WikiLeaks:Locking Up Whistleblower Bradley Manning in Solitary Confinement Puts America's Depravity

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Ellen15

 

I am assuming you are stating wikileaks actions are messed up logic.

Assumed wrong

I support transparency I dont care who does it or who provides it

Im for accountability!

Im not a mushroom

Originally posted by IAMIAM
The problem here my friend, is that I do not know the "why" of things and how the "why" has impacted the method. Without knowing the "why", I cannot say I would have done it differently. Also, if I did know the why, and I did come up with a way to do it differently, this does not mean either man could arrive at the same conclusion. What's done is done how it was meant to be done. What we as a society now have to do is to decide how to move forward. Is keeping the person who disclosed the information alive in deplorable conditions going to undo what has been done? No. Is it going to prevent others from doing the same? No.

The why on mannings part was because he had issues with his treatment while in the US Army, from basic training, to his advance training school for intelligence analysts. He was in trouble prior to being deployed for making youtube videos to send to his family that discusses classified information in terms of how the analyst rooms are set up. This was reported to his chain of command and he was reprimanded for it. He had issues with the military with the perception they were doing nothing to assist him.

For whatever reason he leaked the video footage of the reporters being killed. Absent any information to the contrary from the FEderal Government, his actions appeared to be justified for that in my opinion. The moment it went beyond that type of information, he crossed a line.

Wikileaks got the info, and in the end used Manning for their own agenda. There is still the possibility wikileaks provided manning with encryption software to get the info out, which again has not been adequately explored, at least to our knowledge.

Deplorable conditions is evens prison, not the brig of a military jail. Deplorable conditions is being executed without a trial, no right to face your accuser, no right to cross examine, no right to evidence.

He is clothed, allowed to shower, allowed to eat, has access to a lawyer and has access to the legal system where he is innocent until proven guilty.

Originally posted by IAMIAM
What is the purpose other than to exact punishment out of revenge?

Well.... since he broke the law the goal would be to investigate and if found guilty, punish him for breaking those laws. I reject the notion of revenge in this case in terms of actions against manning.

Originally posted by IAMIAM
War is Hell. I cannot say this enough. We as a species need to learn to move past creating Hell to protect our share of earths bounty and learn to share it, that we may create the Heaven we all dream about. What we are doing to this Man, this human being, is not conducive to achieving this goal.

With Love,

Your Brother

Noble goal, and I agree with it. However, the actions of manning dont exactly push that goal. The actions of Assange dont push that goal. The actions of Governments around the world, including the US dont exactly push that goal.

The argument being made about manning and assange is circular. The argument is laws were broke, and people should be held responsible for that. How can it be justice to hold one group responsible for breaking a law, while at the very same time ignoring the fact manning broke the law as well?

Whether you agree or disagree with Mannings actions, he broke the law.

Why the double standard? Even more

The argument to me is right out of Animal Farm. Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others. Supporters of wikileaks makes this argument on a daily basis.

Originally posted by Ellen15
Your beef should be with the newspapers not wikileaks lolol

My issue is with Manning for his actions. My issue is with Assange and his actions. My issue is with wikileaks and their actions.

Originally posted by IAMIAM
You obviously support the war and trust your government when it comes to the 2 wars

Please dont speak for me as you dont know me or my views. In my opinion, its irrelevant if I support the wars or not however I do support our troops, and those troops of our allies. What manning did, as well as Assange, made an attempt to cause problems with the Government of the US. In the end, they also placed our military personnel in danger by releasing the information in the manner they did.

Originally posted by IAMIAM
The Afghan and Iraq War Logs were released by the newspapers late last year and around the same time "Obamas War" was also released (but not by wikileaks or newspapers)

Correct, and the newspapers got their information from Assange, via manning.


People make the argument that the world should be peacful, injustices stopped and rights respected, and I agree.

My question though for those people are:

Are we going for peace, human rights and respect worled wide? Or is i just restricted to one country? Why are we focusing on holding the US government responsbile for their actions, but not Iran, China, N. Korea etc etc?

In for a penny in for a pound. Its either a stand against ALL countries who behave in a criminal manner, or the entire effort is wasted and a failure from the start.

Originally posted by Ellen15
Please provide the actual quote where Assange said "revenge"

DailyMail
Economic Times

Assange said his decision to dump top secret US documents on its website was revenge against "abusive elements of the United States government".

Originally posted by Ellen15

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Ellen15

 

I am assuming you are stating wikileaks actions are messed up logic.

