SALON– To follow-up on yesterday’s observations about the prolonged forced nudity to which Bradley Manning has been subjected the last two days:  brig officials now confirm to The New York Times that Manning will be forced to be nude every night from now on for the indefinite future — not only when he sleeps, but also when he stands outside his cell for morning inspection along with the other brig detainees.  They claim that it is being done “as a ‘precautionary measure’ to prevent him from injuring himself.”  

Has anyone before successfully committed suicide using a pair of briefs — especially when under constant video and in-person monitoring?  There’s no underwear that can be issued that is useless for killing oneself?  And if this is truly such a threat, why isn’t he on “suicide watch” (the NYT article confirms he’s not)?  And why is this restriction confined to the night; can’t he also off himself using his briefs during the day? 

Let’s review Manning’s detention over the last nine straight months:  23-hour/day solitary confinement; barred even from exercising in his cell; one hour total outside his cell per day where he’s allowed to walk around in circles in a room alone while shackled, and is returned to his cell the minute he stops walking; forced to respond to guards’ inquiries literally every 5 minutes, all day, everyday; and awakened at night each time he is curled up in the corner of his bed or otherwise outside the guards’ full view.  Is there anyone who doubts that these measures — and especially this prolonged forced nudity — are punitive and designed to further erode his mental health, physical health and will?  As The Guardian reported last year, forced nudity is almost certainly a breach of the Geneva Conventions; the Conventions do not technically apply to Manning, as he is not a prisoner of war, but they certainly establish the minimal protections to which all detainees — let alone citizens convicted of nothing — are entitled.

Read full article about Bradley Manning’s Forced Nudity.

Written by Glenn Greenwald

© SALON 2011

Photo by EPA

GUARDIAN– In the nine years since the opening of the Guantánamo Bay detention facility, the country has moved incrementally towards institutionalising the existence of the facility. On Monday, the Obama administration took the process of institutionalisation one step further, issuing both an executive order on detention – the first since the pathbreaking executive order that began his presidency, calling for the closure of Guantánamo and promising a rethink on the detention policy – and the revocation of the ban on military tribunals there.

In contrast to its predecessor, yesterday’s executive order was anything but pathbreaking. It tacitly acknowledged that the premises of detention in the “war on terror” begun by the Bush administration in the fall of 2001 still hold. More tellingly still, it demonstrated that the Obama administration now not only accepts the fact of Guantánamo’s existence as a given, but has also abandoned any debate over whether or not indefinite detention should be the policy of the land.

Under this new detainee review plan, the blueprint set out nearly a decade ago remains. At the outset, the underlying rationale for detention at Guantánamo Bay rests upon the September 2001 Authorisation to Use Military Force (AUMF). So, too, as decreed in the November 2001 Military Order, the department of defence remains the lead player in implementing the guidelines of the executive order, although “consultation with the attorney general” is prescribed. In terms of the procedures for review of the cases, those, too, are essentially new and updated versions of those that constituted the administrative review boards and the combatant status review tribunals, in which each detainee’s status was reviewed and chance for trial or release assessed. The justification for continued detention is familiar also – to wit, “to protect against a significant threat to the security of the United States“.

Read full article about Guantánamo: No Closure For Obama.

© Guardian News and Media Limited 2011

Photograph by Brennan Linsley/Pool/Reuters

DEMOCRACY NOW! – “The United States is in an information war, and we are losing that war,” said U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week as she praised Al Jazeera’s dedication to “real news.” To win the war, Clinton called for expanding U.S. propaganda TV and radio broadcasts overseas. At the same time, public broadcasting and community media are under attack in the United States. Last month, the House voted to eliminate all financing for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting by the year 2013. We speak to Robert McChesney, co-founder of Free Press, and broadcast highlights from Amy Goodman’s three-day “Don’t Ice Out Public Media” tour in Colorado.

Click to read the full transcript about Clinton’s calls for increased propaganda funding.

© Copyright Democracy Now!, 2011

MEDIA ROOTS- This is a Media Roots TV interview conducted by Abby Martin with Cindy Sheehan, mother who has made the ultimate sacrifice and fearless anti-war activist. She relays her powerfully lucid point of view in a candid interview at her home on February 6th, 2011.

For more information about Cindy go to http://www.cindysheehanssoapbox.com/

RAW STORY– Faced with a looming vote on a planned one-year extension of special powers authorized in the USA PATRIOT Act, the Obama White House did not object or propose reforms, as the president vowed to do as a candidate.

The Obama administration instead asked Congress to grant those powers for an additional three years.

As a US Senator and candidate for the presidency, Barack Obama never actually argued for a repeal of the Bush administration’s security initiatives. Instead, he’s consistently argued for enhanced judicial oversight and a pullback on the most extreme elements of the bill, such as the use of National Security Letters to search people’s personal records without a court-issued warrant.

While many in his own party opposed the PATRIOT Act outright, as president Obama has said repeatedly that the emergency measures remain a valuable tool for law enforcement engaged in national security prerogatives.

On Tuesday, ahead of a House vote to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act for another year, the White House did something unexpected: they asked for even more.

A prepared statement issued Tuesday afternoon said that President Obama “would strongly prefer enactment of reauthorizing legislation that would extend these authorities until December 2013.”

Read full article about Obama Seeking Patriot Act Extension.

© Copyright RAW STORY 2011

Photo by wiredbike flickr user