Not on trial yet: those who knew of Manning's unstable history Paul McGeough January 16, 2012 A formal recommendation that Bradley Manning face a court martial has sharpened demands that others also be held accountable for Apart from a skittish refusal by two junior officers to give evidence at Private Manning's recently concluded pretrial hearing on the grounds that they might incriminate themselves, the Pentagon's investigation appears almost entirely centred on what the 24-year-old Manning might have done, and much less on the failings of a sophisticated, global intelligence system that allowed a fractured, highly unstable young man access to the US government's most secret dossiers. ''The government has told you a lot about how things happened,'' Private Manning's lawyer David Coombs said in Private Manning's pretrial hearing. ''We're trying to tell you why things happened - that's just as important.'' ''It's a very good question,'' David Velloney, an expert in military law at Regent University's School of Law in Virginia, told the Herald. ''Why did the chain of command and others who knew of his emotional weakness let him continue to serve as an intelligence analyst?'' Some of what caused misery in Private Manning's life - his broken family and chronic loneliness, his homosexuality and gender uncertainty - has been reported since his arrest at the isolated FOB (Forward Operating Base) Hammer, near More sensational then, was the revelation at his pre-trial hearing at the As a schoolboy in the Within a month of signing up with the US Army in October 2007, he was deemed a ''liability'' by superiors and assigned to a ''discharge unit'' - one step short of being thrown out. Before deploying to He was assessed psychiatrically several times but he was allowed to remain in the service, apparently because of his computer skills. ''That mess of a child,'' was how an army officer involved in the case described Manning to The Guardian, before adding: ''No one has mentioned the army's failure here.'' Shortly after arriving at FOB Hammer, the bolt was removed from Private Manning's weapon on the grounds that he was a risk to himself and to others. His superiors complained of his ''dissociative behaviour'' - body in one place, mind in another - while he sought online counselling on a gender transition. While being counselled in Private Manning had emailed one of his superiors, complaining of his ''gender identity disorder'' - and attaching a photograph of himself dressed as a woman. But the recipient did not act on the email until after Private Manning's arrest. Similarly, explicit warnings that his uncontrolled outbursts and ''elevated levels of paranoia'' warranted the withdrawal of his security clearance were ignored. Private Manning was so insecure that when picked on by army colleagues he would wet his pants and in the weeks before his arrest he stabbed a chair with a knife and later was found hiding in a storeroom, in the foetal position. Only then was he booked and informed that he was to be discharged - on the grounds that he had an ''adjustment disorder''. How could security at FOB Hammer be so lax that Manning and his colleagues could leave secret military passwords near their computers, in what was described as a ''security free-for-all''? How was it that his months of rummaging through the global archives, and his copying of a quarter of a million documents that had nothing to do with his work in Arguing that ''the whole need to know'' principle had been compromised by demands for greater intelligence sharing between US agencies following the September 11 attacks on the US, the former CIA analyst Raymond McGovern likened the Manning case to that of Abu Ghraib, in which only junior service members were held to account for the torture of Iraqi prisoners. ''In today's army people are told they can do things - if they get caught, the officers will be defended; if they are from the bottom of the barrel they get told they are rotten apples,'' he said. Ann Wright, a former army colonel and a member of the foreign service, sees the Manning case as further proof of ''the whole system breaking down''. ''As a senior foreign service officer and acting or deputy ambassador in four different posts, I never had access to the unpardonable amount of data that that kid had in his wooden shack in nowhere in After a week-long pre-trial hearing, the army investigating officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Paul Almanza, late last week recommended Private Manning face a court martial on all 23 charges. http://www.smh.com.au/world/not-on-trial-yet-those-who-knew-of-mannings-unstable-history-20120115-1q1ct.html#ixzz1jY0spMOa Army brass knew WikiLeaks accused had serious issues Paul McGeough January 16, 2012 Bradley Manning's emotional instability was well-known to the US Army. A court martial recommendation for the A FORMAL recommendation that Bradley Manning face a court martial has sharpened demands that others also be held accountable for a mountain of classified diplomatic cables being dumped to WikiLeaks almost two years ago. Apart from a refusal by two junior officers to give evidence at Manning's recent pretrial hearing on the grounds they might incriminate themselves, the Pentagon's investigation appears almost entirely centred on what Manning, 24, might have done. Much less attention was given to the failings of a sophisticated, global intelligence system that allowed an unstable young man access to the ''The government has told you a lot about how things happened,'' Manning's lawyer David Coombs said in his pretrial hearing. ''We're trying to tell you why things happened - that's just as important.'' Advertisement: Story continues below David Velloney, an expert in military law at Some of what caused misery in Manning's life - his broken family, chronic loneliness, his homosexuality and gender-uncertainty - has been reported since his arrest at the isolated Forward Operating Base Hammer, near Baghdad, in May 2010. More sensational was the revelation at his pretrial hearing at the As a schoolboy in the Within a month of signing up with the US Army in October 2007, he was deemed a ''liability'' by superiors and assigned to a ''discharge unit'' - one step short of being thrown out. Before deploying to He was psychiatrically assessed several times but was allowed to remain in the service, apparently because of his computer skills. ''That mess of a child,'' was how an army officer involved in the case described Manning to The Guardian, before adding: ''No one has mentioned the army's failure here.'' Shortly after arriving at FOB Hammer, the bolt was removed from Manning's weapon on the grounds that he was a risk to himself and others. His superiors complained of his ''dissociative behaviour'' - body in one place, mind in another - while he sought online counselling on a gender transition. While being counselled in Manning had emailed a superior, complaining of his ''gender identity disorder'' - attaching a photograph of himself dressed as a woman. But the recipient did not act on the email until after Manning's arrest. Warnings that his outbursts and ''elevated levels of paranoia'' warranted the withdrawal of his security clearance were ignored. Manning was so insecure that when picked on by army colleagues he would wet his pants, and in the weeks before his arrest he stabbed a chair with a knife and later was found hiding in a storeroom, in the foetal position. Only then was he booked and told he was to be discharged - on the grounds he had an ''adjustment disorder''. How could security at FOB Hammer be so lax that Manning and his colleagues could leave secret military passwords on notes near their computers in what was described as a ''security free-for-all'' where the Pentagon and State Department's classified intelligence network was used as an entertainment system for music, films and casual viewing of intelligence and military video footage? How was it that his months of rummaging through the global archives, and his copying of a quarter of a million documents that had nothing to do with his work in Arguing that ''the whole need to know'' principle had been compromised by demands for greater intelligence sharing between US agencies in the wake of the September 11 attacks on the US, former CIA analyst Raymond McGovern likened the Manning case to that of Abu Ghraib, in which only junior service members were held to account for the torture of Iraqi prisoners. ''In today's army people are told they can do things - if they get caught, the officers will be defended; if they are from the bottom of the barrel they get told they are rotten apples,'' he said. Ann Wright, a former army colonel and a member of the US Foreign Service, sees the Manning case as further proof of ''the whole system breaking down''. ''In my experience he would have been withdrawn from a sensitive post,'' she said. ''As a senior Foreign Service officer and acting or deputy ambassador in four different posts, I never had access to the unpardonable amount of data that that kid had in his wooden shack in nowhere in Both McGovern and Wright have joined a Manning support group. Following a week-long pre-trial hearing, army investigating officer Lieutenant Colonel Paul Almanza late last week recommended that Manning face a court martial on all 23 charges that he faces. The court martial recommendation must be formally accepted at the Pentagon before a hearing date is set. |
__._,_.___
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment