ST official Cablegate thread

[mightygoose 92]

on the subject of Bradley Manning

The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning's detention

(updated below - Update II)

Bradley Manning, the 22-year-old U.S. Army Private accused of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks, has never been convicted of that crime, nor of any other crime.  Despite that, he has been detained at the U.S. Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia for five months -- and for two months before that in a military jail in Kuwait -- under conditions that constitute cruel and inhumane treatment and, by the standards of many nations, even torture.  Interviews with several people directly familiar with the conditions of Manning's detention, ultimately including a Quantico brig official (Lt. Brian Villiard) who confirmed much of what they conveyed, establishes that the accused leaker is subjected to detention conditions likely to create long-term psychological injuries.

Since his arrest in May, Manning has been a model detainee, without any episodes of violence or disciplinary problems.  He nonetheless was declared from the start to be a "Maximum Custody Detainee," the highest and most repressive level of military detention, which then became the basis for the series of inhumane measures imposed on him.

From the beginning of his detention, Manning has been held in intensive solitary confinement.  For 23 out of 24 hours every day -- for seven straight months and counting -- he sits completely alone in his cell.  Even inside his cell, his activities are heavily restricted; he's barred even from exercising and is under constant surveillance to enforce those restrictions.  For reasons that appear completely punitive, he's being denied many of the most basic attributes of civilized imprisonment, including even a pillow or sheets for his bed (he is not and never has been on suicide watch).  For the one hour per day when he is freed from this isolation, he is barred from accessing any news or current events programs.  Lt. Villiard protested that the conditions are not "like jail movies where someone gets thrown into the hole," but confirmed that he is in solitary confinement, entirely alone in his cell except for the one hour per day he is taken out.

In sum, Manning has been subjected for many months without pause to inhumane, personality-erasing, soul-destroying, insanity-inducing conditions of isolation similar to those perfected at America's Supermax prison in Florence, Colorado:  all without so much as having been convicted of anything.  And as is true of many prisoners subjected to warped treatment of this sort, the brig's medical personnel now administer regular doses of anti-depressants to Manning to prevent his brain from snapping from the effects of this isolation.

Just by itself, the type of prolonged solitary confinement to which Manning has been subjected for many months is widely viewed around the world as highly injurious, inhumane, punitive, and arguably even a form of torture.  In his widely praised March, 2009 New Yorker article -- entitled "Is Long-Term Solitary Confinement Torture?" -- the surgeon and journalist Atul Gawande assembled expert opinion and personal anecdotes to demonstrate that, as he put it, "all human beings experience isolation as torture."  By itself, prolonged solitary confinement routinely destroys a person’s mind and drives them into insanity.  A March, 2010 article in The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law explains that "solitary confinement is recognized as difficult to withstand; indeed, psychological stressors such as isolation can be as clinically distressing as physical torture."

For that reason, many Western nations -- and even some non-Western nations notorious for human rights abuses -- refuse to employ prolonged solitary confinement except in the most extreme cases of prisoner violence.  "It’s an awful thing, solitary," John McCain wrote of his experience in isolated confinement in Vietnam. “It crushes your spirit."  As Gawande documented: "A U.S. military study of almost a hundred and fifty naval aviators returned from imprisonment in Vietnam . . . reported that they found social isolation to be as torturous and agonizing as any physical abuse they suffered."  Gawande explained that America’s application of this form of torture to its own citizens is what spawned the torture regime which President Obama vowed to end:

    This past year, both the Republican and the Democratic Presidential candidates came out firmly for banning torture and closing the facility in Guantánamo Bay, where hundreds of prisoners have been held in years-long isolation. Neither Barack Obama nor John McCain, however, addressed the question of whether prolonged solitary confinement is torture. . . .

    This is the dark side of American exceptionalism. . . . Our willingness to discard these standards for American prisoners made it easy to discard the Geneva Conventions prohibiting similar treatment of foreign prisoners of war, to the detriment of America’s moral stature in the world.  In much the same way that a previous generation of Americans countenanced legalized segregation, ours has countenanced legalized torture. And there is no clearer manifestation of this than our routine use of solitary confinement . . . .

It's one thing to impose such punitive, barbaric measures on convicts who have proven to be violent when around other prisoners; at the Supermax in Florence, inmates convicted of the most heinous crimes and who pose a threat to prison order and the safety of others are subjected to worse treatment than what Manning experiences.  But it's another thing entirely to impose such conditions on individuals, like Manning, who have been convicted of nothing and have never demonstrated an iota of physical threat or disorder.

In 2006, a bipartisan National Commission on America's Prisons was created and it called for the elimination of prolonged solitary confinement.  Its Report documented that conditions whereby "prisoners end up locked in their cells 23 hours a day, every day. . . is so severe that people end up completely isolated, living in what can only be described as torturous conditions."  The Report documented numerous psychiatric studies of individuals held in prolonged isolation which demonstrate "a constellation of symptoms that includes overwhelming anxiety, confusion and hallucination, and sudden violent and self-destructive outbursts."  The above-referenced article from the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law states:  "Psychological effects can include anxiety, depression, anger, cognitive disturbances, perceptual distortions, obsessive thoughts, paranoia, and psychosis."

