greenwald: manning forced nudity = media tipping point

Glenn Greenwald, including links and emphasis:

The forced nudity imposed on Bradley Manning followed by the forced resignation of P.J. Crowley has clearly created a media tipping point in this story. In addition to the scathing New York Times Editorial from Monday (Manning's treatment "conjures creepy memories of how the Bush administration used to treat terror suspects"), editorial condemnation has now come from The Los Angeles Times ("punishment, not protection, is the purpose of these degrading measures") and The Guardian ("There was at least the ghost of an excuse for bullying foreign combatants but no US need for mistreating one of their own"). Perhaps most notably, even the military-revering, establishment-defending Washington Post Editorial Page today emphatically condemns these conditions as "uncomfortably close to the kind of intimidating and humiliating tactics disavowed after the abuses at the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons that eroded the country’s standing in the world."

The abusive treatment of Manning is indeed now reverberating internationally. Der Spiegel has a long article on the conditions of Manning's detention, noting that "even US politicians believe they're illegal" and highlighting the point I've repeatedly made:

Before he was inaugurated, Obama talked about the importance of whistleblowers, or sources who expose abuses within their organizations. Such "acts of courage and patriotism" ought to be "encouraged, rather than stifled," his website read at the time.

Once in office, Obama underwent a radical shift. His government is currently taking legal action against a number of whistleblowers. The government apparently wants to use the Manning case as a deterrent.

Meanwhile, The Guardian has an excellent article today describing how Physicians for Human Rights is now formally raising objections to the role of brig psychiatrists in enabling Manning's inhumane treatment (just as they once raised objections to the role played by health professionals at Guantanamo).

Plus: Tom Tomorrow: The president consults with General Flustercluck.

Read More

editor of national review speaks up for bradley manning

Raw Story reports that Robert VerBruggen, editor of the ultraconservative National Review, is speaking out against the US Army's torture and abusive treatment of Bradley Manning.

I assume everyone already knows that P. J. Crowley, the US State Department spokesperson who called the treatment of Manning "ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid," was forced to resign. Much to his credit, Crowley did not backpedal or detract his statement. VerBruggen also comments on Crowley's statement.

Bradley Manning has found yet another unexpected defender.

An editor at the conservative National Review magazine is speaking out on behalf of Manning, the Army private accused of leaking U.S. State Department cables to WikiLeaks.

Robert VerBruggen declared Tuesday that there was "no excuse" for subjecting Manning, who has not been convicted of a crime, to harsh conditions.

Manning attorney David Coombs revealed earlier this month that for at least two nights in row, the Army private had been "stripped naked" for as long as seven hours at a time.

Manning has been held at the Quantico brig since July under a maximum security regimen, which leaves him in his cell for 23 hours a day, because authorities say his escape would pose a risk to national security.

"He has yet to be convicted of a crime -- and, regardless, prisons should avoid inflicting arbitrary and pointless miseries on their charges," VerBruggen wrote.

"On at least two and possibly three occasions, prison officials have used their discretion to subject Manning to harsher procedures than would normally be used under the brig’s policies. Manning’s treatment may well be legal, as the general counsels of the Departments of Defense and of the Navy found — the policies in question are just guidelines — but that doesn’t make it right," he added.

. . .

"The fact that the State Department's P.J. Crowley spoke out against Manning's treatment, however ill-considered the outburst was, should encourage Americans to demand a better explanation," VerBruggen noted.

"Manning is an American citizen in an American detention facility, and he has not yet been convicted. There is no excuse for subjecting him to harsh conditions, so long as he poses no threat to himself or others. The American people deserve an explanation as to why Manning remains in maximum custody and on prevention-of-injury watch," he concluded.

So the National Review is more humane and just than Obama.

Read More

wikileaks' forgotten man: documentary on bradley manning: watch on tv or online

On CBC this weekend, and online anytime, please watch "WikiLeaks' Forgotten Man", a short documentary about Bradley Manning.

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 soldier - 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."

Ellsberg writes in support of Manning in The Guardian.

This shameful abuse of Bradley Manning
by Daniel Ellsberg

The WikiLeaks suspect's mistreatment amounts to torture. Either President Obama knows this or he should make it his business

President Obama tells us that he's asked the Pentagon whether the conditions of confinement of Bradley Manning, the soldier charged with leaking state secrets, "are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards. They assure me that they are."

If Obama believes that, he'll believe anything. I would hope he would know better than to ask the perpetrators whether they've been behaving appropriately. I can just hear President Nixon saying to a press conference the same thing: "I was assured by the the White House Plumbers that their burglary of the office of Daniel Ellsberg's doctor in Los Angeles was appropriate and met basic standards."

When that criminal behaviour ordered from the Oval Office came out, Nixon faced impeachment and had to resign. Well, times have changed. But if President Obama really doesn't yet know the actual conditions of Manning's detention – if he really believes, as he's said, that "some of this [nudity, isolation, harassment, sleep-deprivation] has to do with Private Manning's wellbeing", despite the contrary judgments of the prison psychologist – then he's being lied to, and he needs to get a grip on his administration.

If he does know, and agrees that it's appropriate or even legal, that doesn't speak well for his memory of the courses he taught on constitutional law.

