FBI search warrant application for Facebook user data

Have you ever wondered what an FBI terrorism search warrant application for Facebook user data looks like ?

Property to Be Searched

This warrant applies to information associated with the Facebook user IDs and/or account address: (…) that are stored at premises owned, maintained, controlled, or operated by Facebook, a company headquartered at 151 University Avenue, Palo Alto, California, 94301.

I. Information to be disclosed by Facebook

(…)

(a) (…) group identification number, a list of users currently registered to the group, and Group Contact Info, including all contact information for the creator and/or administrator of the group and a PDF of the current status of the group profile page.

(d) All other communications and messages made or received by the user, including all private messages (…)

Click here to read a full search warrant application for Facebook user data in PDF format, first made public by the http://www.uscourts.gov website, and subsequently publicly archived by the us.archive.org website at http://ia601201.us.archive.org/26/items/gov.uscourts.cod.131197/gov.uscourts.cod.131197.1.0.pdf.

America’s foreign policy, and what does America really want ?

While studying local (Central/Western European) history in detail recently, I read a copy (together with his complete biography, articles and speeches in its original language) of a 1939 speech from Paul Joseph Goebbels, “What does America really want ?”, and it stroke me that Goebbels managed to describe, with precision, America’s foreign policy and attitude as of today, in 1939.

Nothing has really changed.

In the extracts below, replace the references to Germany with Iran/Iraq and National Socialism with Islamism. As a matter of fact, you can simply replace the references to Germany and National Socialism with any foreign affair the United States appear involved within the last century, in present times, or in the near future.

The extracts below are taken from “Was will eigentlich Amerika,” Die Zeit ohne Beispiel (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP., 1941), pp. 24-30, in its English translation by Randall Bytwerk.

The American press takes particular pleasure in criticizing Germany on grounds of humanitarianism, civilization, human rights, and culture. It has every right to do so. Its humanity is shown by lynchings. Its civilization is shown in economic and political scandals that stink to high heaven. Its human rights are displayed by eleven or twelve million unemployed, who apparently chose to be so. And its culture exists only because it is always borrowing from the older European nations. Such a nation is certainly justified in sneering at ancient Europe, whose nations and peoples looked back on centuries, even millennia, of cultural achievements long before America was discovered.

The American press replies to our complaints by saying that it has nothing against Germany, only against National Socialism. That is a poor excuse. National Socialism today is Germany’s guiding political idea and worldview. The entire German nation affirms it. To criticize National Socialism today therefore means to criticize the entire German nation.

Generally, it does not make any difference to us. We Germans do not depend on the love or grace of other nations; we live from our own national strength. The time is long past when Germany expected its salvation from abroad. Such international help was always lacking when it was most needed during the postwar period. It appeared only when international money and stock capital believed that it could earn vast profits by helping Germany.

We could simply say that America is far away, with a big ocean separating us. What do we care about what they think, write, or say about us? That was quite OK as long as America’s highly developed hate campaign against Germany kept within certain bounds. But when it infects even official circles rather than merely newspapers and radio stations, it becomes more serious.

This campaign reached unbelievable heights after 10 November 1938. American public opinion, influenced by the Jews, is trying to interfere to an unacceptable degree in German domestic politics. They think that can use methods against Germany that are normally unheard of in relations between civilized nations.

We know very well who the instigators and beneficiaries are. They are mostly Jews, or people who are in their service and who are dependent on them.

For example, it is not surprising that the New York press attacks Germany so strongly. Over two million Jews live in New York, and economic life there is entirely under their control.

The German press so far has generally ignored this filthy campaign of hatred, or answered it only in a restrained manner. Only after official personages in the United States got involved did we think it necessary to say something. For example, the American Interior Secretary Ickes said on 19 December 1938 that no American could accept a medal from the hands of a brutal dictatorship. With the same hand, it robbed and tortured thousands of people, that it saw a day when it committed no new crime against humanity as a day wasted. Put simply, that is not a style of speaking that is customary in relations between states.

The American Assistant Secretary of State Wells responded to German protests by saying that Ickes’ statement represented the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the American public. One does not know what to say. What does he mean! Was the American president ever personally attacked in the German press, or America’s leading men slandered? We have been very restrained, even though we certainly had every reason to discuss this or that matter of American domestic policy.

Such things are not our concern. American statesmen, not us, determine American domestic policy. We are concerned only with Germany’s affairs. We also have no reason or intention of smuggling German political ideas into America. The very opposite, since the methods that we use are purely German. They are only valid in Germany. But we do believe that just as we respect the internal affairs of other countries and avoid polemics against them, they should treat us in the same way.

One cannot say that that is true of the United States of North America. Nearly the whole press, radio, and film industry support the worldwide campaign against Germany.

We happen to think that the American people have nothing to do with the matter. If they do not like Germany, it is because of the hate campaign. This campaign is conducted by certain international scoundrels who lack conscience and scruples. They are doing it both for foreign and domestic reasons.

We have no intention of answering the criticisms that the American Jewish press raises against Germany by looking at America’s domestic affairs. It is enough to observe that although Germany is the poorest country in the world in terms of foreign currency reserves and raw materials, it has not only abolished unemployment, but has a labor shortage. North America, meanwhile has between eleven and twelve million unemployed, even though it is rich in foreign currency reserves and raw materials. Most of the American press ignores this situation. It cannot deny it, of course.

The German people sees things differently. It knows that certain restrictions in some areas were necessary for national reconstruction. The American public is practically drowning in wealth, prosperity, foreign currency, gold bars, and raw materials. It can hardly imagine how an intelligent, hardworking, and courageous people can get along without all those advantages.

No one but Germany has the right to judge Germany’s domestic affairs. No one has the right to turn one people against another, to incite discord and promote ignorance that lead to international crises.

In the replace the references example above (Germany for Iraq/Iran, or any foreign affair the United States appear involved within the last century, in present times, or in the near future), who is/was geographically located in the borders of and in direct threat and conflict with the Iraqis and the Iranians ?

Prior to the invasion, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom asserted that the possibility of Iraq employing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) threatened their security and that of their coalition/regional allies.

Following the invasion, the U.S.-led Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its nuclear, chemical, and biological programs in 1991 and had no active programs at the time of the invasion.

