The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning's detention(salon.com)
salon.com
The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning's detention
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning/
55 comments
We're doing it to rather a few people, unfortunately.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermax
And especially without being convicted of anything yet.
Very disgusting and shocking to learn of this.
Very disgusting and shocking to learn of this.
" 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Actually, it's entirely possible that his handlers don't have the appropriate security clearances to hear the things he knows. Even if they have the right clearances, they don't have a need to know, and so he would be committing another unauthorized disclosure if he were to reveal classified information to them.
Your second sentence does not follow from my logic: it is not Manning's knowledge of classified information which makes him a security risk, but rather his history of disclosing said information to people without the proper clearances or need to know. Unlike Manning, this hypothetical judge has done nothing to demonstrate a propensity for unauthorized disclosure of classified materials. This will be a court-martial, so the judge will be an officer. Presumably he will have the appropriate clearances to hear all of the evidence, and the trial itself constitutes a need to know.
Your second sentence does not follow from my logic: it is not Manning's knowledge of classified information which makes him a security risk, but rather his history of disclosing said information to people without the proper clearances or need to know. Unlike Manning, this hypothetical judge has done nothing to demonstrate a propensity for unauthorized disclosure of classified materials. This will be a court-martial, so the judge will be an officer. Presumably he will have the appropriate clearances to hear all of the evidence, and the trial itself constitutes a need to know.
The technicalities you describe do not in my mind excuse the poor treatment he's receiving.
These are not technicalities: he has done incalculable damage to the national security of the U.S. While there is no real way to prove it one way or another, it is entirely likely that his disclosures have resulted in the suffering or even deaths of others. There is only one way to be sufficiently certain that he does not cause further damage, and that is to keep him in isolation. If it is justifiable to keep an extremely violent criminal in isolation to prevent possible future harm to others, is it not equally justifiable to keep a nonviolent criminal in isolation in order to prevent possible future harm to even greater numbers of people?
EDIT: Downvote if you like, but the question remains a valid philosophical question: if it is ethical to keep a person in isolation to preempt the possibility of physical harm to others, does the mechanism by which the harm is perpetrated matter?
EDIT: Downvote if you like, but the question remains a valid philosophical question: if it is ethical to keep a person in isolation to preempt the possibility of physical harm to others, does the mechanism by which the harm is perpetrated matter?
This is a chicken/egg problem. If someone had leaked the truth prior to the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, then over 100K people would be alive today who were killed, some of whom are American soldiers.
I'd argue that the wars and inappropriate secrecy have done incalculable harm to American national security by creating for us many new enemies, people who had probably admired the US until one of their friends or relatives was injured, killed, taken captive, interrogated harshly and inhumanely, etc.
The Apache helicopter video showed a couple of scared-shitless youth raging against anyone in their sights. One can't help but feel sorry for them, and no sensible person blames them for the carnage. But is that really what America is supposed to stand for?
The Afghan war logs show a nation that has supported a war largely due to vital information about conditions being kept from the American people. Are we really supposed to be proud of a war that we only support b/c information is classified whenever it might make the war effort look somewhat futile or mismanaged?
Both the Iraq and Afghan war logs show us how weak the US really is and how under-leveraged. We're negotiating with terrorists, thugs, and criminals left and right. It's far uglier than any realist would have dared imagine b/c of the lofty regard in which we hold our leaders.
I am not persuaded by your argument that Manning poses a risk of additional secrets being revealed. The very nature of his alleged actions (he smuggled out a CD-Roms full of information, less than 1% of which has been leaked via Wikileaks so far) suggest that he'd be able to recite any classified information at all. Unless you tell me he has a flash drive implanted in his finger or an amazing photographic memory I'm going to have to say that your argument doesn't hold water.
They're probably trying to make an example of him or break down his psychological stability. I suppose that's to be expected, but it puts our actions on par with the basest of regimes... at some point the legitimacy of a state comes from how it treats its citizens, guilty or innocent.
I'd argue that the wars and inappropriate secrecy have done incalculable harm to American national security by creating for us many new enemies, people who had probably admired the US until one of their friends or relatives was injured, killed, taken captive, interrogated harshly and inhumanely, etc.
The Apache helicopter video showed a couple of scared-shitless youth raging against anyone in their sights. One can't help but feel sorry for them, and no sensible person blames them for the carnage. But is that really what America is supposed to stand for?
