Saturday, January 14, 2012
Manning likely to face court martial
From The Hindu
Snapped on camera after more than a year in military confinement,
he cut a diminutive figure as he was marched to his pre-trial court hearing
between two Army officers. Bradley Manning, the military intelligence analyst
charged with the biggest leak of state secrets in United States history, faces
the prospect a court martial and consequently, a higher likelihood of a lifetime
prison sentence.
At the hearings that were recently completed in Fort Meade,
Maryland, Mr. Manning's attorney David Coombs had argued that there was a lack
of adequate security at the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility in
Iraq, where Mr. Manning worked. He also centred defence arguments on the Army's
insufficient response to his client's emotional problems.
Defence argument
On the first day of the pre-trial hearing Mr. Coombs challenged
the process itself and asked Investigating Officer Colonel Paul Almanza to
recuse himself on the grounds that the latter was a Department of Justice
prosecutor in the case against WikiLeaks, the online whistleblower that
published a vast trove of U.S. State Department cables.
Mr. Coombs went on to argue that the U.S. Army's charges against
Mr. Manning were excessive and he reportedly made a plea to reduce the charges
from 22 to three.
One of the most serious charges that Mr. Manning is facing is
“aiding the enemy”, which is a capital offence. However, prosecutors and the
investigating officer in the pre-trial hearing have concurred that they will not
seek the death penalty but life imprisonment for Mr. Manning.
Following Col. Alamanza's recommendation that Mr. Manning be sent
to a full court martial, Jeff Patterson of the Bradley Manning Support Network
said he was “disappointed” by the development but was “far from surprised.”
“I sat in that courtroom and watched a Department of Justice
employee pretending to be an impartial judge,” Mr. Patterson was quoted as
saying. He further hinted that the prosecution had been able to present all its
desired witnesses, but had blocked the defence team from calling “all but a few”
witnesses that it had requested.
Labels: Bradley Manning, Iraq war, U.S. Embassy cables, Wikileaks
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Manning trial: focus on mental competency
From The Hindu
The pre-trial military hearing of Bradley Manning (24), the U.S.
Army intelligence officer accused of leaking hundreds of thousands of
confidential files to online whistleblower Wikileaks more than a year ago, will
focus on one question: whether he was mentally competent and technically
qualified to hold the sensitive role that he did.
With Mr. Manning facing the prospect of a military court-martial,
which could theoretically impose the death penalty on the charge of “aiding the
enemy,” his defence team has hinted that its arguments, beginning Wednesday,
would likely draw attention to expert testimonies that he was “a troubled young
man who shouldn't have had access to classified material, let alone be sent to
Iraq,” and that the “military computer security [was] lax at Manning's Baghdad
workplace, where soldiers played games, music and movies on computers meant for
classified information”.
Led by his attorney David Coombs, Mr. Manning's defence will also
raise the possibility that “soldiers other than Manning could have used the
shared computers holding evidence of the alleged crimes,” sources said.
The defence arguments have begun this week following five days of
testimony by the prosecution, which reached a dramatic climax on Tuesday when
Adrian Lamo, the hacker who ultimately turned Mr. Manning in to the authorities,
took to the stand.
In his statements, Mr. Lamo was quoted as saying he had traded
instant messages and e-mails with Mr. Manning in May 2010 and “decided to go to
the authorities right away because the soldier made claims of acts so egregious
it required that response”.
Mr. Coombs' cross-examination of Mr. Lamo however was however
built around the scenario of the hacker breaking the trust of a vulnerable Mr.
Manning, who had spoken to Mr. Lamo in confidence about government data files.
Their exchange, quoted in the New York Times, saw Mr. Coombs
asking Mr. Lamo, “Do you believe Mr. Manning was coming to you for moral
support?” Mr. Lamo was quoted as replying, “I think he wanted to brag about what
he had done.”
In the months leading to the trial numerous parties had called
attention to Mr. Manning's fragile state, however, and attention was also
focused on the conditions of his interment at a military prison in Quantico,
Virginia.
A detailed report and video published by The Guardian newspaper in
May showed that Mr. Manning was not only given a negative report by his
commanding officers here, but was also noted by his colleagues as displaying
signs buckling under enormous stress. Yet, in October 2009, Mr. Manning was sent
to Forward Operating Base Hammer, near Baghdad.
In March 2011 P. J. Crowley, former Assistant Secretary of the
Bureau of Public Affairs and a spokesman for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
said at a seminar at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that the
treatment meted out to Mr. Manning was “ridiculous and counterproductive and
stupid on the part of the Department of Defence”. He has since resigned from the
Department of State over his remarks on the case.
In January a non-profit group called Psychologists for Social
Responsibility wrote an open letter to Secretary of Defence Robert Gates in
which it said it was “deeply concerned about the conditions under which PFC
Bradley Manning is being held,” citing in particular the fact that he was in
solitary confinement for approximately 23 hours a day in a cell approximately
six feet wide and 12 feet in length “for no discernable reason other than
punishment...”
Labels: Bradley Manning trial, Wikileaks
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Manning was mentally unstable: report
Bradley Manning, U.S. military intelligence officer charged with leaking confidential government documents to WikiLeaks, the online whistleblower website, was deployed in Iraq despite warnings from evaluators that he was not mentally stable and a risk to himself and others, an investigation has revealed.
A detailed report and video published by The Guardian newspaper showed that Mr. Manning was not only given a negative report by his commanding officers here, but was also noted by his colleagues as displaying signs buckling under enormous stress. Yet, in October 2009, Mr. Manning was sent to Forward Operating Base Hammer, near Baghdad.
The extensive investigation by The Guardian suggested that even by that point Mr. Manning had faced much bullying within the army and was also possibly distressed owing to his partner, Tyler Watkins, ending their relationship in late 2009. It was clear that he had been under much pressure when one officer said to The Guardian, “He was harassed so much that he once [urinated] in his sweatpants.”
Mr. Manning's demotion and ultimate discharge from the military came after May 7, 2010, when, according to a soldier who had been deployed to FOB Hammer alongside Mr. Manning said Mr. Manning started “blowing up and punching this chick in the face.”
It was shortly after this point, while he was still awaiting discharge for “adjustment disorder,” that he communicated with former hacker-turned-informant, Adrian Lamo. Within 24 hours of revealing to Mr. Lamo that he had possibly copied and transmitted to “WL” a vast tranche of confidential government data when he was at FOB Hammer, Mr. Lamo reported him to U.S. authorities.
Since his arrest in May 2010 evaluators have continued to assess Mr. Manning's mental health, officials confirmed, and earlier reports suggested that he might be considered to be at risk of self-harm.
However the controversial conditions of Mr. Manning's incarceration also threatened to become a major embarrassment to the administration when it became evident that he was being forced to strip down to a smock every night and was being held in solitary confinement.
While he was transferred to a lower-security prison in April 2011, his prior time in the military brig in Quantico, Virginia, saw top officials and civil society groups voicing strong protest to the treatment meted out to him by jail officers there.
In particular, U.S. State Department spokesman Philip Crowley had to resign after he described Mr. Manning's treatment as “ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid.” Further
A group of 250 legal experts including a former professor of President Barack Obama wrote a letter condemning the U.S.' describing the harsh conditions of Mr. Manning's time in jail as “illegal and immoral.”
Labels: Bradley Manning, cablegate, Philip Crowley, U.S. State Department spokesman, whistleblower, Wikileaks
Manning ruled fit for trial
From The Hindu
An army intelligence analyst jailed on charges of leaking United States government data to Wikileaks has been found competent to stand trial despite earlier being categorised as a suicide risk, according to official sources. Bradley Manning, who was held in solitary confinement for 11 months following allegations that he gave the online whistleblower website sensitive information on U.S. military and diplomatic engagements, was cleared to stand trial by a “panel of experts.”
Despite protests from his legal team, the Pentagon earlier ruled that Mr. Manning was in danger of harming himself and consequently stripped him down to a smock every night and held him in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day. However last week Mr. Manning was transferred from the military facility in Quantico, Virginia, where he was being held under these restrictive conditions, to a prison in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, where he was said to be considered “medium-security” detenu. In Fort Leavenworth, authorities said he would be permitted to interact with other inmates.