When one exacerbates the harms of prolonged isolation with the other deprivations to which Manning is being subjected, long-term psychiatric and even physical impairment is likely.  Gawande documents that "EEG studies going back to the nineteen-sixties have shown diffuse slowing of brain waves in prisoners after a week or more of solitary confinement."  Medical tests conducted in 1992 on Yugoslavian prisoners subjected to an average of six months of isolation -- roughly the amount to which Manning has now been subjected -- "revealed brain abnormalities months afterward; the most severe were found in prisoners who had endured either head trauma sufficient to render them unconscious or, yes, solitary confinement.  Without sustained social interaction, the human brain may become as impaired as one that has incurred a traumatic injury."  Gawande's article is filled with horrifying stories of individuals subjected to isolation similar to or even less enduring than Manning's who have succumbed to extreme long-term psychological breakdown.

Manning is barred from communicating with any reporters, even indirectly, so nothing he has said can be quoted here.  But David House, a 23-year-old MIT researcher who befriended Manning after his detention (and then had his laptops, camera and cellphone seized by Homeland Security when entering the U.S.) is one of the few people to have visited Manning several times at Quantico.  He describes palpable changes in Manning's physical appearance and behavior just over the course of the several months that he's been visiting him.  Like most individuals held in severe isolation, Manning sleeps much of the day, is particularly frustrated by the petty, vindictive denial of a pillow or sheets, and suffers from less and less outdoor time as part of his one-hour daily removal from his cage.

This is why the conditions under which Manning is being detained were once recognized in the U.S. -- and are still recognized in many Western nations -- as not only cruel and inhumane, but torture.  More than a century ago, U.S. courts understood that solitary confinement was a barbaric punishment that severely harmed the mental and physical health of those subjected to it.  The Supreme Court's 1890 decision in In re Medley noted that as a result of solitary confinement as practiced in the early days of the United States, many "prisoners fell, after even a short confinement, into a semi-fatuous condition . . . and others became violently insane; others still, committed suicide; while those who stood the ordeal better . . . [often] did not recover sufficient mental activity to be of any subsequent service to the community."  And in its 1940 decision in Chambers v. Florida, the Court characterized prolonged solitary confinement as "torture" and compared it to "[t]he rack, the thumbscrew, [and] the wheel."

The inhumane treatment of Manning may have international implications as well.  There are multiple proceedings now pending in the European Union Human Rights Court, brought by "War on Terror" detainees contesting their extradition to the U.S. on the ground that the conditions under which they likely will be held -- particularly prolonged solitary confinement -- violate the European Convention on Human Rights, which (along with the Convention Against Torture) bars EU states from extraditing anyone to any nation where there is a real risk of inhumane and degrading treatment.  The European Court of Human Rights has in the past found detention conditions violative of those rights (in Bulgaria) where "the [detainee] spent 23 hours a day alone in his cell; had limited interaction with other prisoners; and was only allowed two visits per month."  From the Journal article referenced above:

    International treaty bodies and human rights experts, including the Human Rights Committee, the Committee against Torture, and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture, have concluded that solitary confinement may amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment.  They have specifically criticized supermax confinement in the United States because of the mental suffering it inflicts.

Subjecting a detainee like Manning to this level of prolonged cruel and inhumane detention can thus jeopardize the ability of the U.S. to secure extradition for other prisoners, as these conditions are viewed in much of the civilized world as barbaric.  Moreover, because Manning holds dual American and U.K. citizenship (his mother is British), it is possible for British agencies and human rights organizations to assert his consular rights against these oppressive conditions.  At least some preliminary efforts are underway in Britain to explore that mechanism as a means of securing more humane treatment for Manning.  Whatever else is true, all of this illustrates what a profound departure from international norms is the treatment to which the U.S. Government is subjecting him.

* * * * *

The plight of Manning has largely been overshadowed by the intense media fixation on WikiLeaks, so it's worth underscoring what it is that he's accused of doing and what he said in his own reputed words about these acts.  If one believes the authenticity of the highly edited chat logs of Manning's online conversations with Adrian Lamo that have been released by Wired (that magazine inexcusably continues to conceal large portions of those logs), Manning clearly believed that he was a whistle-blower acting with the noblest of motives, and probably was exactly that.  If, for instance, he really is the leaker of the Apache helicopter attack video -- a video which sparked very rare and much-needed realization about the visceral truth of what American wars actually entail -- as well as the war and diplomatic cables revealing substantial government deceit, brutality, illegality and corruption, then he's quite similar to Daniel Ellsberg.  Indeed, Ellsberg himself said the very same thing about Manning in June on Democracy Now in explaining why he considers the Army Private to be a "hero":

    The fact is that what Lamo reports Manning is saying has a very familiar and persuasive ring to me.  He reports Manning as having said that what he had read and what he was passing on were horrible -- evidence of horrible machinations by the US backdoor dealings throughout the Middle East and, in many cases, as he put it, almost crimes. And let me guess that -- he’s not a lawyer, but I'll guess that what looked to him like crimes are crimes, that he was putting out. We know that he put out, or at least it's very plausible that he put out, the videos that he claimed to Lamo.  And that's enough to go on to get them interested in pursuing both him and the other.

