Bradley Manning in Quantico: A Call with Public Affairs Officer Villiard
by Dennis Leahy at A World Beyond Borders
Reprinted with permission of the author.
December 23, 2010 — I spoke for about 20 minutes with Lt. Brian Villiard, from the Public Affairs Office at Quantico Prison. He had returned my call from the voice mail message I had left regarding Bradley Manning’s ‘detainment’ conditions, and Lt. Villiard was also contacted by Quantico Base Commander Colonel Daniel Choike’ s office where I had left a voicemail message.
I was surprised to get a return call, and did my best to find out what I could.
Lt. Villiard told me he returned few calls, but that he appreciated that the message I had left was respectful and non-combative. I mention this in case others wish to contact him, or any other Quantico officers, and want to be heard.
He gave me a chance to express my understanding of the current conditions of Private Bradley Manning’s confinement. I echoed the information that I had read, that Bradley is in solitary confinement, that he has not been out doors in four weeks, that he previously had been sporadically allowed only one hour of exercise time out of the cell, that he is not allowed to exercise in his cell, that lights are left on all night, and that the blanket he uses is rough, more like carpeting than a blanket.
Lt. Villiard said he’d like a chance to clear up some misconceptions, and said he had read the same information that I had. I listened, respectfully, without interrupting, but interjected questions and comments as would be normal in polite conversation. Again, I mention this because though this is difficult to do with an emotionally charged subject, respectful dialogue did allow me the opportunity to ask a number of questions, as well as make a number of comments. I wasn’t taking notes (though I should have), but will do my best to recall as much as I can.
Lt. Villiard spoke first to the charge that Bradley is held in solitary confinement, and explained that every detainee – (Bradley was never referred to as a prisoner, but rather as a “detainee”) – every detainee at Quantico is in a cell by themselves, so this is not something unique to Bradley. I asked if Bradley was allowed and able to interact with other detainees in his area, whether there were walls between cells or bars, whether or not he could see other detainees. I was told that there are walls between cells, with bars on the front of the cell. Due to the arrangement of cells, no detainee at Quantico can see another detainee – no visual contact – but that detainees could speak to one another. (I should have asked if there are currently detainees housed on either side of Bradley’s cell – someone to actually talk to – or if the possible interaction was more theoretical than actual in Bradley’s case. That is a question that should be asked. If the actual condition has Bradley purposely physically distant from any other detainees, or alone in a cell block, that is quite different than having the ability to interact.)
I asked about the charge that Bradley has not been outside in four weeks, why only (typically) an hour a day exercise was permitted, and why is there the restriction on exercising in the cell. Lt. Villiard said that it was his understanding that Bradley did have the opportunity to go outside for an hour most days, and that there may be rare exceptions when that was not available. He said that other than those rare exceptions, that if Bradley requested to go outside for his one hour per day out of the cell, that it was allowed, and did not know why Bradley had evidently chosen not to. I should stop here and note that Lt. Villiard is a public affairs officer, a liaison between the public and the base, but not a liaison between Bradley Manning and members of the public like myself. Lt. Villiard’s office is not in “the brig”, and so he was relating his understanding of the situation, not his eyewitness account. Lt. Villiard sounded sincere to me, and though he was giving me the “official word” as related by other officers, it did appear to me the Lt. Villiard believed what he had been told was accurate. He has not met or spoken with Bradley Manning, and is not on Bradley’s visitor’s list. Lt. Villiard has visited the brig, and was given a tour, but Bradley was not there at the time. More on that with the subject of the blanket.
Lt. Villiard told me that the one hour per day out of the cell was due to his listing as both a maximum custody detainee and his assessment as a POI (prevention of injury) detainee. I mentioned that it was my understanding that Bradley had been evaluated by a psychiatrist and was found not to be at risk of injuring himself or committing suicide. Lt. Villiard replied that there is a board that meets “frequently” to reassess the situation. [This is where I think the emphasis needs to be placed for upgrading Bradley's incarceration conditions! Whether it is a UN humanitarian delegation or Bradley's lawyer, Bradley NEEDS to get out from under the POI label, and I think his conditions will improve immediately.]
As for Bradley not being able to exercise in his cell, I believe that Lt. Villiard said that this too is Quantico policy with all detainees, so that they are not injured in their cells, but maybe I did not ask the question correctly and perhaps this is somewhat dependent on the POI status. (This is another point to clarify: will a psyche reassessment, dropping the POI label, allow Bradley the ability to exercise in his cell?
Regarding the blanket that is Bradley’s only option, Lt. Villiard said that when he was given a tour of the brig area, he held Bradley’s blanket in his hands (Bradley was away, “up north” at the time), and said that it is made from a fabric that is rip-proof (in other words, where a detainee could not rip strips and make a rope to commit suicide), and that the fabric is not rough like carpet. “I’ve slept under better; I’ve slept under worse.” was Lt. Villiard’s wording. (Clearly, Bradley needs to get off of POI listing, so he can get proper bedding.)
Lt. Villiard said that detainees in POI status are checked frequently, including nighttime hours, and that is why there are lights on. (Again, clearly, Bradley needs to get off of POI listing, so he can get normal sleep, but that assumes that there would be no other POI detainees in the same cell block, to have a chance for lights out at night – my conjecture.) I tried to engage Lt. Villiard to think about or remember a time that he himself may have spent in a hospital, and how disruptive a hospital environment is with lights on all night so that nursing staff could read monitors and charts, and how utterly exhausting a hospital stay is, primarily because it is impossible to relax into a normal pattern of sleep. Sleep deprivation is most certainly a type of torture, and between the heavy, scratchy blanket that Bradley is reporting, and the lack of a normalizing darkness during the full cycle of sleep time, the POI status does seem to me to be designed for sleep deprivation, but providing a phony humanitarian reason for it. If a detainee really was in danger of injuring himself, continual cycles of broken and light sleep would exacerbate the situation.
I failed to address the situation of Bradley having contact with national or international news either through newspaper or TV, but Bradley has already reported that the only time allocated for TV, there is no news on TV, and, that he is not allowed newspapers. This appears to me to be another form of psychological torture, and the timing of TV access to “accidentally” exclude news is certainly no accident – this must be designed to keep Bradley psychologically isolated.
I asked Lt. Villiard to pass along my concerns to Col. Choike, asking that they remember that Bradley is not only innocent until proven guilty, but that he has not even been charged with a crime yet. I told him that the conditions sound punitive, which makes no sense at this point since Bradly has not been convicted – and that no soldier deserved to be treated like this for 6 months due to not yet being charged or going to trial. I said that I realized that a military detainment is not the same as non-military incarceration, and that the public would be (and I am) upset with the conditions that all of the detainees at Quantico have to endure, if indeed they are all treated the same. I asked if he would please pass on my request for merciful treatment, and mentioned again that seven months was a long time to endure those conditions, especially for someone who is simply awaiting trial. I asked when the trial would be, and he was not aware if any date had been set. I thanked Lt. Villiard for taking the time to speak with me.
My conclusion: Bradley’s lawyer needs to redouble his efforts to get Bradley reevaluated with an outcome of dropping the POI. Outcries from the public are basically falling on deaf ears, because all detainees at Quantico get the same treatment – or at least that is the official line. Bradley’s only real chance at improved conditions revolve around the dropping of the POI status. Humanitarian efforts should, in my opinion, be centered around pressuring the board to actually meet quickly in this case (regardless of their normal cycle of meeting) and of successfully getting the POI status dropped.
If you’re going to call, or write, I urge you to show respect, avoid declaring your demands, (remember you’re talking to or writing to Marines at the US’s main military detention facility), and you’ll at least have a chance for a dialogue.
* * *
NOTE: The Bradley Manning Support Network calls upon Quantico base commander COL Daniel Choike and brig commanding officer CWO4 James Averhart to put an end to these inhumane, degrading conditions. Additionally, the Network encourages supporters to phone COL Choike at +1-703-784-2707 or write to him at 3250 Catlin Avenue, Quantico, VA 22134, and to fax CWO4 Averhart at +1-703-784-4242 or write to him at 3247 Elrod Avenue, Quantico, VA 22134, to demand that Bradley Manning’s human rights be respected while he remains in custody.
Please think how you would feel if this were your own son or brother. Grace, mercy and peace.
