HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » WikiLeaks hearing focuses...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 01:16 PM

WikiLeaks hearing focuses on brig commander

Source: Associated Press via Philadelphia Inquirer

DAVID DISHNEAU
Posted: Thursday, December 6, 2012, 8:19 AM

... The brig commander, Chief Warrant Officer 4 James Averhart, was set to testify Thursday. The Marine Corps' chief of corrections testified Wednesday that Averhart wrongly kept Manning on suicide watch for at least seven days of his nine months' confinement.

Read more: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20121206_ap_wikileakshearingfocusesonbrigcommander.html

23 replies, 2693 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 23 replies Author Time Post
Reply WikiLeaks hearing focuses on brig commander (Original post)
struggle4progress Dec 2012 OP
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #1
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #2
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #3
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #6
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #4
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #5
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #8
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #10
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #12
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #13
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #15
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #18
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #7
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #9
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #11
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #14
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #17
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #20
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #16
msongs Dec 2012 #19
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #21
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #22
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #23

Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 01:36 PM

1. It's not just that Manning was kept on suicide watch. Or that he as kept on suicide watch for

 

for at least seven days.

He was reportedly held incommunicado for more than 900 days, and held incommunicado for an extended period of time without a trial.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021936364

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 01:46 PM

2. Really? Manning was held "incommunicado"? Really?

Then how did House ever visit him, repeatedly? How did his father ever visit him, repeatedly? How did Manning ever meet with his lawyer, repeatedly?

Some of Manning's supporters have piled up towering mountains of bullshizz

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:03 PM

3. Did someone from the House of Representatives visit him?

 

"USA: Congressman Dennis Kucinich: 'Since my initial request to visit Private First Class (Pfc.) Bradley Manning on February 4, 2011, the Department of Defense (DoD) has consistently sought to frustrate any attempts to communicate with Pfc. Manning regarding his well-being. I was initially told that I would need Pfc. Manning’s approval in order to meet with him. When Pfc. Manning indicated his desire to meet with me, I was belatedly informed that the meeting could only take place if it was recorded because of a Monitoring Order imposed by the military’s Special Courts-Martial Convening Authority on September 16, 2010, which was convened for the case'

"The Obama administration has blocked the UN special rapporteur on torture from visiting Bradley Manning, who is being held in solitary confinement at a military prison"

http://dearkitty1.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/whistleblower-bradley-manning-held-incommunicado/


There are many websites which report that Manning has been held incommunicado. Any many websites which report that he has been held incommunicado for a period in excess of 900 days. But I assume that with your interest in the Manning case, you already know that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:07 PM

6. in·com·mu·ni·ca·do adv. & adj. Without the means or right of communicating with others

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:03 PM

4. Paul Craig Roberts is an Alex Jones favorite, isn't he?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:06 PM

5. Under the even-broken-clocks-can-be-right-twice-a-day theory, I look for facts and don't make

 

determinations according to ad hominem attacks.

You do what you want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:21 PM

8. Your claim, that Manning has been held incommunicado, traces

back to Paul Craig Roberts, who regularly peddles his crackpot ideas through folk like Alex Jones

It is common to impose restrictions on who is allowed to visit a prisoner. The mere existence of such restrictions does not signify that a prisoner is being held incommunicado. Being held incommunicado means being held without any possibility of communication except with one's captors

But the claim, that Manning has been held incommunicado, is verifiably false

For a while, David House regularly visited Bradley Manning. Bradley Manning's father Brian Manning also repeatedly visited Bradley Manning. Bradley Manning has regularly met with his lawyer, David Coombs



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:35 PM

10. "traces back to Paul Craig Roberts"? Interesting, if true.

 

Actually, I've never heard of Paul Craig Roberts before. But then there are many names which I've never heard before.

If you have a list of the verboten statements that should not be made, and the identities of awful people who you believe made them at an earlier time, can you please share that?

