

I'm curious as to your motivation here Burbs. I understand Ben is obsessed with Assange and Manning, and if he could get his hands on secret documents, he'd be on his way to the NY Times editorial board faster than you could snap your fingers. That's his gig...he's either an anarchist or simply doesn't understand the need for government secrets. I don't think he's a bad guy...just naive. I understand on a humanistic level some might muster some compassion for Manning, but it's clear to me he's a disgruntled DADT supporter, and has done much damage to our country. One might be able to make a case for Assange, but not Manning. I know younger people can often times make mistakes, but we're not talking about DUI here...this is stealing confidential government documents and leaking them to the owner of a web site for one reason only. To damage the US. I have compassion for folks struggling in crime ridden neighborhoods trying to raise families, or steel workers that have no hope of returning to work, but I won't be contributing a dime to Manning. He'll never be a free man again. I wouldn't use the word noble in the same sentence with Manning and Assange. Let's ask Ben where the 50K that Assange promised to Manning's defense fund will finally be given. What say you Ben ?????????????? And no copying and pasting allowed.

I can understand where you're coming from, I just happen to have a different perspective. I don't see our government as being all that benevolent (thought it is perhaps more benign than many other governments in the world). There has been an unchecked growth of the "national security" infrastructure in this nation for many, many years; and that has only been possible in large part due to ever increasing levels of secrecy.

I see a distinct difference between say, tactical information used in defensive planning and strategic information that is used to make policy decisions. That much of the information that goes toward the former is kept secret is understandable, that so much that informs the latter is kept secret is not acceptable in my view.

What Manning was alleged to have released amounts in large part to strategic information, the kind that should inform public debate. That he will pay a large price for any such disclosure is all but certain; however, that doesn't make his actions evil by default. History is filled with examples of persons pushing back against the status quo and paying a hefty price for it, but hindsight and social change usually lead to a posthumous vindication of their actions.

Lastly, I wouldn't be surprised if he had other motives that lead him to disclose the information. Most whistle blowers have some sort of axe to grind, but that does not change the fact that this disclosure has brought about a much needed debate over the level of secrecy in our government.

[Ben]

Psychologists for Social Responsibility is deeply concerned about the pretrial detention conditions of alleged Wikileaks source PFC Bradley Manning, including solitary confinement for over five months, a forced lack of exercise, and possible sleep deprivation. It has been reported by his attorney and a visitor that Manning's mental health is suffering from his treatment. As a response, PsySR has issued this Open Letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
PsySR Open Letter on PFC
Bradley Manning's Solitary Confinement

January 3, 2011
The Honorable Robert M. Gates
Secretary
100 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301

Dear Mr. Secretary:
Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR) is deeply concerned about the conditions under which PFC Bradley Manning is being held at the Quantico Marine Corps Base in Virginia. It has been reported (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning/index.html) and verified by his attorney (http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2010/12/typical-day-for-pfc-bradley-manning.html) that PFC Manning has been held in solitary confinement since July of 2010. He reportedly is held in his cell for approximately 23 hours a day, a cell approximately six feet wide and twelve feet in length, with a bed, a drinking fountain, and a toilet. For no discernable reason other than punishment, he is forbidden from exercising in his cell and is provided minimal access to exercise outside his cell. Further, despite having virtually nothing to do, he is forbidden to sleep during the day and often has his sleep at night disrupted.
As an organization of psychologists and other mental health professionals, PsySR is aware that solitary confinement can have severely deleterious effects on the psychological well-being of those subjected to it. We therefore call for a revision in the conditions of PFC Manning’s incarceration while he awaits trial, based on the exhaustive documentation and research that have determined that solitary confinement is, at the very least, a form of cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment in violation of U.S. law.
In the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court case Medley, Petitioner, 134 U.S. 1690 (1890), U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Freeman Miller wrote, "A considerable number of the prisoners fell, after even a short confinement, into a semi-fatuous condition, from which it was next to impossible to arouse them, and others became violently insane; others still, committed suicide; while those who stood the ordeal better were not generally reformed, and in most cases did not recover sufficient mental activity to be of any subsequent service to the community." Scientific investigations since 1890 have confirmed in troubling detail the irreversible physiological changes in brain functioning from the trauma of solitary confinement.
As expressed by Dr. Craig Haney (http://cad.sagepub.com/content/49/1/124.abstract), a psychologist and expert in the assessment of institutional environments, “Empirical research on solitary and supermax-like confinement has consistently and unequivocally documented the harmful consequences of living in these kinds of environments . . . Evidence of these negative psychological effects comes from personal accounts, descriptive studies, and systematic research on solitary and supermax-type confinement, conducted over a period of four decades, by researchers from several different continents who had diverse backgrounds and a wide range of professional expertise… [D]irect studies of prison isolation have documented an extremely broad range of harmful psychological reactions. These effects include increases in the following potentially damaging symptoms and problematic behaviors: negative attitudes and affect, insomnia, anxiety, panic, withdrawal, hypersensitivity, ruminations, cognitive dysfunction, hallucinations, loss of control, irritability, aggression, and rage, paranoia, hopelessness, lethargy, depression, a sense of impending emotional breakdown, self-mutilation, and suicidal ideation and behavior” (pp. 130-131, references removed).
Dr. Haney concludes, “To summarize, there is not a single published study of solitary or supermax-like confinement in which non-voluntary confinement lasting for longer than 10 days where participants were unable to terminate their isolation at will that failed to result in negative psychological effects” (p. 132).
We are aware that prison spokesperson First Lieutenant Brian Villiard (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101217/pl_afp/usdiplomacywikileaksinternetmilitaryrights_2010121 7224355) has told AFP that Manning is considered a “maximum confinement detainee,” as he is considered a national security risk. But no such putative risk can justify keeping someone not convicted of a crime in conditions likely to cause serious harm to his mental health. Further, history suggests that solitary confinement, rather than being a rational response to a risk, is more often used as a punishment for someone who is considered to be a member of a despised or “dangerous” group. In any case, PFC Manning has not been convicted of a crime and, under our system of justice, is at this point presumed to be innocent.
The conditions of isolation to which PFC Manning, as well as many other U.S. prisoners are subjected, are sufficiently harsh as to have aroused international concern. The most recent report (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Y9apikqI0CEJ:www.state.gov/documents/organization/133838.pdf+Conclusions+and+recommendations+of+the+ UNITED+NATIONS+Committee+against+Torture&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh-JFdLVxTLmdov13KnmWOFLU_c4EQ7OH7aPMlu9Mi-_SKyzV6vxHQu5wThJ-oW3ZIRmJasAeBfZ078WrE7dHYi5iWztZewbf1d7deawVa6BBni McHMgj18vgxGQb5Dm6ztYonF&sig=AHIEtbQnTLripb66FLKv3rroSVZ45BOIzg&pli=1) of the UN Committee against Torture included in its Conclusions and Recommendations for the United States the following article 36:
"The Committee remains concerned about the extremely harsh regime imposed on detainees in “supermaximum prisons”. The Committee is concerned about the prolonged isolation periods detainees are subjected to, the effect such treatment has on their mental health, and that its purpose may be retribution, in which case it would constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (art. 16).
The State party should review the regime imposed on detainees in “supermaximum prisons”, in particular the practice of prolonged isolation." (Emphasis in original.)
In addition to the needless brutality of the conditions to which PFC Manning is being subjected, PsySR is concerned that the coercive nature of these conditions -- along with their serious psychological effects such as depression, paranoia, or hopelessness -- may undermine his ability to meaningfully cooperate with his defense, undermining his right to a fair trial. Coercive conditions of detention also increase the likelihood of the prisoner “cooperating” in order to improve those circumstances, even to the extent of giving false testimony. Thus, such harsh conditions are counter to the interests of justice.
Given the nature and effects of the solitary confinement to which PFC Manning is being subjected, Mr. Secretary, Psychologists for Social Responsibility calls upon you to rectify the inhumane, harmful, and counterproductive treatment of PFC Bradley Manning immediately.
Sincerely,
Trudy Bond, Ph.D.
Psychologists for Social Responsibility Steering Committee
Stephen Soldz, Ph.D.
President, Psychologists for Social Responsibility
For the Psychologists for Social Responsibility Steering Committee

[Ben]

Bradley Manning could face death: for what? (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/03/manning/index.html)

By Glenn Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/author/glenn_greenwald/index.html)

The U.S. Army yesterday announced (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/us/03manning.html) that it has filed 22 additional charges against Bradley Manning, the Private accused of being the source for hundreds of thousands of documents (as well as this still-striking video (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/05/wikileaks-exposes-video-o_n_525569.html)) published over the last year by WikiLeaks. Most of the charges add little to the ones already filed, but the most serious new charge is for "aiding the enemy," a capital offense under Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm104.htm). Although military prosecutors stated that they intend to seek life imprisonment rather than the death penalty for this alleged crime, the military tribunal is still empowered to sentence Manning to death if convicted.