While the treatment meted out to Mr. Manning in Quantico was described as “degrading and inhumane” by a group of 250 legal experts, including a former professor of President Barack Obama, Pentagon officials said there was a lot of “misinformation” about Mr. Manning and insisted he was neither in solitary confinement nor stripped naked every night.
With Mr. Manning being suddenly moved to Fort Leavenwoth the focus of his case is likely to shift to military court martial proceedings, the date for which has not yet been set.
In a concurrent development, Mr. Obama was recently caught on camera saying to an attendee at a fundraising event in San Francisco last week that Mr. Manning “broke the law,” prompting some legal experts to argue that in saying so Mr. Obama has “destroyed the chance of a fair trial” for Mr. Manning.
The White House subsequently withdrew the privileges of the journalist, Carla Marinucci, who posted online the video of Mr. Obama commenting on Mr. Manning's guilt.
An army intelligence analyst jailed on charges of leaking United States government data to Wikileaks has been found competent to stand trial despite earlier being categorised as a suicide risk, according to official sources. Bradley Manning, who was held in solitary confinement for 11 months following allegations that he gave the online whistleblower website sensitive information on U.S. military and diplomatic engagements, was cleared to stand trial by a “panel of experts.”
Despite protests from his legal team, the Pentagon earlier ruled that Mr. Manning was in danger of harming himself and consequently stripped him down to a smock every night and held him in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day. However last week Mr. Manning was transferred from the military facility in Quantico, Virginia, where he was being held under these restrictive conditions, to a prison in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, where he was said to be considered “medium-security” detenu. In Fort Leavenworth, authorities said he would be permitted to interact with other inmates.
While the treatment meted out to Mr. Manning in Quantico was described as “degrading and inhumane” by a group of 250 legal experts, including a former professor of President Barack Obama, Pentagon officials said there was a lot of “misinformation” about Mr. Manning and insisted he was neither in solitary confinement nor stripped naked every night.
With Mr. Manning being suddenly moved to Fort Leavenwoth the focus of his case is likely to shift to military court martial proceedings, the date for which has not yet been set.
In a concurrent development, Mr. Obama was recently caught on camera saying to an attendee at a fundraising event in San Francisco last week that Mr. Manning “broke the law,” prompting some legal experts to argue that in saying so Mr. Obama has “destroyed the chance of a fair trial” for Mr. Manning.
The White House subsequently withdrew the privileges of the journalist, Carla Marinucci, who posted online the video of Mr. Obama commenting on Mr. Manning's guilt.
Labels: Bradley Manning, whistleblower, Wikileaks
Manning faces fewer restrictions in Kansas jail
From The Hindu
Bradley Manning, the United States army intelligence analyst jailed for allegedly leaking government documents to WikiLeaks, will no longer be in solitary confinement after being transferred from a military facility in Quantico, Virginia to a prison in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, according to the Department of Defence.
Members of the media were permitted to enter the Fort Leavenworth jail and observe the conditions under which Mr. Manning is being detained. According to the visiting group of reporters, officials assured them that Mr. Manning would be held alongside another ten detainees awaiting trial.
Specifically the Associated Press reported that he would “have his own cell, wear standard prison clothing and have open access to a communal area except overnight.” In Quantico Mr. Manning’s treatment by prison officials became the centre of a growing controversy as he was held in solitary confinement for 23 hours each day and forced to strip down to a smock every night.
His treatment there also led to several incidents involving high-profile officials. Last month State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley resigned after calling the Pentagon’s actions “ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid.” Following this a top United Nations official has said that he was “deeply disappointed and frustrated by the prevarication of the U.S. government,” after his attempts to have unmonitored meetings with Mr. Manning were rejected.
However as he is now held along with medium-security prisoners and in less restrictive conditions the focus of his case is likely to shift to his court martial hearing, the date for which has not yet been set.
Yet even that trial has already been dogged by controversy as President Barack Obama was caught on camera saying to an attendee at a fundraising event in San Francisco last week that Mr. Manning “broke the law.” Some legal experts have argued that in saying so Mr. Obama has “destroyed the chance of a fair trial” for Mr. Manning.
Bradley Manning, the United States army intelligence analyst jailed for allegedly leaking government documents to WikiLeaks, will no longer be in solitary confinement after being transferred from a military facility in Quantico, Virginia to a prison in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, according to the Department of Defence.
Members of the media were permitted to enter the Fort Leavenworth jail and observe the conditions under which Mr. Manning is being detained. According to the visiting group of reporters, officials assured them that Mr. Manning would be held alongside another ten detainees awaiting trial.
Specifically the Associated Press reported that he would “have his own cell, wear standard prison clothing and have open access to a communal area except overnight.” In Quantico Mr. Manning’s treatment by prison officials became the centre of a growing controversy as he was held in solitary confinement for 23 hours each day and forced to strip down to a smock every night.
His treatment there also led to several incidents involving high-profile officials. Last month State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley resigned after calling the Pentagon’s actions “ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid.” Following this a top United Nations official has said that he was “deeply disappointed and frustrated by the prevarication of the U.S. government,” after his attempts to have unmonitored meetings with Mr. Manning were rejected.
However as he is now held along with medium-security prisoners and in less restrictive conditions the focus of his case is likely to shift to his court martial hearing, the date for which has not yet been set.
Yet even that trial has already been dogged by controversy as President Barack Obama was caught on camera saying to an attendee at a fundraising event in San Francisco last week that Mr. Manning “broke the law.” Some legal experts have argued that in saying so Mr. Obama has “destroyed the chance of a fair trial” for Mr. Manning.
Labels: Bradley Manning, Pentagon, Wikileaks
Elderly, children and mentally ill incarcerated in Gitmo
From The Hindu
The “Guantanamo files,” a list of over 700 secret documents on the controversial offshore prison of the United States, has lifted the veil on how the so-called “enemy combatants” held there were in many cases “senile old men,” children, and sometimes mentally ill.
According to the files, published by the Guardian newspaper of the United Kingdom and several others, a 2002 assessment of the prison’s oldest detainee, Mohammed Sadiq, (then 89), “revealed dementia, depression and sickness.” Further Sadiq was said to have a major depressive disorder, senile dementia and osteoarthritis, for which he was receiving prescribed treatment; he was also being assessed for prostate cancer.
Similarly the memos outline the case of Canadian Omar Khadr, who was 15 years of age when captured and was still in Guantanamo nearly nine years on. In a particularly telling video of footage from an interrogation of Khadr (available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iTjk6Irbr8Q) he is shown breaking down in tears before the official questioning him.
More than one case of mentally ill prisoners was also evident in the memos, and often these inmates were held for extended periods despite being only of marginal or negligible interest from an intelligence-gathering perspective.
One memo on a Saudi inmate, Mishal Awad Sayaf Alhabiri, reads, “Approximately one year ago [he] attempted suicide by hanging. This resulted in significant brain injury due to lack of oxygen. He has been hospitalised since that time and has unpredictable emotions and behaviour. He also has a history of a head injury from a motor vehicle accident at age 18.”
Another outlines the case of Yasser Talal Zahrani, “one of three prisoners who killed themselves on 10 June 2006, [and] was noted to be of low intelligence value with ‘unremarkable’ exposure to jihadist elements.”
The “Guantanamo files,” a list of over 700 secret documents on the controversial offshore prison of the United States, has lifted the veil on how the so-called “enemy combatants” held there were in many cases “senile old men,” children, and sometimes mentally ill.
According to the files, published by the Guardian newspaper of the United Kingdom and several others, a 2002 assessment of the prison’s oldest detainee, Mohammed Sadiq, (then 89), “revealed dementia, depression and sickness.” Further Sadiq was said to have a major depressive disorder, senile dementia and osteoarthritis, for which he was receiving prescribed treatment; he was also being assessed for prostate cancer.
Similarly the memos outline the case of Canadian Omar Khadr, who was 15 years of age when captured and was still in Guantanamo nearly nine years on. In a particularly telling video of footage from an interrogation of Khadr (available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iTjk6Irbr8Q) he is shown breaking down in tears before the official questioning him.