The president refused to comment on PJ Crowley's statement that the treatment of Manning is "ridiculous, counterproductive and stupid". Those words are true enough as far as they go – which is probably about as far as a state department spokesperson can allow himself to go in condemning actions of the defence department. But at least two other words are called for: abusive and illegal.

Crowley was responding to a question about the "torturing" of an American citizen, and, creditably, he didn't rebut that description. Prolonged isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity – that's right out of the manual of the CIA for "enhanced interrogation". 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 demoralise someone to the point of offering a desired confession. That's what they are after, I suspect, with Manning. They don't care if the confession is true or false, so long as it implicates WikiLeaks in a way that will help them prosecute Julian Assange. [More here.]

"WikiLeaks' Forgotten Man" is available online here.

Read More

bradley manning in his own words: truth-teller speaks out about his prison ordeal

This is the first we've heard directly from heroic war resister Bradley Manning, in his own words, since his prison ordeal began. Please share widely.

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

'Stripping me of all of my clothing is without justification'

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."

Full story here.

Read More

rap news 5 featuring donald rumsfeld, julian assange and a million dead iraqis

Always late to the YouTube party, I've just discovered Rap News. If you haven't seen this yet, please watch. One bit is a little disgusting, but much less disgusting than the killing, torturing and terrorizing of innocent civilians.

Read More

bradley manning torture continues: occupation of iraq continues too: support all war resisters

I don't know if you've all been following updates on accused WikiLeaks / Collateral Murder hero Bradley Manning. Things have gotten much worse.

On Wednesday, March 2, the US Army hit Manning with 22 additional charges, including the very serious, and very spurious, "aiding the enemy".

The following day, March 3, Manning's lawyer reported that Manning was stripped of all his clothes and forced to remain naked in his cell.

On Sunday, Glenn Greenwald reported that these humiliations will now occur daily, and put this travesty in context.

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.

The treatment of Manning is now so repulsive that it even lies beyond what at least some of the most devoted Obama admirers are willing to defend. For instance, UCLA Professor Mark Kleiman -- who last year hailed Barack Obama as, and I quote, "the greatest moral leader of our lifetime" -- wrote last night:

The United States Army is so concerned about Bradley Manning’s health that it is subjecting him to a regime designed to drive him insane. . . . This is a total disgrace. It shouldn't be happening in this country. You can't be unaware of this, Mr. President. Silence gives consent.

The entire Manning controversy has received substantial media attention. It's being carried out by the military of which Barack Obama is the Commander-in-Chief. Yes, the Greatest Moral Leader of Our Lifetime and Nobel Peace Prize winner is well aware of what's being done and obviously has been for quite some time. [See original for more, plus links.]

It's vitally important that we all help keep this story alive. Visit Bradley Manning Support Network to see what you can do to help.

This also seems like a good time to post an item that's been weighing on my mind for months now. Greenwald ran an excellent interview with Nir Rosen, author of Aftermath: Following the Bloodshed of America's Wars in the Muslim World. It's a very tough, very important read.

Every family that I've met in Iraq, or Iraqi refugees as well, has been touched by kidnapping and murder and rape and displacements. You have half a million Iraqis today living inside Iraq who are homeless, squatting in illegal settlements, living in shacks made out of tin cans and cardboard — I saw a house made out of used air conditioners piled up on top of each other — living in massive pits of sewage, stinking of shit, flies all over the place. And, of course, let's not forget you had hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, murdered, disappeared, tortured to death with power drills, with beheadings, their bodies found weeks later in garbage dumps. Hundreds and hundreds of villages in Iraq totally destroyed ... torture is routine and systematic now. If you get arrested, you get tortured. Corruption is rampant; it's one of the most corrupt countries on Earth. Services are terrible, almost no electricity, dirty water, terrible malnutrition, kids not going to school. It's just a destroyed, brutalized and beaten place where the worst kind of people have taken over.

This is what Bradley Manning is accused of revealing, and why he is being persecuted and tortured. This is what US Iraq War resisters in Canada refused to be part of, and why Stephen Harper and Jason Kenney want them deported. This is why our fight for war resisters matters.

Read More

bush avoids handcuffs in switzerland, but spain may yet indict

As you may have heard, a former Resident of the White House recently cancelled a trip to Switzerland because he didn't want to be arrested - or humiliated. From The Nation:

George Bush has done a pretty good job of positioning himself as an "elder statesman" in the United States — at least by comparison with Dick Cheney — but the rest of the world has not forgotten the high crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush-Cheney interregnum.

So the forty-third president will not be jetting off to Switzerland next week, as had been expected.

Bush was supposed to be the star attraction at a fund-raising gala in Geneva February 12. But the news that the former president would be in Switzerland set off a flurry of legal filings — and calls by members of the Swiss parliament — that sought to have Bush arrested upon arrival on torture charges.

Bush has defended the use of waterboarding and other outlawed interrogation techniques in his autobiography, Decision Points, and public statements, effectively admitting that he and his aides approved acts that are banned by the Convention on Torture, the 1987 international pact prohibiting cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment to which the United States and Switzerland are signatories.

