We should not forget......... martin.
Begin forwarded message: > From: Portside Moderator <[email protected]> > Date: 16 December 2010 03:08:27 GMT > To: [email protected] > Subject: The Inhumane Conditions of Bradley Manning's Detention > Reply-To: [email protected] > > The Inhumane Conditions of Bradley Manning's Detention > > By Glenn Greenwald > Salon > December 15, 2010 > http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html > > (updated below) > > 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. > > In sum, Manning has been subjected for many months > without pause to inhumane, personality-erasing, soul- > destroying, insanity-inducing conditions of isolation > similar to those perfected at America's Supermax prison > in Florence, Colorado: all without so much as having > been convicted of anything. And as is true of many > prisoners subjected to warped treatment of this sort, > the brig's medical personnel now administer regular > doses of anti-depressants to Manning to prevent his > brain from snapping from the effects of this isolation. > > Just by itself, the type of prolonged solitary > confinement to which Manning has been subjected for > many months is widely viewed around the world as highly > injurious, inhumane, punitive, and arguably even a form > of torture. In his widely praised March, 2009 New > Yorker article -- entitled "Is Long-Term Solitary > Confinement Torture?" -- the surgeon and journalist > Atul Gawande assembled expert opinion and personal > anecdotes to demonstrate that, as he put it, "all human > beings experience isolation as torture." By itself, > prolonged solitary confinement routinely destroys a > person's mind and drives them into insanity. A March, > 2010 article in The Journal of the American Academy of > Psychiatry and the Law explains that "solitary > confinement is recognized as difficult to withstand; > indeed, psychological stressors such as isolation can > be as clinically distressing as physical torture." > > For that reason, many Western nations -- and even some > non-Western nations notorious for human rights abuses > -- refuse to employ prolonged solitary confinement > except in the most extreme cases of prisoner violence. > "It's an awful thing, solitary," John McCain wrote of > his experience in isolated confinement in Vietnam. "It > crushes your spirit." As Gawande documented: "A U.S. > military study of almost a hundred and fifty naval > aviators returned from imprisonment in Vietnam . . . > reported that they found social isolation to be as > torturous and agonizing as any physical abuse they > suffered." Gawande explained that America's > application of this form of torture to its own citizens > is what spawned the torture regime which President > Obama vowed to end: > > This past year, both the Republican and the > Democratic Presidential candidates came out firmly > for banning torture and closing the facility in > Guantánamo Bay, where hundreds of prisoners have > been held in years-long isolation. Neither Barack > Obama nor John McCain, however, addressed the > question of whether prolonged solitary confinement > is torture. . . . > > This is the dark side of American exceptionalism. . > . . Our willingness to discard these standards for > American prisoners made it easy to discard the > Geneva Conventions prohibiting similar treatment of > foreign prisoners of war, to the detriment of > America's moral stature in the world. In much the > same way that a previous generation of Americans > countenanced legalized segregation, ours has > countenanced legalized torture. And there is no > clearer manifestation of this than our routine use > of solitary confinement . . . . > > It's one thing to impose such punitive, barbaric > measures on convicts who have proven to be violent when > around other prisoners; at the Supermax in Florence, > inmates convicted of the most heinous crimes and who > pose a threat to prison order and the safety of others > are subjected to worse treatment than what Manning > experiences. But it's another thing entirely to impose > such conditions on individuals, like Manning, who have > been convicted of nothing and have never demonstrated > an iota of physical threat or disorder. > > In 2006, a bipartisan National Commission on America's > Prisons was created and it called for the elimination > of prolonged solitary confinement. Its Report > documented that conditions whereby "prisoners end up > locked in their cells 23 hours a day, every day. . . is > so severe that people end up completely isolated, > living in what can only be described as torturous > conditions." The Report documented numerous > psychiatric studies of individuals held in prolonged > isolation which demonstrate "a constellation of > symptoms that includes overwhelming anxiety, confusion > and hallucination, and sudden violent and self- > destructive outbursts." The above-referenced