Assumed wrong

I support transparency I dont care who does it or who provides it

Im for accountability!

Im not a mushroom

edit on 6-1-2011 by Ellen15 because: (no reason given)

So its ok to have innocent people killed or placed in danger because you feel entitled to classified information?

Out of curiosity then why dont people who eel entitled to this information use the established process to gain access to it? Either join the military or file a FOIA request.

Seriously......
What relevance is a person's motive if what is provided can be proven true?
Maybe if you need to label the person a hero or traitor.

What is very relevant is the vitriol people have for "whistleblowers" if they are blowing a whistle on something
they don't want to be true or from somebody they want to hate.....

example: If Amadinajad brought proof to the U.N. that people in the Bush administration were involved with 9/11
there would be the haters because of Amadinajad's motives, and the lovers, because it supports their already held beliefs....The same thing if the information came from a Dick Cheney aide....haters with the "traitor" label...and lovers with the "hero" label.

Has wikileaks lied? I am only interested in the truth on any topic....., even if it is as mundane as what really broke up the Beatles.

The bottom line on the 23hr solitary confinement.....no pillow or blanket...that is cruel and unusual punishment...
I knew a guy in 23hr confinement who did it for 3yrs in a row once, we gave him a half hour a shift to shower and watch t.v. he got a couple pieces of paper to write on a day, and one book he could exchange for another.
This guy, was not serving a criminal sentence, nor was he awaiting a trial, nor was he in the military....
He was civilly committed.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

So its ok to have innocent people killed or placed in danger ?

Please provide supporting evidence!

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Assange said his decision to dump top secret US documents on its website was revenge against "abusive elements of the United States government".

Its pretty clear that isnt an actual quote by Assange lolol

reply to post by Res Ipsa


(MODS - I know we are not suppose to copy an entire page, but I belive its important to show all of the info, and not snippets since most people will not completey read the article).

Media has been leaving out some key facts and once again people dont bother to do research into things, but instead take it at face value an Gospel.. Comments are made he is being tortured and treated different than other inamtes, which is incorrect.

For instance:

Lawyer Describes Solitary Confinement of Suspected WikiLeaks Source
Law Offices of David Coombs

Pvt. Mannings lawyer describes his cell conditions:

Private 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. The cell has a bed, a drinking fountain, and a toilet.

The guards at the confinement facility are professional. At no time have they tried to bully, harass, or embarrass Private Manning. Given the nature of their job, however, they do not engage in conversation with Private Manning.

At 5 a.m. he is woken up (on weekends, he is allowed to sleep until 7 a.m.). Under the rules for the confinement facility, he is not allowed to sleep at anytime between 5 a.m. and 8 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 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 to 3 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.

What people are seeing now, and taking as torture is in fact due to being suicidal. People are assuming the conditions he has now has been that way all along, which is not true.

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 O.K. 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 O.K.

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.

Items that can be used to harm ones self, pillow, sheets, books etc are removed. He still hase access to books but not en masse.

Originally posted by Ellen15

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Assange said his decision to dump top secret US documents on its website was revenge against "abusive elements of the United States government".

Its pretty clear that isnt an actual quote by Assange lolol

Why because it does not fit with your view of his actions? Because it could possibly mean that Assange was playing his supporters, using them to unkowingly push his private agenda?

Xcathdra,

You're just annoyed because you feel the newspapers are only releasing information about the USA

TOUGH ...DEAL WITH IT... TOO BAD

Its not the first time newspapers reported on classified documents they obtained from "insiders/sources"

The USA government is NOT the only government reported on, other countries are also involved, the people of those countries are NOT amused their own government has lied

Its all coming out in the open, no more noise/lies/spin.... good ole evidence/hard data

You were obviously NOT annoyed when previously newspapers and wikileaks released information about the going ons in other countries and their government before 2010

It is your right to continue to want to be a mushroom and stay in bed - no one will stop you, carry on then

reply to post by Xcathdra


Do you think there is some "safety" reason for not allowing him to sleep when he wants? I would become homicidal if someone kept screwing with me when I want to sleep.

We only did 15minute checks on someone that is on suicide watch....I thought he wasn't.

...but if the description you provided is "accurate", then he has it better than the guy I know.


((((( Every 5 minutes!?))))

reply to post by Ellen15


Funny enough you dont seem to read my posts. I could care less about the media, as the focus of my posts are against manning and his actions, and Assange and his actions.

Manning is in custody, and Assange will hopefully follow. His supporters should deal with it as well.