    And so, what it comes down, to me, is -- and I say throwing caution to the winds here -- is that what I've heard so far of Assange and Manning -- and I haven't met either of them -- is that they are two new heroes of mine.

To see why that's so, just recall some of what Manning purportedly said about why he chose to leak, at least as reflected in the edited chat logs published by Wired:

    Lamo: what's your endgame plan, then?. . .

    Manning: well, it was forwarded to [WikiLeaks] - and god knows what happens now - hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms - if not, than [sic] we're doomed - as a species - i will officially give up on the society we have if nothing happens - the reaction to the video gave me immense hope; CNN's iReport was overwhelmed; Twitter exploded - people who saw, knew there was something wrong . . . Washington Post sat on the video… David Finkel acquired a copy while embedded out here. . . . - i want people to see the truth… regardless of who they are… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.

    if i knew then, what i knew now - kind of thing, or maybe im just young, naive, and stupid . . . im hoping for the former - it cant be the latter - because if it is… were *****ing screwed (as a society) - and i dont want to believe that we’re screwed.

Manning described the incident which first made him seriously question the U.S. Government: when he was instructed to work on the case of Iraqi "insurgents" who had been detained for distributing so-called "insurgent" literature which, when Manning had it translated, turned out to be nothing more than "a scholarly critique against PM Maliki":

    i had an interpreter read it for me… and when i found out that it was a benign political critique titled "Where did the money go?" and following the corruption trail within the PM’s cabinet… i immediately took that information and *ran* to the officer to explain what was going on… he didn’t want to hear any of it… he told me to shut up and explain how we could assist the FPs in finding *MORE* detainees…

    i had always questioned the things worked, and investigated to find the truth… but that was a point where i was a *part* of something… i was actively involved in something that i was completely against…

And Manning explained why he never considered the thought of selling this classified information to a foreign nation for substantial profit or even just secretly transmitting it to foreign powers, as he easily could have done:

    Manning: i mean what if i were someone more malicious- i could've sold to russia or china, and made bank?

    Lamo: why didn’t you?

    Manning: because it's public data

    Lamo: i mean, the cables

    Manning: it belongs in the public domain -information should be free - it belongs in the public domain - because another state would just take advantage of the information… try and get some edge - if its out in the open… it should be a public good.

That's a whistleblower in the purest and most noble form:  discovering government secrets of criminal and corrupt acts and then publicizing them to the world not for profit, not to give other nations an edge, but to trigger "worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms."  Given how much Manning has been demonized -- at the same time that he's been rendered silent by the ban on his communication with any media -- it's worthwhile to keep all of that in mind.

But ultimately, what one thinks of Manning's alleged acts is irrelevant to the issue here.  The U.S. ought at least to abide by minimal standards of humane treatment in how it detains him.  That's true for every prisoner, at all times.  But departures from such standards are particularly egregious where, as here, the detainee has merely been accused, but never convicted, of wrongdoing.  These inhumane conditions make a mockery of Barack Obama's repeated pledge to end detainee abuse and torture, as prolonged isolation -- exacerbated by these other deprivations -- is at least as damaging, as violative of international legal standards, and almost as reviled around the world, as the waterboard, hypothermia and other Bush-era tactics that caused so much controversy.

What all of this achieves is clear.  Having it known that the U.S. could and would disappear people at will to "black sites," assassinate them with unseen drones, imprison them for years without a shred of due process even while knowing they were innocent, torture them mercilessly, and in general acts as a lawless and rogue imperial power created a climate of severe intimidation and fear.  Who would want to challenge the U.S. Government in any way -- even in legitimate ways -- knowing that it could and would engage in such lawless, violent conduct without any restraints or repercussions? 

That is plainly what is going on here.  Anyone remotely affiliated with WikiLeaks, including American citizens (and plenty of other government critics), has their property seized and communications stored at the border without so much as a warrant.  Julian Assange -- despite never having been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime -- has now spent more than a week in solitary confinement with severe restrictions under what his lawyer calls "Dickensian conditions."  But Bradley Manning has suffered much worse, and not for a week, but for seven months, with no end in sight.  If you became aware of secret information revealing serious wrongdoing, deceit and/or criminality on the part of the U.S. Government, would you -- knowing that you could and likely would be imprisoned under these kinds of repressive, torturous conditions for months on end without so much as a trial:  just locked away by yourself 23 hours a day without recourse -- be willing to expose it?  That's the climate of fear and intimidation which these inhumane detention conditions are intended to create.

* * * * *

Those wishing to contribute to Bradley Manning's defense fund can do so here.  All of those means are reputable, but everyone should carefully read the various options presented in order to decide which one seems best.