article > from the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry > and the Law states: "Psychological effects can include > anxiety, depression, anger, cognitive disturbances, > perceptual distortions, obsessive thoughts, paranoia, > and psychosis." > > When one exacerbates the harms of prolonged isolation > with the other deprivations to which Manning is being > subjected, long-term psychiatric and even physical > impairment is likely. Gawande documents that "EEG > studies going back to the nineteen-sixties have shown > diffuse slowing of brain waves in prisoners after a > week or more of solitary confinement." Medical tests > conducted in 1992 on Yugoslavian prisoners subjected to > an average of six months of isolation -- roughly the > amount to which Manning has now been subjected -- > "revealed brain abnormalities months afterward; the > most severe were found in prisoners who had endured > either head trauma sufficient to render them > unconscious or, yes, solitary confinement. Without > sustained social interaction, the human brain may > become as impaired as one that has incurred a traumatic > injury." Gawande's article is filled with horrifying > stories of individuals subjected to isolation similar > to or even less enduring than Manning's who have > succumbed to extreme long-term psychological breakdown. > > Manning is barred from communicating with any > reporters, even indirectly, so nothing he has said can > be quoted here. But David House, a 23-year-old MIT > researcher who befriended Manning after his detention > (and then had his laptops, camera and cellphone seized > by Homeland Security when entering the U.S.) is one of > the few people to have visited Manning several times at > Quantico. He describes palpable changes in Manning's > physical appearance and behavior just over the course > of the several months that he's been visiting him. > Like most individuals held in severe isolation, Manning > sleeps much of the day, is particularly frustrated by > the petty, vindictive denial of a pillow or sheets, and > suffers from less and less outdoor time as part of his > one-hour daily removal from his cage. > > This is why the conditions under which Manning is being > detained were once recognized in the U.S. -- and are > still recognized in many Western nations -- as not only > cruel and inhumane, but torture. More than a century > ago, U.S. courts understood that solitary confinement > was a barbaric punishment that severely harmed the > mental and physical health of those subjected to it. > The Supreme Court's 1890 decision in In re Medley noted > that as a result of solitary confinement as practiced > in the early days of the United States, many "prisoners > fell, after even a short confinement, into a semi- > fatuous condition . . . and others became violently > insane; others still, committed suicide; while those > who stood the ordeal better . . . [often] did not > recover sufficient mental activity to be of any > subsequent service to the community." And in its 1940 > decision in Chambers v. Florida, the Court > characterized prolonged solitary confinement as > "torture" and compared it to "[t]he rack, the > thumbscrew, [and] the wheel." > > The inhumane treatment of Manning may have > international implications as well. There are multiple > proceedings now pending in the European Union Human > Rights Court, brought by "War on Terror" detainees > contesting their extradition to the U.S. on the ground > that the conditions under which they likely will be > held -- particularly prolonged solitary confinement -- > violate the European Convention on Human Rights, which > (along with the Convention Against Torture) bars EU > states from extraditing anyone to any nation where > there is a real risk of inhumane and degrading > treatment. The European Court of Human Rights has in > the past found detention conditions violative of those > rights (in Bulgaria) where "the [detainee] spent 23 > hours a day alone in his cell; had limited interaction > with other prisoners; and was only allowed two visits > per month." From the Journal article referenced above: > > International treaty bodies and human rights > experts, including the Human Rights Committee, the > Committee against Torture, and the U.N. Special > Rapporteur on Torture, have concluded that solitary > confinement may amount to cruel, inhuman, or > degrading treatment in violation of the > International Covenant on Civil and Political > Rights and the Convention against Torture and other > Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or > Punishment. They have specifically criticized > supermax confinement in the United States because > of the mental suffering it inflicts. > > Subjecting a detainee like Manning to this level of > prolonged cruel and inhumane detention can thus > jeopardize the ability of the U.S. to secure > extradition for other prisoners, as these