Article 104 -- which, like all provisions of the UCMJ, applies only to members of the military -- is incredibly broad. Under 104(b) -- almost certainly the provision to be applied (http://opiniojuris.org/2011/03/02/did-bradley-manning-aid-the-enemy-did-the-new-york-times/) -- a person is guilty if he "gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly" (emphasis added), and, if convicted, "shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct." The charge sheet filed by the Army is quite vague and neither indicates what specifically Manning did to violate this provision nor the identity of the "enemy" to whom he is alleged to have given intelligence. There are, as international law professor Kevin Jon Heller notes (http://opiniojuris.org/2011/03/02/did-bradley-manning-aid-the-enemy-did-the-new-york-times/), only two possibilities, and both are disturbing in their own way.
In light of the implicit allegation that Manning transmitted this material to WikiLeaks, it is quite possible that WikiLeaks is the "enemy" referenced by Article 104, i.e., that the U.S. military now openly decrees (as opposed to secretly declaring (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/us/18wiki.html)) that the whistle-blowing group is an "enemy" of the U.S. More likely, the Army will contend that by transmitting classified documents to WikiLeaks for intended publication, Manning "indirectly" furnished those documents to Al Qaeda and the Taliban by enabling those groups to learn their contents. That would mean that it is a capital offense not only to furnish intelligence specifically and intentionally to actual enemies -- the way that, say, Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen were convicted of passing intelligence to the Soviet Union -- but also to act as a whistle-blower by leaking classified information to a newspaper with the intent that it be published to the world. Logically, if one can "aid the enemy" even by leaking to WikiLeaks, then one can also be guilty of this crime by leaking to The New York Times.
The dangers of such a theory are obvious. Indeed, even the military itself recognizes those dangers, as the Military Judges' Handbook specifically requires that if this theory is used -- that one has "aided the enemy" through "indirect" transmission via leaks to a newspaper -- then it must be proven that the "communication was intended to reach the enemy." None of the other ways of violating this provision contain an intent element; recognizing how extreme it is to prosecute someone for "aiding the enemy" who does nothing more than leak to a media outlet, this is the only means of violating Article 104 that imposes an intent requirement.
But does anyone actually believe that Manning's intent was to ensure receipt of this material to the Taliban, as opposed to exposing for the public what he believed to be serious American wrongdoing and to trigger reforms? This new charge would do nothing less than convert whistle-blowing by members of the military into a hanging offense. Indeed, in the purported chat logs between Manning and government informant Adrian Lamo, Lamo asked Manning why he didn't sell this information to a foreign government and get rich off it, and this is what Manning replied:
because it's public data. . . . it belongs in the public domain -information should be free - it belongs in the public domain - because another state would just take advantage of the information… try and get some edge - if its out in the open . . . it should be a public good
This prosecution theory would convert acts of whistle-blowing into a capital offense.
Worse still, whatever Manning's behavior was in terms of "aiding the enemy," that exact same behavior was engaged in by The New York Times, The Guardian, and numerous other newspapers that published these classified documents and thus enabled the Taliban, Al Qaeda and all the other Enemies Du Jour to access them. As Professor Heller put it:
If Manning has aided the enemy, so has any media organization that published the information he allegedly stole. Nothing in Article 104 requires proof that the defendant illegally acquired the information that aided the enemy. As a result, if the mere act of ensuring that harmful information is published on the internet qualifies either as indirectly "giving intelligence to the enemy" (if the military can prove an enemy actually accessed the information) or as indirectly "communicating with the enemy" (because any reasonable person knows that enemies can access information on the internet), there is no relevant factual difference between Manning and a media organization that published the relevant information.
As Heller notes, since the UCMJ applies only to members of the military, newspapers (or WikiLeaks) couldn't actually be charged under Article 104; still, "there is still something profoundly disturbing about the prospect of convicting Manning and sentencing him to life imprisonment [GG: or the death penalty] for doing exactly what media organizations did, as well." It's true that members of the military have legal duties that others do not have -- including the duty not to leak classified information -- but this incredibly expansive interpretation of what it means to "aid the enemy" dangerously encompasses all sorts of legitimate press and speech activities, especially when combined with the Obama administration's escalating war on whistle-blowing and the journalists who expose government secrets (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/02/25/whistleblowers). This is yet another step in infecting the law with doctrines of Endless War and its accompanying mentality.
* * * *
The Manning controversy tracks almost perfectly the one from 40 years ago involving Daniel Ellberg's leak of thousands of pages of the Top Secret Pentagon Papers. Not even Manning's most ardent defenders deny that he broke the law if he was actually the leaker (just as nobody denies that Ellsberg broke the law).
Nonetheless, the notion that Daniel Ellberg's leak was noble and justified has become consecrated orthodoxy among most Democrats, progressives and even among the American media -- because it's very easy to cheer on challenges to authority and political power from four decades earlier, when the targets of the whistle-blowing no longer wield power. Yet even though Manning's actions are so similar to Ellsberg's both in intent and effect -- as Ellsberg himself has repeatedly stated (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/16/daniel-ellsberg-wikileaks_n_797801.html) -- the reaction to Manning is radically different: both because Manning's actions challenge the policy of current authorities who actually wield power now and because it's a Democratic President prosecuting him. That Ellsberg is viewed as a hero while Manning is viewed as a death-deserving villain makes no sense.
It's at least intellectually coherent (though quite misguided) to see both Ellsberg and Manning as criminal demons who deserve to be locked away forever (the same things said now to condemn Manning were said back then about Ellsberg, including from the Supreme Court (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0403_0713_ZC4.html): "revelation of [the Pentagon Papers] will do substantial damage to public interests" (Justice White). But it's incoherent in the extreme to praise Ellsberg while condemning Manning (particularly since everything Manning is accused of leaking bears a much lower secrecy designation than the massive amounts of Top Secret material leaked by Ellsberg).
Critically, if one believes the authenticity of the purported Manning/Lamo chat log snippets selectively released by Wired, then Manning was very clear about why he decided to leak these materials: he sought to trigger worldwide reforms of government wrongdoing exposed by these documents:
Lamo: what's your endgame plan, then?. . .
Manning: well, it was forwarded to [WikiLeaks] - and god knows what happens now - hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms - if not, than [sic] we're doomed - as a species - i will officially give up on the society we have if nothing happens - the reaction to the video gave me immense hope; CNN's iReport was overwhelmed; Twitter exploded - people who saw, knew there was something wrong . . . Washington Post sat on the video… David Finkel acquired a copy while embedded out here. . . . - i want people to see the truth . . . regardless of who they are . . . because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.
This leaves little doubt about Manning's motives. And there is also little doubt that Manning has achieved those ambitious and noble goals on multiple levels. Although the extent is reasonably in dispute, even WikiLeaks' most embittered antagonists -- such as New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/magazine/30Wikileaks-t.html?pagewanted=all) -- acknowledge that the release of the diplomatic cables played some role in the uprising in Tunisia, which in turn sparked similar uprisings of historic significance throughout the Middle East. From Keller:
For those who do not follow these subjects as closely, the stories are an opportunity to learn more. If a project like this makes readers pay attention, think harder, understand more clearly what is being done in their name, then we have performed a public service. And that does not count the impact of these revelations on the people most touched by them. WikiLeaks cables in which American diplomats recount the extravagant corruption of Tunisia's rulers helped fuel a popular uprising that has overthrown the government.
Beyond that, the documents Manning is alleged to have leaked have revealed a wide range of corruption, deceit and illegality (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/24/wikileaks) by government officials around the world (http://www.opendemocracy.net/ryan-gallagher/what-has-wikileaks-ever-taught-us-read-on). They have forced Americans to confront the realities of the wars they endlessly wage and support. And it is virtually impossible to read news articles about any significant event in the Middle East (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/01/wikileaks-cables-shed-light-on-egypts-new-vp-.html) without encountering references to important information revealed by WikiLeaks documents (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=12512519).
In sum, if one believes the allegations and the chat logs, Manning's actions have already led to many of the "reforms" and increased awareness he hoped to achieve. Thus do we have the strange spectacle of Americans cheering on the democratic uprisings in the Middle East and empathizing with the protesters, all while revering American political leaders who for years helped sustained the dictatorships which oppressed them and disdaining those (Manning) who may have played a role in sparking the protests. More revealingly, American political leaders responsible for grave atrocities (like this (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2011/03/nine-boys-and-a-war.html) and this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/06/us-air-strikes-afghan-civilians) and this (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/06/30/accountability)) are treated like peace-loving statesmen (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/10/09/obama) and honored dignitaries (http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/nbc-matt-lauer-george-bush-interview-decision-points-oprah-next-2726011.html), while those who heroically risk their lives to expose and end that wrongdoing (Manning, and Ellsberg before him) are thrown into a cage, threatened with death, and scorned by All Decent People.
Part of what explains that is just the standard authoritarian mindset: even heinous acts committed under sanction of officialdom are treated as inherently legitimate, while those who challenge those authorities are scorned. But there's something broader that accounts for the almost universal disdain directed at Manning: these leaks showed us the true (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2010/0405/Wikileaks-releases-video-depicting-US-forces-killing-of-two-Reuters-journalists-in-Iraq) face (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1263822/WikiLeaks-video-Reuters-journalists-civilians-gunned-US-pilots.html) of American conduct (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/iraq-detainee-abuse-torture-saddam) in the world (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/true-civilian-body-count-iraq). Those who reveal truths which most people would prefer to ignore are typically hated, and are often those most severely punished.

* * * * *
As a reminder: Manning -- convicted of nothing -- continues to be held (http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2011/03/confinement-conditions-persist.html) in 23-hour/day, highly repressive solitary confinement; despite protests from Amnesty International (http://www.allvoices.com/s/event-7975698/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5hbW5lc3R5Lm9yZy9lbi9saWJyYXJ5L2Fzc2 V0L0FNUjUxLzAwNi8yMDExL2VuL2RmNDYzMTU5LTViYTItNDE2 YS04Yjk4LWQ1MmRmMGRjODE3YS9hbXI1MTAwNjIwMTFlbi5wZG Y=), a formal investigation by the U.N.'s top torture official (http://www.newser.com/story/108169/un-launches-probe-into-bradley-manning-torture.html), and the replacement of the brig commander, Manning has been held that way for ten straight months, with no change in sight.