UPDATE:  I was contacted by Lt. Villiard, who claims there is one factual inaccuracy in what I wrote:  specifically, he claims that Manning is not restricted from accessing news or current events during the prescribed time he is permitted to watch television.  That is squarely inconsistent with reports from those with first-hand knowledge of Manning's detention, but it's a fairly minor dispute in the scheme of things.

UPDATE II: On MSNBC, Keith Olbermann did a segment on the conditions of Manning's incarceration, with FBI whistleblower Colleen Rowley.  At least on its website, CBS News also reported on the story.  And I was on Democracy Now Thursday morning elaborating on my Manning article yesterday, as well as discussing Savage's article this morning and the imminent release of Assange from prison (the transcript is here):

[Duke87 1,070]

You know the situation is out of hand when people start getting subjected to treatment in violation of multiple constitutional amendments....

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Wake up, America.  Your little soldier is being treated the way people are who eventually disappear.  He is being treated as if he was a suicidal serial killer on death row.

The U.S. military is very good at lettres de cachet, and I am sure has a series of oubliettes stashed away somewhere.  They've got the bit in their teeth, and need to be taken down a few pegs.  What does your constitution say about the UCMJ treatment of prisoners?  For that matter, what does the UCMJ have to say about this?  And what about the Advocate General?  This lad is a service man in real trouble.  What is the AG doing to protect him from all this?  If he is guilty, which at the moment is not proven any confession notwithstanding, what would they do with him?  Life in Levenworth?  Shoot him?

American officialdom, especially the JCOS are starting to look like a group of fascists.

[mightygoose 92]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Wake up, America.  Your little soldier is being treated the way people are who eventually disappear.  He is being treated as if he was a suicidal serial killer on death row.

The U.S. military is very good at lettres de cachet, and I am sure has a series of oubliettes stashed away somewhere.  They've got the bit in their teeth, and need to be taken down a few pegs.  What does your constitution say about the UCMJ treatment of prisoners?  For that matter, what does the UCMJ have to say about this?  And what about the Advocate General?  This lad is a service man in real trouble.  What is the AG doing to protect him from all this?  If he is guilty, which at the moment is not proven any confession notwithstanding, what would they do with him?  Life in Levenworth?  Shoot him?

American officialdom, especially the JCOS are starting to look like a group of fascists.

quote>

you are of course completely correct, and with the US military censoring everything wikileaks related they are starting to have alot more in common with certain Asian countries than they would ever admit. do they really think that their footsoldiers would desert them after reading what Assange is releasing. If they are that worried about internal disencion and patriotism, that is surely telling as to the current state of the US military as a whole. Both in terms of

obedience and morale. I am not fluent with US court martial regulations but is execution a potential punishment for treason?

even on top of this, internally i am sure the top brass are putting out all the anti bradley manning propoganda they can muster. with the heavy indoctrination of the US military i would not be surprised if the averasge soldier hates this guy as much as osama or hitler, if not more for the fact of betrayal. i would not be surprised if a few privates get somewhat heavy handed and he dies in a tragic "accident", somewhere along the line.

also does anyone actually buy this "pre op transexual stuff", what sources are they citing, is there any truth to it, or is it like that American doctor, who went on a killing spree, and then just happened to turn out to be an islamic preacher of hate in new evidence that was strangely overlooked when he signed up? or that US national arrested in china for "smuggling heroine into the country". who was extradited before the Chinese executed him?

so many lies come out of US military mouths, i am sure the only reason he is still alive is because of the media poostorm around the whole thing.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

With some of the knee-jerk nuts the U.S. has in Congress, the military will get away with anything and the pols will cover for them.  The congress of the U.S. is acting like a herd of scalded cats, and you know how hard it is to herd cats.

[mightygoose 92]

its kinda like herding llamas... XD

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: mightygoose

its kinda like herding llamas... XDquote>

Not really, when it comes down to it, llamas are herd beasts.  I suppose you've seen or heard the details of mating combat between llama males.  Great congressional action.

[mightygoose 92]

true, and everything gets fudged by the upper house anyway, popular opinion or not.

meanwhile this made me feel a little sick.

WikiLeaks cables: UN offered Robert Mugabe a lucrative retirement overseas

The head of the United Nations offered Robert Mugabe a lucrative retirement package in an overseas haven if he stood down as Zimbabwe's president, according to claims quoted in leaked diplomatic cables.

The extraordinary offer was allegedly made by Kofi Annan, who was then the UN secretary general, at the millennium summit of world leaders in New York, according to a memo drawn up by American officials which was obtained by the WikiLeaks website.

The memo, written in September 2000, records a meeting between a US embassy official in Harare and a senior source in the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), the party opposed to Mugabe's Zanu-PF.

According to the MDC source, whose name the Observer has redacted, "Kofi Annan, in the recent meeting in New York during the millennium summit offered Mugabe a deal to step down. Although [the MDC source] said the MDC was not privy to the details, he surmised that Annan's supposed deal probably included provision of safe haven and a financial package from Libyan president [Gaddafi]. The opposition party heard that Mugabe turned down the offer the following day after discussing it with the first lady."

