Bradley Manning supporters welcome UK government's expression of concern

[alp227]

Source: The Guardian

Campaigners on behalf of Bradley Manning, the US soldier accused of leaking classified cables to WikiLeaks, have welcomed assurances that the British government will restate its "concerns" to Washington over the soldier's treatment.

Manning, whose mother is Welsh, is being held in a military prison in Virginia, after being arrested in May 2010 on suspicion of leaking data including 250,000 diplomatic cables to the site.

His supporters argue that the conditions of his imprisonment – he is held in solitary confinement, stripped of his clothes every night and subjected to continual checks because he is deemed a suicide risk – are punitive and unduly harsh. The UN has launched an inquiry into whether his conditions amount to torture.

In a parliamentary debate late on Monday, the Foreign Office minister Henry Bellingham said staff at the British embassy in Washington had expressed concerns to the state department on 29 March about the treatment of Manning, who has not been tried or convicted. In response to the debate, he said, "we will instruct our officials at our embassy in Washington again to report our concerns to officials in the state department".

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/05/bradley-manning-british-government-concern

[russspeakeasy]

1. Manning has not been tried, so certainly not convicted

 and it requires the British Foreign Office minister to tell
our state department that we, the U.S.A, are treating Manning
inhumanely? It's really outrageous. Maybe we have an extra
cell at gitmo.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[provis99]

2. it speaks volumes,

when a neo-fascist Tory government worries the US is misbehaving.

[Freddie Stubbs]

4. "Appropriate and meeting our basic standards."

[Mnemosyne]

5. K&R n/t

[msanthrope]

6. "We must allow the legal case to follow its course without interference."

Was the direct reply from Bellingham.

"In general, we are content that conditions in the US detention system meet international standards and that there is a clear legal process for a detainee to be able to challenge their conditions of detention.

In this case, President Obama himself has said that he has sought and received assurances from the Department of Defence that Private Manning's treatment is "appropriate" and meets US "basic standards". Of course, the United States has an effective and robust judicial system. It is a champion of human rights the world over. However, where crimes are alleged to have occurred they must be investigated. This is currently the case. The fact that we have seen the memo from Private Manning to his commanding officer is evidence that his legal representation is working. We must allow the legal case to follow its course without interference."


So Bellingham is going to pro-forma raise the issue again in DC, and then, promptly ignore it again.

If Manning really wants UK help, he can claim citizenship and ask for consular access, but he won't.

Now I know firedoglake is all atwitter, but only Jane Hamsher is stupid enough to think that the Conservative government is really going to put 'pressure' on the US.

[Bragi]

14. They don't have to pressure the US in any way

The UK government just has to apply its own laws and those of the EU that say you can't extradite someone based on evidence obtained through torture.

It's a bit of a no-brainer for them. There is nothing politically compelling or even useful for them in caving in to the US, creating an uproar at home, contorting its own laws, by extraditing Manning for an unknown crime based on evidence from a tortured witness.

I don't see why this would happen, or even how.

You do know that England has courts, and judges and due process and all that, and that public policy isn't decided in dungeons anymore, right?

[msanthrope]

16. You are forgetting something--no one's been tortured.

Not Manning, and certainly, not his computer.

The latest charges are based on forensic examination of Manning's computer. If conspiracy or other charges are lodged against Assange, what is he going to assert? That the computer was tortured?

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/04/manning-data-mining/

It is becoming more and more apparent that the US government does not need testimony from Mr. Manning.

[Bragi]

18. Are you just making shit upt?

The article you cite makes absolutely zero reference to Assange about anything. It just talks about how Manning may have used a data miner tool to get the files he later leaked. That's it, nothing about Assange.

Looks to me like your claim of the article showing evidence against Assange is bunk.

As for whether Manning is being tortured, you and the Pentagon can say what you like, I'm much more inclined to believe the media, human rights groups and Mannings supporters on this.

[msanthrope]

19. I think you fail to appreciate hints---

“Generally, people who engage in unauthorized access — many of them anyway — are thrill seekers who do it without any specific plan in mind,” said Scott Christie, a former federal prosecutor who specialized in computer crime and is now a partner at the private firm McCarter & English.