Reportedly, this guy liked and said good things about German Shepards. For your benefit, I'll try to avoid doing that.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:44 PM

12. In reply #1, you wrote:

He was reportedly held incommunicado for more than 900 days, and held incommunicado for an extended period of time without a trial.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021936364


Following that DU link, we find your DU OP from today:

AnotherMcIntosh (4,577 posts)
Thu Dec 6, 2012, 11:10 AM
Is the Constitution "just a piece of paper"?

... How does the reported military holding of Manning incommunicado for more than 900 days, without a trial, compare with the number of days that it has held any other prisoner incommunicado? And under the conditions which Manning was held?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33224.htm ...


Following the Information Clearing House link in your OP, we land at

Bradley Manning: A Window Into The American Soul
By Paul Craig Roberts
December 05, 2012 "Information Clearing House"
... It has cost Manning 900 days held incommunicado illegally by the US government ...


But Paul Craig Roberts says nothing to support his false "900 days held incommunicado" claim

Yet, it is amazing! Upthread you pointed me to a DU OP you made earlier today, in which you link to a Paul Craig Roberts column written yesterday to support your "held incommunicado for more than 900 days" claim -- and then you have the gall to say I've never heard of Paul Craig Roberts before

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:47 PM

13. I have never heard of him before. Today is the first day.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #13)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:03 PM

15. pbbfth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #15)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:15 PM

18. Yea, well there's a different between

 

"I've never heard of him" and "I've never heard of him before".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:12 PM

7. Incidentally, the hundreds of law professors who signed the letter, while agreeing that

 

the conditions under which Manning has been held violates the Constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments, are primarily if not exclusively liberals and progressives. Have you ever heard of Laurence Tribe?

295 people signed that letter. If Paul Craig Roberts' name is on it, I didn't see it. If Alex Jones' name is on it, I didn't see that either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:33 PM

9. I remember discussing that letter at DU when it first appeared

Of course, no one can properly object when people band together to ensure that others are treated fairly and humanely -- but the credibility of the effort depends on the accuracy of its claims

The letter in question contained some inaccurate claims, as indicated by a disclaimer in a later version:

UPDATE:Our initial draft relied on news reports in the major news outlets. Comments we received since then lead us to think that two facts may be overstated in the original draft:
1. The instance of forced nudity overnight and in morning parade apparently occurred once. The continuing regime apparently commands removal of Pvt. Manning's clothes and his wearing a "smock" at night.
2. The shackling apparently occurs when Private Manning is moved from his cell to the exercise room, but not while walking during the one hour of exercise.

http://web.archive.org/web/20110409205745/http://balkin.blogspot.com/2011/03/statement-on-private-mannings-detention.html

This (untrue) claim, that Manning was stripped naked every night and forced to stand naked for morning parade every morning, was widely circulated in the spring of 2011 and then regularly re-appeared long after after it had been debunked -- sadly, yet another example of the towering mountains of bullshizz piled up by some of Manning's supporters




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:43 PM

11. Actually, the link that I provided before you did leads to the page with the update:

 

"UPDATE:Our initial draft relied on news reports in the major news outlets. Comments we received since then lead us to think that two facts may be overstated in the original draft:
1. The instance of forced nudity overnight and in morning parade apparently occurred once. The continuing regime apparently commands removal of Pvt. Manning's clothes and his wearing a "smock" at night.
2. The shackling apparently occurs when Private Manning is moved from his cell to the exercise room, but not while walking during the one hour of exercise."


Are you claiming that you discovered something? That you've discovered something new? That someone such as myself have been relying upon the initial report rather than the updated information?

