E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Jim Watson / AFP - Getty Images
Pfc. Bradley Manning is escorted by military police departing the courtroom at Fort Meade, Md., in April. The U.S. Army private is accused of passing classified documents to secret-spilling WikiLeaks,
Updated at 10 p.m. ET: The defense team for Private First Class Bradley Manning — charged in the biggest security breach in U.S. history — invoked the soldier’s excitement about March Madness and questioned a Marine about whether he refers to his underpants as “panties.”
A former intelligence analyst in Baghdad in 2009 and 2010, Manning stands accused of giving thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks, including logs about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and more than 250,000 diplomatic cables. If convicted of the most serious count of the 22 charges against him — aiding the enemy — Manning could face life in prison.
Manning was detained on May 29, 2010, and has been in pre-trial lock-up since. The pretrial hearings have focused primarily on a period of nearly nine months that he was locked up alone in a small cell at the Marine Corps brig in Quantico, Va., and forced to sleep naked for several nights. His lawyers say the solitary confinement constituted illegal punishment — and grounds to dismiss all charges.
Military prosecutors in the case maintain that Manning’s treatment was proper — confining him initially as a maximum-security detainee who posed a risk of injury to himself or others, and after further evaluation changing his status to medium risk.
In Fort Meade on Sunday, the Marine who served as the Quantico brig counselor while Manning was held there defended the decision to keep Manning on strict, "Prevention of Injury" status for months - much longer than most other detainees.
Marine Master Sergeant Craig Blenis said that Manning's statements and actions warranted his restricted status, including when he responded to a question about his suicidal tendencies with the written statement, "Always planning, never acting."
Blenis argued that you don't go to an airport and joke about a bomb, you don't go to D.C. and joke about assassination, and you don't go to a jail and joke about suicide. "If someone tells me they're going to shoot themselves in the face, I'm not going to give them a gun," he said.
Asked about Manning's claim that his statement was just sarcasm, Blenis said that he doesn't interpret sarcasm, "not when you're talking about hurting yourself."
The defense argued that Manning's continued good behavior should have warranted fewer restrictions. Blenis replied that being polite and courteous doesn't mean someone will not hurt themselves.
Blenis referenced several instances of Manning's odd behavior, citing posing in front of the mirror and flexing his muscles, playing peek-a-boo with himself, and licking the bars of his cell.
Defense attorney David Coombs asked why posing in the mirror was unorthodox, saying that he has done that before, too. Is playing peek-a-boo odd? he asked.
"It's not normal," Blenis said.
In March 2011 Manning made another statement about suicide, saying that if he wanted to kill himself, he could use his underwear or his socks. The guards then began to take away Manning's underwear and socks at night.
Coombs asked Blenis about an email between some members of the Brig staff that said to make sure Manning was not standing naked at evening count, saying, "You should be taking his panties right before he lays down."
Blenis responded that the words underwear and panties can be interchangeable.
"So you call your underwear panties?" Coombs asked.
"Sometimes I do, sir," Blenis said.
"That's your testimony?" Coombs asked.
"Yes, sir," he responded.
March Madness?
Earlier in the day, Staff Sergeant Ryan Jordan told the defense during cross-examination that one reason Manning was kept on prevention of injury status – essentially one level below suicide watch – was that Manning rarely engaged in conversation with the guards.
Jordan related an instance when he and Manning spoke about the upcoming March Madness — the frenzy around the national college basketball playoffs — and said that Manning talked about how he had enjoyed filling out brackets in previous years.
Coombs asked Jordan whether Manning having a possible gender identity disorder was factored into the decision to keep Manning on prevention of injury status, referring to the defendant as Breanna Elizabeth Manning, the alias Manning used when he first arrived at Quantico.
A gender identity disorder "didn't weigh heavily" in his consideration, Jordan said.
The defense attorney also put Manning’s height and weight on the record Sunday for consideration by the judge, postulating that Manning may have been quiet because he was physically intimidated by Jordan. Staff Sergeant Jordan stands 6 foot 9 inches, while Manning is 5 foot 2 inches and weighs about 105 pounds, Coombs said.
NBC News' Kari Huus, The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.
