Greenwald writes: "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."
A formal UN investigation denounced his treatment as "cruel and inhuman." (photo: Cliff Owen/AP)
Bradley Manning: A Tale of Liberty Lost in America
02 December 12
ver 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.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 18 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Shame on this government for the torture of him.
This story, maybe more than any story, is a testament to what corruption and hypocrisy this government embodies.
You may not agree with the Iraq war or the foreign policy decisions of the US government, but that doesn't give Manning the right to break the law. He is no hero or martyr. He seems like a confused, possibly mentally ill person. He didn't release the info for noble reason.
The final point is that the release of the information probably compromised the sources who were working with the US government. And some of them, if not many of them, likely met their end in a horrible fashion. It's the same type of damage that occurred when the Plame outing happened.
I'm sorry, but I just don't buy into the worship of Bradley Manning. He is no hero.
When Dick Cheny has spent as much time under the same conditions as Manning I will believe in a fairness of prosecution. Obviously, there is a different form of justice for the little guy in the trenches than the A$$holes in the Bush administration. 2 1/2 years of torture? for someone who has not been convicted of anything? I am sorry , I see that as cruel and unusual treatment.
"Probably" is not evidence. And there is none that any harm was done by the release of the documents, aside from the government's embarrassment.
Continue to favor less government transparency and more lies.
And what do you do when the entire system is engaging in illegal and immoral behavior, under the cover of document classification, and the coverup goes right up to the Oval Office? This was the same dilemma confronting Daniel Ellsberg. When the government itself has gone criminal, your sunny advice to go through channels becomes ludicrous.
BUT
Manning went one step further. He ACTUALLY released the information. How the hell can you seriously argue that an Army private is qualified to determine what secret information should be made public? Are you mad? What can you point to that even hints he gave a moments thought to what effect it could have on this country?
He is a traitor.
I'm quite certain that Manning knew that his information would be a bombshell to people about the malfeasance of their government.
We're all qualified to recognize crimes when we seen them, even by those highest in power.
No, he's not a traitor. He didn't betray his country -- he enlightened it.
I guess you think Generals do...
You are obviously a liberal. You made up a fact & immediately judged someone on your made-up fact.
I am willing to assume Manning has a conscience. However I don't care one way or the other. He released secret documents without authorization. He did it without the slightest regard to what it might do to this country & its ability to function in international relations. He gave the information to someone who does not have the slightest interest in the well-being of this country.
Bradley Manning is a traitor. You folks can dredge up all the righteous BS you want & fill the pages with thumbs-up attaboys but when all is said & done the kid betrayed his country.
On the contrary, it's clear from the mission of WikiLeaks that Assange and company are very much concerned with what happens to all countries -- meaning the people of those countries and not their corrupt leaders.
To paraphrase Woody Guthrie, this land is your land and my land, and not the land of the ruling class and their military-indust rial complex.
I assume that if you discovered your precious gov't was about to euthanize half the population you would chant: "My government, right or wrong!"
And that's why he's a hero.
Just curious. What is it that makes the people on this board think the punk was entitled to vote himself the gatekeeper of American secrets?
The punk gave away American secrets. He is not a whistle blower. He is a traitor.
Ruiling class secrets: information that was being kept from us because it would expose wrongdoing by the government.
We're all gatekeepers of the truth, soldier. It's what protects us from tyranny.
Some people here have a finer moral sense than you all do, apparently.
Because you don't like some of the things in the released documents you have decided what he did was good. What if the contents of the documents were secrets of things you approve? Would he still be a wonderful person?
There are traitors in jail for giving away state secrets for money. Manning did it because he was ticked off. Different motive - same crime.
On the other hand, I HAVE seen "Collateral Murder" (the original impetus for Manning's crisis of conscience); it is truly sickening, and the system that promotes and supports that kind of depravity does not deserve to stay hidden safely out of sight, any more than the atrocities of Viet Nam did.
And yes, I want EVERY member of the government to be the moral "gatekeeper" of what the country should know about what evils are perpetrated upon the innocent in their name.