The invasion of Iraq led to an occupation and the eventual capture of President Saddam, who was later tried in an Iraqi court of law and executed by the new Iraqi government.

In 2007, Iraq was second on the Failed States Index.

By March 2008, violence in Iraq was reported curtailed by 40–80%, according to a Pentagon report. Independent reports raised questions about those assessments. An Iraqi military spokesman claimed that civilian deaths since the start of the troop surge plan were 265 in Baghdad, down from 1,440 in the four previous weeks. The New York Times counted more than 450 Iraqi civilians killed during the same 28-day period, based on initial daily reports from Iraqi Interior Ministry and hospital officials.

Historically, the daily counts tallied by the New York Times have underestimated the total death toll by 50% or more when compared to studies by the United Nations, which rely upon figures from the Iraqi Health Ministry and morgue figures.

Coalition forces also began to target alleged Iranian Quds force operatives in Iraq, either arresting or killing suspected members. The Bush administration and coalition leaders began to publicly state that Iran was supplying weapons, particularly EFP devices, to Iraqi insurgents and militias although to date have failed to provide any proof for these allegations.

Further sanctions on Iranian organizations were also announced by the Bush administration in the autumn of 2007.

On November 21, 2007, Lieutenant General James Dubik, who is in charge of training Iraqi security forces, praised Iran for its “contribution to the reduction of violence” in Iraq by upholding its pledge to stop the flow of weapons, explosives and training of extremists in Iraq.

The Bush Administration’s rationale for the Iraq War has faced heavy criticism from an array of popular and official sources both inside and outside the United States, with many U.S. citizens finding many parallels with the Vietnam War. For example, the Center for Public Integrity alleges that the Bush administration made a total of 935 false statements between 2001 and 2003 about Iraq’s alleged threat to the United States.

Another criticism of the initial intelligence leading up to the Iraq war comes from a former CIA officer who described the Office of Special Plans as a group of ideologues who were dangerous to U.S. national security and a threat to world peace, and that the group lied and manipulated intelligence to further its agenda of removing Saddam. Subsequently, in 2008, the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity, a group partially funded by George Soros has enumerated a total of 935 allegedly false statements made by George W. Bush and six other top members of his administration in what it termed a “carefully launched campaign of misinformation” during the two year period following 9/11 attacks, in order to rally support for the invasion of Iraq.

Not America for sure. (see “The United States Zionist-controlled media“).

Bradley Manning: Rebuttal to complaints of wrong

Bradley Manning, born December 17, 1987 in Crescent, Oklahoma, soldier from the United States Army, detained in solitary confinement in Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, USA, on suspicion of passing classified data to the Wikileaks website

Not differing in level and grade of Human Righs Abuse from the well known practices in the Guantanamo Bay facilities, and openly associated to the United States army and government persecution of Wikileaks founder Julian AssangeBradley Manning, the United States army soldier arrested and held in maximum security since May 2010 on suspicion of passing classified state information to the whistleblower website WikiLeaks, wrote a letter on the 10th of March 2011 to his lawyer describing what is he going through in solitary confinement at the Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia, USA, followed by a legal letter released by his lawyer in response to their recent decision of keeping him in a severe restriction order called Prevention of Injury.

Lieutenant Colonel David Coombs, Bradley Manning's lawyer and Army Court-Martial Defense Specialist

Prevention of Injury restriction order, or PoI – that meaning, he is kept in his cell alone for 23 hours a day and checked every five minutes by guards, all day, and all night if necessary; have one hour a day to exercise, and is forbidden of doing any activity for 23 hours in his cell, other than walking grids of eights. Can not use any item of clothing, including bed sheets. Have to stay naked, in the presence of all.

Sensorial, sleep and physical deprivation, isolation, humiliation, culminating in the obligatory use of garments from mental health facilities, which, if he was to developed any, would have come from the result of the torturous regime inflicted upon him – if anyone was caught doing the same to an animal, they would have been sent to prison for cruelty.

Bradley Manning’s letter was published in the Guardian newspaper,  on the 11th of March 2011.

Since the beginning of this month, Bradley Manning has been stripped naked every night and made to parade in front of his officers and guards in the nude. It started on 2 March when Manning was informed that his attempt to have his harsh treatment in prison ameliorated had been unsuccessful. This is an edited version of his description of what happened next:

Understandably frustrated by this decision after enduring over seven months of unduly harsh confinement conditions, I asked the brig operations officer, MSG Papakie, what I needed to do in order to be downgraded from maximum custody and prevention of injury status. MSG Papakie responded by telling me that there was nothing I could do to downgrade my detainee status and that the brig simply considered me a risk of self-harm.

Out of frustration, I responded that the PoI restrictions were absurd and sarcastically told him if I really wanted to harm myself, that I could conceivably do so with the elastic waistband of my underwear or with my flip-flops.

Later that same day, I was told that I would be stripped naked at night due to something that I had said to MSG Papakie. Shocked, I replied that I hadn’t said anything. I had just pointed out the absurdity of my current confinement conditions.

Without consulting any brig mental health provider, chief warrant officer Denise Barnes used my sarcastic comment as justification to increase the restrictions imposed upon me under the guise of being concerned that I was a suicide risk.

I was not, however, placed under the designation of suicide risk. This is because suicide risk would have required a brig mental health provider’s recommendation in order for the added restrictions to continue.

In response to this specific incident, the brig psychiatrist met with me. After speaking to me, he assessed me as “low risk and requiring only routine outpatient follow-up [with] no need for … closer clinical observation”. In particular, he indicated that my statement about the waist band of my underwear was in no way prompted by “a psychiatric condition”.

Since 2 March 2011, I have been stripped of all my clothing at night. I have been told that the PCF commander intends on continuing this practice indefinitely. Initially, after surrendering my clothing to the brig guards, I had no choice but to lay naked in my cold jail cell until the following morning.

The next morning I was told to get out of my bed for the morning duty brig supervisor (DBS) inspection. I was not given any of my clothing back. I got out of the bed and immediately started to shiver because of how cold it was in my cell. I walked towards the front of my cell with my hands covering my genitals. The guard told me to stand at parade rest, which required me to stand with my hands behind my back and my legs spaced shoulder width apart. I stood at “parade rest” for about three minutes until the DBS arrived. Once the DBS arrived, everyone was called to attention. The DBS and the other guards walked past my cell. The DBS looked at me, paused for a moment, and then continued to the next detainee’s cell.