[onmyknees]

Ben....remember what Kevin Bacon said to Tom Cruise when referring to the Jack Nicholson character in the military movie...A Few Good Men? Let me remind you.....

"you're boy's going down Ben, and there's nothing you and Greenwald can do about it"

OK...so I paraphrased a little, but you get the picture !!!!! LMAO

[Ben]

For those interested in helping in this kid's legal defense, you can go to the following link and click on the donate button:

http://www.bradleymanning.org/

As a background note, Bradley Manning has been charged with leaking government documents that ended up on wikileaks. I'm sure there are some that dislike what he did, but I'm also confident that there are others here (of varying political persuasions) that find what he did to be noble. He's looking at a long time in prison if convicted, and outside legal consul is a necessity for putting forth a thorough defense. Even if you can only give a small amount it will still help.

The latest: (And even if you think he's guilty, do you think he should be treated as such? Should a "civilized" society engage in such acts? I mean, again, even if ya think he's guilty and should spend the rest of his life in a cage, well, should he be repeatedly degraded, consistently humiliated? I mean, just have the trial. Find him guilty. And throw away the key.)

YouTube - Bradley Manning Forced to Strip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeHkFWNZZM4)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbzBx88If0g
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeHkFWNZZM4)

[onmyknees]

[QUOTE=Ben;892498]The latest: (And even if you think he's guilty, do you think he should be treated as such? Should a "civilized" society engage in such acts? I mean, again, even if ya think he's guilty and should spend the rest of his life in a cage, well, should he be repeatedly degraded, consistently humiliated? I mean, just have the trial. Find him guilty. And throw away the key.)

YouTube - Bradley Manning Forced to Strip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeHkFWNZZM4)

YouTube - Manning Charged w. Capitol Offense (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbzBx88If0g)


Hey Ben...you and Burbs want to put your $$$$ to good use? Donate to The Wounded Warriors Fund. This guys neither !!

[Ben]

Manning’s Father Condemns Treatment of Imprisoned Son

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/03/brian-manning

[onmyknees]

Manning’s Father Condemns Treatment of Imprisoned Son

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/03/brian-manning

Ben...I know you have a soft spot for Manning, and I'm not a heartless scumbag, but if Manning thought this was going to be a medium security deal with 3 squares and a bunch of buds to play cards with and a window with a view...he was sadly fucking mistaken. You don't do what he did and get to pass go on your way to a reform school !! I'll bet knowing what he knows now....if given a choice, he'd opt to be with a foward platoon in Helmud Province taking his chance dodging IED's ....which is where he probably should have been in the first place!!

[Stavros]

As a non-American I find the treatment of Manning excessive and vindictive: he has been arrested, he has lost his freedom, but he is innocent until proven guilty and has his day in court. What the leaks have exposed is not so much the need for diplomats to have the right to comment on situation in private, but the gulf between their comments and the execution of policy, be it the US UK or other governments. Freedom of Information can only go so far, but the headache facing most democratic governments is how to deal with brutal unelected regimes because they are strategicaly valued, have crucial resources, or because they are neighbours to a perceived enemy-its not easy but as the Middle East is showing, perhaps there is a time when the US, UK, Germany and France should stand up and be counted, and turn their backs on Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and so on. I remember when Mrs Thatcher's govt effectively recognised the Khmer Rouge as the 'legitimate' government of Cambodia because it disapproved of Vietnam's invasion and the government 'it installed' in Phnom Penh -no, there are times when our values must take precedence over policy: Manning was a courageous fool, but the devil is in the detail, thats the real story here.

[russtafa]

hang the bastard

[Ben]

Bradley Manning's military doctors accused over treatment

Ed Pilkington
GuardianUK


WikiLeaks suspect treated cruelly, says rights group, which accuses psychiatrists of 'violating ethical duties'




A leading group of doctors in the US concerned with the ethical treatment of patients has questioned the role of military psychiatrists in Quantico, Virginia, where the suspected WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/bradley-manning) is being subjected to harsh treatment that some call torture.
The advocacy body Physicians for Human Rights (http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/) has sounded the alarm over the role of psychiatrists at the brig in the marine base where Manning has been in custody since last July.
The group sees the psychiatrists as trapped in a situation of "dual loyalty", where their obligations to the military chain of command may conflict with their medical duty to protect their patient.
Christy Fujio, author of a forthcoming report on the issue, said the main concern was that psychiatrists were allowing Manning's continuing solitary confinement.
"Even if they do not officially approve it, by continuing to examine him and report back to the government on his condition, they are effectively taking part in security operations. Their failure to call it what it is, cruel and inhumane treatment, constitutes a violation of their ethical duties as doctors."
Manning has been charged with passing a mountain of digital US state secrets to WikiLeaks. He is under a prevention of injury order, or PoI, that requires him to be kept alone in a cell for 23 hours a day and to be checked every five minutes. Since earlier this month, he has also been stripped naked each night and made to parade in front of officers.
Manning himself says the conditions amount to pre-trial punishment provoked by a sarcastic remark he made to guards.
Last night, Manning's father, Brian, also denounced the way his son is being treated. He told the Frontline programme on US public television: "It's shocking enough that I would come out of our silence as a family and say, 'No, you've crossed a line. This is wrong.'" And he referred to the Guantánamo detention facility for terror suspects, saying: "They worry about people down in a base in Cuba, but here we have someone on our own soil under our own control, and they are treating him in this way".
Official records kept at the brig, released recently by Manning's lawyer, reveal that between last August and January military psychiatrists made no fewer than 16 recommendations to their military commanders that Manning should be taken off the PoI restrictions because he was no threat to himself.
Typical of the entries was that of 29 October 2010, which stated that Manning "was evaluated by the brig psychiatrist and found fit to be removed from prevention of injury classification from a psychiatric standpoint".
Only once in that five-month period did the psychiatrists conclude that the prisoner should be subjected to the restrictions. Despite the clear medical opinion given, brig commanders have repeatedly ignored the advice and retained the harsh regime. That is, Physicians for Human Rights (http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/human-rights) says, an indication the US government is breaking its own clear rules.
The group's Susan McNamara, a doctor who works with victims of torture from other countries, said Manning's treatment appeared to be an extension of the interrogation tactics used against terror suspects in Guantánamo.
"That is a huge problem, as it is designed to break a person down psychologically. Solitary confinement is a form of sensory deprivation, and if you are depriving a person of the human contact they need that can amount to torture." She added: "In the US, if a patient was treated in a psychiatric hospital in the same way the military is treating Manning, the federal government would stamp all over it … [it] is disobeying its own rules."
The controversy has reached to the heart of the Obama administration. This week, state department spokesman PJ Crowley resigned, having called the confinement "ridiculous and stupid" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/13/pj-crowley-resigns-bradley-manning-remarks) and warned it could damage the global standing of the US. Obama himself was forced to defend the regime, saying he had been "assured" by the Pentagon it was in Manning's own interests. While the Quantico psychiatrists are given credit for having consistently argued that Manning should be removed from the current extreme regime, there are serious questions about whether they are doing enough to force change.

[onmyknees]

As a non-American I find the treatment of Manning excessive and vindictive: he has been arrested, he has lost his freedom, but he is innocent until proven guilty and has his day in court. What the leaks have exposed is not so much the need for diplomats to have the right to comment on situation in private, but the gulf between their comments and the execution of policy, be it the US UK or other governments. Freedom of Information can only go so far, but the headache facing most democratic governments is how to deal with brutal unelected regimes because they are strategicaly valued, have crucial resources, or because they are neighbours to a perceived enemy-its not easy but as the Middle East is showing, perhaps there is a time when the US, UK, Germany and France should stand up and be counted, and turn their backs on Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and so on. I remember when Mrs Thatcher's govt effectively recognised the Khmer Rouge as the 'legitimate' government of Cambodia because it disapproved of Vietnam's invasion and the government 'it installed' in Phnom Penh -no, there are times when our values must take precedence over policy: Manning was a courageous fool, but the devil is in the detail, thats the real story here.

My friend...I understand you're not American, so allow me to explain. Manning is a military prisoner. His "rights" insofar as they are rights are provided by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He is not provided the same rights as civilians, and the military is not a democracy. Basically he might not be in the shit nearly as bad had he done this as a civilian. If he was young and unaware of the seriousness of his actions, he sure the hell understands now. In the military we used to say...you don't spit into the wind, you don't tug on superman's cape, and you don't fuck with Uncle Sam.

And courageous? Not hardly. I doubt if courage had a damn thing to do with it. Courage is a Lance Corporal taking fire in Helmud Province and covering his buddies asses. Courage is a 20 year old laying in Walter Reed Hospital with no legs and one arm from an IED and trying to figure out how to make it through the next day. Manning is a gay punk and had a hard on for the military and he was going to get even.

[Stavros]

Fair point about the military thing which I hadn't fully absorbed; but you havent addressed the real issue which is the gulf between what diplomats say and what politicians do -the truth is that the USA and my own government in the UK have literally thrown away trillions of dollars on an unwinnable conflict; soldiers and civilians have died for nothing; a substantial proportion of the population of Afghanistan was illiterate in 2001, 10 years later there has been no advance, and so on. I don't doubt the bravey of soldiers in the field when they are under attack, but they shouldn't even be there. Manning is a fool, whether or not you think exposing yourself to the wrath of 'military justice' is courageous or not, but you are being lied to by politicians, and its your tax dollars which are funding this rather than the badly needed rehabiliation of wounded servicemen and women -court martial the guy and get on with real business.

