Bradley Manning Hearing Shows Military Bosses More Concerned About Media Attention Than Manning's Conditions
from the but-of-course dept
Kevin Gosztola has been providing detailed updates on the latest Bradley Manning hearings, focused mainly on the conditions associated with the treatment of Manning after his arrest, and whether or not it amounted to "unlawful pretrial punishment" or involved reasonable precautions by the military. Specifically, as we had discussed, Manning was held in conditions that amounted to torture under key definitions of torture -- held in "intensive solitary confinement" in total isolation, not allowed to have a pillow or sheets for his bed. Over 250 legal experts condemned his treatment and the State Department's spokesperson even lost his job for saying publicly that Manning was being mistreated, and that it wasn't productive.The legal issue is that if this treatment was seen as punitive then that's a problem. People can be held pre-trial, but they're not supposed to be "punished" as part of the process. The Defense Department has been trying to claim that the treatment of Manning had to do with fears that he would harm himself, and the latest hearings were to figure out which version of the story is really accurate. The details look pretty damning for the Defense Department. For example, it appears that officials were more concerned about the media, not about Manning's condition:
Going through emails, it came out that Lt. Gen. George Flynn, superior officer, was concerned with media and not Bradley Manning’s conditions. For example, when David House and Firedoglake editor-in-chief Jane Hamsher were harassed at the gate of Quantico, Flynn was in on this incident. He was up on what the public affairs planned to say to any questions from media on the incident. But, he was not up on weekly updates coming from officers in the brig.Later, the same Lt. Gen. Flynn apparently got upset that the NYTimes had information on Manning's mistreatment and he hadn't been forewarned about the media situation:
Lt. Gen. Flynn was upset that he read about Manning standing outside his cell naked in the New York Times. “It would be good to have leadership have heads up on these things before they’re read in the early bird!” Lt. Col Flynn wrote in an email. The “early bird” is a military synopsis of various news stories/press releases.And then there's the fact that the "psychologist" relied on to assess Manning's mental state... wasn't actually a psychologist but a dentist. Huh?!?
Also, a “forensic psychiatrist” that the Brig was consulting was a Dentist. She didn’t really have qualifications as a psychologist. She was a doctor on staff there and they went to her for assessments on Manning’s condition.On top of that, evidence was presented of guards joking about taking away Manning's underwear in response to comments Manning had made. It certainly raises significant questions about why they were treating Manning this way and if it actually had anything to do with his own safety... or if they just liked taunting him.
One Quantico Brig officer (female) sent email where he joked about the removal of Manning’s underwear after comments he made on March 2, 2011. Here’s a version the press pool currently believes we heard read in court:Even if you think Manning violated the law, it seems pretty damning to see him treated this way pre-trial.
“As Dr. Seuss would say I can wear them in a box, I can wear them with a fox, I can wear them with socks. I can wear them in the day so I say. I can’t wear them at night. My comments gave the staff a fright.”
It is Green Eggs & Ham.
Coombs asked Choike if he believed joking about the underwear was something that an officer should have done. Choike then said something to the effect that he realized this could be brought up by Manning with his attorney and it might become “another media issue.”
Separately, prior to the discussion about Manning's conditions, the government officially opposed Manning's attempt to plead guilty to certain lesser charges (as discussed earlier) in the hopes of speeding up the trial and getting potential leniency on some of the more serious charges. This issue more or less got tabled for procedural reasons, as Manning is still arguing that the government failed to provide a speedy trial and the court notes that if it excepts the plea, that would also waive the speedy trial issue. So, the court will handle the issue of whether or not the government failed to offer a speedy trial before taking on the plea issue.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bradley manning, media, solitary confinement, torture, treatment
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I wonder how many people living in poverty in Third World countries do without pillows, sheets and even a bed? Sorry, I reject the notion that not having a pillow and sheets somehow equates to torture. That is simply absurd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So you admit that he is being subjected to unacceptable living conditions?
You know what's funny? Even death row convicts get better living conditions. And they are "dead"!
What a screwed up country...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You also, sorry to say, have to take it into context with EVERY OTHER THING they are doing or have done to him while he has been in confinement. Solitary confinement with absolutely no human contact for extensive periods of time IS considered torture.