The Afghan war logs show a nation that has supported a war largely due to vital information about conditions being kept from the American people. Are we really supposed to be proud of a war that we only support b/c information is classified whenever it might make the war effort look somewhat futile or mismanaged?
Both the Iraq and Afghan war logs show us how weak the US really is and how under-leveraged. We're negotiating with terrorists, thugs, and criminals left and right. It's far uglier than any realist would have dared imagine b/c of the lofty regard in which we hold our leaders.
I am not persuaded by your argument that Manning poses a risk of additional secrets being revealed. The very nature of his alleged actions (he smuggled out a CD-Roms full of information, less than 1% of which has been leaked via Wikileaks so far) suggest that he'd be able to recite any classified information at all. Unless you tell me he has a flash drive implanted in his finger or an amazing photographic memory I'm going to have to say that your argument doesn't hold water.
They're probably trying to make an example of him or break down his psychological stability. I suppose that's to be expected, but it puts our actions on par with the basest of regimes... at some point the legitimacy of a state comes from how it treats its citizens, guilty or innocent.
Misconduct by the U.S., perceived or real, does not cancel out the harm done by Manning's leaks. He just piled extra suffering and death on top of the old. Given the conditions that led up to the war in Afghanistan, no amount of leaks could have prevented it. I will concede that particular well-timed leaks might have prevented the Iraq war. However, this is not several years ago, this is now: war is not a state function, you can't just rewind it, you have to find a path out based on the realities of the moment. Right now, the reality is that if we unilaterally withdraw from Afghanistan, the death and suffering that will follow will be far worse than what is currently happening. The impact of these leaks, if anything, was to destabilize the situation, thus moving us farther from a peaceful resolution.
The issue of confinement is not just about what happened previously, but about what could happen in the future. He doesn't have to have a hidden thumb drive or a photographic memory to cause a great deal more harm: a few carefully chosen secrets committed to memory could put many lives in jeopardy. Only he knows if he has such secrets, and we can't trust his word if he says he doesn't, any more than we could trust the word of a violent inmate who promises to be good from now on.
"The Apache helicopter video showed a couple of scared-shitless youth raging against anyone in their sights."
Watch the FULL video: it shows no such thing. It shows a couple of professionals following the rules of engagement to the best of their abilities in a very chaotic and uncertain situation that involved their comrades getting shot at. I do not feel sorry for them at all, except that they had to be the subject of a heavily edited propaganda film.
EDIT: Since I can't reply any deeper, I'll respond to the latest to replies here.
I didn't claim that wikileaks didn't release the full version: I presumed that parent didn't watch it, based on his characterization of the events. I'll add this: the heavily-edited version got a hell of a lot more attention, and it was indisputably a work of propaganda. Releasing the full video on the side doesn't excuse the misrepresentations in the edited version.
In regards to the death and/or suffering I presume to have been caused by these leaks: no I can't prove it. I can't sweep into a war-torn third world country with a CSI-style team and determine, of the dozens of people abducted and/or murdered each weak by the taliban and/or al qaida and/or various warlords, which were killed as a result of these leaks and which were killed for other reasons. However, I can take those thugs at their word when they stated that they would use this information for reprisals. Nor can I be sure which particular ambushes against NATO troops benefited from knowledge of NATO tactics. Nor can I be sure how many ambushes could have been avoided if sympathetic Afghanis hadn't been too afraid to give tips because they could no longer trust the Americans to protect their identities. However, it is unreasonable to assume that these effects are not taking place.
EDIT 2: "The Apache video was edited to show the chain of events that led to the killing of a bunch of journalists...but I don't believe permission to fire would have been granted if the guys in the helicopter hadn't been so scared and hadn't embellished their account of the people on the ground."
The video was edited to make them look rash and to make their account look embellished. And I really don't know where you keep getting this idea of "scared;" I never hear anything remotely like fear in the voices on the tape. It wasn't just a "bunch of journalists," it was a few journalists standing around in the midst of a much larger group of armed men who were shooting at American troops, with no indication whatsoever that they were not members of the larger group.
I call it propaganda because it leaves out the part about the armed men shooting at Americans and focuses on the part about journalists being killed. I call it propaganda because it leaves out the very considered discussion of the role of the van, which stretches back to before the initial engagement when the pilots noticed it driving around the area in a loiter pattern reminiscent of insurgent support tactics. In short, I call it propaganda because it removes all context in order to make the decision to fire look as feckless and cavalier as possible.
