
Sketch by Clark Stoeckley
Pfc. Bradley Manning, during proceedings in an “unlawful pretrial punishment” hearing on November 30, was cross-examined by the government. During the cross-examination, the government had Manning address “voluntary statements” he signed, which were “equivalent to sworn statements.”
Maj. Ashden Fein said they were mostly used when there was an “exception” and recreation call was “cut short.” Manning replied, “That was whenever they said I had to fill one out. I was confused by that and uncomfortable with this particular document.”
On December 14, 2010, Quantico Marine Brig, where Manning was held in pretrial confinement for 238 days, did not have the ability to do recreation time so they told Manning to fill out a voluntary statement.
“They did not have enough time,” Manning said. “They ordered me to fill it out.”
On December 20, Fein stated recreation time was “voluntarily changed” and then this “voluntary statement” occurred.
On December 21, another “voluntary statement” was signed by Manning. He was not able to go outdoors. (Manning speculated it might have been snowy.)
On Christmas, recreation time was shortened but he refused to sign a statement. Manning said it was “getting unusual.”
“It had a section, which I started to cross out where it says I have been sworn to this statement. I wasn’t comfortable,” he said. “I wasn’t sure it was legal.”
When Manning did this, the duty brig supervisor was not happy. He had received a command to sign as an order. “Here is a voluntary statement. Sign this,” Manning recounted. And, later, CWO4 James Averhart came to talk to him about the form and was unhappy about how he had crossed parts out.
On December 28, again, Fein said he signed a “voluntary statement” that pertained to foregoing recreation time for a television show. Manning corrected Fein saying, it had been because he was on sleep medication and so a television had been secured.
Sergeant Garnett came to him and said, “Fill this out.” Manning crossed out “sworn.” He crossed out “free and voluntary.” He crossed out a “lot of wording of this language” on the form.
On January 16, 2011, there was a television show he wanted to see. He asked if he could have recreation call later. The same sergeant came by and told Manning to fill out a “voluntary statement.” This time it did not have “sworn language,” but it did say voluntary at the top and he crossed that out and changed it to something else.
On January 20, he was refused recreation call due to a schedule clash with a television call. He was asked to fill out a form again and was really “uncomfortable filling these out.” He didn’t want to “refuse a direct order” and “didn’t know what to do.”
On February 16, he was ordered to fill out a “voluntary statement” to cancel a recreation call that he did not want to attend, according to Fein. Manning said he would come back from the Sanity Board and the Brig would be settling down for the day. They would inform him he was not going to be able to do recreation call.
He could try to refuse filling out the form, but they would just throw it away. One time, Sgt. Garnett took a form and “ripped it up.” He said, “Fill this out in the way I told you to fill it out.”
“I brought this up with Mr. Coombs and I was just told to not deal with any of these voluntary statements,” Manning said. “It was very uncomfortable.” He was advised by his defense lawyer, David Coombs, to not fill out any more “voluntary statements.”
There clearly was not anything “voluntary” about these statements. How does one, especially in a military brig, refuse to sign a form when they are already in cruel confinement conditions? Obviously, he was going to find some way to resist the process while also signing the form. He put his protest against the form in writing by crossing parts out.
Fein pressed him on this suggesting he “opted” to sign these statements. But Manning maintained he did not want to sign these. He described one instance where they had not been able to execute recreation call before Taps. They gave him a form and told him to fill it out.
“I was uncomfortable,” Manning stated. “I didn’t know if they were trying to cover themselves.”
He explained a “sworn statement” is “very serious.” It is a “declaration under penalty of perjury,” seemingly trying to inform Fein he recognized he might have to answer questions about these forms at some point.
“There was one moment—it was probably toward the December time frame—where they went to statements routinely,” Manning said. He remembered being told it was against Navy regulations to cross out and remove voluntary language. He added he was told he had to fill this out and could not flatly refuse.
Why the government pressed Manning on this issue is unclear. Manning was pretty sharp when it came to pushing back against the line of questioning Fein was pursuing. Fein wanted to suggest Manning was not objecting to recreational calls being canceled, but it is clear he was ordered or coerced into signing forms.
This is yet another element of the “unlawful pretrial punishment” that Manning experienced. It reveals another element of the corruption inside the Quantico Marine Brig that fueled the keeping of a high-profile detainee on prevention of injury (POI) status, even when his psychiatrist was telling Brig officers to take him off because he posed no risk to himself.
The Brig did not want Manning there for more than ninety days. Col. Daniel Choike, former Quantico Brig commander said this much on the first day of this hearing. The forms were another way they took their frustration with having Manning in their Brig out on Manning himself.