I was incredibly embarrassed at having all these people stare at me naked.

After the DBS completed his inspection, I was told to go and sit on my bed.

About 10 minutes later I was given my clothes and allowed to get dressed.

After apparent outside pressure on the brig due to my mistreatment, I was given a suicide prevention article of clothing called a “smock” by the guards. Although I am still required to strip naked in my cell at night, I am now given the “smock” to wear. At first, I did not want to wear this item of clothing due to how coarse it was and how uncomfortable it felt.

However, the brig now orders me to wear the “smock” at night.

Given the above circumstances, the decision to strip me of my clothing every night for an indefinite period of time is clearly punitive in nature.

There is no mental health justification for the decision. I am under 24-hour surveillance, with guards never being more than a few feet away from my cell. I am permitted to have my underwear and clothing during the day, with no apparent concern that I will harm myself during this time period.

The determination to strip me of all my clothing every night since 2 March 2011 is without justification and therefore constitutes unlawful pretrial punishment.

Under my current restrictions, in addition to being stripped at night, I am essentially held in solitary confinement. For 23 hours per day, I sit alone in my cell. The guards check on me every five minutes during the day by asking me if I am OK. I am required to respond in some affirmative manner.

At night, if the guards cannot see me clearly, because I have a blanket over my head or I am curled up towards the wall, they will wake me in order to ensure that I am OK. I receive each of my meals in my cell. I am not allowed to have a pillow or sheets. I am not allowed to have any personal items in my cell. I am only allowed to have one book or one magazine at a time to read. The book or magazine is taken from me at the end of the day before I go to sleep. I am prevented from exercising in my cell. If I attempt to do push-ups, sit-ups, or any other form of exercise I am forced to stop.

Finally, I receive only one hour of exercise outside of my cell daily. My exercise is usually limited to me walking figures of eight in an empty room.

Activists at the Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia, USA, location where Bradley Manning is detained in solitary confinement

Bradley Manning’s lawyer, Lieutenant Colonel David Coombs, simultaneously issued a legal letter, a rebuttal, in the form of a complaint for improper treatment based on Article 138 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice,

SUBCHAPTER IX. POST-TRIAL PROCEDURE AND REVIEW OF COURTS-MARTIAL
938. ART. 138. COMPLAINTS OF WRONGS
Any member of the armed forces who believes himself wronged by his commanding officer, and who, upon due application to that commanding officer, is refused redress, may complain to any superior commissioned officer, who shall foreword the complaint to the office exercising court- martial jurisdiction over the officer against whom it is made. The officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction shall examine into the complaint and take proper measures for redressing the wrong complained of; and he shall, as soon as possible, send to the Secretary concerned a true statement of that complaint, with the proceedings thereon.

David Coombs also explained the reasons that triggered the complaint in more details, in his own website, on the 10th of March 2011,

On March 1, 2011, the Quantico Base Commander, Colonel Daniel J. Choike, denied PFC Manning’s request to be removed from Prevention of Injury Watch and to have his custody classification reduced from Maximum to Medium Detention-In.

The defense filed the following rebuttal to Colonel Choike’s response.  Colonel Choike will now complete his action on the Article 138 complaint, and then forward the proceedings to the Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, for his final review.  If Secretary Mabus denies PFC Manning’s requested relief, the defense will file a Writ of Habeas Corpus to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals.

Aerial view of the Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia, USA, location where Bradley Manning is detained in solitary confinement

Below is the integral of the complaint; you may also view or download the document in PDF format: Rebuttal Article 138 Complaint – Quantico. Source.

In law, rebuttal is a form of evidence that is presented to contradict or nullify other evidence that has been presented by an adverse party. By analogy the same term is used in politics and public affairs to refer to the informal process by which statements, designed to refute or negate specific arguments put forward by opponents, are deployed in the media.

————————————— 1

10 Mar 11
MEMORANDUM

From: PFC Bradley E. Manning
To: Col. Daniel J. Choike
Via: (1) CWO2 Denise Barnes
(2) Staff Judge Advocate, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate,
U.S. Army Military District of Washington, Fort McNair

Subj: REBUTTAL TO COMPLAINT OF WRONGS UNDER ARTICLE 138 UCMJ BY
PRIVATE FIRST CLASS BRADLEY MANNING U.S. ARMY

Ref: (a) Article 138, UCMJ
(b) SECNAVINST 1640.9C (Navy Corrections Manual)

1. I, PFC Bradley E. Manning, am a member of the U.S. Army on active
duty, assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, U.S. Army
Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, Fort Myer, Virginia. On 2
March 2011, I received your response to my Article 138 Complaint filed
on 19 January 2011. I have elected to file the following rebuttal to
your response.

2. First, my allegations of improper treatment were not correctly
noted by you in your 1 March 2011 memorandum. Additionally, I am
making a new allegation of wrongdoing based upon recent decisions by
the Pretrial Confinement Facility (PCF) Commander. I request that
you consider the following specific allegations:

a. That the decision to retain my classification as a Maximum
Custody (MAX) detainee and to retain me under Prevention of Injury
(POI) Status after 27 August 2010 was improper.

b. That the decision to place me on Suicide Risk on 18 January
2011 was improper.

c. That the decision to strip me of all my clothing at night since
2 March 2011 was and continues to be improper.

3. Addressing each of the allegations, I would like to offer the
following in rebuttal to your response:

a. That the decision to retain my classification as a MAX Custody
detainee and to retain me under POI Status after 27 August 2010 was
improper.

(1) While it may have been understandable to classify me as a
MAX detainee initially, I should have been downgraded to Medium
Custody-In (MDI) after 27 August 2010. As you noted, my initial
evaluation by the duty brig supervisor (DBS) gave me a score of 5
after reviewing the DD Form 2710, inmate background summary, and
completing the DD Form 2711, initial custody classification. A score
of 5 was significantly lower than the 12 or higher score normally
required for MAX custody. Despite my low score, the DBS overrode the
score, and indicated that he considered my previous classification in
Kuwait as the primary factor in his decision.