The offer, which many Zimbabwean experts may simply dismiss as wishful thinking on the part of a frustrated MDC, was not the only one rumoured to have been made to Mugabe at that time. The cable reveals that Zanu-PF itself had put out "feelers" to see whether the MDC would be willing to allow Mugabe a "graceful exit" that was "in Zimbabwe's national interest".

The MDC source said the business interests of senior Zanu-PF members were being badly damaged by the "current economic and political situation. They blame President Mugabe and are determined to find a way to ease him out in a dignified way."

The cable notes that the MDC "is gaining strength in the rural areas" and that the MDC president, Morgan Tsvangirai, "has agreed that it is in Zimbabwe's best interests for the MDC to do all it can to secure a graceful exit strategy that preserves somewhat of a positive legacy for Mugabe. Otherwise the president would have little incentive to go."

The memo also contains the claim that an international arms dealer once reputed to be a key Mugabe ally worked for British intelligence.

A Zanu-PF source is quoted in the cable suggesting that "John Bredencamp [sic], a shady white Zimbabwean businessman, had told Zanu-PF he would provide a financial 'retirement' package for Mugabe".

The cable explains that the source "did not know whether Bredencamp had sufficient resources to make such a package attractive enough, but he claimed that Bredencamp worked for MI6 and could be a channel for the British to provide funds to sweeten the deal". The cable goes on to note that the British high commission in Harare "scoffed at the very idea".

The references to Bredenkamp, a former Zimbabwean rugby captain, are intriguing. The multimillionaire, who has a home in Berkshire, has rejected claims that he is a Mugabe crony. Bredenkamp, who made his money in tobacco farming, was named in a 2002 UN report as a key arms trader who made millions of pounds from illegally exploiting natural resources in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Bredenkamp, who did not respond to Observer emails, has rejected the UN's claims and has pursued legal action to clear his name.

Rumours that Bredenkamp and his companies have worked with British intelligence have been rife in Zimbabwe for two decades.

Some have suggested that it would have been inconceivable for Bredenkamp to operate his business empire without a close relationship with MI6, but Bredenkamp has not commented on these claims and is likely to dismiss them.

The cable also reveals that the US was pressed to play the part of an "honest broker", organising a conference to address land allocation and amnesties in a post-Mugabe nation because of concerns that Britain was not suitable for the role.

According to a prominent banker in Zimbabwe, who acted as a go-between for the Zanu-PF, the broker would have to "underwrite the costs of whatever agreement emerged. The British government, he claimed, has 36 million pounds available for land reform in Zimbabwe, but they are probably too antagonistic to play an honest broker role. The Americans, though, probably would be acceptable."

The issue of providing settlements for senior officials in the Mugabe regime was addressed last year when the US and the UK were asked to pay into a trust fund that would ensure Zimbabwean military officials enjoy a comfortable retirement.

A separate memo, written in October last year, reveals that Elton Mangoma, the minister of economic development and member of Morgan Tsvangirai's inner circle, had asked the US to contribute to a "trust fund" to buy off the "securocrats".

The memo notes: "Mangoma said that a primary obstacle to political progress and reform was the service chiefs. Unlike many ZANU-PF insiders who had stolen and invested wisely, these individuals had not become wealthy. They feared economic pressures, as well as prosecution for their misdeeds, should political change result in their being forced from office. Therefore, they were resisting…progress that could ultimately result in fair elections. Mangoma asked for consideration of US contribution to a 'trust fund' that could be used to negotiate the service chiefs' retirement." He said he planned to approach the UK and Germany with the same request."

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

If true, I am not surprised.  Mugabe is an international pain in the tokus, so getting him off the scene is worth almost any price.  I would prefer a bloody, messy assassination, but that's because I am quite blood-thirsty when it comes to scum like him.  I would dearly like to see him curshed to death under a statue of Cecil Rhodes.  All bugs of this type should be squashed.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I have gone from neutral to a strong supporter of Wiki Leaks. I don't read their articles at the source but I read them on CNN and BBC.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Be suspicious of anything published by the news media.  Just changing a word can change meaning drastically.

[mightygoose 92]

in a totally related comment, it seems that the US press see wikileaks as a great revelation on just how great US diplomats are!

I kid you not friends!

no seriously!

look!

What We Learn From WikiLeaks

Media paint flattering picture of U.S. diplomacy

12/16/10

In U.S. elite media, the main revelation of the

WikiLeaks

diplomatic cables is that the U.S. government conducts its foreign policy in a largely admirable fashion.

Fareed Zakaria,

Time

(12/2/10):

The WikiLeaks documents, by contrast [to the Pentagon Papers], show Washington pursuing privately pretty much the policies it has articulated publicly. Whether on Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan or North Korea, the cables confirm what we know to be U.S. foreign policy. And often this foreign policy is concerned with broader regional security, not narrow American interests. Ambassadors are not caught pushing other countries in order to make deals secretly to strengthen the U.S., but rather to solve festering problems.

David Sanger,

New York Times

(12/5/10):

While WikiLeaks made the trove available with the intention of exposing United States duplicity, what struck many readers was that American diplomacy looked rather impressive. The day-by-day record showed diplomats trying their hardest behind closed doors to defuse some of the world's thorniest conflicts, but also assembling a Plan B.

David Brooks,

New York Times

(11/30/10):

Despite the imaginings of people like Assange, the conversation revealed in the cables is not devious and nefarious. The private conversation is similar to the public conversation, except maybe more admirable.

New York Times

editorial (11/30/10):

But what struck us, and reassured us, about the latest trove of classified documents released by WikiLeaks was the absence of any real skullduggery. After years of revelations about the Bush administration's abuses--including the use of torture and kidnappings--much of the Obama administration's diplomatic wheeling and dealing is appropriate and, at times, downright skillful.

Christopher Dickey and Andrew Bast,

Newsweek

(12/13/10):

One of the great ironies of the latest WikiLeaks dump, in fact, is that the industrial quantities of pilfered State Department documents actually show American diplomats doing their jobs the way diplomats should, and doing them very well indeed. When the cables detail corruption at the top of the Afghan government, the Saudi king's desire to be rid of the Iranian threat, the personality quirks of European leaders or the state of the Russian mafiacracy, the reporting is very much in line with what the press has already told the public. There's no big disconnect about the facts; no evidence--in the recent cables at least--that the United States government is trying to deceive the public or itself.

Bob Garfield,

NPR

's

On the Media

(12/3/10):

The stories so far have been revealing but unsurprising, it seems to me, and not especially indicting. It’s made me wonder whether WikiLeaks is a legitimate whistleblower in this case or just a looter. Has Julian Assange shed light here with the release of 253,000 cables or has he just smashed a very big store window?

Anne Applebaum,

Washington Post

(12/7/10):

By now, I think we have learned that Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has vast ambitions. Among them is the end of American government as we know it. On his website he describes the leaked U.S. diplomatic cables in dramatic and sinister terms, evoking the lost ideals of George Washington and claiming that they demonstrate a profound gap between the United States' "public persona and what it says behind closed doors." Alas, the cables don't live up to that promise. On the contrary--as others have noted--they show that U.S. diplomats pursue pretty much the same goals in private as they do in public, albeit using more caustic language.

These conclusions represent an extraordinarily narrow reading of the

WikiLeaks

cables, of which about 1,000 have been released (contrary to constant media claims that the website has already released 250,000 cables). Some of the more explosive revelations, unflattering to U.S. policymakers, have received less attention in U.S. corporate media. Among the revelations that, by any sensible reading, show U.S. diplomatic efforts of considerable concern:

--The U.S. attempted to prevent German authorities from acting on arrest warrants against 13 CIA officers who were instrumental in the abduction and subsequent torture of German citizen Khaled El-Masri (Scott Horton,

Harpers

.org, 11/29/10;

New York Times

, 12/9/10).

--The U.S. worked to obstruct Spanish government investigations into the killing of a Spanish journalist in Iraq by U.S. forces, the use of Spanish airfields for the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" program and torture of Spanish detainees at Guantánamo (

El Pais

, 12/2/10; Scott Horton,

Harpers

.org, 12/1/10).

--

WikiLeaks

coverage has often emphasized that Yemeni president Ali Abdullah Saleh reassured U.S. officials that he would claim U.S. military airstrikes in his country were the work of Yemeni forces. But as Justin Elliot pointed out (

Salon

, 12/7/10), the United States has long denied carrying out airstrikes in the country at all. The secret attacks have killed scores of civilians.

--According to the cables, U.S. Special Forces are actively conducting operations inside Pakistan, despite repeated government denials (Jeremy Scahill,

Nation

, 12/1/10).

--The U.S. ambassador to Honduras concluded that the 2009 removal of president Manuel Zelaya was indeed a coup, and that backers of this action provided no compelling evidence to support their legal claims (Robert Naiman,

Just Foreign Policy

, 11/29/10). Despite the conclusions reached in the cable, official U.S. statements remained ambiguous. If the Obama administration had reached the same conclusion in public as was made in the cable, the outcome of the coup might have been very different.

--The U.S. secured a secret agreement with Britain to allow U.S. bases on British soil to stockpile cluster bombs, circumventing a treaty signed by Britain. The U.S. also discouraged other countries from working to ban the weapons, which have devastating effects on civilian populations (

Guardian

, 12/1/10).

--The U.S. engaged in an array of tactics to undermine opposition to U.S. climate change policies, including bribes and surveillance (

Guardian

, 12/3/10).

--U.S. diplomats in Georgia were uncritical of that country's claims about Russian interference, a dispute that eventually led to a brief war (

New York Times

, 12/2/10). U.S. officials "appeared to set aside skepticism and embrace Georgian versions of important and disputed events....as the region slipped toward war, sources outside the Georgian government were played down or not included in important cables. Official Georgian versions of events were passed to Washington largely unchallenged."

