A good summary of the situation here.
And I'm surprised - but not really - that there's not more outrage at this blatant attack on the freedom of information. The criminal actions of our governments effect each and every one of us, after all. Though I suppose that won't matter when we're all just fully indoctrinated, submissive minions of an international police state.
Don't lose sight of why the US is out to get Julian Assange
Ecuador is pressing for a deal that offers justice to Assange's accusers – and essential protection for whistleblowers
Seumas Milne
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 21 August 2012
Considering he made his name with the biggest leak of secret government documents in history, you might imagine there would be at least some residual concern for Julian Assange among those trading in the freedom of information business. But the virulence of British media hostility towards the WikiLeaks founder is now unrelenting.
This is a man, after all, who has yet to be charged, let alone convicted, of anything. But as far as the bulk of the press is concerned, Assange is nothing but a "monstrous narcissist", a bail-jumping "sex pest" and an exhibitionist maniac. After Ecuador granted him political asylum and Assange delivered a "tirade" from its London embassy's balcony, fire was turned on the country's progressive president, Rafael Correa, ludicrously branded a corrupt "dictator" with an "iron grip" on a benighted land.
The ostensible reason for this venom is of course Assange's attempt to resist extradition to Sweden (and onward extradition to the US) over sexual assault allegations – including from newspapers whose record on covering rape and violence against women is shaky, to put it politely. But as the row over his embassy refuge has escalated into a major diplomatic stand-off, with the whole of South America piling in behind Ecuador, such posturing looks increasingly specious.
Can anyone seriously believe the dispute would have gone global, or that the British government would have made its asinine threat to suspend the Ecuadorean embassy's diplomatic status and enter it by force, or that scores of police would have surrounded the building, swarming up and down the fire escape and guarding every window, if it was all about one man wanted for questioning over sex crime allegations in Stockholm?
To get a grip on what is actually going on, rewind to WikiLeaks' explosive release of secret US military reports and hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables two years ago. They disgorged devastating evidence of US war crimes and collusion with death squads in Iraq on an industrial scale, the machinations and lies of America's wars and allies, its illegal US spying on UN officials – as well as a compendium of official corruption and deceit across the world.
WikiLeaks provided fuel for the Arab uprisings. It didn't just deliver information for citizens to hold governments everywhere to account, but crucially opened up the exercise of US global power to democratic scrutiny. Not surprisingly, the US government made clear it regarded WikiLeaks as a serious threat to its interests from the start, denouncing the release of confidential US cables as a "criminal act".
Vice-president Joe Biden has compared Assange to a "hi-tech terrorist". Shock jocks and neocons have called for him to be hunted down and killed. Bradley Manning, the 24-year-old soldier accused of passing the largest trove of US documents to WikiLeaks, who has been held in conditions described as "cruel and inhuman" by the UN special rapporteur on torture, faces up to 52 years in prison.
The US administration yesterday claimed the WikiLeaks founder was trying to deflect attention from his Swedish case by making "wild allegations" about US intentions. But the idea that the threat of US extradition is some paranoid WikiLeaks fantasy is absurd.
A grand jury in Virginia has been preparing a case against Assange and WikiLeaks for espionage, a leak earlier this year suggested that the US government has already issued a secret sealed indictment against Assange, while Australian diplomats have reported that the WikiLeaks founder is the target of an investigation that is "unprecedented both in its scale and its nature".
The US interest in deterring others from following the WikiLeaks path is obvious. And it would be bizarre to expect a state which over the past decade has kidnapped, tortured and illegally incarcerated its enemies, real or imagined, on a global scale – and continues to do so under President Barack Obama – to walk away from what Hillary Clinton described as an "attack on the international community". In the meantime, the US authorities are presumably banking on seeing Assange further discredited in Sweden.
None of that should detract from the seriousness of the rape allegations made against Assange, for which he should clearly answer and, if charges are brought, stand trial. The question is how to achieve justice for the women involved while protecting Assange (and other whistleblowers) from punitive extradition to a legal system that could potentially land him in a US prison cell for decades.
The politicisation of the Swedish case was clear from the initial leak of the allegations to the prosecutor's decision to seek Assange's extradition for questioning – described by a former Stockholm prosecutor as "unreasonable, unfair and disproportionate" – when the authorities have been happy to interview suspects abroad in more serious cases.
And given the context, it's also hardly surprising that sceptics have raised the links with US-funded anti-Cuban opposition groups of one of those making the accusations – or that campaigners such as the London-based Women Against Rape have expressed scepticism at the "unusual zeal" with which rape allegations were pursued against Assange in a country where rape convictions have fallen. The danger, of course, is that the murk around this case plays into a misogynist culture in which rape victims aren't believed.
But why, Assange's critics charge, would he be more likely to be extradited to the US from Sweden than from Britain, Washington's patsy, notorious for its one-sided extradition arrangements. There are specific risks in Sweden – for example, its fast-track "temporary surrender" extradition agreement it has with the US. But the real point is that Assange is in danger of extradition in both countries – which is why Ecuador was right to offer him protection.
The solution is obvious. It's the one that Ecuador is proposing – and that London and Stockholm are resisting. If the Swedish government pledged to block the extradition of Assange to the US for any WikiLeaks-related offence (which it has the power to do) – and Britain agreed not to sanction extradition to a third country once Swedish proceedings are over – then justice could be served. But with loyalty to the US on the line, Assange shouldn't expect to leave the embassy any time soon.
Makes me laugh that so many Americans love to spout about 'freedom' at every opportunity, but when this freedom comes under direct attack from those in power, they have nothing at all to say about it.
Not only that, but a large percentage of the populace are actually siding with those in power, and attacking the whistle-blowers instead.
Makes me wonder what certain people here mean by the word 'freedom'. Seems to me like they're referring to a pre-packaged, controlled 'freedom', that tells you how to live, and what to think. And anything that threatens that cozy little arrangement - such as exposing the crimes of your 'superiors' - is regarded as a dangerous threat that should be neutralized, and/or punished.
Makes me laugh that so many Americans love to spout about 'freedom' at every opportunity, but when this freedom comes under direct attack from those in power, they have nothing at all to say about it.
Not only that, but a large percentage of the populace are actually siding with those in power, and attacking the whistle-blowers instead.
Makes me wonder what certain people here mean by the word 'freedom'. Seems to me like they're referring to a pre-packaged, controlled 'freedom', that tells you how to live, and what to think. And anything that threatens that cozy little arrangement - such as exposing the crimes of your 'superiors' - it's regarded as a dangerous threat that should be neutralized, and/or punished.
yes it would seem those that feel they have an alright living and live in a 'democratic' country and dont have their applecart upset and therefore are happy with their lot arent too defensive of their govt revoking freedoms they think dont affect them directly when in fact they do. theyve got their car , their house,they can basically go wherever they want, theyve got their money to buy what they want, stupid television shows to watch.. they seem to be under the impression their govt is looking after them. so whats the problem? :think:
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
The bizarre, unhealthy, blinding media contempt for Julian Assange
It is possible to protect the rights of the complainants in Sweden and Assange's rights against political persecution, but a vindictive thirst for vengeance is preventing that
Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 22 August 2012
'...There are several obvious reasons why Assange provokes such unhinged media contempt. The most obvious among them is competition: the resentment generated by watching someone outside their profession generate more critical scoops in a year than all other media outlets combined (see this brilliant 2008 post, in the context of the Clintons, about how professional and ego-based competition produces personal hatred like nothing else can).
Other causes are more subtle though substantive. Many journalists (and liberals) like to wear the costume of outsider-insurgent, but are, at their core, devoted institutionalists, faithful believers in the goodness of their society's power centers, and thus resent those (like Assange) who actually and deliberately place themselves outside of it. By putting his own liberty and security at risk to oppose the world's most powerful factions, Assange has clearly demonstrated what happens to real adversarial dissidents and insurgents – they're persecuted, demonized, and threatened, not befriended by and invited to parties within the halls of imperial power – and he thus causes many journalists to stand revealed as posers, servants to power, and courtiers.
Then there's the ideological cause. As one long-time British journalist told me this week when discussing the vitriol of the British press toward Assange: "Nothing delights British former lefties more than an opportunity to defend power while pretending it is a brave stance in defence of a left liberal principle." That's the warped mindset that led to so many of these self-styled liberal journalists to support the attack on Iraq and other acts of Western aggression in the name of liberal values. And it's why nothing triggers their rage like fundamental critiques of, and especially meaningful opposition to, the institutions of power to which they are unfailingly loyal.
* * * * *
In their New York Times op-ed this week, Michael Moore and Oliver Stone correctly argue that it is "the British and Swedish governments that stand in the way of [the sex assault] investigation, not Mr Assange." That's because, they note, Assange has repeatedly offered to be questioned by Swedish authorities in London, or to travel today to Sweden to face those allegations if he could be assured that his doing so would not result in his extradition to the US to face espionage charges.
Time and again, "Correa said Ecuador never intended to stop Assange from facing justice in Sweden. 'What we've asked for is guarantees that he won't be extradited to a third country,' he said." Both Britain and Sweden have steadfastly refused even to discuss any agreement that could safeguard both the rights of the complainants and Assange's rights not to be imprisoned for basic journalism.
These facts – and they are facts – pose a lethal threat to the key false narrative that Assange and his defenders are motivated by a desire to evade his facing the sex assault allegations in Sweden.
Makes me laugh that so many Americans love to spout about 'freedom' at every opportunity, but when this freedom comes under direct attack from those in power, they have nothing at all to say about it.
Not only that, but a large percentage of the populace are actually siding with those in power, and attacking the whistle-blowers instead.
Makes me wonder what certain people here mean by the word 'freedom'. Seems to me like they're referring to a pre-packaged, controlled 'freedom', that tells you how to live, and what to think. And anything that threatens that cozy little arrangement - such as exposing the crimes of your 'superiors' - is regarded as a dangerous threat that should be neutralized, and/or punished.
Yup...freedom until they can be appropriately frightened. Good stuff in this thread, Byrnzie.
Makes me laugh that so many Americans love to spout about 'freedom' at every opportunity, but when this freedom comes under direct attack from those in power, they have nothing at all to say about it.
Not only that, but a large percentage of the populace are actually siding with those in power, and attacking the whistle-blowers instead.
Makes me wonder what certain people here mean by the word 'freedom'. Seems to me like they're referring to a pre-packaged, controlled 'freedom', that tells you how to live, and what to think. And anything that threatens that cozy little arrangement - such as exposing the crimes of your 'superiors' - is regarded as a dangerous threat that should be neutralized, and/or punished.
Them's the rules.
Ironically, you lose a lot of your freedoms when you sign an agreement with the US military to protect freedom.
Those that bleat the loudest about their supposed freedoms are those that should be making the most noise now with regard to Julian Assange and Wikileaks coming under attack from the U.S government.
Instead, they're totally silent.
I think these people need to start replacing the word 'freedom' in their mouths with 'convenience'.
Assange to UN: US is trying to build a 'regime of secrecy'
On Wednesday night, Julian Assange, the creator of Wikileaks, addressed the United Nations General Assembly in an event called "Strengthening Human Rights" from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London where he has been trapped for several months. The event that was hosted by the Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino and gave Assange a platform to draw attention to his case and he emphasized the importance of revealing the truth. Here is that speech.
Assange to UN: US is trying to build a 'regime of secrecy'
On Wednesday night, Julian Assange, the creator of Wikileaks, addressed the United Nations General Assembly in an event called "Strengthening Human Rights" from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London where he has been trapped for several months. The event that was hosted by the Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino and gave Assange a platform to draw attention to his case and he emphasized the importance of revealing the truth. Here is that speech.
Thanks for posting this, Byrnzie. For those that want to skip around, he has some harsh criticisms of our current administration beginning around 8:45.
I read somewhere that Ecuador and Sweden is trying to sort out a deal, so that he does get extradicted to Stockholm, where he'll be taken to the Ecuadorian embassy there and be questioned that way. Hell, tried that way, if charges are laid.
Most sensible solution yet. UK just keeps paying out for a whole lot of police to stand around Knightsbridge doing fuck all.
115 bucks for half a haircut by a novice? I want my money back!
But I'm still curious as to what the "plan" is you were referring to.
I imagine he's referring to the gradual effort by those in power to turn the World into one big police state, where every second of everyone's day is monitored and controlled.
Apple and Twitter are working on it. .... :(
and freakin facebook. Choosing to be montored. Insanity.
Bradley Manning: a tale of liberty lost in America
The US does nothing to punish those guilty of war crimes or Wall Street fraud, yet demonises the whistleblower
Glenn Greenwald
The Guardian, Friday 30 November 2012
Bradley Manning is escorted away from his Article 32 hearing
Over the past two and a half years, all of which he has spent in a military prison, much has been said about Bradley Manning, but nothing has been heard from him. That changed on Thursday, when the 23-year-old US army private accused of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks testified at his court martial proceeding about the conditions of his detention.
The oppressive, borderline-torturous measures to which he was subjected, including prolonged solitary confinement and forced nudity, have been known for some time. A formal UN investigation denounced those conditions as "cruel and inhuman". President Obama's state department spokesman, retired air force colonel PJ Crowley, resigned after publicly condemning Manning's treatment. A prison psychologist testified this week that Manning's conditions were more damaging than those found on death row, or at Guantánamo Bay.
Still, hearing the accused whistleblower's description of this abuse in his own words viscerally conveyed its horror. Reporting from the hearing, the Guardian's Ed Pilkington quoted Manning: "If I needed toilet paper I would stand to attention and shout: 'Detainee Manning requests toilet paper!'" And: "I was authorised to have 20 minutes sunshine, in chains, every 24 hours." Early in his detention, Manning recalled, "I had pretty much given up. I thought I was going to die in this eight by eight animal cage."
The repressive treatment of Bradley Manning is one of the disgraces of Obama's first term, and highlights many of the dynamics shaping his presidency. The president not only defended Manning's treatment but also, as commander-in-chief of the court martial judges, improperly decreed Manning's guilt when he asserted in an interview that he "broke the law".
Worse, Manning is charged not only with disclosing classified information, but also the capital offence of "aiding the enemy", for which the death penalty can be imposed (military prosecutors are requesting "only" life in prison). The government's radical theory is that, although Manning had no intent to do so, the leaked information could have helped al-Qaida, a theory that essentially equates any disclosure of classified information – by any whistleblower, or a newspaper – with treason.
Whatever one thinks of Manning's alleged acts, he appears the classic whistleblower. This information could have been sold for substantial sums to a foreign government or a terror group. Instead he apparently knowingly risked his liberty to show them to the world because – he said when he believed he was speaking in private – he wanted to trigger "worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms".
Compare this aggressive prosecution of Manning to the Obama administration's vigorous efforts to shield Bush-era war crimes and massive Wall Street fraud from all forms of legal accountability. Not a single perpetrator of those genuine crimes has faced court under Obama, a comparison that reflects the priorities and values of US justice.
Then there's the behaviour of Obama's loyalists. Ever since I first reported the conditions of Manning's detention in December 2010, many of them not only cheered that abuse but grotesquely ridiculed concerns about it. Joy-Ann Reid, a former Obama press aide and now a contributor on the progressive network MSNBC, spouted sadistic mockery in response to the report: "Bradley Manning has no pillow?????" With that, she echoed one of the most extreme rightwing websites, RedState, which identically mocked the report: "Give Bradley Manning his pillow and blankie back."
As usual, the US establishment journalists have enabled the government every step of the way. Despite holding themselves out as adversarial watchdogs, nothing provokes their animosity more than someone who effectively challenges government actions.
Typifying this mentality was a CNN interview on Thursday night with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange conducted by Erin Burnett. It was to focus on newly released documents revealing secret efforts by US officials to pressure financial institutions to block WikiLeaks' funding after the group published classified documents allegedly leaked by Manning, a form of extra-legal punishment that should concern everyone, particularly journalists.
But the CNN host was completely uninterested in the dangerous acts of her own government. Instead she repeatedly tried to get Assange to condemn the press policies of Ecuador, a tiny country that – quite unlike the US – exerts no influence beyond its borders. To the mavens of the US watchdog press, Assange and Manning are enemies to be scorned because they did the job that the US press corps refuses to do: namely, bringing transparency to the bad acts of the US government and its allies around the world.
Bradley Manning has bestowed the world with multiple vital benefits. But as his court martial finally reaches its conclusion, one likely to result in the imposition of a long prison term, it appears his greatest gift is this window into America's political soul.
Julian just called Obama a "wolf in sheeps clothing" and I wonder how many sympathizers of Julian who also love Obama, are torn inside. Deep inside they know that Assange is right for doing what he did, however they also think Obama is on the right side of things. HMMMM so now what do they really want to believe deep down inside? They know Obama is all about redistributing wealth from America's rich to the have-nots, but they also believe that Obama's policies of growing the US govt. into a large bullying type force is not the way to go! So now what?