Can you think of anything good that shouldn't be released? Come on. We've got to get away from this secrecy in government. There's nothing like a little sunshine to eliminate chicanery, unjust actions, mass murders, and other villainy. And if we don't oppose it, we support it. But the key is that we have to know about it.
IF he was mishandled then those who committed the act(s) should be punished & precautions should be taken to insure that whatever happened (if something actually did happen) cannot be repeated. I think what he did was reprehensible but whatever punishment he receives must come from a court of law after (if) he is convicted. At no point should jailers ever be allowed to become judge & jury.
Look up the definition..
You also don't know the definition of treason.
He gave away state secrets & he wasn't authorized to do so. What he did is no different from what the traitors who are in jail for selling state secrets did.
Manning didn't release the documents to an enemy, but to a friendly source that screened them before publicizing them.
He also did not do it for personal gain, but to expose U.S. government wrongdoing.
He didn't release secrets to a specific enemy? No, he didn't. He released them to the whole damn world.
To a "friendly" source that screened them??? Who exactly is Assange "friendly" to? Did he have America's best interests at heart? If it wasn't America's best interest that concerned him then what did? Giving the hypocrites on this board a reason to play at being righteous?
In addition to giving away the country's secrets he provided an opportunity for the "Look at me, I'm so righteous" folks to trash this country. For some reason they rarely seem to get around to trashing the behavior of massacres of innocents & other despicable acts done by other countries.
I'm sure Assuange is human and has bad points, but if you listen to him, he comes off pretty well compared to most of our government officials.
We can love the country and disapprove of government actions. We are the most powerful country ever known. So we should provide a good example and show some restraint--espe cially when it comes to military action. Manning helped shine the light on some bad things, and so has WikiLeaks. Did you like the video of an American helicopter gunning down civilians, including children? Good citizens want to stop that kind of thing.
WikiLeaks is an antidote to the crimes of governments against their own peoples. I don't choose to remain in the dark about those crimes, or to protect those who have committed them. Manning and Assange have done America and the world a huge service.
Countries don't commit "despicable acts," governments and specific groups of people do, and I see no shortage of reporting about them and condemning of them by the same people who hold the U.S. government to account.
Politicians who exploit their own people for power and profit and then cover up their misdeeds are the real traitors, not the whistleblowers who expose them. But that is still not the definition of "treason."
To allow him to be singled out for punishment for doing the right thing is to genuinely threaten the security of every American. Not only in the military, but in every home occupied by people who believe in the rule of law.
Anyone who works in the defense/homelan d security/intell igence community signs agreements not to disclose classified information to parties without the need to know. If Manning truly felt concerned by what he had seen he could have contacted the IG in the appropriate agencies to launch an investigation before releasing all those documents to Wikileaks. There were internal procedures that he could have followed but didn't.
Manning is no hero. I wasn't in favor of the Iraq war either, but I can't defend Manning. What he did was a crime. And the blunt reality is that many of you just don't want to accept or understand. I understand that you may be in strong disagreement with US foreign policy or the use of military force, but that doesn't give Manning the right to release classified information to parties without the need to know.
Lastly, how is this any different than what happened to Valerie Plame? The sources she worked with almost certainly met a tragic and gruesome end. And almost certainly the same probably happened those mentioned in Wikileaks.
What you refuse to believe or just don't understand is that "classified information" is more often than not what the government doesn't want you and me to know.
Obama promised transparency. Manning delivered it.
HE didn't sign any of these agreements, to the contrary.
I believe at least in his case he clearly works for transparency in governmentS ('S' purposeful, don't feel paranoid) and for the advancement of Democracy, which, as we know since the founding fathers, relies on a well-informed citizenry.
I am not sure about Manning's intentions but I am sure about the result, and I am sure that the beacon of light, the city on the hill, has been doing to Manning what it had been doing in Abu Ghraib.
Don't get me wrong, I love the US. For there you can still find people as human (not perfect) as a PFC Manning.
Rather than to deny employing illegal torture, the U.S. government publicly illustrated the brazen behavior revealed in the leaked documents.
The result was to expose government misdeeds and lies that we have a right to know about. That's more than enough for me to defend him.
I'm impressed with RSN's attention to these two cases. They are important. Perhaps we should work toward having a completely transparent government, as all administrations have abused the power of classifying documents and information.
They have even found ways to avoid the power of the Freedom of Information Act. Sad.
We aren't at war. We're at occupation. The War on Terrorism makes as much sense as the War on Drugs or a War on Jaywalkers, for that matter.
We're the greatest military power ever, and a truly great country would use such power with a little restraint. But we are well on the road to becoming an evil empire ourselves if we stay this course. We citizens should provide opposition to all of this.
Come on, get a grip.
Yes, he's a whistle-blower. Vandalism at worst, and no treason involved. You sound like Cheney, who said, "Principles are ok, as far as they go." Such notions reduce principles to tactics. His notion was apparently that honesty is the best policy but there is always another one available if it doesn't get you what you want.
The so-called commander in chief, this double-faced, split-tongue holder of the nobel peace prize, Mr Barack Obama is in charge and responsible and he should be sued in international courts - since the American jurisdiction is incapable of doing the job.
All the strident hysterical hatred which has been vomited over this young soldier by leading political representatives reminds me of proceeding in my own country Germany during the Nazi-era. Dear Americans, your jurisdiction is gradually sinking to a level of the former 3rd Reich "Volksgerichtsh of" under its president Roland Freisler - the special court established to sue and condemn so-called traitors against the Nazi regime - our true martyrs and heroes of that terribly misguided and desastrous time.
Where is America, the former land of the brave? Where are the braves who stand up to call out this perversion of justice?
Bradley Manning’s cage-like cell at Quantico was 6’ by 8’, twice the size of the minimum cage size requirement of 3’ x 4’ for a large macaw parrot.
Based on observing the cell dimensions presented by David Coombs in court, the bed was 2.5’ x 6’. There was a toilet on the end wall and sink on the wall opposite the bed. This left a floor space for walking of 3’ by 6’. Manning testified that exercising in his cell was forbidden but dancing was not. So he danced to keep his sanity, since he was not permitted to lie down or sit and lean against the wall during the day. I measured off a 3’ x 6’ area to see how many paces I could take to cross the length of the space: exactly three. One-two-three-p ivot. One-two-three-p ivot. Left-right-left -pivot. Left-right-left -pivot. To call this pacing is an exaggeration. That is how I understood what I, myself, would do if caged up like Manning had been. I would pivot and turn, just like when I salsa dance. I am certain that this would be torture if confined for nine days let alone 9 months in a cage this size.
Who has the evil empire now?
of Manning happen on his watch.
He did not "let" it happen...He announced that Manning was guilty, and effectively gave the green light to it. The military command and the Pentagon report to him. He could stop this in a second. He does not; perhaps because he ordered it.
1-Persecute discenting information
2-Omit discenting information.
3-Stick to Goebbels' jurnalistc priciples.
Not that we wouldn't be better off if more government workers exposed the lies they come across in their work.
Otherwise we are treated as mushrooms: kept in the dark and fed BS.
Based on observing the cell dimensions presented by David Coombs in court, the bed was 2.5’ x 6’. There was a toilet on the end wall and sink on the wall opposite the bed. This left a floor space for walking of 3’ by 6’. Manning testified that exercising in his cell was forbidden but dancing was not. So he danced to keep his sanity, since he was not permitted to lie down or sit and lean against the wall during the day.
I measured off a 3’ x 6’ area to see how many paces I could take to cross the length of the space: exactly three. One-two-three-p ivot. One-two-three-p ivot. Left-right-left -pivot. Left-right-left -pivot. To call this pacing is an exaggeration. That is how I understood what I, myself, would do if caged up like Manning had been. I would pivot and turn, just like when I salsa dance. I am certain that this would be torture if confined for nine days, let alone nine months in a cage this size. All charges should be dropped and Manning should be released. His trial is the trial of the United States shaming itself to the world
Bless your uneasiness as a sign that there is still life in you.
Dag Hammarskoid
HUMINT Collectors MUST:
Report Suspected War Crimes Encountered during the Course of Their Duties
You are speaking in favor of punishment, which puts you on the wrong side.
Manning may have chosen to accept a plea to avoid more serious charges, but he also could have chosen to mount a Nuremburg defense. Win or lose, it would have been fighting punishment, not accepting it.
I'm not criticizing him for plea bargaining. But I doubt that he is accepting his punishment "cheerfully."
How can it be made clear that Manning, Assange, innumerable unnameable others silenced and/or murdered are neither abstraction nor anomaly any more than this has become a nation for or by the people?
Democracy does not thrive on secrecy. Fascism does. have a care, or you may become one of those asked to choose between enjoying or administering the current analog to Zyklon B.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113C.html
§ 2340. Definitions
§ 2340A. Torture
§ 2340B. Exclusive remedies
Summary of International and U.S. Law Prohibiting Torture
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm
International and U.S. law prohibits torture and other ill-treatment of ANY person in custody in ALL circumstances.. ..It is irrelevant whether the detainee is determined to be a... so-called "security detainee" or "unlawful combatant." And the prohibition is in effect within the territory of the United States or any place anywhere U.S. authorities have control over a person.... the prohibition against torture and ill-treatment is absolute.
...
Torture is defined as an "act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control." A person found guilty under the act can be incarcerated for up to 20 years or receive the death penalty if the torture results in the victim's death.
I expect Obama, a Constitutional Lawyer, will surrender himself any day now.
He belongs in a caged prisoners dock in the Hague beside Bush, Cheney, RumsFeld and a few others... so we can listen to him whimper "but I was just following orders!" before he's sentenced to life.
"Christianity" may be the problem here! Wars, crusades, the Inquisition, witch hunts...and more...This is not the message that Jesus preached! Reread your bible, please.
it goes on to clarify that this includes reporting abuse by Iraqi police or military forces upon Iraqi prisoners turned over to them by the US military....uh, was it 1000 or 10,000 Frago reports of abuse? Any wonder why Manning dumped the 250,000 pages? I think the Army should figure out how to avoid a full trial and let Manning go, because the exposure of the level of torture will be huge.
It hurts to realize that we are subject to false-speak that rivals "Bush-Cheney." Here was someone who saw the abuses and refused to remain silent. Much like Tom Drake, who called out the waste and malfeasance at NSA. And while Obama just signed a whistleblower act, we continue to prosecute whistleblowers.
And where is the press to protest? Great article Glenn and thanks to RSN.
I suggest you all get together in a study group and look up the proper definition, and stop loading your rancorous posts with indefensible hyperbole.
I don't doubt this Wiki-release could have caused some deaths of our assets, but PROVE IT. Mostly though, just embarrassment of some State Dept officials + foreign leaders. And some revelatory video of our bloodthirsty armchair op-center warriors' helicopter butchering a van of civilians, inc. journalists. In a volunteer army some join for the thrill of the kill.
of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
"PUNISHMENT PROHIBITED BEFORE TRIAL
No person, while being held for trial, may be subjected to punishment or penalty other than arrest or confinement upon the charges pending against him, nor shall the arrest or confinement imposed upon him be any more rigorous than the circumstances required to insure his presence, but he may be subjected to minor punishment during that period for infractions of discipline."
Bradley Manning did the wrong thing but he had to because of a bad system.
The secrecy system in the US government is a self imposed conflict of interest.
Maybe a way to correct the classification system is to require the approval of a non-interested person/group. Or maybe there should be strict guidelines on what can and cannot be classified and penalties for improper classifying outside of these guidelines.
OR
No promotions for anyone classifying anything that just protects the military/govern ment from illegal activities or embarrassment.
Just some thoughts . . . a correction to the classification system will never even be discussed by the MSM.
Glenn Greenwald made several indisputable, important points regarding the unlawful imprisonment of Bradley Manning. He also pointed out the fact that mainstream media failed in their supposed commitment to do their job to the best of their abilities and to report the news--for whatever reasons.
Without learning, or learning to learn as Gregory Bateson puts it, all is totalitarian. "In the beginning, all was mush and without form."
The man belongs in a cell, with Bush and Cheney. He is their getaway driver.
Anyone who voted for Barack Obama in 2012 and is now supporting him is either consciously and intentionally a terrorist sympathizer and supporter, or is just plain stupid.
RSS feed for comments to this post