--U.S. officials put forward sketchy intelligence as proof that Iran had secured 19 long-range missiles from North Korea--claims that were treated as fact by the

New York Times

, which subsequently walked back its credulous reporting (FAIR Activism Update, 12/3/10)

All of these examples--an incomplete tally of the important revelations in the cables thus far--would suggest that there is plenty in the

WikiLeaks

releases that does not reflect particularly well on U.S. policymakers.

In its "Note to Readers" explaining their decision to publish stories about the cables, the

New York Times

(11/29/10) told readers that "the documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy."

The paper went on:

But the more important reason to publish these articles is that the cables tell the unvarnished story of how the government makes its biggest decisions, the decisions that cost the country most heavily in lives and money. They shed light on the motivations--and, in some cases, duplicity--of allies on the receiving end of American courtship and foreign aid. They illuminate the diplomacy surrounding two current wars and several countries, like Pakistan and Yemen, where American military involvement is growing.

The "duplicity" of other countries can be illuminated by the cables, while the U.S.'s secret wars are evidence of "diplomacy." That principle would seem to be guiding the way many U.S. outlets are interpreting the

WikiLeaks

revelations.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

War of any kind, secret or open, is a gross failure of diplomacy and is the last resort of the incompetent.  I think the most titilating thing for most people in the WikiLeaks stuff is the rather frank language in some of the missives.  If I were a diplomat, I would never send out such junk unless it was encoded with the latest one--time code page and written in ink that evaporated ten minutes after it was exposed to air.

The importance of this stuff is indicated by the fact that it was around to steal.  All the stirring around is nothing more than an Alice Through the Looking Glass caucus race.  "Will you, won't you, won't you, will you join the dance?"  Much egg on many faces being wiped off on one 22-year old idealist who should never have been allowed near this stuff.

And people wonder why Hobbit's age of majority is 33.  JRRT was trying to tell us something.

[EyeofMobius 27]

I heard on the radio today that wikileaks released a document about funding being diverted from anti-marijauna operations towards security for the 2010 Vancouver Olympics.

Well the money had to come from somewhere and I feel this puts Wikileaks into a light of not trying to stir the pot for everything government but to actually bring about transparency of action.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: EyeofMobius

I heard on the radio today that wikileaks released a document about funding being diverted from anti-marijauna operations towards security for the 2010 Vancouver Olympics.

Well the money had to come from somewhere and I feel this puts Wikileaks into a light of not trying to stir the pot for everything government but to actually bring about transparency of action.quote>

There is never enough money for police operations of any kind.  They are always robbing Peter to pay Paul simply because priorities change.  A long term operation is likely to be put on the back burner in the face of a current urgency and who needs to know?  If every move by every public body were fully documented in a gazette of some kind, no one would read it.

The police are the most overworked, underappreciated operation in government and they are an easy target because they generally don't bite back.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Ocram's Razr 964]

The Seattle Police Department is very bad. It is poorly funded AND the worst offenders get off easily while officers following the law were persecuted by the media.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

At least one of the cops who was caught on camera in the G20 dust up has been charged with assault and use of excessive force by the SIU.  They finally got someone whith a good clip to come forward and one of the other cops ratted this guy out.

One of the biggest problems in policing is policing your own organization.  For every cop that doesn't keep his oath, there are at least a hundred who do.  Some police forces occasionally have an attack of rot.  It is up to the civilian overseers to look out for this and try to make sure it doesn't happen, but if it does, they have to have the guts to tackle it.  Since many of these committee members are politically appointed, it is often a whitewash job instead.  Again, we have the age-old problem of "Who will watch the watchers?".  (Cui ipsos custodes custodiet?).

[chicah 20]

Which is why we need WikiLeaks. My desktop right now is an image of the Chinese wall, with this text: "Big Brother is watching. So are we." This is the amazing thing about WikiLeaks.

We have a right to know what the politicians we have elected are up to. We have a right to get a wider knowledge of what goes on behind the scenes in this world, how our democracies are demockracies, pretend-democracies where the only thing we can really choose is who will trick us for the next four years.

As a journalism student, I see WikiLeaks as essential. The biggest importance of WikiLeaks is not what it publishes - though some of it IS important - but rather, the reactions it meets. It shows how scared the politicians are of people finding out, it shows how the old saying is proven true once again: "The pen is mightier than the sword." I think there is very little the public should NOT have a right to know. Especially if it involves OUR elected officials, and OUR tax money. When we're supposed to BE the state, to BE the society; we have every right to know what the people in charge are doing. That is nothing less than one should expect.

My favourite quote from the ever amazing movie "V For Vendetta": The people should not be afraid of their government. The government should be afraid of their people.

In many ways, it's what it's all about. They are afraid of us seeing through them, seeing their lies, and calling them on it. They don't care for the public safety with this, as they claim they do, they care for their own asses and careers.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: chicah

In many ways, it's what it's all about. They are afraid of us seeing through them, seeing their lies, and calling them on it. They don't care for the public safety with this, as they claim they do, they care for their own asses and careers.quote>

This is why I have never understood people who trust their government.  These people didn't run for office because they care about you; they ran for office because they wanted the power.