My question is what if Bush or another GOP was President right now? How many more sympathizers would there be for Julian? Would he be 10 times more popular? Was this a bad time for Julian to do his thing? Its nice to see rifts that expose the socialist agendas!
'
Theres no time like the present
A man that stands for nothing....will fall for anything!
Julian just called Obama a "wolf in sheeps clothing" and I wonder how many sympathizers of Julian who also love Obama, are torn inside. Deep inside they know that Assange is right for doing what he did, however they also think Obama is on the right side of things. HMMMM so now what do they really want to believe deep down inside? They know Obama is all about redistributing wealth from America's rich to the have-nots, but they also believe that Obama's policies of growing the US govt. into a large bullying type force is not the way to go! So now what?
My question is what if Bush or another GOP was President right now? How many more sympathizers would there be for Julian? Would he be 10 times more popular? Was this a bad time for Julian to do his thing? Its nice to see rifts that expose the socialist agendas!
'
Sorry to burst you simplistic little black-and-white fantasy, but I don't love Obama, and I'm also not torn inside. I championed Obama in the run-up to the election because he was the lesser of two evils. That's all.
And the material that Wikileaks exposed, and it's importance, has nothing to do with who happened to be President at the time.
like byrnzie, i supported obama as the lesser of 2 evils relating to domestic policy.
yes, my guy won, but i will be the first american man in line to submit the name barak hussein obama to the criminal court at the hague for crimes againt humanity relating to his foreign policy. just as i would be the first gentile in line to submit the name of bibi netanyahu to the same court to face charges of crimes against humanity.
i don't hate obama, rather i move that he must be held accountable just as people like saddam hussein, khadaffi, and george w bush must be held accountable...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
like byrnzie, i supported obama as the lesser of 2 evils relating to domestic policy.
yes, my guy won, but i will be the first american man in line to submit the name barak hussein obama to the criminal court at the hague for crimes againt humanity relating to his foreign policy. just as i would be the first gentile in line to submit the name of bibi netanyahu to the same court to face charges of crimes against humanity.
i don't hate obama, rather i move that he must be held accountable just as people like saddam hussein, khadaffi, and george w bush must be held accountable...
Ok so would you also do the same for Hamas's leader? Taliban leaders? Al Quada leaders? PUTIN? CHAVEZ? cmon now be honest as I think you are honest! Good for you being honest!
Theres no time like the present
A man that stands for nothing....will fall for anything!
Julian just called Obama a "wolf in sheeps clothing" and I wonder how many sympathizers of Julian who also love Obama, are torn inside. Deep inside they know that Assange is right for doing what he did, however they also think Obama is on the right side of things. HMMMM so now what do they really want to believe deep down inside? They know Obama is all about redistributing wealth from America's rich to the have-nots, but they also believe that Obama's policies of growing the US govt. into a large bullying type force is not the way to go! So now what?
My question is what if Bush or another GOP was President right now? How many more sympathizers would there be for Julian? Would he be 10 times more popular? Was this a bad time for Julian to do his thing? Its nice to see rifts that expose the socialist agendas!
'
Sorry to burst you simplistic little black-and-white fantasy, but I don't love Obama, and I'm also not torn inside. I championed Obama in the run-up to the election because he was the lesser of two evils. That's all.
And the material that Wikileaks exposed, and it's importance, has nothing to do with who happened to be President at the time.
Fantasy? I believe the US govt. is pursuing Assange for arrest. Are you routing for the US govt. to arrest Assange? If they get him, although complex, do you wish for prosecution? Or do you route for Assange to keep doing what he is doing?
Lesser of two evils huh? Let me ask you,.....who could possilbly run on the left that is NOT EVIL?
Theres no time like the present
A man that stands for nothing....will fall for anything!
Fantasy? I believe the US govt. is pursuing Assange for arrest. Are you routing for the US govt. to arrest Assange? If they get him, although complex, do you wish for prosecution? Or do you route for Assange to keep doing what he is doing?
Why would I be routing for the U.S government to arrest someone who has relayed important information about the crimes of our governments and military to the World?
Do I wish Assange could be free and that Wikileaks could keep on keeping us informed, and keep doing the job that out paid journalists have failed to do? Yeah, I do.
Fantasy? I believe the US govt. is pursuing Assange for arrest. Are you routing for the US govt. to arrest Assange? If they get him, although complex, do you wish for prosecution? Or do you route for Assange to keep doing what he is doing?
Why would I be routing for the U.S government to arrest someone who has relayed important information about the crimes of our governments and military to the World?
Do I wish Assange could be free and that Wikileaks could keep on keeping us informed, and keep doing the job that out paid journalists have failed to do? Yeah, I do.
Let me ask you,.....who could possilbly run on the left that is NOT EVIL?
I don't know. Why don't you ask Rush Limbaugh, or your five year old sister? Maybe they'll give you the answer you're looking for.
So if you think Obama is slightly less evil than Romney, who out there is NOT evil, if you could choose one person....who would you choose? I dont have a sister and who is Rush Limbaugh?
Theres no time like the present
A man that stands for nothing....will fall for anything!
like byrnzie, i supported obama as the lesser of 2 evils relating to domestic policy.
yes, my guy won, but i will be the first american man in line to submit the name barak hussein obama to the criminal court at the hague for crimes againt humanity relating to his foreign policy. just as i would be the first gentile in line to submit the name of bibi netanyahu to the same court to face charges of crimes against humanity.
i don't hate obama, rather i move that he must be held accountable just as people like saddam hussein, khadaffi, and george w bush must be held accountable...
I'm with these guys, fear. "Love" isn't the first word I think of when I think of Obama nor is "hate".
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Interesting how few people have responded to this thread. I suppose I could be mistaken for thinking the majority of Americans just don't give a shit about the so-called 'freedom' they love spouting about so much.
Like I said before, just what is this 'freedom' I hear mentioned so often? As soon as someone - Bradley Manning - helps expose the crimes of those in power, his 'freedom' gets neutralized, and the people fighting for real freedom - as opposed to imaginary, glossy-lipped, mainstream t.v 'freedom' - are ostracized, verbally and physically abused, and carted off for a lifetime in jail.
And meanwhile, tumbleweed blows across this here political section of the Pearl Jam message board, whilst Bradley Manning's freedoms are stripped away, and those in power rub their fat bellies and puff out their chests.
What freedoms of Bradley were stripped away? He does not play by the same rules as civilians. He falls under the UCMJ. Not only should he be in jail but his NCOs should also face punishment for not removing him from access prior to the incident. He had issues prior to wiki leaks.
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
What freedoms of Bradley were stripped away? He does not play by the same rules as civilians. He falls under the UCMJ. Not only should he be in jail but his NCOs should also face punishment for not removing him from access prior to the incident. He had issues prior to wiki leaks.
What freedoms were stripped away? He's been imprisoned and tortured for the past two years, and faces the rest of his life in prison.
WHO COULD STAND THIS TREATMENT? IF HE HASN'T BEEN MENTALLY BROKEN, WHICH IM CERTAIN HE IS, (WHICH IS WHAT WAS INTENDED AS SO TEACH HIM A LESSON AND ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD EVEN THINK ABOUT DOING THE SAME) I WOULD STILL CONSIDER HIM ONE OF THE TOUGHEST MINDED PERSONS TO EVER WALK THE EARTH. AMAZING, I GO CRAZY JUST READING IT LET ALONE TRYING TO IMAGINE WHAT IT MUST HAVE BEEN LIKE
The defence motion has been redacted in places to hide the identities of the military staff directly responsible for Bradley Manning’s treatment but here are some important extracts from the full document:
PFC Manning has been held in pretrial confinement since 29 May 2010, a total of 791 days. For 265 of these days, PFC Manning was held in conditions tantamount to solitary confinement at the Quantico Brig.
Manning was transported … to the Marine Corps Base Quantico (MCBQ) Pretrial Confinement Facility (PCF) on 29 July 2010. The Duty Brig Supervisor (DBS) reviewed the inmate background summary and completed an initial custody classification determination … The DBS determined that PFC Manning’s score was a “5,” significantly lower than the “12 + Points” normally required for a MAX custody determination. Despite the low score, the DBS chose to override the custody determination and assign PFC Manning to MAX custody.
Following his arrest Bradley Manning was initially held to be a suicide risk and then at risk of self-harm but:
On 27 August 2010, [a psychiatrist] determined that PFC Manning was no longer considered a risk of self-harm and recommended that PFC Manning be taken off of POI status.
