The persecution and prosecution of Bradley Manning

[Magda Hassan]

UN torture expert banned from testifying at Bradley Manning hearings

Published: 21 July, 2012, 01:55


It'll be another month before accused WikiLeaks contributor Bradley Manning is back before a military judge, but his supporters say a fair trial is still far away. The Army has denied the requests to have a UN official at the next round of hearings.


During Thursday's pretrial hearing at Ft. Meade outside of Washington, D.C., the military justice presiding over the case pertaining to Private First Class Bradley Manning's alleged leaking of sensitive documents challenged two of the defense's requested witnesses. Along with rejecting Lt. Col. Dawn Hilton, commander of the Joint Regional Correctional Facility (JRCF) at Fort Leavenworth, Army Col. Denise Lind also told Manning's attorneys that a torture expert from the United Nations would be barred from presenting testimony.
David Coombs, the civilian attorney representing PFC Manning, had requested that Juan Mendez, the UN's special rapporteur on torture, be allowed to present during the next round of hearing. Those motions, scheduled to begin in late August, will involve discussions involving the nine months Manning spent in solitary confinement at the Quantico Marine Brig. in Virginia. Mendez has previously argued that the conditions that Manning was subjected to were considered torturous under the UN's guidelines, but Col. Lind will not allow him to be questioned before the court.
In the midst of an investigation into the military's treatment of Manning last year, Mendez told The Guardian that he was "deeply disappointed and frustrated by the prevarication of the US government with regard to my attempts to visit Mr. Manning." Mendez had attempted to meet with Manning in private while he was held in solitary confinement without being charged with a crime. When Mendez finished his report on behalf of the UN this year, he concluded that the military's treatment of Manning was beyond unreasonable.
"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," Mendez wrote.
"I conclude that the 11 months under conditions of solitary confinement (regardless of the name given to his regime by the prison authorities) constitutes at a minimum cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of article 16 of the convention against torture," Mendez told the Guardian this past March. "If the effects in regards to pain and suffering inflicted on Manning were more severe, they could constitute torture."
During this week's hearings, Col. Lind said that prosecutors could not present evidence of any harm posed on Manning during his imprisonment because it was irrelevant to whether or not his nine-months of confinement was illegal. The court has also dismissed motions that would focus on the harm, or lack thereof, that the leaks caused. The Pentagon argues that shifting the case to concentrate on the degree of any damage done would be confusing, but that attorneys could allude to it through witnesses once the actual trial is underway.

Manning faces life in prison if found guilty of aiding an enemy, a charge the military has introduced in response to accusations that the serviceman sent classified information, including thousands of diplomatic cables, to Julian Assange's WikiLeaks site. Earlier this week, Mr. Coombs argued that the charge implies that Manning would have aided the enemy simply by sending intelligence to a third-party. Had he been tried as a terrorist, argued Coombs, the court would be more lenient on his client.
"In a prosecution of a terrorist under Offense 26, the Government would be required to prove that the terrorist knowingly and intentionally aided the enemy," Coombs told the court this week. "It defies all logic to think that a terrorist would fare better in an American court for aiding the enemy than a US soldier would."
Despite the court's call to bar the UN's Mendez from testifying during the pretrial hearing, Mr. Coombs has insisted that he will file a 100-page motion that discusses the torturous conditions his client was held under while at Quantico all without charge. The document, says Coombs, will "shock the conscience of the court."
"I was stripped of all clothing with the exception of my underwear. My prescription eyeglasses were taken away from me and I was forced to sit in essential blindness," Manning told a military attorney last year.
Speaking to the Guardian last January, David House of the Bradley Manning Support Network said that the serviceman seemed "catatonic" when he visited to him at Quantico.
Amnesty International's UK campaign director, Tim Hancock, has also called the military's treatment of Manning"cruel, inhuman and degrading," and, in November 2011, 50 members of the European Parliament urged the United States government to intervene in the imprisonment.
"We certainly do not understand why an alleged whistleblower is being threatened with the death penalty, or the possibility of life in prison. We also question whether Bradley Manning's right to due process has been upheld, as he has now spent over 17 months in pre-trial confinement," the MPs wrote.
Mr. Coombs argues that the military court has yet to prove if and how the accusations Manning is charged with damaged national security.
http://rt.com/usa/news/bradley-manning-torture-un-727/

[Jan Klimkowski]

During Thursday's pretrial hearing at Ft. Meade outside of Washington, D.C., the military justice presiding over the case pertaining to Private First Class Bradley Manning's alleged leaking of sensitive documents challenged two of the defense's requested witnesses. Along with rejecting Lt. Col. Dawn Hilton, commander of the Joint Regional Correctional Facility (JRCF) at Fort Leavenworth, Army Col. Denise Lind also told Manning's attorneys that a torture expert from the United Nations would be barred from presenting testimony.