"As for the leaked information putting lives at risk, Wikileaks offered to let the US Government redact any information it saw fit to. This offer was refused."
Frankly, I call BS. Their "offer" had unacceptable strings attached, such as acknowledging the legitimacy of the release of large quantities of classified materials by wikileaks. By statute, the government can't just arbitrarily decide to declare that it's OK to do something like that. Furthermore, sufficient time was not provided to properly go through all of the materials, a complaint raised by many (former) wikileaks partners/employees/volunteers. Finally, I am deeply skeptical that they really would have redacted ANYTHING the U.S. Government asked for.
In regards to your attempt to compare the U.S. to dictatorships: There are legitimate reasons for states to keep secrets, and the fact that you happen to personally disagree with particular secrets doesn't change the fact that the decision to keep those secrets was not made by any one person, but rather by following processes established by duly elected representatives.
On the day that the U.S. turns a foreign country into another U.S. state by force of arms, I will mail you a check for $100. Until then, please don't make such ridiculous claims about the motivations behind our foreign policy: go ahead and question the judgement to keep the troops there, but don't claim implausible imperial motivations.
The issue of confinement is not just about what happened previously, but about what could happen in the future. He doesn't have to have a hidden thumb drive or a photographic memory to cause a great deal more harm: a few carefully chosen secrets committed to memory could put many lives in jeopardy. Only he knows if he has such secrets, and we can't trust his word if he says he doesn't, any more than we could trust the word of a violent inmate who promises to be good from now on.
"The Apache helicopter video showed a couple of scared-shitless youth raging against anyone in their sights."
Watch the FULL video: it shows no such thing. It shows a couple of professionals following the rules of engagement to the best of their abilities in a very chaotic and uncertain situation that involved their comrades getting shot at. I do not feel sorry for them at all, except that they had to be the subject of a heavily edited propaganda film.
EDIT: Since I can't reply any deeper, I'll respond to the latest to replies here.
I didn't claim that wikileaks didn't release the full version: I presumed that parent didn't watch it, based on his characterization of the events. I'll add this: the heavily-edited version got a hell of a lot more attention, and it was indisputably a work of propaganda. Releasing the full video on the side doesn't excuse the misrepresentations in the edited version.
In regards to the death and/or suffering I presume to have been caused by these leaks: no I can't prove it. I can't sweep into a war-torn third world country with a CSI-style team and determine, of the dozens of people abducted and/or murdered each weak by the taliban and/or al qaida and/or various warlords, which were killed as a result of these leaks and which were killed for other reasons. However, I can take those thugs at their word when they stated that they would use this information for reprisals. Nor can I be sure which particular ambushes against NATO troops benefited from knowledge of NATO tactics. Nor can I be sure how many ambushes could have been avoided if sympathetic Afghanis hadn't been too afraid to give tips because they could no longer trust the Americans to protect their identities. However, it is unreasonable to assume that these effects are not taking place.
EDIT 2: "The Apache video was edited to show the chain of events that led to the killing of a bunch of journalists...but I don't believe permission to fire would have been granted if the guys in the helicopter hadn't been so scared and hadn't embellished their account of the people on the ground."
The video was edited to make them look rash and to make their account look embellished. And I really don't know where you keep getting this idea of "scared;" I never hear anything remotely like fear in the voices on the tape. It wasn't just a "bunch of journalists," it was a few journalists standing around in the midst of a much larger group of armed men who were shooting at American troops, with no indication whatsoever that they were not members of the larger group.
I call it propaganda because it leaves out the part about the armed men shooting at Americans and focuses on the part about journalists being killed. I call it propaganda because it leaves out the very considered discussion of the role of the van, which stretches back to before the initial engagement when the pilots noticed it driving around the area in a loiter pattern reminiscent of insurgent support tactics. In short, I call it propaganda because it removes all context in order to make the decision to fire look as feckless and cavalier as possible.
"As for the leaked information putting lives at risk, Wikileaks offered to let the US Government redact any information it saw fit to. This offer was refused."
Frankly, I call BS. Their "offer" had unacceptable strings attached, such as acknowledging the legitimacy of the release of large quantities of classified materials by wikileaks. By statute, the government can't just arbitrarily decide to declare that it's OK to do something like that. Furthermore, sufficient time was not provided to properly go through all of the materials, a complaint raised by many (former) wikileaks partners/employees/volunteers. Finally, I am deeply skeptical that they really would have redacted ANYTHING the U.S. Government asked for.
