PDA

View Full Version : update on Manning's torture



91bravojoe
04-19-2011, 11:19 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13138050

Highlight of the conduct of the Third Reich, er, the US government:

Pte Manning's civilian lawyer David Coombs has said the soldier has been under 24-hour surveillance and has been forced to relinquish his clothing before bedding down for the night, then forced to stand naked at roll call.

Officials have repeatedly denied Pte Manning has been mistreated, although last month a top US state department official, spokesman PJ Crowley, resigned after saying the military's treatment of the Wikileaks suspect was "ridiculous and counterproductive

Informed sources also believe Manning is not permitted to play online poker.

Pete
04-20-2011, 12:13 AM
I don't feel sorry for the guy. The U.S. Government should treat him with the decency to which any prisoner is entitled. On the other hand this isn't the Vietnam War period when everything the Government did should be regarded as some sort of nefarious Government conspiracy. The little homosexual sold out his country so he's no hero in my eyes.

carl
04-20-2011, 12:31 AM
The U.S. Government should treat him with the decency to which any prisoner is entitled.

The question is, are they?

jmm99
04-20-2011, 12:33 AM
If I want to hear from David Coombs (his Practice Areas (http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.com/military-law.html), Attorney Profile (http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.com/army-lawyer.html), Representative Cases (http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.com/military-law-cases.html)), about the Manning Case, I will go direct:

Dave Coombs' Blog with Manning Updates (http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/)

No regards here - and no "Third Reich" in LTC Coomb's statements either.

Mike

Pete
04-20-2011, 02:54 AM
CNN reports that Manning is being moved to a joint-service correctional facility at Leavenworth. I have never been part of his Amen Corner so complaints about his treatment have mainly been below my radar screen.

Ken White
04-20-2011, 03:16 AM
LINK (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110420/D9MN3BK00.html)

91bravojoe
04-20-2011, 07:56 AM
Yeah, that "We will do whatever we want to do.” is definitely more reminiscent of the little Bush group.

120mm
04-20-2011, 10:48 AM
So... We are refusing to answer the mail to a UN Human rights investigation, a German Parliament inquiry and some hippies from Amnesty International?

F*ck them. While we are at it, evict the evil dictator club known as the UN off our shores and withdraw from it.

Shoot the little traitor in the head, like he deserves. Once he is tried and convicted, of course.

SteveMetz
04-21-2011, 10:21 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13138050

Highlight of the conduct of the Third Reich, er, the US government:


Informed sources also believe Manning is not permitted to play online poker.

Officials at the detention center said Manning was not "forced" to stand naked during roll call, but elected to. If the accusations are accurate, Manning is a chronic liar with a victim complex. He has a vested personal interest in portraying himself as a victim. Yet you seem to have accepted his word over that of military officials who have not been accused of lying and who have no vested interest in misportraying the situation.

I'll disagree. IMO, you've been duped by the propaganda of Manning's supporters.

gute
04-21-2011, 02:08 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13138050

Highlight of the conduct of the Third Reich, er, the US government:


Informed sources also believe Manning is not permitted to play online poker.

Really, the Third Reich? Give the hyperbole a break.

The princess is a douche.

JMA
04-21-2011, 02:22 PM
Officials at the detention center said Manning was not "forced" to stand naked during roll call, but elected to. If the accusations are accurate, Manning is a chronic liar with a victim complex. He has a vested personal interest in portraying himself as a victim. Yet you seem to have accepted his word over that of military officials who have not been accused of lying and who have no vested interest in misportraying the situation.

I'll disagree. IMO, you've been duped by the propaganda of Manning's supporters.

Whatever Steve.

Personally an intelligent person would be prudent to not take the government and sadly also the military at its word.

Like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib this is another own goal by the US government.

Try to read this article with and open mind and see if it helps... Lessons from Manning's transfer out of Quantico (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/04/20/manning/index.html)

J Wolfsberger
04-21-2011, 03:01 PM
Try to read this article with and open mind and see if it helps... Lessons from Manning's transfer out of Quantico (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/04/20/manning/index.html)

For future reference, Glenn Greenwald is not a go-to-guy for anything resembling accurate reporting or rational commentary. On this issue, he is part of a Left wing anti-war, anti-Bush chorus trying to accomplish ... something.

To give an example of just what level these people are operating at, they apparently planned, at some point, to enter Marine Corps Base Quantico and stage a protest about the alleged mistreatment of Mr. Manning. They were outraged that the Corps didn't want to play that game with them. That level of childish detachment from reality should, at a minimum, indicate a certain lack of credibility.

Mr. Manning is being held in the brig pending Court Martial. If found guilty of the charged offenses, and depending on any consequences that directly resulted from his actions, the penalties range from decades in prison to death. He is apparently severely depressed, understandably so, and under suicide watch. His military record contains numerous examples of inappropriate outbursts, some of which became physical. Given the behavior of his supporters, if he were to commit suicide it would result in an hysterical conspiracy theory about how the evil somebody-or-other killed him and made it look like a suicide to conceal something-or-other. For these reasons he is being held under very strict and close supervision.

Steve raised a couple of other relevant points. I'll also add to 120mm's points by adding that "UN Human rights investigation, a German Parliament inquiry and some hippies from Amnesty International" don't have the credibility they used to have - but that's a debate for another thread.

In summary, this issue only has legs with conspiracy cranks and some domestic politicals.

SteveMetz
04-21-2011, 03:17 PM
Whatever Steve.

Personally an intelligent person would be prudent to not take the government and sadly also the military at its word.

Like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib this is another own goal by the US government.

Try to read this article with and open mind and see if it helps... Lessons from Manning's transfer out of Quantico (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/04/20/manning/index.html)

I got to about the third sentence of the article. When the author simply repeated Manning's story line about "inhumane treatment" as if it were fact, I recognized the story was propaganda, not analysis.

After all, what's the source of information that Manning has been "tortured" or "treated inhumanely"? Answer: Manning says so. Believe what you want but based on what I know about him and what is in his interests, I don't consider him credible.

JMA
04-21-2011, 04:04 PM
For future reference, Glenn Greenwald is not a go-to-guy for anything resembling accurate reporting or rational commentary. On this issue, he is part of a Left wing anti-war, anti-Bush chorus trying to accomplish ... something.

You don't get it do you John?

This is exactly why you need to read what this guy says and not bother with what some flunky spin-doctor from the government says.

If you are able to rebut him and not just blow him off then you are on firmer ground. At the moment all I hear is attempts to trash his supporters.

OK, so lets try the New York Times - Soldier in Leaks Case Will Be Made to Sleep Naked Nightly (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/world/05manning.html?_r=1&ref=charliesavage.) - or is that just some left-wing liberal rag?

...then maybe you can trash the 250 legal academics who signed a petition on the matter (http://balkin.blogspot.com/2011/03/statement-on-private-mannings-detention.html) - or are they just a bunch of lunatic lefties who are aiding and abetting an enemy of the state?

JMA
04-21-2011, 04:15 PM
I got to about the third sentence of the article. When the author simply repeated Manning's story line about "inhumane treatment" as if it were fact, I recognized the story was propaganda, not analysis.