That updated information did not originate with you. It was on the page that is found with the link that I provided and can be found when clicking on the link at #1, above, http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021936364

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #11)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:00 PM

14. Here's the original 16 March 2011 discussion of the Ackerman petition

kpete
Mar-16-11 10:30 AM
Original message
A Statement on Private Manning's Detention: "There Is No Excuse"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=660388&mesg_id=660388

In that 16 March 2011 thread, I objected on 16 March 2011, as follows:

struggle4progress
Wed Mar-16-11 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
5. The statement seems to be factually inaccurate in some details -- for example:
... into the undefined future, he is forced to sleep naked ...
From yesterday's LA Times editorial:
... Manning now sleeps in "tear-proof garments" ...
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-ma...
Factual sloppiness destroys credibility. A coupla lawyers at Harvard and Yale oughta know that
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=660388&mesg_id=661207

I was, of course, pleased when somewhat later Ackerman corrected several of his inaccurate claims

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #14)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:13 PM

17. Was their update made on "Tuesday, March 15, 2011"?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #17)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:20 PM

20. Nope. It was made somewhat after the DU thread of 16 March 2011 but

before midnight on 18 March 2011. It would have been thoughtful of Ackerman to timestamp his update, but he didn't

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:12 PM

16. Quantico brig commander: confinement regs 'vague'

By DAVID DISHNEAU
Associated Press

FORT MEADE, Md. — ...

Chief Warrant Officer 4 James Averhart testified on the eighth day of a pretrial hearing for Pfc. Bradley Manning at Fort Meade, near Baltimore. Averhart and defense attorney David Coombs sparred over the meaning of the word "shall" in this military corrections regulation: "When prisoners are no longer considered to be suicide risks by a medical officer, they shall be returned to appropriate quarters."

Averhart said the regulation meant the prisoner should be removed from suicide watch "at a particular time to be determined."

"'Shall' does not mean, the way I perceive it, 'immediately', or 'right now'," he said ...

"Although the order is vague - it does say 'shall,' it does not say 'right now' or 'immediately,' sir - it still gives me the opportunity to evaluate," he said ...

http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/12/06/4464686/wikileaks-hearing-focuses-on-brig.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:20 PM

19. meanwhile our politicians murder civilians women & kids with impunity using drones nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #19)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:31 PM

21. Shh. We're not supposed to notice.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 07:12 PM

22. Marine Officer Concedes Rules Broken In Bradley Manning's Confinement

By: Matt Bush // December 6, 2012

... Averhart acknowledged that military regulations required him to remove Manning from highly restrictive suicide watch upon a psychiatrist's recommendation. He says he didn't do so immediately, on two occasions, because of Manning's history of anxiety, depression and suicidal gestures.

The Marine Corps' chief of corrections testified Wednesday that Averhart wrongly kept Manning on suicide watch for at least seven days of his nine months' confinement.

http://wamu.org/news/12/12/06/marine_officer_concedes_rules_broken_in_bradley_mannings_confinement

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:38 AM

23. Marine brig officials grilled about Bradley Manning's jailing

By David Dishneau, The Associated Press
7:36 p.m. EST, December 6, 2012

... On the eighth day of the pretrial hearing at Fort Meade, Chief Warrant Officer 4 James Averhart was called to the stand by prosecutors — their 10th witness in the last five days. Defense attorney David Coombs spent about five hours on a cross-examination aimed at undercutting the government's position that brig commanders believed Manning's treatment was justified to prevent self-injury.

A day earlier, the Marine Corps' chief of corrections testified that Averhart wrongly kept Manning on suicide watch for at least seven days of his nine months' confinement. A former brig supervisor denied making light of Manning's homosexuality when he referred to the soldier's underwear as "panties" in a staff memo sparked by Manning standing naked at attention one morning. Manning claims he was ordered to do so ...

Manning was held at Quantico in maximum custody from July 2010 to April 2011, when he was moved to medium-security confinement at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. While at Quantico, Manning was on either suicide watch or injury-prevention status, both involving additional security measures. Averhart and his successor rejected psychiatrists' nearly weekly recommendations to ease the restrictions that kept Manning in an 8-by-6-foot cell at least 23 hours a day.

Coombs and Averhart sparred Thursday over the meaning of the word "shall" in this military corrections regulation: "When prisoners are no longer considered to be suicide risks by a medical officer, they shall be returned to appropriate quarters" ...

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/breaking/bs-md-manning-wikileaks-20121206,0,2236356.story


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread