Chelsea Manning Thread

[Nordic]

Aiding "the enemy?"

That's us.

[Jeff]

WASHINGTON — A lawyer for Pfc. Bradley Manning, the Army intelligence analyst accused of leaking secret government files to WikiLeaks, has complained that his client was stripped and left naked in his cell for seven hours on Wednesday.

The conditions of Private Manning’s confinement at the Marine brig in Quantico, Va., have drawn criticism in recent months from supporters and his lawyer, David E. Coombs.

The soldier’s clothing was returned to him Thursday morning, after he was required to stand naked outside his cell during an inspection, Mr. Coombs said in a posting on his Web site.

“This type of degrading treatment is inexcusable and without justification,” Mr. Coombs wrote. “It is an embarrassment to our military justice system and should not be tolerated. Pfc. Manning has been told that the same thing will happen to him again tonight. No other detainee at the brig is forced to endure this type of isolation and humiliation.”

First Lt. Brian Villiard, a Marine spokesman, said a brig duty supervisor had ordered Private Manning’s clothing taken from him. He said that the step was “not punitive” and that it was in accordance with brig rules, but he said that he was not allowed to say more.

...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/us/04 ... .html?_r=1

[Jeff]

Bradley Manning Stripped Naked Again

By David E. Coombs

04 March, 2011
Armycourtmartialdefense.info

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, and spent the next seven hours in humiliation.

The decision to require him to be stripped of all clothing was made by the Brig commander, Chief Warrant Officer-2 Denise Barnes. According to First Lieutenant Brian Villard, a Marine spokesman, the decision was "not punitive" and done in accordance with Brig rules. There can be no conceivable justification for requiring a soldier to surrender all his clothing, remain naked in his cell for seven hours, and then stand at attention the subsequent morning. This treatment is even more degrading considering that PFC Manning is being monitored -- both by direct observation and by video -- at all times. The defense was informed by Brig officials that the decision to strip PFC Manning of all his clothing was made without consulting any of the Brig's mental health providers.

On Wednesday, the government filed its response to the defense's Article 138 complaint concerning PFC Manning's confinement conditions. The preliminary decision made by the government was to deny PFC Manning's request to be removed from Maximum custody and from Prevention of Injury (POI) watch. The defense now has ten days to file a rebuttal to this determination. After submitting the rebuttal, the matter will go back to the Quantico Base Commander, Colonel Daniel J. Choike, for his review. Once complete, he will forward the report to the Secretary of the Navy for final review.



David E. Coombs is Bradley Mannings attorney

http://www.countercurrents.org/coombs04031.htm

[MinM]

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... index.html

[seemslikeadream]

This is evil; those who seek to impose this fate on a human being are engaged in evil of an especially monstrous kind.

This is also the U.S. government and its military. Mark it well.

MARCH 05, 2011

Kingdom of Evil
A human being can be destroyed in a seemingly infinite number of ways, as history repeatedly demonstrates. Our capacity for cruelty is limitless. It would appear to defy gratification. We are all too familiar with the horrifying varieties of physical violence inflicted on the human body, but there is another method of seeking to destroy those whom we have designated as enemies to our own survival. In one critical respect, this method is worse than injuries that might be visited on our fragile corporeal form, for while the body may survive intact, the person -- that is, his mind and soul -- will never be made whole again.

This method of destruction throws the victim into a nightmare world, one which mocks every effort to comprehend it. Cruelty is presented as compassion and solicitude for the victim's well-being; the words of justification seek to convince those who suffer that their unbearable pain should be accepted for their own good. The victim knows that every utterance of his tormentors is a lie, and the more he attempts to understand why they act so monstrously, the greater his suffering grows. The victim can never escape these lacerating questions:

How is it possible that human beings could treat another person in this manner?

How can I survive in a world in which such cruelties not only occur with soul-destroying regularity, but in which these cruelties are considered necessary and moral?

If the victim should conclude that he cannot survive in such a world -- and how can we be surprised that this should be his judgment? -- his soul will be lost. Even if his body should continue to function, he will survive in a world rendered eternally bleak, with terror lurking in every moment. The possibility of joy is extinguished.

This is evil; those who seek to impose this fate on a human being are engaged in evil of an especially monstrous kind.

Read this New York Times story about the latest cruelties inflicted on Bradley Manning, and you will see the operation of these mechanisms. We must remember that Manning is, as the Times story states in its first sentence, the "accused." As of this date, Manning has been tried for nothing. As of this date, Manning has been convicted of nothing.

The story informs us that Manning "will be stripped of his clothing every night as a 'precautionary measure' to prevent him from injuring himself," and that he "will also be required to stand outside his cell naked during a morning inspection." A Marine spokesman says that "the underwear was taken away from him as a precaution to ensure that he did not injure himself."

But as the story goes on to tell us, Manning "has not been elevated to the more restrictive 'suicide watch' conditions." The same Marine spokesman also says that "the new rule on clothing ... would continue indefinitely," and that "he was not allowed to explain what prompted it 'because to discuss the details would be a violation of Manning’s privacy.'”

Thus, according to this spokesman, Manning is subjected to repeated humiliation and degradation -- for his own good. Moreover, the reason for the repeated humiliation and degradation cannot be provided because of the military's boundless concern for Manning's "privacy" -- that is, the military also refuses to explain the reason for its cruelty for Manning's own good.

Does the nightmare begin to assume more definite shape before you? If you feel assaulted in the depths of your being by this mere recitation of the facts -- and you should -- you are experiencing but the faintest shadow of what Manning experiences in captivity. Manning is, I remind you, only the "accused."

Manning's lawyer, David E. Coombs, tries to cut through this enveloping fog of evil:
“There can be no conceivable justification for requiring a soldier to surrender all his clothing, remain naked in his cell for seven hours, and then stand at attention the subsequent morning,” he wrote. “This treatment is even more degrading considering that Pfc. Manning is being monitored — both by direct observation and by video — at all times.”

Mr. Coombs contended that stripping his client was medically unjustified.

“If a person is at risk of self-harm, then you get them treatment, you get them to a mental health professional and address the issue — you don’t strip them,” he said, adding in a separate telephone interview, “There is no excuse, no justification to having a soldier stand at attention naked. There can be no mental health reason for that.”
Coombs characterized these latest punitive measures "as an unjustified 'humiliation' of his client." I would add two comments to that description.

First, forcing a prisoner to remain naked for extended periods of time is not only a barbaric means of humiliating and degrading him: it necessarily includes a very significant element of specifically sexual humiliation and degradation. Add to this unforgivable atrocity the well-known fact that Manning is gay. Especially in the hypermasculinized world of the military, such sexual humiliation and degradation represents an intentional, additional cruelty. I can only say that the U.S. government and the military of which it is so proud put Torquemada to shame.

Second, these cruelties and the purported "justifications" offered by the military, all in a notably high profile case, definitively put the lie to the propaganda spewed by the U.S. government in response to the torture, including sexual humiliation, revealed at Abu Ghraib: that such incidents were an "aberration" perpetrated by a few "bad apples." (I emphasize that similar torture and humiliation occurred in other locations as well; Abu Ghraib is probably the best-known instance.) They also definitively put the lie to Obama's patently false claim that he has "ended torture," a point I have made repeatedly.

Now we have the U.S. military, with the full support of the U.S. government, openly engaging in repeated acts of cruelty, atrocity, humiliation and degradation -- acts which the military proclaims will "continue indefinitely" -- and offering nauseatingly ludicrous justifications which would not convince a minimally healthy ten-year-old child. No honest observer can regard these actions of the U.S. government and its military as "aberrations": these actions are brazenly offered as U.S. government policy.

These actions also constitute torture. I first offered this description of torture in December 2005, and I stand by it today:
Torture is the deliberate infliction of unbearable agony on a human being -- a human being who is intentionally kept alive precisely so that he will suffer still more and for a longer period of time -- for no justifiable reason.
(Descriptions of the articles in my series, "On Torture," will be found here.)

I therefore repeat what I said above:

This is evil; those who seek to impose this fate on a human being are engaged in evil of an especially monstrous kind.

This is also the U.S. government and its military. Mark it well.

[norton ash]

http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/passion ... wikileaks/

WikiLeaks' Forgotten Man
Sunday March 6 at 10 pm ET/PT &
Saturday March 12 at 10 pm ET/PT on CBC News Network


WikiLeaks boss Julian Assange has been cast as a heroic champion of free speech and public enemy number one to the most powerful government in the world. But his ongoing expose of US foreign policy would not have been possible without the work of a young American solider - Private Bradley Manning. It was Manning who allegedly stole the classified video and documents released to the world by WikiLeaks in 2010.

WikiLeaks' Forgotten Man says the U.S. Army private masterminded the biggest intelligence breach in history from a humble military desk in Iraq - and it tells the story of the man who betrayed him, former hacker Adrian Lamo. In an extraordinary interview Lamo reveals how he came to know Bradley Manning, claiming the soldier openly confessed to his role in the WikiLeaks scandal through online chats that are presented in the film.

Manning is quoted saying "I'm a high profile source...and I've developed a relationship with Assange". He says he released the cables because "I was actively involved in something I was completely against". But one of Lamo's old friends, former hacker Kevin Mitnick, is suspicious of Lamo's evidence and his motives, "I call into question the authenticity of the chat logs, because I know his personality".

While Julian Assange awaits the results of British efforts to extradite him to Sweden for sex charges, Manning now languishes in solitary confinement in a US military prison, facing a possible life sentence. But he's considered a hero to people like Daniel Ellsberg, the whistle-blower who released the Pentagon Papers in 1971. He says "Bradley Manning has shown a willingness to give his life and his freedom for his country. And you can't be more patriotic than that."

Private Bradley Manning remains the focus of American efforts to force Julian Assange back to the U.S. for prosecution. But to bring a case against Assange, vital questions must be answered: How did Manning steal the classified material? How did he relay it to WikiLeaks? Did he do this of his own accord or did Assange conspire with him to take the information?

WikiLeaks' Forgotten Man tells of battles being played out behind the walls of an American military prison and in the power centres of Washington. And it reveals disputes that erupted within the WikiLeaks organization. Former WikiLeaks insider, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, says he had deep reservations about Assange's determination to keep releasing material that might compromise his source. The film puts these accusations directly to the WikiLeaks boss.

WikiLeaks' Forgotten Man is reported by Quentin McDermott for "Four Corners", ABC Australia.

Any Aussies seen this yet, or has the vid been posted here already?

Youtube here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLblOUaVW1E

[Joe Hillshoist]

I saw it the other week it was pretty good. I think wintler posted it on this tread or a wikileaks one.

Bradley manning actually gets a bit of attention in the Aussie media more in the new stuff than the trad media.

[Bruce Dazzling]

Chris Floyd knocks another one out of the ballpark.

A Nation Stripped Bare: Fascism Has Come to America

WRITTEN BY CHRIS FLOYD
SATURDAY, 05 MARCH 2011

t is a question that has sparked much debate, at least in certain rare quadrants where the unvarnished reality of the American imperium is recognized. But surely now the debate is over. Question it no more; the supposition, the fear, the heartbreaking intimation is a fact. It is real. It is here.

Fascism has come to America.

And no, it didn't come in jackboots. It didn't come in massed, marching ranks. It didn't come in greasy-haired frothers ranting on a stage.

It came with cool. It came with savvy. It came wearing the mask of past evils redeemed by the image of a persecuted minority elevated to power. It came spouting scripture, hugging bright children, quoting pop music, sporting pricey leisure threads.

It came on Facebook, it came with 269 cable channels blazing, with I-Pad apps offering Catholic confession and YouTube porn. It came with the Super Bowl, with de la Renta gowns on the Oscar carpet, with 36 brands of dips and chips on the bulging shelves of your local Wal-Mart.

It came right in the midst of your ordinary life, as you went to work -- or looked for work -- as you partied, as you courted, as you watched TV, as you worshipped, as you studied, as you played, as you went about the business of being human.

As you went about the business of being human, this inhuman thing has come. It has come in your name, wrapped in your flag, claiming your security as its raison d'etre.

And in the guise of a young, hip, educated progressive, it has just now declared that anyone who reveals any hidden evil committed by the fascist state is subject to prosecution for a capital crime. That's right. It has revealed that you -- you American citizen, you patriot, you believer in goodness and justice and genuine democracy -- you can be killed by the government if you tell the truth.

This is what the administration of President Barack Obama has demonstrated -- indeed, has proudly proclaimed -- in its treatment of the young man it is avowedly, openly torturing for telling the truth about American war crimes, Bradley Manning. There can be no mistaking the meaning, implications and import of Barack Obama's actions.

Corporal Bradley Manning has been charged with leaking "classified material," including a video posted on WikiLeaks that showed American forces gleefully shooting up Iraqi civilians with helicopter gunships. Manning is also alleged to have obtained thousands of other files detailing crimes, corruption, cover-ups, lies and deceit by American forces and American diplomats around the world.

Although American officials have repeatedly said that none of leaks attributed to Manning and to WikiLeaks have caused any bodily harm to any agent of American imperial power around the world, Manning is being accused of "threatening national security" and "aiding the enemy."

And who, pray tell, is the "enemy" being aided by the expression of truth? On Thursday, the Pentagon very helpfully spelled it out to the New York Times:

The charge sheet did not explain who “the enemy” was, leading some to speculate that it was a reference to WikiLeaks. On Thursday, however, the military said that it instead referred to any hostile forces that could benefit from learning about classified military tactics and procedures.

It could not be clearer. The release of any information that the American government declares might be of any use whatsoever to any possible "hostile" force -- real, imagined, or possibly run by American provocateurs -- somewhere in the world at some point in time is a crime that can be punishable by death. Thus any person or any entity that reveals embarrassing or criminal facts that the government wishes to keep hidden now stands in the shadow of death.

If that is not fascism, there has never been such a thing on the face of the earth.

To be sure, American officials say that they will seek only life imprisonment for Manning -- who they are now subjecting to hours of forced nakedness in front of video cameras. But the military judge who will oversee Manning's court martial is entirely free to disregard the prosecutor's stated intention and impose the full penalty for aiding the "enemy."

But again, who is the "enemy"? You are the enemy -- if you speak a truth that the government does not want you to reveal. (Of course, if you are an approved and coddled courtier, an eager, scurrying scribe like Bob Woodward, for example, you can reveal all the most secret "classified material" that you like, as long as it comes from savvy insiders "authorized" to praise their bosses and make their rivals look bad.) If you speak this unwanted truth, the government, the president -- the cool, savvy, modern, hip, educated progressive president -- can throw you in jail, subject you to torture, deprive you of sleep, and finally strip you naked in front of cameras to break you down and humiliate you in their efforts to dehumanize you, to grind you down into a piece of meat.

2.
Here is the New York Times report on Manning's treatment -- a small, brief story which did not make the front page of the print edition and within a few hours disappeared from the dozens of stories on the front page of the on-line edition:

A lawyer for Pfc. Bradley Manning, [David E. Coombs], the Army intelligence analyst accused of leaking secret government files to WikiLeaks, has complained that his client was stripped and left naked in his cell for seven hours on Wednesday. ... The soldier’s clothing was returned to him Thursday morning, after he was required to stand naked outside his cell during an inspection, Mr. Coombs said in a posting on his Web site.

“This type of degrading treatment is inexcusable and without justification,” Mr. Coombs wrote. “It is an embarrassment to our military justice system and should not be tolerated. Pfc. Manning has been told that the same thing will happen to him again tonight. No other detainee at the brig is forced to endure this type of isolation and humiliation.”

First Lt. Brian Villiard, a Marine spokesman, said a brig duty supervisor had ordered Private Manning’s clothing taken from him. He said that the step was “not punitive” and that it was in accordance with brig rules, but he said that he was not allowed to say more. “It would be inappropriate for me to explain it,” Lieutenant Villiard said. “I can confirm that it did happen, but I can’t explain it to you without violating the detainee’s privacy.”

This is rich; this shows a devilish irony at work in the PR boiler rooms of our fascist state. Yes, we tortured Manning, but we can't tell you why -- because we want to protect his privacy! We are very concerned about his sacred right to privacy! "I'm sorry," said Sgt. Heinrich Schultz, spokesman for the Auschwitz-Birkenau detention facility. "I can confirm that Mr Shlomo Stern, formerly of Krakow, was indeed stripped naked by guards here, but it would be inappropriate for me to explain why, because it would violate the detainee's privacy."

And as Glenn Greenwald reports, Manning was indeed stripped naked again the following night. Coombs himself notes:

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, and spent the next seven hours in humiliation.

The decision to require him to be stripped of all clothing was made by the Brig commander, Chief Warrant Officer-2 Denise Barnes. According to First Lieutenant Brian Villard, a Marine spokesman, the decision was "not punitive" and done in accordance with Brig rules. There can be no conceivable justification for requiring a soldier to surrender all his clothing, remain naked in his cell for seven hours, and then stand at attention the subsequent morning. This treatment is even more degrading considering that PFC Manning is being monitored -- both by direct observation and by video -- at all times. The defense was informed by Brig officials that the decision to strip PFC Manning of all his clothing was made without consulting any of the Brig's mental health providers.