After all, what's the source of information that Manning has been "tortured" or "treated inhumanely"? Answer: Manning says so. Believe what you want but based on what I know about him and what is in his interests, I don't consider him credible.

Steve, maybe you work off a different definition of torture but the one that counts is this one:


...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions. --UN Convention Against Torture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture)

I can understand that some people are pissed at this guy and want him to "pay" for what he has done... but at least convict him first before you start screwing with his body and his mind.

J Wolfsberger
04-21-2011, 04:43 PM
This is exactly why you need to read what this guy says and not bother with what some flunky spin-doctor from the government says.

Salon is an opinion site, generally left of center, with contributers ranging from world class to execrable. Mr. Greenwald is at the wrong end of that spectrum, and I stopped paying attention to him long ago. If and when I hear from respected third parties that's he's begun making sense, I may reconsider. (Incidentally, he built his reputation in the 1990s with what I considered over the top criticism of Pres. Clinton, and I was not a Clinton supporter.)


If you are able to rebut him and not just blow him off then you are on firmer ground. At the moment all I hear is attempts to trash his supporters.

I'm not attempting to trash him or his supporters. For all I know, in his personal life he is kind to children and stray dogs, and visits the elderly every Sunday after volunteering at the homeless shelter. That doesn't change the fact that he is not a credible source for anything.


OK, so lets try the New York Times - Soldier in Leaks Case Will Be Made to Sleep Naked Nightly (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/world/05manning.html?_r=1&ref=charliesavage.) - or is that just some left-wing liberal rag?

Yes.


...then maybe you can trash the 250 legal academics who signed a petition on the matter (http://balkin.blogspot.com/2011/03/statement-on-private-mannings-detention.html) - or are they just a bunch of lunatic lefties who are aiding and abetting an enemy of the state?

Yes.

Finally,


I can understand that some people are pissed at this guy and want him to "pay" for what he has done...

First, what he is alleged to have done. He hasn't been tried, yet. Until he is tried, he is in custody of military authorities. I expect them to take appropriate precautions to ensure he isn't a danger to himself or others. They appear to be doing so.


... but at least convict him first before you start screwing with his body and his mind.

As I and others have pointed out, the allegations that anyone, other than himself, is "screwing with his body and his mind" are not arising from credible sources.

SteveMetz
04-21-2011, 05:10 PM
Steve, maybe you work off a different definition of torture but the one that counts is this one:



I can understand that some people are pissed at this guy and want him to "pay" for what he has done... but at least convict him first before you start screwing with his body and his mind.

My point has nothing to do with being pissed off. It has to do with military officials saying one thing and Manning saying something different, and my assessment of which of the two are more credible given their character and vested interests. I have to believe that people who accept Manning's account of events rather than the one offered by military officials aren't basing that on inherent credibility, but on ulterior motives and predispositions.

J Wolfsberger
04-21-2011, 05:17 PM
If you are able to rebut him ...

I didn't address this above, but it deserves a separate response anyway.

The U.S. has a cottage industry of people engaged in evidence, fact and knowledge free "reasoning." They congregate at both extremes of the political spectrum, left and right. We have people referred to as "Birthers" who insist Mr. Obama wasn't born in the U.S. or, seemingly, to his mother, and we have people called "Truthers" who believe the World Trade Center was blown up by the C.I.A. because steel doesn't melt and stress yield curves are independent of time and temperature. (I assume they believe I-beams grow on structural steel trees, and alloying is a form a sympathetic magic.)

It is a complete waste of time to try to rebut every crackpot theory that gets thrown out there. Instead, it is up to the proponents to present credible evidence substantiating their allegations. (And they can't seem to comprehend that allegations are not evidence.)

Specifically, and to your point in adding the quote regarding torture, Mr. Manning's "pain or suffering" result from conditions of confinement "... arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions" undertaken, as I said above, to protect him from himself and others while he awaits trial. I am unaware of any agenda free, nonpartisan organization or group that has presented evidence otherwise.

davidbfpo
04-21-2011, 05:25 PM
Why have the US military authorities not allowed an independent assessment of the accused / prisoner physical and mental health? I assume that there is such a person, is this not an Inspector General's role?

Instead it appears that his treatment is far from proper care and custody. Which gives some cause for concern and the clear possibility of an "own goal".

Then one must acknowledge that in the USA, especially in Federal cases, the threat of and use of pre-trial detention is used to undermine the accused's wish for a full trial.

stanleywinthrop
04-21-2011, 05:31 PM
...then maybe you can trash the 250 legal academics who signed a petition on the matter (http://balkin.blogspot.com/2011/03/statement-on-private-mannings-detention.html) - or are they just a bunch of lunatic lefties who are aiding and abetting an enemy of the state?

Apparently you have never been inside a modern U.S. law school. You can't walk inside a single one of them and take a piss without getting at least 40-50 ultra-left wing law professors wet. Just about any of these "legal academics" would happily sign anything anti-military and pro wiki-leaks without bothering to independently check the underlying facts.

So the fact that 250 of them signed a petition doesn't mean a damn thing. What is curious is that the petitioner can't seem to round up more than 250.

selil
04-21-2011, 05:31 PM
Just for the record.

Corrections (not law enforcement) standards of practice include.

Suicidal prisoner, prisoners with suicidal ideations, or at risk prisoners (specifically death penalty prisoners) should be :

1) Independently housed
2) Suicide watch (inclusive of housed in paper robes, naked, cleared cells, etc)
3) Suicide proofing facilities
4) Shackled or manacled during all interrogations, movement (internal or external)

Oh and a bunch more. But then again it isn't like there are formal curriculums to teach people about this or anything (http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/131512NCJRS.pdf).


ETA: Some medical practitioners attempt to treat the suicidal inmate as a solitary individual within the populace. That unfortunately does not take into account jail populace tendencies and social-inequities that result in already vulnerable individuals (after all they are suicidal) to me victimized by the general populace. If you read the literature medical doctors with limited exposure to inmates within the general population have a tendency to ignore the populace of the correctional facility and the social pressures of that population. In other words. The jail population will pounce on the different, the ill, the sick, the lame, and most definitely the crazy.

J Wolfsberger
04-21-2011, 05:37 PM
Just for the record.

Corrections (not law enforcement) standards of practice include.

...

Thanks for adding that.

(BTW, the image of The Glen Livet with what appears to be Oreo's is profoundly disturbing. :eek:)

SteveMetz
04-21-2011, 05:44 PM
Why have the US military authorities not allowed an independent assessment of the accused / prisoner physical and mental health? I assume that there is such a person, is this not an Inspector General's role?

Instead it appears that his treatment is far from proper care and custody. Which gives some cause for concern and the clear possibility of an "own goal".

Then one must acknowledge that in the USA, especially in Federal cases, the threat of and use of pre-trial detention is used to undermine the accused's wish for a full trial.

DoD officials have said that his treatment is the same as other detainees. I assume it would take some evidence to the contrary other than statements by his lawyer and fans to instigate an investigation.