[onmyknees]

Fair point about the military thing which I hadn't fully absorbed; but you havent addressed the real issue which is the gulf between what diplomats say and what politicians do -the truth is that the USA and my own government in the UK have literally thrown away trillions of dollars on an unwinnable conflict; soldiers and civilians have died for nothing; a substantial proportion of the population of Afghanistan was illiterate in 2001, 10 years later there has been no advance, and so on. I don't doubt the bravey of soldiers in the field when they are under attack, but they shouldn't even be there. Manning is a fool, whether or not you think exposing yourself to the wrath of 'military justice' is courageous or not, but you are being lied to by politicians, and its your tax dollars which are funding this rather than the badly needed rehabiliation of wounded servicemen and women -court martial the guy and get on with real business.


Actually I don't disagree with much of what you've stated........Except for the statement that we're being lied to. Most Americans who make it thier bussiness to understand these conflicts are fully aware of what the price to be paid for being the only world's super power is. Afghanastan was won....the Taliban routed and sent scurrying like the dogs they are. It took the Russians a decade to pack up and leave as losers, and in months we had won a decisive victory. It was one of the most stunning military victories in a century, and done by a handful of special forces, air support in combination with Afghan tribesman. Then we lost our focus and turned to Iraq, and the dogs returned. Trust me when I tell you even conservatives and veterns like me are conflicted over Afghanastan.

[NYBURBS]

My friend...I understand you're not American, so allow me to explain. Manning is a military prisoner. His "rights" insofar as they are rights are provided by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He is not provided the same rights as civilians, and the military is not a democracy. Basically he might not be in the shit nearly as bad had he done this as a civilian.

That's not quite accurate. His trial will be governed by the UCMJ, but he is still suppose to be protected by the same constitutional rights and safeguards as someone outside of the military. The terms of his confinement are unnecessarily harsh, especially considering he has not even been convicted.

[Stavros]

Afghanastan was won....the Taliban routed and sent scurrying like the dogs they are. It took the Russians a decade to pack up and leave as losers, and in months we had won a decisive victory. It was one of the most stunning military victories in a century, and done by a handful of special forces, air support in combination with Afghan tribesman. Then we lost our focus and turned to Iraq, and the dogs returned.

I can't agree with this -the point of contention being the definition of victory. If you mean that the government by the Taliban was routed, you are correct even though by 2001 the Taliban was still not in control of the whole country. It was also the case that even before 9/11 local Afghans were fed up with the 'Arabi' Mujahideen who never went home after 1992, and even Mullah Omar after 9/11 considered handing in Osama bin Laden, so the argument that Afghanistan was always going to be a base for international terrorism was a weak one.

The problem is that the Taliban was not defeated as a social and political movement, after 2001 its members either remained in Afghanistan or migrated to the lawless frontier between Afghanistan and Pakistan to re-group. The inability of the successors to the Taliban to provide stable government, and even a sense of economic improvement plus increasingly outrageous corruption and the destuction of poppy fields was one cause of the resurgence of the Taliban -the corruption has been so bad it has created support for the Taliban where it did not exist before, some of whom want nothing to do with Mulla Omar and the 'diehards' and seek an accommodation with Karzai, some of whom reject it. Another cause has been the need that Pakistan has to prolong the conflict to maintain the flow of US dollars/aid and maintain pressure on India for its own regional interests, indeed the role that Pakistan played in creating the Taliban and maintaining it has re-bounded on its own politics with devastating effect.

The nub of the problem is that none of the governmental stuctures that have been in power since the revolution of 1974 have created statehood or a sense of citizenship; a fundamental weakness in both Soviet and Western Capitalist strategy has been the belief that such a thing can be created if you 'win hearts and minds' with stable government, elections, economic development projects, education and so on, most of which has not materialised anyway because so much of the money advanced for it has disappeared into deep pockets and foreign bank accounts-what you have left is a collection of tribes and other structures, some religious, some regionally based, most of whom despise the Karzai government and foreign armies. Afghanistan has played by its own rules since the British Empire first dug a hole for itself in the 1830s, it beggars belief that we could now be into the Fourth Anglo-Afghan war since then without learning a single lesson -Tony Blair, a man with a mission truly believed he could achieve what no other politician or soldier (including Alexander the Great) could achieve, the kind of pomposity and ill-conceived strategy that has filled too many graves and emptied too many wallets. The point being that in their hearts the diplomats and soldiers know that Afghanistan is lost, they just cant bring themselves to admit it in public, Manning's leaks or no. I don't necessarilly despair of the place, but I dont see any progress taking place in the near future.

[hippifried]

I agree with Stavros on the Afghan assessment.

First: The Soviets weren't fighting the Taliban, as some seem to think. The 2 wars are apples & oranges.

Personally, I don't think we needed to invade. The Taliban had already been routed before any outside troops hit the ground. The invasion itself was counterproductive. It's been almost 10 years, we're still there, & it's still a mess.

I don't see a "Nation of Afghanistan" making it any time in the forseeable future. There's no Afghan nationality, & I don't think anybody who's supposed to know what they're doing over there really gets that. They're tribal, & I see no reason why they shouldn't stay tribal if they want to. The only thing we really have the power to do is put one tribe in charge of the others. That's never worked. Instead of trying to create a nation out of nothing, that the people over there don't seem to want or understand, perhaps we should be trying to mediate a tribal convention to organize a system of treaties or maybe a confederacy. There's one thing that all these tribes seem to have in common. They don't want to be ruled by someone else. They really need to work this out themselves. We can probably help a little, but "hearts & minds" are never won by military occupation. Remaking Afghanistan in our image is a pipe dream, but a confederacy might be attainable in this generation.

[onmyknees]

That's not quite accurate. His trial will be governed by the UCMJ, but he is still suppose to be protected by the same constitutional rights and safeguards as someone outside of the military. The terms of his confinement are unnecessarily harsh, especially considering he has not even been convicted.

Nope...not quite correct sir...
A military detainee is not afforded bail for example, and his right to a speedy trial , although assured is left to the discretion of the military to decide what speedy is...further......


Many rights of the accused familiar in civilian courts are present in military court, but to a much more limited degree. The right against self-incrimination exists, for example, the accused must be informed of the crime, and double jeopardy is prohibited. The Court of Military Appeals has held that all rights afforded civilians are afforded service members, unless the UCMJ expressly overrides a right. As for the votes of the court-martial, the death penalty must be found by a unanimous vote. Other offenses are by a two-thirds vote. Sentences of ten years confinement or more must be agreed by three-fourths of the court.
Civilian courts have no jurisdiction to review military cases, with the sole exception of the Supreme Court, which, in 1984, was given appellate jurisdiction over the Court of Military Appeals. The only remaining exception to this exclusive jurisdiction is the habeas corpus process, in which a civilian court can compel the military to show cause to hold a prisoner.

[onmyknees]

Afghanastan was won....the Taliban routed and sent scurrying like the dogs they are. It took the Russians a decade to pack up and leave as losers, and in months we had won a decisive victory. It was one of the most stunning military victories in a century, and done by a handful of special forces, air support in combination with Afghan tribesman. Then we lost our focus and turned to Iraq, and the dogs returned.

I can't agree with this -the point of contention being the definition of victory. If you mean that the government by the Taliban was routed, you are correct even though by 2001 the Taliban was still not in control of the whole country. It was also the case that even before 9/11 local Afghans were fed up with the 'Arabi' Mujahideen who never went home after 1992, and even Mullah Omar after 9/11 considered handing in Osama bin Laden, so the argument that Afghanistan was always going to be a base for international terrorism was a weak one.

The problem is that the Taliban was not defeated as a social and political movement, after 2001 its members either remained in Afghanistan or migrated to the lawless frontier between Afghanistan and Pakistan to re-group. The inability of the successors to the Taliban to provide stable government, and even a sense of economic improvement plus increasingly outrageous corruption and the destuction of poppy fields was one cause of the resurgence of the Taliban -the corruption has been so bad it has created support for the Taliban where it did not exist before, some of whom want nothing to do with Mulla Omar and the 'diehards' and seek an accommodation with Karzai, some of whom reject it. Another cause has been the need that Pakistan has to prolong the conflict to maintain the flow of US dollars/aid and maintain pressure on India for its own regional interests, indeed the role that Pakistan played in creating the Taliban and maintaining it has re-bounded on its own politics with devastating effect.

The nub of the problem is that none of the governmental stuctures that have been in power since the revolution of 1974 have created statehood or a sense of citizenship; a fundamental weakness in both Soviet and Western Capitalist strategy has been the belief that such a thing can be created if you 'win hearts and minds' with stable government, elections, economic development projects, education and so on, most of which has not materialised anyway because so much of the money advanced for it has disappeared into deep pockets and foreign bank accounts-what you have left is a collection of tribes and other structures, some religious, some regionally based, most of whom despise the Karzai government and foreign armies. Afghanistan has played by its own rules since the British Empire first dug a hole for itself in the 1830s, it beggars belief that we could now be into the Fourth Anglo-Afghan war since then without learning a single lesson -Tony Blair, a man with a mission truly believed he could achieve what no other politician or soldier (including Alexander the Great) could achieve, the kind of pomposity and ill-conceived strategy that has filled too many graves and emptied too many wallets. The point being that in their hearts the diplomats and soldiers know that Afghanistan is lost, they just cant bring themselves to admit it in public, Manning's leaks or no. I don't necessarilly despair of the place, but I dont see any progress taking place in the near future.


"If you mean that the government by the Taliban was routed, you are correct even though by 2001 the Taliban was still not in control of the whole country."

That is what my meaning of victory is....



"The point being that in their hearts the diplomats and soldiers know that Afghanistan is lost, they just cant bring themselves to admit it in public, Manning's leaks or no. I don't necessarilly despair of the place, but I dont see any progress taking place in the near future."

On this point you are dead wrong. Most Marines I know personally feel deeply committed to this war. You're projecting your dislike for the war onto them and that's a huge mistake. It is not uncommon to have critically wounded Marnies recover, and seek special orders to return. You view this in a historical context and from a distance. They live and breath it 24/7. When they tell me it's unwinnable, I'll capitualte....Harry Reid and his assinine statements notwithstanding.

[NYBURBS]

Nope...not quite correct sir...
A military detainee is not afforded bail for example, and his right to a speedy trial , although assured is left to the discretion of the military to decide what speedy is...further......


Many rights of the accused familiar in civilian courts are present in military court, but to a much more limited degree. The right against self-incrimination exists, for example, the accused must be informed of the crime, and double jeopardy is prohibited. The Court of Military Appeals has held that all rights afforded civilians are afforded service members, unless the UCMJ expressly overrides a right. As for the votes of the court-martial, the death penalty must be found by a unanimous vote. Other offenses are by a two-thirds vote. Sentences of ten years confinement or more must be agreed by three-fourths of the court.
Civilian courts have no jurisdiction to review military cases, with the sole exception of the Supreme Court, which, in 1984, was given appellate jurisdiction over the Court of Military Appeals. The only remaining exception to this exclusive jurisdiction is the habeas corpus process, in which a civilian court can compel the military to show cause to hold a prisoner.

They are in the UCMJ because they are required under the Constitution, not merely because Congress decided to enact it. If the Constitution didn't apply at all to members of the military then there would have been no need for the 5th Amendment to exempt the military from one particular clause, namely: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger."

Speedy trail requirements are defined by statute in both civilian and military proceedings, since the Constitution leaves great ambiguity as to what is "speedy."

Bail is a different story, since you're already confined to service in the military anyway, but even the "no bail" issue has been addressed as being problematic.

Long story short, the Congress is empowered to make rules and regulations governing discipline in the military, but those rules are still subject to Constitutional scrutiny. If they made a rule tomorrow that anyone that fails to attend Sunday worship at the base chapel is subject to imprisonment or execution, do you think that there would not be a First Amendment challenge? Like I said, it applies, it just so happens that certain provisions such as speech or bail are restricted due to the nature of service, but torture, due process, freedom of/from religion, etc are all Constitutional guarantees that continue to follow members of the military.

Here's a link to an very old hearing about some of these issues:

www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/const-rights-mil-pers.pdf (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/const-rights-mil-pers.pdf)

The issue with Manning is not that he is being held, nor that they intend to try him, it is that they are subjecting him to unusually harsh treatment in an attempt to punish and/or break him before he has even been convicted, and that is neither acceptable nor constitutional imo.

PS- I know where you got the info for your post from, and it's a really good site, but it's not exactly exhaustive in its analysis or explanation of any particular issue.

[Stavros]

"If you mean that the government by the Taliban was routed, you are correct even though by 2001 the Taliban was still not in control of the whole country."

That is what my meaning of victory is....

Your definition is too narrow -the Taliban were overthrown by force, and their extreme version of Shari'a law has been rejected by most Afghans, but the fact is that the Taliban were not succeeded by an effective government, and both the central govt and many of the localised power centres are so corrupt and inefficient the Taliban have been able to gain support from people and maintain their fighting presence -in addition to which Pakistan is deliberately arming the Taliban to maintain its own agenda, while Iran has also got stuck in having taken in a million refugees and because it suits it to bog down the US/NATO in the field. Petraeus has developed these 'local' power centres but a report in Friday's Independent in the UK claims one of the leaders of a local group has been condemned as a corrupt, violent thug. So in addition to the army, the police, NATO forces and those creepy 'private security' firms, you have warlords and in effect, US-sponsored 'gangs' who are supposed to take on the Taliban in their area -none of this is conducive to state-building, but contributes to an ongoing culture of violence and crime -maybe the soldiers who want to go back can't get anough of the adrenaline, but if they are not producing any practical benefits, whats the point?

[Ben]

That's not quite accurate. His trial will be governed by the UCMJ, but he is still suppose to be protected by the same constitutional rights and safeguards as someone outside of the military. The terms of his confinement are unnecessarily harsh, especially considering he has not even been convicted.

Yep! The military code of justice prohibits holding people in pre-trial detention in a way that's designed to punish them.

[Ben]

Bradley Manning Treatment Reveals Continued Government Complicity in Torture

by Marjorie Cohn (http://www.commondreams.org/marjorie-cohn)

Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, who is facing court-martial for leaking military reports and diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks, is being held in solitary confinement in Quantico brig in Virginia. Each night, he is forced to strip naked and sleep in a gown made of coarse material. He has been made to stand naked in the morning as other inmates walked by and looked. As journalist Lance Tapley documents in his chapter on torture in the supermax prisons in the United States of Torture solitary confinement can lead to hallucinations and suicide; it is considered to be torture. Manning's forced nudity amounts to humiliating and degrading treatment, in violation of U.S. and international law.
Nevertheless, President Barack Obama defended Manning's treatment, saying, "I've actually asked the Pentagon whether or not the procedures . . . are appropriate. They assured me they are." Obama's deference is reminiscent of President George W. Bush, who asked "the most senior legal officers in the U.S. government" to review the interrogation techniques. "They assured me they did not constitute torture," Bush said.
The order for Manning's nudity apparently followed what he described as a sarcastic comment he made to guards after their repeated harassment of him regarding how he was to salute them. Manning said that if he were intent on strangling himself, he could use his underwear or flip-flops.
"In my 40 years of hospital psychiatric practice, I've never heard of something like this," said Dr. Steven Sharfstein, a former president of the American Psychiatric Association. "In some very unusual circumstances, when people are intensely suicidal, you might put them in a hospital gown. ... But it's very, very unusual to be in that kind of suicide watch for this long a period of time."
Sharfstein also was concerned that military officials appeared to defy the recommendations of mental health professionals. "He's been examined by psychiatrists who said he's not suicidal. ... They are making medical judgments in the face of medical evaluations to the contrary," Sharfstein noted.
After State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley criticized Manning's conditions of confinement, the White House forced him to resign. Crowley had said the restrictions were "ridiculous, counterproductive and stupid." It appears that Washington is more intent on sending a message to would-be whistleblowers than on upholding the laws that prohibit torture and abuse.
Torture is commonplace in countries strongly allied with the United States. Vice President Omar Suleiman, Egypt's intelligence chief, was the lynchpin for Egyptian torture when the CIA sent prisoners to Egypt in its extraordinary rendition program. A former CIA agent observed, "If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear - never to see them again - you send them to Egypt." In her chapter in the United States of Torture, New Yorker journalist Jane Mayer cites Egypt as the most common destination for suspects rendered by the United States.
She describes the rendering of Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi to Egypt, where he was tortured and made a false confession that Colin Powell cited as he importuned the Security Council to approve the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Al-Libi later recanted his confession.
Although there is general consensus that torture does not work - the subject will say anything to get the torture to stop - what if it did work? Would that justify torturing people into providing information? Philosopher John Lango's chapter asks whether an extreme emergency can ever trump the absolute prohibition of torture. Lango rejects the nuclear weapon and ticking bomb scenarios as "fantasy" and declares, "Terrorism can never warrant terroristic torment." He suggests a protocol to the Convention against Torture to fortify the moral prohibition of torture and cruel treatment.
The moral equivalence of torture and "one-sided warfare" is explored in Professor Richard Falk's provocative chapter. He contrasts the liberal moral outrage at torture with uncritical acceptance of one-sided warfare. Nations, particularly the United States, inflict horrific pain on primarily non-white people in other countries, but suffer no consequences. Falk draws an analogy between the torture victim and the subjects of one-sided warfare - both are under the total control of the perpetrator. He recommends adherence to international humanitarian law and repudiation of "wars of choice."
In the United States of Torture, an historian, a political scientist, a philosopher, a psychologist, a sociologist, two journalists and eight lawyers detail the complicity of the U.S. government in the torture and cruel treatment of prisoners both at home and abroad, and strategies for accountability. In her compelling preface, Sister Dianna Ortiz describes the unimaginable treatment she endured in 1987 when she was in Guatemala doing missionary work while the United States was supporting the dictatorship there. The first step in changing policy is to understand its history and the motivation behind it. I hope this book will accomplish that goal.

[Ben]

YouTube - Obama Thinks Bradley Manning is Guilty (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwFW0qdJNi8&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL)

[maaarc]

IMHO this what Bradley deserves

[robertlouis]

IMHO this what Bradley deserves

Innocent till proven guilty, eh?

[Faldur]

Innocent till proven guilty, eh?
Just like bin laden.. I remember his trial, it was lengthy but fair.. Or do you have two standards you use?

[robertlouis]

Just like bin laden.. I remember his trial, it was lengthy but fair.. Or do you have two standards you use?

That's hardly proportionate. And the principle still stands. Unless that's yet another principle that the US has tossed aside.

[Ben]

IMHO this what Bradley deserves

I respectfully disagree.
But first he has to be found guilty in a court of law. He hasn't been convicted of anything.
We still don't know if he actually did do it. There has been no trial. None.
And, too, he could indeed face the death penalty if, and I stress if, found guilty. But we must remember that he hasn't been convicted... of anything.