20 Comments

So the guard and commander at Quantico just decided to be dickish asshats? Interesting!!
He remembered being told it was against Navy regulations to cross out and remove voluntary language. He added he was told he had to fill this out and could not flatly refuse.
That’s what you get for joining the Navy… oh wait.
Has it ever been explained (or at least rationalized) why a soldier under the authority of the Secretary of the Army was a long term detainee in a brig under the authority of the Secretary of the Navy? That seems rather irregular, who made that decision?
The December 2010 timeframe caught my eye. Could be coincidence of timing, but December 2010 was also the month HB Gary/Palantir/and maybe Hunton & Williams were sussing out ways to take down/intimidate Glenn Greenwald.
From your prior post:
Two weeks later, December 3, 2010, we have Aaron Barr’s email from HB Gary to Matthew Steckman, Eli Bingham, and BERICO.Sam.Kremin proposing “One more thing. I think we need to highlight people like Glenn Greenwald. Glenn was critical in the Amazon to OVH transition [snip] It is this level of support we need to attack.”
See Glenn Greenwald’s 2011 post on the subject at salon.com
http://www.salon.com/2011/02/15/palantir/
Although it is ‘wikileaks’ that Barr highlights as a reason to take down Greenwald, wonder if seeing Greenwald getting involved directly with Manning (and likely knowing about Manning’s conditions of confinement) was a red flag for the government to act… I wonder if a series of phone calls/emails/conversations begin at Quantico 11/21/2010 and lead to Barr’s 12/3/2010 email.
Glenn tweet from yesterday:
Hmm. Curiouser and curiouser.
What are you thinking here? Could that avenue lead anywhere?
Currently I am waiting for updates from the courtroom. They have ordered no electronics with only paper and pens this morning.
In the meantime, Prof. Wolff’s economic update is coming on here:
http://stream.wbai.org/
.?? Don’t understand what is going on here.
I recall reading some discussions about that at the time, and the consensus was that it was not unique. I’d have to go way back to find a link, though.
Ooooh. Thanks for the link. OT: I’ve been missing the Marx in the Morning seies and SD’s discussion threads on the Wolff lectures. Would you be interested in continuing studying the Wolff lectures if I put up a thread sometime?
Glenn Greenwald clarified he was never informed Manning put him on the authorized list. Manning’s testimony was the first he heard of it.
…but USG knew and USG contracted the services of HB Gary & Co.
Manning put Glenn Greenwald on a list of authorized mailers –and also on a list of authorized visitors to Quantico (according to Julie Tate’s follow up tweet under Greenwald’s 11/30/12 tweet that Rosalind @4 linked, above), but Manning never sent word to Greenwald about adding Greenwald to these lists.
If true, (and since Greenwald never heard about it until 11/29/12) doesn’t this imply that someone (who?!) purposely misled Manning to believe that Glenn Greenwald was actively expressing interest to write/visit Manning?
Once Greenwald never writes or visits Manning, after Manning expressly adds Greenwald to his list of authorized visitors/mailers, I can imagine this extended period of rejection only adds to Manning’s dejection and feelings of hopelessness. Maybe a twofer for the government. Weaken Manning’s resolve and create an excuse to go after Greenwald–afterall he’s Manning’s “friend from NYC.”
Yes. That theory is supported by this from today’s developments…
incredible. Now it would be helpful to learn from whom Gunnery Sergeant Blenis learned this misinformation–whether Gunnery Sergeant Blenis was blowing smoke or innocently parroting misinformation purposely crafted and shared with guards to harm Manning’s resolve.
Today:
Also:
.
The “voluntary” signing statements demands seem Soviet-like—a sophisticated attempt to confuse the prisoner and his sense of autonomy and judgment and decision making. A whole other level of torture….
Agree.
Thanks for the updates. I followed your link to Alexa OBrien and eventually found her timeline for wikileaks and Manning. It was very helpful.
The following quote take from http://www.alexaobrien.com/timeline_us_versus_manning_assange_wikileaks_2010.html#dec
Obviously the US was in full alert and attack mode vis a vis wikileaks in November 2010.
In fact, November 20, 2010 was the day
This was followed by the Pentagon’s twitter campaign the same day (November 20, 2010) publicizing Sweden’s arrest warrant for Assange.
Of course, the next day is November 21, 2010 the day that Manning (asks for and?) is granted permission to add Glenn Greenwald’s name to the list of approved people who can send Manning mail (and visit?). Except that Glenn Greenwald knows nothing about this until 2012, two years later. This leads us to speculate someone encouraged Manning to add Greenwald’s name to the list.