conditions > are viewed in much of the civilized world as barbaric. > Moreover, because Manning holds dual American and U.K. > citizenship (his mother is British), it is possible for > British agencies and human rights organizations to > assert his consular rights against these oppressive > conditions. At least some preliminary efforts are > underway in Britain to explore that mechanism as a > means of securing more humane treatment for Manning. > Whatever else is true, all of this illustrates what a > profound departure from international norms is the > treatment to which the U.S. Government is subjecting > him. > > * * * * * > > The plight of Manning has largely been overshadowed by > the intense media fixation on WikiLeaks, so it's worth > underscoring what it is that he's accused of doing and > what he said in his own reputed words about these acts. > If one believes the authenticity of the highly edited > chat logs of Manning's online conversations with Adrian > Lamo that have been released by Wired (that magazine > inexcusably continues to conceal large portions of > those logs), Manning clearly believed that he was a > whistle-blower acting with the noblest of motives, and > probably was exactly that. If, for instance, he really > is the leaker of the Apache helicopter attack video -- > a video which sparked very rare and much-needed > realization about the visceral truth of what American > wars actually entail -- as well as the war and > diplomatic cables revealing substantial government > deceit, brutality, illegality and corruption, then he's > quite similar to Daniel Ellsberg. Indeed, Ellsberg > himself said the very same thing about Manning in June > on Democracy Now in explaining why he considers the > Army Private to be a "hero": > > The fact is that what Lamo reports Manning is > saying has a very familiar and persuasive ring to > me. He reports Manning as having said that what he > had read and what he was passing on were horrible > -- evidence of horrible machinations by the US > backdoor dealings throughout the Middle East and, > in many cases, as he put it, almost crimes. And let > me guess that -- he's not a lawyer, but I'll guess > that what looked to him like crimes are crimes, > that he was putting out. We know that he put out, > or at least it's very plausible that he put out, > the videos that he claimed to Lamo. And that's > enough to go on to get them interested in pursuing > both him and the other. > > And so, what it comes down, to me, is -- and I say > throwing caution to the winds here -- is that what > I've heard so far of Assange and Manning -- and I > haven't met either of them -- is that they are two > new heroes of mine. > > To see why that's so, just recall some of what Manning > purportedly said about why he chose to leak, at least > as reflected in the edited chat logs published by > Wired: > > Lamo: what's your endgame plan, then?. . . > > Manning: well, it was forwarded to [WikiLeaks] - > and god knows what happens now - hopefully > worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms - if > not, than [sic] we're doomed - as a species - i > will officially give up on the society we have if > nothing happens - the reaction to the video gave me > immense hope; CNN's iReport was overwhelmed; > Twitter exploded - people who saw, knew there was > something wrong . . . Washington Post sat on the > video. David Finkel acquired a copy while embedded > out here. . . . - i want people to see the truth. > regardless of who they are. because without > information, you cannot make informed decisions as > a public. > > if i knew then, what i knew now - kind of thing, or > maybe im just young, naive, and stupid . . . im > hoping for the former - it cant be the latter - > because if it is. were fucking screwed (as a > society) - and i dont want to believe that we're > screwed. > > Manning described the incident which first made him > seriously question the U.S. Government: when he was > instructed to work on the case of Iraqi "insurgents" > who had been detained for distributing so-called > "insurgent" literature which, when Manning had it > translated, turned out to be nothing more than "a > scholarly critique against PM Maliki": > > i had an interpreter read it for me. and when i > found out that it was a benign political critique > titled "Where did the money go?" and following the > corruption trail within the PM's cabinet. i > immediately took that information and *ran* to the > officer to explain what was going on. he didn't > want to hear any of it. he told me to shut up and > explain how we could assist the FPs in finding > *MORE* detainees. > > i had always questioned the things worked, and > investigated to find the truth. but that was a > point where i was a *part* of something. i was > actively involved in something that i was > completely against. > > And Manning explained why he never considered the > thought of selling this classified information to a > foreign nation for substantial profit or even just > secretly transmitting it to foreign powers, as he > easily could have done: > > Manning: i mean what if i were someone more > malicious- i could've sold to russia or china, and > made bank? > > Lamo: why didn't you? > > Manning: because it's public data > > Lamo: i mean, the cables > > Manning: it belongs in the public domain - > information should be free - it belongs in the > public domain - because another state would just > take advantage of the information. try and get some > edge - if its out in the open. it should be a > public good. > > That's a whistleblower in the purest and most noble > form: discovering government secrets of criminal and > corrupt acts and then publicizing them to the world not > for profit, not to give other nations an edge, but to > trigger "worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms." > Given how much Manning has been demonized -- at the > same time that he's been rendered silent by the ban on > his communication with any media -- it's worthwhile to > keep all of that in mind. > > But ultimately, what one thinks of Manning's alleged > acts is irrelevant to the issue here. The U.S. ought > at least to abide by minimal standards of humane > treatment in how it detains him. That's true for every > prisoner, at all times. But departures from such > standards are particularly egregious where, as here, > the detainee has merely been accused, but never > convicted, of wrongdoing. These inhumane conditions > make a mockery of Barack Obama's repeated pledge to end > detainee abuse and torture, as prolonged isolation -- > exacerbated by these other deprivations -- is at least > as damaging, as violative of international legal > standards, and almost as reviled around the world, as > the waterboard, hypothermia and other Bush-era tactics > that caused so much controversy. > > What all of this achieves is clear. Having it known > that the U.S. could and would disappear people at will > to "black sites," assassinate them with unseen drones, > imprison them for years without a shred of due process > even while knowing they were innocent, torture them > mercilessly, and in general acts as a lawless and rogue > imperial power created a climate of severe intimidation > and fear. Who would want to challenge the U.S. > Government in any way -- even in legitimate ways -- > knowing that it could and would engage in such lawless, > violent conduct without any restraints or > repercussions? > > That is plainly what is going on here. Anyone remotely > affiliated with WikiLeaks, including American citizens > (and plenty of other government critics), has their > property seized and communications stored at the border > without so much as a warrant. Julian Assange -- > despite never having been charged with, let alone > convicted of, any crime -- has now spent more than a > week in solitary confinement with severe restrictions > under what his lawyer calls "Dickensian conditions." > But Bradley Manning has suffered much worse, and not > for a week, but for seven months, with no end in sight. > If you became aware of secret information revealing > serious wrongdoing, deceit and/or criminality on the > part of the U.S. Government, would you -- knowing that > you could and likely would be imprisoned under these > kinds of repressive, torturous conditions for months on > end without so much as a trial: just locked away by > yourself 23 hours a day without recourse -- be willing > to expose it? That's the climate of fear and > intimidation which these inhumane detention conditions > are intended to create. > > * * * * * > > Those wishing to contribute to Bradley Manning's > defense fund can do so here. All of those means are > reputable, but everyone should carefully read the > various options presented in order to decide which one > seems best. > > UPDATE: I was contacted by Lt. Villiard, who claims > there is one factual inaccuracy in what I wrote: > specifically, he claims that Manning is not restricted > from accessing news or current events during the > prescribed time he is permitted to watch television. > That is squarely inconsistent with reports from those > with first-hand knowledge of Manning's detention, but > it's a fairly minor dispute in the scheme of things. > > ___________________________________________ > > Portside aims to provide material of interest to people > on the left that will help them to interpret the world > and to change it. > > Submit via email: [email protected] > > Submit via the Web: http://portside.org/submittous3 > > Frequently asked questions: http://portside.org/faq > > Sub/Unsub: http://portside.org/subscribe-and-unsubscribe > > Search Portside archives: http://portside.org/archive > > Contribute to Portside: https://portside.org/donate
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