My references dealing with media was to point out the wrong belief by people that media is immune from prosecution for releasing classified information, which they are not. You seem to read into that as me having an issue with media.

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Do you think there is some "safety" reason for not allowing him to sleep when he wants? I would become homicidal if someone kept screwing with me when I want to sleep.

We only did 15minute checks on someone that is on suicide watch....I thought he wasn't.

...but if the description you provided is "accurate", then he has it better than the guy I know.

The information is coming directly from Pvt. Mannings lawyer, and I linked the article, as well as the actual lawyers webpage that has the same info release on it. He is checked on every 5 minutes during the day. At night if the guards cannot see him becuase the blanket is covering him, they wake him to see if he is ok. If he is not hidden, he is allowed to sleep uninterupted.

At what point is it not clear that he broke the law and is in custody for it? Jail / Prison is not suppose to be used in a manner to reward people for their actions. Also, he is being held in a pre trial confinement area, not levenworth.

I am going to use your comment to again make a point, but its not intended to cause offense. I have stated time and again that any information that contradicts what Manning / Assange supporters believe, its either suspect or dismissed out of hand. I cite the lawyer, yet people are skeptical and wonder if its accurate.

People who disagree with Manning and Assanges actions are labled as unthinking, taking the word of the government hook line and sinker, or jsut randomly ignore information and sources, while making accusations that are not true, as Ellen has been doing with my posts. While at the very same time, his supporters do exactly the same thing.

Xcathdra,

your cut and paste from those 2 newspapers are NOT Assanges actual words in content/context

Others have pointed this out in other threads (maybe even in this one lol) on this very same thing

The Guardian had a Q & A with Julian Assange on the 3rd December 2010

Julian Assange answers your questions

Here is where Assange used those words a DAY BEFORE other tabloid rags/newspapers wrote their piece and their OWN slant

gnosticheresy

What happened to all the other documents that were on Wikileaks prior to these series of "megaleaks"? Will you put them back online at some stage ("technical difficulties" permitting)?

Julian Assange:
Many of these are still available at mirror.wikileaks.info and the rest will be returning as soon as we can find a moment to do address the engineering complexities.

Since April of this year our timetable has not been our own, rather it has been one that has centred on the moves of abusive elements of the United States government against us. But rest assured I am deeply unhappy that the three-and-a-half years of my work and others is not easily available or searchable by the general public.

Other tabloid/rag newspapers such as the one you are quoting from (the daily mail? ohhhh please, JUNK!) cut, pasted and rearranged their articles - obviously that type of writing suits you, however but for the rest of us; we prefer the original source/quote

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Funny enough you dont seem to read my posts. I could care less about the media, as the focus of my posts are against manning and his actions, and Assange and his actions.

yet you quote inaccurate quotes from tabloid/rag newspapers to support your argument lolol

My references dealing with media was to point out the wrong belief by people that media is immune from prosecution for releasing classified information, which they are not

Pray tell, tell us all.... in the past which newspaper was prosecuted, charged and sent to jail in the USA for releasing classified documents

3rd January 2011 Mannings Lawyer, Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Speedy Trial

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.

Read more here: www.armycourtmartialdefense.info...

Originally posted by Ellen15
Pray tell, tell us all.... in the past which newspaper was prosecuted, charged and sent to jail in the USA for releasing classified documents

There has never been a prosecution because the government has never chosen to take that path, for various reasons, during each unauthorized disclosure.

Believe it or not, when legitimate news outlets (such as The Washington Post and New York Times) receive information that is obviously classified, they often reach out to the government first prior to publishing. It allows the government an opportunity to plead their case if the information is very seriously sensitive, and sometimes the papers decide it is in the best interests of all involved to not publish, or to at least redact certain portions of the data. But this is generally an exception, and not the rule. More often, the papers simply want to give the government time to prepare a response, and to sometimes provide the government with the opportunity to protect a source or a method.

This kind of back-and-forth relationship has existed between the government and the media since the 1960's, and both sides have found it useful over the years. However, this premise was always based upon the assumption that the media would never intentionally publish information that would truly endanger national security, or put people's lives at risk.

Wikileaks threw that concept right out the window, and I'm not so sure that legitimate news and media outlets will be able to feel safe when receiving classified information, regardless of the source, in the future. Especially if certain elements in congress and the administration take steps to revise the espionage laws, or pass new laws regarding leaking and receiving classified information.

Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR) Open Letter Robert M. Gates

3rd January 2011

PsySR Open Letter on PFC Bradley Manning's Solitary Confinement

Snippets:

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR) is deeply concerned about the conditions under which PFC Bradley Manning is being held at the Quantico Marine Corps Base in Virginia. It has been reported and verified by his attorney that PFC Manning has been held in solitary confinement since July of 2010.

As an organization of psychologists and other mental health professionals, PsySR is aware that solitary confinement can have severely deleterious effects on the psychological well-being of those subjected to it.

We therefore call for a revision in the conditions of PFC Manning’s incarceration while he awaits trial, based on the exhaustive documentation and research that have determined that solitary confinement is, at the very least, a form of cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment in violation of U.S. law.

In the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court case Medley, Petitioner, 134 U.S. 1690 (1890), U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Freeman Miller wrote, "A considerable number of the prisoners fell, after even a short confinement, into a semi-fatuous condition, from which it was next to impossible to arouse them, and others became violently insane; others still, committed suicide; while those who stood the ordeal better were not generally reformed, and in most cases did not recover sufficient mental activity to be of any subsequent service to the community."

Scientific investigations since 1890 have confirmed in troubling detail the irreversible physiological changes in brain functioning from the trauma of solitary confinement.

As expressed by Dr. Craig Haney, a psychologist and expert in the assessment of institutional environments, “Empirical research on solitary and supermax-like confinement has consistently and unequivocally documented the harmful consequences of living in these kinds of environments . . . Evidence of these negative psychological effects comes from personal accounts, descriptive studies, and systematic research on solitary and supermax-type confinement, conducted over a period of four decades, by researchers from several different continents who had diverse backgrounds and a wide range of professional expertise… [D]irect studies of prison isolation have documented an extremely broad range of harmful psychological reactions.

These effects include increases in the following potentially damaging symptoms and problematic behaviors: negative attitudes and affect, insomnia, anxiety, panic, withdrawal, hypersensitivity, ruminations, cognitive dysfunction, hallucinations, loss of control, irritability, aggression, and rage, paranoia, hopelessness, lethargy, depression, a sense of impending emotional breakdown, self-mutilation, and suicidal ideation and behavior” (pp. 130-131, references removed).

Dr. Haney concludes, “To summarize, there is not a single published study of solitary or supermax-like confinement in which non-voluntary confinement lasting for longer than 10 days where participants were unable to terminate their isolation at will that failed to result in negative psychological effects” (p. 132).

We are aware that prison spokesperson First Lieutenant Brian Villiard has told AFP that Manning is considered a “maximum confinement detainee,” as he is considered a national security risk. But no such putative risk can justify keeping someone not convicted of a crime in conditions likely to cause serious harm to his mental health.

Further, history suggests that solitary confinement, rather than being a rational response to a risk, is more often used as a punishment for someone who is considered to be a member of a despised or “dangerous” group. In any case, PFC Manning has not been convicted of a crime and, under our system of justice, is at this point presumed to be innocent.

The conditions of isolation to which PFC Manning, as well as many other U.S. prisoners are subjected, are sufficiently harsh as to have aroused international concern. The most recent report of the UN Committee against Torture included in its Conclusions and Recommendations for the United States the following article 36:

"The Committee remains concerned about the extremely harsh regime imposed on detainees in “supermaximum prisons”. The Committee is concerned about the prolonged isolation periods detainees are subjected to, the effect such treatment has on their mental health, and that its purpose may be retribution, in which case it would constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (art. 16).

The State party should review the regime imposed on detainees in “supermaximum prisons”, in particular the practice of prolonged isolation." (Emphasis in original.)

In addition to the needless brutality of the conditions to which PFC Manning is being subjected, PsySR is concerned that the coercive nature of these conditions -- along with their serious psychological effects such as depression, paranoia, or hopelessness -- may undermine his ability to meaningfully cooperate with his defense, undermining his right to a fair trial.

Coercive conditions of detention also increase the likelihood of the prisoner “cooperating” in order to improve those circumstances, even to the extent of giving false testimony. Thus, such harsh conditions are counter to the interests of justice.

Given the nature and effects of the solitary confinement to which PFC Manning is being subjected, Mr. Secretary, Psychologists for Social Responsibility calls upon you to rectify the inhumane, harmful, and counterproductive treatment of PFC Bradley Manning immediately.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


Eye Spy magazine has a large piece on this in this months issue. Talking about him being on suicide watch too.

Any bets he will end up being suicided before they get a chance to use him as an example?

CX.