The New York–based Center for Constitutional Rights and European human rights groups had planned to submit a 2,500-page complaint against Bush to legal authorities in Geneva Monday. The complaint details mistreatment of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and was to be brought under the Convention Against Torture on behalf of two men who have been held by the United States — Majid Khan, who remains at Guantánamo, and Sami al-Hajj, a former Al Jazeera cameraman, who was released in 2008.

In addition, a conservative Swiss parliamentarian, Dominique Baettig, had requested that the Swiss federal government arrest of Bush on war crimes charges.

Organizers of the gala event claimed that Bush cancelled his trip in order to avoid protests that might turn violent. But the organizers of the protests, well-known activists on human rights and global justice issues, had actually proposed a symbolic protest that involved nothing more than tossing shoes at the hotel where Bush was scheduled to appear.

Geneva, home to numerous international agencies and tribunals, is arguably more experienced with managing protests than most cities on the planet. The notion that a Bush visit would have been anything more than an annoyance for the gendarmes, and for the broader community, is comic.

Bush decided not to make the trip because, in the words of Reed Brody, counsel for Human Rights Watch: "He's avoiding the handcuffs." [See original for more plus links.]

But are the war criminals out of the legal woods yet? In Spain, Judge Eloy Velasco has set a March 1 deadline to decide if he will prosecute the six Bush-era government lawyers, including then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, for violating international law by creating a legal justification for torture. Remember, it was a Spanish court that indicted Pinochet. According to numerous reports, arrests are "highly probable". Documents released by WikiLeaks show that the US has been pressuring Spain to drop the idea. No surprise there!

The US-based group Voters For Peace has written an open letter to the Spanish public: "Dear Spain: Please do what the U.S. won't. Prosecute Torture". The site appears to accept Canadian postal codes, so readers on both sides of the border can add their names.

Although there's little chance these powerful men will be held accountable for their crimes, actions like these help revive memories in our amnesiac world. They should also remind us that the better-looking, smarter-sounding current US administration has not closed the Guantánamo Bay concentration camp, has not ended the occupation of Iraq, and has escalated the occupation of Afghanistan.

In the Canadian blogosphere, I sometimes see references to "the US of 2000-2008," and I wonder, what do they think is different in 2011?

Read More

action alert part 2 of 4: send a letter of support for bradley manning

Bradley Manning is a prisoner of conscience. Accused of leaking the infamous "collateral murder" video that exposed the truth about the US invasion and occupation of Iraq - and vindicated what US war resisters have been saying all along - is not being treated like an ordinary prisoner.

Since July, Manning - without court martial or conviction - has been held in solitary confinement in a 6 x 12-foot cell. He is not allowed to read, to exercise or even to sleep during the day. This was supposedly for his own protection, an excuse the Army continues to use to persecute Manning. Last week, Manning was put on suicide watch - which meant he was stripped to his boxer shorts and his cell stripped of everything, even a blanket. Even his eyeglasses were taken.

At a White House briefing last week, press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about Manning. He said he was unaware of anything about him, but would check. If Gibbs needs information, let's give him some.

From WikiLeaks Is Democracy:

Some have perceived Manning as a traitor. Even if that were true it does not justify pre-trial torture. Others see Manning as a patriot. He is not accused of giving documents to Iran, China or Russia. He is accused of giving them to the media so Americans can see what US foreign policy is doing. He is not accused of trying to become rich by selling the documents. He gave them for free, allegedly, because he wanted to see a debate on U.S. foreign policy so the United States could live up to its highest expectations. He wanted to make the United States better. That is not treason, it is patriotism.

Click here to send a letter to President Obama in support of Bradley Manning. This is an area where public opinion can make a significant difference. Please add your voice to those of Medea Benjamin, Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, Chris Hedges, Cindy Sheehan, Col. Ann Wright, Kevin Zeese and so many others.

Click here and add your name.

Read More

greenwald: what wikileaks revealed to the world in 2010

The incomparable Glenn Greenwald, December 24, 2010.

Throughout this year I've devoted substantial attention to WikiLeaks, particularly in the last four weeks as calls for its destruction intensified. To understand why I've done so, and to see what motivates the increasing devotion of the U.S. Government and those influenced by it to destroying that organization, it's well worth reviewing exactly what WikiLeaks exposed to the world just in the last year: the breadth of the corruption, deceit, brutality and criminality on the part of the world's most powerful factions.

As revealing as the disclosures themselves are, the reactions to them have been equally revealing. The vast bulk of the outrage has been devoted not to the crimes that have been exposed but rather to those who exposed them: WikiLeaks and (allegedly) Bradley Manning. A consensus quickly emerged in the political and media class that they are Evil Villains who must be severely punished, while those responsible for the acts they revealed are guilty of nothing. That reaction has not been weakened at all even by the Pentagon's own admission that, in stark contrast to its own actions, there is no evidence -- zero -- that any of WikiLeaks' actions has caused even a single death. Meanwhile, the American establishment media -- even in the face of all these revelations -- continues to insist on the contradictory, Orwellian platitudes that (a) there is Nothing New™ in anything disclosed by WikiLeaks and (b) WikiLeaks has done Grave Harm to American National Security™ through its disclosures.

