Bradley Manning’s lawyer has posted an explanation of why he’s been put on an enhanced suicide watch that requires him to sleep naked and present himself naked to guards in the morning:
On Wednesday March 2, 2011, PFC Manning was told that his Article 138 complaint requesting that he be removed from Maximum custody and Prevention of Injury (POI) Watch had been denied by the Quantico commander, Colonel Daniel J. Choike. Understandably frustrated by this decision after enduring over seven months of unduly harsh confinement conditions, PFC Manning inquired of the Brig operations officer what he needed to do in order to be downgraded from Maximum custody and POI. As even Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell has stated, PFC Manning has been nothing short of “exemplary” as a detainee. Additionally, Brig forensic psychiatrists have consistently maintained that there is no mental health justification for the POI Watch imposed on PFC Manning. In response to PFC Manning’s question, he was told that there was nothing he could do to downgrade his detainee status and that the Brig simply considered him a risk of self-harm. PFC Manning then remarked that the POI restrictions were “absurd” and sarcastically stated that if he wanted to harm himself, he could conceivably do so with the elastic waistband of his underwear or with his flip-flops.
Without consulting any Brig mental health provider, Chief Warrant Officer Denise Barnes used PFC’s Manning’s sarcastic quip as justification to increase the restrictions imposed upon him under the guise of being concerned that PFC Manning was a suicide risk. PFC Manning was not, however, placed under the designation of Suicide Risk Watch. This is because Suicide Risk Watch would have required a Brig mental health provider’s recommendation, which the Brig commander did not have. In response to this specific incident, the Brig psychiatrist assessed PFC Manning as “low risk and requiring only routine outpatient followup [with] no need for … closer clinical observation.” In particular, he indicated that PFC Manning’s statement about the waist band of his underwear was in no way prompted by “a psychiatric condition.”
They changed commanders at the brig in Quantico, but apparently they haven’t changed tactics: Manning’s been judged guilty and is being punished without having been tried and sentenced by a court. And for those who want Manning to hang: how does it help achieve that end to treat Manning as if he was crazy, or to subject him to treatment that could be characterized as torture? Both of those actions serve only to weaken the government’s case.
cathyx
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
lacp
It’s not about strengthening or weakening the case. It’s about intimidating would-be whistleblowers.
polyorchnid octopunch
America is now a country of men, not laws.
Dennis SGMM
Looks like “Padilla” has become a verb in the government’s increasingly rich lexicon of terms for prisoner abuse.
Corner Stone
If he wanted his undies then he shouldn’t have said that shit!
What did he expect them to do? Treat him like a human being or something?!
geg6
This is a disgrace. Obama should be ashamed and needs to be taken to task for this. They’ve tried and sentenced him in their own minds and are now meting out their punishment. What is most astonishing to me is the juvenality of the measures. The military mind is sick.
Corner Stone
@lacp:
The purpose of torture is always the same.
Roger Moore
FTFY.
dcdl
It makes me sick when I read stuff like this and disgusted. My whole family has been in the military at one point or another. I now am against my kids joining the military. It’s such a disgrace and disservice to what serving your country can mean.
Roger Moore
@lacp:
It’s about coercing false testimony against Assange.
Dennis SGMM
Manning is being scapegoated for the fact that our jury-rigged multi-billion dollar security apparatus failed to keep one of its low-level functionaries from spilling a lot of embarrassing beans. Nothing more, nothing less.
gil mann
My take-away from this is that Glenn Greenwald needs an editor.
Irving Clawhammer
Gil is on it. Editor, get one.
Omnes Omnibus
@polyorchnid octopunch: A couple of responses to that: 1) Few, if any, countries ever live up to their ideals. this does not mean that they should not try to do so or that failure to do so should not be called out. Just don’t pretend that this marks some sudden change where the US has fallen from a pinnacle of righteousness or that the US is somehow unique in fucking up applications of its justice system. 2) In my mind, this has now clearly gone past poor treatment for prisoners in general and appears to be intended to be punitive toward Manning in particular. I have reserved judgment on this in the past, but no longer.
homerhk
The treatment is absolutely appalling, no doubt; they are f**king with him just because they can. Still, can someone explain how being forced to sleep naked is torture? I am having trouble seeing that.
cathyx
@homerhk: If you were naked and the temperature was in the 50’s.
jayackroyd
That’s not really what’s going on. First, they are trying to force Manning to accuse Assange and Wikileaks of some crime. But, most importantly, they are saying to anyone else who is thinking about doing anything like what Bradley Manning did, “This is what will happen to you.”