————————————— 2

Subj: REBUTTAL TO COMPLAINT OF WRONGS UNDER ARTICLE 138 UCMJ BY
PRIVATE FIRST CLASS BRADLEY MANNING U.S. ARMY

(2) The decision to maintain me in MAX Custody after 27 August
2010 has been an abuse of discretion. Although the ultimate decision
regarding my classification rests with the PCF Commander, this decision
cannot be an arbitrary one. In the instant case, the PCF
Classification and Assignment Board (C&A Board) and the PCF Commander
failed to properly review my status and take into account all relevant
factors. Instead, the C&A Boards recommendations and the PCF
Commanders decisions have been perfunctory in nature.

(3) The PCF C&A Board failed to always document its
recommendation concerning my custody classification and status on the
required Brig Form 4200. This failure is indicative of how the C&A
Board viewed its task. It is clear that the C&A Board and the PCF
Commander unduly weighted my behavior in Kuwait, prior to receiving
adequate treatment, and the nature of the charges alleged against me in
determining my custody classification and status. A straightforward
review of the Brigs own observation records attached as Enclosure 2 of
the PCF Commanders response proves the arbitrariness of my custody
classification and status. The following are excerpts from the Brigs
observation records:

i) 3 August 2010 Entry: SND (PFC Bradley Manning) did
not receive any disciplinary reports or adverse spot evaluations and
received an average work and training report. The entry also notes,
SNDs conduct has been average and has presented no problems to staff
or inmates. During the interview SND was respectful and courteous and
was well spoken. SND stated that he was doing well and was not having
suicidal or homicidal feelings.

ii) 12 August 2010 Entry: SND did not receive any
disciplinary reports or adverse spot evaluations and received an
average work and training report. The entry also notes, SND stated
that he would like a job in the facility library if it became possible.
To this point in confinement SNDs conduct has been average and has
presented no problems to staff or inmates. During the interview SND
was quiet, but courteous and respectful. SND answers questions but
speaks very little unless responding to a question. Currently SND
appears to be trying to adjust to the daily routine and observing what
is going on around him. During the interview SND was well spoken, neat
in appearance and maintained eye contact. SND stated that he does not
have any suicidal feelings at this time.

iii) 16 August 2010 Entry: SND was evaluated by the Brig
Psychologist and found not to be a threat to himself. It is
recommended that SND be removed from SR, and be placed on POI
(sic)remain MAX custody.

iv) 17 August 2010 Entry: The Brig Psychiatrist found
SND to be a reduced threat to himself on 6 August 2010.

v) 24 August 2010 Entry: SND did not receive any
disciplinary reports or adverse spot evaluation and received an average
work and training report. The entry also notes [t]o this point in
confinement, SND has presented no problems and has been courteous and
respectful to staff. SNDs conduct has been excellent, so much so that
2

————————————— 3

Subj: REBUTTAL TO COMPLAINT OF WRONGS UNDER ARTICLE 138 UCMJ BY
PRIVATE FIRST CLASS BRADLEY MANNING U.S. ARMY

is it apparent that he is extremely cautious about what he says or how
he acts. During the interview SND was well spoken, groomed and neat in
appearance.

vi) 27 August 2010 Entry: SND has not presented any
problems since his last review on 20 August 2010 and has been an
overall average detainee.

vii) 31 August 2010 Entry: SND did not receive any
disciplinary reports or adverse spot evaluations and received an above
average work and training report. The entry also notes SND was
evaluated by the Brig Psychiatrist on 27 August and was recommended to
be removed from POI status. The C&A Board reviewed SND on the same
date and recommended that he still remain POI. SND remains courteous
and respectful to staff and has presented no problems toward staff or
inmates thus far. During the interview SND was well spoken, groomed
and neat in appearance.´

viii) 3 September 2010 Entry: SND has not presented any
problems since his last review on 27 August 2010 and has been an
overall average detainee.

ix) 8 September 2010 Entry: SND did not receive any
disciplinary reports or adverse spot evaluations and received an
average work and training report. The entry also notes, SND was
evaluated by the Brig Psychiatrist on 3 September and was recommended
to be removed from POI status. Additionally it states, SND continues
to be cooperative with Brig staff and has presented no disciplinary
problems. During the interview SND was well spoken and neat in
appearance. SNDs mood and appearance were consistent with his normal
character and he continues to state that he is not suicidal.

x) 10 September 2010 Entry: SND has not presented any
problems since his last review on 3 SEPT 2010 and has been an overall
average detainee.

xi) 14 September 2010 Entry: SND did not receive any
disciplinary reports or adverse spot evaluations and received an
average work and training report.´ The entry also notes, SND was
evaluated by the Brig Psychiatrist on 10 September and was recommended
to be removed from POI status. Finally, the entry notes, SND has
been cooperative with Brig staff and has presented no disciplinary or
behavioral problems. When observed in his cell, SND is always sitting
quietly on his rack and appears to be content with doing nothing else.
During the interview SND was well spoken and neat in appearance. SNDs
mood and appearance were consistent with his normal character and he
continues to state that he is not suicidal.

xii) 28 September 2010 Entry: SND did not receive any
disciplinary reports or adverse spot evaluations and received an
average work and training report. The entry also notes, SND was
evaluated by the Brig Psychiatrist on 24 September and was recommended
to be removed from POI status. Later, the entry notes, SND continues
to be cooperative with Brig staff and has presented no disciplinary or
behavioral problems. During the interview SND was well spoken and neat
3

————————————— 4

Subj: REBUTTAL TO COMPLAINT OF WRONGS UNDER ARTICLE 138 UCMJ BY
PRIVATE FIRST CLASS BRADLEY MANNING U.S. ARMY

in appearance. SNDs mood and appearance were consistent with his
normal character and he continues to state that he is not suicidal.

xiii) 4 October 2010 Entry: SND was evaluated by the Brig
Psychiatrist on 24 Sep 2010 and recommended to be removed from POI.
SND has not presented any problems since his last review and has been
an overall average detainee.