[Ben]

YouTube - ‪Ellsberg: I'm not a traitor... Manning not a traitor‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vQtl4ow8hY)

[Stavros]

The lead story in today's Guardian asks why Manning was even in the armed forces and sent to Iraq when he exhibited such dysfunctional, occasionally violent and threatening behaviour toward others. It also claims there was an astonishing lack of security control which enabled anyone who wanted to access security laptops in Forward Operation Base Hammer.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/27/bradley-manning-wikileaks-mentally-fragile

[hippifried]

The lead story in today's Guardian asks why Manning was even in the armed forces and sent to Iraq when he exhibited such dysfunctional, occasionally violent and threatening behaviour toward others.

& somebody thinks that the army would find those attributes undesirable in a war zone?

[Stavros]

Er...when directed at your own I think so...but there again I have no idea what sort of 'Macho culture' permeates the US Armed Forces...

[hippifried]

Aggressiveness is encouraged, or at least not discouraged. I think that's pretty much universal in armed forces anywhere. Fights break out in the ranks all the time, especially between the different branches. Manning is a little guy. He3 has a chip on his shoulder. So what? As for dysfunction, that's a matter of opinion.

[Ben]

For those interested in helping in this kid's legal defense, you can go to the following link and click on the donate button:

http://www.bradleymanning.org/

As a background note, Bradley Manning has been charged with leaking government documents that ended up on wikileaks. I'm sure there are some that dislike what he did, but I'm also confident that there are others here (of varying political persuasions) that find what he did to be noble. He's looking at a long time in prison if convicted, and outside legal consul is a necessity for putting forth a thorough defense. Even if you can only give a small amount it will still help.

Bradley Manning deserves a medal

The prosecution of the whistleblower and alleged WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning is an exercise in intimidation, not justice




http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Global/content/icons/2011/7/27/1311777611081/glenngreenwald_140x140.jpg (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/glenn-greenwald)


Glenn Greenwald (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/glenn-greenwald)
guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/), Wednesday 14 December 2011 21.00 GMT



http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/12/14/1323890321018/Danielle-Greene-007.jpg Bradley Manning supporters demonstrate outside FBI headquarters in Washington. Photograph: Jacquelyn Martin/AP

After 17 months of pre-trial imprisonment, Bradley Manning (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/bradley-manning), the 23-year-old US army private and accused WikiLeaks source, is finally going to see the inside of a courtroom. This Friday, on an army base in Maryland, the preliminary stage of his military trial will start.
He is accused of leaking to the whistleblowing site hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables, war reports, and the now infamous 2007 video showing a US Apache helicopter in Baghdad gunning down civilians and a Reuters journalist. Though it is Manning who is nominally on trial, these proceedings reveal the US government's fixation with extreme secrecy, covering up its own crimes, and intimidating future whistleblowers.
Since his arrest last May in Iraq, Manning has been treated as one of America's most dastardly traitors. He faces more than 30 charges, including one – "aiding the enemy" – that carries the death penalty (prosecutors will recommend life in prison, but military judges retain discretion to sentence him to die).
The sadistic conditions to which he was subjected for 10 months – intense solitary confinement (http://www.salon.com/2010/12/15/manning_3/), at one point having his clothing seized and being forced (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/world/05manning.html) to stand nude for inspection – became an international scandal for a US president who flamboyantly vowed to end detainee abuse. Amnesty International condemned these conditions (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/24/amnesty-international-condemns-inhumane-treatment-bradley-manning) as "inhumane"; PJ Crowley, a US state department spokesman, was forced to resign (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/44/post/pj-crowley-resigns-after-bradley-manning-comments/2011/03/13/AB1CvgT_blog.html) after denouncing Manning's treatment. Such conduct has been repeatedly cited (http://www.salon.com/2010/12/23/manning_4/singleton/) by the US as human rights violations when engaged in by other countries.
The UN's special rapporteur on torture has complained that his investigation is being obstructed (http://www.bradleymanning.org/news/releases/u-n-torture-investigator-confirms-no-unmonitored-access-to-bradley-manning-condemns-solitary-confinement) by the refusal of Obama officials to permit unmonitored visits with Manning. (Even the Bush administration granted access to the International Red Cross at Guantánamo.) Such treatment is all the more remarkable in light of what Manning actually did, and did not do, if the charges are true. For these leaks have achieved enormous good and little harm.
From the start, US claims about the damage done have been wildly exaggerated, even outright false. After the release of the Afghanistan war logs (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-war-logs), officials accused WikiLeaks of having "blood on their hands", only to admit weeks later (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/28/104404/officials-may-be-overstating-the.html) that they were unaware of a single case of anyone being harmed. That remains true (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/28/104404/officials-may-be-overstating-the.html) today.
Even Robert Gates, the Pentagon chief, mocked alarmism (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/gates-on-leaks-wiki-and-otherwise/) over the diplomatic cables leak as "significantly overwrought", dismissing its impact as "fairly modest". Manning's lawyer is seeking internal government documents that, he insists (http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/29/lawyer-wikileaks-cables-did-little-harm), concluded there was no meaningful harm to US diplomatic relations from the release of any documents. None of the leaked documents were classified at the highest level of secrecy – top secret – but rather bore only low-level classification.
By contrast, the leaks Manning allegedly engineered have generated enormous benefits: precisely the benefits Manning, if the allegations against him are true, sought to achieve. According to chat logs (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/manning-lamo-logs) purportedly between Manning and the informant who turned him in, the private decided to leak these documents after he became disillusioned with the Iraq war. He described how reading classified documents made him, for the first time, aware of the breadth of the corruption and violence committed by his country and allies.
He explained that he wanted the world to know what he had learned: "I want people to see the truth … regardless of who they are … because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public." When asked by the informant why he did not sell the documents to a foreign government for profit, Manning replied that he wanted the information to be publicly known in order to trigger "worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms".
There can be no doubt that these vital goals have been achieved. When WikiLeaks was awarded Australia's most prestigious journalism award last month, the awarding foundation (http://www.walkleys.com/2011winners%23most-outstanding-contribution-to-journalism) described how these disclosures created "more scoops in a year than most journalists could imagine in a lifetime".
By exposing some of the worst atrocities committed by US forces in Iraq, the documents prevented the Iraqi government (http://www.salon.com/2011/10/23/wikileaks_cables_and_the_iraq_war)from agreeing to ongoing legal immunity for US forces, and thus helped bring about the end of the war. Even Bill Keller, the former New York Times executive editor and a harsh WikiLeaks critic, credits (http://ggdrafts.blogspot.com/2011/10/bill-keller-on-wikileaks-cables.html) the release of the cables with shedding light on the corruption of Tunisia's ruling family and thus helping spark the Arab spring.
In sum, the documentsManning is alleged to have released revealed overwhelming deceit, corruption and illegality (http://www.salon.com/2010/12/24/wikileaks_23/) by the world's most powerful political actors. And this is why he has been so harshly treated and punished.
Despite pledging to usher in "the most transparent administration in history", President Obama has been obsessed with prosecuting whistleblowers (http://www.salon.com/2011/05/16/whistleblowers_6); his justice department has prosecuted more of them for "espionage" than all prior administrations combined.
The oppressive treatment of Manning is designed to create a climate of fear, to send a signal to those who in the future discover serious wrongdoing committed in secret by the US: if you're thinking about exposing what you've learned, look at what we did to Manning and think twice. The real crimes exposed by this episode are those committed by the prosecuting parties, not the accused. For what he is alleged to have given the world, Manning deserves gratitude and a medal, not a life in prison.

[hippifried]

Tv Theme Baretta (Sammy Davis Jr) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRa9uhiAPBs)

[KarinaGiselle]

Perhaps this is not related but, I remember seeing a chatlog where Manning confessed to be transgender. I think some info can be found here

http://www.alternet.org/story/151541/are_rumors_accused_wikileaks_source_bradley_mannin g_is_transgender_behind_harsh_treatment

Either way, what he did was wrong, sure, but things are always more complicated than we think, especially with topics like these :(

I hope he gets out.

[Ben]

Transparency lags as Bradley Manning case opens

By JOSH GERSTEIN (http://www.politico.com/reporters/JoshGerstein.html) | 12/16/11 12:51 AM EST

