The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning's detention

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning/

by roadnottaken • 16 years ago

78 51 16 years ago

salon.com

DupDetector2• 16 years ago

Duplicate:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2009268

1 comment.

carbocation2• 16 years ago

RiderOfGiraffes, is this you?

die_sekte• 16 years ago

It's apparently a semi-autonomous project of his.

DupDetector2• 16 years ago

See here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2008143

I'm looking for a separation of concerns, separating my submissions as me, finding things or writing things, from my curating activities of finding duplicates and cross-referencing, wherein I try to prevent the repetition of discussion across effectively identical submissions.

I'm also using it as an opportunity to put into practice some of the things I've learned about semantic analysis, Bayesian filters, and automated web interactions.

It's an experiment. It probably won't last long.

grandalf9• 16 years ago

This is utterly shocking. I had no idea that solitary confinement was used in cases other than to prevent physical harm to an inmate or to prevent violence.

It looks like the technique is being used the same way as a "stress position" to slowly turn Manning into a hopeless wreck willing to say anything to see the light of day again.

Regardless of what Manning did (and regardless of whether or not I find it offensive) I don't think anyone -- especially nonviolent offenders -- should be subjected to such inhumane treatment.

thrill• 16 years ago

Do you think we should leave a mint on his (non)pillow every night? The accusations against this military person, who voluntarily violated his oath to protect the nation's secrets, are very serious, and PRIVATE, not Mister, Manning is being held to the same standards any other military person is liable to, and is quite likely to face execution by firing squad.

roadnottaken• 16 years ago

Execution for treason is less morally offensive than psychological torture. That's why cruel and unusual punishment is expressly forbidden by the constitution.

EDIT: To say nothing of the fact that he hasn't been convicted of anything yet.

grandalf9• 16 years ago

He's being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. In case anyone had doubts who had the moral high ground (Manning or the US Government) this proves it was not the US Government.

In general, prisoners should not be treated inhumanely. It's well known that many in prison are beaten and/or raped by other inmates (which itself is inexcusable) but this mistreatment is directly at the hands of those in charge of the prison. Manning has not been violent or dangerous and so there is no need for him to be treated this way.

wnoise3• 16 years ago

The oath is to protect the U.S. Constitution, not the nation's secrets (except as follows under general orders and the UCMJ).

> "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Is it necessary to leak these cables to support and defend the Constitution? Probably not. But there is clear precedent that illegal orders (contradicting either the UCMJ or the Constitution) are not supposed to be obeyed.

Espionage charges are laid out in 10 USC 906a: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_10_00000906---a000... and conviction has to prove "intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation", and the death penalty requires one of a number of aggravating circumstances that don't seem to apply.

He certainly will be locked up, undoubtedly for quite some time, but he's not going to be executed (if the law is followed).

rbanffy• 16 years ago

You could describe his crimes as to revealing government secrets to a nation he swore to protect.

Sometimes you need to protect a country from its government.

rookie• 16 years ago

And especially without being convicted of anything yet.

Very disgusting and shocking to learn of this.

Semiapies4• 16 years ago

We're doing it to rather a few people, unfortunately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermax

elblanco2• 16 years ago

The original penitentiaries were actually designed as all solitary -- the idea was that an inmate, isolated from the corruption of the world, would find their innate inner goodness and spend the time praying - hence the "penitent" part of "penitentiary.

This place http://www.easternstate.org/ is a fascinating place to visit -- it's the model for many many prisons around the world still in use today. The idea of putting prisoners in what amounts to group housing is actually a very new notion and not at all clear that it provides a better environment than solitary.

wnoise3• 16 years ago

It's actually quite clear -- group housing doesn't inherently drive most people insane after months. Solitary confinement does.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_...

Change it from less than 1 hour of contact per day to something like 4, and I doubt it would be harmful.

lucasjung4• 16 years ago

" I had no idea that solitary confinement was used in cases other than to prevent physical harm to an inmate or to prevent violence."

Given which way the winds are obviously blowing around here, I fully expect to get downvoted into oblivion for what I'm about to say, but it needs to be said:

There are other valid reasons. In this particular case, the detainee is a demonstrated security risk. At this point I'm sure that people will be inclined to point out that he hasn't yet been convicted of anything. True. But the bar for "demonstrated security risk" is in a very different place from the bar for "guilty." Servicemembers who are given access to classified information, especially at the Secret level or higher, are required to sign nondisclosure agreements. These aren't like corporate "we'll sue you into oblivion" NDAs: they are chock full of language about criminal penalties and (beyond the normal criminal process) being subject to investigation, detention, sequester, interrogation, polygraph, etc. He has clearly demonstrated that he is perfectly willing to disclose secrets that are harmful to the security of the United States, and so the military has an obligation to prevent any further such disclosures. Given the scale and scope of his previous disclosures, any contact represents an opportunity for further unauthorized disclosure, and so his gaolers have an obligation to keep such contact to an absolute minimum.

grandalf9• 16 years ago

Haven't his handlers signed similar agreements? By your logic, no judge should be able to hear his trial lest he/she hear and expose the secrets that might be revealed.

OpieCunningham• 16 years ago

In this particular case, the detainee is a demonstrated security risk. At this point I'm sure that people will be inclined to point out that he hasn't yet been convicted of anything. True. But the bar for "demonstrated security risk" is in a very different place from the bar for "guilty."

How did you make that distinction? He's not guilty, but he's a "demonstrated security risk" by virtue of what - the lack of a guilty verdict for allegedly being a demonstrated security risk? You can't have it both ways - he's either not proven guilty and therefore should not be treated as if he is a known threat to others or he has been tried and proven guilty. For all the evidence you've seen, not even being a judge, all charges could be false. At this time you have no idea other than a preexisting, evidence free belief based on things you've heard from some (mostly anonymous) government officials quoted in some random news article. And until you have further details, I can't see any logic beyond sadism or a misunderstanding of the concept of innocent until proven guilty that would allow you to support the reported treatment of Manning.

lotusleaf19872• 16 years ago

Cruel and unusual punishment. This is ridiculous and makes me feel ashamed to be an American.

icegreentea• 16 years ago

And Guantanamo didn't?

Semiapies4• 16 years ago

It's not a contest.

joshfraser• 16 years ago

I'm finding it harder and harder these days to be proud of being an American.

SandB0x• 16 years ago

Some people have been in solitary confinement for almost 40 years:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9839730...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/books/review/Letters-t-PRI...

(nb this is not meant as a comparison - Bradley Manning's treatment is most definitely inhumane)

alexqgb• 16 years ago

I suspect being jailed without trial is only going to confirm Manning's suspicion that he was calling bullshit on some seriously lawless people.

Kid's got stones the size of Texas.

rokamic• 16 years ago

I think Michael Moore said it best.

"I ask you to imagine how much different our world would be if WikiLeaks had existed 10 years ago. Take a look at this photo. That's Mr. Bush about to be handed a "secret" document on August 6th, 2001. Its heading read: "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US." And on those pages it said the FBI had discovered "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings." Mr. Bush decided to ignore it and went fishing for the next four weeks.

But if that document had been leaked, how would you or I have reacted? What would Congress or the FAA have done? Was there not a greater chance that someone, somewhere would have done something if all of us knew about bin Laden's impending attack using hijacked planes?"

The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning's detention

Related Stories