update on Manning's torture

[Entropy]

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. 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 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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

[selil]

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.

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.

[JMA]

... this is certainly an "own goal" by the government even if it's not torture.

Exactly.