More than one case of mentally ill prisoners was also evident in the memos, and often these inmates were held for extended periods despite being only of marginal or negligible interest from an intelligence-gathering perspective.
One memo on a Saudi inmate, Mishal Awad Sayaf Alhabiri, reads, “Approximately one year ago [he] attempted suicide by hanging. This resulted in significant brain injury due to lack of oxygen. He has been hospitalised since that time and has unpredictable emotions and behaviour. He also has a history of a head injury from a motor vehicle accident at age 18.”
Another outlines the case of Yasser Talal Zahrani, “one of three prisoners who killed themselves on 10 June 2006, [and] was noted to be of low intelligence value with ‘unremarkable’ exposure to jihadist elements.”
Labels: Guantanamo Bay detainees, U.S. diplomatic cables, Wikileaks
ISI clubbed with terror groups: Wiki-Gitmo files
From The Hindu
The Pakistani spy agency, the Inter-Service Intelligence, was considered by the United States to be on par with terror groups such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban, according to a slew of “secret” government documents on detainees in the Guantanamo Bay prison.
According to the documents, released on Sunday by newspapers such as the Guardian, “U.S. authorities describe the main Pakistani intelligence service as a terrorist organisation.” Analysts’ notes based on the interrogation of the detainees list numerous examples of the ISI “supporting, co-ordinating and protecting insurgents fighting coalition forces in Afghanistan, or even assisting al-Qaeda.”
One case, backed up by files published publicly by the Guardian, relates to “veteran militant” Harun Shirzad al-Afghani, who was said to have attended a meeting in August 2006 at which Pakistani military and intelligence officials joined senior figures in the Taliban, al-Qaida, the Lashkar-e-Taiba as well.
According to the official memo, the meeting that al-Afghani attended was to discuss operations in Afghanistan against coalition forces and it ended with a decision by the insurgent factions “to increase terrorist operations in the Kapisa, Kunar, Laghman and Nangarhar provinces [of Afghanistan], including suicide bombings, mines, and assassinations.”
The Guardian further published another Guantanamo Bay prison official file on a “high-profile Afghan religious and political leader,” which made reference to ISI operations in the eastern province of Kunar during 2002. According to the memo in question those operations were “designed to destabilise the new Afghan government under Hamid Karzai, who had been installed as interim President by the U.S.-led coalition.”
The memo reportedly said, “In January 2002 ISI financed the activities of several factions … in Kunar… in order to destabilise the Afghan [government]. In March 2002 [the ISI] reportedly provided $12,000… to finance military operations against the new government.”
While the revelations outlined in the Guantanamo Bay prison files are likely to further weaken the rocky relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan, some of the memos also suggested that “rogue elements” within the ISI sometimes acted without the official sanction of the Pakistani state.
In particular one memo describes how “rogue factions from the ISI have routinely pursued private interests and acted against the stated policy of the government of Pakistan,” and these elements have also “had sympathies for and provided support to anti-coalition militia.”
Yet the memos also show the U.S.-Pakistan relationship to be a double-edged sword, especially as they supply evidence showing “extensive” U.S.-ISI collaboration in intelligence gathering. Specifically the memos suggest that many of those transferred to Guantánamo Bay, including senior al-Qaida figures such as Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, “were arrested with Pakistani help or turned over to American authorities by Pakistani intelligence services.”
The cache of files on Guantanamo Bay prison were said to have been provided to European newspapers by the New York Times. The NYT, however, did not confirm that it had obtained the 759 "detainee assessment" dossiers written between 2002 and 2009 from WikiLeaks, the whistleblower website.
WikiLeaks has been the primary source of a vast collection of government documents, including some pertaining to U.S. military engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan and others relating to confidential cables of the U.S. State Department.
The Pakistani spy agency, the Inter-Service Intelligence, was considered by the United States to be on par with terror groups such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban, according to a slew of “secret” government documents on detainees in the Guantanamo Bay prison.
According to the documents, released on Sunday by newspapers such as the Guardian, “U.S. authorities describe the main Pakistani intelligence service as a terrorist organisation.” Analysts’ notes based on the interrogation of the detainees list numerous examples of the ISI “supporting, co-ordinating and protecting insurgents fighting coalition forces in Afghanistan, or even assisting al-Qaeda.”
One case, backed up by files published publicly by the Guardian, relates to “veteran militant” Harun Shirzad al-Afghani, who was said to have attended a meeting in August 2006 at which Pakistani military and intelligence officials joined senior figures in the Taliban, al-Qaida, the Lashkar-e-Taiba as well.
According to the official memo, the meeting that al-Afghani attended was to discuss operations in Afghanistan against coalition forces and it ended with a decision by the insurgent factions “to increase terrorist operations in the Kapisa, Kunar, Laghman and Nangarhar provinces [of Afghanistan], including suicide bombings, mines, and assassinations.”
The Guardian further published another Guantanamo Bay prison official file on a “high-profile Afghan religious and political leader,” which made reference to ISI operations in the eastern province of Kunar during 2002. According to the memo in question those operations were “designed to destabilise the new Afghan government under Hamid Karzai, who had been installed as interim President by the U.S.-led coalition.”
The memo reportedly said, “In January 2002 ISI financed the activities of several factions … in Kunar… in order to destabilise the Afghan [government]. In March 2002 [the ISI] reportedly provided $12,000… to finance military operations against the new government.”
While the revelations outlined in the Guantanamo Bay prison files are likely to further weaken the rocky relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan, some of the memos also suggested that “rogue elements” within the ISI sometimes acted without the official sanction of the Pakistani state.
In particular one memo describes how “rogue factions from the ISI have routinely pursued private interests and acted against the stated policy of the government of Pakistan,” and these elements have also “had sympathies for and provided support to anti-coalition militia.”
Yet the memos also show the U.S.-Pakistan relationship to be a double-edged sword, especially as they supply evidence showing “extensive” U.S.-ISI collaboration in intelligence gathering. Specifically the memos suggest that many of those transferred to Guantánamo Bay, including senior al-Qaida figures such as Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, “were arrested with Pakistani help or turned over to American authorities by Pakistani intelligence services.”
The cache of files on Guantanamo Bay prison were said to have been provided to European newspapers by the New York Times. The NYT, however, did not confirm that it had obtained the 759 "detainee assessment" dossiers written between 2002 and 2009 from WikiLeaks, the whistleblower website.
WikiLeaks has been the primary source of a vast collection of government documents, including some pertaining to U.S. military engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan and others relating to confidential cables of the U.S. State Department.
Labels: Guantanamo Bay detainees, U.S. diplomatic cables, US-Pak relations, Wikileaks
Manning to be moved to Kansas prison
Bradley Manning, the former United States army intelligence officer jailed on suspicion of leaking U.S. government data to Wikileaks, will be moved from a military brig at Quantico, Virginia to a prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, the Pentagon announced on Tuesday.
The transfer will follow closely on intensifying criticism of the Pentagon for meting out harsh treatment to Mr. Manning, including allegations that he was kept in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day, allowed no contact whatsoever with other inmates, and that he was stripped naked every night and forced to sleep in only a smock. Authorities have been quoted as saying that Mr. Manning faced restrictions to prevent self-injury.
His confinement has not been without controversy either, as a senior State Department official, Assistant Secretary P.J. Crowley, resigned last month after describing Mr. Manning’s treatment by the Pentagon as “stupid.” Further a group of 250 top lawyers including a former professor of President Barack Obama wrote a letter describing Mr. manning’s conditions of imprisonment as “illegal and immoral.”
Further, a top United Nations official, Special Rapporteur on torture Juan Mendez, said earlier this month that he was “deeply disappointed and frustrated by the prevarication of the U.S. government,” after he was denied permission for unmonitored visits to Mr. Manning.
The latest step by the Pentagon, to move Mr. Manning to Fort Leavenworth, was announced by Jeh Johnson, Pentagon General Counsel, who said, “Given the length of time he has been in pre-trial confinement at Quantico ... and given what the likely period of pre-trial confinement in the future [is]... we reached the judgment this would be the right facility for him.” Mr. Johnson also speculated, “We are probably months off from a trial.”