Tyranny 101.
Mark
Denise Barnes sounds like a real shithead. A six-year-old would do what she did…How did she get to be in a position of power?
Knocienz
@homerhk: regardless of temperature, it certainly falls under the heading of degrading treatment, which is also prohibited.
Omnes Omnibus
@homerhk: Actually, I would say that it is not any one thing, but rather the pile up of petty little indignities that constitute the abuse. As you said, they are fucking with him; they should not be. His treatment should be as close to that of any prisoner in pretrial detention as his health and safety considerations allow.
homerhk
@cathyx: ok i understand that but is that the case? does he have any blanket or sheet while he sleeps? I am genuinely asking and not in any way defending this treatment which is, as I said, absolutely appalling. I understand that before this latest treatment he was only allowed to sleep in boxer shorts in any event.
Zifnab
Bwhahaha! Oh no, not the government’s legal case. Let’s not endanger that. Whatever will the
kangaroo courtmilitary tribunal do when confronted with these disturbing details of Manning’s confinement? Why, I suppose with all the Due Process Private Manning is entitled to, they’ll just have to concede his innocence and let him go home./snort
/giggle
/cry for the death of the civil Republic
Corner Stone
@homerhk: Tell you what. Let’s have a stranger remove all your clothes and then march you into the grocery store for a little night night.
sukabi
@polyorchnid octopunch:
America is now a country of
mensociopaths, not laws.corrected for accuracy.
soonergrunt
@homerhk: It’s not torture. It’s humiliation, and it’s absolutely unnecsessary. The humiliation part comes from him having to stand at attention, naked in his cell at First Call, and await his clothing to be returned to him. The primary reason for this appears to be to dissuade him from continued complaint about the circumstances of his confinement. Only a forensic psychiatrist can make the determination that a detainee is a risk to himself or others. This situation appears to be engineered to justify extra restriction while evading the letter and spirit of the Naval Brig regulations.
The Convening Authority, MG Karl R. Horst, Commanding General of the U.S. Army Military District of Washington needs to get involved at this point. It is absolutely within his purview and within his responsibility. The President cannot. Seing as how the President’s position is inherently political, ANYTHING he does can be painted by either the Defense or the Trial Counsel as bowing to political pressure and exerting Unlawful Command Influence.
soonergrunt
@homerhk: yes, he does. What makes this unquestionably wrong is that there is clothing that he could be given that would not be something with which he could hang himself, if that was a genuine fear.
It doesn’t weaken the government’s case, either. The conditions of pretrial confinement have nothing to do with the government’s ability or inability to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
What it may do, if he is convicted, is lead to extra credit for time already served. Normally, PTC is credited at one day for one day. There is more credit given for delays by the government that were avoidable or for treatment that is deemed harsh or punishment in PTC. That’s the call of the trial judge or the Army Court of Criminal Appeals or the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces if it gets that far.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@soonergrunt:
It kinda smells to me this might not have been his first time doing so.
LongHairedWeirdo
“Could be characterized as torture” is excretia of the male bovine variety, placed in a disordered pile and clearly demonstrating sufficient water evaporation to be visible.
Montysano
OT, but maybe not: John Prine and Emmylou Harris played here last night, and possibly in honor of playing in the cradle of the military/industrial complex, Prine played all of his classic anti-war songs (“Now Jesus don’t like killin’, no matter what the reason for”). Which won’t stop many audience members from parking their asses in a church pew this morning, then glibly heading back to work on Monday to work on better ways of killing brown people. Feh….
Obviously Emmylou has made some sort of Dorian Gray arrangement…
Cacti
And if his lawyer said so, then naturally, it’s an absolutely objective recounting of the unvarnished truth.
Master of Karate and Friendship
What did you expect? The people at the top are still the same.
Our Commander-in-Chief believes in torture. Nothing will change until that changes.