It's unsurprising that political leaders would want to convince people that the true criminals are those who expose acts of high-level political corruption and criminality, rather than those who perpetrate them. Every political leader would love for that self-serving piety to take hold. But what's startling is how many citizens and, especially, "journalists" now vehemently believe that as well. In light of what WikiLeaks has revealed to the world about numerous governments, just fathom the authoritarian mindset that would lead a citizen -- and especially a "journalist" -- to react with anger that these things have been revealed; to insist that these facts should have been kept concealed and it'd be better if we didn't know; and, most of all, to demand that those who made us aware of it all be punished (the True Criminals) while those who did these things (The Good Authorities) be shielded.

See the column for headlines and screenshots.

Read More

bradley manning speaks about his incarceration, and how you can help

Please read these two important pieces by David House, who regularly visits Bradley Manning, and by Glenn Greenwald. But more importantly, please see below for information about the public campaign to alleviate the inhumane treatment of Manning. Please don't assume the Pentagon is immune to public pressure; many examples prove otherwise. Manning needs our support. Sending a letter is the least we can do.

David House on Firedoglake:

In my visit to see Bradley at the Quantico brig, it became clear that the Pentagon’s public spin from last week sharply contradicts the reality of Bradley Manning’s detainment. In his five months of detention, it has become obvious to me that Manning’s physical and mental well-being are deteriorating. What Manning needs, and what his attorney has already urged, is to have the unnecessary “Prevention of Injury” order lifted that severely restricts his ability to exercise, communicate, and sleep.

My Visits to Manning in Quantico

I am one of the few people allowed to visit Bradley Manning while he is detained in the Quantico brig.

Manning is held in “maximum custody,” the military’s most severe detention policy. Manning is also confined under a longstanding Prevention of Injury (POI) order which limits his social contact, news consumption, ability to exercise, and that places restrictions on his ability to sleep.

Manning has been living under the solitary restrictions of POI for five months despite being cleared by a military psychologist earlier this year, and despite repeated calls from his attorney David Coombs to lift the severely restrictive and isolating order. POI orders are short-term restrictions that are typically implemented when a detainee changes confinement facilities and these orders are lifted after the detainee passes psychological evaluation.

Our conversations, which take place in the presence of marines and electronic monitoring equipment, typically revolve around topics in physics, computer science, and philosophy; he recently mentioned that he hopes to one day make use of the GI Bill towards earning a graduate degree in Physics and a bachelors in Political Science. He rarely if ever talks about his conditions in the brig, and it is not unusual for him to shy away from questions about his well-being by changing the subject entirely.

When I arrived at the brig on December 18th I found him to be much more open to lines of inquiry regarding his circumstances, and in a two and a half hour conversation I learned new details about his life in confinement. [Read it here.]

Glenn Greenwald:

Bradley Manning, the 22-year-old U.S. Army Private accused of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks, has never been convicted of that crime, nor of any other crime. Despite that, he has been detained at the U.S. Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia for five months -- and for two months before that in a military jail in Kuwait -- under conditions that constitute cruel and inhumane treatment and, by the standards of many nations, even torture. Interviews with several people directly familiar with the conditions of Manning's detention, ultimately including a Quantico brig official (Lt. Brian Villiard) who confirmed much of what they conveyed, establishes that the accused leaker is subjected to detention conditions likely to create long-term psychological injuries.

Since his arrest in May, Manning has been a model detainee, without any episodes of violence or disciplinary problems. He nonetheless was declared from the start to be a "Maximum Custody Detainee," the highest and most repressive level of military detention, which then became the basis for the series of inhumane measures imposed on him.

From the beginning of his detention, Manning has been held in intensive solitary confinement. For 23 out of 24 hours every day -- for seven straight months and counting -- he sits completely alone in his cell. Even inside his cell, his activities are heavily restricted; he's barred even from exercising and is under constant surveillance to enforce those restrictions. For reasons that appear completely punitive, he's being denied many of the most basic attributes of civilized imprisonment, including even a pillow or sheets for his bed (he is not and never has been on suicide watch). For the one hour per day when he is freed from this isolation, he is barred from accessing any news or current events programs. Lt. Villiard protested that the conditions are not "like jail movies where someone gets thrown into the hole," but confirmed that he is in solitary confinement, entirely alone in his cell except for the one hour per day he is taken out.

From Courage to Resist:

The Marine Brig at Quantico, Virginia is using “injury prevention” as a vehicle to inflict extreme pre-trial punishment on accused Wikileaks whistleblower Army PFC Bradley Manning. These “maximum conditions” are not unheard-of during an inmate’s first week at a military confinement facility, but when applied continuously for months and with no end in sight they amount to a form of torture. Bradley, who just turned 23-years-old last week, has been held in solitary confinement since his arrest in late May. We’re now turning to Bradley’s supporters worldwide to directly protest, and help bring a halt to, the extremely punitive conditions of Bradley’s pre-trial detention.

End the inhumane, degrading conditions of pre-trial confinement and respect Bradley’s human rights. Specifically, lift the “Prevention of Injury (POI) watch order”. This would allow Bradley meaningful physical exercise, uninterrupted sleep during the night, and a release from isolation. We are not asking for “special treatment”. In fact, we are demanding an immediate end to the special treatment.