Given the publicity attached to this, I personally find it wholly unbelievable that DoD officials aren't being extraordinarly careful to follow all policies and laws.

Steve Blair
04-21-2011, 07:29 PM
Apparently you have never been inside a modern U.S. law school. You can't walk inside a single one of them and take a piss without getting at least 40-50 ultra-left wing law professors wet. Just about any of these "legal academics" would happily sign anything anti-military and pro wiki-leaks without bothering to independently check the underlying facts.

So the fact that 250 of them signed a petition doesn't mean a damn thing. What is curious is that the petitioner can't seem to round up more than 250.

And it's also interesting in light of the fact that U.S. universities tend to practice their own summary justice in the form of student review boards, disciplinary committees, and other things that would never stand in normal courts. It's nice to live the dream. The reality is somewhat different and distinctly uncomfortable for those who think.

Personally I don't blindly accept what anyone says in this case. Manning and his supporters certainly have far more reason to lie (and an audience much more willing to take them at their word), which makes their utterances a bit more suspect. Does that mean I blindly accept what the government says? No. But the government has more to lose by lying or deliberately concealing things. Manning and his supporters can just say "oopsie...we were confused" and get away with anything.

Entropy
04-21-2011, 07:43 PM
I don't think Manning's treatment constitutes torture. The reason is because the conditions under which he is confined are not in and of themselves illegal or torturous. Prisoners can be held in those conditions when the circumstances warrant it. In my view, "torture" is doing things that would never be acceptable under any conditions like threatening to kill a prisoner or their family, waterboarding, physical torture, etc. The simple fact of being in a max custody status and under prevention-of-injury watch is not torture.

Instead of torture, the disconnect here (and I recommend everyone read Manning's Lawyers' blog) is that Manning is being held in a higher state of confinement than is warranted for someone in his circumstances (http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2011/01/pfc-bradley-manning-is-not-being.html). Namely, he's being held in a "prevention of injury" status that is specifically designed to restrict his activities to such an extent that he's unable to injure himself. It's designed for prisoners who might hurt themselves. The problem with that is that he's been cleared psychologically on several occasions and so there is not clear justification for keeping him at the higher level of confinement. The brig has not given any alternative justification for the high-level confinement.

Maybe the brig and the government has a valid reason, but so far they haven't, to my knowledge, provided one. To my mind, this isn't torture at all, but it could well be illegal and a violation of UCMJ article 13. The thing is, Manning will get his day in court - his lawyer will probably file an article 13 motion (http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2010/12/article-13-and-pfc-bradley-manning.html) and this whole thing will be legally adjudicated.

Finally, I say all this as someone who takes the unauthorized disclosure of classified information very seriously. Personally, I hope Manning gets put away for a long time but IMO the actions taken by the brig are not only unjustified, but stupid given the support they've given Manning. He's now a kind of hero to many people and he's got a lot of people paying money for his legal defense, etc. - and for what? No good reason that I can see. Maybe the brig was stupidly trying to punish him, or maybe they just wanted to CYA and make sure that nothing would happen to a high-profile prisoner, but either way, this is certainly an "own goal" by the government even if it's not torture.

J Wolfsberger
04-21-2011, 08:20 PM
The problem with that is that he's been cleared psychologically on several occasions and so there is not clear justification for keeping him at the higher level of confinement.

I was under the impression that the psych eval found him able to participate in his defense. But I also thought that he was initially considered to be a suicide risk. Was this incorrect?

Entropy
04-21-2011, 08:28 PM
J Wolfsberger,

No, he was evaluated specifically to determine whether he should be held under prevention-of-injury watch. Go the the first link in my comment above and scroll down to the "background information" section for the details. And some more detail on more recent events here (http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2011/03/truth-behind-quantico-brigs-decision-to.html).

This is from Manning's attorney, so obviously it has to be viewed in terms of him being an advocate for his client. However, the statements of fact and regulation appear to be accurate to me and so I find them credible.

Pete
04-22-2011, 03:31 AM
Many of the people who do these kinds of things turn out to be pretty pathetic people. It was true of Tokyo Rose and also of an American woman who did radio broadcasts for Nazi Germany. John Walker Lind, the "American Taliban," was also certainly a piece of work. Their personal failings don't exactly make them objects of our sympathy but once we learn about them they don't seem to be arch-criminals either. It's sort of like giving an Article 15 to someone who did something wrong but has some redeeming qualities.

The U.S. Government is better off putting these kinds of people behind bars without the appearance of being overly disproportionate about it. Taking all our pent-up venom out on these folks runs the risk of turning them into martyrs for a small but vocal part of world opinion. Better to convict them and put them in prison in a matter-of-fact way.

jcustis
04-22-2011, 04:27 AM
The problem with that is that he's been cleared psychologically on several occasions and so there is not clear justification for keeping him at the higher level of confinement. The brig has not given any alternative justification for the high-level confinement.

I could care less what happens to Manning, but having dealt with the gray area of psychologists and psychiatrists (who will default to the disclaimer that it isn't an exact science all the time), his being "cleared" doesn't mean a thing. All the assessment results in is a recommendation from the medical professional. Those directly responsible for his well-being take the assessment into account when making their determination, but the assessment isn't gospel.

More often than not, those assessments tend to be pretty divorced from the reality of what is seen by those responsible for the patient on a daily basis, in a non-medical setting. Not saying it justifies what is claimed to be happening, but at the very basic level of this stuff, there are often a number of other things going on that just are not seen by the doctors because the patient often plays right into what some want to hear.

I'm no fanboy of the mental health folks, because they rarely want to make that hard choice, or force a servicemember to get a grip and live up to their responsibilities. There was this one doctor when I was stationed at 29 Palms who was a joy to work with though. she could put the finger on malingerers with exceptional skill, and she would break it down for them fairly quickly that she didn't care that that the Marine's chain of command was making them work and live up to their part of the contract. I miss that sort of spirit.

JMA
04-22-2011, 05:08 AM
Why have the US military authorities not allowed an independent assessment of the accused / prisoner physical and mental health? I assume that there is such a person, is this not an Inspector General's role?

Instead it appears that his treatment is far from proper care and custody. Which gives some cause for concern and the clear possibility of an "own goal".

Then one must acknowledge that in the USA, especially in Federal cases, the threat of and use of pre-trial detention is used to undermine the accused's wish for a full trial.

The Red Cross were allowed into Guantanamo (http://articles.cnn.com/2006-10-12/world/icrc.guantanamo_1_detainees-simon-schorno-guantanamo-bay?_s=PM:WORLD) so why not into this facility. The refusal is a message to the (unsophisticated majority of the) world that maybe the US indeed has something to hide.

This Manning business is an addition to the case study into the US's dissociative identity disorder.

Here we have a nation on one hand tying both hands of its soldiers in Afghanistan behind their backs (through utterly restrictive RoEs) in a vain but desperate attempt to win the hearts and minds of people (whose hearts and minds are not up for grabs in the first place) and then the abject and almost pathetic fear of offending Muslims, the "Arab Street" and the Russians by constant promises not to put boots on the ground in Libya and then on the other flipping the world over a minor and trivial matter like the pre-trial incarceration and treatment of Bradley Manning. This positively boggles the mind.