The problem with "torture" is that a lot of people think if you aren't being physically brutalized day in and day out then you aren't being tortured. I'd say you seem to fall into this category of people, those who think if Manning isn't be physically brutalized then anything that happens is acceptable and not torture. Which is a shame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> to every day living conditions in third
> world countries and then basically saying,
> "If those AIDS infected Africans can do
> without pillows then so can Bradley
> Manning" DOES NOT excuse his treatment
> or make it any less torture.
Leave the Africans out if it, then. Not having sheets or pillows is something our soldiers have to deal with on deployment in the field all the time. Are they being tortured?
If the troops in theatre can manage, it's hardly torture for this guy to go without a pillow, for god's sake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
When they are enforced upon a person by an authority which can easily provide adaquate living conditions they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, right... by that dentist...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(yes, I'm joking)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which, if you haven't been following the news, still has not happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In prison, if you're considered a suicide risk they don't take away your bedding.
All well and good, except that he hasn't been sentenced. That's rather the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
When they are enforced upon a person by an authority which can easily provide adaquate living conditions they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> by an authority which can easily provide
> adaquate living conditions they are.
No, they're not. The legal definition of torture has never been so ridiculously expanded.
They could also easily provide Manning with a Blu-Ray player and a library of movies. The fact that they don't isn't torture, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As used in this chapter—
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
Yes... yes it is torture...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's nothing inhumane about not having a pillow.
What's next? We accuse them of torture if Manning's sheets don't have at least an 800 thread count?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you intentionally inflict any of these things on another human being, that's absolutely torture. That people suffer them unintentionally doesn't enter into it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They are considered basic necessities in prisons in the US. Any treatment that is different than that given to other prisoners should always be scrutinized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
i bet you would very quickly change your mind if it were you freezing your nuts off every night!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah because all poor people in the 3rd world are also kept in isolation cells for 23 hours a day and permitted only 1 hour of exercise in another cell each day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More importantly...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If it was even close to that cut and dried, the court-case would have been long over with by now, but instead they've been treating him worse than even death row inmates are.
Why, it's almost as thought they know they don't have enough to actually get a conviction, or worry that some 'inconvenient' facts might come to light during the case, and so are putting the guy through hell like this just so he'll be willing to agree to any plea bargain they offer just to avoid going back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Ezekial on Nov 28th, 2012 @ 6:29am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Ezekial on Nov 28th, 2012 @ 6:29am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The activity you're suggesting is seen in all the better banana republics, which I wish you'd stop trying to turn my country into, my little chicken-hawk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Shame there is no option for innocent anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, doesn't matter how military viewed it: absolutely was punitive.
Get based in common law. The facts are that Manning was held in highly unusual conditions that meet a definition of torture, and that's final: we can't let criminals in the military weasel. Lies and legalisms to avoid responsbility are precisely the problem. The military every day makes decisions to kill people, absolutely black and white, so don't let 'em claim this easy area is at all gray.
Reach a decision, Mulling Mike. Can't you even agree here with "250 legal experts"? One of your biggest flaws is hemming and hawing as if equally afraid of being right or wrong. It undercuts even when I want to commend you for this re-write.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, doesn't matter how military viewed it: absolutely was punitive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No, doesn't matter how military viewed it: absolutely was punitive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, doesn't matter how military viewed it: absolutely was punitive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which is bad enough in and of itself, but things like data espionage via the patriot act on foreign data (because most major digital services belong one way or another to an American company), the ongoing arrogant attempts to enact and enforce US law on the souvereign territory of other nations (O'Dwyer, Megaupload) and meddlings in foreign politics (UK/Swedish Assange drama, Spanish copyright law, TPP/ACTA/CETA) combined with absolutely no respect for even their own laws evident in your law enforcement, executive branch and even parts of your courts (Megaupload, Manning)... that makes you dangerous to us. An enemy to be wary of.