Quantico Base Commander
Colonel Daniel Choike
3250 Catlin Ave
Quantico, VA 22134
USA
phone: 703.784.2707

Quantico Brig Commanding Officer
CWO4 James Averhart
3247 Elrod Ave
Quantico, VA 22134
USA
fax: 703.784.4242

Read More

wikileaks: u.n. to investigate manning jail conditions, panic over michael moore

What happens when people speak truth to power? Sometimes power hunts them down, locks them up, draws on its various arms to cut off their resources. And once in a while, power reveals its weak, petty core.

Bradley Manning has been in solitary confinement for seven months for allegedly showing the world a bit of truth about the occupation of Iraq. This latest development shows why it's vitally important that we keep Manning's story in the news and on our blogs as often as possible. The Guardian:

The United Nations is investigating a complaint on behalf of Bradley Manning that he is being mistreated while held since May in US Marine Corps custody pending trial. The army private is charged with the unauthorised use and disclosure of classified information, material related to the WikiLeaks, and faces a court martial sometime in 2011.

The office of Manfred Nowak, special rapporteur on torture based in Geneva, received the complaint from a Manning supporter; his office confirmed that it was being looked into. Manning's supporters say that he is in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day; this could be construed as a form of torture. This month visitors reported that his mental and physical health was deteriorating.

Also from The Guardian:

After a leaked cable from US diplomats in Havana falsely claimed Cuba had banned Moore's documentary Sicko – when in fact it was shown on state television – another cable reveals US officials flying into a panic after hearing a rumour that a New Zealand cabinet minister was hosting a screening of Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11.

Labelling the event a "potential fiasco", the classified cable from the US embassy in Wellington in 2003 reads like a failed plotline for an episode of In the Loop, breathlessly reporting a series of calls to the New Zealand prime minister's office and to the minister involved, Marian Hobbs.

Michael Moore, appearing on the Rachel Maddow Show on Tuesday night, said the New Zealand cable uncovered by WikiLeaks showed the unsettling reach of US influence. "If they were micromanaging me that much, if they were that concerned about the truth in Fahrenheit 9/11 that they have to go after a screening in a place I don't even really know where it is – I know it's way too long to sit in coach for me – I want to know. Because I think it speaks to a larger issue: if they have the time for that, what else are these guys up to?"

The US government is afraid of Michael Moore. They're afraid of peace-activist veterans demonstrating at the White House (why else the news blackout?). In other words, they're afraid of us - our power - getting out there.

Thanks to WikiLeaks, we get to see the fear behind the curtain - which can only energize us to keep speaking.

Read More

wikileaks, facebook and time magazine for adults

I happened to see this on Saturday night, and have been waiting to find it on YouTube. The show pretty much sucks, but once in a while it has a moment.

"What are the differences between Mark Zuckerberg and me? Let's take a look. I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's man of the year."

When I was a kid, my family subscribed to Time and I thought "Man of the Year" - as it was called then - was a real thing, an actual award with meaning, like a Pulitzer, rather than a promo for the magazine. In 1975 Time named a dozen women Women of the Year. Doesn't everyone know the conversion rate of female to male achievement is 12:1?

"Tonight I want to congratulate Time magazine on the excellent selection of Mark Zuckerberg as Person of the Year. Time magazine - always on the cutting edge; discovering Facebook only weeks after your grandmother."

The Onion says it best.


TIME Announces New Version Of Magazine Aimed At Adults

Read More

on truth, skepticism and the u.s. propaganda machine: "sicko" was never banned in cuba

Michael Moore: ¡Viva WikiLeaks! SiCKO Was Not Banned in Cuba. Read and enjoy.

Read More

bradley manning: 7 months (and counting) in solitary confinement for showing the world the truth

Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of leaking the Collateral Murder video that brought WikiLeaks to the spotlight, is now enduring his seventh month of solitary confinement. He is being held in deplorable conditions. His health is deteriorating. His supporters are being threatened and harassed.

We must never forget Bradley Manning. We must do everything we can to help him know he is not alone, although physically he is very much alone.

From The Guardian:

As Julian Assange emerged from his nine-day imprisonment, there were renewed concerns about the physical and psychological health of Bradley Manning, the former US intelligence analyst suspected of leaking the diplomatic cables at the centre of the storm.

Manning, who was arrested seven months ago, is being held at a military base in Virginia and faces a court martial and up to 52 years in prison for his alleged role in copying the cables.

His friends and supporters also claim they have been the target of extra-judicial harassment, intimidation and outright bribery by US government agents.

According to David House, a computer researcher from Boston who visits Manning twice a month, he is starting to deteriorate. "Over the last few weeks I have noticed a steady decline in his mental and physical wellbeing," he said. "His prolonged confinement in a solitary holding cell is unquestionably taking its toll on his intellect; his inability to exercise due to [prison] regulations has affected his physical appearance in a manner that suggests physical weakness."

Manning, House added, was no longer the characteristically brilliant man he had been, despite efforts to keep him intellectually engaged. He also disputed the authorities' claims that Manning was being kept in solitary for his own good.