Will the real America please stand up.

JMA
04-22-2011, 05:17 AM
... this is certainly an "own goal" by the government even if it's not torture.

Exactly.

jcustis
04-22-2011, 05:18 AM
Here we have a nation on one hand tying both hands of its soldiers in Afghanistan behind their backs (through utterly restrictive RoEs) in a vain but desperate attempt to win the hearts and minds of people (whose hearts and minds are not up for grabs in the first place) and then the abject and almost pathetic fear of offending Muslims, the "Arab Street" and the Russians by constant promises not to put boots on the ground and then on the other flipping the world over a minor and trivial matter like the pre-trial incarceration and treatment of Bradley Manning. This positively boggles the mind.

Will the real America please stand up.

You have proven, once again, that outside of reading the daily news, a blog or two, and a few journal articles, you have no idea what you are talking about.

having just returned from Afghanistan, I can categorically educate you that the ROE is not restrictive. As a matter of fact, ROE are typically structured to be PERMISSIVE, so the notion that they are restrictive speaks the fact that you have probably bought into the hype allowed to creep into the mainstream media.

Oh, and to make it a bit more clear, the ROEs are not in place to win hearts and minds. They are effected to protect innocent life, allow our forces to engage forces declared hostile and/or permit the inherent right to self-defense, and protect our personnel by facilitating conduct permissible under the variety of laws and conventions we are signatories to.

You also don't have the slightest idea how the Tactical Directive works, so stop spouting off about things you know nothing about. If there is anything folks might have expressed fear or angst over, it was that, and not the ROEs. But there is nothing wrong with the Tactical Directive, IMO.

Will the real uneducated please sit down.

ETA: The media is flipping the world over regarding Manning. His jailers could certainly care less.

JMA
04-22-2011, 06:55 AM
You have proven, once again, that outside of reading the daily news, a blog or two, and a few journal articles, you have no idea what you are talking about.

having just returned from Afghanistan, I can categorically educate you that the ROE is not restrictive. As a matter of fact, ROE are typically structured to be PERMISSIVE, so the notion that they are restrictive speaks the fact that you have probably bought into the hype allowed to creep into the mainstream media.

Oh, and to make it a bit more clear, the ROEs are not in place to win hearts and minds. They are effected to protect innocent life, allow our forces to engage forces declared hostile and/or permit the inherent right to self-defense, and protect our personnel by facilitating conduct permissible under the variety of laws and conventions we are signatories to.

You also don't have the slightest idea how the Tactical Directive works, so stop spouting off about things you know nothing about. If there is anything folks might have expressed fear or angst over, it was that, and not the ROEs. But there is nothing wrong with the Tactical Directive, IMO.

Will the real uneducated please sit down.

ETA: The media is flipping the world over regarding Manning. His jailers could certainly care less.

Major, do I go with what you want me (and presumably the world) to believe or the word of General Zinni who was quoted in an article dated 30 October 2010:

Zinni: Afghanistan rules of engagement too restrictive (http://nevadanewsandviews.com/2010/10/30/zinni-afghanistan-rules-of-engagement-too-restrictive/)


“There is a strong sense in on the ground by the company commanders and platoon commanders that the rules of engagement are too restrictive,”…

“They result in more casualties. They don’t allow for the kind of immediate engagement. The enemy understands these rules of engagement and manipulates them.”

“Some of the rules of engagement that were designed to be extra-protective of civilians, which you can understand and certainly sympathise with, are actually not,”…

You said the following: “having just returned from Afghanistan”. Now your unit returned from Afghanistan at the end of November 2010 which places your frame of reference in the same timeline as General Zinni’s comments.

Also five months on is no longer “just”. Suggest you drop the use of that word.

I go with what the word of a retired four-star general.

SteveMetz
04-22-2011, 10:01 AM
The Red Cross were allowed into Guantanamo (http://articles.cnn.com/2006-10-12/world/icrc.guantanamo_1_detainees-simon-schorno-guantanamo-bay?_s=PM:WORLD) so why not into this facility. The refusal is a message to the (unsophisticated majority of the) world that maybe the US indeed has something to hide.

This Manning business is an addition to the case study into the US's dissociative identity disorder.

Here we have a nation on one hand tying both hands of its soldiers in Afghanistan behind their backs (through utterly restrictive RoEs) in a vain but desperate attempt to win the hearts and minds of people (whose hearts and minds are not up for grabs in the first place) and then the abject and almost pathetic fear of offending Muslims, the "Arab Street" and the Russians by constant promises not to put boots on the ground in Libya and then on the other flipping the world over a minor and trivial matter like the pre-trial incarceration and treatment of Bradley Manning. This positively boggles the mind.

Will the real America please stand up.

First of all, the Red Cross in Guantanamo is not an analogy. The issue there was that one nation was holding citizens of a different nation. The Red Cross does not investigate every nation when a prisoner complains of mistreatment since a huge proportion of them in every country do. What country is going to accept an international investigation every time one of their incarcerated citizens complains?

In term of this sending a message to you that the US has something to hide, seems to me that more reflects a predisposition than the evidence on this issue since you continue to base your position solely on the claims of someone who is most likely a chronic liar with a victim complex.

JMA
04-22-2011, 11:01 AM
First of all, the Red Cross in Guantanamo is not an analogy. The issue there was that one nation was holding citizens of a different nation. The Red Cross does not investigate every nation when a prisoner complains of mistreatment since a huge proportion of them in every country do. What country is going to accept an international investigation every time one of their incarcerated citizens complains?

Come on Steve, please.

The Manning case/Wikileaks thing/ Assanje is the biggest thing in terms of legal cases and a media frenzy since sliced bread.

The clever move would have been to invite the Red Cross in at the first sniff of a situation developing and not flipping anyone and everyone who shows an interest or some concern.


In term of this sending a message to you that the US has something to hide, seems to me that more reflects a predisposition than the evidence on this issue since you continue to base your position solely on the claims of someone who is most likely a chronic liar with a victim complex.

You just don't get it do you?

The clever move would have been to anticipate what the negative possibilities that could flow out of this were and get the "gravy-train" load of government spin-doctors to head off the criticism and make sure his treatment was beyond reproach.

Not me, the world has every right (given previous US behaviour) to be skeptical about what the US says it has done/is doing as opposed to what it has done/is really doing.

Manning was arrested 11 months ago (26 May 2010) and is still being kept as a pre-trial prisoner in conditions creating international concern. This delay leaves the US wide open to all manner of criticism.

Does nobody have the smarts to realise that due process must be seen to be done and Manning get his day in court. If necessary get him on a minor charge and convict him so that he becomes a bono fide prisoner while the main case is lined up against him. 11 months? Can't you see how questions are starting to be asked?

Current Administration can't even handle the Manning case intelligently, little wonder the Libyan thing is rapidly slipping out of control so fast.

As far as I'm concerned I would have accepted Manning being Court Marshalled and dealt with in Kuwait within a few months of his arrest. It is an American problem.