After more than 18 months, the veil on the military's case against Private Bradley Manning is set to be pulled back a bit Friday, as a public legal hearing gets underway into the evidence supporting charges that Manning leaked thousands of classified military reports and diplomatic cables to the online document repository WikiLeaks.
The proceedings against Private First Class Manning since his arrest last May have amounted to a legal black hole, at least on the official record. Aside from two charge sheets listing the preliminary allegations against the Army intelligence analyst, the Army has refused to release any of the legal filings exchanged between the defense and the prosecution, as well as any of the orders issued by military judges or investigating officers assigned to the case.
One notable irony: while Manning is now charged with aiding the enemy through his alleged leaks, there would be far more information placed on the official public record about his case if he actually were the enemy. If Manning were a foreigner held at Guantanamo Bay and facing a military commission, numerous filings about his case would be on a public website that the Pentagon set up earlier this year (http://www.mc.mil/) in response to long-running complaints that the controversial military tribunals lacked transparency because while proceedings were open to the press and human rights observers, the legal motions being discussed were unavailable to the public.
Military law experts say numerous legal filings must have been exchanged in Manning's case by now, especially regarding the protracted delays and their implications for speedy trial rules that apply in the military justice system. One reason for the delay in Manning's case is known: he was referred to a board of mental health experts to determine his competence to stand trial. Army officials announced in April 2011 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/30/us/30brfs-PANELSAYSWIK_BRF.html) that the Rule 706 board had found Manning competent to stand trial.
In recent weeks, Manning's civilian defense lawyer, David Coombs, has released several of the defense's legal filings on his blog (http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/). They include a request for witnesses for the hearing (http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/1211/Wikileaks_suspect_wants_Barack_Obama_Hillary_Clint on_as_witnesses.html) set to begin Friday, including calls for President Barack Obama to discuss a public statement he made that Manning "broke the law." However, one has to assume that the defense is releasing information it considers in Manning's interest to make public rather than the more complete set of facts one might gain from examining the prosecution filings, the defense filings and relevant orders entered by the investigating officer or judge.
POLITICO requested that full set of filings from the Army back in April under the Freedom of Information Act. The Army rejected the request on the grounds that Manning is the subject of an ongoing law enforcement proceeding, notwithstanding the fact that the information requested would be almost always be routinely available in any civilian, state or federal, criminal case in the U.S. Army spokespeople did not respond to follow-up queries about the records this week.
Longtime military law practitioner Eugene Fidell of Yale Law School and the National Institute for Military Justice says obtaining public access to court records is a perennial problem in the military justice system.
"There’s a failure to recognize that transparency in terms of access to the record and public confidence in the administration of justice are inextricably linked…..For a system that struggles to gain respect, this is actually the opposite of the way business should be conducted," Fidell said. "Partly to blame at least is the fact the military does not have standing courts martial. If it did, with proper clerk’s offices with the same dedication to transparency we have in federal [civilian] court, a lot of these issues would go away."
Friday's hearing should produce one milestone of sorts: it will be the first time Manning has been seen in person by reporters since he was arrested last year.
However, ground rules for coverage of Manning's Article 32 session look to be more restrictive than those imposed during a Guantanamo military commission hearing shown to reporters via videolink at the same Maryland base just a few weeks ago. The Army has indicated that reporters attending Manning's session will not be able to post real-time updates or tweets about the proceedings and may only file updates once the court has gone out of session or by being escorted off the base. The wireless internet connection in the filing center will be turned off while the proceedings are underway and restored only after the session breaks, according to the ground rules, which have been protested by the Pentagon Press Association.
In response to a FOIA request earlier this year, the Marine Corps did, after two administrative appeals, provide POLITICO with a sheaf of records on the conditions of Manning's detention at military brig in Quantico, Va. The records showed that, contrary to a public statement from the Pentagon's general counsel, at least one internal inquiry found that Manning's treatment at the brig did not comply with established procedures (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58991.html). The released records also included a single glimpse into the Army's prosecution of Manning: a two-page memo (posted here (http://images.politico.com/global/2011/12/111215_24_25.html)) listing six witnesses and evidence to be presented at a preliminary court hearing in Iraq on July 14, 2010.
The session, known as an Article 32 hearing, never took place. Instead, Manning was flown back to the U.S. and placed in the Quantico brig. Following widespread complaints about his treatment there, the Army moved Manning to Fort Leavenworth, Ks. in April 2011. The session set to get underway Friday at Fort Meade is procedurally the same as the one cancelled in Iraq a year and a half ago. It is to determine whether the evidence warrants the charges being referred to a full, formal court martial.
The two-page memo deletes on privacy grounds various names, including that of the Army Lieutenant Colonel and JAG corps lawyer who was to conduct the July 2010 session.
Fidell says such deletions are a perplexing product of the intersection between FOIA rules and the records of military justice proceedings. (FOIA rules don't apply to civilian courts, whose records are normally directly available to the public.)
When Siobhan Esposito, the wife of an Army Captain who was apparently murdered in his office in Iraq in 2005 asked for the official record of the public court martial where her husband's alleged killer was acquitted, the Army eventually released a partial transcript of the proceedings, but deleted the names, grades, duty positions and other identifying information of Army personnel "below the office director level" including the name of the military judge, the attorneys in the case and witnesses. The deletions were made even though the court martial, held at Fort Bragg, N.C., was open to the public and anyone in the room could have heard and written down the allegedly private details.
“It was crazy…..It was like something right out of the Marx Brothers," Fidell recalled.
Fidell filed suit in January of this year (http://images.politico.com/global/2011/12/espositonimjfoiacomp.pdf) on Esposito's behalf. A couple of months later, the Army agreed to provide the widow with a full transcript of the open sessions of the court martial, with only the street address of one witness deleted. The Army also agreed to pay $2500 (http://images.politico.com/global/2011/12/espositonimjfoiasettlement.pdf) for the legal fees incurred in filing the case.

[Ben]

Interesting. (He also gives mention to how TGs can't enter/join the military.)

Iraq Combat Vet Dan Choi Forcibly Ousted, Barred From Bradley Manning Hearing at Ft. Meade - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbXEWP56uBM)

[Ben]

Perhaps this is not related but, I remember seeing a chatlog where Manning confessed to be transgender. I think some info can be found here

http://www.alternet.org/story/151541/are_rumors_accused_wikileaks_source_bradley_mannin g_is_transgender_behind_harsh_treatment

Either way, what he did was wrong, sure, but things are always more complicated than we think, especially with topics like these :(

I hope he gets out.

He may use that as his defense.... The idea of wanting to change genders.

[Ben]

Santa Claus talks about Bradley Manning... ha ha! It's actually Ray McGovern.... Ray McGovern - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_McGovern)

Ray McGovern Manning Rally - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4174QK1emtQ)

[Ben]

Bradley Manning: Hero, or Traitor?

http://www.zcommunications.org/bradley-manning-hero-or-traitor-by-marjorie-cohn

The intellectual cowardice of Bradley Manning’s critics:

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/24/the_intellectual_cowardice_of_bradley_mannings_cri tics/singleton/

[Ben]

Bradley Manning supporters occupy Obama's offices - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hACYjky57F8)

[notdrunk]

Boohoo. Thanks to Bradley, he released info about Operation Eagle Guardian and the Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative. Two things that the general public don't need to know. Fuck him..not literally.

[Stavros]

Boohoo. Thanks to Bradley, he released info about Operation Eagle Guardian and the Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative. Two things that the general public don't need to know. Fuck him..not literally.

I think you exaggerate -in the first place, Manning had easy access to the material he sent to Wikileaks, exposing the sloppy administration of confidential information, an embarrassment that the US Military can't get over. In the second place, I agree that Manning violated his contract with the military but his treatment by 'the West's' standards has been excessive. In the third place, it is hard to believe that the Russians did not know about Operation Eagle Guardian anyway, even if they no longer pose a Military threat to 'the west' -if indeed they ever did; and finally, the Critical foreign Dependencies Intiative is a secret list of many locations that can be found on Google. But even with the knowledge Israel and the US claims to have of Iran's nuclear power sites there seems to be no way of attacking them and guaranteeing a successful mission.

If you want to cause havoc with the movement of crucial products, blockade the Suez Canal, the Panama Canal and the Straits of Hormuz. If you want to disrupt global communications, knock out ISP's, telephone exchanges, power plants. Blow up the railrway connections that take commuters into large cities like London, Paris, Berlin, New York, Chicago,Moscow, Tokyo, Sydney etc.

I mean, what is it that is being kept secret that should be a secret? That, ultimately is the question that is bigger than either Manning or Assange -and why are these secrets being kept from you?

[hippifried]

Whatever anyone thinks of the subject matter that was released, Manning violated his oath & contract with the US Department of Defense. He knew the consequences of the actions he took & did it anyway. I don't see where he's owed any sympathy.

[Prospero]

Two or things about Assange.

1. The release of some of the Wikileaks material released was utterly irresponsible and had nothing to do with freedom of the media (the names and addresses of Jewish people living in Baghdad for god's sake! An invitation to murder.). 2. There has to be some communications between Government through diplomatic channels which can be held in private. It is not to all our benefits that everything is published. 3. The man is a hypocrite, offering his pious and self important criticism of the west's record on freedom and human rights from the safety of the embassy of Ecuador, a country whose record on theses things is deplorable. 5. He proclaims himself a married man - and sends love to his wife and children from his hiding place - and yet will not face up to the charges levelled at him over his fucking of two different women in Sweden.

I have no respect for him at all.

[Stavros]

Whatever anyone thinks of the subject matter that was released, Manning violated his oath & contract with the US Department of Defense. He knew the consequences of the actions he took & did it anyway. I don't see where he's owed any sympathy.

I agree with what you say, except the last sentence -it has been two years since he was arrested, does it really take so long for the US Military to put someone before a military tribunal? It is the manner in which he is facing justice that seems excessive, but for all I know that is standard procedure in the US military.

I also agree with Prospero on Assange, but what needs to be discussed is what secrets are for and why we are denied access to a lot of government information that is often only concealed to save individuals officials and elected representatives from embarrassment. Yes, governments need to debate the details of policy options without it being leaked to the public -because they are options, not polices being implemented. Yes, names and addresses of individuals ought not to be published -part of the scandal over the behaviour of the Murdoch/Tabloid press concerns them directly or through private detectives paying the police or official bodies like the DVLA for private information on individuals. But if the Palestinian leadership or Fatah is planning to sell-out the people it represents to get any kind of deal with Israel, the Palestininans have a right to know about it, what Wikileaks exposed was a dialogue the Palestinians should have been having with their own people. Freedom of Information is a tricky subject, but its not impossible to draw up guidelines that enable us to know whats going on without compromising 'national security'.