"I initially believed that his time in solitary confinement was a decision made in the interests of his safety," he said. "As time passed and his suicide watch was lifted, to no effect, it became clear that his time in solitary – and his lack of a pillow, sheets, the freedom to exercise, or the ability to view televised current events – were enacted as a means of punishment rather than a means of safety."

House said many people were reluctant to talk about Manning's condition because of government harassment, including surveillance, warrantless computer seizures, and even bribes. "This has had such an intimidating effect that many are afraid to speak out on his behalf," House said.

Some friends report being followed extensively. Another computer expert said the army offered him cash to – in his words – "infiltrate" the WikiLeaks website. He said: "I turned them down. I don't want anything to do with this cloak and dagger stuff."

When the Washington Post tried to investigate the claim, an army criminal investigation division spokesman refused to comment. "We've got an ongoing investigation," he said. "We don't discuss our techniques and tactics."

On 3 November, House, 23, said he found customs agents waiting for him when he and his girlfriend returned to the US after a short holiday in Mexico. His bags were searched and two men identifying themselves as Homeland Security officials said they were being detained for questioning and would miss their connecting flight. The men seized all his electronic items and he was told to hand over all passwords and encryption keys – which he refused. The items have yet to be returned, said House. He added: "If Manning is convicted, it will be because his individual dedication to human ethics far surpasses that of the US government."

House, who met Manning through friends but came to know him only after his detention, said he was committed to his cause. "Like many computer scientists, I identify with the open government issues at the core of this case."

Bradley Manning Support Network: please do what you can. You can write to Bradley care of Courage To Resist:
Bradley Manning
c/o Courage to Resist
484 Lake Park Ave #41
Oakland CA 94610
USA

Read More

naomi wolf: typical responses to rape and the global collusion in silencing dissent

Naomi Wolf, HuffPo:

How do I know that Interpol, Britain and Sweden's treatment of Julian Assange is a form of theater? Because I know what happens in rape accusations against men that don't involve the embarrassing of powerful governments.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is in solitary confinement in Wandsworth prison in advance of questioning on state charges of sexual molestation. Lots of people have opinions about the charges. But I increasingly believe that only those of us who have spent years working with rape and sexual assault survivors worldwide, and know the standard legal response to sex crime accusations, fully understand what a travesty this situation is against those who have to live through how sex crime charges are ordinarily handled -- and what a deep, even nauseating insult this situation is to survivors of rape and sexual assault worldwide.

Here is what I mean: men are pretty much never treated the way Assange is being treated in the face of sex crime charges.

. . . . [Continue reading for Wolf's recounting of sex crimes globally and in the Western world and what typically happens to men who rape.]

In other words: Never in twenty-three years of reporting on and supporting victims of sexual assault around the world have I ever heard of a case of a man sought by two nations, and held in solitary confinement without bail in advance of being questioned -- for any alleged rape, even the most brutal or easily proven. In terms of a case involving the kinds of ambiguities and complexities of the alleged victims' complaints -- sex that began consensually that allegedly became non-consensual when dispute arose around a condom -- please find me, anywhere in the world, another man in prison today without bail on charges of anything comparable.

Of course 'No means No', even after consent has been given, whether you are male or female; and of course condoms should always be used if agreed upon. As my fifteen-year-old would say: Duh.

But for all the tens of thousands of women who have been kidnapped and raped, raped at gunpoint, gang-raped, raped with sharp objects, beaten and raped, raped as children, raped by acquaintances -- who are still awaiting the least whisper of justice -- the highly unusual reaction of Sweden and Britain to this situation is a slap in the face. It seems to send the message to women in the UK and Sweden that if you ever want anyone to take sex crime against you seriously, you had better be sure the man you accuse of wrongdoing has also happened to embarrass the most powerful government on earth.

Keep Assange in prison without bail until he is questioned, by all means, if we are suddenly in a real feminist worldwide epiphany about the seriousness of the issue of sex crime: but Interpol, Britain and Sweden must, if they are not to be guilty of hateful manipulation of a serious women's issue for cynical political purposes, imprison as well -- at once -- the hundreds of thousands of men in Britain, Sweden and around the world world who are accused in far less ambiguous terms of far graver forms of assault.

Anyone who works in supporting women who have been raped knows from this grossly disproportionate response that Britain and Sweden, surely under pressure from the US, are cynically using the serious issue of rape as a fig leaf to cover the shameful issue of mafioso-like global collusion in silencing dissent. That is not the State embracing feminism. That is the State pimping feminism.

Thanks to James for sending.

Read More

women against rape: "a long tradition of the use of rape for political agendas"

Further to my recent post, "thoughts on rape charges against julian assange", please read this excellent letter by Katrin Axelsson, of Women Against Rape, published in The Guardian.

Many women in both Sweden and Britain will wonder at the unusual zeal with which Julian Assange is being pursued for rape allegations (Report, 8 December). Women in Sweden don't fare better than we do in Britain when it comes to rape. Though Sweden has the highest per capita number of reported rapes in Europe and these have quadrupled in the last 20 years, conviction rates have decreased. On 23 April 2010 Carina Hägg and Nalin Pekgul (respectively MP and chairwoman of Social Democratic Women in Sweden) wrote in the Göteborgs-Posten that "up to 90% of all reported rapes never get to court. In 2006 six people were convicted of rape though almost 4,000 people were reported". They endorsed Amnesty International's call for an independent inquiry to examine the rape cases that had been closed and the quality of the original investigations.