However Mr. Manning’s attorney, David Coombs, said that he was not officially notified of Mr. Manning’s pending move until twenty minutes before the Pentagon’s press briefing – “This is despite the fact that the Pentagon has “been thinking about this for a while,”” Mr. Coombs said.
Mr. Coombs however added that although the move came as a surprise its timing did not, because Mr. Manning’s defence team had recently received “reliable reports of a private meeting held on 13 January 2011, involving high-level Quantico officials where it was ordered that PFC Manning would remain in maximum custody and under prevention of injury watch indefinitely.”
At that meeting, when an attending psychiatrist “challenged” senior Quantico officials saying that there was no mental health justification for the decision, one of the prison officials said “he would not risk anything happening on his watch,” adding, “We will do whatever we want to do.”
Labels: Bradley Manning, Pentagon, Wikileaks
Top U.N. official denied unmonitored visit to Manning
From The Hindu
A top United Nations official has said that he was “deeply disappointed and frustrated by the prevarication of the United States government,” after attempting to meet with Bradley Manning, the former army intelligence officer incarcerated on suspicion of leaking government data to Wikileaks, the whistleblower website.
The comments by Juan Mendez, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, came even as allegations of inhumane treatment of Mr. Manning by the Pentagon have intensified.
In particular Mr. Mendez was said to have been frustrated by the fact that although most governments permitted unsupervised visits to detainees, officials at the military facility in Quantico, Virginia, where Mr. Manning is being held in solitary confinement, have denied Mr. Mendez’s request to make an “official visit.”
Mr. Manning’s defence attorney, David Coombs, said that the Pentagon allowed for two types of visitors for a detainee – “authorised” and “official,” and the “critical distinction between the two is that official visits are privileged and not subject to Brig monitoring.”
Mr. Coombs further said that the government’s insistence on an “authorised” visit by Mr. Mendez and others, including U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich and a representative from Amnesty International, was based on the notion that these individuals were not visiting on “official government business.”
“Such an authorised visit, of course, will be subject to Brig monitoring and can be used as evidence against PFC Manning in a court-martial proceeding,” Mr. Coombs explained.
Mr. Mendez further said that, “A private visit means with a guard;” however he added that his mandate was to conduct unmonitored visits and he would continue to press for an unmonitored visit. “I am insisting the U.S. government lets me see him without witnesses. I am asking [the U.S. government] to reconsider,” Mr. Mendez was quoted as saying.
Regarding the purpose of his visit with Mr. Manning, Mr. Mendez said, “I am acting on a complaint that the regimen of this detainee amounts to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or torture … until I have all the evidence in front of me, I cannot say whether he has been treated inhumanely.”
The latest controversy over Mr. Manning’s allegedly cruel treatment by the U.S. Department of Defence follows an earlier high-profile resignation by a senior State Department official who criticised the Pentagon’s actions. Last month State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley resigned after calling the Pentagon’s actions “ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid.”
Earlier this week, a group of 250 legal experts including a former professor of President Barack Obama wrote a letter condemning Mr. Manning’s treatment and in January a non-profit group called Psychologists for Social Responsibility wrote an open letter to Secretary of Defence Robert Gates saying that it was “deeply concerned about the conditions under which PFC Bradley Manning is being held.”
Concerns surrounding inhumane treatment have focused in particular on Mr. Manning’s solitary confinement for approximately 23 hours a day in a cell approximately six feet wide and twelve feet in length and allegations that he is stripped naked every night and prevented from resting and sleeping.
Yet according to reports Colonel Dave Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman, denied these allegations saying, “We cannot, under Quantico brig practice, guarantee the U.N. special rapporteur an unmonitored visit. At Quantico, such a guarantee is only reserved for attorney-client communications.”
He further added that there was a lot of “misinformation” about Mr. Manning and insisted he was neither in solitary confinement nor stripped naked every night. “Except for a brief period about a month ago, and for reasons of Manning's own physical safety, Manning does not sleep naked. Nor is Manning awakened every five minutes by brig personnel. These facts are simply not true,” Colonel Laplan said.
Labels: Bradley Manning, Crowley resigns, human rights, Manning tortured, prison torture, Wikileaks
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Manning alleges mistreatment; Crowley agrees
From The Hindu
In the latest twist to the saga of Bradley Manning, the United States military intelligence officer in jail over allegations of leaking private files and cables to Wikileaks, the whistleblower website, a top representative of the State Department publicly agreed that Mr. Manning was being "mistreated".
Even as Mr. Manning released his first direct communication from his holding cell in a military facility in Quantico, Virginia, P.J. Crowley, Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Public Affairs and a spokesman for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, said at a seminar at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that the treatment meted out to Mr. Manning was "ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid on the part of the Department of Defence".
Mr. Manning, who had earlier only spoken through his lawyer, David Coombs, or his friends, said in his letter, that ever since being placed on suicide watch in January, he was being forced to strip naked every night and subjected to "unlawful pre-trial punishment".
His letter further alleges that his "prescription eyeglasses were taken away from me and I was forced to sit in essential blindness", and, often becoming upset, "Out of frustration, I clenched my hair with my fingers and yelled: 'Why are you doing this to me? Why am I being punished? I have done nothing wrong.'"
Friction within Obama administration
Mr. Crowley’s comments revealed frictions within the Barack Obama administration on how to deal with Mr. Manning, with the President issuing comments that effectively condoned Mr. Manning’s treatment.
At a news conference Mr. Obama said, "With respect to Private Manning, I have actually asked the Pentagon whether or not the procedures that have been taken in terms of his confinement are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards... They assure me that they are."
Implying that Mr. Manning’s solitary confinement and stripping was for his own protection Mr. Obama added, "I cannot go into details about some of their concerns... but some of this has to do with Private Manning’s safety as well."
Earlier this month the government’s Justice Department announced that Mr. Manning had been slapped with 22 new charges including "aiding the enemy", punishable by death. Although the charges did not explicitly identify who the "enemy" in question was, they alleged that when he was based out of his post in Iraq, he did "steal, purloin, or knowingly convert to his use or the use of another, a record or thing of value of the U.S..."
In January this year, a non-profit group called Psychologists for Social Responsibility wrote an open letter to Secretary of Defence Robert Gates in which it said it was "deeply concerned about the conditions under which PFC Bradley Manning is being held", citing in particular the fact that he was in solitary confinement for approximately 23 hours a day in a cell approximately six feet wide and twelve feet in length "for no discernable reason other than punishment..."
In his letter, Mr. Manning also commented on a recent decision of the United States government to keep him under even more restrictive conditions through a Prevention of Injury (PoI) order. In particular, he shared excerpts from the observation records which, according to The Guardian, consistently report that Mr. Manning was "respectful, courteous and well spoken", and "does not have any suicidal feelings at this time".
Further, reports said that 16 separate entries made from 27 August until the records stopped on January 28 "show that Manning was evaluated by prison psychiatrists who found he was not a danger to himself and should be removed from the PoI order".
Labels: Private Bradley Manning, Wikileaks
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Twitter subpoenaed over Wikileaks
From The Hindu
A federal court in the United States has issued a subpoena to social networking website Twitter to obtain information on several individuals linked to Wikileaks, the whistleblower website, including its spokesperson Julian Assange, an Icelandic Member of Parliament also named in the case said.
MP Birgitta Jonsdottir, who is reportedly a former volunteer with Wikileaks, transmitted documents to severalU.S. media outlets this week that showed an order from a court in Virginia to Twitter demanding subscriber names, user names, screen names, mailing addresses, residential addresses, connection records and other data of several persons.
According to Ms. Jonsdottir those whose information was subpoenaed included her, Mr. Assange, army intelligence officer Bradley Manning, who is currently in prison charged with leaking the documents to Wikileaks and Rop Gonggrijp, said to be a computer hacker from the Netherlands.
The subpoena follows several statements made by the U.S. government over the last few months suggesting that it would sue Wikileaks for publicly publishing secret State Department cables and war documents relating to the U.S.’ conflict engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq.
