Tweet
Now that Chief Warrant Officer Denise Barnes has replaced Commander James Averhart as the commander in charge of the detention facilities at Quantico, outstanding questions still remain. The change comes days after the attorney for WikiLeaks suspect Private First Class Bradley Manning filed a complaint that he is being unfairly treated in detention and after Military officials admitted to NBC on Monday that Averhart abused his authority by putting Manning on an unnecessary suicide watch.
Key Questions that have not been answered by the Pentagon:
1.) Is the military conducting an investigation into CWO4 Averhart’s decision to place Manning on suicide risk?
2.) Is it true that CWO4 Averhart did not have the authority to place Manning under suicide risk?
3.) What specific bases did CW04 Averhart have for placing Manning on suicide risk?
4.) Were these bases shared with the brig’s forensic psychiatrist who recommended that Manning not be placed on suicide risk? If not why not?
5.) Are there any other detainees in the Brig under MAX custody or under POI?
6.) Is it normal for a pretrial detainee to be under MAX custody and POI for this length of time?
7.) What is the longest an pretrial detainee has ever been held in MAX custody and under POI watch?
8.) What factors were considered in determining that PFC Manning needed to be held in MAX custody?
9.) What factors were consider in determining that PFC Manning needed to be held under POI watch?
10.) Were these factors shared with the brig’s forensic psychiatrist who recommended that the POI watch be lifted?
11.) Will CW2 Barnes conduct a complete review of the need for PFC Manning to be held in MAX custody and under POI watch?
12.) Other than the recommendation of the brig forensic psychiatrist, what other factors are considered in determining the need for POI watch?
13.) Does the brig consider in the long-term effects of MAX custody and POI on the pretrial detainee? IF so, how?
Donate to the Bradley Manning Advocacy Fund to help the public defense of Bradley Manning.
7 Comments
Trevor – FYI, this comment that I just left in BevW’s MyFDL diary (about Manning’s pre-trial detention conditions) partly relates to your diary yesterday about Manning’s treatment.
Also FYI, with regard to this diary, I happened to catch a replay on C-SPAN2 this afternoon of part of a Pentagon press briefing held today by Geoff Morrell (apparently the first he’s held since before Thanksgiving), in which multiple questions were asked about Manning’s treatment. Morrell made general denials (and was prepared for the questions with a written statement, along with references to “liberal bloggers,” among others), but stumbled when specific questions were asked about whether POI treatment, for example, is routine or standard treatment for all pre-trial detainees. Morrell also obfuscated about whether POI is intended to “protect” the detainee, or the brig and its employees from the detainee…
Here’s the C-SPAN link for the Pentagon press briefing today, in case you missed it (I assume that there’ll be some network reporting tonight that draws on this briefing):
http://c-span.org/Events/Defense-Department-Press-Briefing/10737419176/
Thanks for the link to Morrell’s press briefing, powwow.
recommended
I hope that these questions are answered and also another question about the tortuous treatment of a pretrial holding in a country that does not torture!
His admonition and warning on reporting is suspicious. He also stated that Manning is allowed to make phone calls. I wonder if David or anyone has talked to him via phone since last week?
Manning was and is being tortured. Notice Commander Averhart has disappeared, replaced by a warrant officer, a non-commissioned officer. What are they trying to hide? Let’s guess. Averhart didn’t get where he has by being stupid, whereas what has been done to Manning is manifestly stupid. Who authorized it? Probably Averhart won’t be available to answer the question, and CWO Denise Barnes won’t be able to. Who told Averhart to torture Manning? It is impossible that superiors didn’t know, so as it was happening they must have ignored it. Nonsense. Who authorized it? We the people want to know. Or will similar pos who gave us Oliver North keep us from knowing?
As I heard it, Morrell tried to put one over on the press and claim that POI is for protection from the detainee (Manning), which is a load of horseshit.
He was asked 6.) Is it normal for a pretrial detainee to be under MAX custody and POI for this length of time? And Morrell said he didn’t know, and you (the reporter) should go ask them at Quantico. Then he backtracked and said he thought it wasn’t unusual.
Thanks, Trevor, for the article and the list of questions. It was nice to see the press corps give the government a little bit of hell for once. Maybe it will be the start of a whole lot more.
Amnesty has covered this ground. The organization has legal resources — mainly volunteer work from law professors and pro bono work from the major firms — which it has applied with vigor.
For the usual run of interested “progressives” the Amnesty letter writing campaign for Manning is useful.
Otherwise, we expect the legal fur to fly this week. The attack on Manning appears to be driven by fears that there is no case to be presented. No evidence.
Yes, Virginia, there was no log-in system governing access to those classified materials. No one in the Army had read the books on Federal Rules of Evidence, as applied through UCMJ.
Dilbert’s “Karl” with the pointy stand-up hair was the boss over that system. “Wally” programmed the database backend.