US says Manning leak hurt human rights work

[struggle4progress]

8:09 AM Saturday Aug 3, 2013

... Acting Assistant Secretary Michael Kozak testified Friday at Manning's sentencing hearing ...

Manning has said he leaked the material to expose wrongdoing by the military and U.S. diplomats.

Kozak says the cables identified people who had worked with the United States, putting them at risk of death, violence or incarceration. He says the department helped some of those people relocate.

Kozak says the greatest damage is that some foreign human rights workers are now reluctant to talk to the department because they fear their conversations will be revealed ...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10907540

[struggle4progress]

1. Leaked Names Shuttled to Safety, Ambassador Says

Friday, August 02, 2013
By ADAM KLASFELD

FT. MEADE, Md. (CN) - Political persecution is still a real threat for people named in cables that Pfc. Bradley Manning disclosed to WikiLeaks, an ambassador who headed a "Persons at Risk Working Group" testified Friday. Michael Kozak made the revelation as he spoke of the "mitigation efforts" to prevent harm from befalling those identified in the more than 250,000 State Department telegrams that WikiLeaks published as Cablegate ... As head of the WikiLeaks Persons at Risk Working Group, Kozak said part of his duties entailed "helping people relocate" ... Even as of two weeks ago, "some people have not been able to regularize their status in the places that they're in and we have to help them in that respect," Kozak continued ...

http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/08/02/59953.htm

[leveymg]

3. With 250,000 cables, they can't cite a single solid case of serious actual harm? Just at-risk?

On the first day of the sentencing hearing, Brig. Gen. Robert Carr, who headed the Information Review Task Force investigating the leaks, said he found no evidence that any intelligence source was injured or killed because of Manning's leaks.

[randome]

9. 'At risk' is 'not good'.

With all that data dumped into the public sphere without review, is it hard to imagine some of it might have done some damage?

It's like publishing everyone's credit card number to embarrass one person. It would still be a crime to do that regardless of identifying harm to a specific individual.

I would imagine specifically identifying individuals would still put them at risk. However, I don't see a problem with the government making that known to the judge in private. I don't know if that's what occurred, however.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[leveymg]

12. There's a burden of proof in criminal matters - "Not good" doesn't meet the standard

of proving criminal harm to the United States or any particular serious harm to others. This is without regard to the charges Manning admitted to.

I agree that his approach of releasing unreviewed materials was reckless, but he left that part to Wikileaks and its media outlets.

[randome]

27. I agree with you on the 'proving harm' issue.

But I don't know if a military trial treats that differently. If they do, I wouldn't readily understand the difference unless someone here can explain it.

There is enough to convict Manning on the leak of classified documents by itself. The prosecution shouldn't need to 'reach for the moon' to send a punitive message to other would-be leakers.

He'll serve his ten years or whatever (hopefully less for good behavior) and we'll see how he emerges.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[reusrename]

57. LOL

We pretty much know how this court will treat the law.

[msanthrope]

35. But the burden of proof in sentencing is lower than BRD. Remember, what may not convict you

in a court of law can damn you in sentencing, where the judge is given much greater leeway with regards to standard of proof. I think 'preponderance' is what Lind gets to go with, not even 'clear and convincing.'

[pnwmom]

29. Right, because people have to die for you to care. The CIA had

to move some of them because their lives were at risk. If they hadn't done that, then I guess you'd be satisfied because there would be deaths to point to.

[randome]

33. Also a good point.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[leveymg]

34. Then, we are all in agreement that no great harm has come of this.

In my book, that is fortunate. There should be some mercy shown, all around, and we should declare a truce and stop fighting over Manning. Hopefully, some good will come of the greater knowledge we now have of how our government really thinks and operates that was previously hidden from us.

[pnwmom]

42. Death isn't the only possible harm. If an effective agent had to be removed,

that is a serious harm to his or her mission.

But I agree that the judge can "show some mercy" to Manning. He isn't a Benedict Arnold.

[morningfog]

2. Nothing like the CIA using vaccinations as cover to collect DNA.

[idwiyo]

53. +1

[Smarmie Doofus]

4. LOL. "Nazis Charge Jews WIth Genocide." The header's a keeper. n/t

[struggle4progress]

7. What's your actual evidence that Michael Kozak is a "Nazi", asiode from your smirk?

[NuclearDem]

14. That's not at all what the poster said and you know it.

[struggle4progress]

23. Article to which said poster responded was abot KOzak's testimony

[Autumn]

5. Oh yeah, the video comes to mind. Didn't look like human rights to me.

I thought it looked more like war crimes and a big fucking violation of human rights. But that's just my view.

[Violet_Crumble]

32. It's not just yr view. It's mine as well...

[Autumn]

49. This is all getting to be so disgusting.

I'm glad I am in good company.

[Recursion]

6. It definitely did in the Maldives

But that was a losing battle to begin with

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. LOL. This from the country that's murdering civilians with drones.

[Zorra]

10. Weasel Speak. Human Rights Workers = Agents trained at the School of the Americas, now

known as Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC), who infiltrate other countries in order to promote the interests of the 1% and keep wealthy private interests safe from democracy.

The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC), formerly known as[1][2] the US Army School of the Americas, is a United States Department of Defense Institute located at Fort Benning near Columbus, Georgia, that provides military training to government personnel of Latin American countries.

The school was founded in 1946 and from 1961 was assigned the specific goal of teaching "anti-communist counterinsurgency training," a role which it would fulfill for the rest of the Cold War.[3] In this period, it educated several Latin American dictators, generations of their military and, during the 1980s, included the uses of torture in its curriculum.[4][5] In 2000/2001, the institute was renamed to WHINSEC.[6][7]:233
snip---
According to the Center for International Policy, "The School of the Americas had been questioned for years, as it trained many military personnel before and during the years of the 'national security doctrine' – the dirty war years in the Southern Cone and the civil war years in Central America – in which the armed forces within several Latin American countries ruled or had disproportionate government influence and committed serious human rights violations in those countries."[citation needed] SOA and WHINSEC graduates continue to surface in news reports regarding both current human rights cases and new reports.

Defenders argue that today the curriculum includes human rights,[32] but according to Human Rights Watch, "training alone, even when it includes human rights instruction, does not prevent human rights abuses."[30]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation

[Pelican]

11. That's just ignorant...

Really? The human rights and aid workers around the world are all really secret squirrels for the US?

I'll tell you as someone who deals with these guys on a daily basis, they are sensitive enough as it is about working with government and military in particular.

If they think that you will compromise them, they are out the door.

[Zorra]

18. Ooooh, bingo, I hit a nerve! nt

[Pelican]

19. Only in the sense...

... that it would be a shame if spread such an ignorant statement to others.

Aid workers around the world do some amazing stuff and lumping them all in with your CIA cloak and dagger stuff that you found on wikipedia, is a real disservice to what they accomplish.

[Zorra]

20. Yes, aid workers do some amazing stuff. But that's not who Kozak was

referring to in this case.

I take it you are a big fan of WHINSEC?

[Pelican]

21. Actually, I was just referring to what you were talking about...

Human Rights Workers = Agents trained at the School of the Americas, now

No distinction made.

[Zorra]

24. Ah, sorry. You see, I recall Assistant Secretary Kozak being involved in

several affairs in the Caribbean, and Central and South America.

Allow me to explain further...

I believe this sporadic involvement spanned 5 republican administrations, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II.

I believe that he was Legal Adviser for the Dept. of State under Ronald Reagan from 1982 to 1988.

(Iran-Contra, Nicaragua, El Salvador Civil War, military presence established in Honduras to aid the contras, etc.)

I believe that he was Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Inter-American Affairs, from 1988-1991 under Bush I.

(Invasion of Panama)

I believe that Bush I nominated him to be Ambassador to El Salvador in 1991, before the end of the Salvadoran Civil War.

I'm just sayin'...