According to the court order of December 14, which was posted on the website of online magazine Salon, the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that the U.S. government had “offered specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the records or other information sought are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.”
While the initial order by the court was sealed and Twitter was directed not to disclose the existence of the U.S. government’s subpoena application to the Twitter clients involved, that order was subsequently reversed, reportedly after Twitter mounted a legal challenge to the initial order.
On Friday Ms. Jonsdottir said that she had received a message from Twitter which said, “We are writing to inform you that Twitter has received legal process requesting information regarding your Twitter account @birgittaj. The legal process requires Twitter to produce documents related to your account.”
Soon after, Wikileaks said in a statement, “Today, the existence of a secret U.S. government grand jury espionage investigation into WikiLeaks was confirmed for the first time as a subpoena was brought into the public domain.”
The Guardian newspaper reported that the subpoena also targeted an account held by Jacob Applebaum, an American computer programmer “whose computer and phones were examined by U.S. officials in July after he was stopped returning from Holland to the U.S.”
Mr. Assange was quoted as saying, “If the Iranian government was to attempt to coercively obtain this information from journalists and activists of foreign nations, human rights groups around the world would speak out.”
Neither Twitter nor the U.S. government have commented on the subpoena yet, with Twitter only saying only that its policy was “to notify its users, where possible, of government requests for information.”
Labels: cablegate, Twitter, Wikileaks
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
U.S. House to investigate Wikileaks
From The Hindu
Even as the United States’ 112th Congress convenes for the first time on Wednesday, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives has planned a far-reaching investigation into Wikileaks, the whistleblower website that courted controversy by publishing secret State Department cables over the last few months.
According to a list of hearing topics obtained by Politico magazine, the House Oversight Committee headed by Representative Darrell Issa, “is aiming to launch investigations on everything from WikiLeaks to Fannie Mae to corruption in Afghanistan in the first few months” of the year.
While the investigation into Wikileaks in particular is regarded by some as a partisan action targeting U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder for his “slow and too weak” reaction to the leaks, Mr. Issa’s minority counterpart, Representative Elijah Cummings was quoted as saying that Congress ought to “be careful with [oversight] power” and use caution and austerity in hearings.
Specifically Mr. Cummings warned, in a statement to Politico, that he would “draw a line at which any witch hunts or hearings that are conducted purely for partisan gains,” and he would ask Mr. Issa not to prejudge any of issues or seek answers only to confirm political leanings.
Some commentators also noted that “there was a grand jury in place looking at Assange and these investigators should be left to complete their work,” adding that charges were needed that would stick.
The House Oversight Committee enjoys sweeping powers of summons and can demand testimonies from top officials through subpoena. According to the Guardian newspaper the Committee could begin conducting hearings later this month.
In justifying his committee’s investigation into Wikileaks, Mr. Issa reportedly said it wanted “to get that right so the diplomats can do their job with confidence and people can talk to our government with confidence.” He added that the new Congress would have to pass legislation to try to prevent similar acts of whistle blowing.
In a television interview over last weekend he was further quoted as saying, “If the president says, ‘I cannot deal with this guy as a terrorist’' then he has to be able to deal with him as a criminal, otherwise the world is laughing at this paper tiger we've become.”
In the mid-term Congressional elections held in November Democrats lost control of the House and their majority was trimmed in the Senate.
President Barack Obama is likely to face an onslaught of challenges to numerous policies enacted last year, including healthcare reform across states, as well as to his 2011 policy agenda, which is likely to focus on job-creation and controlling the U.S.’ deficit.
On Tuesday the Gallup Poll said that surveys indicated that for the first time in eight months Mr. Obama’s approval ratings had jumped to 50 per cent.
Even as the United States’ 112th Congress convenes for the first time on Wednesday, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives has planned a far-reaching investigation into Wikileaks, the whistleblower website that courted controversy by publishing secret State Department cables over the last few months.
According to a list of hearing topics obtained by Politico magazine, the House Oversight Committee headed by Representative Darrell Issa, “is aiming to launch investigations on everything from WikiLeaks to Fannie Mae to corruption in Afghanistan in the first few months” of the year.
While the investigation into Wikileaks in particular is regarded by some as a partisan action targeting U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder for his “slow and too weak” reaction to the leaks, Mr. Issa’s minority counterpart, Representative Elijah Cummings was quoted as saying that Congress ought to “be careful with [oversight] power” and use caution and austerity in hearings.
Specifically Mr. Cummings warned, in a statement to Politico, that he would “draw a line at which any witch hunts or hearings that are conducted purely for partisan gains,” and he would ask Mr. Issa not to prejudge any of issues or seek answers only to confirm political leanings.
Some commentators also noted that “there was a grand jury in place looking at Assange and these investigators should be left to complete their work,” adding that charges were needed that would stick.
The House Oversight Committee enjoys sweeping powers of summons and can demand testimonies from top officials through subpoena. According to the Guardian newspaper the Committee could begin conducting hearings later this month.
In justifying his committee’s investigation into Wikileaks, Mr. Issa reportedly said it wanted “to get that right so the diplomats can do their job with confidence and people can talk to our government with confidence.” He added that the new Congress would have to pass legislation to try to prevent similar acts of whistle blowing.
In a television interview over last weekend he was further quoted as saying, “If the president says, ‘I cannot deal with this guy as a terrorist’' then he has to be able to deal with him as a criminal, otherwise the world is laughing at this paper tiger we've become.”
In the mid-term Congressional elections held in November Democrats lost control of the House and their majority was trimmed in the Senate.
President Barack Obama is likely to face an onslaught of challenges to numerous policies enacted last year, including healthcare reform across states, as well as to his 2011 policy agenda, which is likely to focus on job-creation and controlling the U.S.’ deficit.
On Tuesday the Gallup Poll said that surveys indicated that for the first time in eight months Mr. Obama’s approval ratings had jumped to 50 per cent.
Labels: House of Representatives, Obama administration, Wikileaks
Monday, January 03, 2011
Bank of America scrambles to limit WikiLeaks damage
From The Hindu
United States banking giant Bank of America scrambled to pre-emptively save itself from possibly becoming the next institution to be exposed by Wikileaks, the whistleblower website that raised a storm of controversy by unveiling private diplomatic cables of the State Department.
Reports suggested that BoA had appointed “a team of 15 to 20 top... officials, led by the chief risk officer, Bruce Thompson,” to oversee a wide-ranging internal investigation covering many thousands of documents and seeking out instances where computer files and security could have been compromised.
The action by BoA came shortly after Wikileaks spokesman Julian Assange hinted, in an interview with Forbes magazine over a month ago, that his organisation would be releasing tens and possibly hundreds of thousands of documents pertaining to “a big U.S. bank” that would expose an “ecosystem of corruption” within that bank.
In that interview Mr. Assange also said that the upcoming exposé would not only reveal flagrant violations and unethical practices, but it would also supply vast numbers documents describing the supporting decision-making structures and the internal executive ethos behind the workings of the bank.
Even as far back as October Mr. Assange had indicated that Wikileaks was “sitting on five gigabytes from Bank of America, one of the executive’s hard drives,” in an interview with Computer World magazine.
He also noted that the documents in Wikileaks’ possession would show up the regular decision making that turned a blind eye to and supported unethical practices, the oversight that was not done, the priorities of executives, and how they thought they were fulfilling their own self-interest.
The New York Times reported that the internal team at BoA investigating the possible loss of confidential material had been joined by specialists from consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton and several top law firms.
Together they would also be looking into “the legal problems that could arise from a disclosure, including the bank’s potential liability if private information was disclosed about clients,” the newspaper reported, citing anonymous sources within BoA.
BoA, along with a few other companies such as MasterCard and PayPal, earlier suspended processing payments to Wikileaks on the grounds that Wikileaks might have been in violation of the law in the context of the State Department cables that it had released.
According to statements made in interviews, Mr. Assange expects to release the trove of documents relating to a U.S. bank “early this year.”
United States banking giant Bank of America scrambled to pre-emptively save itself from possibly becoming the next institution to be exposed by Wikileaks, the whistleblower website that raised a storm of controversy by unveiling private diplomatic cables of the State Department.