More content from NBCNews.com:
- Florida guide uses hunting as rustic therapy for combat veterans
- Police: Kansas City Chiefs linebacker kills girlfriend, then himself
- Cuba pushes swap: its spies jailed in US for American contractor held in Havana
- Passengers killed when tour bus hits Miami airport overpass
- Women warriors pass elite Army training course
- Teacher lured boys online to get nude pics, cops say
- 66 species of coral proposed for protection by US
Leave a Comment:
Should General Allen be in the cell beside Manning........ It seems Manning may have had beliefs and General Allen just personal lust, and he gave away much...
Uh, General Allen hasn't been accused of anything. He's still in command. The media insinuated he was having an affair and everyone jumped to the conclusion that he passed classified information. If there was any merit at all to that, his clearance would have been suspended immediately pending further investigation. He would have been removed from command because he must use classified information to make decisions.
PFC Manning on the other hand has admitted to hemorrhaging classified information, most of which had nothing to do with war crimes or collateral damage incidents, to a man for posting on-line. That is a crime under UCMJ. Huge difference.
Why can you not joke? When the airline stewardess' ask where I am going, I say, "My destination, or the crash site." Those are the only two places to go on a commercial flight. Don't blame me if you are a coward and have no sense of humor.
The woosie will have the twinkie defense next.
Bradley Manning is an unfortunate dupe in a global game....The witness protection program could possibly assist in giving him a rebirth at life (as long as he proves that he understands the magnitude of his misjudgement). Why not just have the govt accept that they blew it with their security protocols and have Congress encode into law statutes that will neutralize or marginalize our enemies like Julian Assange....That man belongs in prison for what he did to the USA...Or at least he has earned "The Royal Treatment". ;-P
First, witness protection does not apply to crimes of this nature. Second, you need to understand he isn't a civilian, so his actions aren't bound by civilian law; his actions are governed by the military's rules, the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual for Courts Martial.
There are channels military members have to follow if they intend to be a whistle-blower: IG, request mast (It circumnavigates your chain of command - with a lot of effort on your part), and even alerting a Congressmen if those two options fail.
There were routes he could have taken, but chose not to do so. Instead, he gives the classified information to a foreign national.
thom78, What you say is 100% correct. The thing that most people are missing that UCMJ aside for one second, Military protocol provides for assessment of responsibility as well. What I mean by that is that not all that long ago we had enough common sense to realize that a PFC shouldn't have the sole responsibility and access for safeguarding documents of this sensitive of a nature. In my time we would have always had a two man rule for such important communique. Secondly I think that Beret sums it up entirely. When George HW Bush was in office he decided that everyone in the Army needed one to have more self esteem. When I was in the Army we earned them. We weren't handled with kid gloves and we took 17 and 18 year old boys and turned them into men. We didn't have to coddle little boys that were sad to be away from mommy and keep them on mood enhancers so they wouldn't cry themselves to sleep at night. Let's face it these guys only stayed in the military because we got involved in too many conflicts with too few resources. We have a lot of great people in the military, unfortunately they are not allowed to kick the duds to the curb anymore. It is getting better with these conflicts winding down. Bottom line is no excuse for his actions but we have no excuse for ours either.
The guy should never have left mommy and daddy for the military. Uh, welcome to the real world.
The should have put him in a cell with Big Bubba
Is that your husband?
Manning should be the recipient of the whistleblower award, for helping bring to light the corrupt politicians shenanigans. Only a fool believes the old war cry, "they just want democracy", & "he's killing his own people." If they just want democracy, why are they electing Muslim Brotherhood & other radical pro-Sharia Law people as their leaders, even while the USA monitors the elections to ensure the people actually get the officals they vote for?
If, by 'award,' you mean death, then I agree with you.
Zheng, although you are correct about the free elections not going "our" way, you can't excuse the fact that he committed treason to expose what he believed to be wrong. These people in foreign countries that elect horrible monsters to office have a right to do so. Jimmy Carter has spent nearly a lifetime ensuring that these "hummus" republics become "free" countries. I commend him for his efforts but the people of these countries have lived in hell so long they feel comfortable in hell and have grown to like it. A famous actor once said, "You can't take away people's right to be @!$%#s."
