Bradley Manning to Testify on ‘Unlawful Pretrial Punishment’ He Endured

[babsbunny]

http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/07/28/bradley-manning-to-testify-on-unlawful-pretrial-punishment-he-endured/

By: Kevin Gosztola Saturday July 28, 2012 11:10 am

A comprehensive motion containing allegations and evidence from the defense for Pfc. Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of releasing classified information to WikiLeaks, was filed on July 27. The 110-page motion, which Manning’s defense lawyer said should “shock the conscience of the court” during a motion hearing this month, included a request to the Fort Meade court to dismiss all charges with prejudice because he was subjected to “illegal pretrial punishment” while imprisoned at the Quantico Marine Brig for nine months.

The defense’s motion was not approved for publishing; however, two other motions involving the defense’s request for witnesses to appear during argument on “unlawful pretrial punishment” were posted to the defense’s website. One of the motions reveals Manning will likely take the stand to give testimony on how he was subjected to “unlawful pretrial punishment”—what many have called cruel and inhuman treatment or even torture. His testimony may include what he knows about a video of his interrogation at Quantico, which the government claims does not exist.

[struggle4progress]

1. From what I can tell, his pretrial conditions at Quantico were standard for someone

potentially facing a sentence of more than 5 years

Also, from what I can tell, Manning was never held in solitary at Quantico: he was held in a unit where he usually could not see but could hear and speak with other detainees. His unit did have a more stringent disciplinary wing, but he was not housed there. Conditions were probably still far from ideal

The Feds seem now to have eliminated pretrial detention at Quantico, as of sometime last year, and may now be using Rappahannock and/or Leavenworth for pretrial detention. So there might have been some generic issue regarding Quantico, that Manning can exploit

But IMO he won't get far with the suicide prevention smock complaint: he "joked" about suicide not long after another Quantico detainee killed himself, and so his "joke" was naturally taken very seriously

[sabrina 1]

2. Interesting, but State Department Official P.J. Crowley does not agree with you.

After speaking out and calling the treatment of Manning who was in solitary confinement 'counter-productive' he resigned his position in the State Department. He's not exactly known for making wild anti-military or government statements.

And Manning did not 'joke' about suicide. He was challenging the excuse being used to keep him in solitary confinement.

The treatment of Manning has been an embarrassment for the US and I hope he does get to testify about it, since he knows far more about it than we do and we should have an interest in getting the facts, unless we are afraid of something.

[struggle4progress]

3. Manning lawyer: Suicide joke led to stripping

The Associated Press
Posted : Saturday Mar 5, 2011 17:42:21 EST

WASHINGTON — The lawyer for a jailed soldier suspected of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks wrote Saturday that his client was stripped of his clothing at night because he had made sarcastic comments about using underwear to commit suicide ...

http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2011/03/ap-wikileaks-manning-lawyer-says-suicide-joke-led-to-stripping-030511/

Custodial facilities generally won't try to decide whether a comment like that is a "joke" -- they have no option except automatically to treat it as a genuine threat

[sabrina 1]

6. I know what his lawyer said having followed the case as it was happening.

The fact is that Manning was not 'joking about suicide'. He was making a remark about the ridiculous notion that if he wanted to commit suicide he could hardly do it with his underwear, which undermined the excuses given by the military for their treatment of him. Not that hard to 'get' unless someone doesn't want to.

[struggle4progress]

7. Nobody's gonna second guess the jailers on that: everybody's gonna take the POV

that it would have been irresponsible to try to guess whether or not Manning was being sarcastic

[sabrina 1]

10. I think you underestimate people's ability to determine what a jailer's motivations might be.

There are two sides to this. To assume that in a fair trial, 'no one' would question the jailers is a very, very big assumption. Eg, an awful lot of people watching this, DID question the jailers' motivation. The question is, can Manning get a fair hearing?

[struggle4progress]

17. Well, let us turn it over and over a bit. Here are some exercises for you:

(1) How would you yourself react if you heard Manning committed suicide? And what would your reaction be if you then heard testimony that Manning had made remarks suggesting he could easily commit suicide?