As a non-American though I am absolutely thrilled at Wikileaks for exposing what so many people the world over have suspected all along being that the US State Department was totally incompetent.

82redleg
04-22-2011, 11:23 AM
Major, do I go with what you want me (and presumably the world) to believe or the word of General Zinni who was quoted in an article dated 30 October 2010:...
I go with what the word of a retired four-star general.

Who do you think is more able to speak for the "platoon and company commanders"- the MAJ who is maybe one of them, or a tour or two removed from them, who has deployed with them and fought the fight with them for 7+ months, or a politician with a political axe to grind (yeah, he was a 4* GO, but he retired 9 years ago, and since then has not only been a special envoy, but the president/CEO of several companies) who flew in to visit for a few days. Heck, he probably never read the ROE, just got briefed on it, and certainly never made decisions under its authority.

I'm 5 years out of A-stan, and almost 3 years out of Iraq, so I'm not current, but I'll take the word of the guys doing the deed over the word of a visitor. YMMV.

selil
04-22-2011, 11:32 AM
No, he was evaluated specifically to determine whether he should be held under prevention-of-injury watch. Go the the first link in my comment above and scroll down to the "background information" section for the details. And some more detail on more recent events here (http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2011/03/truth-behind-quantico-brigs-decision-to.html).

This is from Manning's attorney, so obviously it has to be viewed in terms of him being an advocate for his client. However, the statements of fact and regulation appear to be accurate to me and so I find them credible.

That is only part of the mental health calculation and not the only element to the calculation of pre-trial confinement strategies. The nature of the accused has to be taken into account, the mental stresses and possible issues that general population may create are also important. The nature of the accused and the possibility of assassination or violence upon the accused due to their criminal case are also considerations. Also, if the accused required mental health screening there are facility liability considerations. Imagine the fury if he hung himself after being released to general population.

Without having interviewed the accused and inspected the facility I can't say exactly what should happen. I can't imagine Pvt. Manning is happy, comfortable, or pleased with his surroundings. His attorney's and the facilities statements all must be put through the filters of their respective roles. It is not a principle of American corrections (by law and training) that pre-trial confinement is punishment.

Dayuhan
04-22-2011, 11:53 AM
the abject and almost pathetic fear of offending Muslims, the "Arab Street" and the Russians by constant promises not to put boots on the ground in Libya and then on the other flipping the world over a minor and trivial matter like the pre-trial incarceration and treatment of Bradley Manning. This positively boggles the mind.

Putting boots on the ground in Libya would strengthen our enemies, suck us into a situation we have no interest in being in and accomplish absolutely nothing for the US. Why on earth would we want to do that, and how in the name of the deity of your choice fo you spin that into "abject and almost pathetic fear"? And how do you bring the Russians into a picture where they've no impact on anything? No gain, significant cost, high probability of adverse consequences, why would we want to get more than minimally involved? Doesn't take fear to keep us on the outer edge of that mess, it just takes a little common sense.

About Manning I honestly couldn't care less. I don't see much of a media frenzy either, in fact it seems to be getting no special attention. A few people will shriek and howl, most will pay no attention at all, and the only people who will see it as a major issue will be the ones who resort to knee-jerk criticism of the US at every opportunity anyway. Not really something to worry about.

SteveMetz
04-22-2011, 12:13 PM
Come on Steve, please.

The Manning case/Wikileaks thing/ Assanje is the biggest thing in terms of legal cases and a media frenzy since sliced bread.

The clever move would have been to invite the Red Cross in at the first sniff of a situation developing and not flipping anyone and everyone who shows an interest or some concern.



You just don't get it do you?

The clever move would have been to anticipate what the negative possibilities that could flow out of this were and get the "gravy-train" load of government spin-doctors to head off the criticism and make sure his treatment was beyond reproach.

Not me, the world has every right (given previous US behaviour) to be skeptical about what the US says it has done/is doing as opposed to what it has done/is really doing.

Manning was arrested 11 months ago (26 May 2010) and is still being kept as a pre-trial prisoner in conditions creating international concern. This delay leaves the US wide open to all manner of criticism.

Does nobody have the smarts to realise that due process must be seen to be done and Manning get his day in court. If necessary get him on a minor charge and convict him so that he becomes a bono fide prisoner while the main case is lined up against him. 11 months? Can't you see how questions are starting to be asked?

Current Administration can't even handle the Manning case intelligently, little wonder the Libyan thing is rapidly slipping out of control so fast.

As far as I'm concerned I would have accepted Manning being Court Marshalled and dealt with in Kuwait within a few months of his arrest. It is an American problem.

As a non-American though I am absolutely thrilled at Wikileaks for exposing what so many people the world over have suspected all along being that the US State Department was totally incompetent.


So what you're advocating is that whenever an incarcerated person in any country complains about conditions, there is an international investigation? Or does this rule just apply to the United States? Is the only standard to instigate such an investigation that an incarcerated person complains? That's a dangerous precedent since it would then be used simply to harass governments.

I also don't think an investigation would blunt criticism. The critics currently assert "torture" and "inhumane treatment" as if it is fact even though there is no evidence other than Manning's own claims. This suggests to me that they're driven by an anti-US/anti-DoD predisposition rather than any factual evidence. So even if an investigation would satisfy them on this issue (which is unlikely), they'd just gin up some other criticism. There are some critics and criticism which deserve to be taken seriously and some that you just have to ignore.

On Wikileaks in general, I am appalled that Assange is perfectly willing to assist despots in pursuit of his two primary goals: feeding his own narcissism and attempting to harm the United States. It's nauseating that he wraps this in morality and people buy it.

JMA
04-22-2011, 01:04 PM
So what you're advocating is that whenever an incarcerated person in any country complains about conditions, there is an international investigation? Or does this rule just apply to the United States? Is the only standard to instigate such an investigation that an incarcerated person complains?

Steve, you still don't get it.

Bradley Manning is not just any incarcerated person in any country. This I'm sure you know.

I also believe that you realise that with even a smidgen of intelligent finesse the current US Administration could have dealt with this matter more rapidly and more effectively.

The handling was worse than an own goal, worse than shooting oneself in the foot, more like shooting oneself in the head.


On Wikileaks in general, I am appalled that Assange is perfectly willing to assist despots in pursuit of his two primary goals: feeding his own narcissism and attempting to harm the United States.

Narcissism there may well be but as far as harm is concerned the Wikileaks history of leaks indicates that the US has not been singled out for harm (it that's what you call it).

Yes the US has been embarrassed by Wikileaks, yes the US has been humiliated by the Wikileaks and this may take some time to heal. But given a little time I predict that Americans will be thankful that Wikileaks exposed the State Department for the incompetent waste of money that it is.

SteveMetz
04-22-2011, 01:18 PM
No he's not just any incarcerated person in any country--he's a convenient wedge that America haters have found useful to leverage, a stalking horse. I think it's incumbent on you to explain exactly why you think he is differently than the tens of thousands of incarcerated people around the world who complain about their predicament.