Reports suggested that BoA had appointed “a team of 15 to 20 top... officials, led by the chief risk officer, Bruce Thompson,” to oversee a wide-ranging internal investigation covering many thousands of documents and seeking out instances where computer files and security could have been compromised.
The action by BoA came shortly after Wikileaks spokesman Julian Assange hinted, in an interview with Forbes magazine over a month ago, that his organisation would be releasing tens and possibly hundreds of thousands of documents pertaining to “a big U.S. bank” that would expose an “ecosystem of corruption” within that bank.
In that interview Mr. Assange also said that the upcoming exposé would not only reveal flagrant violations and unethical practices, but it would also supply vast numbers documents describing the supporting decision-making structures and the internal executive ethos behind the workings of the bank.
Even as far back as October Mr. Assange had indicated that Wikileaks was “sitting on five gigabytes from Bank of America, one of the executive’s hard drives,” in an interview with Computer World magazine.
He also noted that the documents in Wikileaks’ possession would show up the regular decision making that turned a blind eye to and supported unethical practices, the oversight that was not done, the priorities of executives, and how they thought they were fulfilling their own self-interest.
The New York Times reported that the internal team at BoA investigating the possible loss of confidential material had been joined by specialists from consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton and several top law firms.
Together they would also be looking into “the legal problems that could arise from a disclosure, including the bank’s potential liability if private information was disclosed about clients,” the newspaper reported, citing anonymous sources within BoA.
BoA, along with a few other companies such as MasterCard and PayPal, earlier suspended processing payments to Wikileaks on the grounds that Wikileaks might have been in violation of the law in the context of the State Department cables that it had released.
According to statements made in interviews, Mr. Assange expects to release the trove of documents relating to a U.S. bank “early this year.”
Labels: Bank of America, Wikileaks
Saturday, December 18, 2010
U.S. criticised Sonia for lack of leadership on nuclear issue
From The Hindu
Congress leader Sonia Gandhi “never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity to show real leadership,” officials at the United States embassy in New Delhi wrote on November 6, 2007, referring to tumultuous discussions and negotiations that led to the Parliamentary debate on the U.S.-India nuclear cooperation agreement.
The officials' critical view of Ms. Gandhi was revealed in a private diplomatic cable published by WikiLeaks, the whistleblower website. In the cable, U.S. officials suggest that the Congress leadership had concerns about the Gujarat Assembly elections in mid-December of that year.
They argued that if the party managed to put in a solid performance in the State, an Opposition stronghold, it might feel strong enough to challenge the Left parties by moving forward with the International Atomic Energy Agency on the safeguards agreement at the risk of early mid-term polls.
The cable in question also had harsh words for Prakash Karat, general secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), for his party's resistance to some aspects of the nuclear agreement.
U.S. officials said, “With the future of Indian foreign credibility hanging in the balance, Sonia Gandhi has been unable to show principled leadership even when it might benefit her party at the polls and reveal Prakash Karat to be the extortionist that he is.”
Describing Ms. Gandhi and the Congress Party as “cautious and nervous,” the cables compared her to Golda Meir, the so-called “Iron Lady” of Israeli politics, saying that Ms. Meir “would be disgusted” at Ms. Gandhi's approach to the nuclear debate.
However, officials at New Delhi embassy assured Washington that they would step up their efforts to lobby for the deal behind closed doors. They said in the cable, “While remaining publicly restrained and taking care not to be seen as interfering with domestic Indian politics, the Embassy will continue to meet with all political, business and civil society organisations to urge them to support the agreement.”
They added that they would continue to press the United Progressive Alliance government on the need for early completion of the safeguards agreement with the IAEA and would also remind the Opposition Bharatiya Janata Party that the U.S.-India civil nuclear pact was “their deal, too.”
Congress leader Sonia Gandhi “never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity to show real leadership,” officials at the United States embassy in New Delhi wrote on November 6, 2007, referring to tumultuous discussions and negotiations that led to the Parliamentary debate on the U.S.-India nuclear cooperation agreement.
The officials' critical view of Ms. Gandhi was revealed in a private diplomatic cable published by WikiLeaks, the whistleblower website. In the cable, U.S. officials suggest that the Congress leadership had concerns about the Gujarat Assembly elections in mid-December of that year.
They argued that if the party managed to put in a solid performance in the State, an Opposition stronghold, it might feel strong enough to challenge the Left parties by moving forward with the International Atomic Energy Agency on the safeguards agreement at the risk of early mid-term polls.
The cable in question also had harsh words for Prakash Karat, general secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), for his party's resistance to some aspects of the nuclear agreement.
U.S. officials said, “With the future of Indian foreign credibility hanging in the balance, Sonia Gandhi has been unable to show principled leadership even when it might benefit her party at the polls and reveal Prakash Karat to be the extortionist that he is.”
Describing Ms. Gandhi and the Congress Party as “cautious and nervous,” the cables compared her to Golda Meir, the so-called “Iron Lady” of Israeli politics, saying that Ms. Meir “would be disgusted” at Ms. Gandhi's approach to the nuclear debate.
However, officials at New Delhi embassy assured Washington that they would step up their efforts to lobby for the deal behind closed doors. They said in the cable, “While remaining publicly restrained and taking care not to be seen as interfering with domestic Indian politics, the Embassy will continue to meet with all political, business and civil society organisations to urge them to support the agreement.”
They added that they would continue to press the United Progressive Alliance government on the need for early completion of the safeguards agreement with the IAEA and would also remind the Opposition Bharatiya Janata Party that the U.S.-India civil nuclear pact was “their deal, too.”
Labels: India-U.S., nuclear deal, Sonia Gandhi, U.S. embassy leak, Wikileaks
India sustaining Afghanistan development effort despite security concerns
From The Hindu
The Indian government was pressing forward with a host of development related investments in Afghanistan despite a sense of deep concern surrounding potential attacks upon its staff by militant groups and blockades of transit agreements by Pakistan, the United States embassy in New Delhi noted in diplomatic cables sent to Washington during 2009 and 2010.
The cables, released this week by the whistleblower website WikiLeaks, observed that from India’s assistance programme for small, community-based projects, to its deployment of “low-cost” engineers for infrastructure development projects and training courses for Afghans in Indian institutions, New Delhi was not flagging in its efforts to help the Hamid Karzai government.
In particular, U.S. officials observed that since 2002 India contributed “over USD 1.2 billion in reconstruction assistance,” putting it among the top ranks of Afghan donors.
However Indian officials expressed growing concern with the security situation in Afghanistan, U.S. diplomats wrote, and “they have been increasingly critical of what they perceive as the Pakistani government's inability or unwillingness to act in the border tribal belt.”
They went on to note that Indian aid to Afghanistan was tempered by “Pakistani intransigence,” which questioned India’s motives and does not allow for much cheaper overland transit of goods, personnel or equipment.
The cables also suggested that the U.S. supported India’s role in Afghanistan, in fact arguing that a further expansion of that role to include areas such as force protection would require U.S. efforts to help overcome Pakistani objections.
The U.S. embassy in New Delhi conceded that India’s contribution to Afghanistan already did involve “limited military aid,” even if India remained “cognizant of U.S. government sensitivities about such assistance.”
Yet regarding Pakistan’s objections the cables said “GOI is mindful of Pakistani sensitivities on security-related assistance in Afghanistan, but this may be under review in the post-Mumbai environment.”
Among the more innovative suggestions for India’s contribution to Afghanistan’s development the U.S. officials put forth was an idea relating to Bollywood: “We understand Bollywood movies are wildly popular in Afghanistan, so willing Indian celebrities could be asked to travel to Afghanistan to help bring attention to social issues there,” U.S. diplomats wrote.
The Indian government was pressing forward with a host of development related investments in Afghanistan despite a sense of deep concern surrounding potential attacks upon its staff by militant groups and blockades of transit agreements by Pakistan, the United States embassy in New Delhi noted in diplomatic cables sent to Washington during 2009 and 2010.