On a related note, I would hope that people wouldn't need something like WikiLeaks to realize that this kind of activity is ongoing, but I guess that's asking for too much.

[morriswalters 16]

A lot of things posted here seem to have a bit of bias built into them.  The Salon article at the top of the page has been disputed by the Pentagon.  See this is the Washington Post.  I realize the The Post is Fascist outlet for our government, none the less at least it appears to offer a small rebuttal.  Manning has had visitors.  He also has private counsel.  He could challenge the nature of his confinement in civilian courts.  You should not be surprised that Manning is taking low dose antidepressants.  Look at his situation.  If convicted of  what he accused he could spend 50 years in prison.  Life as he knew it is over.  No wife, no family, no future. Oddly enough Manning was evidently being separated for not adjusting to Military life.  I suspect but cannot prove that the Military is terrified of Manning showing up dead in his cell.  There is no upside there.  The New York Times clued Manning to nature of the video he "allegedly" leaked.  He was prying in a classified network, the video by Mannings own words was left unencrypted in a JAG officers files.  Neither the video or the cables would have been part of Mannings job, he saw them because he seemed to view himself as a hacker.  If you think that he had no other options look at the history of the My Lai massecar, which was exposed without breaking the oaths of the soldiers who eventually brought it to light.

If you believe that he read all the cables and discovered some conspiracy, then do the numbers, 2 minutes a cable to read, 347 days, reading 24 hours a day seven days a week.  Perhaps Nonny Moose can read faster.  While I don't have a problem believing the Military can get out there sometimes, it is a long stretch for me to believe that Manning will end up disappeared.  In the meantime the evil US, and it's corrupt political elite, it's slanted newspapers, and brain washed Military, will toodle on. 

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

So when is WikiLeaks going to release Obama's birth certificate?

[morriswalters 16]

For those who are interested here are the exact terms of Mannings confinement as described by his attorney.  Follow the links on the page to get some more data on his legal options.

Barbarossa

No I am referring in a sarcastic manner to those would seem to believe that the US is the borg, evil to the core and corrupted by power.  While my country has committed many sins, I love it and will defend it.  Bradley Manning is not a traitor, he is worse, he is a fool.  When I look at a man I try to understand why he does what he does.  From reading extensively about the Wikileaks affair and Mannings part in it, it's not hard to come to the conclusion that Manning is a braggart.  He was caught, not through any effort on the Militaries part, but because he committed a crime and bragged about it to a convicted felon, who being the man of honor he was, ratted him out.  Deep Throat managed to never be uncovered until he decided to out himself, mainly because he could keep his mouth shut.  The Wikileak cables are in and of themselves of no importance.  Information overload will kick in and people will stop listening.  It will slide off the front page and slowly become a small footnote buried deep in the papers who are printing them.  In todays environment people have attention spans that are measured in terms of minutes.

I'll throw some more numbers at you,  if Wikileaks released a thousand cables a week, it would be close to five years before they finish, that's assuming that they don't have anything else to do.  And now they have a rather large cache of documents on a hard drive that they are getting ready to release in 2011.  Assuming their goal of encouraging leaks comes true, it's easy to see the long term outcome.  The data will come faster than they can process it, they'll get buried and people who want information will have trouble finding it.  If you go to Wikileaks.ch a mirror, try finding something, if you don't know what you looking for, good luck.  The best source for reading the cables and articles on the cables is the Guardian Web site in Britain.   They have a map interface with cables by area.  I fell sorry for Manning, but he bought it and now he has to pay, and it's his own fault.  I regret even more how this will probably give the right more fuel for their fear machine.

[Sgt Pepper 864]

Originally posted by: Duke87

So when is WikiLeaks going to release Obama's birth certificate? quote>

EDIT: To be a tad more meaningful post....Wiki Leaks really hasn't released that yet?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

morriswalters has hit the nail on the head.  Manning is a fool.  Wet behind the ears, and the U.S. security mavens got what they so richly deserved for not knowing this.

Meanwhile, the young man has doomed himself to life in an oubliette, which will probably be short.  In the good old days, an oubliette was a place you put a prisoner to die of privation with no light, no food, no water, ....

[mightygoose 92]

the guardian coverage seems to have laxed a little over christmas, as have the releases. i am sure come the new year we will have a fresh wave of reports.

[chicah 20]

I think Manning did the right thing. He found something he thought people should know about, and released it. It takes a brave man to stand up for your principles like that. Now, you might argue he just did it for the attention, and if that's true, then he IS a fool. If he did it because he figured tricking people into believing we're all the good guys in this war was a bad way to go about things, then he's brave. I mean, look at him now, look at the situation he's in. Very few people would sacrifice their lives as they know it for something like this.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

No, he did not do the right thing.  He unknowingly took his life in his hands and threw it away.  Idealistic young persons should be kept away from stuff like that.  Nobody under thirty shoud ever be allowed near sensitive material of that magnitude, because they don't have the life experience to evaluate the consequences of such actions.  Second year university students are not called sophmores for nothing.  Jumping into a fire is an act of bravery, not of courage.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa