Manning details harsh treatment in WikiLeaks case
HAGERSTOWN, Md. (AP) - A U.S. Army private charged in a massive leak of government secrets claims his harsh pretrial treatment during nine months in a Marine Corps brig was directed from high up the chain of command and warrants dismissal of the entire case, according to documents his civilian lawyer released Friday.
The 110-page motion alleges Pfc. Bradley Manning developed a rash from being forced to sleep beneath a stiff, suicide-prevention blanket and suffered an anxiety attack due to harassment by guards. It repeats well-publicized claims that Manning was forced for several days to surrender all his clothing at night and stand naked in his cell for roll call. For several days in January 2011, he was forbidden to wear his eyeglasses and forced to strip down to his underwear during the day, the motion contends.
The Defense Department has said that Manning's treatment properly conformed to the "maximum custody" or "prevention of injury" classifications in which he was held in Quantico, Va., from July 29, 2010, to April 20, 2011, when he was moved to medium-security confinement at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
Manning's lawyers claim there was no legal or medical justification for the harsh restrictions, and that his custody status contradicted the recommendations of multiple psychiatrists.
Manning's lawyers intend to have Manning testify about his Quantico experience during a hearing Oct. 1-5 at Fort Meade, according to the document. Manning hasn't yet taken the stand during seven months of pretrial courtroom proceedings in his court-martial.
Military prosecutors didn't immediately respond Friday to a request for comment on the motion posted by Manning's civilian attorney, David Coombs, on his website.
In an accompanying summary, Coombs wrote that he recently became aware of emails revealing that the brig officer who ordered the restrictions was acting on orders from an unidentified, three-star general.
Coombs wrote that in a January 2011 meeting of multiple Quantico brig officers, an unidentified senior officer ordered that Pfc. Manning be held in maximum custody or injury-prevention status indefinitely. When a brig psychiatrist voiced concern about the lack of any medical basis for such an order, the senior officer declared: "We'll do whatever we want to do," Coombs wrote.
Manning faces 22 charges for allegedly sending hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables and war logs to the secret-spilling website WikiLeaks while working as an intelligence analyst in Iraq. Manning could be sentenced to life in prison if convicted of the most serious offense, aiding the enemy.
The 110-page motion alleges Pfc. Bradley Manning developed a rash from being forced to sleep beneath a stiff, suicide-prevention blanket and suffered an anxiety attack due to harassment by guards. It repeats well-publicized claims that Manning was forced for several days to surrender all his clothing at night and stand naked in his cell for roll call. For several days in January 2011, he was forbidden to wear his eyeglasses and forced to strip down to his underwear during the day, the motion contends.
The Defense Department has said that Manning's treatment properly conformed to the "maximum custody" or "prevention of injury" classifications in which he was held in Quantico, Va., from July 29, 2010, to April 20, 2011, when he was moved to medium-security confinement at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
Manning's lawyers claim there was no legal or medical justification for the harsh restrictions, and that his custody status contradicted the recommendations of multiple psychiatrists.
Manning's lawyers intend to have Manning testify about his Quantico experience during a hearing Oct. 1-5 at Fort Meade, according to the document. Manning hasn't yet taken the stand during seven months of pretrial courtroom proceedings in his court-martial.
Military prosecutors didn't immediately respond Friday to a request for comment on the motion posted by Manning's civilian attorney, David Coombs, on his website.
In an accompanying summary, Coombs wrote that he recently became aware of emails revealing that the brig officer who ordered the restrictions was acting on orders from an unidentified, three-star general.
Coombs wrote that in a January 2011 meeting of multiple Quantico brig officers, an unidentified senior officer ordered that Pfc. Manning be held in maximum custody or injury-prevention status indefinitely. When a brig psychiatrist voiced concern about the lack of any medical basis for such an order, the senior officer declared: "We'll do whatever we want to do," Coombs wrote.
Manning faces 22 charges for allegedly sending hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables and war logs to the secret-spilling website WikiLeaks while working as an intelligence analyst in Iraq. Manning could be sentenced to life in prison if convicted of the most serious offense, aiding the enemy.
I must have missed his trial and conviction. Every comment I've read so far seems to indicate that his guilt has been proven. Why would an Army soldier be held in a Marine brig anyway? And before anyone starts firing away at me and questioning my loyalty and why I would be defending a "traitor" let me say, it's just a matter of ignorance to punish a soldier prior to a verdict being rendered. Guilty or not guilty, this type of treatment will only help PFC Manning's case. And I do have a little knowledge of military justice as a result of 30 years in uniform and plainclothes work.
@normel Something certainly doesn't smell right with this. Sounds like he's a patsy.
OMG! Manning got a rash and a panic attack! Call Amnesty International and claim torture!
Â
No sympathy here for this traitor who violated both US law and his oath of service. Just an attempt to generate sympathy and possibly an appeal.Â
I'm not a supporter of this Manning kid but I have seen first hand what Marine guards can and will do. It would not surprise me if he died in their custody. What's really frightening is these kind of jarheads get out of the Corps and become our local cops.
I guess I fall somewhere in the middle between he did nothing wrong and he should quit whining. This one's pretty complicated, and I hear the valid arguments on both sides.
manning, QUIT whining! it's a JAIL cell. or more appropriately called, a BRIG! NOT. THE. RITZ.
& because you were under a "high security suicide watch" you forfeited the "rights" of a standard prisoner in the brig
i for one an sick & tired of his "allegations" of mistreatment-that's all they are, "allegations"
none of the other prisoners held in the brig under the same conditions are complaining
& think, manning-what of those people in iraq & afghanistan whose lives you put in peril by stealing all that info-they aren't able to complain about anything.....
I'm sorry that the military prison your in is so rough. Â What a dumb a**. Â Not 100% sure that what you did should be construed as treason but can you imagine what it would be like being charged with treason in Russia?
He did nothing illegal. He just violated his oath of service which you have to be pretty dumb to sign to begin with. there is nothing this government does that I don't have the constitutional right to know. But we're living in the age of transperancy now aren't we.lol
It's prison, it's supposed to be harsh. I really don't care what information he let out, it's the fact he did so that find treasonous. When you're the peon data handler, the public/private document decision is not yours to make. Intentionally releasing ANYTHING that 'may' have tactically advantageous info is a huge No Way. Yup, per the limited evidence I've seen he is as good as guilty.
Manning never released any documents that shouldn't have already been in the public domain and certainly nothing that endangered anyone. He should receive a dishonourable discharge and go on his merry way.
There is nothing this government is doing that I don't have the right to know. Time to put an end to the tyranny.