The primary reality facing the Marines who are responsible for Pfc. Manning's health and well-being during his incarceration is that he might decide sua sponte or otherwise that killing himself somehow would be a victory for whatever self-imagined cause célèbre strikes his fancy at the moment, and the only guaranteed way to prevent Pfc. Manning from harming himself is for the Marines to control every aspect of Pfc. Manning's life ruthlessly while he is incarcerated by the Marine Corps . . .
In other words, if on the day Pfc. Manning is released from custody and control by the Marine Corps, he is healthy and has not harmed himself, then the Marines have done their job as it should be done, and the responsibility for Pfc. Manning's health and well-being transfer to his new custodians . . .
Yet another reality is that the most serious charge against Pfc. Manning is treason, and the maximum penalty for treason is death, typically by a firing squad, hence from this perspective one might suggest reasonably that Pfc. Manning certainly could have the ongoing perception that he literally is a "dead man walking", hence the certainty and finality of his death is not so important as the manner in which it occurs, hence the increased concern that Pfc. Manning will attempt to harm himself if he is given the opportunity . . .
So long as the Marines keep Pfc. Manning alive and healthy, when the orders arrive for the Marines to transfer control of Pfc. Manning to some other branch of the military or whatever, then with a successful transfer the Marines have done their job correctly and wisely, which in this instance is all that matters . . .
It is their watch, and it is correct and proper in every respect that the Marines define and enforce the rules for what happens on their watch, for sure . . .
For sure! :-)
Nice try...
Just to be clear; PFC Manning has NOT been charged with treason. He has been charged with aiding the enemy which is not the same thing. You are correct though that the charge of aiding the enemy does carry a maximum penalty of death.
Second, having been charged with a capital crime is not really sufficient cause to use overly restrictive measures to make sure we keep him alive so that we can kill him later. We have hundreds of inmates on death row in various prisons who are not on suicide watch or prevention of injury watch. The Marines are responsible for Manning's safety. They however cannot engage in unnessecarily restrictive, demeaning or humiliating acts for the supposed purpose of protecting their prisoner. So keeping him alive to deliver him to the next custodian in the chain is NOT all that matters.
JoeMike, as a retired Veteran in my books, and from what I learned during my time in Air Force what Pvt Manning did was commit treason; I don't care what some of you bleeding heart libs want to call it. He is subject to death penalty as far as I'm concerned.
He did not commit the Constitutional definition of treason, but that is much different than the Military's definition, that's why it is still being brought up.
Thanks for the clarification on terminology regarding "treason". I checked the charges and noted that "treason" was not one of them, but the "aiding the enemy" or whatever charge serves the same purpose, and at least colloquially I consider what Pfc. Manning did to be treason, since at minimum it meets the criterion for the primary definition of the word, which is "a betrayal of trust" . . .
Beginning with referring to himself as "Breanna Elizabeth Manning, the alias Manning used when he first arrived at Quantico" and continuing with statements regarding his ongoing suicidal thinking, as well as patently odd behaviors suck as licking the bars of his prison cell, this is more than sufficient in the universe according to me to make preventing Pfc. Manning from harming or killing himself the top priority, especially from the perspective of the Marine Corps, since the only way the Marine Corps fails to do its job occurs if Pfc. Manning harms or kills himself . . .
I would not take any chances whatsoever, no matter how reasonable they might appear to be at the time . . .
My perspective is that Pfc. Manning is a worthless piece of traitorous human garbage, and the best way to ensure that he does not cause additional problems is to do everything possible to ensure that he does not harm or kill himself as some type of twisted political or philosophical statement, as a way to avoid trial and punishment, as a way to embarrass or otherwise cause problems for the Marine Corps, or whatever . . .
So long as the authority and responsibility for Pfc. Manning's health and well-being rest with the Marine Corps, then the primary task for the Marines is to ensure that Pfc. Manning is healthy and well, continuing until the authority and responsibility cease to rest with the Marine Corps . . .
By his actions, Pfc. Manning has demonstrated without question that he has no qualms regarding causing grievous injury to our great nation, and this is sufficient justification for disbelieving everything Pfc. Manning says . . .
In other words, I suggest that the Marines must presume that Pfc. Manning is a liar, which in turn casts doubt on everything Pfc. Manning says and does, and in the situation where you are tasked with keeping Pfc. Manning alive, unharmed, healthy, and well in a box, then this is what you do, and it is your number one job . . .
Your job does not include making it a happy box with sparkly rainbows and fluffy bunnies hopping around humming "We Are The World" and "Kumbaya" . . .
If Pfc. Manning is unhappy in his little box and petitions the court to let him have some rope, razor blades, and cyanide capsules, and the court agrees, then this might change the official policy of the Marine Corps, but absent the court removing authority and responsibility from the Marine Corps for the health and well-being of Pfc. Manning, I see no other practical option for the Marines but to continue doing what they have been doing, really . . .
Really! :-o
"Defense attorney David Coombs asked why posing in the mirror was unorthodox, saying that he has done that before, too."
Yes Coombs, you are a strange scumbag too.
If posing in the mirror is so unorthodox, then why do so many men go to websites that are full of naked young women doing just that? Isn't that how most of them post their pics? In the mirror naked with their camera. I don't know about you, but many of them do not look like strange scumbags to me.
I think the whole Peek a Boo thing is taking it a bit far.
Marine Master Sergeant Craig Blenis sometimes refers to his underwear as panties. Usually it's when he tells his gay lover to tear off his "panties" and f@ck him in the @ss.
More likely Beer it was when he was working on humiliating and embarrassing his prisoner. He lied through his teeth when he said he refers to HIS underwear as panties. He does most likely though refer to the underwear of those he is trying to bully as panties.
The skimpy shorts US Rangers wear for physical training are called Ranger Panties. I've heard male underwear referred to by a lot of names, and panties is one of them. Us military types are different than you squirmy civilians!
So-called suicide watch is a joke. If someone really wants to kill themselves, all they have to do is inhale water from the sink and drown.
Or take a nice big bite through their own wrists.
Downing yourself in the sink is next to impossible. When the water hits your lungs you involuntarily react to expel the water. Biting a chunk out of your wrists is possible, but I'm certain PFC Manning is not man enough to do that.
Next to is not impossible - but yes, it does take a certain mindset to accomplish.
And I agree, PFC (wo)Manning is likely not the sort to take that bite - which is a shame, because he's going to cost us taxpayers a fortune sitting in a cell.
Just take him out back and shoot him. He's a traitor.
I imagine the use of the word "panties" was to reinforce the thinking that he was gay and feminine. I doubt if the witness really ever referred to his own underwear as "panties".
Here's what I don't understand. Life in prison is death in prison in the military (no parole). So they are seeking death. So why do they care how he dies? Death is death. Dying in prison is dying in prison. It's ridiculous that prosecutors (military and civilian) try so hard to keep someone alive because the prosecution presumes they are guilty when they are only going to seek a sentence that results in death anyway? It's cynical, but it's also the brutal truth. If a prosecutor seeks a 30-year sentence for a 70 year-old man/woman, the result is still death in prison. Let's be blunt yes, cruel about it. The law hasn't been about fairness ever (read: slavery, poll taxes, literacy tests & requirements to have a permanent address to limit voting of homeless vets). No reason to think it will change. So why is this a problem? We sentence people to die in prison all the time, right or wrong. After all, if you die a year or 50 years later in prison, you are still dead and recidivism isn't a problem. Deterrence from the "death penalty" hasn't worked or no one one would commit a crime resulting in their death in prison (death penalty or life w/o parole). Maybe we should record and televise all deaths in prison, mandated to be shown by the FCC. Especially to children. Teach them early what happens if you are convicted of certain crimes (guilty or not). *That* creates the fear of committing or being in a situation where one might be convicted of a crime resulting in death in prison. I am quite sure that if every death/murder in prison is televised in prime-time and public schools, fear would prevent at least some from committing crimes (or being involved) in crimes resulting in incarceration that may result in death. After all, the goal of law-enforcement is to create fear to prevent crime (or perceived crime). Or, is it just to get money to prosecute crime that's already happened? Don't see much crime prevention in my community, just evidence gathering after-the-fact. And most often for "crimes" that are simply choices to do what "Roe" said - to do what we want with out own bodies, not violence against others.
Jspencer. While I agree that we have gotten away from crime prevention in this country, I don't really think that public punishment has ever changed much. It sounds great and there are plenty of arguments for it, but every child has to learn some things by self doing. It is highly unlikely that you never stole anything. We have to learn some lessons on our own. I am just glad I didn't learn the theft lesson in Iran, as I can still wipe my butt with either hand. Luckily when I stole the pack of cigarettes at the White Hen Pantry the old guy behind the counter held me in the back room until his buddy showed up for his morning coffee. The Highway Patrolman put me in his car and took me to the station. After an hour in the cell he pulled me back out and said that the old man decided not to prosecute as long as I never stole again. The cop dropped me off near my house and I learned my lesson. Today things would be much different, it is just sad that we can't return to a day where law enforcement were respected and earned it. They protected and served us. Not to blame cops we are all the problem.
Because you can't pardon a person who's already been executed. Where there is life, there is hope. If PFC Manning is convicted and sentenced to life in prison (he won't be), some liberal president in the future could pardon him and secure his freedom.
I spent 6+ years in the army. There are lots of men in the military with hang-ups and 'issues'. PFC Manning had his, and the guards at the brig have theirs. Manning is an eccentric in a very bad place for an eccentric, the military. The guards are conformists, who are in a very bad place for conformists, the military. In the military one conforms to a set of warped ideals, which is typically excused as patriotism. As Dr. Johnson said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scounrel." By exposing war crimes, and other misdemeanors, Manning risked his freedom, perhaps his life, and could expect ostracism, and heaps of opprobrium and hatred (which you read in the comments to this article). The guards risk angering their superiors if they don't do what's expected of them.
Please re-read your own post. It doesn't make any sense. But I think I get your meaning.
PFC Manning didn't risk his freedom to expose war crimes. He released hundreds of thousands of documents that had absolutely nothing to do with war crimes or any crimes for that matter. It would be impossible for him to know what was on 99% of the documents he released because of the sheer volume of them. He didn't like his situation and decided to use the position of trust he occupied to lash out at the "system". Like the spoiled child having a tantrum who breaks his own toy to punish his mother.
It is an insult to see manning in uniform.
I wish they would put him in a Gitmo orange suit instead.
He is a traitor to our country.
He is still an active duty Soldier, drawing a full paycheck and everything. Until convicted, he maintains that status. The law is the law, and I'm very glad for the protections it offers. Someday you too might need those protections!
Blenis is doing his job well, which is to make Manning's experience as much like hell as he can without providing enough ammo for the defence to cause a judge to grant him some humanity. Manning is the modern version of the head on the spike. Obviously, for most soldiers, even the psychological torture of 9 months extreme solitary confinement is too good for him. I'm surprised that after 9 months, Blenis doesn't have many more examples of 'odd' behavior with which to justify his treatment of Manning.
His living conditions are much better now. The military jail system doesn't screw around. If you even jokingly reference hurting yourself, you will find yourself naked or restrained in such a way as to make it very hard to succeed. When a Soldier manages to commit suicide on your watch, your career is officially over.
this administration has made a decision to make the US armed forces another part of their "progressive" agenda. Two women were recentely married in the cadet's chapel at west point. other gay service members were given permission to wear their uniforms in a gay parade, something that had never been done in the history of the armed forces. So, although these women may have "passed" the sappers course, you will never convince me that they did so w/ absolutely no consideration of their gender. What officer, who wants to advance in their carreer would have the audacity to fail either woman, their career would stop dead in their tracks. And then, when these women are granted permission to go into combat, and are unable to perform, unfortunately, the terrorists won't care if the obama administration has made it a policy to judge female service persons w/ a different set of criteria. They will be tortured and killed like any other prisoner. I only pray that it does not cost the life of others who serve along side of individuals who were given a wink and a nod so that big sis, and ambassador rice, and obama could feel good about how "far we have come" in the advancement and recognition of all service persons. I only wish they would judge people by the content of their performance, and not their gender.
welcome to barack obama's version of the the united states military.where same sex marriages take place in the chapel at west point, where active duty military personnel are granted permission to wear their uniforms in gay pride parades. And now, with a "man" who passed along an incredible amount of top secret millitary documents to an absolute lunatic of another country is being considered to be re classified as a mid-level risk.