What is happening here -- as Arthur Silber foretold long ago -- is that Barack Obama is codifying the worst abuses of the Bush Administration (and its predecessors) -- which had usually been committed on the side, in the dark, in secret, behind many layers of "plausible deniability" -- into the open, declared law of the land. This too is facism in action. Indeed, rarely has there been a regime more legalistic than Nazi Germany, where jurists, legislators and civil servants adhered strenuously to the "law" as determined by the will of the ruling clique. And for all those who make a fetish of the "rule of law," here is the end result: law being used by brutal Power to "justify" inhuman treatment of truth-tellers. As we noted here some months ago:


A conversation during Civil War. (From work-in-progress Bright, Terrible Spirit):

"But in days past, I was a lawyer. Yes, a lawyer, can you believe it? It seems….ridiculous now, doesn't it? An orderly system meant to govern human society, to establish justice, to advance the progress and enlightenment of the human race. Yet that system, that civil cosmos – to which I was so passionately committed – embraced and protected the most wretched evils, entrenched the powerful in their unjust privilege, oppressed the poor and weak most relentlessly and wickedly, yet at every step – at every step – sang hosannas to itself as some kind of divinity. The "Law" – oh, what a hush of reverence surrounded that word, how deeply that reverence and respect penetrated the heart. Well, my heart, anyway. But in these last few years we have seen – in intense, concentrated, microscopic view – the truth about the law, a truth which too often escaped us in the slow unrolling of peacetime. The truth that there is no law, no Platonic Form out there to which we give paltry representation. There is only power: power in conflict with power, power seeking to drive out power, to establish its dominance, maintain its privilege. Power…acquiesces to law – sometimes – but it never, never bows to it. Power goes along with the law when it is convenient to do so, when it is not too restrictive, when it demands little more than the occasional sacrifice – for the powerful are certainly not above throwing one of their own to the mob when circumstances require. But when it comes to the crisis, power shreds the law like a filthy rag and has its own way. And then you see that the law is nothing but a rag, to be torn and patched and fitted to power's aims. The worst atrocities I have seen or heard of in this war have been committed wholly and completely under the law. This thing I held in such reverence was, is, nothing but a scrap soaked with blood and shit."

This is what the administration of President Barack Obama has brought to open fruition in the United States of America. The debate is over. The question is answered. Facism has come.

3.
A brief reprise of a recent tribute to Manning and other truth-tellers:

"Good corporal, good corporal, don't you know the fate
Of all those who speak the hard truth to the State
And all who trouble the people's sweet dreams?
They're mocked into scorn and torn apart at the seams...."

[American Dream]

Published on This Can't Be Happening (http://www.thiscantbehappening.net)

The National Shame of the US Military's 'Slow Torture' of Bradley Manning
03/05/2011

John Grant


Stripping before men still clothed is the first step toward weakening the prisoner’s psychological defense. … But stripping is also sexually laden. It transposes sexual gestures, acts and innuendo from a strip club to the torture chamber. Thus sex is always present in the torture chamber whether the victim is a man or a woman. The sexing of torture is deeply grounded in the recesses of the torturer’s psyche.

-Marnia Lazreg, Torture and the Twilight of Empire: From Algeria to Baghdad

The process – employed in the name of “security” – which involves the mutual destruction of human dignity, seems to be an integral part of most police and specialized agency methods.

-Breyten Breytenbach, The True Confessions of an Albino Terrorist


Ever since I first read about the program to routinely strip PFC Bradley Manning, conceived by his jailers at Quantico Brig in Virginia, I have been trying to figure out in this time of moral fatigue how to express how morally outrageous this behavior by US military personnel is.

For anyone who has been away on vacation to Planet Apathy, Manning is imprisoned for allegedly releasing classified materials to WikiLeaks. He has recently been charged with 22 crimes, including “aiding the enemy,” which can carry the death penalty. His jailers apparently hope young Manning will incriminate the big fish Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks. Assange just lost an initial extradition hearing in a case brought by Sweden, which wants to extradite him from Britain to question him on controversial sexual allegations. It is widely suspected the US hopes to extradite him to the US once he's in custody in Sweden.

Whether or not The New York Times and other newspapers that have printed some of the WikiLeaks material – and the American people who read and benefited from the information -- are considered “the enemy” was not made clear by the military. The Times now regularly cites information from the releases to shed light on how our elected government works around the world.

Relevant to all this are the many signs that our military is becoming quite desperate not to lose face over its two problematic military occupations. This fits nicely into Marnia Lazreg’s thesis that torture (in her case, in the Algeria War) is a tool of the “twilight of empire.” At this historical juncture, the fear within our government of something like WikiLeaks must be incredible.

Given the circumstance of the lifting of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the fact Manning is openly gay, it’s fair to ask what possible reason there is to make the young man stand outside his cell naked for “inspection” or to force him to sit naked in his cell for seven hours at a time.

A Quantico Brig lieutenant named Brian Villiard told The Times this kind of treatment is “not punitive.” This drone officer then said he could not explain the brig’s behavior “without violating the detainee’s privacy.”

Moving up the chain of command, Pentagon Press Secretary Geoffrey Morrell told The Times the reasons they needed to strip Manning buck naked were due to “the seriousness of the charges he’s facing (and) the national security implications.”

All right! Enough of the PR-flak Orwellian crap. Everyone with a modicum of sense knows why the Quantico jailers are stripping Bradley Manning. They are stripping him because they have the power to strip him and they want to strip him. And they know that the majority of Americans and the mainstream press don’t give a damn what happens to this young man.

A friend asked me, “Why don’t they just water-board him?” It’s simple: They would if they could, but they can’t. Manning is an American and he has advocates. They can’t get away with the sorts of torture we used in the past in places like the Philippines and Vietnam and that the French used during their war in Algeria. The French experience is broken down and analyzed by Marna Lazreg in her book cited above based on archival research, diaries and interviews with torturers.

But do not fear: Our very resourceful and secret CIA learned from the French and, over the years with your tax dollars, added their own research on the topic. Here’s Alfred McCoy from his great book A Question Of Torture: CIA Interrogation, From the Cold War To the War On Terror:

“From 1950 to 1962, the CIA became involved in torture through a massive mind-control effort, with psychological warfare and secret research into human consciousness that reached a cost of a billion dollars annually – a veritable Manhattan Project of the mind.” This research produced “a new approach to torture that was psychological, not physical, perhaps best described as ‘no-touch torture.’“ It has also been referred to as “slow torture.”

Much of this has now become institutionalized and is inserted into prison manuals as standard operating procedures taught to guards and the rest of the military prison institution. It's a case of that frog in slowly heated-up water: it's now how things are done.

It's a juggling act of the academic extremes, the real-life limitations, questions as to how effective secrecy can keep things hidden and, ultimately, what the public will accept.

Slow torture takes a lot more time than the classic parrot’s perch, thumb-screws and water boarding. The new tools are absolute control, time, sensory deprivation, humiliating demands like stripping and the deprivation of all human contact except with the detainee’s interrogator.

In the case of Manning, the military has to be creative, since the ideal slow, no-touch torture formula is challenged by the fact Manning is enough of a public figure they must allow lawyers and friends like David House to visit him.

In what may be the most classic case of slow-torture, because he was considered a national pariah, the military was able to hold US citizen Jose Padilla for three years at a Charleston, South Carolina Navy brig without his seeing a lawyer or anyone else other than his interrogators. By the time Padilla was tried for something totally unrelated to what he was arrested for, he was a walking zombie.

The remarks quoted above from Lazreg focused on the sexual nature of torture among the French in Algeria. The white South African writer Breyten Breytenbach, also quoted above, affirms her observations. He was arrested, humiliated and abused, and then later wrote about his experiences. He writes about the relationship between detainee and interrogator this way:

“The interrogator’s power is absolute and having the detainee know it is his most efficacious weapon.” Detainees will hold out, he says, but in the end confessions are inevitable. Then, in a matter-of-fact tone, he writes, the detainee “will be raped. His problem is to realize it, to handle it, and to know that it is the humanity he shares with the aggressor that is being raped.”

Finally, he writes, “The self-disgust of the prisoner comes from the alienation he has been brought to.” As McCoy points out about the development of the no-touch, slow-torture regimen, the goal is to instill in the mind of the detainee the idea he is the source of his own debasement.

Now, in 2011, under the Quantico regimen of slow torture, what about the sexual aspect of making a young gay man stand buck naked before other men?

We can agree that the humiliation and “torture” Manning is being put through is not of the overt, brutally sadistic nature undertaken by the French in Algeria. But that is the whole point. It’s 2011, and soldiers can’t get away with that stuff anymore, although they tried in Abu Ghraib and no doubt still do in some of the darker, more hidden recesses of US military reality.

You can almost hear the likes of Donald Rumsfeld comparing the treatment of Manning to a fraternity hazing or the naked line-up of young men, hands cupped over genitals, for the assembly-line physical examination before basic training.

It’s interesting to ask: Would a more traditionally machismo, heterosexual male be treated the way Manning is being treated? Would they routinely strip a woman and make her do what they are making Manning do?

In this light, it’s fair to ask: Is the US military actually sexually abusing Manning, figuring they can get away with it because of traditional strains of brutal American homophobia that project repressed feelings onto openly gay men in order to destroy those repressed feelings within? Does such treatment of a young gay male seem acceptable and natural to them in the same vein that certain right-wing elements find acceptable and natural the incredible instances of racism we see directed against President Barack Obama?

Whatever the deeper psychological realities may be -– and they can be debated -- it’s quite clear the United States military is doing its best to destroy young Bradley Manning.

Many of us feel he is a hero. Why? We feel he’s a hero because our government – especially our military – is so deeply entrenched in secrecy that it amounts to a national crisis. Militarism and outrageously expensive wars are destroying this nation. The only way to break the pattern is with openness, and that openness is not going to come voluntarily. In the case of WikiLeaks, that welcomed openness may even come with its own dangers of collateral damage.

It's clear that government and military oppression here a home will have to get a lot worse before we see anything like Tahrir Square. For one, the voices in the middle and at the bottom have been effectively divided and, thus, conquered. The Obama Administration and the military know this well. So Mr. Obama feels safe in allowing the slow torture of Bradley Manning to go on under his watch. He knows few Americans care about a lone gay kid being abused in a cell in Quantico, Virginia.

Remember: While Manning’s treatment may not be “medieval” in nature, there is absolutely no good reason for treating him this way. There is no reason for it other than as psychological abuse to break down and destroy a human life -- in this case a human life many of us hold in high regard for the moral actions he allegedly took.

The US government is counting on the American people to be as morally obtuse and frightened as are the citizens of a totalitarian culture who look the other way while atrocities go down -- lest they be noticed and flagged as “one of them.” We are in danger of becoming a nation of “good Germans,” people like Sergeant Schultz from Hogan’s Heroes: People who “see nah-thing!”

Many of us do see it, and we don‘t plan to shut up. Plus, we have good memories. Breytenbach again: “It is incumbent upon all of us who are concerned to provoke a public exposition and debate of the issue.”