The cables, released this week by the whistleblower website WikiLeaks, observed that from India’s assistance programme for small, community-based projects, to its deployment of “low-cost” engineers for infrastructure development projects and training courses for Afghans in Indian institutions, New Delhi was not flagging in its efforts to help the Hamid Karzai government.
In particular, U.S. officials observed that since 2002 India contributed “over USD 1.2 billion in reconstruction assistance,” putting it among the top ranks of Afghan donors.
However Indian officials expressed growing concern with the security situation in Afghanistan, U.S. diplomats wrote, and “they have been increasingly critical of what they perceive as the Pakistani government's inability or unwillingness to act in the border tribal belt.”
They went on to note that Indian aid to Afghanistan was tempered by “Pakistani intransigence,” which questioned India’s motives and does not allow for much cheaper overland transit of goods, personnel or equipment.
The cables also suggested that the U.S. supported India’s role in Afghanistan, in fact arguing that a further expansion of that role to include areas such as force protection would require U.S. efforts to help overcome Pakistani objections.
The U.S. embassy in New Delhi conceded that India’s contribution to Afghanistan already did involve “limited military aid,” even if India remained “cognizant of U.S. government sensitivities about such assistance.”
Yet regarding Pakistan’s objections the cables said “GOI is mindful of Pakistani sensitivities on security-related assistance in Afghanistan, but this may be under review in the post-Mumbai environment.”
Among the more innovative suggestions for India’s contribution to Afghanistan’s development the U.S. officials put forth was an idea relating to Bollywood: “We understand Bollywood movies are wildly popular in Afghanistan, so willing Indian celebrities could be asked to travel to Afghanistan to help bring attention to social issues there,” U.S. diplomats wrote.
Labels: Afghan reconstruction, Indian aid, Wikileaks
India a “true partner” but “not without limits”: Roemer cables
From The Hindu
The United States viewed India as a “true partner” even if the Manmohan Singh government’s “capabilities are not without limits,” according to dispatches sent by the U.S. Ambassador to India, Timothy Roemer, on the eve of a visit to India by Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts in February this year.
In the latest tranche of private U.S. embassy cables published by Wikileaks, the whistleblower website, a briefing to Senator Kerry from the New Delhi U.S. embassy touched upon numerous areas of friction between the U.S. and India, including barriers to trade in agriculture, unresolved implementation measures in the U.S.-India civilian nuclear agreement and India’s strategic insecurities relating to the U.S.’s plans to eventually withdraw troops from Afghanistan.
However the report predominantly reflected the positive pitch of U.S.-India ties in 2010, following the Indian Prime Minister’s visit to Washington in November of the previous year.
In particular the cable dated February 11, 2010 expressed strong optimism on growing trade and economic cooperation as well as burgeoning defence sales. In the cable, Mr. Roemer also underscored the paradigm shift in India’s thinking on climate change negotiations, where, following the 16th Conference of Parties (COP-16) at Copenhagen in 2009, “India is beginning to understand it must address the climate issue not as a poor developing nation but rather as the major economy it has become.”
The cable however expressed concern at some dimensions of India’s internal politics, specifically questions surrounding what it labelled the 2009 “Sharm al Sheikh Joint Statement fiasco,” following which “heavyweights in the Congress, including Finance Minister Mukherjee [might] seize on any missteps to argue against a policy that reaches out to the Pakistanis.”
The New Delhi embassy also urged Senator Kerry to endorse India’s defence purchases from the U.S. during his visit, pressing home the fact that such sales were “growing quickly from roughly one billion USD in 2008, to over two billion so far this year.” Mr. Roemer added that there was good potential for over four billion U.S. dollars in sales in 2011, especially with the recent Indian Ministry of Defence approval to pursue the C-17 aircraft deal.
The most negative comment in the cable pertained to trade in the agriculture sector. In this regard the cable said that the U.S. continued to have concerns, especially after a Senate Finance Committee Report on Indian agricultural trade barriers highlighted the “essentially defensive agricultural trade policy long promoted by the Indian government.”
The U.S. was particularly interested in gaining marketing access for dairy products which were “blocked due to a series of non-scientific GOI rules,” the cable complained.
Labels: cablegate, Wikileaks, WikiLeaks India
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Digvijay, Antulay statements showed “crass political opportunism”: U.S.
From The Hindu
Unites States embassy officials in New Delhi described as “crass political opportunism” the statements made by senior Congress party leaders such as Digvijay Singh and A.R. Antulay, in the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai terror attacks of November 2008.
The comments were revealed this week by WikiLeaks, the whistleblower website, which is publishing thousands of private diplomatic cables that it obtained from the U.S. State Department.
The cable in question, which contained a candid and sharply critical review of Congress party politics following the Mumbai attacks, was authored by the U.S. embassy on December 23, 2008 and sent to the Secretary of State in Washington.
In the cable, U.S. officials said that the willingness of Congress leaders to support “outrageous” comments by erstwhile Minority Affairs Minister Mr. Antulay, propounding a conspiracy theory behind the killing of Maharashtra Anti-Terror Squad Chief Hemant Karkare, reflected a cynical political calculation by the party that proved once again that many party leaders were “still wedded to the old identity politics.”
The context of the U.S. diplomats’ criticism was that Mr. Antulay sparked controversy on December 17 with comments insinuating that the killing of Mr. Karkare by the Mumbai terrorists was somehow linked to Mr. Karkare’s investigation of “Hindu terrorists” in the September 2008 Malegaon blasts case.
In that case authorities had arrested eleven Hindus, including an Indian Army Lieutenant Colonel, of whom police had identified five as having ties to the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party and two others as having ties to Sangh Parivar organisations.
Following Mr. Karkare’s killing, which U.S. officials termed a “remarkable coincidence,” the cable noted that Mr. Antulay had fanned the flames of controversy when he said, “Superficially speaking they had no reason to kill Karkare. Whether he was a victim of terrorism or terrorism plus something, I do not know.”
The cable further quoted Mr. Antulay as saying, “Unfortunately his end came. It may be a separate inquiry how his end came... There is more than what meets the eyes.”
While U.S. officials praised some segments of Congress leadership, including Home Minister P. Chidambaram, for officially dismissing Mr. Antulay’s comments and distancing the party from them, they attacked Mr. Digvijay Singh’s comments on December 21, when he said, “I don’t think Antulay made a mistake. What he asked for is a probe. What is objectionable in his statement?”
The U.S. embassy noted that the BJP had reacted to Mr. Singh’s statements by shouting slogans, and staging a walkout in Parliament three days in a row, and demanding a formal clarification from the government.
Further U.S. officials noted that emboldened by the equivocation, Mr. Antulay had refused to apologise or retract his statements and instead went on to argue that they reflected the views of a large segment of the Muslim population.
Overall, the U.S. diplomats said, while cooler heads eventually prevailed within the Congress leadership, it chose to pander to Muslims’ fears and the episode demonstrated that the party would readily stoop to the old caste (and) religious-based politics.
Labels: Cong. controversy, Digvijay remarks, Karkare killing Antulay remarks, Wikileaks
China blocked U.N. sanctions against terror group at Pakistan's behest
From The Hindu
Until the Mumbai terror attacks of November 2008, China, “at the behest of Pakistan,” blocked the United Nations Security Council from listing Jamaat-ud-Dawa, widely acknowledged as a front for the militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba, under the UNSC Resolution 1267. LeT has been held responsible for the Mumbai attacks.
The United States' frustration with China for impeding sanctions against JuD through the UN Committee on al-Qaeda- and Taliban-associated entities was made evident in a recent cable, classified as “Secret,” from U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The cable also noted that while JuD chief Hafiz Muhammed Saeed served as the head of LeT too, the LeT's operational commander was Zaki ur-Rehman Lakvi, responsible for the group's military operations budget of approximately $5.2 million.
Issued to the U.S. embassies in Islamabad and elsewhere, the cable was dated August 10, 2009 and was published online by WikiLeaks, a whistleblower website, over the weekend.
Part of negotiation
China's actions on the UNSC prior to the Mumbai attacks were outlined as part of a broader process of negotiation in which the U.S. government sought to oppose a request by the JuD for “focal point de-listing,” under which a window of UN Secretariat could be approached by entities listed UNSC Resolution 1730 to petition for de-listing.
Commenting on the background of U.S. efforts to block the de-listing petition filed by lawyers representing JuD, the State Department cable noted that the UNSC Committee had added LeT to its Consolidated List in 2005, citing its affiliation with al-Qaeda.
The cable went on to note that while the addition of JuD and its leader, Muhammad Saeed, “followed closely on the heels of the LeT-perpetrated attacks in Mumbai,” the U.S.' request, preceding the attacks, “were placed on hold by China at the behest of Pakistan.”
The cable further indicated the U.S.' frustration with the pace of Pakistani efforts to curb the activities of JuD in the aftermath of its listing, contrary to numerous official comments in Washington at the time.
“Raise funds freely'
According to the cable, “In spite of Pakistani acquiescence to the listings in December 2008, we continue to see reporting indicating that JuD is still operating in multiple locations in Pakistan, and that the group continues to openly raise funds.”
The State Department added that it was unclear what steps, if any, the government of Pakistan has taken to freeze JuD assets or otherwise implement UN 1267 sanctions, which included an asset freeze, a travel ban, and an arms embargo. Defending its decision to oppose the JuD petition for de-listing, U.S. officials said in the cable that the intelligence community assessed that LeT used the JuD name as an alias and JuD “provides cover and protection for LeT's militant activities in Pakistan.”
Same entity
The cable further noted that LeT and JuD shared many senior leaders and both organisations stemmed from the same original entity, Markaz-ud-Dawawal-Irshad, founded around 1986.
Until the Mumbai terror attacks of November 2008, China, “at the behest of Pakistan,” blocked the United Nations Security Council from listing Jamaat-ud-Dawa, widely acknowledged as a front for the militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba, under the UNSC Resolution 1267. LeT has been held responsible for the Mumbai attacks.
The United States' frustration with China for impeding sanctions against JuD through the UN Committee on al-Qaeda- and Taliban-associated entities was made evident in a recent cable, classified as “Secret,” from U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The cable also noted that while JuD chief Hafiz Muhammed Saeed served as the head of LeT too, the LeT's operational commander was Zaki ur-Rehman Lakvi, responsible for the group's military operations budget of approximately $5.2 million.
Issued to the U.S. embassies in Islamabad and elsewhere, the cable was dated August 10, 2009 and was published online by WikiLeaks, a whistleblower website, over the weekend.
Part of negotiation
China's actions on the UNSC prior to the Mumbai attacks were outlined as part of a broader process of negotiation in which the U.S. government sought to oppose a request by the JuD for “focal point de-listing,” under which a window of UN Secretariat could be approached by entities listed UNSC Resolution 1730 to petition for de-listing.
Commenting on the background of U.S. efforts to block the de-listing petition filed by lawyers representing JuD, the State Department cable noted that the UNSC Committee had added LeT to its Consolidated List in 2005, citing its affiliation with al-Qaeda.
The cable went on to note that while the addition of JuD and its leader, Muhammad Saeed, “followed closely on the heels of the LeT-perpetrated attacks in Mumbai,” the U.S.' request, preceding the attacks, “were placed on hold by China at the behest of Pakistan.”
The cable further indicated the U.S.' frustration with the pace of Pakistani efforts to curb the activities of JuD in the aftermath of its listing, contrary to numerous official comments in Washington at the time.
“Raise funds freely'
According to the cable, “In spite of Pakistani acquiescence to the listings in December 2008, we continue to see reporting indicating that JuD is still operating in multiple locations in Pakistan, and that the group continues to openly raise funds.”
The State Department added that it was unclear what steps, if any, the government of Pakistan has taken to freeze JuD assets or otherwise implement UN 1267 sanctions, which included an asset freeze, a travel ban, and an arms embargo. Defending its decision to oppose the JuD petition for de-listing, U.S. officials said in the cable that the intelligence community assessed that LeT used the JuD name as an alias and JuD “provides cover and protection for LeT's militant activities in Pakistan.”
Same entity
The cable further noted that LeT and JuD shared many senior leaders and both organisations stemmed from the same original entity, Markaz-ud-Dawawal-Irshad, founded around 1986.
Labels: cablegate, China, terrorism, U.S. secret cables, UN sanctions, Wikileaks
Storm over leak of vital sites
From The Hindu
A comprehensive inventory of what the United States considers “critical infrastructure and key resources,” has been published online by WikiLeaks, the whistleblower website, raising the pitch of the debate surrounding its exposé of secret U.S. State Department cables.
According to the cable, dated February 18 2009 and sent from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to all U.S. diplomatic outposts abroad, the State Department requested diplomats to update the “vital” sites list, which included telecommunication infrastructure, gas pipelines, mineral mines, medical research facilities, weapons components manufacturers and transportation hubs.
The sites mentioned in India include chromite mines in Orissa and Karnataka and a company called Generamedix in Gujurat, which the cable suggests is involved in producing chemotherapy agents, including florouracil and methotrexate.
Issuing a request for action to U.S. diplomatic posts world over the Secretary’s cable said the State Department required “compilation and annual update of a of critical infrastructure and key resources that are located outside U.S. borders and whose loss could critically impact the public health, economic security, and/or national and homeland security of the U.S.” The cable added that under the U.S. Patriot Act of 2001 “critical infrastructure” was defined as systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, “so vital to the U.S. [that] the incapacitation or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact” on U.S. national security.
Condemnation of the release of the list followed swiftly, particularly in the United Kingdom, where a Downing Street spokesman was quoted as saying, “We unequivocally condemn the unauthorised release of classified information. The leaks and their publication are damaging to national security in the U.S., Britain and elsewhere.”
However Mark Stephens, the lawyer representing WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange, who is on the run from authorities, was said to have denied that Wikileaks was putting people and facilities at risk.
According to the BBC he said, “I do not think there is anything new in that... What I think is new is the fact that it has been published by Wikileaks and of course we have the Wikileaks factor because a number of governments have been embarrassed by what has happened.”
Labels: U.S. cables release, Wikileaks
Monday, December 06, 2010
Lashkar militants planned attack on Narendra Modi
From The Hindu
Lashkar-e-Taiba militants were planning “operations... involving a car,” against Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, according to a recent secret diplomatic cable of the United States State Department released by WikiLeaks, a whistleblower website.
The cable, created on June 19 2009, was sent from the office of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to “Security Officer, Collective Priority,” and the U.S. embassies in Tripoli, Casablanca and Johannesburg. Some of the information in the cable had been redacted by WikiLeaks, yet it bore Ms. Clinton’s name at the end and was categorised as “Secret,” “No Foreign,” and it was “derived from multiple sources.”
Under the category of “key concerns,” the notes on LeT member Shafiq Khan, and alternatively a person identified only as “Hussein,” said that they continued operational planning on three tasks in early June of 2009.
These plans were associated with a “possible operation against Gujarat Chief Minister Narendar Modi, the establishment of a training camp, and unspecified work involving a car.”
The cable added that Hussein would coordinate his activities with an India-based colleague identified as Sameer.
Providing some geographic information for the operations, the cable further said that the Pakistan-based Shafiq Khafa had been seeking out information on possible training sites for the operations in the Indian states of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Kerala. It added that Khafa had an associate identified as “S.J.” with whom he was making these preparations in mid-June.
Quoting a “credible tearline,” or segment of an intelligence source, the cable went on to note that Khafa’s network was “striving to stand up two teams in southern India that rely on the support of LeT members based in India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Nepal.”
However it cautioned that although specific details of planned LeT attacks remained unknown, intelligence obtained in late May of that year indicated that “Khafa’s cells were engaged in surveillance activities of potential targets, likely in southern India.”
Reports in May further suggested a Sri Lanka link, explaining that the establishment of a facilitation team in that country might then lead to Kerala or Tamil Nadu being used as a base of operations.
“The estimated time of completion for setting up the facilitation route and camps to be two to three months,” the cable said.
Labels: cablegate, Gujarat Chief Minister, LeT, Narendra Modi, terrorism, U.S. secret cables, Wikileaks
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
