update on Manning's torture

[JMA]

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 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.

[jcustis]

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]

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

“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.

[82redleg]

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.

[jcustis]

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



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 ) 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.

[91bravojoe]

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/wo...ghan.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]

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]

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]

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]

This is al-Qa'eda Rule 18: 'You must claim you were tortured'

Terrorist Training Manual

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

[SteveMetz]

The Red Cross were allowed into Guantanamo 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]

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.

[SteveMetz]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Dayuhan]

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.