It was inevitable that Bradley Manning’s harsh mistreatment in military custody, which caused such a scandal it forced the military to eventually close the Quantico brig, would become a major issue in the trial.
Manning’s lawyer, David E. Coombs, argued that Manning’s mistreatment, including nearly a year in solitary confinement, was broadly unlawful, and promised to file a 100-page motion detailing the conditions suffered at Quantico.
But military Judge Denise Lind blocked Coombs’ effort to call a key witness to that effect, UN torture investigator Juan Mendez. Mendez had tried to get unrestricted access to Manning in 2011, but was blocked by the military.
Judge Lind called Mendez’ testimony as an expert on torture “irrelevant” to the question of whether or not the military’s treatment of Manning was actually “unlawful” under military rules. This will force Coombs to rely on other evidence about Manning’s mistreatment in the case, but might suggest Lind is disinterested in this line of argument.
Just another thing to add to the US SUPREME COURT APPEAL!
Add or not add it makes no difference. The problem is that the courts have ruled that certain treatment is justified for the prisoners safety. If Manning's defense can demonstrate that he was of sound mind, then they will have a chance to prove that Manning was mistreated. On the issue of torture it will be more difficult. Under American and American military law such treatment can be deemed mistreatment if it is unjustified.
Juan Mendez should discuss his report with members of congress or other politicians. It would go great ways of improving the conditions for all prisoners.
Just as an historical comparison, Bradley Manning's case is quite similar to that of Alfred Dreyfus, a French officer who was convicted in 1895 of spying for Germany. Dreyfus was treated rather badly in captivity and sent to Devil's Island, but eventually released. Manning was not spying by giving Wikileaks the incriminating videos and documents, but it's similar enough to the Dreyfus case. Who knows whether the US government will someday set Manning free, though.
Manning's defense is his actions "did little harm to US national security." It is correct that Manning was not spying. However, based on the overall documentation is hard to argue that his actions was to give incriminating information to Wikileaks. It seems more like transparency, and having others see the humdrum existence his job was. The video alone was enough to present the horrors of war, and how brutal it could be. Specifically, how quickly an innocent life can come to an end.
Kangaroo Court
A government that engages in torture against its own people needs to have those people wage war against it. And those who are great enough patriots to wage war against it need to set the example for the rest of America. Our government is a criminal organization. The courts give no justice and the judges are bigger political hacks than a local councilman or alderman. The police are nothing more than muscle for an extortion system. Government crimes need the light of day. Do not let the cockroaches hide.
In a fascist country you have to replace everything and start anew. This includes the political system, the courts, the military and the whole shebang.