In fact PFC Manning was held in both ‘MAX Custody’ and under ‘Prevention of Injury Status’ for the next eight months
Conditions of Detention
During this period, PFC Manning was held in his 6 x 8 cell for 23-24 hours a day. His cell did not have a window or any natural light and he was subject to the following restrictions:
a) PFC Manning was placed in a cell directly in front of the guard post to facilitate his constant monitoring.
b) PFC Manning was awoken at 0500 hours and required to remain awake in his cell from 0500 to 2200 hours.
c) PFC Manning was not permitted to lie down on his rack during the duty day. Nor was PFC Manning permitted to lean his back against the cell wall; he had to sit upright on his rack without any back support.
d) Whenever PFC Manning was moved outside his cell, the entire facility was locked down.
**Redacted****Redacted** describes this as follows,
“While a maximum custody inmate is outside of a secured area, the facility will commence a lockdown until the inmate is returned to a secure area. No other inmates are allowed to move throughout the facility while a maximum custody inmate is outside of a secured area. At no time will maximum custody inmates be outside of a secured area at any time.”
e) Whenever PFC Manning was moved outside his cell, he was shackled with metal hand and leg restraints and accompanied by at least two guards.
f) From 29 July 2010 to 10 December 2010, PFC Manning was permitted only 20 minutes of “sunshine call.” Aside from a 3-5 minute shower, this would be the only time PFC Manning would regularly spend outside his cell. During this sunshine call, he would be brought to a small concrete yard, about half to a third of the size of a basketball court.
PFC Manning would be permitted to walk around the yard in hand and leg shackles, while being accompanied by a Brig guard at his immediate side (the guard would have his hand on PFC Manning’s back). Two to three other guards would also be present observing PFC Manning. PFC Manning would usually walk in figure-eights or some other pattern. He was not permitted to sit down or stay stationary.
g) Initially, Brig guards provided PFC Manning with athletic shoes without laces which would fall off when he attempted to walk. PFC Manning elected to wear boots instead because at least the boots would stay on when he walked.
h) From 10 December 2010 onward, PFC Manning was permitted a one hour recreation call. At this point, the Brig authorized the removal of his hand and leg shackles and PFC Manning was no longer required to be accompanied by a Brig guard at his immediate side.
**Redacted****Redacted**describes PFC Manning’s recreation privileges as follows:
“Because the outdoor recreation area is not a secured area, restraints are not normally removed from maximum custody inmates. All inmates, unless in a SR, POI or disciplinary status are allowed to exercise while in their cells provided that it does not disrupt the good order and discipline of the facility.
Due to the extended period of time that PFC Manning has been in a SR or POI status, and not allowed to exercise within his cell, I authorized PFC Manning’s restraints to be removed while conducting recreation call inside although he is not in a secured area.”
Although PFC Manning was technically “permitted” to use exercise equipment at the gym, most of this equipment was unplugged or broken down. In addition, depending on the guards, they would not permit him to use certain types of equipment (e.g. the chin up bar). So as to avoid any problems with the guards, PFC Manning would usually walk around the room as he had during his sunshine calls. Three or four guards would be monitoring PFC Manning during his recreation call.
i) PFC Manning was only authorized non-contact visits. The non-contact visits were permitted on Saturdays and Sundays between 1200 and 1500 hours by approved visitors. During these visits, he would have to wear his hand and leg restraints.
j) PFC Manning was required to meet his visitors in a small 4 by 6 foot room that was separated with a glass partition. His visits were monitored by the guards and they were audio recorded by the Brig. The recording equipment was added by Army CID after PFC Manning’s transfer to the Quantico Brig.
k) PFC Manning was only permitted non-contact visits with his attorneys. During these visits, he was shackled at the hands and feet.
l) PFC Manning was not permitted any work duty. However, “special quarters work and training reports” were routinely filled out pertaining to PFC Manning (presumably reports generated from observing PFC Manning cleaning his cell).
Additional restrictions due to Prevention of Injury Status
Owing to PFC Manning being placed on continuous POI status, he was subject to the following further restrictions:
a) PFC Manning was subject to constant monitoring; the Brig guards were required to check on him every five minutes by asking him some variation of, “are you okay?” PFC Manning was required to respond in some affirmative manner. Guards were required to make notations every five minutes in a logbook.
b) At night, if the guards could not see him clearly, because he had a blanket over his head or he was curled up towards the wall, they would wake PFC Manning in order to ensure that he was okay.
c) At night, only some of the lights would be turned off. Additionally, there was a fluorescent light in the hall outside PFC Manning’s cell that would stay on at night.
d) PFC Manning was required to receive each of his meals alone in his cell. He was only permitted to eat with a spoon.
e) There were usually no detainees on either side of PFC Manning. If PFC Manning attempted to speak to those detainees that were several cells away from him, the guards would order him to stop speaking.
f) PFC Manning originally was provided with a standard mattress and no pillow. PFC Manning tried to fold the mattress to make a pillow so that he could be more comfortable when sleeping. Brig officials did not like this, so on 15 December 2010 they provided him with a suicide mattress with a built-in pillow. This built-in pillow was only a couple
of inches high and was not really any better than sleeping on a flat mattress.
g) PFC Manning was not permitted regular sheets or blankets. Instead he was provided with a tear-proof security blanket. This blanket was extremely coarse and irritated PFC Manning’s skin. At first, PFC Manning would get rashes and carpet burns on his skin from the blanket. Eventually, his skin became accustomed to the coarseness of the
blanket and he got fewer rashes. The blanket did not keep PFC Manning warm because it did not retain heat and, due to its stiffness, did not contour to his body.
h) PFC Manning was not allowed to have any personal items in his cell.
i) PFC Manning was only allowed to have one book or one magazine at any given time to read. If he was not actively reading, the book or magazine would be taken away from him. Also, the book or magazine would be taken away from him at the end of the day before he went to sleep.
j) For the last month of his confinement at Quantico, PFC Manning was given a pen and five pieces of paper along with his book. However, if he was not actively reading his book and taking notes, these items would be taken away from him.
k) PFC Manning was prevented from exercising in his cell. If he attempted to do push-ups, sit-ups, or any other form of exercise he would be forced to stop.
**Redacted** writes, “inmates are not authorized to cover their entire face with blankets while sleeping. Inmates
are not to be awakened for the purpose of bed checks, however positive identification must be made if no part of an
inmate is visible. The only way for this to be possible is to … awaken the inmate …”
He was also “permitted” one copy of the Brig’s rules and regulations.
l) When PFC Manning went to sleep, he was required to strip down to his underwear and surrender his clothing to the guards.
m) PFC Manning was only permitted hygiene items as needed. PFC Manning would have to request toilet paper every time he wanted to go to the bathroom; at times, he had to wait for guards to provide him with toilet paper.
n) There was no soap in his cell. PFC Manning requested soap to wash his hands after using the bathroom; guards would sometimes get the soap, and sometimes not.
o) PFC Manning was not permitted to wear shoes in his cell.
p) PFC Manning was initially only permitted correspondence time for one hour a day; after 27 October 2010, this was changed to two hours per day.
Multiple Psychiatrists Recommended for Eight Months that PFC Manning Be Downgraded from POI Status
On 18 January 2011 and 5 March 2011, the Brig increased the already onerous restrictions placed on PFC Manning in the following manner:
a) From 18 January 2011 until 20 January 2011, PFC Manning was forced to strip down to his underwear during the day.
b) From 18 January 2011 until 20 January 2011, PFC was forced to sleep naked at night.
c) From 18 January 2011 until 20 January 2011, PFC Manning’s eyeglasses were taken away from him.
d) From 18 January 2011 until 20 January 2011, PFC Manning was not permitted out of his cell and was on 24-hour suicide watch.
e) From 2 March 2011 until 6 March 2011, PFC Manning was forced to surrender all his clothing at night and sleep naked.
f) From 2 March 2011 until 6 March 2011, PFC Manning was forced to surrender his eyeglasses during the day and at night. After 6 March 2011, his eyeglasses were returned to him during the day, but continued to be removed from him at night.
g) On 3 March 2011 until 6 March 2011, PFC Manning forced to stand naked at parade rest where he was in view of multiple guards.
h) From 7 March 2011 onward, PFC Manning was required to wear a heavy and restrictive suicide smock which irritated his skin and, on one occasion, almost choked him.