[struggle4progress]

30. He's a career Department of State professional. He's unlikely to have been involved in much during

the Nixon years, since he was bottom-of-the-ladder back then: he seems to have worked on the Panama Canal Treaty negotiations for some time back then. He later also worked for some time on implementing the Camp David accords

During Bush I, he was one of the people sent to attempt to negotiate a Noriega departure

[Zorra]

43. I'm quite sure that he was involved in the Iran Contra scandal proceedings. nt

[struggle4progress]

46. In Volume I of the Walsh report, the Index indicates his name appears only in Chapter 24,

where he mainly seems to be doing routine legal work to help evidentiary responses and help witnesses prepare testimony

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/

[Zorra]

52. Nah...there's actually a bit more to it all than just that. Acting Assistant Secretary Michael Kozak

has had some fascinating adventures since he began his career way back in the Nixon Administration.

North Trial Document Called Faulty

WASHINGTON, April 25— A senior State Department official said today that a document introduced at the trial of Oliver L. North had incorrectly accused the Reagan Administration of trading increased American aid to Honduras for that country's support of the Nicaraguan rebels.

The official, Michael G. Kozak, told Congress that the State Department had killed a 1985 White House plan under which a ''discreet'' emissary was to be sent to Honduras to explain the conditions surrounding the American aid.

The plan, which was approved by President Reagan, was disclosed in a 42-page stipulation of facts that lawyers for the prosecution and the defense had agreed on as a substitute for classified Government documents that could not be made public. Mr. North is on trial for 12 criminal counts in connection with aiding the Nicaraguan contras in a period in which it was forbidden by Congress. Testimony Before House Panel
snip---
Mr. Kozak's testimony came before a House appropriations subcommittee. In an interview, Mr. Kozak said he based his statement about the Honduras plan on his review of the classified documents in the case. ''I don't know who killed it, whether it was Secretary of State Shultz or who, but what happened is it didn't get done,'' he said, referring to the former head of the State Department, George P. Shultz

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/04/26/us/north-trial-document-called-faulty.html

State Dept. Aide Accused of Misleading Panel

WASHINGTON, May 24— The chairman of an influential House subcommittee today accused a State Department official of misleading the panel on whether the Reagan Administration made a secret deal with Honduras in 1985 to aid the Nicaraguan rebels.

The letter by Representative David R. Obey, Democrat of Wisconsin, to Secretary of State James A. Baker 3d cast doubt on remarks made last month by Michael G. Kozak, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Central America.

Mr. Kozak assured committee members that a reading of classified documents of the period showed that no foreign aid money had been used by the Reagan Administration to entice Honduras's support for the rebels, or contras.

After Mr. Obey made the letter public late this afternoon, telephone calls to Mr. Kozak's office and home were unanswered.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/25/us/state-dept-aide-accused-of-misleading-panel.html

State Dept. Backs Off From View That Contra Aid Plan Was Killed

WASHINGTON, June 3— A State Department official has backed away from his testimony that the Reagan Administration scrapped a 1985 plan to link aid to Honduras to that country's help for the contras, a Congressman says.
snip---
Mr. Kozak testified on April 25 before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, which is headed by Mr. Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat, that the ''plan was disapproved at the objection of the State Department on the grounds that conditionality,'' that is, the link between American assistance and Honduran support for the contras, ''was contrary to U.S. policy.''
snip---
Mr. Obey said he believed ''there's absolutely no question that it was carried out,'' adding, ''The documents laid out the plan. The additional assistance we know did arrive.''

Mr. Kozak did not respond to messages left at his home telephone Friday night and this afternoon.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/06/04/us/state-dept-backs-off-from-view-that-contra-aid-plan-was-killed.html

I wonder if he ever had the chance to blow the whistle on Reagan.