The whole point of a military tribunal rather than a public courthouse is to keep the dirty linen stuffed away and hide any inconvenient truths.

American Justice circa 2012 continues to abide by these dishonourable traditions.

[Magda Hassan]

WikiLeaks Diplomatic Cables FOIA Documents
In June 2011, the ACLU filed suit against the State Department to enforce a FOIA request seeking 23 embassy cables previously disclosed by WikiLeaks. The agency released redacted versions of 11 and withheld the other 12 in full. Learn more »
The five excerpts below show the government's selective and self-serving decisions to withhold information. Because the leaked versions of these cables have already been widely distributed, the redacted releases provide unique insight into the government's selective decisions to hide information from the American public.
Place your mouse over the redacted sections to see what the government is hiding. Scroll to the bottom of the page to access redacted versions of all 11 cables released by the government and links to the full cables published by WikiLeaks.
[TABLE="width: 715"]
[TR="bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD]05THEHAGUE1876[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


In the document above, the government discloses discussions that paint the United States in a positive light while withholding embarrassing critiques of American policy. In this cable from the U.S. embassy in The Hague, Dutch Foreign Minister Bernard Bot's praise for U.S.-Dutch relations was released, but the details of Dutch disapproval of the handling of Guantánamo detainees remain classified as a matter of national security.

---

[TABLE="width: 715"]
[TR="bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD]06THEHAGUE2282[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


In the document above, the government selectively reveals points of agreement with foreign officials while hiding opinions critical of the U.S. In another cable from the U.S. embassy in The Hague, an entire paragraph relating to "Detainees/ Guantánamo" is redacted, including publicly-available information about Dutch condemnation of secret CIA prisons. But diplomatic opinions about concern over North Korea and Iranareas of agreement with the United Stateswere released. (The abbreviation "GONL" refers to the Government of the Netherlands).

---

[TABLE="width: 715"]
[TR="bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD]06BERN141[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


In the document above, the government withholds publicly-available information about discredited programs. A cable from the U.S. embassy in Bern hides Swiss disapproval of rendition flights as well as Italian allegations against CIA agents for the kidnapping of Abu Omar in Milan, both of which were widely reported and on the public record.

---

[TABLE="width: 715"]
[TR="bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD]06LISBON2365[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


In the document above, the government withholds descriptions of obvious public opinion and foreign law. In this cable from the U.S. embassy in Lisbon, the government redacted description of backlash in Portugal against allowing the U.S. to use Portuguese airspace when transporting Guantanamo detainees back to their countries of origin. The government seems to be trying to hide the unsurprising insight that past illegal actions by the U.S.specifically, the government's rendition and black-site prison programcontinue to complicate the United States' relationships with foreign governments. (The abbreviation "GOP" refers to the Government of Portugal).

---

[TABLE="width: 715"]
[TR="bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD]08LONDON2651[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


In the document above, the government selectively withholds widely-known information about politically sensitive policies. In this cable from the U.S. embassy in London, the government redacted an entire paragraph about the U.S. government's use of Predator drones to kill people on Pakistani soil. While U.S. officials routinely endorse the use of Predator drones off the record, they continue to formally deny the United States' role in drone attacks. However, information about the use of drones in Pakistan has received sustained and widespread coverage in the press.

---

[B]LEARN MORE:
ACLU v. Department of State: WikiLeaks FOIA
April 12, 2011 FOIA Request
June 9, 2011 Complaint
October 21, 2011 Response from State Department[/B]


