update on Manning's torture

[JMA]

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 - 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 - or are they just a bunch of lunatic lefties who are aiding and abetting an enemy of the state?

[J Wolfsberger]

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 - 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 - 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.

[J Wolfsberger]

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.

[stanleywinthrop]

...then maybe you can trash the 250 legal academics who signed a petition on the matter - 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.

[Steve Blair]

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]

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.