And it worries me alot that even though Americans I have any kind of personal contact to, even one as superficial as reading their blogs, generally seem opposed to those developements and wary of them, too, but there is absolutely no sign of any of this awareness and wariness in your government, military, courts and law enforcement. Ok, there is some, but... like drops in the sea. Meaningless. And if people around here go on a rant about those insane/idiotic/paranoid/fascist/megalomaniac Americans it gets ever harder to argue against that, because if I tell them again and again "You got it wrong, the people are allright, it's just their country that's nuts" it sounds stupid even to me. How can a country full of normal, sensible people be at the same time a dangerous, agressive, hostile nation? If people talk about democratic states based on a fair and equal rule of law around these parts, noone includes the USA anymore. And the threat from this worries me far more that a hundred hijacked planes and explosive stuffed cars ever could. Because terrorists just threaten my life, but regimes threaten my freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No all you've really done is made things more difficult for the average person. The US is like a bad example of DRM. They push for heavier restrictions in the name of public safety and good intentions. Sadly all they manage to do is inconvenience those that are innocent of any wrong doing.
The international community should collectively be telling the US to F off, unfortunately no one trusts that such a move wouldn't result in a large number of nuclear missiles being launched in retaliation. The sooner the US crumbles upon itself to refind it's own roots, the better off the rest of the world will be.
I welcome the few terrorists and all the risks that entails over tyranny of the US military
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Got anything to back up that wild conjecture?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"...it is still the country that most people seek to emigrate to. Perhaps they know something you don't". Perhaps I know something THEY don't. A lie is a lie no matter how many people believe it. I don't believe the hype.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More Concerned About Media Attention Than Manning's Conditions
Namely, they're pretty concerned he's not dead and forgotten yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More Concerned About Media Attention Than Manning's Conditions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: More Concerned About Media Attention Than Manning's Conditions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Solution long lost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Solution long lost
It takes a lot of balls for one person to throw his life away to stop injustice. We can bicker all day long on if he released too much information, but if I were in his position, I'd also be more likely to grab more information than was needed to shed light on the situation, than too little-- because I'm sure he knew he was going to jail, regardless.
There is a difference between loving one's country, and loving one's government.
The fact that you'd already tried and sentenced him in your mind, before was given his constitutionally guaranteed rights, makes *you* less of a patriot than him.
He has my full support. All patriots do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Solution long lost
And your comment has reaffirmed my belief that not all those in service of the country are "bad" people. I put that in quotes because I don't mean bad, I just mean that way too many have a mindset which I find truly disturbing given that these are people we are arming and putting in the position of fighting for and defending our rights. And the mindset seems to be with a majority that questioning the government is the same as saying you hate America. Or, "If you don't like it, you can get the f*ck out." Another comment I've seen way too often on various forums and sites when it comes to Manning/Assange. Is that what we've come to? Questioning or taking issue with his treatment means we don't deserve to live in this country? If anything, such thinking is as un-American and far from patriotic as you can get. In my opinion that is.
And while the military might have a different way of doing things from civilian courts, I think it goes without saying that locking someone up and doing so in a manner that some see as torturous goes against the founding ideals of this country and in no way should it be seen as acceptable/okay. No matter what the crime may be. Or better and more correctly said, ALLEGED crime may be. If things truly were as cut and dry as they're being made out to be, a trial would be pretty straight forward and determining Manning's guilt would require no effort. The fact that he still hasn't had one says a lot more to me than anything about how not cut and dry things are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Solution long lost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Solution long lost
The fact that you, a self admitted veteran, are saying the things you're saying is rather disheartening. But of course, I'm sure if the shoe was on the other foot, you'd just grin and bear it, right? (I highly doubt you would.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Solution long lost
In my opinion also. Questioning authority is one of the MOST patriotic actions a US citizen can do.
"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority." ― Benjamin Franklin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Solution long lost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Solution long lost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Solution long lost
"I was just following orders" does not make dishonorable actions permissible, and there is more to honor than following the letter of the law.
Not to mention, the UCMJ makes blowjobs illegal. Wanna take a guess at how many people follow that rule?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Solution long lost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Solution long lost
You mean the one about defending the citizens and the Constitution? When the chain of command is at odds with that, fuck the chain of command.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Solution long lost
"I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
Which article of the Constitution do you claim is violated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solution long lost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solution long lost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solution long lost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solution long lost
I would argue that the Constitution does protect anyone and everyone who has dealings with the US government, regardless of citizenship.
The Constitution doesn't apply to a person or groups of people at all, per se. It only grants and denies power to the US government itself. The wording of the document uses "people" instead of "citizens" and is not limited only to citizens in any way. Therefore the Constitution is applicable everyone who has dealings with the US government.