[notdrunk]

I think you exaggerate -in the first place, Manning had easy access to the material he sent to Wikileaks, exposing the sloppy administration of confidential information, an embarrassment that the US Military can't get over. In the second place, I agree that Manning violated his contract with the military but his treatment by 'the West's' standards has been excessive. In the third place, it is hard to believe that the Russians did not know about Operation Eagle Guardian anyway, even if they no longer pose a Military threat to 'the west' -if indeed they ever did; and finally, the Critical foreign Dependencies Intiative is a secret list of many locations that can be found on Google. But even with the knowledge Israel and the US claims to have of Iran's nuclear power sites there seems to be no way of attacking them and guaranteeing a successful mission.

If you want to cause havoc with the movement of crucial products, blockade the Suez Canal, the Panama Canal and the Straits of Hormuz. If you want to disrupt global communications, knock out ISP's, telephone exchanges, power plants. Blow up the railrway connections that take commuters into large cities like London, Paris, Berlin, New York, Chicago,Moscow, Tokyo, Sydney etc.

I mean, what is it that is being kept secret that should be a secret? That, ultimately is the question that is bigger than either Manning or Assange -and why are these secrets being kept from you?

Why would I want to know how to bring down the United States? Or, how NATO is going to defend Eastern Europe from an invasion by Russia? Even WikiLeaks admitted they had to redact some of the information. If I wanted to know those things, I would of enlisted or became a diplomat. I understand there is a reason why certain information is kept secret from the public.

[Stavros]

I think you miss the point -
A) Manning is in clear violation of his contract, its up to the military tribunal to deal with him, but deal with him fairly, I believe that is where the weight of criticism of the military lies.
B) The issue of secrecy as I suggested begs the question -what should remain secret? We were told for decades that the West was under threat from the Communist bloc, be it nuclear strikes or invasion, neither of which was true and most of which many people like me did not believe anyway; and until 9/11 noone believed outsiders would attack the USA at home -it didn't seem possible.

Most of the real stuff that is kept secret that probably should not be is about things like money, and how much the government has spent on Project X whatever that may be. Not sure about the development of a 'secret' policy on a country or region; or the meat of diplomatic messages which are interesting if they show for example that at the same time as feting a foreign government for business reasons the Diplomats think the head of state is a crook. But in a lot of cases, these days, a lot of this stuff is barely secret anyway, which is one reason why Tony Blair held meetings that were not logged and which were not minuted. Important though the topic is, I think there is a lot of hysteria about it, and the campaign around Assange in particular no longer seems to be about Freedom of Information.

[Ben]

Two or things about Assange.

1. The release of some of the Wikileaks material released was utterly irresponsible and had nothing to do with freedom of the media (the names and addresses of Jewish people living in Baghdad for god's sake! An invitation to murder.). 2. There has to be some communications between Government through diplomatic channels which can be held in private. It is not to all our benefits that everything is published. 3. The man is a hypocrite, offering his pious and self important criticism of the west's record on freedom and human rights from the safety of the embassy of Ecuador, a country whose record on theses things is deplorable. 5. He proclaims himself a married man - and sends love to his wife and children from his hiding place - and yet will not face up to the charges levelled at him over his fucking of two different women in Sweden.

I have no respect for him at all.


Julian Assange should indeed face the serious rape allegations in Sweden. And he wants to.
What deeply concerns him is being extradited to the U.S. from Sweden. Where he could face the death penalty. I mean, he'd be treated like Manning. Meaning: be subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment. (And we must remember Sweden is pretty subservient to U.S. power. I mean, they even collaborated with the Germans during World War II.)
Assange did what the New York Times repeatedly does. And did. I mean, the New York Times collaborated with Assange. Why aren't they subject to prosecution??? I mean, we should analogize here. Manning was like, say, Daniel Ellsberg.... And Assange was and did act like the New York Times. He was merely the publisher.
Assange hasn't been charged with anything. Nor have wikileaks. He's strictly wanted for questioning. And has/had even invited Swedish authorities to question him in London. And had even said that he was willing to go to the Swedish embassy for questioning.
Again, Assange nor Wikileaks have been charged, let alone convicted of anything.
I wanted to straighten that out. Again, Assange has not been charged with anything. But if he committed the alleged rape (it seems the condom broke during sex -- but that is the law in Sweden) then he should be punished and punished severely.
Anyway, I see Assange as a journalist. Has Wikileaks made some mistakes in the past? Yes. But he is the antithesis of, say, the New York Times. The Times and other members of the media class serve power, serve state power. Whereas Assange doesn't. Hence he will be vilified and made an absolute pariah in the circles of power. It's understandable.
I mean, one is rewarded for serving power -- which is the case with: Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Obama, Lloyd Blankfein, etc., etc., etc. -- and in our society one receives praise, status etc., etc. when one serves power, powerful institutions and concentrated power. But if you challenge power, well, you're demonized, scorned and end up in an Embassy somewhere in lugubrious London --- :) :) ;)

[fred41]

But if you challenge power, well, you're demonized, scorned and end up in an Embassy somewhere in lugubrious London ---

....and in his case, when you turn out to be an annoying, unlikable individual on top of all that...then most people don't really give a shit.

[Stavros]

Julian Assange should indeed face the serious rape allegations in Sweden. And he wants to.
What deeply concerns him is being extradited to the U.S. from Sweden. Where he could face the death penalty. I mean, he'd be treated like Manning. Meaning: be subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment. (And we must remember Sweden is pretty subservient to U.S. power. I mean, they even collaborated with the Germans during World War II.)
Assange did what the New York Times repeatedly does. And did. I mean, the New York Times collaborated with Assange. Why aren't they subject to prosecution??? I mean, we should analogize here. Manning was like, say, Daniel Ellsberg.... And Assange was and did act like the New York Times. He was merely the publisher.
Assange hasn't been charged with anything. Nor have wikileaks. He's strictly wanted for questioning. And has/had even invited Swedish authorities to question him in London. And had even said that he was willing to go to the Swedish embassy for questioning.
Again, Assange nor Wikileaks have been charged, let alone convicted of anything.
I wanted to straighten that out. Again, Assange has not been charged with anything. But if he committed the alleged rape (it seems the condom broke during sex -- but that is the law in Sweden) then he should be punished and punished severely.
Anyway, I see Assange as a journalist. Has Wikileaks made some mistakes in the past? Yes. But he is the antithesis of, say, the New York Times. The Times and other members of the media class serve power, serve state power. Whereas Assange doesn't. Hence he will be vilified and made an absolute pariah in the circles of power. It's understandable.
I mean, one is rewarded for serving power -- which is the case with: Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Obama, Lloyd Blankfein, etc., etc., etc. -- and in our society one receives praise, status etc., etc. when one serves power, powerful institutions and concentrated power. But if you challenge power, well, you're demonized, scorned and end up in an Embassy somewhere in lugubrious London --- :) :) ;)

1) Sweden was neutral during the Second World War;
2) Sweden does not extradite people committed of crimes to countries where that crime carries the death penalty.

[Ben]

1) Sweden was neutral during the Second World War;
2) Sweden does not extradite people committed of crimes to countries where that crime carries the death penalty.

Not true about Sweden. As this e-article elucidates:

Murky truth of how a neutral Sweden covered up its collaboration with Nazis:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/murky-truth-of-how-a-neutral-sweden-covered-up-its-collaboration-with-nazis-727261.html

[Stavros]

Not true about Sweden. As this e-article elucidates:

Murky truth of how a neutral Sweden covered up its collaboration with Nazis:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/murky-truth-of-how-a-neutral-sweden-covered-up-its-collaboration-with-nazis-727261.html

William Shirer wrote about it in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich in 1960. Alan Bullock in his earlier book Hitler: A Study in Tyranny (1952 second edition 1962) and more recently Ian Kershaw in his two volume study of Hitler (esp vol 2: Nemesis, 2000) both discuss the importance of Sweden's iron ore to the Germans. That Sweden provided the Germans with iron ore, a business that pre-dated the Third Reich is actually proof of their neutrality -to have prevented it would have been a violation of their neutrality and encouraged a German invasion, although the Norwegian campaign sucked in German troops that were needed on the Eastern Front and the Swedes would have fought the Nazis -Sweden was also nervous about the Russian interest in their iron ore/minerals and the strategic benefit of Scandinavia to the security of the USSR, and did not want to change the status quo or compromise their own security by abandoning neutrality and turning the country into a battlefield. And if you think Narvik looks bad for Sweden, you might ask how it was that Churchill got away with another one of his costly blunders.

Sweden also gave refuge to thousands of Jews from Denmark -again because it was neutral and did not take sides. It is not a scandal, it is the price Sweden paid for being neutral. The details of the Swiss record can also be made to look bad, on banking, on the illicit trade in stolen goods, notably paintings looted by the Nazis and so on. And Switzerland also was a refuge for Jews, for escaped prisoners of war, and so on.

Perhaps you need to ask yoursef what neutrality in wartime actually means.

[Ben]

Saving Private Manning:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/12/saving-private-manning/265801/

[Ben]

Bradley Manning Takes ‘Full Responsibility’ for Giving WikiLeaks Huge Government Data Trove:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/02/bradley-manning/

[Ben]

The Dangerous Logic of the Bradley Manning Case:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112554#

[Ben]

Bradley Manning is off limits at SF Gay Pride parade, but corporate sleaze is embraced

A seemingly trivial controversy reveals quite a bit about pervasive political values:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/27/bradley-manning-sf-gay-pride

[Ben]

Why is Manning in jail why Bush and Cheney go free?

Why is Manning in jail why Bush and Cheney go free? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZquFwiafbj8)

[Ben]

US v. Bradley Manning: Being transgender doesn't mean you're unstable

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1x-RTz0wZg

[Ben]

International Law Requried Manning to be a Whistleblower - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_q68bdy4qI)