Order that PFC Manning Would Not Be Downgraded from POI and MAX
On 13 January 2011, **Redacted** and **Redacted**, held a meeting to discuss PFC Manning’s confinement conditions. The current **Redacted**, and his leadership staff were present. So too was the incoming **Redacted**. Along with the Brig leadership, the Brig psychiatrists ****** (**Redacted**) and the Brig Judge Advocate, were also present.
At that meeting, **Redacted** ordered that PFC Manning would be held in maximum custody and POI indefinitely. **Redacted** stated that
“nothing is going to happen to PFC Manning on my watch.”
**Redacted**also said,
“nothing’s going to change. He won’t be able to hurt himself and he won’t be able to get away, and our way of making sure of this is that he will remain on this status indefinitely.”
At this point, **Redacted** got very upset and voiced his concerns. **Redacted** said something to the effect of,
“Sir, I am concerned because if you’re going to do that, maybe you might want to call it something else, because it’s not based on anything from behavioral health.”
In response, **Redacted** said
“We’ll do whatever we want to do. You [the Brig psychiatrists] make your recommendation and I have to make a decision based on everything else.”
**Redacted** responded,
“Then don’t say it’s based on mental health. You can say it’s MAX custody, but just don’t say that we’re somehow involved in this.” ***
**Redacted** said, “That’s what we’re going to do.”
**Redacted** made it clear to those present at the meeting that the decision to keep PFC Manning in MAX and POI was coming from those higher in the chain of command.
(“He indicated that Manning would remain in current status (POI) unless and until he received instructions from higher authority (unnamed).
Repeated pleas for Bradley Manning
Psychologists for Social Responsibility wrote a letter outlining the very harmful effects of prolonged solitary confinement and implored officials to
“rectify the inhumane, harmful, and counterproductive treatment of PFC Manning.”
Department of State spokesman P J Crowley referred publicly to PFC Manning’s conditions of confinement being “ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid.”
He was later fired for this comment. He also said:
Based on 30 years of government experience, if you have to explain why a guy is standing naked in the middle of a jail cell, you have a policy in need of urgent review. The Pentagon was quick to point out that no women were present when he did so, which is completely beside the point.
European leaders urged the United States to allow the United Nations to investigate claims of illegal pretrial punishment.
Concerned citizens called Quantico and organized rallies and marches to bring awareness to PFC Manning’s conditions of confinement.
All these pleas fell upon deaf ears. Quantico continued to hold PFC Manning under MAX and in POI (or under Suicide Risk) for almost nine months.
Juan Mendez, the UN special rapporteur on torture formally accused the US government of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment towards Bradley Manning after a 14-month investigation into his treatment. He concluded that the US military was at least culpable of cruel and inhumane treatment in keeping Manning locked up alone for 23 hours a day over an 11-month period in conditions that he also found might have constituted torture:
“The special rapporteur concludes that imposing seriously punitive conditions of detention on someone who has not been found guilty of any crime is a violation of his right to physical and psychological integrity as well as of his presumption of innocence.”
Defence Request:
In light of the foregoing, the Defense requests this Court dismiss all charges with prejudice owing to the flagrant violation of PFC Manning’s constitutional right to not be punished prior to trial. Should this Court determine that dismissal is not an appropriate remedy, the Defense requests meaningful relief in the form of at least 10-for-1 sentencing credit for the 258 days PFC Manning inappropriately spent in the equivalent of solitary confinement and, if PFC Manning elects to proceed judge-alone, consideration of the unlawful pretrial punishment issue in sentencing.
HRI comment: We regard Bradley Manning as a human rights defender, and now a victim of human rights abuses. He should be released from custody and recognised for the bravery of his service to America and the world, above and beyond the call of duty.
why will it take almost 1000 days to try manning?
what "enemy" did he aid?
why aren't the newspapers that published the leaked info brought up on charges?
why isn't he protected as a "whistle-blower"?
Comments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nqv1DSTVv4
And I'm surprised - but not really - that there's not more outrage at this blatant attack on the freedom of information. The criminal actions of our governments effect each and every one of us, after all. Though I suppose that won't matter when we're all just fully indoctrinated, submissive minions of an international police state.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... et-assange
Don't lose sight of why the US is out to get Julian Assange
Ecuador is pressing for a deal that offers justice to Assange's accusers – and essential protection for whistleblowers
Seumas Milne
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 21 August 2012
Considering he made his name with the biggest leak of secret government documents in history, you might imagine there would be at least some residual concern for Julian Assange among those trading in the freedom of information business. But the virulence of British media hostility towards the WikiLeaks founder is now unrelenting.
This is a man, after all, who has yet to be charged, let alone convicted, of anything. But as far as the bulk of the press is concerned, Assange is nothing but a "monstrous narcissist", a bail-jumping "sex pest" and an exhibitionist maniac. After Ecuador granted him political asylum and Assange delivered a "tirade" from its London embassy's balcony, fire was turned on the country's progressive president, Rafael Correa, ludicrously branded a corrupt "dictator" with an "iron grip" on a benighted land.
The ostensible reason for this venom is of course Assange's attempt to resist extradition to Sweden (and onward extradition to the US) over sexual assault allegations – including from newspapers whose record on covering rape and violence against women is shaky, to put it politely. But as the row over his embassy refuge has escalated into a major diplomatic stand-off, with the whole of South America piling in behind Ecuador, such posturing looks increasingly specious.
Can anyone seriously believe the dispute would have gone global, or that the British government would have made its asinine threat to suspend the Ecuadorean embassy's diplomatic status and enter it by force, or that scores of police would have surrounded the building, swarming up and down the fire escape and guarding every window, if it was all about one man wanted for questioning over sex crime allegations in Stockholm?
To get a grip on what is actually going on, rewind to WikiLeaks' explosive release of secret US military reports and hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables two years ago. They disgorged devastating evidence of US war crimes and collusion with death squads in Iraq on an industrial scale, the machinations and lies of America's wars and allies, its illegal US spying on UN officials – as well as a compendium of official corruption and deceit across the world.
WikiLeaks provided fuel for the Arab uprisings. It didn't just deliver information for citizens to hold governments everywhere to account, but crucially opened up the exercise of US global power to democratic scrutiny. Not surprisingly, the US government made clear it regarded WikiLeaks as a serious threat to its interests from the start, denouncing the release of confidential US cables as a "criminal act".
Vice-president Joe Biden has compared Assange to a "hi-tech terrorist". Shock jocks and neocons have called for him to be hunted down and killed. Bradley Manning, the 24-year-old soldier accused of passing the largest trove of US documents to WikiLeaks, who has been held in conditions described as "cruel and inhuman" by the UN special rapporteur on torture, faces up to 52 years in prison.
The US administration yesterday claimed the WikiLeaks founder was trying to deflect attention from his Swedish case by making "wild allegations" about US intentions. But the idea that the threat of US extradition is some paranoid WikiLeaks fantasy is absurd.
A grand jury in Virginia has been preparing a case against Assange and WikiLeaks for espionage, a leak earlier this year suggested that the US government has already issued a secret sealed indictment against Assange, while Australian diplomats have reported that the WikiLeaks founder is the target of an investigation that is "unprecedented both in its scale and its nature".
The US interest in deterring others from following the WikiLeaks path is obvious. And it would be bizarre to expect a state which over the past decade has kidnapped, tortured and illegally incarcerated its enemies, real or imagined, on a global scale – and continues to do so under President Barack Obama – to walk away from what Hillary Clinton described as an "attack on the international community". In the meantime, the US authorities are presumably banking on seeing Assange further discredited in Sweden.
None of that should detract from the seriousness of the rape allegations made against Assange, for which he should clearly answer and, if charges are brought, stand trial. The question is how to achieve justice for the women involved while protecting Assange (and other whistleblowers) from punitive extradition to a legal system that could potentially land him in a US prison cell for decades.
The politicisation of the Swedish case was clear from the initial leak of the allegations to the prosecutor's decision to seek Assange's extradition for questioning – described by a former Stockholm prosecutor as "unreasonable, unfair and disproportionate" – when the authorities have been happy to interview suspects abroad in more serious cases.
And given the context, it's also hardly surprising that sceptics have raised the links with US-funded anti-Cuban opposition groups of one of those making the accusations – or that campaigners such as the London-based Women Against Rape have expressed scepticism at the "unusual zeal" with which rape allegations were pursued against Assange in a country where rape convictions have fallen. The danger, of course, is that the murk around this case plays into a misogynist culture in which rape victims aren't believed.
But why, Assange's critics charge, would he be more likely to be extradited to the US from Sweden than from Britain, Washington's patsy, notorious for its one-sided extradition arrangements. There are specific risks in Sweden – for example, its fast-track "temporary surrender" extradition agreement it has with the US. But the real point is that Assange is in danger of extradition in both countries – which is why Ecuador was right to offer him protection.
The solution is obvious. It's the one that Ecuador is proposing – and that London and Stockholm are resisting. If the Swedish government pledged to block the extradition of Assange to the US for any WikiLeaks-related offence (which it has the power to do) – and Britain agreed not to sanction extradition to a third country once Swedish proceedings are over – then justice could be served. But with loyalty to the US on the line, Assange shouldn't expect to leave the embassy any time soon.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151232554478465
Not only that, but a large percentage of the populace are actually siding with those in power, and attacking the whistle-blowers instead.
Makes me wonder what certain people here mean by the word 'freedom'. Seems to me like they're referring to a pre-packaged, controlled 'freedom', that tells you how to live, and what to think. And anything that threatens that cozy little arrangement - such as exposing the crimes of your 'superiors' - is regarded as a dangerous threat that should be neutralized, and/or punished.
yes it would seem those that feel they have an alright living and live in a 'democratic' country and dont have their applecart upset and therefore are happy with their lot arent too defensive of their govt revoking freedoms they think dont affect them directly when in fact they do. theyve got their car , their house,they can basically go wherever they want, theyve got their money to buy what they want, stupid television shows to watch.. they seem to be under the impression their govt is looking after them. so whats the problem? :think:
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... a-contempt
The bizarre, unhealthy, blinding media contempt for Julian Assange
It is possible to protect the rights of the complainants in Sweden and Assange's rights against political persecution, but a vindictive thirst for vengeance is preventing that
Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 22 August 2012
'...There are several obvious reasons why Assange provokes such unhinged media contempt. The most obvious among them is competition: the resentment generated by watching someone outside their profession generate more critical scoops in a year than all other media outlets combined (see this brilliant 2008 post, in the context of the Clintons, about how professional and ego-based competition produces personal hatred like nothing else can).
Other causes are more subtle though substantive. Many journalists (and liberals) like to wear the costume of outsider-insurgent, but are, at their core, devoted institutionalists, faithful believers in the goodness of their society's power centers, and thus resent those (like Assange) who actually and deliberately place themselves outside of it. By putting his own liberty and security at risk to oppose the world's most powerful factions, Assange has clearly demonstrated what happens to real adversarial dissidents and insurgents – they're persecuted, demonized, and threatened, not befriended by and invited to parties within the halls of imperial power – and he thus causes many journalists to stand revealed as posers, servants to power, and courtiers.
Then there's the ideological cause. As one long-time British journalist told me this week when discussing the vitriol of the British press toward Assange: "Nothing delights British former lefties more than an opportunity to defend power while pretending it is a brave stance in defence of a left liberal principle." That's the warped mindset that led to so many of these self-styled liberal journalists to support the attack on Iraq and other acts of Western aggression in the name of liberal values. And it's why nothing triggers their rage like fundamental critiques of, and especially meaningful opposition to, the institutions of power to which they are unfailingly loyal.
* * * * *
In their New York Times op-ed this week, Michael Moore and Oliver Stone correctly argue that it is "the British and Swedish governments that stand in the way of [the sex assault] investigation, not Mr Assange." That's because, they note, Assange has repeatedly offered to be questioned by Swedish authorities in London, or to travel today to Sweden to face those allegations if he could be assured that his doing so would not result in his extradition to the US to face espionage charges.
Time and again, "Correa said Ecuador never intended to stop Assange from facing justice in Sweden. 'What we've asked for is guarantees that he won't be extradited to a third country,' he said." Both Britain and Sweden have steadfastly refused even to discuss any agreement that could safeguard both the rights of the complainants and Assange's rights not to be imprisoned for basic journalism.
These facts – and they are facts – pose a lethal threat to the key false narrative that Assange and his defenders are motivated by a desire to evade his facing the sex assault allegations in Sweden.
Yup...freedom until they can be appropriately frightened. Good stuff in this thread, Byrnzie.
Keep in mind it's this administration that you fall all over yourself to defend that is detaining Manning and vigorously pursuing Assange.
Ironically, you lose a lot of your freedoms when you sign an agreement with the US military to protect freedom.
Instead, they're totally silent.
I think these people need to start replacing the word 'freedom' in their mouths with 'convenience'.
On Wednesday night, Julian Assange, the creator of Wikileaks, addressed the United Nations General Assembly in an event called "Strengthening Human Rights" from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London where he has been trapped for several months. The event that was hosted by the Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino and gave Assange a platform to draw attention to his case and he emphasized the importance of revealing the truth. Here is that speech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmQwvgvR1S8
Thanks for posting this, Byrnzie. For those that want to skip around, he has some harsh criticisms of our current administration beginning around 8:45.
Most sensible solution yet. UK just keeps paying out for a whole lot of police to stand around Knightsbridge doing fuck all.
Bradley Manning: a tale of liberty lost in America
The US does nothing to punish those guilty of war crimes or Wall Street fraud, yet demonises the whistleblower
Glenn Greenwald
The Guardian, Friday 30 November 2012
Bradley Manning is escorted away from his Article 32 hearing
Over the past two and a half years, all of which he has spent in a military prison, much has been said about Bradley Manning, but nothing has been heard from him. That changed on Thursday, when the 23-year-old US army private accused of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks testified at his court martial proceeding about the conditions of his detention.
The oppressive, borderline-torturous measures to which he was subjected, including prolonged solitary confinement and forced nudity, have been known for some time. A formal UN investigation denounced those conditions as "cruel and inhuman". President Obama's state department spokesman, retired air force colonel PJ Crowley, resigned after publicly condemning Manning's treatment. A prison psychologist testified this week that Manning's conditions were more damaging than those found on death row, or at Guantánamo Bay.
Still, hearing the accused whistleblower's description of this abuse in his own words viscerally conveyed its horror. Reporting from the hearing, the Guardian's Ed Pilkington quoted Manning: "If I needed toilet paper I would stand to attention and shout: 'Detainee Manning requests toilet paper!'" And: "I was authorised to have 20 minutes sunshine, in chains, every 24 hours." Early in his detention, Manning recalled, "I had pretty much given up. I thought I was going to die in this eight by eight animal cage."
The repressive treatment of Bradley Manning is one of the disgraces of Obama's first term, and highlights many of the dynamics shaping his presidency. The president not only defended Manning's treatment but also, as commander-in-chief of the court martial judges, improperly decreed Manning's guilt when he asserted in an interview that he "broke the law".
Worse, Manning is charged not only with disclosing classified information, but also the capital offence of "aiding the enemy", for which the death penalty can be imposed (military prosecutors are requesting "only" life in prison). The government's radical theory is that, although Manning had no intent to do so, the leaked information could have helped al-Qaida, a theory that essentially equates any disclosure of classified information – by any whistleblower, or a newspaper – with treason.
Whatever one thinks of Manning's alleged acts, he appears the classic whistleblower. This information could have been sold for substantial sums to a foreign government or a terror group. Instead he apparently knowingly risked his liberty to show them to the world because – he said when he believed he was speaking in private – he wanted to trigger "worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms".
Compare this aggressive prosecution of Manning to the Obama administration's vigorous efforts to shield Bush-era war crimes and massive Wall Street fraud from all forms of legal accountability. Not a single perpetrator of those genuine crimes has faced court under Obama, a comparison that reflects the priorities and values of US justice.
Then there's the behaviour of Obama's loyalists. Ever since I first reported the conditions of Manning's detention in December 2010, many of them not only cheered that abuse but grotesquely ridiculed concerns about it. Joy-Ann Reid, a former Obama press aide and now a contributor on the progressive network MSNBC, spouted sadistic mockery in response to the report: "Bradley Manning has no pillow?????" With that, she echoed one of the most extreme rightwing websites, RedState, which identically mocked the report: "Give Bradley Manning his pillow and blankie back."
As usual, the US establishment journalists have enabled the government every step of the way. Despite holding themselves out as adversarial watchdogs, nothing provokes their animosity more than someone who effectively challenges government actions.
Typifying this mentality was a CNN interview on Thursday night with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange conducted by Erin Burnett. It was to focus on newly released documents revealing secret efforts by US officials to pressure financial institutions to block WikiLeaks' funding after the group published classified documents allegedly leaked by Manning, a form of extra-legal punishment that should concern everyone, particularly journalists.