xiv) 6 October 2010 Entry: SND did not receive any
disciplinary reports or adverse spot evaluations and received an
average work and training report. The entry notes, SND appears to be
content with his situation and goes through the motions of the Brigs
plan of the day without incident. SND was evaluated by the Brig
Psychiatrist on 1 October and was recommended to be removed from POI
status. The entry also notes, SND continues to be cooperative with
Brig staff and has presented no disciplinary or behavioral problems.
During the interview SND was respectful, neat in appearance and
maintained eye contact. SNDs mood and appearance were consistent with
his normal character and he continues to state that he is not
suicidal.

xv) 12 October 2010 Entry: SND did not receive any
disciplinary reports or adverse spot evaluations and received an above
average work and training report.

xvi) 14 October 2010 Entry: SND was evaluated by the Brig
Psychiatrist on (no date given) and recommended to be removed from POI.
SND has not presented any problems since his last review …´ The
entry also notes SND did not receive any disciplinary reports or
adverse spot evaluations and received an above average work and
training report.

xvii) 22 October 2010 Entry: SND did not receive any
disciplinary reports or adverse spot evaluations and received an above
average work and training report. The entry notes, SND was evaluated
by the Brig Psychiatrist this past week and found fit from (sic)
removal of prevention of injury classification from a psychiatric
standpoint. The entry also notes, SND was respectful and courteous
and well spoken. SNDs attitude and demeanor were consistent with his
normal character and he continues to state that he is not suicidal.

xviii) 28 October 2010 Entry: SND was evaluated by the Brig
Psychiatrist on 15 October 2010 and recommended to be removed from POI.
SND has not presented any problems since his last review on 8 October
2010 and has been an overall average detainee. Another entry on this
date notes that SND was evaluated by the Brig Psychiatrist on 22
October 2010 and recommended to be removed from POI. SND has not
presented any problems since his last review on 15 October and has been
an overall average detainee.

xix) 2 November 2010 Entry: SND was evaluated by the Brig
Psychiatrist on 29 October 2010 and recommended to be removed from POI.
SND has not presented any problems since his last review on 22 October
2010 and has been an overall average detainee.´

4

————————————— 5

Subj: REBUTTAL TO COMPLAINT OF WRONGS UNDER ARTICLE 138 UCMJ BY
PRIVATE FIRST CLASS BRADLEY MANNING U.S. ARMY

xx) 5 November 2010 Entry: SND did not receive any
disciplinary reports or adverse spot evaluations and received an
average work and training report. The entry also notes, SND was
evaluated by the Brig Psychiatrist on 29 October 2010 and found fit to
be removed from prevention of injury classification from a psychiatric
standpoint. Finally, the entry notes, During the interview SND was
respectful and courteous and was well spoken. SND appears to be in
high spirits and have a positive attitude. SNDs attitude and demeanor
were consistent with his normal character and he continues to state
that he is not suicidal.

xxi) 15 November 2010 Entry: SND was evaluated by the
Brig Psychiatrist on 13 November 2010 and recommended to … [be
removed from] POI. SND has not presented any problems since his last
review on 5 NOV 2010 and has been an overall average detainee.

xxii) 17 November 2010 Entry: SND did not receive any
disciplinary reports or adverse spot evaluations and received an above
average work and training report. The entry also noted that during
the interview SND was respectful and courteous and was well spoken.
SNDs attitude and demeanor were consistent with his normal character
and stated that he is not suicidal.

xxiii) 23 November 2010 Entry: SND was evaluated by the
Brig Psychiatrist on 19 November 2010 and recommended to be removed
from POI. SND has not presented any problems since his last review.´

xxiv) 3 December 2010 Entry: SND did not receive any
disciplinary reports or adverse spot evaluations and received an
average work and training report.

xxv) 6 December 2010 Entry: SND was evaluated by the Brig
Psychiatrist on 2 December 2010 and recommended to be removed from POI.
SND has not presented any problems since his last review on [no date
given] and has been an overall average detainee.

xxvi) 7 December 2010 Entry: SND did not receive any
disciplinary reports or adverse spot evaluations and received an above
average work and training report. The entry also noted, [d]uring the
interview SND was courteous and well spoken and he maintained good eye
contact. SNDs mood and character were consistent with his normal
character.

xxvii) 14 December 2010 Entry: SND was evaluated by the
Brig Psychiatrist on 10 December 2010 and recommended to remain on POI.
(The Brig noted that this was the first time since 27 August 2010 that
Capt Hocter recommended PFC Manning remain on POI. His main criteria
was that it seemed PFC Manning was not doing well). SND has not
presented any problems since his last review and has been an overall
average detainee.

xxviii) 17 December 2010 Entry: SND was evaluated by the
Brig Psychiatrist on 17 December 2010 and recommended to be removed
from POI. SND has not presented any problems since his last review and
has been an overall average detainee
5

————————————— 6

Subj: REBUTTAL TO COMPLAINT OF WRONGS UNDER ARTICLE 138 UCMJ BY
PRIVATE FIRST CLASS BRADLEY MANNING U.S. ARMY

xxix) 22 December 2010 Entry: SND did not receive any
disciplinary reports or adverse spot evaluations and received an above
average work and training report. The entry also notes, overall, SND
was respectful and cooperative during the interview.

xxx) 29 December 2010 Entry: łSND did not receive any
disciplinary reports or adverse spot evaluations and received an
average work and training report. The entry also stated, SND was
evaluated by Capt Hocter on 23 December 2010, and although further
mental evaluation was deemed necessary, SND was recommended to be
removed from POI classification from a psychiatric standpoint.

xxxi) 6 January 2011 Entry: SND was evaluated by the Brig
Psychiatrist on 30 December 2010 and recommended to be removed from
POI. SND has not presented any problems since last review and has been
an overall average detainee.

xxxii) 7 January 2011 Entry: SND was evaluated by the Brig
Psychiatrist on 7 January 2011 and recommended to be removed from POI.
SND has not presented any problems since his last review and has been
an overall average detainee. The entry also notes that SND did not
receive any disciplinary reports or adverse spot evaluations and
received an average work and training report. Finally, the entry
notes that PFC Manning is respectful and courteous to staff. During
the interview SND was well spoken, maintained eye contact and his
demeanor was consistent with his normal character.

xxxiii) 11 January 2011 Entry: SND did not receive any
disciplinary reports or spot evaluations and received an above average
working and training report.

xxxiv) 14 January 2011 Entry: SND was evaluated by the Brig
Psychiatrist on 14 January 2010 and recommended to be removed from POI.
SND has not presented any problems since his last review and has been
an overall average detainee.

xxxv) 18 January 2011 Entry: This is the first entry where
any negative conduct is noted. I will explain this entry in greater
detail in paragraph 4 below when I address my allegation that the
decision to place me on Suicide Risk by the PCF Commander on 18 January
2011 was improper.

xxxvi) 28 January 2011 Entry: SND did not receive any
disciplinary reports or adverse spot evaluations and receive(d) an
average work and training report. The entry also notes, SND was
evaluated by Col Malone on 21 January 2011 and, although further mental
evaluation was deemed necessary, SND was recommended to be removed from
POI classification from a psychiatric standpoint.