My point is why should there be one rule that applies to the United States that does not apply to any other country? One should not advocate a principle that is not universal.

On Wikileaks in general, I suspect that the U.S. State Department is no more incompetent or nefarious than any other nation's diplomatic corps. Again, what's the universal principle? Should all nations make public their diplomatic correspondence or only the U.S? Of course, in reality Wikileaks is incapable or uninterested in publicizing the diplomatic correspondence of despotic states.

J Wolfsberger
04-22-2011, 02:05 PM
But given a little time I predict that Americans will be thankful that Wikileaks exposed the State Department for the incompetent waste of money that it is.

Trust me in this, a very large number of us didn't need Wikileaks' help to figure that out.

jcustis
04-22-2011, 04:16 PM
Major, do I go with what you want me (and presumably the world) to believe or the word of General Zinni who was quoted in an article dated 30 October 2010:

Zinni: Afghanistan rules of engagement too restrictive (http://nevadanewsandviews.com/2010/10/30/zinni-afghanistan-rules-of-engagement-too-restrictive/)



You said the following: “having just returned from Afghanistan”. Now your unit returned from Afghanistan at the end of November 2010 which places your frame of reference in the same timeline as General Zinni’s comments.

Also five months on is no longer “just”. Suggest you drop the use of that word.

I go with what the word of a retired four-star general.

I like the General. He spoke at a birthday ball for our division in Nov 2002, and despite having deep reservations about the pending conflict with Iraq, he wished us well. He has provided a considerable amount of steller service to his country and the Marine Corps.

You've keyed in on a sound byte from a terribly short article, and that is your right to do so, but it is only the General's stated opinion (actually more an observation than anything else) that offers sweeping generalizations. Even if he had said something more concrete and voluminous, he'd still be wrong. Go with what he 9and yes, he is a politician now) says if you must. I understand your frame of reference, and can see where you are being misled or why you misunderstand.

Now I know you are probably going to scour the intardweb to find additional articles with links and such to further argue your point, and that is your right as well. Have at it. Post those links at the outset though and allow folks to get a glimpse of what develops your position on matters we discuss here, not ex post facto.

As for my relevancy in the context of the ROE, considering the fact that the standing ROE in place has not changed for forever and a day, and that the Tactical Directive came out under Gen McChrystal and had two tweaks under Gen Petraeus during my tour, but no others have followed in the intervening time...yeah, I just got back. The ROE isn't even what folks are cited as having issues over. It is the Tactical Directive that tends to be highlighted as a matter of concern, which involves the application of force. Oh, but wait...wait...that's right...If I remember correctly (and it's just coming to me now :rolleyes:) the Tactical Directive that some folks enjoy getting up in arms over was issued by Gen McChrystal, a four star General, just like Zinni.

Casualty rates from IEDs account for just over half of the casualties incurred in Afghanistan, so there isn't a lot that can be done about altering the ROE to allow for pre-emptive engagement there anyway. I suppose folks wish we could be more proactive and less reactive in that regard And we have had a good number of good men lose their lives through turncoat actions by ANSF we thought were partners. I guess we should cease the partner mission because it puts troops at risk. :rolleyes:

91bravojoe
04-25-2011, 04:00 AM
The so called "rules" of engagement:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/04/21-5

Gun down four civilians on a highway, and then call them "insurgents".

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/world/asia/27afghan.html?_r=1


"American and NATO troops firing from passing convoys and military checkpoints have killed 30 Afghans and wounded 80 others since last summer, but in no instance did the victims prove to be a danger to troops, according to military officials in Kabul."

We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat,” said Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who became the senior American and NATO commander in Afghanistan last year. His comments came during a recent videoconference to answer questions from troops in the field about civilian casualties."

Stories like this a dime a dozen. Some of you boobs babble about "America haters" etc. while overlooking the virtual boasting from torture artist McChrystal. The US has revived the Phoenix Program in Afghanistan, and it's common knowledge.

William Calley led a massacre of 109 people in Vietnam. His most difficult condition of confinement was house arrest, both pre-trial and pending appeal. He was eventually given a Nixonian pardon. Manning is doing hard time right now. For releasing the truth.

jcustis
04-25-2011, 06:06 AM
Stories like this a dime a dozen. Some of you boobs babble about "America haters" etc. while overlooking the virtual boasting from torture artist McChrystal. The US has revived the Phoenix Program in Afghanistan, and it's common knowledge.

William Calley led a massacre of 109 people in Vietnam. His most difficult condition of confinement was house arrest, both pre-trial and pending appeal. He was eventually given a Nixonian pardon. Manning is doing hard time right now. For releasing the truth.

It's your thread and definitely your opinion, as we can see here, but Manning is confined because he compromised classified networks and released information found on those networks. On the surface, it's still espionage. Views on the relevance of the material towards "the truth" are subjective.

Michael Walker was placed in pre-trial confinement for espionage committed in cahoots with his father.

I tend to think of Gen McChrystal as one well-intentioned commander. If the Phoenix Program is making a comeback, I'm curious as to where the details are that make you believe it is common knowledge.

J Wolfsberger
04-25-2011, 12:46 PM
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/04/21-5

Gun down four civilians on a highway, and then call them "insurgents".



The first sentence in the article is: 'NATO acknowledged Wednesday that four unarmed Afghans who were killed this week when a military convoy opened fire on their vehicle were all civilians, correcting an earlier claim that two of the dead were "known insurgents." '

Which contradicts your observation, unless your intended point was that NATO officials make mistakes, then correct them. Which would be something of a pointless point to make.

As for the rest, your hatred for the U.S. is tedious. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. In fact, you have lots of company in it. If your goal is to convince anyone here of ... something ... you're doing it wrong.

Van
04-25-2011, 04:31 PM
Manning is doing hard time right now. For releasing the truth.

Ummm...

No.

Manning is in pre-trial confinement for compromising classified information. This action is treason. Treason is perpetrated by traitors.

It is also worth noting that the Al-Qaeda manual found in Britain directs their members to claim abuse at the hands of captors at the first chance they get.

Stan
04-25-2011, 06:37 PM
This is al-Qa'eda Rule 18: 'You must claim you were tortured'

Terrorist Training Manual (http://www.combat-terror.com/library/al%20Qaeda%20Manual.pdf)

Manning has disgraced the uniform and country we represent and hold dear.

JMA
04-25-2011, 06:55 PM
Manning has disgraced the uniform and country we represent and hold dear.

Yes, but for pity sake get on with the prosecution...

carl
04-25-2011, 07:06 PM
Yes, but for pity sake get on with the prosecution...

An American legal proceeding happening fast? Why that would be un-American!

91bravojoe
04-26-2011, 06:51 AM
On the 1/10 of 1% chance that jcustis was serious:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=phoenix+program+in+afghanistan

Included in the sumptuous buffet:

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/07/28/cias-phoenix-program-flies-again/

a treatment otherwise characterized by its gross dishonesty in describing what Phoenix actually was.

Or:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Terrain_System

describing “mercenary anthropology” as another term for identifying local respected citizens and then murdering them. To win an ally!