This simple fact seems to be overlooked or purposely misinterpreted in this day and age because it would mean that the foreign nationals being held and tortured at Gitmo and other places would have Constitutional protections of due process and a speedy trial. And that's not even considering at the Constitutional implications of torturing prisoners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solution long lost
First, yes, the US Constitution constrains the actions of the US government everywhere on the planet when dealing with people of any nationality, not just on US soil or when dealing with US citizens. This is not even remotely incompatible with thinking that the US overreaches in applying US law to other countries.
But, in any case, I was not commenting about whether or not Manning was correct in his beliefs. I'm only saying that if those were his beliefs, then he was acting honorably and in accordance with his oath, even if he's wrong in those beliefs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solution long lost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solution long lost
But all of that is entirely beside the point I'm making.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Solution long lost
That's essentially the argument you're bringing to the table. Follow orders and do as you're told or you'll get it. That's not an argument, nor is it validation that Manning was in the wrong.
And as was pointed out during the Nuremburg trials, "I was following orders," is NOT an acceptable excuse. Saying Manning should just have done what he was allowed to is the same thing. If there is a wrong being done, regardless of any oaths taken, it is the duty of EVERY American citizen, be they in uniform or not, to make sure the people find out.
Since I'm quoting scifi might as well go with the gem, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." And sorry to say, but contrary to what some like you might have us believe, no legitimately harmful information was ever revealed. That any was revealed at all, contrary to any oaths or orders taken/issued by/to Manning is irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Solution long lost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solution long lost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solution long lost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solution long lost
10/10, troll. You had me hook, line, and sinker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solution long lost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solution long lost
Debate, that would occur at a trial.
A trial that has not occurred in the 919 days since he was arrested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solution long lost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solution long lost
The wrong action is to be told to shut up and find more people exercising free speech for the IFP to jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solution long lost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solution long lost
It doesn't matter what incident he's charged with; The question is whether he is a "leaker" or a "whistle blower". Since he went to his CO with concerns and was told to get back in line, he is, in my mind, a whistle blower, which affords him several protections. (Like, not being in jail.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solution long lost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solution long lost
He went to someone in charge and said "I think this is wrong." and that person, in charge of him, said "Shut up and find more people to oppress."
I feel like you wouldn't have even said anything-- I mean, Iraq isn't a real democracy, so who gives a fuck if some brown people go to prison for looking into government corruption, right? They're not 'mercuns, so they don't deserve the rights we claim "all men" should have.
Sometimes breaking the law is the moral and just action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solution long lost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solution long lost
Don't worry, I'm sure you were an excellent follower. I'm sure it will serve you well in the civilian sector. The world needs more people who shut up and do as they're told.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solution long lost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solution long lost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solution long lost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Solution long lost
you sound like one of the few -like manning- who put basic morality and human decency first, rather than abject obeisance to authority figures...
it has ALWAYS bothered me that SUPPOSEDLY any/all military members are SUPPOSED to question or refuse to obey illegal/immoral orders, and yet that almost NEVER happens: we have atrocities by the score (of which i'm certain we only ever hear about a small percentage), we commit war krimes on a daily basis, we violate our own -and international- laws as a matter of course, but NO ONE ever speaks out...
but the FACT of the matter is, you are conditioned by the military to follow orders WITHOUT question, no matter what... theoretical objections over legality or morality are ignored or vilified... the few like manning who dare to question such illegal actions are demoted, railroaded, or otherwise harassed into silence...
they give lie to their so-called 'honor' and 'duty' by their actions which are 180 degrees from those values...
our forefathers had it right: NO STANDING ARMIES...
(no sitting ones, either!)
if you have an army, you ARE going to use it, doesn't matter if it is 'necessary' or not...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Solution long lost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Solution long lost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
> read about Manning standing outside
> his cell naked in the New York Times.
> “It would be good to have leadership
> have heads up on these things before
> they’re read in the early bird!” Lt.
> Col Flynn wrote in an email.
So is Flynn an LTC or an LTG? Kinda hard to take a media outlet seriously when it can't report basic stuff like this correctly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And another one...
> sent email where he joked about the
> removal of Manning’s underwear
So is the brig officer a she or a he? Can't be both. This Firedoglake outfit is a real jounalistic winner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
excepts the plea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Manning again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]