But the CNN host was completely uninterested in the dangerous acts of her own government. Instead she repeatedly tried to get Assange to condemn the press policies of Ecuador, a tiny country that – quite unlike the US – exerts no influence beyond its borders. To the mavens of the US watchdog press, Assange and Manning are enemies to be scorned because they did the job that the US press corps refuses to do: namely, bringing transparency to the bad acts of the US government and its allies around the world.
Bradley Manning has bestowed the world with multiple vital benefits. But as his court martial finally reaches its conclusion, one likely to result in the imposition of a long prison term, it appears his greatest gift is this window into America's political soul.
My question is what if Bush or another GOP was President right now? How many more sympathizers would there be for Julian? Would he be 10 times more popular? Was this a bad time for Julian to do his thing? Its nice to see rifts that expose the socialist agendas!
'
A man that stands for nothing....will fall for anything!
All people need to do more on every level!
Sorry to burst you simplistic little black-and-white fantasy, but I don't love Obama, and I'm also not torn inside. I championed Obama in the run-up to the election because he was the lesser of two evils. That's all.
And the material that Wikileaks exposed, and it's importance, has nothing to do with who happened to be President at the time.
yes, my guy won, but i will be the first american man in line to submit the name barak hussein obama to the criminal court at the hague for crimes againt humanity relating to his foreign policy. just as i would be the first gentile in line to submit the name of bibi netanyahu to the same court to face charges of crimes against humanity.
i don't hate obama, rather i move that he must be held accountable just as people like saddam hussein, khadaffi, and george w bush must be held accountable...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Ok so would you also do the same for Hamas's leader? Taliban leaders? Al Quada leaders? PUTIN? CHAVEZ? cmon now be honest as I think you are honest! Good for you being honest!
A man that stands for nothing....will fall for anything!
All people need to do more on every level!
Fantasy? I believe the US govt. is pursuing Assange for arrest. Are you routing for the US govt. to arrest Assange? If they get him, although complex, do you wish for prosecution? Or do you route for Assange to keep doing what he is doing?
Lesser of two evils huh? Let me ask you,.....who could possilbly run on the left that is NOT EVIL?
A man that stands for nothing....will fall for anything!
All people need to do more on every level!
Why would I be routing for the U.S government to arrest someone who has relayed important information about the crimes of our governments and military to the World?
Do I wish Assange could be free and that Wikileaks could keep on keeping us informed, and keep doing the job that out paid journalists have failed to do? Yeah, I do.
I don't know. Why don't you ask Rush Limbaugh, or your five year old sister? Maybe they'll give you the answer you're looking for.
So if you think Obama is slightly less evil than Romney, who out there is NOT evil, if you could choose one person....who would you choose? I dont have a sister and who is Rush Limbaugh?
A man that stands for nothing....will fall for anything!
All people need to do more on every level!
I'm with these guys, fear. "Love" isn't the first word I think of when I think of Obama nor is "hate".
Why don't you ask Jeeves?
I havent seen him!
A man that stands for nothing....will fall for anything!
All people need to do more on every level!
Like I said before, just what is this 'freedom' I hear mentioned so often? As soon as someone - Bradley Manning - helps expose the crimes of those in power, his 'freedom' gets neutralized, and the people fighting for real freedom - as opposed to imaginary, glossy-lipped, mainstream t.v 'freedom' - are ostracized, verbally and physically abused, and carted off for a lifetime in jail.
And meanwhile, tumbleweed blows across this here political section of the Pearl Jam message board, whilst Bradley Manning's freedoms are stripped away, and those in power rub their fat bellies and puff out their chests.
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
What freedoms were stripped away? He's been imprisoned and tortured for the past two years, and faces the rest of his life in prison.
The defence motion has been redacted in places to hide the identities of the military staff directly responsible for Bradley Manning’s treatment but here are some important extracts from the full document:
PFC Manning has been held in pretrial confinement since 29 May 2010, a total of 791 days. For 265 of these days, PFC Manning was held in conditions tantamount to solitary confinement at the Quantico Brig.
Manning was transported … to the Marine Corps Base Quantico (MCBQ) Pretrial Confinement Facility (PCF) on 29 July 2010. The Duty Brig Supervisor (DBS) reviewed the inmate background summary and completed an initial custody classification determination … The DBS determined that PFC Manning’s score was a “5,” significantly lower than the “12 + Points” normally required for a MAX custody determination. Despite the low score, the DBS chose to override the custody determination and assign PFC Manning to MAX custody.
Following his arrest Bradley Manning was initially held to be a suicide risk and then at risk of self-harm but:
On 27 August 2010, [a psychiatrist] determined that PFC Manning was no longer considered a risk of self-harm and recommended that PFC Manning be taken off of POI status.
In fact PFC Manning was held in both ‘MAX Custody’ and under ‘Prevention of Injury Status’ for the next eight months
Conditions of Detention
During this period, PFC Manning was held in his 6 x 8 cell for 23-24 hours a day. His cell did not have a window or any natural light and he was subject to the following restrictions:
a) PFC Manning was placed in a cell directly in front of the guard post to facilitate his constant monitoring.
b) PFC Manning was awoken at 0500 hours and required to remain awake in his cell from 0500 to 2200 hours.
c) PFC Manning was not permitted to lie down on his rack during the duty day. Nor was PFC Manning permitted to lean his back against the cell wall; he had to sit upright on his rack without any back support.
d) Whenever PFC Manning was moved outside his cell, the entire facility was locked down.
**Redacted****Redacted** describes this as follows,
“While a maximum custody inmate is outside of a secured area, the facility will commence a lockdown until the inmate is returned to a secure area. No other inmates are allowed to move throughout the facility while a maximum custody inmate is outside of a secured area. At no time will maximum custody inmates be outside of a secured area at any time.”
e) Whenever PFC Manning was moved outside his cell, he was shackled with metal hand and leg restraints and accompanied by at least two guards.
f) From 29 July 2010 to 10 December 2010, PFC Manning was permitted only 20 minutes of “sunshine call.” Aside from a 3-5 minute shower, this would be the only time PFC Manning would regularly spend outside his cell. During this sunshine call, he would be brought to a small concrete yard, about half to a third of the size of a basketball court.
PFC Manning would be permitted to walk around the yard in hand and leg shackles, while being accompanied by a Brig guard at his immediate side (the guard would have his hand on PFC Manning’s back). Two to three other guards would also be present observing PFC Manning. PFC Manning would usually walk in figure-eights or some other pattern. He was not permitted to sit down or stay stationary.
g) Initially, Brig guards provided PFC Manning with athletic shoes without laces which would fall off when he attempted to walk. PFC Manning elected to wear boots instead because at least the boots would stay on when he walked.
h) From 10 December 2010 onward, PFC Manning was permitted a one hour recreation call. At this point, the Brig authorized the removal of his hand and leg shackles and PFC Manning was no longer required to be accompanied by a Brig guard at his immediate side.
**Redacted****Redacted**describes PFC Manning’s recreation privileges as follows:
“Because the outdoor recreation area is not a secured area, restraints are not normally removed from maximum custody inmates. All inmates, unless in a SR, POI or disciplinary status are allowed to exercise while in their cells provided that it does not disrupt the good order and discipline of the facility.
Due to the extended period of time that PFC Manning has been in a SR or POI status, and not allowed to exercise within his cell, I authorized PFC Manning’s restraints to be removed while conducting recreation call inside although he is not in a secured area.”
Although PFC Manning was technically “permitted” to use exercise equipment at the gym, most of this equipment was unplugged or broken down. In addition, depending on the guards, they would not permit him to use certain types of equipment (e.g. the chin up bar). So as to avoid any problems with the guards, PFC Manning would usually walk around the room as he had during his sunshine calls. Three or four guards would be monitoring PFC Manning during his recreation call.
i) PFC Manning was only authorized non-contact visits. The non-contact visits were permitted on Saturdays and Sundays between 1200 and 1500 hours by approved visitors. During these visits, he would have to wear his hand and leg restraints.
j) PFC Manning was required to meet his visitors in a small 4 by 6 foot room that was separated with a glass partition. His visits were monitored by the guards and they were audio recorded by the Brig. The recording equipment was added by Army CID after PFC Manning’s transfer to the Quantico Brig.
k) PFC Manning was only permitted non-contact visits with his attorneys. During these visits, he was shackled at the hands and feet.
l) PFC Manning was not permitted any work duty. However, “special quarters work and training reports” were routinely filled out pertaining to PFC Manning (presumably reports generated from observing PFC Manning cleaning his cell).