This one is kind of fun ~

PANAMA, May 26— Gen. Manuel Antonio Noriega accused the Reagan Administration today of inventing a crisis for colonial ends and making him a ''humiliating proposal'' he could not accept while maintaining ''the dignity and sovereignty of Panama.'
snip--
General Noriega said his real problems began when he refused requests from American officials ''at the height of Iran-contra to participate in aggression against Nicaragua.'' 'Dignity of Panama'
snip---
He described his weakened political opposition here as upper-class servants of the United States whose souls had been bought.

A month of negotiations between the general's representatives and a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Michael G. Kozak, broke down Wednesday after renewed reports of an impending agreement circulated through Washington.

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/27/world/noriega-charges-us-invented-crisis.html

Yikes!

Washington Talk; Anger Unites Dodd and Helms, the Oddest Couple

Mr. Helms is unhappy that the Central Intelligence Agency, apparently at the prodding of the State Department, funneled $600,000 in support of exiled contras who backed the candidacy of Mrs. Chamorro over conservative Nicaraguans more to the Senator's liking. Mr. Dodd is upset because he and Administration officials had made a deal to bury the hatchet and work together on Central America, as long as the Bush Administration ended covert financing for the contras that was not specifically authorized by Congress.

The two Senators are demanding to know what Michael G. Kozak and Joseph G. Sullivan, who have been designated for the El Salvador and Nicaragua embassies respectively, knew about the covert program when they served in senior positions in the State Department's Latin America Bureau.

Mr. Helms is not talking to reporters while he recuperates from heart trouble, but one aide said, "It's an issue of breaking the law."

The State Department is furious, noting that a report by the department's inspector general established that neither nominee broke any laws. (The Senators' aides call the report a whitewash.)

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/28/us/washington-talk-anger-unites-dodd-and-helms-the-oddest-couple.html

Kozak Heading for El Salvador As Part of Diplomatic Shuffle
AP , Associated Press
Apr. 29, 1991 1:57 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AP) _ Michael Kozak, a top aide in the State Department's Latin America bureau, is expected to be named U.S. ambassador to El Salvador, according to administration sources.

Kozak, a deputy assistant secretary, would replace Ambassador William Walker, who has served in El Salvador for three years.

http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1991/Kozak-Heading-for-El-Salvador-As-Part-of-Diplomatic-Shuffle/id-4f765c1652471ae0f293b756cb77495c

This could not have been fun at all.

Shadow Of Nicaraguan Election -- Ambassadorships Held Up As Senators Question Reports Of CIA Campaign Funding

WASHINGTON - Two ambassadorial appointments in Central America have been blocked by allegations that the nominees helped secretly funnel U.S. money to Nicaraguan president Violeta Chamorro's winning campaign three years ago.

The nominations of career foreign-service officers Joe Sullivan to Nicaragua and Michael Kozak to El Salvador have languished for months as two prominent senators have demanded information about a covert State Department program launched in 1989.

According to the allegations, Sullivan, Kozak and other ranking diplomats secretly paid about $530,000 in CIA money to former contras and other Nicaraguan exiles in Miami to return to their homeland and campaign for Chamorro and opposition groups.
snip---
Neither Kozak, a top Latin policy adviser, nor Sullivan, a specialist on Central America, returned phone calls requesting comment Thursday.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19920628&slug=1499425

36+ Members of Congress to Introduce Anti-SOA Legislation

On August 2, 2013, at least 36 Members of Congress will jointly introduce legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives, that would suspend operations at the School of the Americas (SOA/WHINSEC), and mandate investigations into the connection between U.S. foreign military training and human rights abuses in Latin America! The original co-sponsors of the Latin America Military Training Review Act have responded to the demands of their constituents, who don't want their tax dollars to be wasted on the training of repressive militaries at the SOA/WHINSEC.

Has your Representative not signed on yet? We write at least 36 because there will be more legislators that come on board before August 2. Your Representative needs to hear from you in order for them to be added to the list of original cosponsors. Is your Representative one of the original 36? If so, please take a moment to thank them for standing up to the Pentagon and for human rights. Either way, PLEASE CLICK HERE to send your Representative an email.

Already emailed? Please take a moment to call your Rep right now!

Here are our 35 (so far) Congressional Champions, with Reps. Jim McGovern and John Lewis leading the charge. Click on the pictures to send your representative a thank you message through your Twitter account!

Don't y'all forget to email or call your congress critters!

[struggle4progress]

56. Well, those are interesting links. Thanks! and thanks for the SoA heads-up

[L0oniX]

13. Reframing ...It's so easy even the US gov can do it. Before ya know it...

the military will be known as a human rights org.

[Harmony Blue]

15. The U.S. looks like fools

the more they whine about this.

[Comrade Grumpy]

16. That's rich. n/t

[99Forever]

17. Like drones maybe?

Or spying on private citizens going about their lawful business and daily lives without any just cause or reasonable suspicion?

Or trying to cut the EARNED benefits of millions just to give away more to the already rich few?

Or capitulating to the Teapublicans time after time after time after time, and then PRETENDING to be a "Democrat?"

Want some more?

[Rex]

22. If only they would have cared this much about Valerie Plame.

NT.

[Aerows]

38. Who was actually doing something important

like stopping nuclear weapons proliferation. Not protecting those that blow up civilians and journalists then laugh about it.

[Rex]

44. Yes and they all laughed over it with Bob Novak.

May his soul be rotting in hell as I type this.

[Cha]

25. Manning didn't know wtf he was leaking.. he and the people involved

are lucky no one was killed because of him.

[Spider Jerusalem]

26. Us treatment of Manning in custody hurt American credibility on human rights issues, they mean

The UN special rapporteur on torture has formally accused the US government of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment towards Bradley Manning, the US soldier who was held in solitary confinement for almost a year on suspicion of being the WikiLeaks source.

Juan Mendez has completed a 14-month investigation into the treatment of Manning since the soldier's arrest at a US military base in May 2010. He concludes that the US military was at least culpable of cruel and inhumane treatment in keeping Manning locked up alone for 23 hours a day over an 11-month period in conditions that he also found might have constituted torture.

"The special rapporteur concludes that imposing seriously punitive conditions of detention on someone who has not been found guilty of any crime is a violation of his right to physical and psychological integrity as well as of his presumption of innocence," Mendez writes.

The findings of cruel and inhuman treatment are published as an addendum to the special rapporteur's report to the UN general assembly on the promotion and protection of human rights. They are likely to reignite criticism of the US government's harsh treatment of Manning ahead of his court martial later this year.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/12/bradley-manning-cruel-inhuman-treatment-un

[struggle4progress]

28. Pilkington, like too many other Assangists, misrepresented that report

The real issue is that Mendez was not allowed an unmonitored visit, which IMO he should have been allowed. Absent permission for an unmonitored visit, Mendez declined to visit at all, a decision which IMO was entirely consistent with his official UN position and his obligation to uphold universal standards. But this left Mendez with only allegations and his correspondence, on the basis of which he could only reiterate universal standards, such as "imposing seriously punitive conditions of detention on someone who has not been found guilty of any crime is a violation of his right to physical and psychological integrity as well as of his presumption of innocence"

Here's what the Report actually said:

(a) UA 30/12/2010 Case No.USA 20/2010 State reply:27/01/2011 19/05/2011
Allegations of prolonged solitaryconfinement of a soldier charged with the unauthorized disclosure of classified information
170.The Special Rapporteur thanks the Governmentof the United States of America forits response to this communication regarding the alleged prolonged solitary confinement ofMr. Bradley E. Manning, a US soldier charged with the unauthorized disclosure ofclassified information. According to the information received, Mr. Manning was held insolitary confinement for twenty-three hours a day following his arrest in May 2010 in Iraq,and continuing through his transfer to the brig at Marine Corps Base Quantico. His solitaryconfinement-lasting about eleven months-was terminated upon his transfer fromQuantico to the Joint Regional Correctional Facility at Fort Leavenworth on 20 April 2011.Inhis report, the Special Rapporteur stressed that “solitary confinement is a harsh measure which may cause serious psychological and physiological adverse effects on individuals regardless of their specific conditions.” Moreover, “[d]epending on the specific reason for its application, conditions, length, effects and other circumstances, solitary confinement canamount to a breach ofarticle 7of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,and to an act defined in article 1 or article 16 of theConvention against Torture.”(A/66/268paras. 79 and 80)Before the transfer of Pfc Manning to Fort Leavenworth, theSpecialRapporteurrequested an opportunity to interview him in order to ascertain the preciseconditions of his detention. The US Government authorized the visit but ascertained that itcould not ensure thattheconversation would not be monitored. Since a non-privateconversation with an inmate would violate the terms of reference applied universally infact-finding by Special Procedures, theSpecial Rapporteurhad to decline the invitation. In response to the Special Rapporteur’s request for the reason to hold an unindicted detaineein solitary confinement, the government responded that his regimen was not “solitary confinement” but “prevention of harm watch” but did not offer details about what harm was being prevented. To the Special Rapporteur’s request for information on the authority toimpose and the purpose of the isolation regime, the government responded that the prisonrules authorized the brig commander to impose it on account of the seriousness of the offense for which he would eventually be charged. TheSpecial Rapporteur concludes that imposing seriously punitive conditions of detention on someone who has not been found guilty of any crime is a violation of his right to physical and psychological integrity as wellas of his presumption of innocence. The Special Rapporteur again renews his request for aprivate and unmonitored meeting with Mr. Manning to assess his conditions of detention.

(b) AL 15/06/2011 Case No.USA 8/2011State reply: None to date
Follow-up to a letter sent 13May2011 requesting a private unmonitored meeting with Private(Pfc.) Bradley Manning.
171.The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of the United States of America forits response to the communication dated 13 May 2011 requesting a private unmonitored meeting with Private Bradley Manning. Regrettably, to date the Government continues to refuse to allow the Special Rapporteur to conduct private, unmonitored, and privileged communicationswith Private Manning, in accordance with the working methods of his mandate (E/CN.4/2006/6 paras. 20-27).

[Spider Jerusalem]

31. Attacking the messenger, nice

the only "misrepresentation" I see here is yours:

GENEVA — US authorities' treatment of WikiLeaks suspect Private Bradley Manning was "cruel and degrading," the UN special rapporteur on torture Juan Ernesto Mendez said Monday.

"I believe Bradley Manning was subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in the excessive and prolonged isolation he was put in during the eight months he was in Quantico," he told AFP, referring to the US military prison near Washington.

Mendez said that "fortunately" the alleged mistreatment ended when Manning was transferred from Quantico to another prison in Kansas.

"But the explanation I was given for those eight months was not convincing for me," he said, speaking on the sidelines of a UN Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva.

Jailed for more than a year and a half before his arraignment last month, Manning, 24, has complained of being placed in solitary confinement, of bullying by guards, and of being subjected to an ultra restrictive regime in Quantico.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hPjULxh7XTumdVF9KOdNbmSepIyw

And NB that the direct quote from Mendez in the excerpt I posted is also in the excerpt you posted.

[struggle4progress]

36. Pilkington claims in the Guardian article that "The UN special rapporteur on torture

has formally accused the US government of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" but then goes on to say "Mendez told the Guardian that he could not reach a definitive conclusion"

My post #28 directly and fully from his discussion of his correspondence regarding Manning at pages 74-75 of report addendum. Manning is named on no other pages of this addendum (which Pilkington links in his article)

Despite your claim, the Mendez quotes regarding Manning, from the AFP article, do not actually occur in the Mendez addendum or in the excerpt I posted. Mendez is, of course, entitled to any opinion he chooses, regarding the treatment of Manning, but it is note-worthy that his official report did not contain his opinion that "Bradley Manning was subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment ... during the eight months he was in Quantico" but rather only included his conclusion that "imposing seriously punitive conditions of detention on someone who has not been found guilty of any crime is a violation of his right to physical and psychological integrity as well as of his presumption of innocence"

The difference between his opinion (offered to AFP) and his conclusion (offered in the addendum to his report) is this -- the opinion states his personal suspicions about how Manning was treated, whereas the conclusion only states his official stance regarding the case, which reduces to nothing other than a pure statement of sound human rights principle ("imposing seriously punitive conditions of detention on someone who has not been found guilty of any crime is a violation of his right to physical and psychological integrity as wellas of his presumption of innocence&quot

[Spider Jerusalem]

39. Dizzy yet from all that spinning?

Since you're so keen on distinguishing opinion from fact: it is a factthat Manning was held without trial in solitary confinement for nine months. Solitary confinement has been denounced by the UN as torture (there is a growing body of research on the physical and psychological effects of long-term solitary confinement that supports this). Therefore Bradley Manning was tortured; QED.

See:

http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=11506&LangID=E

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_gawande

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/07/solitary-confinement-2/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/24/the-case-against-solitary-confinement.html

[Aerows]

41. I love the conclusion

that "imposing seriously punitive conditions of detention on someone who has not been found guilty of any crime is a violation of his right to physical and psychological integrity as well as of his presumption of innocence" is some sort of defense that everything was just peachy with regards to Manning's treatment.

I can't believe anyone would go with that argument, but I guess when you grasp at straws, you have to clutch what you can.

[struggle4progress]

45. I've never argued for solitary confinement, and I've never argued that extended solitary confinement

wouldn't qualify as torture

Manning was held in Special Quarters 1 at Quantico. At Quantico, solitary confinement would have corresponded to confinement in the more restrictive Special Quarters 2, before the brig was closed. The Lind decision to grant 112 days off sentence for punitive treatment pre-conviction was apparently based on the fact that the Special Quarters 1 restrictions, applied to Manning with the justification of suicide watch or prevention of injury, were sometimes (though not always) inappropriate

... Judge Lind in decision: Bradley Manning "not held in solitary confinement. It means alone & without human contact” ...
Published on Tuesday, January 8, 2013 by Common Dreams
Judge Rules Bradley Manning Illegally Treated, But Upholds Charges
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/01/08-10

[Spider Jerusalem]

48. Manning was held, naked, in isolation, for 23 hours a day for nine months.

He was not allowed out of his single-prisoner cell for 23 hours a day for those nine months. Regardless of what a military judge, who may have some interest in presenting the actions of the military justice system in the best possible light, has said, the conditions of Manning's detention have been denounced as inhumane and tantamount to torture by the UN Special rapporteur on torture and by various other persons who are far more qualified to speak on issues of psychology, and of what constitutes torture, than Col. Lind.

And in any case punitive treatment of a prisoner accused but not tried or convicted is questionable enough.

[struggle4progress]

50. No. He was not held naked in isolation for nine months.

According to his attorney, Coombs, as stated in Coombs' 27 July 2012 Article 13 motion, Manning was placed on suicide watch 18 - 21 January 2011 and 2 - 6 March 2011 (see pages 27 - 37). According to Coombs' motion, Manning was allowed to wear only his underwear during the day and was required to sleep naked at night during the period 18 - 20 January 2011 and during the period 2 - 6 March 2011; also according to Coombs, Manning was forced to stand naked at morning call 3 - 6 March 2011; from 7 March 2011 on, a suicide smock was provided for nightwear

You can read the motion at this link, provided by Coombs at his website: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_zC44SBaZPoQ2hLa21jNlM0WmM/edit?pli=1

So the defense alleged about 6 days of being required to stay in his underwear during the day, 6 nights of being required to stay in his underwear during the night, and about 4 mornings of being required to present naked at morning call

These claims were contested: IIRC the prosecution offered testimony that the naked-at-night requirement had been imposed only because the brig did not have a extra suicide smock for Manning and was discontinued once one could be supplied; and offered further testimony that Manning himself chose to present naked at parade rest during morning call. I do not recall how Lind found regarding these particular competing claims

In any case, nobody has seriously claimed Manning was held naked for nine months. Nor was he in isolation: he was entitled to regular visitors, for example

[Spider Jerusalem]

51. Regardless of the length of time which he was denied clothing...

everything I can find supports the basic fact that he was held in isolation in a single cell 23 hours a day for nine months.

UN special rapporteur on torture Juan Mendez defines solitary confinement as a regime in which an inmate is kept isolated, seeing only guards, for at least 22 hours a day. He has called for a ban on incarcerating people in these conditions in all but exceptional circumstances, and with a limit of 15 days even then.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22878268

That is an accurate description of the conditions under which Manning was held; 23 hours a day in his cell, seeing only guards, with whom he did not converse.

I find it interesting the mental gyrations you're evidently willing to put yourself through in order to somehow justify this.

[struggle4progress]

54. Getting the facts right is not a "justification" of anything: it's a pre-requisite

for meaningful useful discussion

It's fine with me if you want to support Manning, but then I think you should try to stick to the facts as closely as possible -- because the more often you wander from the facts, and the further you wander from the facts, the more people are going to notice the tendency to bullshizz, and that's going to have a growing impact on your credibility. Maybe you should consider the possibility that folks, who point out to you that you're careless with the fact, might actually be doing you a favor

If you claim Manning was held naked for nine months; if then I provide you with a link to a document from his attorney that I think only claims about 6 days of underwear only in the daytime, 6 nights of sleeping naked, and a few mornings of naked parade rest morning call; and if then you denounce THAT as "mental gyrations" to "somehow justify this" -- then my natural reaction will be that that you tend to make claims based on whether or not they support the narrative you prefer, rather than on whether or not the claim is true -- and THAT suggests to me that your political analyses are likely to be entirely useless, because they're unlikely to be based on a careful assessment of facts

Was Manning in isolation at Quantico? He was allowed visitors:

... Only two people visit him: his lawyer, David Coombs, and a friend, David House. Manning doesn't have many friends ... A researcher at MIT, House is involved in the hacker community in Boston. Manning was connected to the group through a friend and House said he knew of him ... House got involved and began to visit Manning in jail ...
Bradley Manning, the unknown soldier
By Sophie Elmhirst
Published 06 March 2011
http://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2011/03/manning-house-held-base-iraq

[Spider Jerusalem]

55. allowed visitors once a week and in isolation the rest of the time?

That's still being held in solitary confinement. You're attempting to make the argument that he wasn't held in solitary. Which is absurd, really.

And I haven't said that I supported Manning anywhere. I don't approve of his treatment, but the things he's accused of should see him sent to Leavenworth for twenty years. (One needn't support murder to think that murderers shouldn't be tortured or executed, either.)

[struggle4progress]

58. Allowed visitors on Saturdays and Sundays, as I undersood it. And according to the brig at the time,

he was able to, and allowed to, speak with other prisoners present, although the cell lay-out prevented them from seeing each other

The actual oddity of his case IMO was that he was not transferred more quickly out of the high-security Quantico brig to another prison: the usual policy was do such a transfer within a month or two

[Aerows]

40. What?

"imposing seriously punitive conditions of detention on someone who has not been found guilty of any crime is a violation of his right to physical and psychological integrity as well as of his presumption of innocence"

Oh gee, that's SO MUCH BETTER. I mean, violating someone's physical and psychological integrity along with the presumption of their couldn't possibly be considered torture, no way, no how. Waterboarding people didn't harm them physically for long and only affected their psychological integrity a little bit, and hey, serious punitive conditions of detention on someone who hasn't been found guilty of a crime is just peachy.

Is that the argument you are going with?

[struggle4progress]

47. I completely agree with the statement

"imposing seriously punitive conditions of detention on someone who has not been found guilty of any crime is a violation of his right to physical and psychological integrity as well as of his presumption of innocence"

But it's a statement of basic principle, rather than being a finding of fact

[dipsydoodle]

37. Any old lame excuse.

.