Bradley Manning

[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 is being subjected to harsh treatment that some call torture.
  The advocacy body Physicians for Human Rights 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 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" 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.