Bradley Manning exposed war crimes committed by the U.S. on WikiLeaks. Credit: Claire Stockdill/The Foothill Dragon Press

Solitary confinement for months, sleep deprivation, forced nudity, and torture are all ways that our government and military punishes people for simply exposing the truth. Bradley Manning, an Army intelligence analyst, received all of those punishments and more after being accused of leaking military secrets to the public and the Collateral Murdervideo, which shows the killing of 12 unarmed citizens and the wounding of two children by a U.S. helicopter crew in Iraq.

Manning was suspected of releasing these government secrets to WikiLeaks, a website created by the famous whistleblower Julian Assange.

During Mannings trial on February 28, he stated about the Collateral Murder videothat the most alarming aspect of the video to me, however, was the seemingly delightful bloodlust they appeared to have.

Manning is undeniably correct. The men in the helicopter refer to the men they just killed by saying, Oh yeah, look at those dead bastards.

The enthralled joy that these men got from killing innocent Iraqi citizens is beyond Mannings understanding, which is why he leaked it to the public, not because he had some mischievous plan take down America or aid the enemy (a charge made against him), but because he wanted to promote discussion, debates, and reforms.

He went with being a moral human being before being a soldier.

One of the most ironic aspects of Mannings case is that the soldiers who committed war crimes and violated the laws set in the Geneva Conventions had no charges against them. Yet Manning who blew the whistle on these war crimes had his rights violated, was tortured, and was imprisoned over 1,000 days before his recent trial.

Politicians and media are portraying him as some sort of traitor to America. Exposing crimes and informing the public (since mainstream media is the biased opinions of arrogant Republicans and Democrats) is why I would consider Bradley Manning to be a hero. He is not a traitor but is in fact the opposite, a patriot. Patriotism in no way means conformity, but standing up for the good of people before the state, even if that means breaking some unjust laws along the way.

President Obama stated about Manning, What he did was illegal.

Regardless of the legality, no person should have suffered the conditions that Manning underwent for the first nine months that he was held in solitary confinement. And Obama really isnt in much of a position to subject others when he himself has committed numerous war crimes abroad, and is more concerned about corporatism, profit, and imperialism than the good of the people.

In our democracy, is it okay to do illegal things if you are in a higher position of power? Morally, honestly, and democratically, of course not. However, under the imperialist empire that is becoming America, yes, it is okay. Bradley Manning, a man who exposed war crimes our military is committing, is awaiting his next trial in June, with the possibility of life in prison.

Like Walter E. Williams says, Legality, alone, cannot be the talisman of moral people.

The crimes Hitler, Mao, and Stalin committed were actually legal, but in no way were they moral. In the same way, we cant use laws to justify the torturing of an individual or the imprisonment of a hero. Laws dont bring out morality in people. We need to stop saying that Bradley Manning broke the law because that holds no relevance.

What is relevant is the fact that he was tortured in solitary confinement for nine months, which violated his Eighth and Fifth Amendment rights. And what is relevant is that he risked his life by exposing the truth. He released information for the good of American democracy, which is deeply respectable that he, in fact, is nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.

Anyone can show their support for Bradley Manningby going to bradleymanning.org and signing the Stand with Brad petition, donating to the defense fund, submitting the I am Bradley Manning photo, volunteering, attending or hosting an event in support, and most importantly, spreading awareness of the heroic actions of Bradley Manning.

Blowing the whistle on war crimes helps to create a society in which people are safe and knowledgeable. Manning wasnt aiding the enemy or being disloyal to our country. He simply holds the desire for people to know the honest truth, even though the truth is ugly.

See the rest here:
Bradley Manning: A criminal in the eyes of our government, a ...

Almost two years ago, in early April 2010, WikiLeaks surged to worldwide fame with the release of the Collateral Murder video, which Julian Assange said revealed a US war crime in Iraq. Three other sensational and significant WikiLeaks releases followed that year: the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs, and Cablegate.

A US Army private named Bradley Manning would be charged with being the man behind all of these leaks, and now faces life in prison, possibly even death, for aiding the enemy.