[TABLE]
[TR="bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Cable ID[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Full Text Released by WikiLeaks[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Cables Released to the ACLU by State Department[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]07MADRID1805[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]wikileaks.org/cable/2007/09/07MADRID1805.html[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Withheld in full[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]09MADRID347[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]wikileaks.c4ss.org/cable/2009/04/09MADRID347.html[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Released in part[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]09MADRID392[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]wikileaks.org/cable/2009/04/09MADRID392.html[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Released in part[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]09MADRID440[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]wikileaks.org/cable/2009/05/09MADRID440.html[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Released in part[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]09TUNIS415[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]wikileaks.org/cable/2009/06/09TUNIS415.html[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Withheld in full[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]07TRIPOLI943[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]wikileaks.org/cable/2007/11/07TRIPOLI943.html[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Withheld in full[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]08OTTAWA918[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]wikileaks.org/cable/2008/07/08OTTAWA918.html[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Withheld in full[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]10LUXEMBOURG5[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]wikileaks.org/cable/2010/01/10LUXEMBOURG5.html[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Released in part[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]05PARIS3118[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]wikileaks.org/cable/2005/05/05PARIS3118.html[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Released in part[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]05PARIS1699[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]wikileaks.org/cable/2005/03/05PARIS1699.html[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Released in part[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]08LONDON1412[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]wikileaks.org/cable/2008/05/08LONDON1412.html[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Withheld in full[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]06DUBLIN1020[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]wikileaks.org/cable/2006/09/06DUBLIN1020.html[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Withheld in full[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]06LISBON2365[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]http://www.wikileaks.org/cable/2006/10/0...N2365.html[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Released in part[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]10SANAA4[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]wikileaks.org/cable/2010/01/10SANAA4.html[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Withheld in full[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]08LONDON2651[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]wikileaks.org/cable/2008/10/08LONDON2651.html[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Released in part[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]09RIYADH670[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]wikileaks.org/cable/2009/05/09RIYADH670.html[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Withheld in full[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]06BERN141[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]wikileaks.org/cable/2006/01/06BERN141.html[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Released in part[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]06BERN1804[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]wikileaks.org/cable/2006/09/06BERN1804.html[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Withheld in full[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]10ROME174[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/10ROME174.html[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Withheld in full[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]05THEHAGUE1876[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]wikileaks.org/cable/2005/07/05THEHAGUE1876.html[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Released in part[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]06THEHAGUE2282[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]wikileaks.org/cable/2006/10/06THEHAGUE2282.html[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Released in part[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]07BERLIN242[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]wikileaks.org/cable/2007/02/07BERLIN242.html[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Withheld in full[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]08ISLAMABAD3586[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]wikileaks.org/cable/2008/11/08ISLAMABAD3586.html[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Withheld in full[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

http://www.aclu.org/wikileaks-diplomatic...-documents

[Magda Hassan]

The US government has seriously lost the plot re the cables still being 'classified'. Maintaining a legal fiction is one thing but this is a complete divorce from reality.

[Magda Hassan]

Accused: the men who tortured Bradley Manning… dismissal of charges document here in full

POSTED BY ANONYMOUS â‹… AUGUST 11, 2012 â‹…
ASSANGE
"I conclude that the 11 months under conditions of solitary confinement (regardless of the name given to his regime by the prison authorities) constitutes at a minimum cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of article 16 of the convention against torture," Juan Mendez, UN special rapporteur on torture.Below, Darker Net reveals the names of those accused of the torture of Bradley Manning. In the meantime, the legal team representing Manning, charged with leaking war crimes, are requesting that all charges raised against him are dismissed given that for several months he was subjected to torture. The submission concludes, as a result of "flagrant violation" of Manning's "constitutional rights," the judge should dismiss all charges with prejudice or, at minimum, grant "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."Here is the full 110 page motion for dismissal of charges.More details from The Dissenter click here.

James Averhart

Accused 1. James AverhartThe officer in charge of Manning's incarceration at Quantico and who ordered he be tortured was Quantico's Brig Commander, James Averhart. He gave orders to put Manning into solitary confinement while detained on charges awaiting trial. Manning spent 23 hours a day in a cell and wore a smock so abrasive he acquired fabric burns from it. Manning's bedding articles, smock and related evidence are being submitted to the court for review of pre-trial punishment conditions levied against the whistleblower. Bradley Manning: "On 18 January 2011, over the recommendation of Capt. Hocter and the defense psychiatrist, Capt. Brian Moore, Averhart placed me under suicide risk. The suicide risk means that I sit in my cell for 24 hours a day. I am stripped of all clothing with the exception of my underwear. My prescription eyeglasses are taken away from me. I am forced to sit in essential blindness with the exception of the times that I am reading or given limited television privileges. During those times, my glasses are returned to me. Additionally, there is a guard sitting outside my cell watching me at all times." The stripping and interrogation that Manning endured was videotaped by the Quantico facility.

Daniel J Choike

Accused 2. Daniel J ChoikeOn March 2, 2011, Manning, then confined under Maximum custody and Prevention of Injury Watch (POI) at Quantico, where he had been since July 29, 2010, was told that his Article 138 request to be placed under Medium custody and removed from harsh and punitive pre trial confinement was denied by Daniel J. Choike, Quantico base commander.