Source URL: http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/494

[8bitagent]

The Obama regime treating Manning in the same way as al Qaeda suspect detainees at Gitmo, when all he did was expose what so many of us knew: the full extent of America's war crimes in the illegal Iraq war. Manning should be praised, not tried for a death sentence. This definitely belongs in the Eff Obomb-uh thread.

[DevilYouKnow]

Someone should nominate Manning for the Nobel Peace Prize.

[vanlose kid]

Stripped naked every night, Bradley Manning tells of prison ordeal
US soldier held on suspicion of leaking state secrets speaks out for first time about experience

Ed Pilkington in New York The Guardian, Friday 11 March 2011

Bradley Manning, the US soldier being held in solitary confinement on suspicion of having released state secrets to WikiLeaks, has spoken out for the first time about what he claims is his punitive and unlawful treatment in military prison.

In an 11-page legal letter released by his lawyer, David Coombs, Manning sets out in his own words how he has been "left to languish under the unduly harsh conditions of max [security] custody" ever since he was brought from Kuwait to the military brig of Quantico marine base in Virginia in July last year. He describes how he was put on suicide watch in January, how he is currently being stripped naked every night, and how he is in general terms being subjected to what he calls "unlawful pre-trial punishment".

It is the first time Manning has spoken publicly about his treatment, having previously only been heard through the intermediaries of his lawyer and a friend. Details that have emerged up to now have inspired the UN to launch an inquiry into whether the conditions amount to torture, and have led to protests to the US government from Amnesty International.

The most graphic passage of the letter is Manning's description of how he was placed on suicide watch for three days from 18 January. "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."

Manning writes that he believes the suicide watch was imposed not because he was a danger to himself but as retribution for a protest about his treatment held outside Quantico the day before. Immediately before the suicide watch started, he said guards verbally harassed him, taunting him with conflicting orders.

When he was told he was being put on suicide watch, he writes, "I became upset. Out of frustration, I clenched my hair with my fingers and yelled: 'Why are you doing this to me? Why am I being punished? I have done nothing wrong.'"

He also describes the experience of being stripped naked at night and made to stand for parade in the nude, a condition that continues to this day. "The guard told me to stand at parade rest, with my hands behind my back and my legs spaced shoulder-width apart. I stood at parade rest for about three minutes … The [brig supervisor] and the other guards walked past my cell. He looked at me, paused for a moment, then continued to the next cell. I was incredibly embarrassed at having all these people stare at me naked."

Manning has been charged with multiple counts relating to the leaking of hundreds of thousands of secret US government cables, videos and warlogs from Iraq and Afghanistan to WikiLeaks. The charges include "aiding the enemy", which can carry the death penalty.

The legal letter was addressed to the US military authorities and was drawn up in response to their recent decision to keep Manning on a restriction order called Prevention of Injury (PoI). It means he is kept in his cell alone for 23 hours a day and checked every five minutes by guards including, if necessary, through the night.

The letter contains excerpts from the observation records kept in the brig which consistently report that Manning is "respectful, courteous and well spoken" and "does not have any suicidal feelings at this time".

Sixteen separate entries made from 27 August until the records stop on 28 January show that Manning was evaluated by prison psychiatrists who found he was not a danger to himself and should be removed from the PoI order.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ma ... ing-prison

*

[8bitagent]

Someone should nominate Manning for the Nobel Peace Prize.

I agree. The fact Obama got it(especially so soon after US NATO planes bombed to death 147 innocent Afghan civilians) is a sick joke.

So...uh, where's the Tea Party or "anti gov't" Fox news on the Bradley Manning treatment story?

Why is Rachel Maddow the only one covering it?

[vanlose kid]

War crimes good, exposing them bad
While military and political leaders accused of war crimes sleep soundly, one alleged whistleblower languishes in jail.

Medea Benjamin and Charles Davis Last Modified: 10 Mar 2011 10:11 GMT

Bradley Manning is accused of humiliating the political establishment by revealing the complicity of top US officials in carrying out and covering up war crimes. In return for his act of conscience, the US government is torturing him, humiliating him and trying to keep him behind bars for life.

The lesson is clear, and soldiers take note: You're better off committing a war crime than exposing one.

An Army intelligence officer stationed in Kuwait, the 23-year-old Manning – outraged at what he saw – allegedly leaked tens of thousands of State Department cables to the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks. These cables – cables that show US officials covering up everything from child rape in Afghanistan to an illegal, unauthorised bombing in Yemen.

Manning is also accused of leaking video evidence of US pilots gunning down more than a dozen Iraqis in Baghdad, including two Reuters journalists - and then killing a man who stopped to help them. The two young children of the passerby were also severely wounded.

"Well, it's their fault for bringing kids into a battle," a not-terribly-remorseful US pilot can be heard remarking in the July 2007 "Collateral Murder" video.

Walking free

None of the soldiers who carried out that war crime have been punished, nor have any of the high-ranking officials who authorised it. And that's par for the course. Indeed, committing war crimes is more likely to get a soldier a medal than a prison term. And authorising them? Well, that'll get you a book deal and a six-digit speaking fee. Just ask George W Bush. Or Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld or Condoleezza Rice. Or the inexplicably "respectable" Colin Powell.

In fact, the record indicates Manning would today be far better off if he'd killed those men in Baghdad himself - and on the lecture circuit, rather than in solitary confinement.

Hyperbole? Consider what happened to the US soldiers who, over a period of hours – not minutes – went house to house in the Iraqi town of Haditha and executed 24 men, women and children in retaliation for a roadside bombing.

"I watched them shoot my grandfather, first in the chest and then in the head," said one of the two surviving eyewitnesses to the massacre, nine-year-old Eman Waleed.

"Then they killed my granny."

The relative value of life

Almost five years later, not one of the men involved in the incident is behind bars. And despite an Army investigation revealing that statements made by the chain of command suggest they "believe Iraqi civilian lives are not as important as US lives", with the murder of brown-skinned innocents considered "just the cost of doing business" – a direct quote from Maj Gen Eldon Bargewell's 2006 investigation into the killings – none of their superiors are behind bars either.

Now consider the treatment of Bradley Manning. On March 1, 2011, the military charged Manning with 22 additional offences – on top of the original charges of improperly leaking classified information, disobeying an order and general misconduct. One of the new charges, "aiding the enemy", is punishable by death. That means Manning faces the prospect of being executed or spending his life in prison for exposing the ugly truth about the US empire.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration has decided to make Manning's pre-trial existence as torturous as possible, holding him in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day since his arrested ten months ago – treatment which Psychologists for Social Responsibility notes is, "at the very least, a form of cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment in violation of US law".

In addition to the horror of long-term solitary confinement, Manning is barred from exercising in his cell and is denied bed sheets or a pillow. And every five minutes, he must respond in the affirmative when asked by a guard if he's "okay".

Presumably he lies.

While others sleep soundly

It gets worse. On his blog, Manning's military lawyer, Lt Col David Coombs, reveals his client is now stripped of his clothing at night, left naked under careful surveillance for seven hours, and, when the 5:00am wake-up call comes, he's then "forced to stand naked at the front of the cell".

If you point out that the emperor has no clothes, it seems the empire will make sure you have none either.

Officials at the Quantico Marine Base where Manning is being held claim the move is "not punitive", according to Coombs. Rather, it is for Manning's own good - a "precautionary measure" intended to prevent him from harming himself. Do they really think Manning is going to strangle himself with his underwear – and that he could do so while under 24-hour surveillance?

"Is this Quantico or Abu Ghraib?" asked US Representative Dennis Kucinich. Good question, congressman. Like the men imprisoned in former President Bush's Iraqi torture chamber, Manning is being abused and humiliated - despite having not so much as been tried in a military tribunal, much less convicted of an actual crime.

So much for the presidential term of the candidate of hope and change.

Administrations change, much remains the same

Remember back when Obama campaigned against such Bush-league torture tactics? Recall when candidate Obama said "government whistleblowers are part of a healthy democracy and must be protected from reprisal"? It appears his opposition to torture and support for whistleblowers was mere rhetoric. And then he took office.

Indeed, despite the grand promises and soaring oratory, Obama's treatment of Manning is starkly reminiscent of none other than Richard Nixon.

Like Obama – who has prosecuted more whistleblowers than any president in history – Nixon had no sympathy for "snitches", and no interest in the US public learning the truth about their government. And he likewise argued that Daniel Ellsberg, the leaker of the Pentagon Papers, had given "aid and comfort to the enemy" for revealing the facts about the war in Vietnam.

But there's a difference. Richard Nixon never had the heroic whistleblower of his day thrown in solitary confinement and tortured. If only the same could be said for Barack Obama.

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of Global Exchange and CODEPINK: Women for Peace, while Charles Davis is an independent journalist.

On March 20, CODEPINK and others will hold a rally at the Quantico Marine Base in Virginia, USA, in support of Bradley Manning. For details, click here.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/op ... 20744.html

*

[MacCruiskeen]

An incredible (no: an all-too-credible) interview with Bradley Manning's father:

REPORT AIR DATE: March 10, 2011

WikiLeaks Suspect's Dad: Bradley Manning 'Being Humiliated' But 'Looks Good'
SUMMARY
Kwame Holman previews an interview with the father of Pvt. Bradley Manning, the Army intelligence analyst accused of stealing thousands of classified government documents and providing them to WikiLeaks. Brian Manning spoke to PBS' Frontline earlier this week about his son's arrest and his treatment during his imprisonment.

Transcript
JUDY WOODRUFF: Next, we turn to the interview with the father of accused WikiLeaks source, Pvt. Bradley Manning.

Kwame Holman puts it in context.

KWAME HOLMAN: Pvt. Bradley Manning is the 23-year-old Army intelligence analyst accused of stealing thousands of classified government documents and providing them to WikiLeaks. He is in custody at the U.S. Marine brig in Quantico, Va., where he is confined to his cell 23 hours a day under what's called a prevention-of-injury watch.

Last week, there was a change in his imprisonment. Manning was stripped of his clothing at night. Manning's attorney, David Coombs, has reported the brig's action followed his client's complaint that the so-called prevention-of-injury restrictions on him were absurd. Manning said if he wanted to harm himself, he could do so with the elastic waistband of his underwear.

In an exclusive "Frontline" interview this week with correspondent Martin Smith, Bradley Manning's father, Brian Manning, talked for the first time about his son's incarceration.

MARTIN SMITH: You decided that you wanted to sit down and talk today because you want to complain publicly about the conditions of his imprisonment.

BRIAN MANNING, father of Pvt. Bradley Manning: Yes.

MARTIN SMITH: And those conditions are?

BRIAN MANNING: Well, he's being -- his clothing is being taken away from him, and he's being humiliated by having to stand at attention in front of people, male or female that I -- as far as I know, you know, that are fully clothed.

MARTIN SMITH: Who tells you that?

BRIAN MANNING: I read it in the statement that was put out by his civilian attorney.

I mean, this is someone that has not been -- you know, gone to trial or been convicted of anything. And that's prompted me to -- you know, to come out and go forward. I mean, they worry about people down in -- you know, in a base in Cuba, but here they are, have someone in, you know, on our own soil and under their own control, and they're treating him this way.

I mean, it's -- you know, I just can't believe -- you just can't believe it. I mean, it's shocking enough that I would come out of, you know, our silence, as a family, and say, you know, now then this -- you know, you have crossed the line. This is wrong.

KWAME HOLMAN: Today, the NewsHour asked the military for a response to Brian Manning's assertions.

