Once Again, The Administration Vindictively Charges A Whistleblower As Being A Spy

from the scary-stuff dept

This is getting ridiculous. When President Obama was campaigning and even when he first took office, he claimed that it was a priority to support whistleblowing activities. And yet, as President, he has been ridiculously aggressive in pushing vindictive criminal lawsuits against whistleblowers -- often by abusing the Espionage Act. The Espionage Act is supposed to be used against spies. But the Obama Justice Department has used it over and over again against whistleblowers in a purely vindictive manner. In fact, he's used it to bring charges against whistleblowers more often than every other President combined. This strategy turned out to be a disaster in the Thomas Drake case (which was initiated by President Bush, but continued with strong support by President Obama), where the case completely collapsed, once it became clear that the charges were nothing but a vindictive attack on a whistleblower.

Apparently the Obama administration has not learned its lesson. It has now used the Espionage Act to go after a former CIA agent, John Kiriakou, who blew the whistle on the CIA's waterboarding torture regime. This now makes it the sixth Espionage Act prosecution of a whistleblower brought by the Obama administration. All other presidents before him used it a total of 3 times. As the Government Accountability Project notes, the really stunning thing in all of this is that Kiriakou will be the only person prosecuted in relation to the use of waterboarding -- and simply for blowing the whistle on it.

if you torture a prisoner, you will not be held criminally liable, but if you blow the whistle on torture, you risk criminal prosecution under the Espionage Act.

Something seems very, very wrong about this.

Filed Under: doj, espionage act, obama, torture, whistleblowing

Over 250 Top US Legal Scholars Condemn The Treatment Of Bradley Manning

from the moral-high-ground dept

For a while now, we've been quite concerned over the US's treatment of Bradley Manning, the guy who has been accused of being the source for many of Wikileaks' biggest leaks from the US government. Under most standard definitions of torture, it certainly appeared that Manning was being tortured. With the UN investigating, and even Obama administration officials who had long been propagandizing against Wikileaks claiming that the treatment was bad (leading to him being fired), it appears more and more people are recognizing how indefensible the treatment is.

The latest is that a who's who of US legal scholars, including the guy who taught President Obama constitutional law (and was a big supporter of Obama during the campaign), have written an open letter condemning the treatment of Bradley Manning as being unconstitutional. That law professor, Laurence Tribe, had actually been a legal advisor to the Justice Department until recently. The original letter was written by Bruce Ackerman and Yochai Benkler, and the list of signatories is pretty impressive.

When you have so many experts in constitutional law speaking up for the way President Obama is treating Manning, can Obama really ignore them completely?

Filed Under: bradley manning, torture, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

Zimbabwe Professor Arrested, Tortured For 'Treason' For Watching News Videos About Egypt & Tunisia

from the wtf dept

Disturbing reports out of Zimbabwe about how a professor who regularly held gatherings to discuss different news topics and social issues, was arrested, charged with treason and tortured for having the audacity to gather the regular group of about 45 people who discuss these things, and showing them some BBC and Al Jazeera news clips about the uprising in Egypt and Tunisia.

Last Saturday, Munyaradzi Gwisai, a lecturer at the University of Zimbabwe’s law school, was showing a group of students and activists internet videos about the tumult sweeping across North Africa when state security agents burst into his office.

The agents seized laptop computers, DVD discs, and a video projector before arresting 45 people, including Gwisai, who runs the Labor Law Center at the University of Zimbabwe. All 45 have been charged with treason -- which can carry a sentence of life imprisonment or death -- for, in essence, watching viral videos.

Over the next 72 hours, Gwisai and five others were brutally tortured, he testified on Thursday at an initial hearing.

I understand that Zimbabwe is not exactly a bastion of freedom these days, but arrested, tortured and charged with treason for gathering people to watch the news? Wow.

Filed Under: free speech, munyaradzi gwisai, torture, zimbabwe

UN Investigating Whether Or Not US Is Torturing Bradley Manning

from the good-for-them dept

We recently posted about the conditions under which the US was holding Bradley Manning, the private accused of leaking documents to Wikileaks, and noting that they seemed to reach the level of torture, based on some excellent reporting by Glenn Greenwald. This news was troubling just because we should not torture at all, and was made even worse by the fact that the guy hasn't even been convicted of any crime (though, as many commenters pointed out, even if he was convicted of a crime, torture is still not appropriate). Not surprisingly, the comments on that post expressed a variety of opinions, with two specific statements repeated against my post: the first is that solitary confinement is not torture, and the second is that Manning deserves whatever he gets.

The latter response should be sickening to anyone who is an American or believes in the concept of innocent until proven guilty. It's about the most anti-American thought I can think of to say that someone deserves punishment even when they have not been found guilty of a crime. As for the first comment, as many people suggested, you should read Atul Gawande's fascinating and disturbing article on solitary confinement, and then see how you feel about solitary confinement. The number of people who claimed that people were just coddled and weak if they couldn't handle solitary appear to be quite ill-informed about the nature of solitary confinement, and I would imagine they would not last long under such conditions themselves.

Since then, a lot more information has come out, including some explicit details about the serious negative effects the treatment has had on Manning's health and mental well-being. On top of that, while the Defense Department has tried to minimize the complaints by presenting their side of the story, the article above references Manning's specific comments to one of the only two people he is allowed to meet with, which indicates that the Defense Department was not being entirely truthful. The scary part is that it really appears that the treatment is having a significant impact on his health already. Even if you believe that what Manning did was the worst thing a person could do, can we at least let him be tried before issuing punitive measures?