Robert G Oltman

Accused 3. Col. Robert G OltmanWhen challenged by a Brig psychiatrist that there was no mental health justification for the torture, Colonel Robert Oltman responded, "We will do whatever we want to do".Litany of torturePFC Manning was placed in a cell directly in front of the guard post to facilitate his constant monitoring.
PFC Manning was awoken at 0500 hours and required to remain awake in his cell from 0500 to 2200 hours.
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.
Whenever PFC Manning was moved outside his cell, the entire facility was locked down.
Whenever PFC Manning was moved outside his cell, he was shackled with metal hand and leg restraints and accompanied by at least two guards.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
PFC Manning was only permitted non-contact visits with his attorneys. During these visits, he was shackled at the hands and feet.
PFC Manning was not permitted any work duty.
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.
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.
At night, only some of the lights would be turned off. Additionally, there was a florescent light in the hall outside PFC Manning's cell that would stay on at night. PFC Manning was required to receive each of his meals alone in his cell. He was only permitted to eat with a spoon.
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.
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.
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.
PFC Manning was not allowed to have any personal items in his cell.
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.
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.
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. When PFC Manning went to sleep, he was required to strip down to his underwear and surrender his clothing to the guards.
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.
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.
PFC Manning was not permitted to wear shoes in his cell.
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.
Also:
From 18 January 2011 until 20 January 2011, PFC Manning was forced to strip down to his underwear during the day.
From 18 January 2011 until 20 January 2011, PFC Manning was forced to sleep naked at night.
From 18 January 2011 until 20 January 2011, PFC Manning's eyeglasses were taken away from him.
From 18 January 2011 until 20 January 2011, PFC Manning was not permitted out of his cell and was on 24-hour suicide watch.
From 2 March 2011 until 6 March 2011, PFC Manning was forced to surrender all his clothing at night and sleep naked.
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.
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.
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.More details from the blog of the law offices of David Coombs, Manning's defense lawyer.Posted from the darker net via Android.
https://darkernet.wordpress.com/2012/08/...e-in-full/

• [url=https://darkernet.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/accused-the-men-who-tortured-bradley-manning-dismissal-of-charges-document-here-in-full/?share=twitter&nb=1][/url]
  

[Magda Hassan]

US 'withheld' emails on WikiLeaks suspect: defense
(AFP) 1 day ago
FORT MEADE, Maryland Lawyers for the US soldier on trial for passing a trove of classified documents to WikiLeaks on Tuesday accused the government of withholding emails about his pre-trial detention.
The defense team for Private Bradley Manning, who could be jailed for life for "aiding the enemy" over the WikiLeaks incident, said top officers had put their concerns about negative publicity ahead of their client's fair treatment.
The emails relate to the conditions that the 24-year-old trooper was held in at a Quantico brig in Virginia, where he was sent after a spell in a US military jail in Kuwait following his arrest when on duty in Iraq in 2010.
Manning's civilian lawyer David Coombs told a pre-trial hearing that 84 emails were released to the defense team in July last year, before it emerged that 1,290 other messages had not been passed on to him.
The government "chose to let these emails collect dust somewhere," Coombs said on the first day of the three-day hearing at a military base in Fort Meade, Maryland, 30 miles (48 kilometers) from the US capital.
The emails are "material to the defense" of Manning, Coombs told the hearing, before it emerged in open court that military prosecutors handed around 600 such messages to Manning's lawyers on Monday, ahead of the hearing.
"It is the defense position that the government has been playing word games," Coombs said, implying that the messages were held back because the government had contrived a deliberately narrow definition of their relevance to the trial.
After his detention at Quantico from July 2010 to April 2011, which sparked an uproar from rights activists, Manning was transferred to a prison at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas, where he was placed under less restrictive conditions.
The soldier's lawyers argue that Manning was mistreated after his arrest, breaching his rights. If the court finds he was abused, the case could potentially be thrown out, or any eventual sentence reduced.
Defense and prosecution lawyers have repeatedly clashed over what documents are pertinent in the case, with Manning's counsel accusing the government of hiding information that could help their client.
The court heard Tuesday that the emails went as high up the chain as General George Flynn, the then commanding general of the US Marine Corps, who had insisted that Manning be placed on suicide watch, according to Coombs.
Top officers at Quantico regularly sent emails to Flynn informing him of Manning's detention conditions, which the defense says were unnecessarily harsh.
The military "kept Manning in maximum POI (prevention of injury)" custody "because they didn't want any negative publicity," Coombs said.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/art...d9b497.411

[Peter Lemkin]

The US government has seriously lost the plot re the cables still being 'classified'. Maintaining a legal fiction is one thing but this is a complete divorce from reality.