Judas Escargot (aka ninja fetus with a taste for bruschetta)
I’d still like to hear how a PFC got access to so much information in the first place.
Whatever happened to need-to-know?
soonergrunt
@Cacti: Well, Mr. Coombs needs to raise money. A high quality defense, which he has a reputation for providing, costs a lot of money. He orginally offered to do the job for $100,000 flat. Assange claimed that his organization was in for $50,000, and raised several million bucks on that claim. After months and months and months, Assange ponied up…$15,000. He seems to have decided to use all the money to live in the mansion in England and fight extradition to Sweden on the rape charges, but I digress.
Coombs needs to do something to keep the lights on.
Master of Karate and Friendship
“And if his lawyer said so, then naturally, it’s an absolutely objective recounting of the unvarnished truth.”
Yeah, America would never do stuff like that to a prisoner.
http://antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444@Cacti:
burnspbesq
@mistermis:
I don’t want manning to hang; I’m categorically opposed to the death penalty.
But to your point, the case against Manning is as bullet-proof as any case in recent memory. For openers, there is the small matter of his admissions.
soonergrunt
@Judas Escargot (aka ninja fetus with a taste for bruschetta): Supposedly there was a huge house-cleaning at that facility post-Manning incident.
I know the SCIF I do support in couldn’t have that kind of security breach, because we rigidly restrict access, and there’s only one tech guy on each shift who can burn data to media, and that almost never happens because of the hoops to jump through. Anyone who actually needs that data can come to the facility and see it. We were running it that way before the Manning incident.
Having said that, there’s a point at which you have to trust the people to whom you give clearances. That’s the whole reason for the clearance, after all.
LongHairedWeirdo
@LongHairedWeirdo: Just to make sure it’s clear: “could be characterized as” is what I’m objecting to as a steaming heap of bullshit.
Solitary confinement *is* torture. People need human interaction. Solitary is not the nastiest, most brutal, most swift form of torture, but it *is* torture.
Eli Rabett
OK, time to do something. Everyone here gets calls and Emails form Obama and other Democrats. Simply tell them that they get nothing, no money, no volunteering until this stops.
We want our country back NOW
homerhk
Thanks Sooner for the info. It is a dreadful situation no doubt and I hope that whomever it is that can actually do something about it actually does something about it.
Amanda in the South Bay
@Judas Escargot (aka ninja fetus with a taste for bruschetta):
Simple. His MOS was…96B I think, Intelligence Analyst. And since he as enlisted…well, PFC is one of the low ranks you start out as (to be precise, I think he as an E-4 before he as busted down). Limiting military intelligence MOSs to commissioned officers, warrant officers and senior NCOs simply isn’t going to work, because you need people starting at the bottom and working themselves up. Maybe you could make a case for an age limit, insofar as being older generally means being wiser and more mature (which I am not so sure Manning is).
Put it this way-what are 22 year old college graduates who get civilian jobs working for the DOD with security clearances doing? Its the same thing, except that quite often entry level jobs in the Army go to 19 year olds with just a high school diploma.
Corner Stone
@Cacti:
Do you mean the quip being said as disgusted sarcasm? Or do you mean the statement that he’s being made to be naked for more than 7+ hours a day?
What are you refudiating?
DanF
These officers are absolutely without honor. Someone should mail them copies of the book “Unbroken”. They might think twice before denying a captive dignity. Excellent book btw: http://www.amazon.com/Unbroken-World-Survival-Resilience-Redemption/dp/0739319698
Corner Stone
@The Sheriff’s A Ni-:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
jon
Do they do this to all the soldiers who threaten self-harm?
If so, I’m certain the military’s suicide-prevention programs will never get bothered by an inquiry for help ever again.
See? I just saved the military some money! They can end those silly programs to stop servicemembers from hurting themselves and can focus on the military’s real mission: preserving the contract system for armament manufacturing.
sukabi
@Judas Escargot (aka ninja fetus with a taste for bruschetta): 30+ years ago, when I was in the Army with a Top Secret clearance, working in communications… you couldn’t get access to ANYTHING that wasn’t necessary for your immediate job, and you had to sign for it on check out, sign it back in before your shift ended… and you could be checked before you left the facility…
so what Mannings access to so much tells me is that there has been an extraordinary FAILURE and INCOMPETENCE with regards to security and information control in the entire military and state department record keeping departments.