In regards to your attempt to compare the U.S. to dictatorships: There are legitimate reasons for states to keep secrets, and the fact that you happen to personally disagree with particular secrets doesn't change the fact that the decision to keep those secrets was not made by any one person, but rather by following processes established by duly elected representatives.
On the day that the U.S. turns a foreign country into another U.S. state by force of arms, I will mail you a check for $100. Until then, please don't make such ridiculous claims about the motivations behind our foreign policy: go ahead and question the judgement to keep the troops there, but don't claim implausible imperial motivations.
As for imperial motivations, I think that's the strongest claim I made.
I think there are generally two perspectives on US intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan:
The idealist perspective is that we invaded to thwart evil and to decrease the chances of domestic terrorism in the US.
The realist perspective is that wars are not about good and evil but about land and resources, and that the rest of the rhetoric is just a veneer added to help sell the war.
Iraq is the most valuable piece of land in the middle east. Afghanistan is also tremendously valuable. Perhaps my mention of them being the 51st and 52nd US states was hyperbole, but clearly the US wants to install client regimes in both places.
What are the characteristics of a client regime? Democracy is not usually valued all that much (hence our removal of democratically elected leaders around the world), thuggery is tolerated (hence the bribing of Afghan warlords, etc.) and all that is expected is that the state do the US's bidding in exchange for military protection and often aid.
In terms of military strategy, all this makes sense. You want to use soft power... better to bribe some warlords than to risk American lives, etc. Better to install a client regime that will prevent a possible enemy from consolidating power, etc.
The issue I have with this is that most people fail to see this as the brutal power projection of a massive empire.
In my opinion, we can't have it both ways... we can't be a pluralistic, free society and also cause so much suffering via our imperial "churn".
If you read the essay that Condi wrote in Foreign Affairs a few years ago in which she described in detail the "Bush Doctrine", you'll notice that she musters her significant academic training in an attempt to merge the notion of free society values with imperial power projection.
In my view, any explanation boils down to saying "We're going to civilize those savages, even if we have to kill quite a few to do so".
At this point, the side-effects of past Imperial actions are nearly impossible to differentiate from organic events. What we do know is that Al Qaida was largely a consequence of US efforts to use soft power to kick the Soviets out of Afghanistan, that Saddam had received significant military aid from the US, and that the US overthrew democratically elected regimes in Iran.
None of it was done for any abstract value such as freedom, but simply to control a very valuable area and attempt to create client regimes there (or prevent others from doing so), since such machinations are cheaper than US soldiers' lives and represent the use of "economy of force" compared to all-out war/conquest.
I think there are generally two perspectives on US intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan:
The idealist perspective is that we invaded to thwart evil and to decrease the chances of domestic terrorism in the US.
The realist perspective is that wars are not about good and evil but about land and resources, and that the rest of the rhetoric is just a veneer added to help sell the war.
Iraq is the most valuable piece of land in the middle east. Afghanistan is also tremendously valuable. Perhaps my mention of them being the 51st and 52nd US states was hyperbole, but clearly the US wants to install client regimes in both places.
What are the characteristics of a client regime? Democracy is not usually valued all that much (hence our removal of democratically elected leaders around the world), thuggery is tolerated (hence the bribing of Afghan warlords, etc.) and all that is expected is that the state do the US's bidding in exchange for military protection and often aid.
In terms of military strategy, all this makes sense. You want to use soft power... better to bribe some warlords than to risk American lives, etc. Better to install a client regime that will prevent a possible enemy from consolidating power, etc.
The issue I have with this is that most people fail to see this as the brutal power projection of a massive empire.
In my opinion, we can't have it both ways... we can't be a pluralistic, free society and also cause so much suffering via our imperial "churn".
If you read the essay that Condi wrote in Foreign Affairs a few years ago in which she described in detail the "Bush Doctrine", you'll notice that she musters her significant academic training in an attempt to merge the notion of free society values with imperial power projection.
In my view, any explanation boils down to saying "We're going to civilize those savages, even if we have to kill quite a few to do so".
At this point, the side-effects of past Imperial actions are nearly impossible to differentiate from organic events. What we do know is that Al Qaida was largely a consequence of US efforts to use soft power to kick the Soviets out of Afghanistan, that Saddam had received significant military aid from the US, and that the US overthrew democratically elected regimes in Iran.