Or:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/valentine4.1.1.html

describing the incredibly bungled Phoenix and Chieu Hoi programs, and concluding with:


And while the CIA relies on cartoons to sell itself, the Taliban go from person to person, proving that technology is no substitute for human contact. Ultimately the U.S. was defeated in Vietnam for just this reason.

The Taliban defector buyout program heralds just such a development in Afghanistan – defeat – and nothing more.

One of you described a press release after a murder of 4 Afghanistan civilians as a "mistake". Do you really not understand that a "mistake" is always what is offered first, and then withdrawn after somebody finds out what actually happened? I suppose you think the Iraq runup was a "mistake".

Another one of you said that Manning had some involvement with "treason". Here is what Manning is charged with:

http://www.bradleymanning.org/news/releases/army-issues-formal-charges-against-bradley-manning

Manning was later charged with "aiding the enemy". Ha ha. I'm sure there is somebody here who can tell us which enemy is that.

The little Bush administration decided they didn't like Valerie Plame Wilson. She had been working on counter-proliferation of nuclear weapons for many years, specializing in the Iranian and Iraq programs. So they blew her cover, endangered any assets she had recruited, and caused her operation to be shut down.

How many of you want to argue that Bradley Manning did more harm to the national interest than the Bush criminal cartel in the Plame case?

Steve Blair
04-26-2011, 01:45 PM
Let's all take a deep breath and tone down the attacks, shall we? If that proves impossible, this thread will be locked for a "cooling down" period. Thanks.

Stan
04-26-2011, 08:03 PM
Fact: Somewhere along the line the soldier in question signed an oath.

Most of us have done it and many of us still do.

There is no gray line with foggy misunderstandings abound. The acts committed are just wrong regardless of how we decide to label them.

Pete
04-26-2011, 10:31 PM
Fact: Somewhere along the line the soldier in question signed an oath.
True. But don't do things during his detention that feed the nut-case conspiracy theories. Try and convict him for the 20 years or so that he deserves. If you hang around the U.S. Armed Forces long enough their institutational reputation for exercising probity and good judgement become very important things in the long haul. We went though some blips in Korea and Vietnam but if the basic integrity of the service shines through during thick and thin most of the opinion of the world will have confidence in us.

Van
04-27-2011, 02:10 AM
http://critical-thinkers.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/A-Flowchart-to-Help-You-Determine-if-Yoursquore-Having-a-Rational-Discussion.jpg

I'm thinking this might be relevant. Needless to say, I agree with Steve Blair at this point.

motorfirebox
04-27-2011, 03:58 AM
What Manning did has no relevance on how he is currently--that is, prior to his trial--being treated. By that I mean Manning's crimes do not make it okay to punish him without a trial. Punishment before trial is not justice; in fact, it's injustice, contrary to the entire point of having trials in the first place.

It is very much in the US's interests to publicly torture Manning. It sends a very clear message: Manning is a soldier, and soldiers are pretty highly regarded by most of the US. The message is, if we're willing to do this to a soldier, imagine what we'll do to you--"you" being anyone, soldier, civilian, or foreign national, who wants to try to leak sensitive material.

The idea that Manning is being held under prevention of injury protocols solely for his own safety (even recognizing that ensuring his safety is necessary to bring him to trial) is naivete at best and willful ignorance at worst. We have a pretty poor track record when it comes to the rights of people we decide are enemies. If it looks like we're acting heinously when we deal with an enemy, it's probably because we're acting heinously.

If you want to see Manning tried and shot, well, okay--let's do that. Personally, I'm not sure the death penalty is warranted in this case, but that's a different argument; at the very least, shooting him after trying him for treason would be the proper execution (no pun intended) of justice as this nation subscribes to the concept. But to hold Manning under his current conditions and claim it's justice is to be either appallingly unaware of political reality or appalling unwilling to accept those realities.

Ken White
04-27-2011, 05:37 AM
Punishment before trial is not justice; in fact, it's injustice, contrary to the entire point of having trials in the first place.It's not punishment -- though it may be punishing. It's pre-trial confinement, similar to being held without bail before a civilian criminal trial (LINK) (http://usmilitary.about.com/library/weekly/aa102200a.htm). I have no idea how many civilians are being so held due to being a perceived flight risk but I'm sure you object to their confinement as well.

Most military offenders are not placed in pre-trial confinement but those with major offenses (of which Manning is accused) and who are deemed flight risks (Manning's UK connection. Extradition is expensive...) will almost always be confined until all the investigations are complete. The Judge Advocates discourage pre-trial unless it really seems necessary in order to avoid creating sympathy for the accused by the Court Martial boar or Military Jury -- that because of the protections afforded the accused, the investigations typically take far longer than would a comparable civilian effort.

In my experience and observation, the system goes to great lengths to insure they have a solid case before charges are preferred. The military justice system gets wrongly slammed for having a high conviction rate. It does but that's due to the fact that the Judge Advocates won't charge people unless they have a really solid case. Most people look at the Charged:Tried ratio (civilian Indictment:Trial). A better assessment would be crimes committed versus offenses charged -- that ratio is low, far lower than most civilian venues.
It is very much in the US's interests to publicly torture Manning...you" being anyone, soldier, civilian, or foreign national, who wants to try to leak sensitive material.That has not deterred previous leakers, most of whom don't get caught -- Manning apparently did get caught. You run across a lot of folks in the service who are about a tenth as smart as they think they are and who do dumb stuff. Happens all the time...
The idea that Manning is being held under prevention of injury protocols solely for his own safety (even recognizing that ensuring his safety is necessary to bring him to trial) is naivete at best and willful ignorance at worst.That sentence you wrote is the reason for my suggestion. That's just not correct. If there's any justice system that is more slavishly overprotective of the rights of the accused than the US Military Justice system, I'm unaware of it (LINK) (http://www.usmilitarylawyer.com/rights-of-the-accused-in-the-military.asp).
We have a pretty poor track record when it comes to the rights of people we decide are enemies. If it looks like we're acting heinously when we deal with an enemy, it's probably because we're acting heinously.We do heinous occasionally, mostly we don't. Though we do stupid a lot...:D
If you want to see Manning tried and shot, well, okay--let's do that. Personally, I'm not sure the death penalty is warranted in this case, but that's a different argument; at the very least, shooting him after trying him for treason ...I doubt a Treason charge would stick and to my knowledge, no one other than a few folks here and there are interested in that. I strongly doubt the death penalty will be sought though I do not doubt some folks will wish for that.
But to hold Manning under his current conditions and claim it's justice is to be either appallingly unaware of political reality or appalling unwilling to accept those realities.May I suggest it is you that appears unwilling to accept realities. Manning hasn't been subjected to much more hassle than most armed forces Recruits are subjected to for weeks at a time and not nearly as much as many 'endure' in more advanced training. There is no official claim of 'justice' in his current detention -- he's in pre-trial confinement, no more.