“But to upload a data-mining suite of software suggests you have a plan in mind, you’re sophisticated enough to use the software and to configure it to find what you want, and that you have given this plan a great deal of attention.”

SNIP


Wysopal added that the tools are designed to make sophisticated queries and that in order to customize the program, if needed, someone would have to possess a certain level of skill.

“You’d have to understand the query language they use to build up different rules,” he said. “I don’t think it would be that difficult, but you probably need to have somewhat of a programming mindset. I don’t know if Manning would have that, or if he would need someone to help him do that.”


http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/04/manning-data-mining

Now, I read this and being in my legal frame of mind, let me tell you what this suggests--an organized plan, using a sophisticated tool. Note that more than one source speaks of the configuration of the miner. More than one person is involved. Possibly, software from WL. Traceable back to WL. If that's true, then Manning's testimony isn't needed. Only his computer.

[Bragi]

21. You have to be kidding

You think a statement in a wired article from a security guy saying Manning may or may not have needed some code help to gather the documents suggests forensic evidence against Assange?

Really, that's your case?

Let me know if you come up with anything a bit less imaginary in your quest to defend Manning's torture, and prove Assange's guilt of some unknown crime.

[msanthrope]

24. No, I think the newest charge sheet fleshes out my theory a bit more. And it is a theory,

no doubt about that...

But from the beginning, I've doubted the 'official story' that Manning alone was responsible for all this. I grow suspicious at lone gunmen theories. I think when you have the quoted formal federal prosecutor AND a security guy saying essentially the same thing, you have to figure that it isn't coincidence. And it also isn't a coincidence that it is in the publication that it is.

That being said, take a look at what we do know--Assange himself has stated that there is a grand jury sitting in the rocket docket. I'm familiar enough with federal practice to know that federal prosecutors simply do not call grand juries to 'investigate.' They call grand juries to indict. And they always get their indictments.

And you don't call a federal grand jury when you supposedly have the lone culprit in the military system with an airtight case against him. And the case against Manning is airtight--he's probably going to spend the rest of his life in the conditions that he is in, now, assuming he escapes the death penalty.

I think the data miner, and specification 16 of the new charge sheet are going to be the basis for conspiracy charges that will reach beyond Bradley Manning. And those charges aren't going to be based in any way on anything Bradley Manning has to say--they will be based on forensic evidence.

[Bragi]

25. Does your spinning ever stop?

You write:

I think when you have the quoted formal federal prosecutor AND a security guy saying essentially the same thing, you have to figure that it isn't coincidence...

Yeah, former federal prosecutors are straight shooters for sure. No possible agenda there. And what security guy are you speaking of? The one in the Wired article you keep referencing who says he doesn't know if Manning would have or would not have needed help to run the software?

Yeah, he sure connects a lot of dots.

Then you write:

I'm familiar enough with federal practice to know that federal prosecutors simply do not call grand juries to 'investigate.' They call grand juries to indict. And they always get their indictments.

Now that's a howler. So you figure grand juries are never convened to harass, or to see if evidence can be uncovered? No sir, they only get called when the evidence is so strong that they are ready to indict.

Get serious. You're just spinning.

Then you write:

And the case against Manning is airtight

However could you know that, what with the evidence not yet being published?

Again, you're just spinning.

[Bragi]

7. Any testimony against Assange no longer a problem

The only upside here is that no EU country will now be able to extradite Assange to the U.S based on evidence derived from Maning, since any such evidence would be the product of illegal torture and abuse.

[msanthrope]

8. Did you read the reply from the Minister? He doesn't think Manning is being tortured...

"In general, we are content that conditions in the US detention system meet international standards and that there is a clear legal process for a detainee to be able to challenge their conditions of detention.

In this case, President Obama himself has said that he has sought and received assurances from the Department of Defence that Private Manning's treatment is "appropriate" and meets US "basic standards". Of course, the United States has an effective and robust judicial system. It is a champion of human rights the world over. However, where crimes are alleged to have occurred they must be investigated. This is currently the case. The fact that we have seen the memo from Private Manning to his commanding officer is evidence that his legal representation is working. We must allow the legal case to follow its course without interference."

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110404/debtext/110404-0004.htm#11040438000002

You should watch video of the 'debate'--the Welsh MP looked like an idiot when she was asked when his trial was, and she had no idea...

As fr your assertion that no testimony given by Manning can be used against Assange, you have a inaccurate view of basic evidence law.

[EFerrari]

9. The minister is the one who looks like an idiot

for saying a detention protested by human rights organizations all over the world meets international standards.

LOL

[msanthrope]

11. Now, now, this is the guy who's going to 'pressure' the US. Wouldn't do

to make fun of him....

Too bad Bradley didn't cover his tracks, eh???

[EFerrari]

26. His statement is ridiculous. But then, he is a politician.

Obama's wasn't any better.

[Bragi]

10. He closed saying he would enquire about his treatment, right?

I agree the minister doesn't call it torture, but he's about the only one who speaks in the debate who doesn't. He also softens up at the end, and says they will talk to the US about it, right.

I think there is reason to think that the brutal treatment of Manning will at least prevent his extradition. I sure hope so.

Needless to say, that doesn't help Manning any, but surely if they know his testimony is now worthless (outside of US military court) then presumably they no longer have as much motivation for abusing him.

It's an ugly situation.

[msanthrope]

12. I really hate to burst your bubble, but Assange's extradition (should it happen)

won't be based on Manning's testimony....

It will be based on the testimony of his computer.

Which apparently wasn't as wiped as Manning thought it was. Apparently, Mr. Manning thought that the system had wiped out evidence of his use of a data miner. It did not, and the new charges against him reflect that. It is my personal theory that that data miner was highly sophisticated, and originated from Wikileaks.

Conspiracy does not require direct contact between Assange and Manning. All it requires is some action in concert.

Here's a very interesting article on the latest evidence.


http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/04/manning-data-mining

[Bragi]

13. Interesting article, but...

The article says that this data mining software may provide proof that the leaked documents were collected from Manning's machine, but I don't see any indication that this application could show any connection with Assange by Manning in obtaining the documents.

So I don't understand your "bubble burst" reference, since I was speaking about Assange's extradition being made near impossible due to the torture and abuse of Manning. The article doesn't deal with that.

Or am I missing something in the Wired article you referenced?

[msanthrope]

15. Yes, you are missing something.

It is likely that Assange's extradition (should it happen) would be based on forensic evidence, and not the testimony of Mr. Manning.

Which means the Maries could waterboard Manning, and Assange would assert, what?

[Bragi]

17. What forensic evidence?

Seriously, are you just making this stuff up?

Of course, a prosecutor always goes with forensic evidence over testimony if they can, but in this case, they don't even have a crime for Assange, any more than they had one for Danial Ellsberg for the Pentagon papers.

As for forensic evidence for whatever crime the Pentagon might be imagining, if there is any, it sure isn't talked about in the wired article you posted.

[msanthrope]

20. See above post where I address this.

If what Manning used to mine is unique, and can be traced to a source, then whoever gave it to him is in trouble.

You see, it's one thing for Ellsburg to steal and give to the press. But if a reporter went to Ellsburg and gave him a list of stuff to steal? That's a crime.

[Bragi]

22. If... if... if... /nt

[DeSwiss]

23. K&R

"Close down Guantanamo, restore habeas corpus, say no to renditions, no to wireless wiretaps..." - Barack Obama, November 14, 2007

"I've said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo and I will follow through on that. I've said repeatedly that America doesn't torture. And I'm going to make sure we don't torture. Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America's moral stature in the world." - Barack Obama, 60 Minutes (2008)

Quotes excerpted from Senator Barack Obama's campaign speeches and interviews as shown in the documentary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzULm4d8h8w">"Lifting the Veil: Obama and the Failure of Capitalist Democracy"