None of it was done for any abstract value such as freedom, but simply to control a very valuable area and attempt to create client regimes there (or prevent others from doing so), since such machinations are cheaper than US soldiers' lives and represent the use of "economy of force" compared to all-out war/conquest.
The Apache video was edited to show the chain of events that led to the killing of a bunch of journalists. I agree that the rules of engagement were followed, but I don't believe permission to fire would have been granted if the guys in the helicopter hadn't been so scared and hadn't embellished their account of the people on the ground.
Are you claiming that the film was propaganda because we were shown that there were children killed? Or because we were told that those children were not given access to top quality medical care after they ended up accidental casualties?
If it's propaganda to include such information, then it's surely propaganda to omit it, which is what the US did by classifying it.
As for the leaked information putting lives at risk, Wikileaks offered to let the US Government redact any information it saw fit to. This offer was refused.
It seems odd that a government that negotiates with thugs, warlords, torturers, criminals, etc., all over the world, and let that one guy flee with $42M in US cash, will ceremoniously refuse to "negotiate" in a way that would have removed any chance that the leaks would have caused ANY harm whatsoever.
This is at best hypocritical and at worst stupid. I should be honest it irritates me to hear anyone say "we don't negotiate with terrorists" because so much of what the US does is identical to terrorism -- dropping bombs from very high altitudes into the middle of civilian areas, etc.
The realization I've made after reading the leaks is that the US is a propaganda state every bit as much as North Korea. The only thing we have in our favor is a far more favorable mix of natural resources, etc, so we simply had to deal with $5/gallon gas instead of being called upon to make tea out of pine needles by our illustrious leader.
There's an easy way to avoid ambushes: Send the troops home. The only rationale for staying is to essentially convert the territories into the 51st and 52nd US states. Already we've tolerated ethnic cleansing, etc., and things are far worse under US rule than they were under Saddam or the Taliban. We need to be honest with ourselves about this and decide if we really want two more states at the expense of so many indigenous lives. We should not be pretending that we can wage sterile war with smart bombs and that we're fighting against evil. We're simply taking valuable land. It's neither sterile or smart.
On balance the US has caused far more suffering in the past decade than the Taliban, and perhaps the leaks will allow the public to realize what is going on and call for it to stop. So maybe you're right, maybe Manning would emerge a folk hero, reveal one or two more key tidbits, and run for office himself from behind bars.
My favorite line from Sun Tzu is where he describes how a strong nation has children playing along its borders and a weak nation has soldiers lined up. Ever since George W. Bush took office we've been acting like a weak nation.
Sure the leaks were embarrassing. So fix the major security holes in military IT systems, apologize to the allies that were embarrassed, and move on.
Are you claiming that the film was propaganda because we were shown that there were children killed? Or because we were told that those children were not given access to top quality medical care after they ended up accidental casualties?
If it's propaganda to include such information, then it's surely propaganda to omit it, which is what the US did by classifying it.
As for the leaked information putting lives at risk, Wikileaks offered to let the US Government redact any information it saw fit to. This offer was refused.
It seems odd that a government that negotiates with thugs, warlords, torturers, criminals, etc., all over the world, and let that one guy flee with $42M in US cash, will ceremoniously refuse to "negotiate" in a way that would have removed any chance that the leaks would have caused ANY harm whatsoever.
This is at best hypocritical and at worst stupid. I should be honest it irritates me to hear anyone say "we don't negotiate with terrorists" because so much of what the US does is identical to terrorism -- dropping bombs from very high altitudes into the middle of civilian areas, etc.
The realization I've made after reading the leaks is that the US is a propaganda state every bit as much as North Korea. The only thing we have in our favor is a far more favorable mix of natural resources, etc, so we simply had to deal with $5/gallon gas instead of being called upon to make tea out of pine needles by our illustrious leader.
There's an easy way to avoid ambushes: Send the troops home. The only rationale for staying is to essentially convert the territories into the 51st and 52nd US states. Already we've tolerated ethnic cleansing, etc., and things are far worse under US rule than they were under Saddam or the Taliban. We need to be honest with ourselves about this and decide if we really want two more states at the expense of so many indigenous lives. We should not be pretending that we can wage sterile war with smart bombs and that we're fighting against evil. We're simply taking valuable land. It's neither sterile or smart.