Now Ive written, with Kevin Gosztola, the first book that traces the Manning case from his life in the Army right up to last week. Gosztola, who as aNationintern assisted me with two other books on this subject and helped me write about WikiLeaks daily here, was one of the few journalists to attend Mannings key pre-trial hearings last December and then in mid-March. The book is titledTruth and Consequences: The US vs. Bradley Manning(Sinclair Books) and is available now as an e-book and in print in a week or so.

Here is an excerpt from the Appendix, first published here last summer.

***

For months we have followed the story of Ethan McCord, a former US Army specialist who took heroic actions to help save the two children in the van badly injured in the incident captured in the Collateral Murder video released by WikILeaks in April 2010. He has since spoken out against the Iraq war and is featured in a new documentary,Incident in New Baghdad, that won a top prize at the recent Tribeca Film Festival in New York.

Now he has responded to the lengthy profile of Bradley Manning published in last weeksNew Yorkmagazine. On its site the magazine has printed brief excerpts, but we have obtained the full letter and here it is (below).

* * *

byEthan McCord

Serving with my unit 2nd battalion 16th infantry in New Baghdad Iraq, I vividly remember the moment in 2007, when our Battalion Commander walked into the room and announced our new rules of engagement:

Listen up, new battalion SOP (standing operating procedure) from now on: Anytime your convoy gets hit by an IED, I want 360 degree rotational fire. You kill every [expletive] in the street!

We werent trained extensively to recognize an unlawful order, or how to report one. But many of us could not believe what we had just been told to do. Those of us who knew it was morally wrong struggled to figure out a way to avoid shooting innocent civilians, while also dodging repercussions from the non-commissioned officers who enforced the policy. In such situations, we determined to fire our weapons, but into rooftops or abandoned vehicles, giving the impression that we were following procedure.

On April 5, 2010, American citizens and people around the world got a taste of the fruits of this standing operating procedure whenWikiLeaksreleased the now-famousCollateral Murdervideo. This video showed the horrific and wholly unnecessary killing of unarmed Iraqi civilians and Reuters journalists.

I was part of the unit that was responsible for this atrocity. In the video, I can be seen attempting to carry wounded children to safety in the aftermath.

The video released by WikiLeaks belongs in the public record. Covering up this incident is a matter deserving of criminal inquiry. Whoever revealed it is an American hero in my book.

Private First Class Bradley Manning has been confined for over a year on the governments accusation that he released this video and volumes of other classified documents to WikiLeaksan organization that has been selectively publishing portions of this information in collaboration with other news outlets.

If PFC Bradley Manning did what he is accused of doing, then it is clearfromchat logsthat have been attributed to himthat his decision was motivated by conscience and political agency. These chat logs allegedly describe how PFC Manning hopes these revelations will result in worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms.

Unfortunately, Steve Fishmans articleBradley Mannings Army of OneinNew Yorkmagazine (July 3, 2011) erases Mannings political agency. By focusing so heavily on Mannings personal life, Fishman removes politics from a story that has everything to do with politics. The important public issues wrapped up with PFC Mannings case include: transparency in government; the Obama Administrations unprecedented pursuit of whistle-blowers; accountability of government and military in shaping and carrying out foreign policy; war crimes revealed in the WikiLeaks documents; the catalyzing role these revelations played in democratic movements across the Middle East; and more.

The contents of the WikiLeaks revelations have pulled back the curtain on the degradation of our democratic system. It has become completely normal for decision-makers to promulgate foreign policies, diplomatic strategies, and military operating procedures that are hostile to the democratic ideals our country was founded upon. The incident I was part ofshown in the Collateral Murder videobecomes even more horrific when we grasp that it was not exceptional. PFC Manning himself is alleged to describe (in the chat logs) an incident where he was ordered to turn over innocent Iraqi academics to notorious police interrogators, for the offense of publishing a political critique of government corruption titled, Where did the money go? These issues deserve discussion, debates, and reformsand attention from journalists.

Fishmans article was also ignorant of the realities of military service. Those of us who serve in the military are often lauded as heroes. Civilians need to understand that we may be heroes, but we are not saints. We are young people under a tremendous amount of stress. We face moral dilemmas that many civilians have never even contemplated hypothetically.