Separately, the UN has now said that it will investigate how Manning is being treated, though, as with so much the UN does, I do wonder how much impact they would have even if they did find the treatment to reach the level of torture.

Glenn Greenwald has another detailed report, which highlights how the US State Department has condemned solitary confinement in other countries:

As is true for so much of what it does, the U.S. Government routinely condemns similar acts -- the use of prolonged solitary confinement in its most extreme forms and lengthy pretrial detention -- when used by other countries.  See, for instance, the 2009 State Department Human Rights Report on Indonesia ("Officials held unruly detainees in solitary confinement for up to six days on a rice-and-water diet"); Iran ("Common methods of torture and abuse in prisons included prolonged solitary confinement with extreme sensory deprivation . . .Prison conditions were poor. Many prisoners were held in solitary confinement . . . Authorities routinely held political prisoners in solitary confinement for extended periods . . . All four [arrested bloggers] claimed authorities physically and psychologically abused them in detention, including subjecting them to prolonged periods of solitary confinement in a secret detention center without access to legal counsel or family"); Israel ("Israeli human rights organizations reported that Israeli interrogators . . .  kept prisoners in harsh conditions, including solitary confinement for long periods"); Iraq ("Individuals claimed to have been subjected to psychological and physical abuse, including . . . solitary confinement in Ashraf to discourage defections"); Yemen ("Sleep deprivation and solitary confinement were other forms of abuse reported in PSO prisons"); Central African Republic ("As of December, there were 308 inmates in Ngaragba Prison, most of whom are pretrial detainees. Several detainees had been held for seven months without appearing before a judge"); Burundi ("Human rights problems also included . . . prolonged pretrial detention").

Once again, it appears that the US State Department believes in different rules for itself than what it pushes on everyone else. Once again, I find that I am disappointed by my government not coming even close to the standards it purports to hold, and which it regularly argues other countries should follow as well.

Filed Under: bradley manning, solitary confinement, torture, united nations
Companies: wikileaks

US Is Apparently Torturing Bradley Manning, Despite No Trial And No Conviction

from the this-is-not-the-america-we-were-told-about dept

While there's been a ton of attention paid to Julian Assange's arrest and situation, much less attention has been paid to Bradley Manning, the Army Private who has been accused of being the source of many of Wikileaks' more recent leaks concerning the US government and military. It seemed like a reasonable question to ask, upon his arrest, whether or not he was simply whistleblowing or breaking the law. Certainly this is a question that is open for debate. What is pretty clear is that his intentions were absolutely to be a whistleblower.

In his internet chat with Adrian Lamo (the guy who turned him in), Manning made it clear that if he was trying to cause problems for the US or had malicious intentions, he could have sold the info to foreign governments. However, his reasoning for leaking the info was clear, saying he was hoping it would cause "worldwide discussion, debates and reform." He also noted that he was driven to do this after being involved in detaining Iraqis who had simply done a scholarly critique of the current government, which he believed went against basic free speech principles. Again, no matter what you believe about his specific actions, it's pretty clear his intent was to whistleblow. He was upset about what he felt were illegal activities and his goal was to get that information out and to create discussion leading to reform. That's the classic definition of whistleblowing.

I knew Manning had been arrested and was being held somewhere, but Glenn Greenwald is now covering how he is being tortured, despite the fact he has not been tried. He has been held in intensive solitary confinement, meaning he spends 23 hours of the day in total isolation. He has not even been given a pillow or sheets for his bed. As Greenwald highlights, there is widespread agreement that such prolonged solitary confinement is well beyond the standard level of torture, is forbidden in many modern civilizations, and leads to long term psychological issues for those who go through it.

And all this for a guy who has not even been convicted of anything.

Again: I recognize that some people believe that Manning is a "traitor" or some sort of "enemy." But even if that's the case, why should he not be put on trial for it, before he's put into solitary confinement? As Greenwald notes, "Manning has been a model detainee, without any episodes of violence or disciplinary problems." Solitary confinement is normally used as punishment for such outbreaks for those already convicted. Putting Manning in such conditions is a purely punitive attempt to torture him, without him even being convicted.

We've already covered just how bad the Defense Department is at protecting whistleblowers, but this goes way beyond any of that. The message being sent here is that, even if your intentions are to expose wrongdoing, the military may lock you up and torture you for months without end and with no due process. This is not what America is supposed to be about. We're not supposed to support torture. We're not supposed to ignore due process. We're supposed to encourage whistleblowing. Instead, we're locking it up and torturing it with no trial or conviction.

This is, frankly, horrifying.

I'm not convinced that Manning did the right thing in leaking all of those documents. Rather, I think there's a compelling argument that he went way too far in releasing way too much. But it's a point that can be debated. However, Manning has no such opportunity to debate it. Instead, he's being psychologically tortured with no method of even making his own case.

Filed Under: bradley manning, due process, solitary confinement, torture, whistleblowing, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

Music As Torture: Are Musicians Whose Music Is Blasted At Gitmo Compensated For Public Performance?

from the wondering... dept

A little over a year ago, we reported on the news about US military officials playing loud rock music as "torture." Basically, they would blast loud music over and over again at folks who they thought would be annoyed by it. When we wrote about it, we were wondering if the US government actually paid royalties on the public performance of the music. Apparently, we're not the only ones questioning that. Howard Knopf discusses a musician who is (reasonably) upset that his music is being used in this manner, and questions whether or not the various collection societies are getting their cut of these rather public performances.

Filed Under: copyright, performance rights, torture