It seems that they are disputing that these are cruel, inhumane or degrading treatments. Who is there to take the case to that they are? There is no legal recourse in america similar to the european court of human rights which acts over the heads of individual governments. And american government does not recognise the war crimes tribunal. In fact president Obama last week signed into law indefinite detention without trial and has already signed the death warrant of one man without the man or his family (or anyone else, including his lawyer) being told what he is guity of.
The white house is laying the foundations for the silencing of any voices of dissent without the need of pesky, time wasting laws. And they are being set in stone by the very person we all believed was going to turn the tide on Rumsfeld+Bush’s bloody terror ridden-nightmare.
Could Bradley Manning receive a Presidential Pardon?
Patricia Hearst, the newspaper heiress was kidnapped and took up with the Symbionese Liberation Army (an anti-establishment group of the time) in the 1970′s in California. This was many years before the term, “terrorist” was coined. Patty Hearst was shown holding a machine gun while helped rob a Hibernia Bank with other members of that organization (the SLA), who had kept her locked in a closet and subjected her to many other stresses. For her part in the crime, she was put into prison. However, she mounted a campaign (“Pardon Me”), to receive a presidential pardon from President Carter. She was later released from prison and granted the presidential pardon.
I admit, it doesn’t seem like Obama is capable of doing something like this, but there must be some way to get Private Manning out of that Virginia prison where he’s being held in solitary confinement and getting doped up on psych meds. The military wants him to cop a plea deal against Julian Assange I’ve read. They don’t want him to ‘die’ in prison (then he’d be a martyr); the military just want to manipulate him for their own ends. Bradley Manning will be more useful to them if he’s zombifified and tortured on the meds.
Could Private Manning be pardoned by another entity, rather than the President?
Address of article mentioned in my previous post : http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/dec2010/dete-d23.shtml
I have learned nothing from the two articles I have recently (one here and some other article by Coons I think), where it is really only indirectly suggested that they know anything about how Manning is being treated.
There is a difference in someone commenting or talking about how people supposedly is to be treated in prison, and actually how someone in particular is being treated in prison.
I will not be surprised to learn later on that no information, at all, has been disclosed about Mannings environment or how his actually has been treated or what his health is.
Regarding my last comment just above:
I was mistaken about the name, I guess I really meant “Coombs”.
http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2010/12/typical-day-for-pfc-bradley-manning.html
Unfortunately these conditions are SOP for all detention centers both military and civilian for prisoners held in Protective Custody.
What is unusual in Bradley’s case is that he has been held under these conditions for seven months. That is not SOP unless the “Detainee” has exhibited a desire to hurt himself or others, or unless the general population of the detention center is considered to be a threat to Manning.
In cases such as the that , a detention center has the option to hold the “detainee” in the protective custody area of the facility. But to give the detainee more liberties than the rest of the detainees in that area.
This is often done with detainees who are either former police officers, or otherwise unpopular with the general population. So long as they are not considered a threat to themselves.
Thanks for the insight. It’s helpful to hear information from both sides of the argument. If Bradley released stuff that shouldn’t have been classified in the first place, good on him. Hopefully the trial will be fair. In the meantime, I am concerned that there might be some truth in what Villiard said. If Bradley’s status is reviewed “frequently” by a board, and the decision is to keep him under a POI watch, might he be saying one thing to the psychologists and another to the other board members? I don’t want to read a news story that Bradley died in a military prison before even making it to trial.
I feel so bad that Bradley is being treated so badly for doing something so honorable. I keep him in my thoughts.
On a different note: Pat stated that Obama “has already signed the death warrant of one man without the man or his family (or anyone else, including his lawyer) being told what he is guity of.?
I am wondering where I can find out more about this.
Keeping watch on PFC Manning’s confinement and find it disturbing that he has been held like that for seven or so months. That is poor practice, as what has also shown to be an embarrassing exposure time and time again for the military and the so called mission! Especially when exposed by the very leaks that he is imprisoned for.I am, and will sometimes use this to my advantage. Was in Vietnam 1969-70 as engineer with 589th Batl. I try to pay attention to vets and experience of people inadvertently placed in places that were not of what they perceived as moral and right. My years in US Army showed that it, as a human sub culture was of some profound lack of human sensibilities and character building practices. My guess is that way too much of the leaks in Wiki regarding our security were most probably too embarrassing to too many at the trough. Follow the money if you want to find the perpetrator.
@ Linda, Here is the page address and the whole article:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/dec2010/dete-d23.shtml
Obama administration preparing executive order to authorize indefinite detentions
By John Burton
23 December 2010
The Obama administration is drafting an executive order, scheduled for release early in 2011, which authorizes indefinite detention without charge of prisoners currently held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The new order means that the prison will remain open, or that these prisoners will be transferred to permanent locations in the US.
The prisoners would be given a “periodic review” of their imprisonment in a procedure that makes a mockery of due process and basic democratic rights.
According to reports first published Tuesday evening by the Washington Post and ProPublica, unnamed US officials have revealed that the executive order, which will for the first time establish indefinite detention as an Obama administration policy, has “been in the works for more than a year.”
With typical contempt for the democratic rights of the population, the announcement was released through anonymous backdoor channels on the eve of the Winter holidays. It is aimed at preparing public opinion for yet another extension of the anti-democratic policies of the Bush administration.
Guantánamo Bay has grown into an internationally despised gulag since the first jail, Camp Delta, was opened by the Bush administration in early 2002 under the pretext of jailing “enemy combatants” in the so-called “war on terror.” The “enemy combatant” category had no precedent either in domestic or international law, and was adopted solely for the purpose of placing people in legal limbo―stripped of protection under both the US Constitution and the Geneva Conventions.
Guantánamo Bay has become synonymous with the most flagrant attacks on core democratic rights, including denials of habeas corpus, detention without legal authority, denial of counsel, sensory deprivations, abusive interrogations and outright torture.
During his campaign for president, Obama repeatedly pledged to close the Guantánamo Bay prison camps, promising shortly after his inauguration to complete the task by January 2010. With the proposed new order, there is no closure in sight.
More Guantánamo inmates are facing lifelong detention and fewer are facing charges than the day Obama was elected.
Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs confirmed the reports on December 22, announcing “There are some prisoners that will require indefinite detention,” although closing the Guantánamo prisons, according to Gibbs, “remains the president’s goal.”
Some of the prisoners transferred might be transferred from Guantánamo to prisons in the United States. There is no indication that the executive order would not continue to apply―meaning that Obama would be vastly expanding the scope of indefinite detention.
“If the Obama administration succeeds in establishing indefinite detentions on US soil,” according to a statement by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), an organization that has represented a number of Guantánamo prisoners, “it will be difficult to hold the line at the 48 men at Guantanamo.
“This proposal lays the groundwork for US prisons to become places where people from around the world are brought and imprisoned without charge or trial, eroding our Constitution and adherence to international law beyond recognition,” according to the CCR statement.
As usual, anonymous administration sources claim that Obama’s hand is being forced because the still Democrat-controlled House of Representatives passed a defense authorization bill that bans transferring Guantánamo prisoners to the United States for trial, a crucial component of Obama’s earlier plan to close the concentration camps. The provision was added quietly to the bill during negotiations over repeal of “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”
The administration, however, has never sought to overturn the content of the anti-democratic policies implemented by Bush. Sections of the political establishment have favored closing Guantánamo because of its international reputation, while keeping the essence of the policy intact.
According to reports, the new executive order directly affects 48 prisoners the Obama administration has classified as too dangerous to be released but who cannot be put on trial. According to the Washington Post, “unnamed officials” said that the prisoners cannot face trial because torture was used to obtain the evidence against them. Without the torture evidence, the cases against them “would not meet legal standards.”
There are at least 126 other prisoners incarcerated at Guantánamo whose status remains uncertain.
The anonymous administration sources claim that the executive order will expand the rights of prisoners by establishing a “detainee review process” which will allow limited access to evidence and lawyers for hearings at designated intervals, perhaps once a year. A New York Times report characterized the executive order as setting up “something like a parole board to evaluate whether each detainee poses a continued threat, or whether he can be safely transferred to another country.”
Under the Constitution, however, parole boards, which are usually stacked with political employees and give very limited consideration to the cases before them, come into play only after someone is convicted of a crime. Under the Obama administration plan, prisoners can be held for the rest of their lives without a civilian trial, or even a military commission.