Civil society honors military service partly because of the sacrifice it entails. Lengthy and repeated deployments stress our closest relationships with family and friends. The realities, traumas, and stresses of military life take an emotional toll. This emotional battle is part of the sacrifice that we honor. That any young soldier might wrestle with his or her experiences in the military, or with his or her identity beyond military life, should never be wielded as a weapon against them.

If PFC Bradley Manning did what he is accused of, he is a hero of mine; not because hes perfect or because he never struggled with personal or family relationshipsmost of us dobut because in the midst of it all he had the courage to act on his conscience.

Chelsey Manning Wikileaks

Read the original here:
Bradley Manning: From 'Collateral Murder' to Court-Martial ...

The Guardian byEd Pilkington

On SaturdayBradley Manningwill mark his 1,000th day imprisoned without trial. In the course of those thousand days, from the moment he was formally put into pre-trial confinement on 19 May 2010 on suspicion of being the source of theWikiLeaksdisclosures, Manning has been on a long and eventful journey.

It has taken him from the desert of Iraq, where he was arrested at a military operating base outside Baghdad, to a prison tent in Kuwait. From there he endured hisinfamous harsh treatment at Quantico Marine basein Virginia, and for the last 14 months he has attended a series ofpre-trial hearings at Fort Meade in Maryland, the latest of which begins next week.

For the small band of reporters who have tracked the prosecution of Private First Class Manning, the journey has also been long and eventful. Not in any way comparable, of course; none of us have been ordered to strip naked or put in shackles, and we have all been free to go home at night without the prospect of a life sentence hanging over us.

But its been an education, nonetheless. Though we are a mixed bag a fusion of traditional outlets such as the Washington Post and Associated Press and new-look bloggers such asFiredoglakeand theBradley Manning support network we have been thrown together by our common mission to report on the most high-profile prosecution of an alleged leaker in several decades.

Theres something else that binds us disparate though our reporting styles and personal politics might be and thats the daily struggle to do our jobs properly, confronted as we are by the systemic furtiveness of the US government. Its an irony that appears to be lost on many of the military lawyers who fill the courtroom at Fort Meade. A trial that has at its core the age-old confrontation between a governments desire for confidentiality and the publics need to know, is itself being conducted amid stringent restrictions on information.

None of the transcripts of the court martial procedure have been released to us. No government motions to the court have been published. David Coombs, Mannings lead lawyer, has had to plead to be allowed to post his defence motions, and when he has been granted permission he has often been forced to redact the documentsto an almost comical degree.

The most egregious example of this over the past 1,000 days was the moment in January when the military judge, Colonel Denise Lind,issued her ruling in an Article 13 motionbrought by Mannings defence. This was the complaint that the soldier, while at Quantico, had been subjected to a form of pre-trial punishment that is banned under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

It was an important moment in the narrative arc that is the Bradley Manning trial. Technically, Lind had the power to dismiss all charges against the soldier; she could have, though none of us expected that she would, let him walk out of that court and into freedom. (In the end she knocked 112 days off any eventual sentence).

The accusations contained in the Article 13 also went to the heart of the defence case that Manning has singled out for unfair and at times brutal treatment. During the testimony,Manning himself gave evidence, standing inside a 6ft by 8ft (180cm by 240cm) box that had been drawn on the floor of the courtroom to replicate the dimensions of his cell. He recalled such humiliating details as the routine he was required to follow when he needed toilet paper. Standing to attention at the front bars of his cell, he was ordered to shout out to the guards who kept him under 24-hour observation: Lance Corporal Detainee Manning requests toilet paper!

So my fellow reporters and I awaited with intense interest Linds judgment, though also with some trepidation. Wed sat through the spectacle of Lind reading out to the court her rulings, and it wasnt a pleasant experience. The judge has a way of reading out her decisions at such a clip that it is almost impossible to take them down even with shorthand or touch typing.

In the event, Lind spent an hour and a half without pause reading out a judgment that must have stretched to 50 pages, at a rate that rendered accurate reporting of it diabolically difficult. No copy of the ruling has then or now been made available to the public, presumably on grounds of national security, even though every word of the document had been read out to the very public that was now being withheld its publication.