(2) Imagine you were on a jury, examining Manning's suicide. What would your reaction be now if you heard testimony that Manning had made remarks suggesting he could easily commit suicide?

(3) Next imagine that you were a DoD lawyer, giving advice to Manning's jailers. What should you tell them to do if they reported that Manning made remarks suggesting he could easily commit suicide? What effect does it have on your advice, if you know that another brig prisoner has recently committed suicide?

(4) Finally imagine that you are a juror, hearing a brig prisoner complain that he should not have been issued a suicide prevention smock, because his remarks about committing suicide were sarcastic. Would you fault his jailers for issued the suicide prevention smock?

[sabrina 1]

23. Manning was not suicidal so your questions are not relevant.

The jailers were lying. The proof of that is that he has made no attempt to commit suicide despite the so-called 'suicide prevention' tactics having ended.

Let me ask you a question, why are you ignoring all the other facts surrounding his treatment and giving credibility to those who have been proven to have been wrong and maybe even criminally?

Why do you assume that Manning and everyone who knew him not only denied those lies, but so did experts who were familiar with his case.

Added to that, when his treatment became public, it ended. If he was suicidal, why did they not insist on continuing their actions which they claimed were so justified? Why were they then willing to risk him committing suicide? Did he suddenly stop being suicidal when their treatment of him was publicly exposed and condemned? Wasn't that incompetent of them?

Your questions have no relevance to the facts of this case. Once the military back-tracked the lies were exposed. He is still alive and is not suicidal. Explain that if you can.

[dionysus]

27. it's like what happens if you make a joke about robbing a bank... while you're in a bank, or

mentioning "bomb" in an airport.

[struggle4progress]

4. P.J. Crowley, of course, was and is entitled to his opinion. And

I would give his opinion considerably more weight here if there were any reason to believe that Crowley, in this particular case, really had cause to believe there was maltreatment of Manning

In fact, Crowley doesn't seem to have had cause to believe that, and he also seems not to have carefully gotten his facts right before shooting off his mouth

[sabrina 1]

5. Well, you'll have to forgive me if I think that a State Department Official has access to more

facts than an anonymous poster on the internet. No offense, but the fact is you have no idea what Crowley knew before he spoke out publicly.

[struggle4progress]

8. That's fine. There's no question he's a bright and competent man

I happen to think he carelessly shot from the hip on this particular issue. We know what Crowley said he was concerned about, from various press reports of the time, including detailed interviews. And as far as I can tell, Crowley was concerned by the claim that Manning was being harassed by being kept naked. Also, as far as I can tell, that claim wasn't true: his jailers responded to what could have been a suicide threat

Crowley, of course, moved on to teach at Penn State, Dickinson College, and the Army War College

[sabrina 1]

11. Crowley merely articulated what many civil rights organizations were concerned about

The claim apparently WAS true, and the situation was dealt with, the treatment ended, AFTER Crowley's public statements about it. If there was nothing wrong with his treatment there would have been no need to transfer him to another facility. The treatment was shameful, and in a fair trial would have a huge effect on the prosecution's case.

Crowley did not just shoot off at the mouth. He was aware of the allegations and is not given to NOT speaking carefully. Also, he did not retract his statements. Fortunately his words had an impact and Manning's treatment has improved since then.