(4) The above observation reports were provided to me and my
defense counsel, David E. Coombs, on 4 February 2011. The reports
cover my conduct since my arrival on 29 July 2010 through 28 January
2011. Although, I do not have the observation reports from 29 January
to present, I am confident that they would indicate I have been an
6

————————————— 7

Subj: REBUTTAL TO COMPLAINT OF WRONGS UNDER ARTICLE 138 UCMJ BY
PRIVATE FIRST CLASS BRADLEY MANNING U.S. ARMY

exemplary detainee. I am also confident that the reports would reflect
the Brig Psychiatrists consistent recommendation that I am a low
risk of self-harm and should be removed from MAX Custody and POI
Status.

(5) I am being treated differently from any other detainee at
the Quantico Brig. While the PCF Commander follows the recommendation
of the Brig Psychiatrist in dealing with other detainees, this does not
happen in my case. Other detainees usually remain on MAX custody or in
POI Status for about two weeks before they are downgraded. I, however,
have been left to languish under the unduly harsh conditions of MAX
Custody and POI Status since my arrival on 29 July 2010. In fact, I am
currently the only detainee being held under MAX Custody and the only
detainee being held in POI status by the Brig. Any objective person
looking at the above facts would have to conclude that this treatment
is unjustified. The determination to retain me in MAX Custody and
under POI Status after 27 August 2010 was improper and constitutes
unlawful pretrial punishment.

b. That the decision to place me on Suicide Risk on 18 January
2011 was improper.

(1) On 18 January 2011, over the recommendation of Capt. Hocter
and the defense forensic psychiatrist, Capt. Moore, CWO4 Averhart
placed me under Suicide Risk. The Suicide Risk assignment resulted in
me being required to remain in my cell for 24 hours a day. I was
stripped of all clothing with the exception of my underwear. My
prescription eyeglasses were taken away from me and I was forced to sit
in essential blindness.

(2) The basis for the above treatment was due to my alleged
erratic behavior on 18 January 2011. On that date, I was pulled out of
my cell for my one hour of recreation call. When the guards came to my
cell, I noticed a change in their usual demeanor. Instead of being
calm and respectful, they seemed agitated and confrontational. Also,
instead of the usual two to three guards, there were four guards.
Almost immediately, the guards started harassing me. The first guard
told me to turn left. When I complied, the second guard yelled
dont turn left. When I attempted to comply with the demands of the
second guard, I was told by the first, I said turn left. I responded
yes, Corporal to the first guard. At this point, the third guard
chimed in by telling me that łin the Marines we reply with µaye¶ and
not µyes.´ He then asked me if I understood. I made the mistake of
replying yes, Sergeant. At this point the forth guard yelled, you
mean aye,¶ Sergeant.

(3) The harassment by the guards continued as I was escorted
to my one hour of recreation. When I arrived at the recreation room, I
was told to stand still so they could remove my leg restraints. As I
stood still, one of the guards yelled I told you to stand still. I
replied yes Corporal, I am standing still. Another guard then said,
you mean µaye¶ Corporal. Next, the same guard said I thought we
covered this, you say µaye¶ and not yes, do you understand? I
responded aye Sergeant. Right after I replied, I was once again
yelled at to stand still. Due to being yelled at and the intensity
7

————————————— 8

Subj: REBUTTAL TO COMPLAINT OF WRONGS UNDER ARTICLE 138 UCMJ BY
PRIVATE FIRST CLASS BRADLEY MANNING U.S. ARMY

of the guards, I mistakenly replied, yes Corporal, I am standing
still. As soon as I said this, I attempted to correct myself by
saying aye instead of yes, but it was too late. One of the guards
starting yelling at me again, what dont you understand and are we
going to have a problem?

(4) Once the leg restraints were taken off of me, I took a
step back from the guards. My heart was pounding in my chest, and I
could feel myself getting dizzy. I sat down to avoid falling. When I
did this, the guards took a step towards me. I instinctively backed
away from them. As soon as I backed away, I could tell by their faces
that they were getting ready to restrain me. I immediately put my
hands up in the air, and said I am not doing anything, I am just
trying to follow your orders. The guards then told me to start
walking. I complied with their order by saying eye instead of yes.

(5) I was allowed to complete my hour of recreation. During
the hour, the guards did not harass me further. The guards also did
not harass me when I was escorted back to my cell. Only later did I
learn that there had been a protest outside the gates of Quantico the
previous day. (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4eNzokgRIw). The
rally was intended to bring attention to the conditions of my
confinement. It is my belief that my treatment on 18 January 2010 by
the guards and later by the PCF Commander was related to this protest
and my earlier complaints.

(6) After being returned to my cell, I started to read a book.
About 30 minutes later, the PCF Commander, CWO4 James Averhart, came to
my cell. He asked me what had happened during my recreation call. As
I tried to explain to him what had occurred, CWO4 Averhart stopped me
and said I am the commander and that no one could tell him what to
do. He also said that he was, for all practical purposes, God. I
responded by saying you still have to follow Brig procedures. I also
said everyone has a boss that they have to answer to. As soon as I
said this, CWO4 Averhart ordered that I be placed in Suicide Risk
Status.