Assange, who it seems has no criminal convictions, was refused bail in England despite sureties of more than £120,000. Yet bail following rape allegations is routine. For two years we have been supporting a woman who suffered rape and domestic violence from a man previously convicted after attempting to murder an ex-partner and her children – he was granted bail while police investigated.

There is a long tradition of the use of rape and sexual assault for political agendas that have nothing to do with women's safety. In the south of the US, the lynching of black men was often justified on grounds that they had raped or even looked at a white woman. Women don't take kindly to our demand for safety being misused, while rape continues to be neglected at best or protected at worst.

Katrin Axelsson
Women Against Rape

Many thanks to reader Eric for posting this in comments.

Read More

memo to easydns: i'm proud to support you. please continue to host wikileaks.ch.

I've just learned that the company that hosts my domain - wmtc.ca - is involved with WikiLeaks. It sounds like they're struggling to do the right thing in an extremely challenging situation. I received this email, which is also available on their blog.

It is not very often we send out an all-member email blast, so when we do, it's usually pretty important.

First and foremost, everything is ok. Please read the information that follows carefully but understand that we would never do anything that we thought put our members at risk.

The Basic Background:

On Friday, Dec 6th, easyDNS was mistakenly identified in various online channels as the DNS provider who revoked DNS Services for the controversial website Wikileaks, and a large internet backlash ensued against us.

In fact, the Wikileaks DNS provider was a free DNS provider in New Hampshire called "EveryDNS.net". At some point this was mistakenly reported as "easyDNS", and it gathered momentum from there. The problem was compounded on Saturday, Dec 7th when the New York Times picked up the story, also incorrectly identifying us as the party who "unplugged" Wikileaks. The U.K based Guardian did the same thing again on Tuesday, December 7th.

A timeline of events has been posted here.

And our original rebuttal to the misinformation was posted here.

easyDNS Added To WikiLeaks.ch:

On Sunday, Dec 5th, we were approached by a group acting on behalf of Wikileaks and asked to provide DNS for their fallback domain WikiLeaks.ch.

We agreed to this on several conditions.

We did not take this decision lightly, and whichever side of the fence you fall regarding what Wikileaks is doing, after being falsely accused of unplugging Wikileaks and taking an enormous amount of backlash for doing so, we felt we did not have much choice in the matter but to forge ahead and take on this challenge.

We actually consider this part of the situation to be well in hand.

Tonight the Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail ran a story about this bizarre sequence of events and we expect it to run in the print edition (possibly as the cover story) on Thursday, Dec 10.

That story is here.

However, and this is large part of the motivation for this email, the Globe story concluded with the following quotation, which we feel sends the wrong message, as I misspoke when I said the following:

"Our lawyers have basically told us that if they want to shut us down they'll show up with an injunction and we'll have to follow it and then try and have it overturned later,"

This may connote that we think we, as a company, may be shut down. We do NOT think this is going to happen at all.

What I meant to convey in the quote is:

"If they want US (easyDNS) to shut THEM (WikiLeaks) down, they'll show up with an injunction, and we'll have to follow it," etc etc.

And if that happened, we would be terminating service to wikileaks alone.

Further information about this clarification is here.

We wanted to let you know as an easyDNS member, that we are taking every measure to ensure that this situation does not disrupt the continuity of your domain services at all.

In conclusion, we believe we have taken the course of action that fits who we are as a company.

If you've been dealing with us for any amount of time then hopefully you know what kind of company that is. I also hope you agree that, regardless of your opinion of Wikileaks itself, we are playing the hand we've been dealt in accordance with who we are as a company.

In short, we think this is the right thing to do, and that is why we're doing it.

easyDNS blog

easyDNS on Twitter

Read More

wikileaks petition: support freedom of information

From Avaaz:

The massive campaign of intimidation against WikiLeaks is sending a chill through free press advocates everywhere.

Legal experts say WikiLeaks has likely broken no laws. Yet top US politicians have called it a terrorist group and commentators have urged assassination of its staff. The organization has come under massive government and corporate attack, but WikiLeaks is only publishing information provided by a whistleblower. And it has partnered with the world's leading newspapers (NYT, Guardian, Spiegel etc) to carefully vet the information it publishes.

The massive extra-judicial intimidation of WikiLeaks is an attack on democracy. We urgently need a public outcry for freedom of the press and expression. Sign the petition to stop the crackdown and forward this email to everyone -- let's get to 1 million voices and take out full page ads in US newspapers this week!

WikiLeaks isn't acting alone -- it's partnered with the top newspapers in the world (New York Times, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, etc) to carefully review 250,000 US diplomatic cables and remove any information that it is irresponsible to publish. Only 800 cables have been published so far. Past WikiLeaks publications have exposed government-backed torture, the murder of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, and corporate corruption.

The US government is currently pursuing all legal avenues to stop WikiLeaks from publishing more cables, but the laws of democracies protect freedom of the press. The US and other governments may not like the laws that protect our freedom of expression, but that's exactly why it's so important that we have them, and why only a democratic process can change them.

Reasonable people can disagree on whether WikiLeaks and the leading newspapers it's partnered with are releasing more information than the public should see. Whether the releases undermine diplomatic confidentiality and whether that's a good thing. Whether WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has the personal character of a hero or a villain. But none of this justifies a vicious campaign of intimidation to silence a legal media outlet by governments and corporations. Click below to join the call to stop the crackdown:

Sign the Petition here.

Sources: [from Avaaz]

Law experts say WikiLeaks in the clear (ABC)

WikiLeaks are a bunch of terrorists, says leading U.S. congressman (Mail Online)

Cyber guerrillas can help US (Financial Times)

Amazon drops WikiLeaks under political pressure (Yahoo)

WikiLeaks avenged by hacktivists (PC World)

US Gov shows true control over Internet with WikiLeaks containment (Tippett.org)

US embassy cables culprit should be executed, says Mike Huckabee (The Guardian)

WikiLeaks ditched by MasterCard, Visa. Who's next? (The Christian Science Monitor)

Assange's Interpol Warrant Is for Having Sex Without a Condom (The Slatest)

Sign the petition here.

Read More

thoughts on rape charges against julian assange

It need not be said - but I will say it anyway - that I stand in solidarity with victims of rape and sexual assault, everywhere, always.

But somehow, it must also be said that not all accusations of rape are valid and true.

Historically, women who reported rape were easily dismissed, or rape went largely unreported, because the victim and assailant knew each other, or had had consensual sex on other occasions, or the victim was sexually active, or any number of dangerous myths used to control women's behaviour. This has changed - although not entirely - in North America, because of the influence of feminist activism, but is still the case in many parts of the world.

Also historically, rape has been used as a weapon against powerless men. In the US South, African-American men were routinely accused of rape before they were lynched and murdered. These accused men had not adequately displayed their submissive status, whether intentionally, as an act of resistance, or in the imagination of their cowardly white oppressors. Black men would be accused of rape, hauled off into the woods, tortured, often castrated, then murdered. Their transgression may have been as simple as looking a white person in the eye.

When a man who has exposed the crimes of the rich and powerful on an unprecedented global scale is accused of an unrelated crime, hunted internationally and held without bail, we must give serious pause to the validity of the accusation.

Some people react to any accusation of sexual abuse and assault as if women routinely lie about rape to get attention or to get revenge. That's beyond preposterous. It's disgusting and it's dangerous and it's wrong. We must speak out about it at every opportunity.

But other people react to those same incidents as if every single accusation must necessarily be valid. As if, in the history of the world, no one has ever accused a man of rape in order to silence him, or no woman has ever lied about being raped. That's not possible.

It's also inadvertently unfair to women. Women are people. Like all people, women can lie, cheat, steal, murder, support fascism, and any other despicable act you can name. Women are capable of the entire spectrum of human action and emotion, because women are people. One female stereotype is the lying bitch who agrees to sex then blackmails the man with rape charges. The flipside stereotype is the angelic creature on a pedestal who can do no wrong. Neither cartoon helps us achieve true equality.

Women are raped. Men are raped, too. Rape is real, and we must speak out about it.

But defending Julian Assange and WikiLeaks is not defending rape. This morning Naomi Klein posted this on Facebook: "Rape is being used in the Assange prosecution in the same way that women's freedom was used to invade Afghanistan."

Read More

daniel ellsberg calls for boycott of amazon over wikileaks

Daniel Ellsberg:

Open letter to Amazon.com Customer Service:

December 2, 2010

I’m disgusted by Amazon’s cowardice and servility in abruptly terminating today its hosting of the Wikileaks website, in the face of threats from Senator Joe Lieberman and other Congressional right-wingers. I want no further association with any company that encourages legislative and executive officials to aspire to China’s control of information and deterrence of whistle-blowing.

For the last several years, I’ve been spending over $100 a month on new and used books from Amazon. That’s over. I ask Amazon to terminate immediately my membership in Amazon Prime and my Amazon credit card and account, to delete my contact and credit information from their files and to send me no more notices.

I understand that many other regular customers feel as I do and are responding the same way. Good: the broader and more immediate the boycott, the better. I hope that these others encourage their contact lists to do likewise and to let Amazon know exactly why they’re shifting their business. I’ve asked friends today to suggest alternatives, and I’ll be exploring service from Powell’s Books, Half-Price Books, Biblio and others.

So far Amazon has spared itself the further embarrassment of trying to explain its action openly. This would be a good time for Amazon insiders who know and perhaps can document the political pressures that were brought to bear – and the details of the hasty kowtowing by their bosses – to leak that information. They can send it to Wikileaks (now on servers outside the US), to mainstream journalists or bloggers, or perhaps to sites like antiwar.com that have now appropriately ended their book-purchasing association with Amazon.

Yours (no longer),
Daniel Ellsberg

Powell's, by the way, is an excellent bookseller. The company supports progressive causes and their employees are unionized.

Read More