update on Manning's torture

[JMA]

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

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.

[SteveMetz]

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.

[davidbfpo]

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.

[SteveMetz]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.