Yeah, that divorce was a real 'Las Vegas special' ['two for one']. They've completely lost touch with all reality [after decades of divorce from morality, legality, truth, justice, compassion, due process......and all those other namby-pamby things good fascists would abhor].

I have a few documents I got from NARA [from insiders; deep insiders!] that the 'regular' NARA not only won't give me; but says they don't even have!.....so it is in keeping with keeping redacted documents that anyone can get on the internet, anywhere in the world [except perhaps on the MICs intranet]. This is the kind of 'joke' we now live with, posing as a government. Amerikan 'exceptionalism', indeed!

[Carsten Wiethoff]

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20264826

Bradley Manning 'offers guilty plea' in Wikileaks case

The plea offer is the first sign Manning will admit leaking thousands of secret documents
The alleged source of the Wikileaks revelations has offered to plead guilty to lesser offences than those with which he is charged, says his lawyer.
US Army Private Bradley Manning faces a life sentence if found guilty at his Maryland court martial of aiding the enemy - one of 22 charges he faces.
His lawyer David Coombs made the offer at a pretrial hearing on Wednesday.
The offer is the first sign he will admit leaking secret Afghanistan and Iraq war reports and diplomatic cables.
But it suggests he will not plead guilty to aiding enemies of the US (identified by prosecutors as al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula), violating federal espionage and computer laws - charges for which he could face life in prison if found guilty.

[Magda Hassan]

Leniency for Generals, Jail Time for Whistleblowers
by Nathan Fuller, November 22, 2012
Print This | Share This

It's no secret that the powerful in America are frequently immune to prosecution for committing far worse crimes than those by the powerless. Bush administration torturers are on book tours while torture whistleblowers are on trial. Wall Street executives are counting their bonuses while foreclosed homeowners are packing their bags. Life's not fair.
That's one reason why it was so startling to see Gen. David Petraeus resign upon learning the FBI had discovered his extramarital affair with biographer Paula Broadwell. Surely, the director of the accountability-free, drone-happy CIA could sleep around as he pleased and not fear a fellow government agency would rat him out, right?
Ah, the unexpected pleasures of the ever-growing security state. It turns out the FBI found out that Petraeus shared more than a bed with Broadwell likely his emails, rife with classified information, too, though he claims that Broadwell got the information from officials in Afghanistan. And this administration hates nothing more than the unintended release of classified information: despite anonymously leaking favorable-but-Top Secret information to The New York Times on a weekly basis, the Obama administration has tried to use the Espionage Act to convict whistleblowers more often than all previous administrations combined.
But not so fast. Gen. Petraeus is still their man, with a reputation to uphold. So when President Obama was asked about the potential security breach, he said, "I have no evidence at this point, from what I've seen, that classified information was disclosed that in any way would have had a negative impact on our national security."
The statement is crafted to appear interested in the good of national security, to appear to put America's safety first. But the subtext says much more: There may have been a classified disclosure that didn't impact national security at all, or that did so positively, but that isn't a problem.
These comments directly contradict government arguments in a much bigger ongoing investigation: that of WikiLeaks and Pfc. Bradley Manning. Cutting off Manning's ability to argue that he was a whistleblower, who knew that the information WikiLeaks released wouldn't bring harm to national security but instead would properly inform the American citizenry, the government prosecution has fully precluded discussion of whether or not WikiLeaks' releases brought harm to national security from the trial. Even conceding that WikiLeaks' release of hundreds of thousands of documents may not have harmed national security, the government says the effect is irrelevant to Manning's guilt or innocence.
But Gen. Petraeus or any of the other high-ranking officials who leak Top Secret information, a classification level higher than anything Pfc. Manning is accused of releasing will not be held to this standard.
This is the chilling effect on whistleblowing: share classified information with a biographer selling books by glorifying your war-making, and your president assures the press that you've caused no harm; share crimes, uncounted civilian casualties, and corporate backroom dealing with your fellow taxpaying citizens, and you face a potential life sentence in prison, not to mention nine months of confinement abuse, an extensively delayed trial, and your president's declaring you guilty before trial.
Time and again, Bradley Manning is stepped on so the military can discipline dissent and discourage those he might inspire. Meanwhile, the prurient press is more curious about Petraeus's sex life than the growing security state and the whistleblowers trying in vain to stop it before it consumes us all. We cannot afford to abide this double standard any longer.
http://original.antiwar.com/nfuller/2012...leblowers/

[Peter Lemkin]

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Bradley Manning, the U.S. Army private accused of leaking hundreds of thousands of classified documents to the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks, has testified in a courtroom for the first time since he was arrested in May 2010. Speaking Thursday at a pretrial proceeding, Manning revealed the emotional tumult that he experienced while imprisoned in Kuwait after his arrest in 2010, saying, quote, "I remember thinking, 'I'm going to die.' I thought I was going to die in a cage."

As part of his testimony, Manning stepped inside a life-sized chalk outline representing the six-by-eight-foot cell he was later held in at the Quantico base in Virginia, and he recounted how he would tilt his head to see the reflection of a skylight through a tiny space in his cell door.

Manning could face life in prison if convicted of the most serious of 22 counts against him. His trial is expected to begin in February. He has offered to plead guilty to a subset of charges that could potentially carry a maximum prison term of 16 years.

On Thursday, Democracy Now! spoke about Manning's case with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who is currently residing inside the Ecuadorean embassy in London, where he sought refuge nearly six months ago.

JULIAN ASSANGE: What is happening this week is not the trial of Bradley Manning; what is happening this week is the trial of the U.S. military. This is Bradley Manning's abuse case. Bradley Manning was arrested in Baghdad, shipped over and held for two months in extremely adverse conditions in Kuwait, shipped over to Quantico, Virginia, which is near the center of the U.S. intelligence complex, and held there for nine months, longer than any other prisoner in Quantico's modern history. And there, he was subject to conditions that the U.N. special rapporteur, Juan Méndez, special rapporteur for torture, formally found amounted to torture.

There's a question about who authorized that treatment. Why was that treatment placed on him for so long, when so many peopleindependent psychiatrists, military psychiatristscomplained about what was going on in extremely strong terms? His lawyer and support team say that he was being treated in that manner, in part, in order to coerce some kind of statement or false confession from him that would implicate WikiLeaks as an organization and me personally. And so, this is a matter that I ampersonally have been embroiled in, that this young man's treatment, regardless of whether he was our source or not, is directly as a result of an attempt to attack this organization by the United States military, to coerce this young man into providing evidence that could be used to more effectively attack us, and also serve as some kind of terrible disincentive for other potential whistleblowers from stepping forward.

AMY GOODMAN: That's Julian Assange, founder and editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, now under political asylum in Ecuador's London embassy. He was speaking about Bradley Manning, the U.S. Army private accused of leaking hundreds of thousands of classified documents to Assange's website, WikiLeaks. Manning testified Thursday at this pretrial proceeding for the first time since he was arrested more than two years ago.

For more. we're joined by Michael Ratner. He's president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a lawyer for Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, and he just got back from attending the pretrial hearing of Bradley Manning yesterday at Fort Meade.

Michael, describe the scene in the courtroom.

MICHAEL RATNER: You know, it was one of the most dramatic courtroom scenes I've ever been in. I mean, for days we've been waiting to see whether Bradley Manning was going to testify, and it's testimony about the conditions he was held in really for almost two years, but certainly the part in Kuwait and Quantico. And we didn't havewe've seen him in the courtroom, but we didn't see him ever take the stand. So we're sitting in this small courtroom. There's all of these guys in these formal-dress blue uniforms. I mean, they look like those Custers or Civil Wars with those little things on their shoulders, epaulets. And then, all of a sudden, we come back from lunch, and David Coombs, Bradley's lawyer, says, "Bradley Manning will come to the stand."

And you could have heardI mean, the room was just mesmerized by what was going to happen next. And he says to Bradley, "I know you may be a little nervous about this. I'll ease you into it." When Bradley opened his mouth, he was not nervous. I mean, he wasthe testimony was incredibly moving, emotional roller coaster for all of us, but particularly, obviously, for Bradley and what he went through. But it was so horrible what happened to him over a two-year period. But he described it in great detail in a way that was articulate, smart, self-aware. I mean, he knew what was going on. He tried to make it so that they wouldn't keep him on the suicide risk, they wouldn't keep him on preventive injury status, where he didn't have clothes and all of that. And he couldn't do it. And he kept trying it, and they kept lying to him. And it was really dramatic.

What came outwhat it began with was really his arrest in late May of 2010. He was almost immediately taken to Kuwait. And that's wherereally where they got him in a way that really, for a period of time, almost destroyed him. They put him into cages that he described as eight-by-eight-by-eight. There were two cages. He said they were like animal cages. They were allthey were in a tent alone, just these two cages, side by side. One of them had whatever possessions he may have had; one of them, he was in, with a little bed for a rack and a toilet, dark, in this cage for almost two months. He was taken out for a short while and then, without explanation, put back in the cage, meals in the cage, etc., all of that.