(7) Admittedly, once I heard that I would be placed under
Suicide Risk, I became upset. Out of frustration, I placed my hands to
my head and clenched my hair with my fingers. I did yell why are you
doing this to me? I also yelled łwhy am I being punished? and I
have done nothing wrong. I then asked CWO4 Averhart what have I
done to deserve this type of treatment?

(8) CWO4 Averhart did not answer any of my questions. He
instructed the guards to enter my cell and take all my clothing. At
first I tried to reason with CWO4 Averhart by telling him that I had
been a model detainee and by asking him to just tell me what he wanted
me to do and that I would do it. However, I gave up trying to reason
with him once the guards entered my cell and ordered me to strip.
Instead, I lowered my head and starting taking off my clothes.

(9) CWO4 Averhart placed me on Suicide Risk, over the
recommendation of Capt. Hocter and the defense forensic psychiatrist,
Capt. Moore. His decision was also in violation of Secretary of Navy
8

————————————— 9

Subj: REBUTTAL TO COMPLAINT OF WRONGS UNDER ARTICLE 138 UCMJ BY
PRIVATE FIRST CLASS BRADLEY MANNING U.S. ARMY

Instruction (SECNAVINST) 1649.9C Paragraph 4205.5d. As a result of
being placed on Suicide Risk, I was confined to my cell for 24 hours a
day. I was also stripped of all clothing with the exception of my
underwear. Additionally, my prescription eyeglasses were taken away
from me. Due to not having my glasses, I was forced to sit in
essential blindness during the day. I remained on Suicide Risk until
21 January 2010. The determination to place me on Suicide Risk was
without justification and therefore constitutes unlawful pretrial
punishment.

c. That the decision to strip me of all my clothing at night since
2 March 2011 was and continues to be improper.

(1) On March 2, I was informed of your decision regarding my
Article 138 complaint. Understandably frustrated by this decision
after enduring over seven months of unduly harsh confinement
conditions, I asked the Brig Operations Officer, MSG Papakie, what I
needed to do in order to be downgraded from Maximum Custody and POI
Status. MSG Papakie responded by telling me that there was nothing I
could do to downgrade my detainee status and that the Brig simply
considered me a risk of self-harm. Out of frustration, I responded
that the POI restrictions were absurd and sarcastically told him if I
really wanted to harm myself, that I could conceivably do so with the
elastic waistband of my underwear or with my flip-flops.

(2) Later that same day, I was approached by GYSGT Blenis. He
asked me what I had done wrong. I told him that I did not know what he
was talking about. He said that I would be stripped naked at night due
to something that I had said to MSG Papakie. Shocked, I told him that
I hadnt said anything. I told GYSGT Blenis that I just pointed out
the absurdity of my current confinement conditions.

(3) Without consulting any Brig mental health provider, Chief
Warrant Officer Denise Barnes used my sarcastic comment as
justification to increase the restrictions imposed upon me under the
guise of being concerned that I was a suicide risk. I was not,
however, placed under the designation of Suicide Risk. This is because
Suicide Risk would have required a Brig mental health provider’s
recommendation in order for the added restrictions to continue. While
the PCF Commander needed the Brig Psychiatrist’s recommendation to keep
me under Suicide Risk, no such recommendation was needed in order to
increase my restrictions under POI Status. The conditions of POI
Status require only psychiatric input, but ultimately remain the
decision of the PCF Commander.

(4) In response to this specific incident, the Brig
Psychiatrist met with me. After speaking to me, he assessed me as a
“low risk and requiring only routine outpatient follow-up [with] no
need for … closer clinical observation.” In particular, he indicated
that my statement about the waist band of my underwear was in no way
prompted by a psychiatric condition.

(5) Since 2 March 2011, I have been stripped of all my
clothing at night. I have been told that the PCF Commander intends on
continuing this practice indefinitely. Initially, after surrendering
9

————————————— 10

Subj: REBUTTAL TO COMPLAINT OF WRONGS UNDER ARTICLE 138 UCMJ BY
PRIVATE FIRST CLASS BRADLEY MANNING U.S. ARMY

my clothing to the Brig guards, I had no choice but to lay naked in my
cold jail cell until the following morning. The next morning I was
told to get out of my bed for the morning Duty Brig Supervisor (DBS)
inspection. I was not given any of my clothing back. I got out of the
bed and immediately started to shiver because of how cold it was in my
cell. I walked towards the front of my cell with my hands covering my
genitals. The guard told me to stand a parade rest, which required me
to stand with my hands behind my back and my legs spaced shoulder width
apart. I stood at parade rest for about three minutes until the DBS
arrived. Once the DBS arrived, everyone was called to attention. The
DBS and the other guards walked past my cell. The DBS looked at me,
paused for a moment, and then continued to the next detainees cell. I
was incredibly embarrassed at having all these people stare at me
naked. After the DBS completed his inspection, I was told to go sit on
my bed. About ten minutes later I was given my clothes and allowed to
get dressed.

(6) After apparent outside pressure on the Brig due to my
mistreatment, I was given a suicide prevention article of clothing
called a smock by the guards. Although I am still required to strip
naked in my cell at night, I am now given the smock to wear. At
first, I did not want to wear this item of clothing due to how coarse
it was and how uncomfortable it felt. However, the Brig now orders me
to wear the smock at night.

(7) Given the above circumstances, the decision to strip me of
my clothing every night for an indefinite period of time is clearly
punitive in nature. There is no mental health justification for the
decision. I am under 24 hour surveillance, with guards never being
more than a few feet away from my cell. I am permitted to have my
underwear and clothing during the day, with no apparent concern that I
will harm myself during this time period. The determination to strip
me of all my clothing every night since 2 March 2011 is without
justification and therefore constitutes unlawful pretrial punishment.

4. I have, both by statute and the Eighth Amendment, the right to
protection against cruel and unusual punishment. See United States v.
Matthews, 16 M.J. 354, 368 (CMA 1983); Article 55, Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 855. The Secretary of the Navy
Instruction 1649.9C details the procedures and safeguards for
classification of inmates, evaluation of inmates and the limited use of
special quarters. The Navy Instruction states discipline is to be
administered on a corrective rather than a punitive basis.
Additionally it states no persons, while being held for trial may be
subjected to punishment or penalty other than arrest or confinement,
nor shall the arrest or confinement imposed upon them be any more
rigorous than the circumstances require. My confinement
classification and status are in clear contravention of the Navy
Instruction.

5. Under my current restrictions, in addition to being stripped at
night, I am essentially held in solitary confinement. For 23 hours per
day, I sit alone in my cell. The guards checked on me every five
minutes during the day by asking me if I am okay. I am required to
respond in some affirmative manner. At night, if the guards can not
10

————————————— 11

Subj: REBUTTAL TO COMPLAINT OF WRONGS UNDER ARTICLE 138 UCMJ BY
PRIVATE FIRST CLASS BRADLEY MANNING U.S. ARMY

see me clearly, because I have a blanket over my head or I am curled up
towards the wall, they will wake me in order to ensure that I am okay.
I receive each of my meals in my cell. I am not allowed to have a
pillow or sheets. I am not allowed to have any personal items in my
cell. I am only allowed to have one book or one magazine at any given
time to read. The book or magazine is taken away from me at the end of
the day before I go to sleep. I am prevented from exercising in my
cell. If I attempt to do push-ups, sit-ups, or any other form of
exercise I am forced to stop by the guards. Finally, I receive only
one hour of exercise outside of my cell daily. My exercise is usually
limited to me walking figure eights in an empty room.

6. My defense counsel, Mr. David Coombs (a reserve Lieutenant Colonel
in the Army) and I have raised our objection to these confinement
conditions on multiple occasions. Based on the above, I believe that
the action of holding me under MAX Custody and POI Status from 27
August 2010 to present, placing me on Suicide Risk on 18 January 2011,
and forcing me to strip naked at night since 2 March 2011 is wrong
under Article 138, UCMJ. I do not believe that the PCF Commander has
the discretion to keep me in confinement under these circumstances.

7. I believe my classification custody and POI Status is based upon
inappropriate reasons and is therefore an abuse of the PCF Commanders
discretion, and a wrong within the meaning of Article 138, UCMJ. As
redress, I request that you order my removal from POI Status and that
you order the reduction of my classification level from MAX to MDI.

/s/
B. E. Manning
PFC, US Army

I have assisted PFC Bradley Manning with the drafting of his request
for redress, and have signed for him given the present circumstances.
I concur with the matters he has expressed in his rebuttal, and join
him in requesting that you order his removal from POI Status and that
you order a reduction in his classification level from MAX to MDI.

/s/
D. E. Coombs
Civilian Defense Counsel
11

Ireland, General Elections 2011: Unsealed ballot box(es)

As the polls get closed for the General Elections 2011 (“GE11″) in Ireland, a number of  irregularities have already been spotted and reported by people all over the country.

From the Irish Statute Book, Local Election Regulations, Section 59,

Opening of the poll.

59. Immediately before the commencement of the poll the presiding officer at each polling station shall show each ballot box in his or her charge to such persons as are present in the station, so that they may see that it is empty, and shall then lock the box and seal it in such manner as to prevent its being opened without breaking the seal and shall place it in his or her view for the receipt of ballot papers, and keep it so locked, sealed and in view during the poll.

Gilmore voting in a sealed ballot box on February 25, 2011

Unsealed ballot box with corner lifted and 3 circles in the centre where seal is supposed to go, photographed in Cork, Ireland, on February 25, 2011 - http://yfrog.com/h8todszj

A voter from North-West Cork reported on boards.ie this morning,

Went to vote at about 10.55 this morning, noted the girls on desk were not only marking off names but also keeping a record of number of voters.

I was the 65th this morning at this particular station.

I also noted fancy new plastic boxes that looked more like a shredder than a ballot box……

Voted dropped in my paper and next of all my 4 year-old lifts lid and we can see all of the previous ballots.

Was leaving and thought about it, got the Garda and went back and showed him.

Of course excuses followed and sure it was grand and he would say it to the presiding officer. As I was leaving the other ballot boxes in the other rooms appeared only to have common everyday cable ties on them.

I spotted a guy sitting in the hallway of the school (each station is in a different classroom) asked if he was the presiding officer ad he acknowledged.

I explained to him the problem, he didn’t even get off his seat. (11.00am) I then left, the more I thought about the excuses and lack of urgency really gets me !

The Garda was standing next to me when I took the photo.

I went back to the polling station and broached the attitude with the officer, we had a conversation about it and the potential for fraud, e-voting as a prime example and of course it would never happen…….Honesty and all that.

I pointed out our honest politicians etc!

Anyway it turns out the county sheriff turned up and conversations etc followed and all was fine.
BUT apparently wax was sent with the boxes and he (the sheriff) said there was no need to use it, that regular cable ties were sufficient.??

Either wax is required for open and fully transparent voting or it’s not. I believe not even security cable ties were used.

At least this number/letter pattern could be checked at the count station.

As taken from the public Citizens Information website,

Voting is by secret ballot. You may fold your ballot paper to hide how you voted and place it in a sealed ballot box.

The issue was brought to RTE‘s attention and confirmed, to which RTE reported

Cork County Sheriff Michael O’Driscoll has said an unsealed ballot box at a polling station in Ballincollig was immediately sealed once it was brought to the attention of staff by a voter this morning.

A voter from North Dublin added

Same with the boxes in North Dublin this morning. Some were locked, some were not.

A voter from South Dublin added

Same in Dublin South. Looked fairly dodgy, I have to say.

A voter from Kildare added

Doesn’t this happen at all polling stations ?

Mine in Kildare definitely did this for the local elections, and the last by-election.

A voter from Cork  added

Voted in Cork NC – no Guard present. Didn’t even think to check if the ballot box was sealed.

A voter from Waterford added

I voted today in Barracks Street, Waterford. It didn’t bother me at the time, but after reading this post, i recalled that the ballot box i used was also not sealed (it was a tin box, that looked about 20 years old), it was quite full and when i had to push my paper in the lid rattled ajar.

Other issues reported by voters on Twitter and boards.ie include

Cork NW – Had a look at my sealed box. The seals they are using are the standard cable ties, not the security ones. The standard cable ties offer no security to being opened and closed again.

There was no Gardai where I voted in Dublin North east earlier.

Have you something to say about what you experienced in your local polling station ? Have you an opinion, a picture, a video, or something to say on the matter ?

Mind sharing ?