Such is the Alice-in-Wonderland world of the Bradley Manning trial. Why does it matter? It matters to Bradley Manning. The soldier is facing charges that carry the stiffest punishment available to the state short of killing him. (They could technically do that to him too, but the prosecution has made clear it will not seek the death penalty). If found guilty of the most serious charge aiding the enemy he could be confined to military custody for the rest of his life with no chance of parole, a prospect that makes the past 1,000 days look like a Tea Party.

The least Manning deserves is stringent fairness in his prosecution, and stringent fairness cannot exist in the absence of openness and transparency. As a British appeal court judge wrote in arecent case brought by the Guardianto protest against excessive courtroom secrecy: In a democracy, where power depends on the consent of the governed, the answer must lie in the transparency of the legal process. Open justice lets in the light and allows the public to scrutinise the workings of the law, for better or for worse.

Theres a much bigger reason why the cloak-and-dagger approach of the US government to this trial should be taken seriously. America doesnt seem to have woken up to this yet, but the prosecution of Bradley Manning poses the greatest threat to freedom of speech and the press in this country in at least a generation.

The aiding the enemy count essentially accuses Manning of handing information to Osama bin Laden as a necessary consequence of the act of leaking state secrets that would end up on the internet. When one of the prosecution lawyers was asked whether the government would still have gone after Manning had he leaked to the New York Times instead of WikiLeaks,she unhesitatingly replied: Yes.

If thats not a threat to the first amendment, then what is? This prosecution, as it is currently conceived, could have a chilling effect on public accountability that goes far beyond the relatively rarefied world of WikiLeaks.

Thats something worth contemplating as Bradley Manning enters his second 1,000 days sitting in a cell. Looked at this way, were sitting in the cell with him.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/22/bradley-manning-wikileaks-1000-days-detention

Excerpt from:
Bradley Manning: 1,000 Days in Detention and Secrecy Still ...

Under POI, according to the defense website, Manning was required to eat all of his meals alone and could only eat his meals with a spoon. He was not allowed to speak with any prisoners. He was given a suicide mattress with a built-in pillow. He was given a tear-proof security blanket that was extremely coarse and led to rashes and carpet burns on Mannings skin. The blanket was stiff and would not contour to his body so it did not keep him warm. He was not allowed any personal items in the cell. He could only have one book or one magazine and when he was not reading the book or magazine would be taken away. It also was taken away each day before he went to sleep. He was not permitted to exercise in his cell. Any attempts to do push-ups or sit-ups would lead to officers ordering him to stop. Every night he went to sleep he had to strip down to his underwear and surrender his clothing to guards.

Manning had to request toilet paper when he needed to go to the bathroom. He would have to wait for guards to get around to providing this to him. No soap was in his cell. Sometimes when he wanted to wash his hands after using the bathroom, he would be able to, but sometimes he would not. No shoes were allowed to be worn. Initially, he was only allowed one hour of permitted correspondence a day. Then, after Oct 27, 2010, that changed to 2 hours/day.

Constantly, Manning was monitored. Guards checked on him every five minutes asking, Are you okay? Manning had to respond affirmatively each time and guards would take note of each exchange in log books. When guards could not see him clearly at night, like when he had his blanket up over his head or when he was curled up against the wall, the guards would wake Manning up and see if he was okay. And all of the lights were never turned off. There was also a fluorescent light in the hall outside of Mannings cell that was kept on during the night.

These conditions were in addition to the maximum custody conditions imposed, which included being placed in a cell directly in front of the guard post so he could be monitored at all hours of the day, having to wake up at 5 am in the morning, having to stay awake from 5 am to 10 pm every day and not being permitted to lie down or lean his back against the cell wall. He was permitted only 20 minutes of sunshine call where he would be brought to a small concrete yard, about half to a third of the size of a basketball court. In the yard, he could walk around with hand and leg shackles on, while a Brig guard walked at his immediate side. The guards gave him athletic shoes that had no laces and would fall of when he tried to walk. Manning chose to wear boots so his shoes would stay on while walking. He would typically walk in figure-eights and was not allowed to sit down or stay stationary during sunshine call.

By December 10, 2010, he earned a longer period of recreation: one hour each day. He could exercise and move around without shackles or a Brig guard at his side. There was exercise equipment he could access but he would not normally use it because guards would tell him he could not use certain equipment and much of it was unplugged or broken down.

Manning could have non-contact visits on Saturdays and Sundays between noon and 3 pm with approved visitors. During visits, he had to wear hand and leg restraints. He met his visitors in a small 4 by 6 foot room that was separated with a glass partition. His visits were monitored by the guards and they were audio recorded by the Brig. The recording equipment was added by Army CID after PFC Mannings transfer to the Quantico Brig. Contact visits with attorneys were not allowed. Any time he met with his attorneys, he wore shackles on his hands and feet. He was not permitted any work duty. When moved outside his cell, the whole brig would be placed on lockdown, and, while being moved, he was shackled with metal hand and leg restraints and accompanied by at least two guards.

See the article here:
Bradley Manning - Current Events - Enter the Fray

"Two major precedents -- one encouraging, the other troubling -- emerge from today's conviction of Bradley Manning on espionage charges, but not on charges of aiding the enemy. One is about the definition of journalism, and all the attendant protections that are supposed to come with that profession in a democracy. The other is about who America's government defines as patriotic heroes and who it deems traitorous villains."*

Bradley Manning faces the prospect of spending the rest of his life behind bars after being convicted of espionage. But why? Why are the priorities of the American government to persecute a man who publicized very credible allegations of torture and war crimes rather than pursue those who committed those crimes? Isn't it a soldier's duty to report war crimes? Cenk Uygur makes the case for freeing Bradley Manning.

Support The Young Turks by Subscribing http://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungt...

Like Us on Facebook: Follow Us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks

Support TYT for FREE by doing your Amazon shopping through this link (bookmark it!) http://www.amazon.com/?tag=theyoungtu...

Buy TYT Merch: http://theyoungturks.spreadshirt.com/

Support The Young Turks by becoming a member of TYT Nation at http://www.tytnetwork.com/member-opti.... Your membership supports the day to day operations and is vital for our continued success and growth. In exchange, we provided members only bonuses! We tape a special Post Game show Mon-Thurs and you get access to the entire live show at your convenience in video, audio and podcast formats.

Excerpt from:
Why Bradley Manning Should Go Free

James C. Goodale, who represented The New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case, is a First Amendment lawyer and author of Fighting for the Press: The Inside Story of the Pentagon Papers and Other Battles.

The verdict against Pfc. Bradley Manning sets a bad precedent. Despite the triviality of many, if not most, of Mannings leaks, the government wants to lock him up indefinitely. He has already agreed to 20 years in prison. That should be enough.

The former secretary of defense Robert M. Gates characterized Mannings leaks of diplomatic cables as trivial. In fact, it is hard to see which of Mannings leaks damaged national security.

More to the point, the leaks are generally given credit for, among other things, inspiring the Arab Spring. Others exemplify classic whistle-blowing, like the video showing an Army helicopter killing two Reuters reporters.

And it should be remembered, many of the leaks were thought important enough by El Pais, Le Monde, The Guardian, Der Spiegel and The New York Times to merit prominent coverage.

Despite all of this, the government has thrown the book at Manning. It wants its message to be clear: leak at your peril, no matter how beneficial the leak may be.

That message could have a lasting and harmful effect. While Mannings case seems unique, it certainly will not be the last time digital files are leaked. The next leaker could face an equally harsh prosecution and detention.

There is still a way out of this for the government. The military judge, Col. Denise Lind, could hand down a light sentence. This would be appropriate. The government should be required to distinguish between trivial leaks and those that truly damage national security. So far, it has not, and that has already set a bad precedent.

Join Opinion on Facebook and follow updates on twitter.com/roomfordebate.

See the rest here:
Bradley Manning Prosecution Sets a Bad Precedent - NYTimes.com

Theheadquarters of the Nobel Committee is in downtown Oslo on a street named after Henrik Ibsen, whose play An Enemy of the Peoplehas remained as current as dawn lightfallingon the Nobel building and then, hours later, ona Fort Meade courtroom whereBradley Mannings trialenters a new stage defense testimony in the sentencing phase.

Ibsens play tells ofmendacity and greed in high places: dangerous threats to public health. You might call the protagonist a whistleblower. Hes a physician who cant pretend that he hasnt seenevidence; herejects all the pleas and threats tostay quiet, to keep secret what the public has a right to know. He couldbe content to take an easy way, to let others suffer and die. But he refuses to just follow orders. He will save lives.There will be some dire consequences for him.

The respectable authorities know when theyve had enough. Thought crimescan betrivial but are apt to becomeintolerable if they lead to active transgressions. In the last act, our hero recounts: They insulted me and called me an enemy of the people. Ostracized and condemned, he offers final defiant words before the curtain comes down: I have made a great discovery. It is this, let me tell you that the strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone.

Alone Bradley Manning will stand as a military judge proclaims a prison sentence.

As I write these words earlyMonday, sky is starting to lightenover Oslo. This afternoonIll carry several thousand pages of a petition filled with the names of more than 100,000 signers, along withindividual comments from tens of thousands of them to an appointment with the Research Director of the Norwegian Nobel Committee. Thepetitionurges that Bradley Manning be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.Like so many other people, the signers sharethe belief of Nobel Peace laureate Mairead Corrigan-Maguire who wrote this summer: I can think of no one more deserving.

Opening heart and mind to moral responsibility seeing an opportunity to provide the crucial fuel ofinformation for democracy and compassion Bradley Manning lifted a shroud and illuminated terribleactions of the U.S.s warfare state.He chose courage on behalf of humanity. He refused to just follow orders.

If theres one thing to learn from the last ten years, its that government secrecy and lies come at a very high price in blood and money, Bradley Manning biographer Chase Madar wrote. And though information is powerless on its own, it is still a necessary precondition for any democratic state to function.

Bradley Manning recognized that necessary precondition. He took profound action to nurture its possibilities on behalf of democracy and peace.

No doubta Nobel Peace Prize for Bradley Manning is a very long longshot. After all, four years ago, the Nobel Committee gave that award to President Obama,while he was escalating the war in Afghanistan, and since thenObamas dedication to perpetual war has become ever more clear.

Now, the Nobel Committee and its Peace Prize are in dire need of rehabilitation. Intruth, the Nobel Peace Prize needs Bradley Manning much more than the other way around.

No one can doubt thesincere dedication of Bradley Manning to human rights and peace. Buton Henrik Ibsen Street in Oslo, the office of the Nobel Committee is under a war cloud of its own making.

Norman Solomon is co-founder of RootsAction.org and founding director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. His books include War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death and Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with Americas Warfare State.

This article originally was published at Common Dreams.

Originally posted here:
Memo From Oslo: If Peace Is Prized, A Nobel For Bradley Manning

(Newser) Bradley Manning felt he was female," and looked into changing his gender, his former counselor tells New York. Though the suspected WikiLeaker really wanted to do surgery, the counselor says, he was mostly afraid of being alone, being ostracized or somehow weird. Manning used the Internet as a release: Online he could be gay, patriotic, and powerful, too, writes Steve Fishman. But in real life, his gender struggles and wartime deeds made him "feel like a monster," he sometimes wrote.

Meanwhile, other soldiers started figuring me out, making fun of me, mocking me, harassing me, he IMed an online acquaintance. That led to "one or two physical attacks." He was deeply disturbed by his work in Iraq, particularly his role in providing information that led to an questionable killing. I was a *part* of something i was actively involved in something that i was completely against, he wrote. The month he contacted the counselor, November 2009, was the same month he allegedly allied himself with Julian Assange. (Read more Bradley Manning stories.)

Continue reading here:
Bradley Manning Considered Switching His Gender

Washington

A military judge ruled on Tuesday that a former Army intelligence analyst accused of leaking hundreds of thousands of sensitive US documents to WikiLeaks was subject to improper treatment during a portion of his pretrial detention in a US Marine Corps lockup.

The judge, US Army Col. Denise Lind, said she would give former analyst Pfc. Bradley Manning credit for 112 days of time served off any potential future sentence.

But Judge Lind refused a defense request that she throw out all or part of the charges against Manning to punish the government for its misconduct.

Defense lawyers had asked the judge to dismiss the governments case against their client based on the unusually harsh treatment he faced in a detention facility at Quantico, Va., following his arrest in 2010 for allegedly facilitating the largest leak of classified documents in US history.

The defense had also asked, in the alternative, that the judge give Manning potential credit of 10 days off any future sentence for every day he spent under improper conditions of pretrial confinement.

Although prosecutors appear to have lost, the judges ruling marks a toothless victory for the defense. Manning is charged with violating 22 separate counts, including that he aided the enemy. The 25-year-old private is facing a potential sentence of life in prison.

In contrast to Linds 112-day determination, it is not uncommon for judges to allow defendants held while awaiting trial to receive full credit for the amount of time spent in pretrial detention. They typically receive that full credit even when they arent subject to what Lind determined were improper and punitive conditions of confinement in the Manning case.

The judge read her decision in open court. She said Mannings detention was more rigorous than necessary, according to the Associated Press. She also concluded that the governments treatment of Manning became excessive in relation to legitimate government interests.

Manning was held alone in a cell for nearly nine months and kept on a highly restrictive suicide watch for much of that time despite the recommendation of a mental health adviser that the watch be lifted and his conditions of confinement be eased.

Manning and his lawyers argued that the tough treatment was illegal punishment meted out by military officials who failed to honor the requirement that defendants be treated as innocent until proven guilty.

Detention officials defended the decision to maintain the suicide watch and other tough measures, despite the earlier recommendation that conditions be eased. They said months earlier the same mental health expert had made a similar recommendation that a prisoners watch status be downgraded. That prisoner committed suicide in the facility.

News of Mannings harsh treatment sparked protests at the gates of the Marine base at Quantico. In April 2011, he was moved to a medium-security pretrial detention facility at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.

Because of reports of his harsh treatment by the US military, Manning has attracted a significant following of supporters who view him as a crusading whistle-blower. Some expressed disappointment after the judges ruling.

She confirmed that Bradley was mistreated, and vindicated the massive protest that was required to stop the Marines at Quantico from torturing Bradley, said Jeff Paterson of the Bradley Manning Support Network.

Yes, 112 days is not nearly enough to hold the military accountable for their actions, he added, in a statement.

Mannings trial is set to begin in early March in a military courtroom at Fort Meade, Md.

Linds ruling came on the first day of a new round of pretrial hearings this week. At issue is whether jurors should be allowed to assess Mannings possible motives in deciding to leak certain documents.

Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox.

Defense lawyers say their client was careful to release only documents he believed would not damage US national security or otherwise aid Americas enemies.

The leaked documents included diplomatic cables, battle reports from Iraq and Afghanistan, and intelligence assessments of terrorism suspects being held at Guantnamo. They were subsequently released to the public on the WikiLeaks website.

Read the original:
WikiLeaks: Bradley Manning was treated improperly in lockup ...

Bradley Manning is the Bravest man in the Army

The U.S. Army private accused of providing secret documents to the WikiLeaks website pleaded guilty on Thursday to misusing classified material he felt should become public, but denied the top charge of aiding the enemy.*Bradley Manning is facing prosecution for giving military information to Wikileaks. Hes plead guilty to some charges. He maintains that he did release the information and that he did it because he wanted to help the country. What will happen with the other treasonous charges against him that could net a life sentence? Cenk Uygur breaks it down.

At the hearing, through his attorney Manning pleaded not guilty to the most serious charge, of aiding the enemy.

Manning, who has been jailed at Quantico Marine Base in Virginia for more than 1,000 days, could face life imprisonment if convicted of that charge at his June trial.

Under a ruling last month by Lind, Manning would have any sentence reduced by 112 days to compensate for the markedly harsh treatment he received during his confinement. Wow what a benevolent Judge. Bradley Manning is facing 20 YEARS and the judge is giving him a whole 112 days for being TORTURED. If this werent such a travesty I should be ROFLMAO! Harsh Treatment this is CALLED TORTURE!

Leaders of the free world! The shining light on the hill! How about the Manchurian Candidate, John McCain?What a freaking joke! Bradley Manning is not even been convicted, supposedly innocent until proven guilty, this is how we treat innocent people? While at Quantico, Manning was placed in solitary confinement for up to 23 hours a day with BORG agents checking on him every few minutes.

1. Solitary Confinement/Isolation

2. Humiliation Techniques

3. Sleep Deprivation

4. Sensory Deprivation

5. Stress Positions

Go here to see the original:
Bradley Manning Pleads Guilty Titania - the Open Source ...