A statement from the Department of Defense said in part: "The circumstances of PFC Manning's pretrial confinement are regularly reviewed, and complies in all respects with U.S. law and Department of Defense regulations.

"In recent days, as the result of concerns for PFC Manning's personal safety, his undergarments were taken from him during sleeping hours. He was not made to stand naked for morning count, but on one day, he chose to do so. There were no female personnel present at the time. PFC Manning has since been issued a garment to sleep in at night. He is clothed in a standard jumpsuit during the day. None of the conditions under which PFC Manning is held are punitive in nature."

In his interview with "Frontline," Brian Manning says he saw no signs of suicidal intentions in his son.

MARTIN SMITH: How many times have you visited him?

BRIAN MANNING: Approximately eight or nine times.

MARTIN SMITH: During those visits, has he ever mentioned any complaint of any kind to you?

BRIAN MANNING: No. I always, you know, am conscientious enough to look him straight in the eyes and ask him a direct question. How are they treating you? Are you sleeping? Is the food OK? And he's always responded that: Things are just fine.

MARTIN SMITH: How does he look?

BRIAN MANNING: He looks good.

MARTIN SMITH: And he doesn't complain about being shackled?

BRIAN MANNING: No. He doesn't complain at all about anything.

MARTIN SMITH: It wouldn't be surprising for somebody in solitary confinement to be suffering a bit.

BRIAN MANNING: Oh, I'm sure.

MARTIN SMITH: It's surprising to me that you described him as somebody who's doing well.

BRIAN MANNING: He comes across to me as doing well.

MARTIN SMITH: He's in solitary confinement. That's tremendously difficult, psychologically and physically.

BRIAN MANNING: I understand that.

MARTIN SMITH: So, are you surprised that he's doing as well as he is?

BRIAN MANNING: I'm happy that he's doing as well as he is.

MARTIN SMITH: So, is there any reason that Bradley wouldn't confide in you if things were tough for him there?

BRIAN MANNING: No.

KWAME HOLMAN: Brian Manning was himself in the service, the Navy, where he held a security clearance. Stealing and sharing classified information is wrong, he says, and the whole WikiLeaks situation angers him.

But he told Martin Smith he does not believe his son did what the Army has accused him of doing.

MARTIN SMITH: Does it surprise you that Bradley had access to this much information?

BRIAN MANNING: Yes.

MARTIN SMITH: And what will you say if it turns out that he leaked these documents?

BRIAN MANNING: I don't know. I mean, I'm not even -- I'm not even letting those thoughts come into my head. I'm thinking positively.

MARTIN SMITH: Is that always easy to do?

BRIAN MANNING: Yes.

MARTIN SMITH: You don't think he had it in him to do this?

BRIAN MANNING: I don't think that the amount and the volume of things and the environment he worked in, no, I don't think so.

MARTIN SMITH: You don't think it's possible he -- he could have had this kind of intent?

BRIAN MANNING: I don't know why he would do that. I -- I really don't.

MARTIN SMITH: Was he patriotic?

BRIAN MANNING: I don't think he followed any regime of any kind.

MARTIN SMITH: You don't think he was a patriot of the United States?

BRIAN MANNING: I imagine he was just as much as you and I.

MARTIN SMITH: Well, you knew -- he's your son. You knew him. Was he patriotic?

BRIAN MANNING: It never came up. I mean, he never said anything anti-American.

MARTIN SMITH: He joined the Army.

BRIAN MANNING: At my twisting his arm, yes.

MARTIN SMITH: So, he joined the Army because you made him do it?

BRIAN MANNING: I didn't make him. I twisted his arm and urged him as much as a father can possibly urge somebody.

MARTIN SMITH: He didn't want to join the Army?

BRIAN MANNING: No, he did not. And he had expressed that.

MARTIN SMITH: Why did you make him -- or why did you twist his arm to join the Army?

BRIAN MANNING: Because he needed structure in his life. He was aimless. And I was going on my own experience. When I was growing up, that's the only thing that, you know, put the structure in my life was by joining the Navy. And everything's been fine since then.

MARTIN SMITH: From talking to you, it doesn't seem -- I mean, you don't wear your emotions on your sleeve. If you're feeling something about his situation, I'm not hearing it.

BRIAN MANNING: There's a certain point, you know, when -- you reach where you can either accept things, you know, and -- and try and do as much as you possibly can, and then there's no point in dwelling upon it.

I mean, there relatively is nothing I can do at this point, except support him, you know, as a father would support a son that -- that's in this situation.

MARTIN SMITH: But that's a very rational answer. Emotions don't respond to that kind of logic.

BRIAN MANNING: Well, I guess I'm just a right-brained person. You know, I think logically.

MARTIN SMITH: But you raised this kid. You played with him. Now he's sitting in a prison...

BRIAN MANNING: Right.

MARTIN SMITH: ... facing severe penalties, very, very serious charges pending.

BRIAN MANNING: That's correct.

MARTIN SMITH: I would guess that that is very hard to -- to square.

BRIAN MANNING: Well, as I said, once -- once you make the -- the -- can rationalize it to the point is that they're -- as I said, they're -- all the things I could possibly do, you have done, OK, and just wait for the next move on the chessboard.

I mean, all's I can do is support him.

KWAME HOLMAN: More of Brian Manning's interview will appear in a profile of his son Bradley in a special "Frontline" broadcast March 29, ahead of a documentary on WikiLeaks coming in May.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan- ... tml?print#

Audio at the link.

"Violence is boyhood socialization. The way we ‘turn boys into men’ is through injury… We take them away from their feelings, from sensitivity to others. The very phrase ‘be a man’ means suck it up and keep going. Disconnection is not fallout from traditional masculinity. Disconnection is masculinity"

- bell hooks