On balance the US has caused far more suffering in the past decade than the Taliban, and perhaps the leaks will allow the public to realize what is going on and call for it to stop. So maybe you're right, maybe Manning would emerge a folk hero, reveal one or two more key tidbits, and run for office himself from behind bars.
My favorite line from Sun Tzu is where he describes how a strong nation has children playing along its borders and a weak nation has soldiers lined up. Ever since George W. Bush took office we've been acting like a weak nation.
Sure the leaks were embarrassing. So fix the major security holes in military IT systems, apologize to the allies that were embarrassed, and move on.
Nobody else is calling you on this, so I will.
You continue to assert that his disclosure is causing "extra suffering and death". Your entire premise is based on this assertion. So, with all due respect, I'm asking you to fucking prove it. For months, nobody from the Press to the DoD to the White House has been able to demonstrate a single harm caused by these releases, but perhaps you have some information we haven't seen yet.
You continue to assert that his disclosure is causing "extra suffering and death". Your entire premise is based on this assertion. So, with all due respect, I'm asking you to fucking prove it. For months, nobody from the Press to the DoD to the White House has been able to demonstrate a single harm caused by these releases, but perhaps you have some information we haven't seen yet.
And somebody please downvote the parent comment for knowingly propagating a blatant lie; the full, uncut Apache video was released right next to the edited version.
I could buy controlled isolation, though not via your arguments. However, he is also being kept in a tiny cell without a pillow or a blanket, and continuously observed. They are not only isolating him, they are trying to do him permanent psychological damage.
That's not isolation to protect the passing of information that's being malicious and vindictive.
This is an innocent man for heaven's sake.
That's not isolation to protect the passing of information that's being malicious and vindictive.
This is an innocent man for heaven's sake.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Perhaps I should clarify, one of the outstanding issues with the group environment in modern prisons is the highly unsupervised nature of it all. Prisoners form prison gangs, establish strict social rules, violence becomes the norm, gang rape is used as a control mechanism,...etc. A shocking number of first time prisoners end up deep in bizarre race segregated gangs, or if they aren't strong enough, used as sexual barter pieces for stronger prisoners. The list goes on and on.
Guards are there to keep them in the facility, and more or less from killing each other, but that's about it (and the guards are often as much the ones causing the problems as the prisoners).
Most people don't realize the prisons these days are largely like this: http://www.buzzfeed.com/sgtdopushups/cop-killer-updates-face...
So what I mean is that it's not clear, from a correctional standpoint, that the modern group environment is a safer or more sane environment than the original isolation concept. To my understanding, the main reason prisons have largely moved to a social environment had more to do with cost than perceived harm from extended isolation.
I won't dispute that extended solitary is also mentally damaging...but your idea of more solitary than today for the typical prisoner, and a few hours of contact, is pretty sound to me.
Guards are there to keep them in the facility, and more or less from killing each other, but that's about it (and the guards are often as much the ones causing the problems as the prisoners).
Most people don't realize the prisons these days are largely like this: http://www.buzzfeed.com/sgtdopushups/cop-killer-updates-face...
So what I mean is that it's not clear, from a correctional standpoint, that the modern group environment is a safer or more sane environment than the original isolation concept. To my understanding, the main reason prisons have largely moved to a social environment had more to do with cost than perceived harm from extended isolation.
I won't dispute that extended solitary is also mentally damaging...but your idea of more solitary than today for the typical prisoner, and a few hours of contact, is pretty sound to me.
Fair enough -- I didn't mean to claim the normal way of dumping everyone into general population with minimal supervision is a good idea at all. Prison is awful primarily because of the other people in prison -- both the prisoners and guards. But the problem is in the details, not in allowing interaction and groups at all.
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.
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.
EDIT: To say nothing of the fact that he hasn't been convicted of anything yet.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
Even in the modern political climate, it's going to be hard for the prosecution to demonstrate that Wikileaks constitutes an enemy of the United States.
Even in the modern political climate, it's going to be hard for the prosecution to demonstrate that Wikileaks constitutes an enemy of the United States.
The Founding Fathers were traitors so it is not exactly a surprise that it is hard to convict someone of treason in the US.
More accurately, they'd seen people charged and convicted of treason for nothing more than criticizing the government.
This definition wouldn't have exempted them.
This definition wouldn't have exempted them.
Still, it’s a nice illustration that treacherous behavior is not inherently immoral. I think you can generalize that to “Illegal behavior is not inherently immoral.”
This discussion is making me uncomfortable, though. Besides not really being HN material, I really in no way intended to compare Manning to the Founding Fathers. That would be ridiculous. I don’t think what he did was heroic, I think it was mostly stupid, probably immoral.
But I cannot understand that hunger for blood (I have never been able to understand that, no matter the crime). Locking him up for a few years (in a normal prison) and destroying his career will be pretty certain to discourage anyone who could be discouraged (those willing to violate the law in general don’t expect to be caught). Why punish someone without any positive effect, just for punishment’s sake? That’s what I don’t get.
This discussion is making me uncomfortable, though. Besides not really being HN material, I really in no way intended to compare Manning to the Founding Fathers. That would be ridiculous. I don’t think what he did was heroic, I think it was mostly stupid, probably immoral.
But I cannot understand that hunger for blood (I have never been able to understand that, no matter the crime). Locking him up for a few years (in a normal prison) and destroying his career will be pretty certain to discourage anyone who could be discouraged (those willing to violate the law in general don’t expect to be caught). Why punish someone without any positive effect, just for punishment’s sake? That’s what I don’t get.
Suppose that the American public only supported the wars because it believed some of the lies that the cables revealed to be false.
If that were the case, then all the collateral damage caused by the wars happened against the will of the American people while at the same time it was done in the name of the American people.
So if Manning believed that to be the case, then he acted heroically. If you don't believe that to be the case, then it's reasonable that you don't consider his actions heroic.
I suppose that if the sort of leak Manning did isn't a good reason to risk life in prison, nothing is.
If that were the case, then all the collateral damage caused by the wars happened against the will of the American people while at the same time it was done in the name of the American people.
So if Manning believed that to be the case, then he acted heroically. If you don't believe that to be the case, then it's reasonable that you don't consider his actions heroic.
I suppose that if the sort of leak Manning did isn't a good reason to risk life in prison, nothing is.
I understand your point, but all governments are started by traitors and many rulers try to close the door behind them.
The most recent incarnation of German government wasn't started by traitors. It was started by essentially the people who were chosen by the winners of the last war.
Collaborators, then.
And how about conquerors? Or the first government in a place? Or survivors of the old government (see the history of the Turkish Republic, which was founded after the Ottoman Empire collapsed in WWI). Traitors are only one kind of people to start a new government.
[deleted]
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).
> "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).
Hasn't he in fact disobeyed the orders of his superior officers by leaking the cables (which were marked "CONFIDENTIAL")?
There are a few reasons why disobeying such an order would be acceptable, but I doubt the military will take it easy on him unless it his obvious that every bit of info he leaked was directly related to some kind of war crime being carried out by his superiors.
There are a few reasons why disobeying such an order would be acceptable, but I doubt the military will take it easy on him unless it his obvious that every bit of info he leaked was directly related to some kind of war crime being carried out by his superiors.
I'd argue that due to the leaked cables revealing lots of US Government propaganda, that his act served the constitution by allowing the democratic process to act after it had been hijacked by corrupt leaders.
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.
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.
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.
Sometimes you need to protect a country from its government.
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)
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)
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.
Kid's got stones the size of Texas.
[deleted]
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?"
read more at http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/why-im-p...
"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?"
read more at http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/why-im-p...
Duplicate:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2009268
1 comment.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2009268
1 comment.
RiderOfGiraffes, is this you?
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.
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.
Great; I like it.
It's apparently a semi-autonomous project of his.
[deleted]
Cruel and unusual punishment. This is ridiculous and makes me feel ashamed to be an American.
And Guantanamo didn't?
It's not a contest.
I think icegreentea might be wondering why there is outrage now, when this sort of thing has been going on for really a long time.
eg. A fellow Australian (David Hicks) was held for years at Guantanamo without charge or trial. Rightly or wrongly, it feels like: no one cared then, why care now?
eg. A fellow Australian (David Hicks) was held for years at Guantanamo without charge or trial. Rightly or wrongly, it feels like: no one cared then, why care now?
I was outraged then and I'm outraged now.
Do I seriously need to reference all the other things that disgust me whenever I say something disgusts me? Nonsense.
Do I seriously need to reference all the other things that disgust me whenever I say something disgusts me? Nonsense.
No one cared then? Exactly the same people cared then as now. I'm pretty sure that if you page through Glenn Greenwald's blog you will find more than a few instances of outrage over the treatment of military prisoners (including Hicks specifically.)
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.