WikiLeaks largest classified military leak - Page 29 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-05-2011, 10:54 PM   #421
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,427
Local Time: 06:48 AM
Link
Quote:
To follow-up on yesterday's observations about the prolonged forced nudity to which Bradley Manning has been subjected the last two days: brig officials now confirm to The New York Times that Manning will be forced to be nude every night from now on for the indefinite future -- not only when he sleeps, but also when he stands outside his cell for morning inspection along with the other brig detainees. They claim that it is being done "as a 'precautionary measure' to prevent him from injuring himself."

Has anyone before successfully committed suicide using a pair of briefs -- especially when under constant video and in-person monitoring? There's no underwear that can be issued that is useless for killing oneself? And if this is truly such a threat, why isn't he on "suicide watch" (the NYT article confirms he's not)? And why is this restriction confined to the night; can't he also off himself using his briefs during the day?


Let's review Manning's detention over the last nine straight months: 23-hour/day solitary confinement; barred even from exercising in his cell; one hour total outside his cell per day where he's allowed to walk around in circles in a room alone while shackled, and is returned to his cell the minute he stops walking; forced to respond to guards' inquiries literally every 5 minutes, all day, everyday; and awakened at night each time he is curled up in the corner of his bed or otherwise outside the guards' full view. Is there anyone who doubts that these measures -- and especially this prolonged forced nudity -- are punitive and designed to further erode his mental health, physical health and will? As The Guardian reported last year, forced nudity is almost certainly a breach of the Geneva Conventions; the Conventions do not technically apply to Manning, as he is not a prisoner of war, but they certainly establish the minimal protections to which all detainees -- let alone citizens convicted of nothing -- are entitled.
I barely even know what to say. This stuff infuriates me, so I can't even imagine what the families of the 9 boys recently killed in Afghanistan are thinking about the great and freedom-loving US Government.
__________________

__________________
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2011, 10:57 PM   #422
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,359
Local Time: 09:48 AM
Considering they've been using sleep-deprivation on him for months (reportedly), he very well may be a plausible suicide risk.
__________________

__________________
Canadiens1131 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2011, 11:01 PM   #423
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,427
Local Time: 06:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1131 View Post
Considering they've been using sleep-deprivation on him for months (reportedly), he very well may be a plausible suicide risk.
Just like what they did to Jose Padilla. It'll be a miracle if he ever emerges for court without hearing voices and smearing mashed potatoes into the shape of towers.
__________________
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 12:06 AM   #424
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 02:48 PM
Amnesty International has a form letter (to Gates and Obama) and Firedoglake is hosting a petition (to the military prison commander) protesting Manning's treatment in detention. Neither document takes a position on WikiLeaks or the charges against Manning; just against his treatment.

Kucinich is, I believe, the only politician to have spoken out against this so far. Considering the uproar that would surely have emerged from the left had all this happened under GWB, I think the inconsistency is pretty damning.

The new charge of "indirectly aiding the enemy" filed against Manning, which will likely mean life imprisonment, leads me to wonder if the DoJ may have given up on finding grounds to prosecute Assange under the 1917 Espionage Act, which would've required evidence of close collaboration between Manning and Assange. Since the "aiding the enemy" charge against Manning falls under military law, in theory a successful conviction wouldn't endanger existing civilian court precedents protecting the rights of newspapers to leak information (a built-in risk of any case against Assange). I fear the treatment of Manning may be in large part a way of punishing him for having no useful dirt to hand the DoJ on Assange, or perhaps an incentive to help him 'recall' some.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 08:28 AM   #425
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 18,708
Local Time: 07:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
Kucinich is, I believe, the only politician to have spoken out against this so far.
Times like this I'm really sad that Kucinich didn't go far in the '08 elections.

Yeah. This is insane. Completely and totally insane. Thanks for the links to those letters, off to sign.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 09:27 AM   #426
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 09:48 AM
If your side is doing it, sweeten it up or ignore it. I don't pay too much attention to the partisans on either side. I've been a partisan. But I've killed a lot of my sacred cows (not all of them). Unconditional support is a dangerous, unthinking thing.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011, 04:31 PM   #427
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,427
Local Time: 06:48 AM
From Manning lawyer David Coombs' official complaint (not quoted for legibility)

___
(1) On 18 January 2011, over the recommendation of Capt. Hocter and the defense forensic psychiatrist, Capt. Moore, CWO4 Averhart placed me under Suicide Risk. The Suicide Risk assignment resulted in me being required to remain in my cell for 24 hours a day. I was stripped of all clothing with the exception of my underwear. My prescription eyeglasses were taken away from me and I was forced to sit in essential blindness.
(2) The basis for the above treatment was due to my alleged behavior on 18 January 2011. On that date, I was pulled out of for my one hour of recreation call. When the guards came to my noticed a change in their usual demeanor. Instead of being
erratic my cell cell, I calm and respectful, they seemed agitated and confrontational. Also, instead of the usual two to three guards, there were four guards. Almost immediately, the guards started harassing me. The first guard told me to “turn left.” When I complied, the second guard yelled “don‟t turn left.” When I attempted to comply with the demands of the second guard, I was told by the first, “I said turn left.” I responded “yes, Corporal” to the first guard. At this point, the third guard chimed in by telling me that “in the Marines we reply with „aye‟ and not „yes.‟” He then asked me if I understood. I made the mistake of replying “yes, Sergeant.” At this point the forth guard yelled, “you mean „aye,‟ Sergeant.”
(3) The harassment by the guards continued as I was escorted to my one hour of recreation. When I arrived at the recreation room, I was told to stand still so they could remove my leg restraints. As I stood still, one of the guards yelled “I told you to stand still.” I replied “yes Corporal, I am standing still.” Another guard then said, “you mean „aye‟ Corporal.” Next, the same guard said “I thought we covered this, you say „aye‟ and not „yes,‟ do you understand?” I responded “aye Sergeant.” Right after I replied, I was once again yelled at to “stand still.” Due to being yelled at and the intensity of the guards, I mistakenly replied, “yes Corporal, I am standing still.” As soon as I said this, I attempted to correct myself by saying “aye” instead of “yes,” but it was too late. One of the guards starting yelling at me again, “what don‟t you understand” and “are we going to have a problem?”
(4) Once the leg restraints were taken off of me, I took a step back from the guards. My heart was pounding in my chest, and I could feel myself getting dizzy. I sat down to avoid falling. When I did this, the guards took a step towards me. I instinctively backed away from them. As soon as I backed away, I could tell by their faces that they were getting ready to restrain me. I immediately put my hands up in the air, and said “I am not doing anything, I am just trying to follow your orders.” The guards then told me to start walking. I complied with their order by saying “eye” instead of “yes.”
(5) I was allowed to complete my hour of recreation. During the hour, the guards did not harass me further. The guards also did not harass me when I was escorted back to my cell. Only later did I learn that there had been a protest outside the gates of Quantico the previous day. The rally was intended to bring attention to the conditions of my confinement. It is my belief that my treatment on 18 January 2010 by the guards and later by the PCF Commander was related to this protest and my earlier complaints.
(6) After being returned to my cell, I started to read a book. About 30 minutes later, the PCF Commander, CWO4 James Averhart, came to my cell. He asked me what had happened during my recreation call. As I tried to explain to him what had occurred, CWO4 Averhart stopped me and said “I am the commander” and that “no one could tell him what to do.” He also said that he was, for all practical purposes, “God.” I responded by saying “you still have to follow Brig procedures.” I also said “everyone has a boss that they have to answer to.” As soon as I said this, CWO4 Averhart ordered that I be placed in Suicide Risk Status.

(7) Admittedly, once I heard that I would be placed under Suicide Risk, I became upset. Out of frustration, I placed my hands to my head and clenched my hair with my fingers. I did yell “why are you doing this to me?” I also yelled “why am I being punished?” and “I have done nothing wrong.” I then asked CWO4 Averhart “what have I done to deserve this type of treatment?”
(8) CWO4 Averhart did not answer any of my questions. He instructed the guards to enter my cell and take all my clothing. At first I tried to reason with CWO4 Averhart by telling him that I had been a model detainee and by asking him to just tell me what he wanted me to do and that I would do it. However, I gave up trying to reason with him once the guards entered my cell and ordered me to strip. Instead, I lowered my head and starting taking off my clothes.
(9) CWO4 Averhart placed me on Suicide Risk, over the recommendation of Capt. Hocter and the defense forensic psychiatrist, Capt. Moore. His decision was also in violation of Secretary of Navy Instruction (“SECNAVINST”) 1649.9C Paragraph 4205.5d.
As a result of being placed on Suicide Risk, I was confined to my cell for 24 hours a day. I was also stripped of all clothing with the exception of my underwear. Additionally, my prescription eyeglasses were taken away from me. Due to not having my glasses, I was forced to sit in essential blindness during the day. I remained on Suicide Risk until 21 January 2010. The determination to place me on Suicide Risk was without justification and therefore constitutes unlawful pretrial punishment.

___
__________________
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011, 08:12 PM   #428
45:33
 
cobl04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: East Point to Shaolin
Posts: 52,793
Local Time: 12:48 AM
we were talking about this in my Media Law & Ethics class yesterday. i still can't stand Assange and i hate people who criticise the media for "not doing their job".

i've never known it to be a journalist's job to illegally hack into classified information and release it.
__________________
cobl04 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2011, 05:01 AM   #429
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,359
Local Time: 09:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobl04 View Post
we were talking about this in my Media Law & Ethics class yesterday. i still can't stand Assange and i hate people who criticise the media for "not doing their job".

i've never known it to be a journalist's job to illegally hack into classified information and release it.
Trolololololololololololol I`ll just leave this here for you, trolololololo.

Pentagon Papers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can hate Assange for being an asshat, but you can`t make stupid blanket statements about all leaking of classified information.

Also, there was no hacking involved in the Wikileaks case whatsoever. Do your research

It seems your Media Law & Ethics class isn`t doing a very good job.

__________________
Canadiens1131 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2011, 05:47 AM   #430
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
mama cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,262
Local Time: 02:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobl04 View Post
we were talking about this in my Media Law & Ethics class yesterday. i still can't stand Assange and i hate people who criticise the media for "not doing their job".

i've never known it to be a journalist's job to illegally hack into classified information and release it.
lol
__________________
mama cass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2011, 05:48 AM   #431
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
mama cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,262
Local Time: 02:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1131 View Post
Trolololololololololololol I`ll just leave this here for you, trolololololo.

Pentagon Papers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can hate Assange for being an asshat, but you can`t make stupid blanket statements about all leaking of classified information.

Also, there was no hacking involved in the Wikileaks case whatsoever. Do your research

It seems your Media Law & Ethics class isn`t doing a very good job.

__________________
mama cass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2011, 05:54 AM   #432
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: North Shore City
Posts: 41,273
Local Time: 02:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1131 View Post
It seems your Media Law & Ethics class isn`t doing a very good job.
media law and ethics is an oxymoron anyway.

and that's said as someone who has a degree (ha) that specialised in that kind of thing.
__________________
coolian2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2011, 11:03 PM   #433
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 02:48 PM
Christian Science Monitor, March 13
Quote:
Debate over the controversial treatment of alleged WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning apparently has cost State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley his job.

Manning is the US Army private first class being held in solitary confinement at the US Marine Corps brig in Quantico, Virginia. Crowley has been the assistant secretary for public affairs–-the main briefer on behalf of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. A retired Air Force colonel, he served on the National Security Council staff under former President Bill Clinton.

...Speaking at a seminar at M.I.T. last week, [Crowley] described Manning’s treatment as “ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid,” although he added “nonetheless, Bradley Manning is in the right place.”

....Pentagon Papers whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg has likened Manning’s treatment to torture. “Prolonged isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity–-that's right out of the manual of the CIA for ‘enhanced interrogation’,” Ellsberg wrote on the website for the British newspaper The Guardian. “We've seen it applied in Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib. It's what the CIA calls ‘no-touch torture’, and its purpose there, as in this case, is very clear: to demoralize someone to the point of offering a desired confession.”

...Crowley’s leaving the State Department–-which may have been in the works anyway due to his relationship with Secretary Clinton-–no doubt was accelerated by his statement at M.I.T., which caused an awkward moment for President Obama. At his press conference Friday, Obama was asked about Crowley’s sharp criticism of Manning’s treatment. "I have actually asked the Pentagon whether or not the procedures that have been taken in terms of his confinement are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards,” he replied. “They assured me that they are."

In other words, Obama–-who campaigned against the mistreatment of Iraq War prisoners and who pledged to close the military prison at Guantánamo Bay–-was put in the position of having to take the Pentagon’s word for it, despite continuing criticism from domestic and international human rights organizations.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2011, 01:20 AM   #434
45:33
 
cobl04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: East Point to Shaolin
Posts: 52,793
Local Time: 12:48 AM
I am actually pretty ignorant about the whole saga, I'll admit that. I shouldn't have made a "stupid blanket statement" without a better knowledge than what I had/have.

So I'll blatantly ask: how do the Wikileaks collaborators access this information?

I just don't like the man, I don't like this implication that the world's media aren't doing their job. The world's media, as I understand it, aren't able to release classified information en masse. He's hacked in the past. He spoke at a conference and asked hackers to help find documents.

I know you canadiens are very much interested in new technology, and convergence. But the definition of a journalist has been blown wide open by it, and with every day it seems the traditional journalist, newspaper, etc becomes a little less significant, and whilst I am in no way naive or ignorant about journalism in the 21st century I don't like the implication that traditional journalists are falling behind in their duty.
__________________
cobl04 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2011, 03:29 AM   #435
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,427
Local Time: 06:48 AM
Bradley Manning, the schlub from the last few pages that's getting worked over by the US military had access to various classified-level diplomatic dispatches, allegedly felt that he was morally compelled to release these cables, and handed off the whole chunk to Julian Assange, whose Wikileaks team disseminated a handful of the total through newspapers.

Quote:
I don't like the implication that traditional journalists are falling behind in their duty.
Why do you have a personal stake in believing they aren't? Trawling through the American media from 2002-2003 and seeing how credulous the journalists were towards unsourced government assurances re: Iraq would be enough for a lot of people.
__________________

__________________
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com