Additional restrictions due to Prevention of Injury Status
Owing to PFC Manning being placed on continuous POI status, he was subject to the following further restrictions:
a) PFC Manning was subject to constant monitoring; the Brig guards were required to check on him every five minutes by asking him some variation of, “are you okay?” PFC Manning was required to respond in some affirmative manner. Guards were required to make notations every five minutes in a logbook.
b) At night, if the guards could not see him clearly, because he had a blanket over his head or he was curled up towards the wall, they would wake PFC Manning in order to ensure that he was okay.
c) At night, only some of the lights would be turned off. Additionally, there was a fluorescent light in the hall outside PFC Manning’s cell that would stay on at night.
d) PFC Manning was required to receive each of his meals alone in his cell. He was only permitted to eat with a spoon.
e) There were usually no detainees on either side of PFC Manning. If PFC Manning attempted to speak to those detainees that were several cells away from him, the guards would order him to stop speaking.
f) PFC Manning originally was provided with a standard mattress and no pillow. PFC Manning tried to fold the mattress to make a pillow so that he could be more comfortable when sleeping. Brig officials did not like this, so on 15 December 2010 they provided him with a suicide mattress with a built-in pillow. This built-in pillow was only a couple
of inches high and was not really any better than sleeping on a flat mattress.
g) PFC Manning was not permitted regular sheets or blankets. Instead he was provided with a tear-proof security blanket. This blanket was extremely coarse and irritated PFC Manning’s skin. At first, PFC Manning would get rashes and carpet burns on his skin from the blanket. Eventually, his skin became accustomed to the coarseness of the
blanket and he got fewer rashes. The blanket did not keep PFC Manning warm because it did not retain heat and, due to its stiffness, did not contour to his body.
h) PFC Manning was not allowed to have any personal items in his cell.
i) PFC Manning was only allowed to have one book or one magazine at any given time to read. If he was not actively reading, the book or magazine would be taken away from him. Also, the book or magazine would be taken away from him at the end of the day before he went to sleep.
j) For the last month of his confinement at Quantico, PFC Manning was given a pen and five pieces of paper along with his book. However, if he was not actively reading his book and taking notes, these items would be taken away from him.
k) PFC Manning was prevented from exercising in his cell. If he attempted to do push-ups, sit-ups, or any other form of exercise he would be forced to stop.
**Redacted** writes, “inmates are not authorized to cover their entire face with blankets while sleeping. Inmates
are not to be awakened for the purpose of bed checks, however positive identification must be made if no part of an
inmate is visible. The only way for this to be possible is to … awaken the inmate …”
He was also “permitted” one copy of the Brig’s rules and regulations.
l) When PFC Manning went to sleep, he was required to strip down to his underwear and surrender his clothing to the guards.
m) PFC Manning was only permitted hygiene items as needed. PFC Manning would have to request toilet paper every time he wanted to go to the bathroom; at times, he had to wait for guards to provide him with toilet paper.
n) There was no soap in his cell. PFC Manning requested soap to wash his hands after using the bathroom; guards would sometimes get the soap, and sometimes not.
o) PFC Manning was not permitted to wear shoes in his cell.
p) PFC Manning was initially only permitted correspondence time for one hour a day; after 27 October 2010, this was changed to two hours per day.
Multiple Psychiatrists Recommended for Eight Months that PFC Manning Be Downgraded from POI Status
On 18 January 2011 and 5 March 2011, the Brig increased the already onerous restrictions placed on PFC Manning in the following manner:
a) From 18 January 2011 until 20 January 2011, PFC Manning was forced to strip down to his underwear during the day.
b) From 18 January 2011 until 20 January 2011, PFC was forced to sleep naked at night.
c) From 18 January 2011 until 20 January 2011, PFC Manning’s eyeglasses were taken away from him.
d) From 18 January 2011 until 20 January 2011, PFC Manning was not permitted out of his cell and was on 24-hour suicide watch.
e) From 2 March 2011 until 6 March 2011, PFC Manning was forced to surrender all his clothing at night and sleep naked.
f) From 2 March 2011 until 6 March 2011, PFC Manning was forced to surrender his eyeglasses during the day and at night. After 6 March 2011, his eyeglasses were returned to him during the day, but continued to be removed from him at night.
g) On 3 March 2011 until 6 March 2011, PFC Manning forced to stand naked at parade rest where he was in view of multiple guards.
h) From 7 March 2011 onward, PFC Manning was required to wear a heavy and restrictive suicide smock which irritated his skin and, on one occasion, almost choked him.
Order that PFC Manning Would Not Be Downgraded from POI and MAX
On 13 January 2011, **Redacted** and **Redacted**, held a meeting to discuss PFC Manning’s confinement conditions. The current **Redacted**, and his leadership staff were present. So too was the incoming **Redacted**. Along with the Brig leadership, the Brig psychiatrists ****** (**Redacted**) and the Brig Judge Advocate, were also present.
At that meeting, **Redacted** ordered that PFC Manning would be held in maximum custody and POI indefinitely. **Redacted** stated that
“nothing is going to happen to PFC Manning on my watch.”
**Redacted**also said,
“nothing’s going to change. He won’t be able to hurt himself and he won’t be able to get away, and our way of making sure of this is that he will remain on this status indefinitely.”
At this point, **Redacted** got very upset and voiced his concerns. **Redacted** said something to the effect of,
“Sir, I am concerned because if you’re going to do that, maybe you might want to call it something else, because it’s not based on anything from behavioral health.”
In response, **Redacted** said
“We’ll do whatever we want to do. You [the Brig psychiatrists] make your recommendation and I have to make a decision based on everything else.”
**Redacted** responded,
“Then don’t say it’s based on mental health. You can say it’s MAX custody, but just don’t say that we’re somehow involved in this.” ***
**Redacted** said, “That’s what we’re going to do.”
**Redacted** made it clear to those present at the meeting that the decision to keep PFC Manning in MAX and POI was coming from those higher in the chain of command.
(“He indicated that Manning would remain in current status (POI) unless and until he received instructions from higher authority (unnamed).
Repeated pleas for Bradley Manning
Psychologists for Social Responsibility wrote a letter outlining the very harmful effects of prolonged solitary confinement and implored officials to
“rectify the inhumane, harmful, and counterproductive treatment of PFC Manning.”
Department of State spokesman P J Crowley referred publicly to PFC Manning’s conditions of confinement being “ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid.”
He was later fired for this comment. He also said:
Based on 30 years of government experience, if you have to explain why a guy is standing naked in the middle of a jail cell, you have a policy in need of urgent review. The Pentagon was quick to point out that no women were present when he did so, which is completely beside the point.
European leaders urged the United States to allow the United Nations to investigate claims of illegal pretrial punishment.
Concerned citizens called Quantico and organized rallies and marches to bring awareness to PFC Manning’s conditions of confinement.
All these pleas fell upon deaf ears. Quantico continued to hold PFC Manning under MAX and in POI (or under Suicide Risk) for almost nine months.
Juan Mendez, the UN special rapporteur on torture formally accused the US government of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment towards Bradley Manning after a 14-month investigation into his treatment. He concluded that the US military was at least culpable of cruel and inhumane treatment in keeping Manning locked up alone for 23 hours a day over an 11-month period in conditions that he also found might have constituted torture:
“The special rapporteur concludes that imposing seriously punitive conditions of detention on someone who has not been found guilty of any crime is a violation of his right to physical and psychological integrity as well as of his presumption of innocence.”
Defence Request:
In light of the foregoing, the Defense requests this Court dismiss all charges with prejudice owing to the flagrant violation of PFC Manning’s constitutional right to not be punished prior to trial. Should this Court determine that dismissal is not an appropriate remedy, the Defense requests meaningful relief in the form of at least 10-for-1 sentencing credit for the 258 days PFC Manning inappropriately spent in the equivalent of solitary confinement and, if PFC Manning elects to proceed judge-alone, consideration of the unlawful pretrial punishment issue in sentencing.
HRI comment: We regard Bradley Manning as a human rights defender, and now a victim of human rights abuses. He should be released from custody and recognised for the bravery of his service to America and the world, above and beyond the call of duty.
why will it take almost 1000 days to try manning?
what "enemy" did he aid?
why aren't the newspapers that published the leaked info brought up on charges?
why isn't he protected as a "whistle-blower"?
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/pol ... 61354.html