There is no reason to believe that the executive order will be limited only to current Guantánamo prisoners. For more than a year the Obama administration has insisted it has the power to hold anyone it designates as a “terror suspect” indefinitely and without judicial review based on the congressional Authorization to Use Military Force that came in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. This is the same rationale used by the Bush administration.
The news of the proposed executive order has been denounced by advocates of civil liberties.
Jameel Jaffer, a national security lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union, said that the executive order would “normalize and institutionalize indefinite detention and other policies,” set in place by the Bush administration. Laura W. Murphy, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington legislative office, added, “Our Constitution requires that we charge and prosecute people who are accused of crimes. You cannot sell an indefinite detention scheme by attaching a few due-process baubles and expect that to restore the rule of law.”
The executive order is an extension of the attack on democratic rights carried out by the Obama administration since it first came to office.
While refusing to initiate a single criminal prosecutions for any of the war crimes committed, the Obama administration has intervened in court proceedings to block civil lawsuits against Bush administration officials for torture and domestic spying. Recently released WikiLeaks documents show that the administration collaborated with governments in Spain and Germany to prevent legal challenges to these same policies.
Obama has signed a death warrant for US citizen Anwar Al-Awlaki, and used Catch-22 arguments to prevent his father from challenging the extra-judicial assassination order in court.
Obama administration lawyers have authorized FBI raids of the homes and offices of antiwar activists on the basis that by opposing US imperialism they are providing “material support” for terrorist organizations.
I don’t know about anyone else but this whole situation terrifies the life out of me. We have seen the jews go from being victims to becoming the oppressors. Now we are seeing democracy becoming fascism. Is Bradley going to become the first white american to be held indefinitely without charge? Or worse? The Obama administration has certainly fooled us good and proper about their political intentions. Which leaves US with no one left to believe in! It’s full steam to the right all the way now, no matter who you vote for.
Since this is the military it really all comes down to the Commander in Chief who is Obama, who could issue a direct order to improve Manning’s conditions immediately. Every time you look at his smiling face or hear him sounding so presidential, think of Bradley Manning. This is Obama’s call. He could order it tonight.
White House Phone Numbers
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
form
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact
Here is the letter I mailed to President Obama today:
Dear President Obama,
During the month of December, ever since Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com brought it to my attention, I have been imagining what his solitary confinement must feel like to Bradley Manning. As the mother of a 22-year-old son, I have also been imagining how his mother must feel. I have come to the conclusion that the solitary confinement, lack of exercise, and lack of sleep that Manning is experiencing is nothing less than torture.
He is entitled to a speedy trial. He is entitled to participate in his own defense (without having been driven insane by the conditions under which he is being held.) He is entitled to be considered innocent until proven guilty. He has constitutional rights just like the rest of us. I cannot believe that one gives up all one’s rights upon enlisting in the military. I cannot believe that the Uniform Code of Military Justice supercedes the Constitution.
Surely you too, being an empathetic person, can imagine what Bradley Manning’s life has been like these last nearly eight months. I ask you as a parent, to think how you would feel if your child were being subjected to such treatment. Particulary when WE DON’T EVEN KNOW IF HE IS GUILTY OF THAT WITH WHICH HE HAS BEEN ACCUSED!
I donated to your presidential campaign, and voted for you with great hope in my heart. I cannot express to you how heartsick I feel now, how disappointed in you I feel that you have allowed this to occur. I have donated recently to WikiLeaks and to Manning’s defense fund. I will not be donating to your reelection campaign.
Sincerely,
Mary Lincoln
Jamaica Plain, MA
So they torture EVERYONE in military confinement.
I think there needs to be major reform. This bullshit will stop.
I’m starting to think Obama wants to share a cell with Bush!
Somewhere above, someone mentioned that Manning should be pardoned by the President. Pardoned? Pardoned for WHAT?
“I personally believe Bradley Manning and Assange are whistle blowers and not traitors, but that’s only because I feel strongly that the individuals in government and military should be held accountable for their misdeeds as well as the corporations and private citizens. I uphold the Constitution but I’m woefully unhappy with the personnel in government and military.”
I belong to absolutely no political party.
I am an independent Independent!
If the Government and Military are embarrassed by the leaks, they should be five times more embarrassed by what they are doing to these men.”
Sincerely,
VET