Wikileaks military whistleblower in solitary confinement: inhumane treatment

[Sulkdodds]

Didn't you read the bit in the chatlogs where he tried to report something up the chain of command and was completely disheartened by the reaction? I think we can assume this happened more than once. Leaking to the public (a completely different act from leaking to a foreign intelligence agency) could just as easily be the actions of a man who has lost hope in due process as it could be those of one motivated by petty revenge.

 

[Kaptain H]

I don't know how many people actually witnessed the video before it was released, so I cannot say how many people withheld information. But nonetheless, with the military hitting so hard on reporting LOAC violations, Private Bradley, should have been able to report what he saw through his chain of command. But he didn't. Which only leads to more reason that he leaked classified material to "get back" at the Army and not to report LOAC violations. Especially considering he was bragging about it.

Really, the two briefings that I have heard time and time again are:

1. Reporting LOAC violations and specifics of the LOAC
2. Sexual Harassment Briefings

And it's not complicated to report something. Yeah, sometimes it does require balls as does reporting anything inside or out of the military, but wouldn't stealing classified documents and leaking them to outside sources also require balls? Again, it only points to his true intentions more and more.

This is consistent with my training (ten years ago) and experience as well. And it's partially what's driving my suspicion that Manning leaked the documents more to get back at the army than out of any great service to humanity.

 

[No Limit]

No offense but your training is bullshit, you keep repeating that the system is in place to report illegal activity but you refuse to answer the actual question. If such a system exists how come it almost never actually works?

If the system is set up in a way you guys keep saying it is set up it wouldn't take Manning to leak the video of our military shooting up unarmed civilians without provocation. It wouldn't take a reporter to force an investigation into the Haditha killings. And cover ups such as the Pat Tillman thing would not happen. But all these things do happen, they happen all the time. And when they do they are hidden or covered up.

You keep also insisting that he was motivated by the fact that he hated the military. Yet you have no evidance for this. Infact if you look at the chat logs from him before he leaked the material it is clear he didn't hate the military, instead he hated our foreign policy. And frankly he had a right to especially after all the shit that he saw over there.

 

[Kaptain H]

It's not a system, more like a loophole to the system. And I'm sure it works fine, when handled appropriately. I'm not of the belief that what Manning leaked should have been made public, so it's hard to argue this.

You keep also insisting that he was motivated by the fact that he hated the military. Yet you have no evidance for this. Infact if you look at the chat logs from him before he leaked the material it is clear he didn't hate the military, instead he hated our foreign policy. And frankly he had a right to especially after all the shit that he saw over there.

Simply talking to a chaplain could have set him on the right path to reporting what he found objectively criminal. Or a therapist.

 

[No Limit]

Can you give me just one example of a low rank solider reporting crimes and something actually being done about those crimes? I gave you a handful of examples where crimes did take place but were never reported by anyone. So you must have atleast one example where the chain of command actually did its job.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Simply talking to a chaplain could have set him on the right path to reporting what he found objectively criminal. Or a therapist.

Perhaps, but do we know that he didn't? Do we know how many times he tried to take his concerns up the chain of command? Do we know anything at all about his behaviour except what we can see in partial, limited, cagey and potentiall distorted chatlogs? Or is the whole thing shrouded in (oh dear) a cloak of secrecy? There are a lot of assumptions being bandied about regarding what is as far as I can see a very opaque set of events.

Check out this story, which indicates that the current protections for those who speak out - even within their organisational structures - are very inadequate. See especially the end of the article, where an NSA analyst was indicted for speaking to journalists only after he'd exhausted every possible 'legitimate' option. An organisation where it's actually safe to report mistakes to the people who perpetrate them would be a very rare thing.

 

[Kaptain H]

Can you give me just one example of a low rank solider reporting crimes and something actually being done about those crimes? I gave you a handful of examples where crimes did take place but were never reported by anyone. So you must have atleast one example where the chain of command actually did its job.

I knew an E-3 in my company who sought advice from another cadre leader about ongoing sexual harassment she experienced by her platoon sergeant. I know that she was set up with a meeting with the commander and first sergeant, complaints were filed. Not long after that he was removed from leadership, assigned to a different company, and demoted to specialist. His marital status had something to do with the severity of his punishment, I believe.

Perhaps, but do we know that he didn't? Do we know how many times he tried to take his concerns up the chain of command? Do we know anything at all about his behaviour except what we can see in partial, limited, cagey and potentiall distorted chatlogs? Or is the whole thing shrouded in (oh dear) a cloak of secrecy? There are a lot of assumptions being bandied about regarding what is as far as I can see a very opaque set of events.

Check out this story, which indicates that the current protections for those who speak out - even within their organisational structures - are very inadequate. See especially the end of the article, where an NSA analyst was indicted for speaking to journalists only after he'd exhausted every possible 'legitimate' option. An organisation where it's actually safe to report mistakes to the people who perpetrate them would be a very rare thing.

Of course they're assumptions, that should be clear. Regarding the article, I hope that someday a more structured formal system for handling these cases is implemented. Nevertheless, posting hundreds of thousands of classified documents on Wikileaks is never acceptable.

 

[No Limit]

I knew an E-3 in my company who sought advice from another cadre leader about ongoing sexual harassment she experienced by her platoon sergeant. I know that she was set up with a meeting with the commander and first sergeant, complaints were filed. Not long after that he was removed from leadership, assigned to a different company, and demoted to specialist. His marital status had something to do with the severity of his punishment, I believe.

I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear that I would like to see actually verifiable examples of the military doing something illegal. Sexual harrasment is against policy, but it is not illegal.

 

[Kaptain H]

I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear that I would like to see actually verifiable examples of the military doing something illegal. Sexual harrasment is against policy, but it is not illegal.

Sorry, I wasn't bearing in mind the distinction between out of UCMJ regulations and civilian law. I have no off-hand examples of illegal activities prosecuted as a result of a report involving the break of the chain of command.

 

[No Limit]

So obviously something must be screwed up and your training wasn't actually honest. Because we had things like Pat Tillman. We had things like the Haditha killings. All illegal and all covered up. Yet plenty of people were in position to report these absues, and somehow they either weren't reported or if they were they were ignored.

 

[Sulkdodds]

The more relevant problem with Kaptain H's example is that the victim is someone inside the circle of the military organisation, and that the incident happened in a peaceful setting. It's not difficult to believe that US forces could operate a reasonable report-and-investigate system within those confines. The real problem is whether there's any recourse for those who see crimes committed against non-military non-citizens in chaotic warzones.

 

[CptStern]

it's not the US but this is a good example of what happens when someone on the inside reports government wrong doing

Mordechai Vanunu (Hebrew: ????? ???????; born 14 October 1954) is a former Israeli nuclear technician who, citing his opposition to weapons of mass destruction, revealed details of Israel's nuclear weapons program to the British press in 1986.[1][2] He was subsequently lured to Italy by a female Mossad agent, where he was drugged and kidnapped by Israeli intelligence agents.[1] He was transported to Israel and ultimately convicted in a trial that was held behind closed doors.[1] He is regarded by peace activists as a hero for taking a stand against weapons proliferation.

Vanunu spent 18 years in prison, including more than 11 years in solitary confinement. Released from prison in 2004, he became subject to a broad array of restrictions on his speech and movement. Since then he has been arrested several times for violations of those restrictions, including giving various interviews to foreign journalists and attempting to leave Israel. He says that he suffered "cruel and barbaric treatment" at the hands of Israeli authorities while imprisoned

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu

 

[unozero]

No agenda here just keep moving people,nothing to see.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/assange-signs-15m-book-deal-20101226-197uj.html

 

[Sulkdodds]

Does that...actually indicate that he's partial to one country over another? Or does it indicate that, like the rest of us, he needs money?

Anyway, of course Assange has an agenda. It's absurd to deny it. He wants more freedom of information, more openness, and therefore greater accountability. He is clear about this. He has written political essays. The question is whether this really provides any kind of evidence for the otherwise baseless claim (made in another thread, I think) that he selects and censors his own publications.

 

[unozero]

No he wants to sabotage American foreign politics and "end two wars." He's naive prick just like 2 or 3 people on this board who want to create a Utopia where the Government has no secrets....like I said NAIVE.


Also

http://www.slate.com/id/2276857/

Turn Yourself In, Julian Assange
The WikiLeaks founder is an unscrupulous megalomaniac with a political agenda.
By Christopher Hitchens

good read.

 

[Sparta]

No he wants to sabotage American foreign politics and "end two wars." He's naive prick just like 2 or 3 people on this board who want to create a Utopia where the Government has no secrets....like I said NAIVE.

He's a guy that, when he was in his mid twenties or around the same age as Bradley Manning, helped create the Rubberhose encryption system. A system that was designed to protect human rights activists from revealing encryption keys through authorities torturing them. That's not the actions of a naive person. That's pretty level-headed.

Also, Hitch (who's usually pretty damn good) doesn't help his argument at all by linking to an article by John F Burns, the guy who's chiefly responsible for permanently damaging the journalistic reputation of The New York Times and The Times for perpetuating those newspapers unquestioning support of the Iraq War. Burns is also a guy who has a history of writing incredibly flattering articles about anyone in the US military. Just look at his incandescent article written about McChrystal shortly after he was forced to resign, which doesn't even mention McChrystal being the main instigator of the Pat Tillman cover-up, nor does it mention anything about his role in overseeing torture at Camp NAMA in Iraq, a place which has the motto of NO BLOOD, NO FOUL.

It's no surprise Julian Assange would be pissed about an article written by a highly respected newspaper's senior journalist that describes someone who barely knows him as saying Assange is literally insane. That's the kind of quality you can expect John F Burns to come up with when it comes to writing about anything that runs contrary to his worldview.

 

[Kadayi]

Regardless of the crime, I don't think there is any justification for submitting a detainee to extended periods of solitary confinement such as this. There exists something inherently ugly & sadistic about this kind of behaviour.

 

[Katamariguy]

Me: If you're going to punish him, maybe actually convicting him would be good idea.