Back to Wikileaks Reader Index
In this diary:
These four articles are essential reading to really understanding the case against Bradley Manning, I recommend reading them in whole:
How to Contribute to Bradley Manning's Legal Defense:
If you would like to ensure that a 100% of your donation goes directly to costs associated with the legal defense, the best way to do so is by making a contribution to legal trust account. In order to do this, please mail a check or money order to "IOLTA/Manning" and mail to Courage to Resist, 484 Lake Park Ave. #41, Oakland, CA 94610.
Alternatively, you can make a donation to the Bradley Manning Defense Fund through "Courage to Resist" here. A portion of this donation will go toward the legal defense effort. The remainder will go towards public education and support activities.
Bradley Manning's Wikipedia entry.
Hacker turns in soldier in Iraq airstrike video leak by Elinor Mills (6/7/10)
"I turned him in to protect lives and to protect information that's essential for the U.S. to be able to effectively carry out foreign policy abroad," Adrian Lamo, once busted for breaking into computer networks of high-profile companies, told CNET in a phone interview on Monday. "He was not at all being mindful about what he was leaking. He was basically acting as a vacuum cleaner."
In addition to the airstrike shooting video, Manning told Lamo he had leaked video footage showing a 2009 air strike in Afghanistan that killed nearly 200 civilians, including many children; a classified Army document assessing Wikileaks as a security threat; and 260,000 classified U.S. diplomatic cables showing what Manning said were "almost criminal political back dealings," according to Wired.
"If it was just the video, I would have left the issue alone, and frankly, he would have had my kudos--and he still does," Lamo said. "But it wasn't just the video. It was a lot of information that was unrelated to our activities in Iraq and Afghanistan or the war on terror at all, including information about some of our major trading partners."
With Friends Like This by George Hulme (7/8/02)
Meet Adrian Lamo. At 21 years old, Lamo is clean-cut and soft-spoken, his deliberate speech marked by a slight stutter. A short, thinly built, former vegetarian, he takes a seat facing the door at the South Street Diner in Philadelphia, picking at his chicken Caesar salad and keenly eying his surroundings as he explains why and how he does what he does. And that's hack into a business' network, alert the company to his actions, offer to help fix the problem for free, and, once the holes are patched, go public with the breach.
Why he does this is a little less clear. "I've never made an argument that there's any particular right or moral principle that makes the exploration of private domains OK," he says. "I'm not saying it's right. It's what I do."
Boing Boing commentator wonders how long Manning was being worked by agents (6/13/10)
How sad it is to see the climate in the United States today -- the majority is still lock-step in line with the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about so many decades ago. I want to make the following points:
1) First and foremost, there needs to be more discussion about the potentially enormous ethics violations that seem to have been committed at Wired Magazine. Everyone knows Kevin Poulsen & Adrian Lamo are friends. It is obvious they worked their target, Bradley Manning, for days -- in co-operation with the FBI and US Army CID. This hearkens back to COINTELPRO tactics. How likely is it that Lamo worked entirely on his own with no involvement from Poulsen, who only found out about it all after-the-fact, in time to "break the story" for Wired? There is no disclosure provided in the original article and it is written as if Poulsen wasn't involved at all. Could it really be that, in pursuit of breaking a big story, Wired magazine staff helped set up a situation where the FBI/USACID got to use proxy interrogators, who misled a suspect into believing that he was only answering questions from someone he could trust, instead of federal/military law enforcement, without any Constitutional protections in place? This needs to be more critically examined.
Did Adrian Lamo Have Two Days Worth of IM’s with Bradley Manning on May 25? by Marcy Wheeler (7/7/10)
As I noted in my earlier post on Wikileaks leaker Bradley Manning’s charging document, there’s an apparent discrepancy between the timing Wired gives for Manning’s arrest and what the charging document shows. Wired said that the FBI told Adrian Lamo on May 27 that Manning had been arrested the previous day–that is, May 26.
At their second meeting with Lamo on May 27, FBI agents from the Oakland Field Office told the hacker that Manning had been arrested the day before in Iraq by Army CID investigators.
But the charging documents actually says Manning’s alleged activities continued until “on or about 27 May 2010,” and it says his pretrial detention started on May 29 (though see scribe’s comments on a possible explanation).
And as I pointed out in comments, there’s also a problem with the story Lamo gave Wired as to why he turned in Manning. He claimed he turned in Manning because he had told him he had already leaked 260,000 cables to Wikileaks.
Lamo decided to turn in Manning after the soldier told him that he leaked a quarter-million classified embassy cables. Lamo contacted the Army, and then met with Army CID investigators and the FBI to pass the agents a copy of the chat logs from his conversations with Manning.
But the charging document only accuses Manning of leaking [more than] 50 cables; it alleges he got information from [more than] 150,000 cables, but did not even load the cables onto his own computer. Now, Wired has repeatedly published a quote from Manning telling Lamo that he had leaked the quarter-million cables.
When Did Adrian Lamo Start Working with Federal Investigators? by Marcy Wheeler (12/26/11)
The first suspicious moment in the chats between Adrian Lamo and Bradley Manning occurred at 12:54 on May 22–ostensibly the second day of chat communication between them (though Manning had sent Lamo encrypted emails for an unspecified period of time before that point). The BoingBoing version of the logs shows that Manning had just referenced 260,000 cables that, he went on to say, would give Hillary Clinton and other diplomats a heart attack when they were released. The chat was seemingly plagued by 3 minute delays in message transmission, with Lamo’s side reporting resource issues. Lamo tells Manning he’s going for a cigarette–”brb”–but that he should “keep typing.”
(12:54:47 PM) Adrian: What sort of content?
(12:56:36 PM) Adrian: brb cigarette
(12:56:43 PM) Adrian: keep typing <3
It is over 45 minutes before Lamo returns from his “cigarette” at 1:43:51. In the meantime, Manning did as he was told, typing out agonized confessions about how isolated he was. After Lamo returned from his “cigarette,” all the resource issues appear to be fixed and the delay in transmission appears to be gone, with response time in the 9 to 20 second range. It seems likely that Lamo did something other than smoke a cigarette in those 45 minutes. It appears he altered something technical on his side of the chat, chats that Lamo had directed Manning to use instead of encrypted emails.
Despite Death Threats, Adrian Lamo Maintains Resolve to Testify in Wikileaks / Bradley Manning Case If Needed (6/28/10)
Lamo continued to call for the resignation of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, citing Assange's loss of moral authority to lead after Lamo was identified as the source of incriminating Manning-related logs submitted to Wikileaks - a seemingly agenda-driven breach of the site's policy of anonymity.
Uhh, the Wired story itself named you as the source of the chat logs...Notice Lamo's fears of harrasment while the US Government openly does so to supporters of Manning:
Government harassing and intimidating Bradley Manning supporters by Glenn Greenwald (11/9/10)
That campaign of intimidation is now clearly spreading to supporters of Bradley Manning. Last Wednesday, November 3, David House, a 23-year-old researcher who works at MIT, was returning to the U.S. from a short vacation with his girlfriend in Mexico, and was subjected to similar and even worse treatment. House's crime: he did work in helping set up the Bradley Manning Support Network, an organization created to raise money for Manning's legal defense fund, and he has now visited Manning three times in Quantico, Virginia, where the accused WikiLeaks leaker is currently being detained (all those visits are fully monitored by government agents). Like Appelbaum, House has never been accused of any crime, never been advised that he's under investigation, and was never told by any federal agents that he's suspected of any wrongdoing at all.
Last Wednesday, House arrived at Chicago's O'Hare Airport, and his flight was met in the concourse by customs agents, who examined the passports of all deplaning passengers until they saw House's, at which point they stopped. He was then directed to Customs, where his and his girlfriend's bags were extensively searched. After the search was complete, two men identifying themselves as Homeland Security officials told House and his girlfriend they were being detained for questioning and would miss their connecting flight. House was told that he was required to relinquish all of his electronic products, and thus gave them his laptop, cellphone, digital camera and UBS flash drive. The document he received itemizing his seized property is here. He was also told to give the agents all of his passwords and encryption keys, which he refused to do.
House was then taken to a detention room by two armed agents and on his way there, he passed by a room in which several individuals were plugging various instruments into his laptop and cellphone. The two agents, Marcial Santiago and Darin Louck, proceeded to question him for 90 minutes about why he was visiting Manning in prison, what work he did to support the Manning campaign, who else was involved in the Manning support group, and what his views were on WikiLeaks. He was told that he would not receive his laptop or camera back, and the agents kept it. To date, he has not received them back and very well may never. When he told them that he had roughly 20 hours of source code work in his laptop and would like to save it or email it to a saved site, they told him he could not do that. He subsequently learned from Agent Santiago that although Agent Louck identified himself as a Homeland Security agent, he is, in fact, with the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force.
The Pentagon's WikiLeaks Breakthrough by Philip Shenon (7/29/10)
Lamo tells The Daily Beast that, when he called the investigators on Monday, they seemed unaware of the importance of the markings and how they might be used to identify the leaker.
With the information, Lamo said, the investigators had apparently been able to quickly review Defense Department computer records and show conclusively that Manning, the troubled young analyst from Potomac, Maryland, leaked the Afghan war logs to WikiLeaks.
Lamo said that he and a group of electronics-savvy contacts, including veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, determined that the Afghan logs could only have come from a small number of government computer databases—databases that Manning had almost certainly tried to access in gathering information to leak to WikiLeaks. “I believe you wouldn’t even need to see Manning’s computer to figure it out,” Lamo said.
A Pentagon spokesman, Marine Colonel David Lapan, said Thursday he could not comment on Lamo’s remarks, citing the need for confidentiality in an ongoing criminal investigation.
If any of Lamo's claims was true, why can't they link Manning with Wikileaks?
NBC: U.S. can't link accused Army private to Assange by Jim Miklaszewski (1/24/11)
U.S. military officials tell NBC News that investigators have been unable to make any direct connection between a jailed army private suspected with leaking secret documents and Julian Assange, founder of the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks.
The officials say that while investigators have determined that Manning had allegedly unlawfully downloaded tens of thousands of documents onto his own computer and passed them to an unauthorized person, there is apparently no evidence he passed the files directly to Assange, or had any direct contact with the controversial WikiLeaks figure.
The strange and consequential case of Bradley Manning, Adrian Lamo and WikiLeaks by Glenn Greenwald (6/18/10)
On June 6, Kevin Poulsen and Kim Zetter of Wired reported that a 22-year-old U.S. Army Private in Iraq, Bradley Manning, had been detained after he "boasted" in an Internet chat -- with convicted computer hacker Adrian Lamo -- of leaking to WikiLeaks the now famous Apache Helicopter attack video, a yet-to-be-published video of a civilian-killing air attack in Afghanistan, and "hundreds of thousands of classified State Department records." Lamo, who holds himself out as a "journalist" and told Manning he was one, acted instead as government informant, notifying federal authorities of what Manning allegedly told him, and then proceeded to question Manning for days as he met with federal agents, leading to Manning's detention.
From the start, this whole story was quite strange for numerous reasons. In an attempt to obtain greater clarity about what really happened here, I've spent the last week reviewing everything I could related to this case and speaking with several of the key participants (including Lamo, with whom I had a one-hour interview last night that can be heard on the recorder below, and Poulsen, with whom I had a lengthy email exchange, which is published in full here). A definitive understanding of what really happened is virtually impossible to acquire, largely because almost everything that is known comes from a single, extremely untrustworthy source: Lamo himself. Compounding that is the fact that most of what came from Lamo has been filtered through a single journalist -- Poulsen -- who has a long and strange history with Lamo, who continues to possess but not disclose key evidence, and who has been only marginally transparent about what actually happened here (I say that as someone who admires Poulsen's work as Editor of Wired's Threat Level blog).
The worsening journalistic disgrace at Wired by Glenn Greenwald (12/27/10)
For more than six months, Wired's Senior Editor Kevin Poulsen has possessed -- but refuses to publish -- the key evidence in one of the year's most significant political stories: the arrest of U.S. Army PFC Bradley Manning for allegedly acting as WikiLeaks' source. In late May, Adrian Lamo -- at the same time he was working with the FBI as a government informant against Manning -- gave Poulsen what he purported to be the full chat logs between Manning and Lamo in which the Army Private allegedly confessed to having been the source for the various cables, documents and video that WikiLeaks released throughout this year. In interviews with me in June, both Poulsen and Lamo confirmed that Lamo placed no substantive restrictions on Poulsen with regard to the chat logs: Wired was and remains free to publish the logs in their entirety.
But this matter needs to be revisited now for three reasons:
(1) For the last six months, Adrian Lamo has been allowed to run around making increasingly sensationalistic claims about what Manning told him; journalists then prominently print Lamo's assertions, but Poulsen's refusal to release the logs or even verify Lamo's statements prevents anyone from knowing whether Lamo's claims about what Manning said are actually true.
(2) There are new, previously undisclosed facts about the long relationship between Wired/Poulsen and a key figure in Manning's arrest -- facts that Poulsen inexcusably concealed.
(3) Subsequent events gut Poulsen's rationale for concealing the logs and, in some cases, prove that his claims are false.
Response to Wired's accusations by Glenn Greenwald (12/29/10)
As noted above, the principal tactic of Wired.com Editor-in-Chief Evan Hansen and Senior Editor Kevin Poulsen in responding to my criticisms is to hurl a variety of accusations at me as a means of distracting attention from the issue that matters. Between my June article and the one on Sunday, I've now written more than 9,000 words about Wired's role in the Manning/Lamo case. To accuse me of "a breathtaking mix of sophistry, hypocrisy and journalistic laziness," they raise a handful of alleged inaccuracies (a) for which there is ample evidence and (b) which are entirely ancillary to the issues I raised.
Even Greenwald believes this … sometimes. When The New York Times ran an entirely appropriate and well reported profile of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange — discussing his personality and his contentious leadership style — Greenwald railed against the newspaper, terming the reporters “Nixonian henchmen."
This claim is designed to accuse me of hypocrisy for simultaneously arguing that Assange should not be subjected to scrutiny while demanding full disclosure of the chats. That accusation is made only by wildly distorting what I wrote in the very piece Hansen cites. My objection to The New York Times smear job on Assange was that by prominently featuring gossipy, personality issues about him on the very day the Iraq War documents were released, the paper distracted attention from what actually mattered: what the documents showed about American behavior in the war (the same reason why Nixon wanted dirt about Ellberg's psychiatric state: to impugn the source of the Pentagon Papers). In fact, I argued the opposite of what Hansen suggests: "None of this is to say that WikiLeaks and Assange shouldn't be subject to scrutiny. Anyone playing a significant role in political life should be, including them."
Just watch Adrian Lamo on TV and decide for yourself whether this is a reliable government informant:
Transcript of Glenn Greenwald's interview with Lamo here. (12/28/10)
CBC's radio interview with Adrian Lamo here (6/7/10).
A Typical Day for PFC Bradley Manning by David Coombs (12/18/10)
PFC Manning is currently being held in maximum custody. Since arriving at the Quantico Confinement Facility in July of 2010, he has been held under Prevention of Injury (POI) watch.
His cell is approximately six feet wide and twelve feet in length.
At 5:00 a.m. he is woken up (on weekends, he is allowed to sleep until 7:00 a.m.). Under the rules for the confinement facility, he is not allowed to sleep at anytime between 5:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. If he attempts to sleep during those hours, he will be made to sit up or stand by the guards.
He is allowed to watch television during the day. The television stations are limited to the basic local stations. His access to the television ranges from 1 to 3 hours on weekdays to 3 to 6 hours on weekends.
He cannot see other inmates from his cell. He can occasionally hear other inmates talk. Due to being a pretrial confinement facility, inmates rarely stay at the facility for any length of time. Currently, there are no other inmates near his cell.
From 7:00 p.m. to 9:20 p.m., he is given correspondence time. He is given access to a pen and paper. He is allowed to write letters to family, friends, and his attorneys.
Each night, during his correspondence time, he is allowed to take a 15 to 20 minute shower.
On weekends and holidays, he is allowed to have approved visitors see him from 12:00 to 3:00 p.m.
He is allowed to receive letters from those on his approved list and from his legal counsel. If he receives a letter from someone not on his approved list, he must sign a rejection form. The letter is then either returned to the sender or destroyed.
He is allowed to have any combination of up to 15 books or magazines. He must request the book or magazine by name. Once the book or magazine has been reviewed by the literary board at the confinement facility, and approved, he is allowed to have someone on his approved list send it to him. The person sending the book or magazine to him must do so through a publisher or an approved distributor such as Amazon. They are not allowed to mail the book or magazine directly to PFC Manning.
Due to being held on Prevention of Injury (POI) watch:
PFC Manning is held in his cell for approximately 23 hours a day.
The guards are required to check on PFC Manning every five minutes by asking him if he is okay. PFC Manning is required to respond in some affirmative manner. At night, if the guards cannot see PFC Manning clearly, because he has a blanket over his head or is curled up towards the wall, they will wake him in order to ensure he is okay.
He receives each of his meals in his cell.
He is not allowed to have a pillow or sheets. However, he is given access to two blankets and has recently been given a new mattress that has a built-in pillow.
He is not allowed to have any personal items in his cell.
He is only allowed to have one book or one magazine at any given time to read in his cell. The book or magazine is taken away from him at the end of the day before he goes to sleep.
He is prevented from exercising in his cell. If he attempts to do push-ups, sit-ups, or any other form of exercise he will be forced to stop.
He does receive one hour of “exercise” outside of his cell daily. He is taken to an empty room and only allowed to walk. PFC Manning normally just walks figure eights in the room for the entire hour. If he indicates that he no long feels like walking, he is immediately returned to his cell.
When PFC Manning goes to sleep, he is required to strip down to his boxer shorts and surrender his clothing to the guards. His clothing is returned to him the next morning.
Article 13 and PFC Bradley Manning by David Coombs (12/21/10)
PFC Bradley Manning, unlike his civilian counterpart, is afforded no civil remedy for illegal restraint under either the Federal Civil Rights Act or the Federal Tort Claims Act. Similarly, the protection from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment and Article 55 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) does not generally apply prior to a court-martial. Thus, the only judicial recourse that is available is under Article 13 of the UCMJ.
Article 13 safeguards against unlawful pretrial punishment and embodies the precept that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Article 13 provides that:
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.
Military courts have consistently asserted Article 13 protection broadly to protect servicemembers awaiting trial. Illegal pretrial punishment can take many forms. The most common examples are unreasonable or harassing restraint that creates an appearance that the servicemember is guilty and onerous pretrial confinement conditions. Article 13 provides that pretrial confinement should not be “more rigorous than the circumstances require to insure” the servicemember’s presence at court.
Bradley Manning and the Torture That Is Solitary Confinement by Jeff Kaye (12/22/10)
Indeed, the conditions of solitary confinement are so onerous it led the International Committee of the Red Cross in a 2004 report to state, in regards to the CIA’s detention of so-called high-value detainees, that “strict solitary confinement in cells devoid of sunlight for nearly 23 hours a day constituted a serious violation of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions.” While Bradley Manning is not being held as an “enemy combatant,” the conditions under which he is being held are redolent of the torture inflicted upon U.S. “war on terror” detainees, or suffered under the terms of the military’s Army Field Manual Appendix M, where such detainees are held in conditions of isolation, including significant limitations on sleep and certain forms of overt sensory deprivation.
The deleterious effects of solitary confinement have been copiously documented. A literature review on the subject, and an excellent discussion of the effects of isolation can be found in a 2003 article by psychology expert Craig Haney.
Solitary confinement is an assault on the body and psyche of an individual. It deprives him of species-specific forms of physical, sensory and social interaction with the environment and other human beings. Manning reported last weekend he had not seen sunlight in four weeks, nor does he interact with other people but a few hours on the weekend. The human nervous system needs a certain amount of sensory and social stimulation to retain normal brain functioning. The effects of this deprivation on individuals varies, and some people are affected more severely or quickly, while others hold out longer against the boredom and daily grind of dullness that never seems to end.
Hellhole: The United States holds tens of thousands of inmates in long-term solitary confinement. Is this torture? by Atul Gawade (3/30/09)
Human beings are social creatures. We are social not just in the trivial sense that we like company, and not just in the obvious sense that we each depend on others. We are social in a more elemental way: simply to exist as a normal human being requires interaction with other people.
Ohio Prisoners Begin Hunger Strike After 17 Years in Solitary Confinement by Wendy Jason (1/6/11)
January 3, four prisoners who were sentenced to death after being wrongfully convicted of crimes following a 1993 prison uprising in Lucasville, Ohio, started a “rolling” hunger strike to protest the conditions of their confinement.
The prisoners, unlike the 125 death row inmates being housed at Ohio State Penitentiary, are kept in solitary confinement for 23 hours every day, completely isolated from contact with others and prevented from ordering necessary goods such as clothing to keep them warm in their cold cells. They are aslo denied medical treatment and access to computer databases necessary for preparing their appeals, and despite their ongoing cooperation with prison programs, they have been refused privileges typically granted to prisoners for good behavior.
This treatment has been ongoing for over 17 years.
If moved from solitary confinement to death row, the prisoners would be able to have semi-contact visits from their families and interact with other inmates. But they have been told that they will remain in isolation, locked behind a solid cell door, until they are put to death.
Playing God with Bradley Manning by Marcy Wheeler (3/10/11)
Back in 2002, Gitmo’s Standard Operating Procedures advocated stripping detainees of clothing as a way of demonstrating the omnipotence of the captors.
In addition to degradation of the detainee, stripping can be used to demonstrate the omnipotence of the captor or to debilitate the detainee.
With Abu Zubaydah–as Jane Mayer has written–they explicitly tied this to becoming his “God.”
… the CIA interrogators also announced they planned to become Zubaydah’s “God.” They reportedly took his clothing as punishment, and reduced his human interaction to a single daily visit in which they would say simply, “You know what I want,” and then leave.
That’s striking given that–according to Bradley Manning’s Article 138 complaint, written in his own voice–Commander James Averhart put Manning on suicide watch on January 18 to demonstrate that he was, for all practical purposes, God.
After being returned to my cell, I started to read a book. About 30 minutes later, the PCF Commander, CWO4 James Averhart, came to my cell. He asked me what had happened during my recreation call. As I tried to explain to him what had occurred, CWO4 Averhart stopped me and said “I am the commander” and that “no one could tell him what to do.” He also said that he was, for all practical purposes, “God.” I responded by saying “you still have to follow Brig procedures.” I also said “everyone has a boss that they have to answer to.” As soon as I said this, CWO4 Averhart ordered that I be placed in Suicide Risk Status.
Army board to evaluate WikiLeaks suspect (1/4/11)
A soldier suspected of providing classified documents to the Web site WikiLeaks will be evaluated by a mental health panel, a U.S. Army spokesman said.
The spokesman, Lt. Col. Robert Manning, said the Army is assembling a special "706 board" to decide whether Pfc. Bradley Manning is fit to stand trial, The Washington Times reported Tuesday.
Bradley Manning’s Rebuttal to Article 138 Complaint Denial by Quantico (1/10/11)
Article 138 Complaint by David Coombs (3/10/11)
On March 1, 2011, the Quantico Base Commander, Colonel Daniel J. Choike, denied PFC Manning's request to be removed from Prevention of Injury Watch and to have his custody classification reduced from Maximum to Medium Detention-In. The defense filed the following rebuttal to Colonel Choike's response. Colonel Choike will now complete his action on the Article 138 complaint, and then forward the proceedings to the Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, for his final review. If Secretary Mabus denies PFC Manning's requested relief, the defense will file a Writ of Habeas Corpus to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals.
WikiLeaker in Solitary by Ta-Nehisi Coates (12/15/10)
I think the worse part, is that very few people care what kind of condition the incarcerated endure. We have essentially accepted prison-rape. The New Yorker piece asks is solitary confinement torture? I'd ask, even if it is torture, whether we even care?
The Suggestibility Of Bradley Manning by Digby (12/21/10)
As we well know by now, the line between interrogation and torture has become indistinguishable among far too many people and many of these more suspect interrogation techniques are likely to produce the same kind of false information you get from torture. So one aspect of the Manning story stuck out at me as being pretty damning evidence and that's the fact that he's being awakened every five minutes during the day and if the guards "need" to assure themselves that he's ok, they wake him up at night. Keep in mind that this is a guy who's completely isolated and has no access to anything unauthorized, not even a real blanket and pillow. (Apparently, he's got some strange device that makes him miserable.)
Sleep deprivation is well known to enhance "suggestibility" and is commonly used in interrogations:
A person's suggestibility is how willing they are to accept and act on suggestions by others. Interrogators seek to increase a subject's suggestibility. Methods used to increase suggestibility may include moderate sleep deprivation, exposure to constant white noise, and using GABAergic drugs such as sodium amytal or sodium thiopental.
There's no evidence that they are using white noise or the drugs mentioned, but it sure sounds as if they employing moderate sleep deprivation to increase "suggestibility." And we know what they are suggesting, don't we?
Months and months of sleep deprivation and isolation cannot be justified for security reasons. This fellow isn't a commando. He isn't a professional spy. He's just some grunt who uploaded some electronic files. The only reasonable explanation for his treatment is that they are trying to get him to implicate someone else in his alleged a crime. And that's the oldest reason for torture in the books. In the old days, they wanted their subjects to implicate Satan. Today it's Julian Assange.
Bradley Manning Speaks About His Conditions by David House (12/23/10)
In my visit to see Bradley at the Quantico brig, it became clear that the Pentagon’s public spin from last week sharply contradicts the reality of Bradley Manning’s detainment. In his five months of detention, it has become obvious to me that Manning’s physical and mental well-being are deteriorating. What Manning needs, and what his attorney has already urged, is to have the unnecessary “Prevention of Injury” order lifted that severely restricts his ability to exercise, communicate, and sleep.
The lonely battle against solitary confinement by James Ridgeway and Jean Casella (1/19/11)
For the past few weeks, progressive commentators have been burning with outrage over the prison conditions endured by accused WikiLeaks source, Private Bradley Manning. For more than seven months, Manning has been held in 23-hour-a-day solitary confinement at a Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia, denied sunlight, exercise, possessions, and all but the most limited contact with family and friends. The conditions of his detention are being discussed, lamented and protested throughout the left-leaning blogosphere, and few of those taking part in the conversation hesitate to describe Manning's situation as "torture".
Bradley Manning's treatment undeniably deserves this attention. But while Manning's punishment is cruel, it is far from unusual. According to available data, there are some 25,000 inmates in long-term isolation in America's supermax prisons, and as many as 80,000 more in solitary confinement in other facilities. Where is the outrage – even among progressives – for these forgotten souls? Where, for that matter, is some acknowledgment of their existence?
Glenn Greenwald responds to the absurd suggestion he only cares about Manning (1/25/11)
There's an emerging theme circulating in some precincts that those protesting the conditions of Manning's detention are somehow acting improperly because they ignore -- and even implicitly endorse -- all the other cases of prisoners in the U.S. being held in prolonged isolation. This claim was first concocted by James Ridgeway and Jean Casella in a recent Op-Ed in The Guardian, in which they glaringly fail to identify a single person guilty of these accusations, opting instead for the consummately cowardly and slimy reliance on the "some say" strawmen tactic favored by mendacious politicians.
Second, in March, 2009, Sen. Jim Webb introduced legislation to fundamentally reform America's Prison State and prison conditions in the U.S.; I publicized that bill and hailed Webb's focus on what I called "disgustingly harsh conditions inside prisons" as "genuinely courageous and principled." Third, both before I ever heard of Manning and every time I've written about him, I've denounced prolonged isolation in general as not only inhumane, but torture. In June, 2009 -- roughly a year before I ever heard the name "Bradley Manning" -- here's what I wrote:
Prolonged solitary confinement is absolutely a form of torture, and while it's unknown whether Shalit was subjected to that, extreme isolation and prolonged solitary confinement are prominents features of America's prisoner system -- not only as part of the "War on Terror," but our domestic prison system as well.
Tortured Until Proven Guilty: Bradley Manning and the Case Against Solitary Confinement by Lynn Parramore (12/31/10)
In the earliest days of our Republic, a group of well-meaning Philadelphia Quakers set out to reform the prison system. The idea was to remove convicts from the mayhem and corruption of overcrowded jails to solitary cells where sinners would return to mental and spiritual health through reflection. In the Walnut Street Jail, no windows would distract the prisoners with street life; no conversation would disturb their penitence. Alone with God, they would be rehabilitated.
There was a small problem. Many of the prisoners went insane. The Walnut Street Jail was shut down in 1835.
But the word penitentiary became part of the language, and the idea of placing prisoners in solitary confinement did not die. It seemed so reasonable -- so much better than chain gangs or public stocks. New prisons opened to test the theory that solitude might bring salvation to criminals.
Former Commander of Headquarters Company at Quantico Objects to Treatment of Bradley Manning by David MacMichael
As a former regular Marine Corps captain, a Korean War combat veteran, now retired on Veterans Administration disability due to wounds suffered during that conflict, I write you to protest and express concern about the confinement in the Quantico Marine Corps Base brig of US Army Pfc. Bradley Manning.
What concerns me here, and I hasten to admit that I respect Manning’s motives, is the manner in which the legal action against him is being conducted. I wonder, in the first place, why an Army enlisted man is being held in a Marine Corps installation. Second, I question the length of confinement prior to conduct of court-martial. The sixth amendment to the US Constitution, guaranteeing to the accused in all criminal prosecutions the right to a speedy and public trial, extends to those being prosecuted in the military justice system. Third, I seriously doubt that the conditions of his confinement—solitary confinement, sleep interruption, denial of all but minimal physical exercise, etc.—are necessary, customary, or in accordance with law, US or international.
Captain David Price, retired JAG (1/27/11)
I turned on the Dylan Ratigan Show this afternoon somewhat in the middle of the discussions concerning PFC Bradley Manning focused on the length and conditions of his confinement at the Consolidated Brig, Marine Corps Development Command, Quantico, Virginia. While I do not have sufficient personal knowledge of either the allegations or the facts concerning his treatment to be able to respond to those concerns, for the purposes of this note I will accept as accurate what has been reported concerning unauthorized actions on the part of the command operating the brig. My response is not focused towards the specific facts of his case; but, rather, are in response to comments made on the show that there is "no due process in the military" or similar comments that when a person joins the military they surrender all legal rights and protections under the U.S. Constitution.
Throughout history are instances where individuals have abused their authority. No law or regulation will ever prevent misconduct from occurring. What laws can do, however, is provide a mechanism for holding wrongdoers accountable for their actions, whether it be PFC Manning as concerns the allegations against him; or Brig Commander James Averhart and the accusations being made against him. What is essential is responsible leadership, at all levels in the military chain of command, up to the President, as Commander-in-Chief, if necessary; and through oversight responsibilities of the Congress to ensure that military personnel suspected of offenses are not being abused and that their rights are being protected.
David P. Price
CAPT, JAGC, USN (Retired)
JAG Defense
If you'd like to hear an ex-JAG with a very different and callous opinion than Capt. Price, listen to this exchange with Glenn Greenwald.
Amnesty International (1/19/11)
Dear Secretary of Defense
I am writing to express concern about the conditions under which Private First Class (PFC) Bradley Manning is detained at the Quantico Marine Corps Base in Virginia. We are informed that, since July 2010, PFC Manning has been confined for 23 hours a day to a single cell, measuring around 72 square feet (6.7 square metres) and equipped only with a bed, toilet and sink. There is no window to the outside, the only view being on to a corridor through the barred doors of his cell. All meals are taken in his cell, which we are told has no chair or table. He has no association or contact with other pre-trial detainees and he is allowed to exercise, alone, for just one hour a day, in a day-room or outside. He has access to a television which is placed in the corridor for limited periods of the day. However, he is reportedly not permitted to keep personal possessions in his cell, apart from one book and magazine at a time. Although he may write and receive correspondence, writing is allowed only at an allotted time during the day and he is not allowed to keep such materials in his cell.
We understand that PFC Manning’s restrictive conditions of confinement are due to his classification as a maximum custody detainee. This classification also means that – unlike medium security detainees –- he is shackled at the hands and legs during approved social and family visits, despite all such visits at the facility being non-contact. He is also shackled during attorney visits at the facility. We further understand that PFC Manning, as a maximum custody detainee, is denied the opportunity for a work assignment which would allow him to be out of his cell for most of the day. The United Nations (UN) Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (SMR), which are internationally recognized guiding principles, provide inter alia that “Untried prisoners shall always be offered opportunity to work” should they wish to undertake such activity (SMR Section C, rule 89).
WikiLeaks probe: Army commanders were told not to send Manning to Iraq by Nancy Yossef (1/27/11)
Investigators have concluded that Army commanders ignored advice not to send to Iraq an Army private who's now accused of downloading hundreds of thousands of sensitive reports and diplomatic cables that ended up on the WikiLeaks website in the largest single security breach in American history, McClatchy has learned.
Pfc. Bradley Manning's direct supervisor warned that Manning had thrown chairs at colleagues and shouted at higher ranking soldiers in the year he was stationed at Fort Drum, N.Y., and advised that Manning shouldn't be sent to Iraq, where his job would entail accessing classified documents through the Defense Department's computer system.
But superior officers decided to ignore the advice because the unit was short of intelligence analysts and needed Manning's skills, two military officials familiar with the investigation told McClatchy.
The commanders hoped they could address Manning's discipline problems in Iraq, the officials told McClatchy, but then never properly monitored him. The result was a "comedy of errors" as one commander after another assumed someone else was addressing Manning's problems, one official said. Both officials spoke anonymously because they weren't authorized to discuss the investigation.
Bradley Manning, who allegedly leaked hundreds of thousands of secret government documents to Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks, turns 23 in jail Friday by David Nicks (12/17/10)
The last time Bradley Manning saw the world outside of a jail, most Americans had never heard of WikiLeaks. On Friday, Manning, the man whose alleged unauthorized release of hundreds of thousands of classified documents put the website and its controversial leader, Julian Assange, on the map, turns 23 behind bars. Since his arrest in May, Manning has spent most of his 200-plus days in solitary confinement. Other than receiving a card and some books from his family, his birthday will be no different. In an exclusive interview with The Daily Beast, his attorney, David Coombs, revealed key details about Manning’s imprisonment and kind gestures from his family that provided a bit of comfort in the inmate's otherwise extremely harsh incarceration.
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Speedy Trial by David Coombs (1/3/11)
The Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial is applied to military jurisprudence through two separate and distinct provisions-- Rule for Court-Martial (R.C.M.) 707 and Article 10 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) (10 U.S.C. § 810). While both provisions seek to protect the same constitutional right, and while there is considerable overlap between the two, each provision has separate rules regarding when the protections attach and when they are breached.
Whether stemming from R.C.M. 707 or from Article 10 UCMJ, a motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial must be raised before the court-martial is adjourned, and it is waived by a guilty plea, as provided in R.C.M. 907(b)(2)(A) and 905(e). Once the issue is raised, the burden of persuasion rests with the government. R.C.M. 905(c)(2)(B). Before hearing on the motion, the parties may stipulate as to undisputed facts and dates of relevant pretrial events. The stipulation will provide the court a chronology detailing the processing of the case. R.C.M. 707(c)(2).
Speedy Trial Update by David Coombs (1/13/11)
On 9 January 2011, the defense filed a demand for speedy trial with the Government. PFC Manning has been in pretrial confinement since 29 May 2010. Since 12 July 2010, the case has been on Government requested excludable delay under R.C.M. 707(c). This delay request by the Government was approved by the court-martial convening authority.
The case is currently awaiting the start of a Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M) 706 Board. This board will likely begin its work in February.
WikiLeaks: Bradley Manning To Receive $15,000 For Defense (1/13/11)
Supporters of the Army private suspected in one of the biggest security breaches in U.S. history say WikiLeaks has fulfilled its pledge to aid in his defense by contributing $15,100.
DOD Press Office Scrambling to Explain Bradley Manning’s Treatment by Marcy Wheeler (1/27/11)
Something is badly amiss in DOD’s efforts to tell its side of how it is treating Bradley Manning.
Miklaszewski reports what appears to be limited hangout push-back against allegations that Manning was “tortured” (but not “abused”). While Manning was not tortured, Miklaszewski’s sources say, he was improperly put on suicide watch for two days last week.
On Monday, U.S. military officials also strongly denied allegations that Manning, being held in connection with the WikiLeaks’ release of classified documents, has been “tortured” and held in “solitary confinement” without due process.The officials told NBC News, however, that a U.S. Marine commander did violate procedure when he placed Manning on “suicide watch” last week.
Note that both of these scoops were attributed to “US military officials,” though a later reference refers to “official,” singular. Later in the article, he cites, “U.S. Marine and Army officials” stating that Manning “is being treated like any other maximum security prisoner.” If I had to guess, I’d say Miklaszewski was protecting whatever officials gave him the scoop, while more clearly identifying those who pushed back on it.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Bradley Manning's Confinement Conditions are 'Not Customary' by Daphne Eviatar (12/23/10)
Marines Replace Commander in Charge of Detention of Bradley Manning, Accused WikiLeaker by Joshua Norman (1/26/11)
One week ago, David Coombs, the main lawyer for accused WikiLeaks document leaker Bradley Manning, filed a complaint with military officials against Quantico Base Commander James Averhart.
On Wednesday, the Marines replaced Averhart as Quantico's commander with Chief Warrant Officer Denise Barnes, CNN reports.
A base spokesman claims the complaint and Averhart's removal are not related, and that the decision to replace Averhart was made back in October, CNN reports.
Bradley Manning and the Rule of Law by Kevin Zeese (1/17/11)
The case of Private Bradley Manning raises legal issues about his pre-trial detention, freedom of speech and the press, as well as proving his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Putting aside Manning's guilt or innocence, if Bradley Manning saw the Afghan and Iraq war diaries as well as the diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks, what should he have done? And, what should be the proper response of government to their publication?
One of the key outcomes of the Nuremberg trials was that people who commit war crimes or crimes against humanity will be held accountable even if they were following orders. This is known as Nuremberg Principle IV which states: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him." The Nuremberg principles were enshrined in a series of treaties.
How do the Nuremberg Principles and other laws of war apply to Bradley Manning?
What is a person who does not want to participate in war crimes or hiding war crimes supposed to do when he sees evidence of them? If Manning hid the evidence would he not be complicit in the crimes he was covering up and potentially liable as a co-conspirator? These were questions that Bradley Manning allegedly wrestled with. According to unverified chat logs Manning, talking with Adrian Lamo on email, asks: "Hypothetical question, if you had free reign over classified networks for long periods of time... say, 8-9 months... and you saw incredible things, awful things... things that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC... what would you do?"
On Manning by Sady (1/4/11)
It's hard to write about Bradley Manning. I've composed more than one lengthy, impassioned post about Manning, and deleted it; we've heard things about or from Manning that we weren't supposed to hear, and we've heard lots of things about Manning that may or may not be the truth, and addressing those things publicly "in any of the various ways that they are actually being construed" may actually put Manning in danger.
But let's start with the most important thing, something simple: Bradley Manning is accused of trying really, really hard to do the right thing.
Bradley Manning is nobody special. He was an ordinary, unexceptional person, enlisted in the US Military, as many people are, and he allegedly found out that the military was doing something which, though we all might have suspected or feared or heard about it, betrayed its most basic promise.
Soldier's inhumane imprisonment by LA Times (1/10/11)
Pfc. Bradley Manning, the 23-year-old Army intelligence analyst suspected of providing documents to WikiLeaks, can't reasonably complain that the military has him in custody. But the conditions under which he is being held at the Marine detention center at Quantico, Va., are so harsh as to suggest he is being punished for conduct of which he hasn't been convicted.
President should heed own words on Bradley Manning by San Francisco Chronicle (3/17/11)
President Obama made things worse by insisting that Manning's treatment was "legal." In the past decade this country has insisted that many horrible imprisonment procedures were legal. Obama campaigned on the promise that just because some things were "legal" didn't mean that they were right.
He should heed his own words on the Manning case.
The Abuse of Private Manning by
New York Times (3/14/11)
Pfc. Bradley Manning, who has been imprisoned for nine months on charges of handing government files to WikiLeaks, has not even been tried let alone convicted. Yet the military has been treating him abusively, in a way that conjures creepy memories of how the Bush administration used to treat terror suspects. Inexplicably, it appears to have President Obama’s support to do so.
Private Manning is in solitary confinement at the Marine Corps brig in Quantico, Va. For one hour a day, he is allowed to walk around a room in shackles. He is forced to remove all his clothes every night. And every morning he is required to stand outside his cell, naked, until he passes inspection and is given his clothes back.
Military officials say, without explanation, that these precautions are necessary to prevent Private Manning from injuring himself. They have put him on “prevention of injury” watch, yet his lawyers say there is no indication that he is suicidal and the military has not placed him on a suicide watch. (He apparently made a sarcastic comment about suicide.)
Forced nudity is a classic humiliation technique. During the early years of the Bush administration’s war on terror, C.I.A. interrogators regularly stripped prisoners to break down barriers of resistance, increase compliance and extract information. One C.I.A. report from 2004 said that nudity, along with sleep deprivation and dietary manipulation, was used to create a mind-set in which the prisoner “learns to perceive and value his personal welfare, comfort and immediate needs more than the information he is protecting.”
US treatment of Manning shows nation’s hypocrisy by Jason Campbell (3/22/11)
For nearly 300 days, Pfc. Bradley Manning has experienced every horror the United States government is able to place on a human being with its newly designed “no-touch torture” policy.
Inauguration Day 2009 was, for many people, the day in which the despicable crimes against humanity conducted by the Bush regime came to an end. After taking the oath of office, President Obama signed one of his first executive orders which allowed for the closing of the U.S. gulag at Guantanamo Bay.
With jubilance and wonder, the American people felt a wave of pride pour back over themselves as once again, for the first time in eight years, honor and respect for human value returned to the White House. Now, after having wasted away the first half of his administration with failed programs and pitiful reactions to crises, President Obama has proven The Who’s brilliant maxim, “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”
The ability of many people in this country to hypocritically bask in their false assumption of being the “land of the free” is remarkable to me. While Manning is rotting in a small cell, reduced to a horrifying figure of his once healthy and robust 23-year-old self, the American people are praising the rebels in foreign lands who have finally thrown the shackles of tyrants and despots off themselves.
The Truth Behind Quantico Brig's Decision to Strip PFC Manning by David Coombs (3/5/11)
As even Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell has stated, PFC Manning has been nothing short of "exemplary" as a detainee. Additionally, Brig forensic psychiatrists have consistently maintained that there is no mental health justification for the POI Watch imposed on PFC Manning. In response to PFC Manning's question, he was told that there was nothing he could do to downgrade his detainee status and that the Brig simply considered him a risk of self-harm. PFC Manning then remarked that the POI restrictions were "absurd" and sarcastically stated that if he wanted to harm himself, he could conceivably do so with the elastic waistband of his underwear or with his flip-flops.
Without consulting any Brig mental health provider, Chief Warrant Officer Denise Barnes used PFC's Manning's sarcastic quip as justification to increase the restrictions imposed upon him under the guise of being concerned that PFC Manning was a suicide risk. PFC Manning was not, however, placed under the designation of Suicide Risk Watch. This is because Suicide Risk Watch would have required a Brig mental health provider's recommendation, which the Brig commander did not have. In response to this specific incident, the Brig psychiatrist assessed PFC Manning as "low risk and requiring only routine outpatient followup [with] no need for ... closer clinical observation." In particular, he indicated that PFC Manning's statement about the waist band of his underwear was in no way prompted by "a psychiatric condition."
While the commander needed the Brig psychiatrist's recommendation to place PFC Manning on Suicide Risk Watch, no such recommendation was needed in order to increase his restrictions under POI Watch. The conditions of POI Watch require only psychiatric input, but ultimately remain the decision of the commander.
Given these circumstances, the decision to strip PFC Manning of his clothing every night for an indefinite period of time is clearly punitive in nature. There is no mental health justification for the decision. There is no basis in logic for this decision. PFC Manning is under 24 hour surveillance, with guards never being more than a few feet away from his cell. PFC Manning is permitted to have his underwear and clothing during the day, with no apparent concern that he will harm himself during this time period. Moreover, if Brig officials were genuinely concerned about PFC Manning using either his underwear or flip-flops to harm himself (despite the recommendation of the Brig's psychiatrist) they could undoubtedly provide him with clothing that would not, in their view, present a risk of self-harm. Indeed, Brig officials have provided him other items such as tear-resistant blankets and a mattress with a built-in pillow due to their purported concerns.
Just to get a sense of how prevalent the disinformation against Manning is, watch this clip, thankfully Jane and David are there to set the record straight(er):
Bradley Manning comment costs State Department spokesman his job by Brad Knickerbocker (3/13/11)
Debate over the controversial treatment of alleged WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning apparently has cost State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley his job.
Speaking at a seminar at M.I.T. last week, he described Manning’s treatment as “ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid,” although he added “nonetheless, Bradley Manning is in the right place.”
At his press conference Friday, Obama was asked about Crowley’s sharp criticism of Manning’s treatment.
"I have actually asked the Pentagon whether or not the procedures that have been taken in terms of his confinement are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards,” he replied. “They assured me that they are."
In other words, Obama – who campaigned against the mistreatment of Iraq War prisoners and who pledged to close the military prison at Guantánamo Bay – was put in the position of having to take the Pentagon’s word for it, despite continuing criticism from domestic and international human rights organizations.
In his statement regarding his resignation, Crowley acknowledged that.
"My recent comments regarding the conditions of the pre-trial detention of Private First Class Bradley Manning were intended to highlight the broader, even strategic impact of discreet actions undertaken by national security agencies every day and their impact on our global standing and leadership," he wrote. "Given the impact of my remarks, for which I take full responsibility, I have submitted my resignation as Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs and Spokesman for the Department of State."
Protesters refuse to leave intersection at Quanitco by Daniel Carawan (3/23/11)
Outside of the Virginia Marine Corps base at Quantico, nearly 30 protesters were arrested after refusing to leave the intersection located at the base entrance.
It is still unclear what evidence has been assembled that points to Bradley Manning as the guilty party in the Wikileaks case.
Leaving the moral implications of the case aside, forcing an individual to strip naked and spend 23 hours of every day in solitary confinement is not morally sound itself.
Dylan Ratigan, Law Professors and I All Agree: Obama Needs to Explain or End Manning’s Treatment by Marcy Wheeler (3/16/11)
On Friday, Dylan Ratigan and I had a podcast chat about the treatment of Bradley Manning. Among other things, we talked about the “Constitutional Law Professor” President’s rather bizarre response when DOD told him it was standard procedure to strip an Army man of his clothes because of a trumped up claim that his underwear was a terrible threat to him.
DYLAN: And what does that say to you about our President that he endorses such a ridiculous point of view?
MARCY: I mean for starters it says he’s giving the military way too much leeway. They said, “Well, this is standard operating procedure.” And as I pointed out today in my blog, what they’re doing to Manning, the forced nudity, goes right back to Gitmo and goes right back to the treatment they used with Abu Zubaydah. So him giving — he came in to office and on day 2 said, “We’re going to close Gitmo. We’re going to end these abusive techniques,” and yet when DOD came to him and said, well, you know, it’s all standard procedure to take away a man’s underwear. The President just said, “Oh, okay.”
Bradley Manning: FireDogLake’s Marcy Wheeler on Radio Free Dylan (3/15/11)