And thenwait until you hear this. They would wake him at night at 11:00 p.m., 10:00 or 11:00, and his dayor nightwas all night, and he was allowed to go back to sleep at 12:00 or 1:00, noon, the next day. So when we think about what happened to people at Guantánamo or sensory deprivation or what McCoy says in his books on torture, what are they trying to do except destroy this human being?

And he said, "For me, I stopped keeping track. I didn't know whether night was day or day was night. And my world became very, very small. It became these cages. And I'm person," he saidthis was really, I thoughtall of us really were interested in it. He said, "I'm someone who likes current events. I take a broader view of the world." And he gave an example of the oil spill in the Gulf. And he said, you know, "When that ended," and he said, "my world all of a sudden was totally confined to these cages." And that was almost two months in Kuwait, something that none of us really knew about for this period. And he went on to talk about then what happens when he went to Quantico.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And Michael, you're describing a person who was the exact opposite of some of the portraits of him that have come out from some supposed supporters of his, but also people who have had grudges against him, of being an unstablean emotionally unstable person. The sense that you got of how intelligent and how clear he was about what was happening to him?

MICHAEL RATNER: Even one of the psychiatrists who testified and who was one of the psychiatrists who said this guy should never have been put on prevention of injury or suicide risk when he was at Quanticothat was right after Kuwaitsaid he's highly intelligent. And you could see that. And the image was just at theas you're saying, Juan, was the opposite of what I would have thought going in there, of this sort ofof this person who couldn't make their way in the world, of who just, you know, was unable to really function. This person was articulate, strong, self-aware, as I said, and it wasand very sympathetic. I mean, very sympathetic. And not even a shade that he shaded anything, not anything close to, you know, mendacity, lies, nothing. This was incredible testimony.

AMY GOODMAN: The psychiatrist who treated Bradley Manning while he was in prison at Quantico Marine brig testified on Wednesday that commanders there consistently ignored his medical advice and continued to impose harsh restrictions on Bradley Manning, even though he posed no risk of suicide. Captain William Hoctor said he treated prisoners at Guantánamo but had never encountered military officials so unwilling to heed his medical advice. He testified and said, "I had been a senior medical officer for 24 years at the time, and I had never experienced anything like this. It was clear to me they had made up their mind on a certain cause of action, and my recommendations had no impact," he said. Michael Ratner?

MICHAEL RATNER: No, yesterday when I was in court, they put up anotherthey put another psychiatrist on, the defense did, Ricky Malone, who had been head of likevery substantial psychiatrist, head of Walter Reed at some point, in forensic psychology. And he said essentially the same thing. He said, "I went in there. I treated Bradley Manning. I gave him, you know, a sleep medication when he needed sleep. And I went to the person who ran that brig, and I kept saying he does not have to be on POI," that's short for preventive injury, "he doesn't have to be on suicide risk watch."

AMY GOODMAN: And explain what that means when he's put on those.

MICHAEL RATNER: Right, I'm glad you asked that, because this was so dramatic. They showed a video at some point at the trial of whatof where Bradley Manning was kept. And he's keptthere's no natural light. If he presses his face to the screenit's not really bars, it's like a square screenhe could see the reflection of light on the floor at the end of the hall. Immediately across from his cell is the observation booth that looks right into him, so even if he goes to the bathroom and sits on the toilet, they see everything he does. There's a bright light on himagain, sensory stuff, if you look at that24 hours a day.

They show in the video, when theywhen they actuallysomething happens where they decide they're going to put himhe's always on POI, but they're going to put him back on suicide risk. And they showed the video ofit's videoedof him passing his clothes through the mail, through the little hatch, out of the prison. And then, that

AMY GOODMAN: Like a mail slot.

MICHAEL RATNER: Like a mail slot. And that night, he's standing there stark naked. They only show you the top, but he's standing there stark naked in front of these really beefy, big marines in camouflage. That's the scene you see.

And then there's another video showing, askinghe's trying to ask, "Why am I here? What did I do wrong?" And they're lying to him. One of them saysone of them, who'syou know, who's playing like Mutt and Jeff, he's saying, "Well, you're a greatif I had a hundred, you know, defendants like youor prisoners like you, it would beyou know, I would be great." They're lying to him all the time.

And what comes out, because as that videoas that clip you read, Amy, of the psychiatrist, is that it never happens, really never happens, that the head of a brig disregards psychiatric information like they were given about Bradley Manning. And here they did. And so, the question you have to ask yourself is, where was that order coming from? We know there was a three-star general involved. How much did it go up to the Pentagon?

AMY GOODMAN: Who was the three-star general?

MICHAEL RATNER: I don't remember his name.

AMY GOODMAN: And this is, of course, all under President Obama.

MICHAEL RATNER: Right. Right, that's correct. I mean, this wasand that cell, when he's in that cellI mean, when we talk about the light on, when he sleeps on that little bunk and hishe's facinghe has to face the light so they can observe him. If he turns over to avoid the light, they come in, and they wake him up. That's night. Daywhat happens during the day? He's in that cell 23-and-a-half hours a day, maybe 20 minutes of what they call sunshine exercise, which is just nothing. And what can he do? Because he's on duty, supposedly, he has to either stand or he can sit on that metal bunk with his feet on the ground and can't lean against anything. That's 10 or 15 hours a day of what you have to call sensory deprivation.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And Michael, I'd like to ask you aboutgiven that he's been under these conditions now for two-and-a-half years, it's not surprising that he would be attempting to try to negotiate some kind of a plea deal on a reduced sentence. Could you talk about that part, that aspect of what happened with the court?

MICHAEL RATNER: Yeah, yeah. Let me back up on that for one second, because he was in Kuwait 'til end of July 2010. He then was taken to Quantico 'til April or so of 2011. That's the nine months that this hearing is really about and whether the charges should be dismissed because of the serious misconduct and torture and cruel treatment by the government.

So, then he was taken to Leavenworth. And just as an illustration of how he did not have to be treated like he was treated at Quantico, they put on the head of Leavenworth brig by telephone yesterday, and she said, "Well, as soon as he got here, he went right into medium security." And that's the best you can do when you're pretrial. Then, you mix with the population. You getyou get all your hygiene items.

There's a scene in thisin thisand he talkswhere he has to actually beg for a piece of toilet paper. He has to stand in frontat Quantico, stand there with no shirt on, with his boxers, and said, whatever, "Corporal something, this is Corporal Manning, or Private First Class Manning, can I have a piece of toilet paper?" And he has to stand there at attention, while he's begging for a piece of toilet paper.

Your question, Juan, what the lawyer has said, David Coombs, the lawyer for Bradley Manning, has said, they are trying to force Bradley Manning into testifying if he knows anything, which weyou know, probably falsely, because we don't think there's anything therebut against my client, Julian Assange. They are trying to break Bradley Manning.

What's remarkable is that he still has this incredible dignity after going through this. But I think all these prison conditions weresure, they were angry at Bradley Manning, but in the face of that psychiatric statement, that this guy shouldn't be kept on suicide risk or POI, they're still keeping him in inhuman conditions, you can only ask yourselfthey're trying to break him for some reason. The lawyer, David Coombs, has said it's so that he can give evidence against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.

AMY GOODMAN: So this pretrial hearing, where does it lead? Therehe is talking about these conditions that many have said amount to torture. What could it lead to?

MICHAEL RATNER: Well, the lawyer, David Coombs, has asked for two things. He said, "I've asked for dismissal of all the charges, because the government essentially has dirty hands." They can't do this to people and still go charge them with crimes. And that has happened rarely, but it has happened, where the government engages in such bad conduct that they're saying, even if it's not about the truth of what happened and the facts, we're going to get rid of the case.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And he's also asked for 10 days' credit for every day that he was held in those kind of conditions?

MICHAEL RATNER: Right. So he's held, I think, some 293 days. He would get credit for almostyou know, a number of years off his sentence. In the end, he's asked for 10 for one, understanding that he may not win ultimate dismissal.

But what it also really did is it showed us how this governmentand when Julian Assange said yesterday on your show, Amy, this is really about the U.S. being on trial, that's what this is. This is how the U.S. treatstreats people who, in my view, have taken heroic actions around disclosing secrets of this government.

AMY GOODMAN: And what does this possible plea mean, where he admits that he gave documents to WikiLeaks but will not plead guilty to aiding the enemy?

MICHAEL RATNER: Right, I want to explain it as simply as I can.

AMY GOODMAN: And we only have 30 seconds.

MICHAEL RATNER: OK, I'll do it. OK, what it means ishe said, "I'll accept responsibility for mishandling of documents." Potential sentence, the judge said, is 16 years. If the judge accepts the plea, the prosecutor does not have to. Or the prosecutor can accept the plea but can still prove that he aided the enemy and try and get a more severe sentence.

So the question here is going to be, is the prosecutor going to stop at the 16 years maximum sentence, or is the prosecutor going to go on and try and get Bradley Manning life? My opinion, of course, is the prosecutor ought to stop. Bradley Manning, you know, is someone who has disclosed some of the most important secrets of our government having to do with torture and wars and U.S. complicity in human rights violations.