Also note, he's currently at the USDB at Leavenworth and the Army has a much more benign concept of incarceration than do the Marines so your fears may well be misplaced. :wry:

Stan
04-27-2011, 07:00 PM
Pete,
While I wholeheartedly agree with you, and Ken has done yet another fine job of explaining why Manning is still being held, I think the military spends little time entertaining nut-case theories and generally ignores mass media. I've hung around the military all my life and find that our system needs to remain strict and I see no lack of integrity.

Sam put things into perspective for all of us having worked in the prison system. If Manning was in general population several very unpopular things would have happened and we wouldn't be having this conversation nor would we be concerned at all over the outcome. For some reason what takes place among inmates seems OK and never makes the headlines.


True. But don't do things during his detention that feed the nut-case conspiracy theories. Try and convict him for the 20 years or so that he deserves. If you hang around the U.S. Armed Forces long enough their institutational reputation for exercising probity and good judgement become very important things in the long haul. We went though some blips in Korea and Vietnam but if the basic integrity of the service shines through during thick and thin most of the opinion of the world will have confidence in us.

Entropy
04-28-2011, 05:16 AM
Just a couple of points of information:

1. Manning would not be put into "general population" while in a pretrial status. Personnel in pretrial confinement are generally required to be held separately from convicted prisoners and in a large brig (like quantico) there is a separate area for just that purpose.

2. A few months before Manning arrived at the Quantico Brig, a Marine in pretrial confinement committed suicide at the brig. (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/02/marine_quantico_brig_death_020410w/) To me it seems only natural that brig personnel would take no chances of a repeat so soon after a suicide, especially a high-visibility confinee like Manning.

Of course, there's a risk in that. Whatever one's opinion on Manning, I think he will have a case for an article 13 violation. It's going to get brought up in court for certain and will be decided there and it will also be looked at on appeal should he be convicted. There's some appellate case history (www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/Crim-Law-Deskbook_V-1.pdf) (PDF file, article 13 stuff begins on page F-10) that indicates to me (as a non-lawyer) that he might receive some credit.

Edit: Adding this from Manning's lawyer's blog (http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2011/04/why-was-pfc-manning-moved-to-fort.html):


The order to keep PFC Manning under these unduly harsh conditions was issued by a senior Quantico official who stated he would not risk anything happening “on his watch.” When challenged by a Brig psychiatrist present at the meeting that there was no mental health justification for the decision, the senior Quantico official issuing the order responded, “We will do whatever we want to do.” Based upon these statements and others, the defense was in the process of filing a writ of habeas corpus seeking a court ruling that the Quantico Brig violated PFC Manning’s constitutional right to due process.

"not on my watch" sounds to me like they aren't going to take any chances on another suicide....

AdamG
04-28-2011, 11:35 AM
I'm thinking this might be relevant. Needless to say, I agree with Steve Blair at this point.

See also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

*
Meanwhile, back in the holding cell...



FORT LEAVENWORTH, Kan. (AP) -- Army officials are opening the doors to the military prison in Kansas where they are holding an Army private suspected of illegally passing U.S. government secrets to the WikiLeaks website.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_WIKILEAKS_ARMY_PRIVATE_TOUR?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

91bravojoe
05-02-2011, 02:09 AM
Manning's 'protection':

President Obama Makes a Fair Trial of Bradley Manning Impossible By Declaring Him Guilty

The “Bradley Manning Exception to the Bill of Rights” Devastates the Credibility of the Military Justice System

By Kevin Zeese


The credibility of the military justice system is being undermined by the prosecution of Bradley Manning. His abusive punishment without trial violates his due process rights; his harsh treatment in solitary confinement-torture conditions violates the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment; and now the commander-in-chief has announced his guilt before trial making a fair trial impossible. A Bradley Manning exception to the Bill of Rights is developing as the Obama administration seeks Manning’s punishment no matter what constitutional protections they violate.

http://my.firedoglake.com/kevinzeese/2011/04/25/president-obama-makes-a-fair-trial-of-bradley-manning-impossible-by-declaring-him-guilty/

-----------------------------

The robust reputation of the UCMJ apparatus:


American military justice is under constant attack. It is distrusted by civilian lawyers, detested by the ordinary serviceman who is subject to it, and criticized by military legal officers who administer it.1

The following comment by Robert Sherrill is typical of current criticism of military law:


Because the military has been so singularly unconscious of its defects and so inept at correcting those it does recognize, countless attorneys, millions of servicemen and ex-GIs, some civilian jurists and even some politicians are now convinced that there is no use to wait longer for internal reforms and that the best thing to do is simply to take away the judicial process and
return jurisdiction to the civilian courts.2

Authored by a reserve Major/lawyer.

http://repository.law.ttu.edu/bitstream/handle/10601/312/benson3.pdf?sequence=1

------------------------

I didn't speak to one person during my active duty who thought the military justice system made any sense at all. Let the humour resume.

Ken White
05-02-2011, 02:32 AM
LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sherrill)

There have been many changes to both the UCMJ and the MCM since the Article at the second link above was written. It, like the opinions portrayed in the anecdotal comment, is over 40 years old...

jcustis
05-02-2011, 03:01 AM
Surprisingly enough, I am looking at an autonomous ad for "Free Manning" in the upper right corner of the screen. :wry:

But more importantly, it looks like OBL is dead...

Now, those folks who are not flash-in-the-pan warriors need to continue the good fight and tread softly as they carry big sticks. We are still in for a long row to hoe.

Van
05-02-2011, 05:14 AM
I didn't speak to one person during my active duty who thought the military justice system made any sense at all. Let the humour resume.

What about the UCMJ did not make sense? Did you go to the manual of courts martial and read it or did you take the word of someone as poorly informed as yourself? Have you looked at the MCM lately (it is entirely on line and available for your consideration)? Remember, you have made the allegation, the burden of proof is on you.

Not that I expect you to answer any of these points or make any personal effort to understand what you attack, but I want everyone else to see you avoid the questions and demonstrate your lack of intellectual rigor.

jmm99
11-09-2012, 10:37 PM
From David Coombs (http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2012/11/pfc-mannings-offered-plea-and-forum.html):


07 November 2012

PFC Manning's Offered Plea and Forum Selection

PFC Manning has offered to plead guilty to various offenses through a process known as "pleading by exceptions and substitutions." To clarify, PFC Manning is not pleading guilty to the specifications as charged by the Government. Rather, PFC Manning is attempting to accept responsibility for offenses that are encapsulated within, or are a subset of, the charged offenses. The Court will consider whether this is a permissible plea.

PFC Manning is not submitting a plea as part of an agreement or deal with the Government. Further, the Government does not need to agree to PFC Manning's plea; the Court simply has to determine that the plea is legally permissible. If the Court allows PFC Manning to plead guilty by exceptions and substitutions, the Government may still elect to prove up the charged offenses. Pleading by exceptions and substitutions, in other words, does not change the offenses with which PFC Manning has been charged and for which he is scheduled to stand trial.

PFC Manning has also provided notice of his forum selection. He has elected to be tried by Military Judge alone.

Interesting tactic, sometimes used in civilian courts. The idea is to strike a "plea bargain" (via the judge's decision alone to a lesser charge) where a formal plea bargain is foreclosed (for one reason or another). It has worked.

Regards

Mike