[struggle4progress]

16. You need to get some chronology straight

Here's a suicide about a month before everything

Quantico investigates brig suicide
By Amy McCullough - Staff writer
Posted : Thursday Feb 4, 2010 17:59:54 EST
A Marine captain awaiting a court-martial for defrauding the government was found dead from an apparent suicide Sunday in the Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va., brig, base officials said ... Webb was accused of defrauding the government of pay, allowances and entitlements, and charged with fraud, fraud against the government, larceny, and conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman ... Webb was found dead in the brig at 7:21 a.m. Sunday <January 29> ... http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/02/marine_quantico_brig_death_020410w/

Here's Manning's version:

Bradley Manning: 'Stripping me of all of my clothing is without justification'
Alleged WikiLeaks source cites demeaning routines and says he was 'punitively' placed on suicide watch
Ed Pilkington in New York
The Guardian, Thursday 10 March 2011
... I responded that the PoI restrictions were absurd and sarcastically told him if I really wanted to harm myself, that I could conceivably do so with the elastic waistband of my underwear or with my flip-flops. Later that same day, I was told that I would be stripped naked at night due to something that I had said to MSG Papakie ... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/11/bradley-manning-strip-clothing-prison

Here are Coomb's blog posts

03 March 2011
PFC Manning Forced to Strip Naked
Last night, PFC Manning was inexplicably stripped of all clothing by the Quantico Brig. He remained in his cell, naked, for the next seven hours. At 5:00 a.m., the Brig sounded the wake-up call for the detainees. At this point, PFC Manning was forced to stand naked at the front of his cell. The Duty Brig Supervisor (DBS) arrived shortly after 5:00 a.m. When he arrived, PFC Manning was called to attention. The DBS walked through the facility to conduct his detainee count. Afterwards, PFC Manning was told to sit on his bed. About ten minutes later, a guard came to his cell to return his clothing ... http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2011/03/confinement-conditions-worsen.html

04 March 2011
PFC Manning Stripped Naked Again
PFC Manning was forced to strip naked in his cell again last night. As with the previous evening, Quantico Brig guards required him to surrender all of his clothing. PFC Manning then walked back to his bed ... http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2011/03/pfc-manning-stripped-naked-again.html

Here's a news report indicating Manning was issued suicide prevention smock by Monday 07 March 2011]

WikiLeaks Suspect Gets Sleeping Smock
March 10, 2011 8:51 PM
HAGERSTOWN, Md. (AP) — The Marine Corps says it has issued a suicide-proof sleeping garment to the imprisoned Army private suspected of giving classified material to WikiLeaks. Col. Thomas Johnson said Thursday that Pfc. Bradley Manning was given the smock Monday <7 March 2011> as a substitute for clothing that is removed each night from Manning’s cell at the brig in Quantico, Va ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2011/03/10/wikileaks-suspect-gets-sleeping-smock/

Here's Phillipa Thomas report of Crowley's remarks:

The State Department spokesman and the Prisoner in the Brig
Posted on March 10, 2011

... Around twenty of us were sitting around the table listening to his views on social media, the impact of the Twittersphere, the Arab uprisings, and so on, in a vast space-age conference room overlooking the Charles River and the Boston skyline. And then, inevitably, one young man said he wanted to address “the elephant in the room”. What did Crowley think, he asked, about Wikileaks? About the United States, in his words, “torturing a prisoner in a military brig”? Crowley didn’t stop to think. What’s being done to Bradley Manning by my colleagues at the Department of Defense “is ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid.” He paused. “None the less Bradley Manning is in the right place”. And he went on lengthening his answer, explaining why in Washington’s view, “there is sometimes a need for secrets… for diplomatic progress to be made” ... http://philippathomas.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/the-state-department-spokesman-and-the-prisoner-in-the-brig/

From the NYT report of Crowley's 13 March 2011 resignation:

... White House officials were infuriated by the episode, administration officials said, which one described as “the last straw” in a series of incautious remarks by Mr. Crowley ... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/us/politics/14crowley.html

Amazingly, Crowley, shortly afterward, had a triple one year appointment to Penn State, Dickinson, and the Army War College. The process for such appointments typically requires several months for application solicitation, review, and negotiation. So I deduce that Crowley was carefully exploring other options, outside the State Department, before his March controversy gave him an excuse to leave:

P.J. Crowley Named Bradley Chair
He will teach a media and national security policy course in the fall.
April 27, 2011
... Philip J. “P.J.” Crowley, former assistant secretary of state for public affairs, has been named as the 2011-2012 recipient of the General Omar N. Bradley Chair in Strategic Leadership. While in residence, Crowley will conduct classes at Dickinson College, the U.S. Army War College and the Penn State University Dickinson School of Law and School of International Affairs ... http://www.dickinson.edu/news-and-events/news/2010-11/Crowley-Named-Bradley-Chair/

[sabrina 1]

26. What does someone else committing suicide have to do with Manning?

You have gone to a lot of trouble to repost information most of us who followed this case have already read.

