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.
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.
Last edited by selil; 04-21-2011 at 05:39 PM. Reason: Covering the bases.
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
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.
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.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
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.
Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.
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.
Last edited by Entropy; 04-21-2011 at 08:38 PM. Reason: added link.
Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.
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.
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.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.
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.
Last edited by jcustis; 04-22-2011 at 04:50 AM.
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.
Last edited by JMA; 04-22-2011 at 05:10 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.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.
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.
Last edited by jcustis; 04-22-2011 at 05:33 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:
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.“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,”…
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.
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.
Last edited by SteveMetz; 04-22-2011 at 10:16 AM.
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?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.
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.
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.
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.
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
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.
Last edited by Dayuhan; 04-22-2011 at 11:59 AM.
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.
Last edited by SteveMetz; 04-22-2011 at 12:46 PM.
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.
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).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.
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.
Last edited by JMA; 04-22-2011 at 01:10 PM.
Bookmarks