What you have not done is answer the question: If Manning was suicidal, why did the Military end their treatment of him which they claimed was to prevent him from committing suicide, as soon as their treatment of him was condemned, worldwide?

Did he suddenly become non-suicidal? If you are correct, then they were grossly negligent, weren't they?

And since he has never made any attempt to commit suicide before or after their brutal treatment of him, it seems he never was, as he stated, suicidal.

You can post all the links you want, but I would like to know why if they believed he was suicidal they ended their efforts to prevent him from doing so as soon as their treatment of him was universally condemned.

[snot]

32. I.m.h.o.,

it's a waste of your time and energy to argue with struggle. Post enough to make sure those who really want to know get the facts; but I don't think you'll change struggle's mind.

I'll just throw in, more than one of the army's own shrinks had filed reports confirming that Manning was not a hazard to himself and there was no justification for continuing to keep him in solitary (see http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2011/01/article-138-complaint.html ), yet Manning remained in solitary until it became an international scandal.

[sabrina 1]

36. You are right. He was not suicidal and I thought that had been pretty much established, at least

with people on the 'left' who generally are more informed than the average Fox News viewer.

Thank you for the links, I think you are also correct about stating facts to people who do not want facts. I know this but mostly do it for the benefit of others who do want to know what is going on.

[Dan de Lyons]

33. Army Psychs Said Manning Not Suicidal

Struggle4, army psychiatrists determined that Manning wasn't suicidal. No risk of suicide. They determined it over and over again.

If they had ever determined that Manning had become suicidal, then the jailors would have known that their "slow torture" - 22 hrs a day of no human contact - was working.

While the wing Manning was in had cells for other prisoners, no one was in those cells. He was alone, except possibly for a jailor watching him. During the night he was woken frequently to make sure he wasn't committing suicide.

"Over the course of the following three months, two separate forensic psychiatrists consistently stated that there was no medical reason for PFC Manning to be under POI watch. The only exception to this was on December 10, 2010 when it was recommended that PFC Manning remain under POI watch for one week. The following week, the forensic psychiatrist once again recommended that PFC Manning be removed from POI watch. Despite these consistent recommendations, PFC Manning has remained on POI watch and in MAX custody." ~~ http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2011/01/article-138-complaint.html

[lovuian]

28. Manning was tortured no doubt about it

America military tortures its own soldiers
I talked to an ex Navy Seal who under went waterboarding as
a training for if captured behind enemy lines

Noone can withstand torture and waterboarding
Nobody
they knew it and yet they did it
A person's brain isn't the same afterwards

just like solitary confinement destroys


By torturing it shows that the US government acknowledges Torture of which
it has documented and admitted it did

Abu Ghahib and there is a reason why Guatanomo is not on US soil to avoid the legal system of America

in the Military Tribunal of WWII we killed generals for ordering waterboarding on our soldiers

and today we have to deal with why we are torturing .....

America is not the America it once was ....

[sabrina 1]

31. Yes, I didn't think there was any doubt it. But as always lately, I am

surprised to find that on DU we are hearing the arguments I expect to hear from the deniers on the right. I should stop being surprised and simply accept the fact that the 'left' is as willing to condone anything the government does without question, as the right. At least that is how it seems lately. I'd love to be proven wrong.

So many willing to defend torture in this country. How shameful. I keep hoping we are just going through a bad period as other countries have done and we will survive it when our leaders step up and do the right thing. I am still hoping.

[msanthrope]

9. Good. I hope he testifies. That will be a plus for the prosecution. nt

[sabrina 1]

12. Manning's 'trial' is a mere show. He has already been convicted and has no chance of

a fair trial in this setting. Everything will 'help the prosecution' as the case is now going.

But in a different setting, a civilian court with a civilian jury, Manning testifying about his treatment would not be guaranteed to 'help the prosecution'. But that is not the case here. A military tribunal doesn't have much credibility considering what we've learned of all the others over the past ten years or so, when even military prosecutors themselves resigned because of the tactics they were expected to use to 'get convictions'.

[msanthrope]

15. Actually, any public testimony of Mr. Manning, regardless of venue, will help the prosecution.

I was thinking trial tactics.

[struggle4progress]

18. To judge from his lawyer's activity to date, his defense isn't "I didn't do it"

but more along the cloudier lines of "I'm not all there" or "I didn't really hurt anyone"

Despite what his supporters indicate, Manning himself doesn't seem to be aiming for any "I had a moral obligation as a whistle-blower" defense

[sabrina 1]

20. Manning always expected consequences for what he did. He fully understood, as the chat logs

demonstrate, that he would most likely be prosecuted. But he believed that it was worth the consequences to stop the abuse he witnessed when his efforts to report those abuses (torture) to his superiors failed. So I don't get your point, as far as I know, he has never claimed that what he did would not result in prosecution. That is why many people view him as a hero. Much like Ellsberg, who was also willing to take the consequences of his actions in order to try to stop a greater crime.

Now it is up to his defense team to try to minimize those consequences and the question for US Citizens is, should a member of the military, having witnessed crimes and after using the channels available to him to try to stop those crimes, but getting no support from the chain of command, take the next step, as Manning did? Or should they ignore their oath and simply look the other way?

I'm not sure you are familiar with this case, but imo, I regard anyone who tries to stop torture to be a decent human being and someone willing to go to jail, as he has said he was, in order to expose those crimes, to be a far more courageous person than most of us are.

[1-Old-Man]

13. So basically all the Government has to do is deny his motion ... move on folks, nothing to see here.

That boy's story will never be aired publicly. He will be tossed into a military hell hole and forgotten.

[riderinthestorm]

14. Manning's already been declared guilty by his CIC. There's no question of how the military

will rule now that the CIC has already pronounced judgement.

The only bright side to this darkness is that we may get a glimpse into how far our government will go in breaking even more laws to punish whistleblowers.

[NashvilleLefty]

19. Manning's 15 minutes is up. He's just trying to extend it.

If what he's claiming is true, we'd hear a lot more examples. As it is, every claim he's made received a very reasonable response.

He's just looking for celebrity.

[sabrina 1]

21. So you are not familiar with this case either?

Let me ask you a question. If you were a soldier and you witnessed crimes, torture in this case which the US claims to condemn, and you reported it to your superiors, believing it was your duty to do so, but were told to 'stfu' and go about your business, what would you do? Add to that the fact that part of your 'duties' included handing people, people who were being held for making posters protesting their government's (Iraq's in this case) oppression against their people, over to a brutal police force who you knew were torturing and maybe murdering those peaceful protestors?

Would you hand them over to their fate, or would you try to do something about it?

[TorchTheWitch]

24. I can tell you what I wouldn't do

I wouldn't steal tons of classified documents the vast majority of which had nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of crime and in fact had no clue what they contained myself and hand them over to some foreigner to be published to the general public worldwide just because I was angry that my superiors refused to recognize my non-existing utter brilliance and than have the audacity to claim I was a whistleblower.

I disagree with some of his treatment while incarcerated - though I'd disagree with it regardless of who it was or why they were incarcerated - but the dude is guilty as sin. He didn't do it to save or help anyone - he did it because he was angry and it was his foolish way of getting revenge on a military he was not happy being in for whatever personal reasons of his own.

[sabrina 1]

25. Then you haven't read his own words, spoken before he was known to be the leaker.

At that time he was fully aware of breaking the law and willing to take the consequences.

But to say he was doing it for personal reasons, well if what he said himself is true, I guess he was. He could not tolerate being responsible for handing over peaceful protesters to torturers. If that's personal, then you are correct. His reasons were made clear BY HIM. Maybe you should check them out.

I know I would not have done what he did, because I would not have had the courage to do so. But I admire him for trying, even if he was taking on an impossible task. The truth is the US views torture as tolerable and even necessary and we do not prosecute torturers or any other kind of war criminal. But we do prosecute those, like Manning, who expose them. What about the crimes he exposed? Do you think what he did was more 'evil' than the killing and torture of innocents?


Breaking the law is sometimes necessary. The FFs broke a myriad of laws and they too knew the consequences of doing so. Had they failed to defeat the British, we would be calling them traitors today and they would most likely have been executed. So to say he broke the law doesn't deal with the real crimes of the Iraq War. If there were more Bradley Mannings, fewer innocent people would be dead and/or being tortured right now.

[NashvilleLefty]

29. Actually, from your comments, I think I am more familiar

than you are.

And to answer your question, if what you portray were true wouldn't MORE have come forward?

We have heard a lot about the atrocities that were committed. I believe most of those stories. I don't believe Manning's story. I think he is obscuring legitimate issues, and therefore hurting those efforts to bring them to the public consciousness.

He is a distraction at best.

[sabrina 1]

30. You don't have to 'believe' Manning, all you have to do is read some of the leaked material

in which his claims were proven to be true. I think I do know more than you about this issue, or you would have known that there is really no dispute about his claims of the US handing over protesters to the Iraqi police after which they were tortured and sometimes killed. I have seen no official refutation of his claims. What I have seen is that he is being used to distract from those crimes and nothing has been done to stop them or to hold the perpetrators responsible.

Have you read any of the material he leaked? Doesn't sound like it.

[NashvilleLefty]

34. I've seen the video, and read some of the leaked material but

this isn't about any of that. It's about how he was treated after he was arrested.

I also know about his life before the military. He was a very disturbed person. But this is not about that, either.

It's about whether he was treated criminally after he was arrested. There is no evidence of that.

[sabrina 1]

35. Actually he wasn't 'a very disturbed person' before joining the military. He was like many other

people his age, more normal than many, but with some issues, as most teenagers and young adults experience. Over all, he was just like any others his age except for being extremely intelligent, more so than many others, the reason why he was an analyst, and extremely good at his job.

He also had something that our war-mongering leaders would prefer our soldiers NOT have, a sense of right and wrong. That is what got him trouble, sadly.

And this is about the leaked material because it was a response to a false statement by you, which led me to ask if you had read any of the leaked material itself

You:

We have heard a lot about the atrocities that were committed. I believe most of those stories. I don't believe Manning's story.

You said you did not believe Manning's story, I told you his story was proven to be true BY the material he leaked himself and asked if you had read any of it.

It's interesting that you 'don't believe Manning' while admitting that crimes are being committed over there. He was correct, he reported crimes, he was ignored because our leadership are committing crimes over there with impunity, and with no consequences. Something I thought everyone on the left was fully aware of.

It's odd to see this on a democratic board since I know how the left always supported the soldiers, like Manning, who stood up against these crimes against humanity they witnessed there and no one ever doubted them.

So what is your reason for not believing Manning, especially since everyone else does, including the military who have not denied his claims at all? Did you support the troops who refused to go back to Iraq during the Bush administration? Did you 'not believe them' either?

I'm curious since I know that if Bush was president right now, the 'left' would be all over him for what has been done to Manning. Sad too, since most of what he revealed in the way of war crimes, was FROM the Bush era.

But then if people just react without reading or researching, they wouldn't know that.

[WillyT]

22. Good... Get It All On The Record...

An American Hero being tried For Un-American activities by those that have Un-Americanly disemboweled the U.S. Constitution.

Ben Franklin would be soooooo... proud.

NOT!!!



& Rec !!!