The entire upper chain that had access to / control over protecting and distribution of the “sensitive” information should be canned. Manning’s just being used as a scapegoat for exposing, not the information itself, but the abject failure of the entire upper chain.
cathyx
@burnspbesq: Just keep on insisting he’s guilty based on what you have read on the internet. We all know that every detail of this case has been written and verified and therefore there is no need for a trial.
drkrick
@Montysano: We went to see Prine with a group of friends, including someone’s 60+ yo dad, some years ago. Prine announced that the next one was going to be “a song about a veteran,” which got a big cheer from Dad. When Prine got to the chorus of Sam Stone (“there’s a hole in Daddy’s arm where all the money went”), he didn’t look quite so enthused.
soonergrunt
@sukabi: Oh, so the failures of others to secure information should excuse his willful exposure of that information?
I don’t think the law worked that way 30 years ago, and it damn sure doesn’t work that way now.
“Your honor, my client is charged with overpowering a nine-year-old girl, and raping and sodomizing her. There is substantial physical evidence that he did this, and there is also record of statements by him to others stating that he did it, and that it was easy. Since she was unable to prevent that from happening, it really shouldn’t be considered a crime on his part, and you need to throw the charges out.”
soonergrunt
@soonergrunt: “Oh, and one more thing, Your Honor–the so-called victim? She was dressed like a slut and begging for it!”
Mike Kay (True Grit)
Manning = Jon Benet Ramsey
I have no idea why anyone cares about Manning.
Abuse occurs EVERY day in EVERY state, federal, county, city, and military detention facility in the country. But no body writes about them.
Women die every day, including adolescents and children, but somehow Jon Benet Ramsey became a media sensation, to the exclusion of others.
When bloggers become consistent and champion reform for the vast number of individuals subject to abuse, and not simply one cute blond kid, then I’ll take notice about a Blog-célèbre.
joe from Lowell
Manning’s treatment is S.O.P. for people arrested in serious espionage cases. It’s what they to to Aldrich Ames, it’s what they did to Robert Hansen, it’s what they did to the Walkers.
That doesn’t make it right, but it means that the people pushing conspiracy theories about Manning’s treatment being special ordered by the White House either don’t know what they’re talking about, or don’t care about either truthfulness, or the actual issues about solitary confinement and the pre-trial treatment of espionage suspects, but are just taking pot-shots at Obama for political purposes.
As somebody else wrote, this treatment by the military authorities certainly constitutes degrading treatment, and that is already prohibited. The insistence on calling it “torture,” so as to be able to write “Meet the new boss, God I’m so awesome” is similarly an effort to twist a legitimate issue into a vapid cheap shot.
Omnes Omnibus
@cathyx: Actually, I don’t think that there is much doubt that Manning released large amounts of classified information. A trial will still force the government to prove his level of culpability, it will give him the chance to argue mitigation, and it will allow for a determination of an appropriate degree of punishment.
joe from Lowell
@Mike Kay (True Grit):
I have seen some writers who, to their credit, have used the Manning case to highlight that larger problem, and who are scrupulous about placing his treatment accurately in that larger context. I wish there was more of this, because prisoner abuse in general, and the abusive use of solitary confinement in particular, really are problems, and the attention generated by the Manning case has drawn a lot more eyes in that direction than anything else in many years.
Unfortunately, a lot of the writing about this case is deliberately misleading, treating the conditions of Manning’s confinement as some sort of unusual, noteworthy situation that can only be the result of meddling in the military-prison system by political higher ups. Not only does this line of bullshit fail to advance the broader cause, but it actively covers it up, by implicitly minimizing the prevalence and source of the problem. But, then, the people who do so aren’t aiming and improving prison conditions.
Mike Kay (True Grit)
btw, when did liberals become so queasy about nudity? I thought it was the other side, people like John Ashcroft, who are so freaked out about nudity, that they put drapes on nude statues. For your information, a significant amount of people sleep in the nude.
Nudity happens. It’s like a gym. You don’t have private showers and when you change your clothing, you don’t have a curtain at your locker.
joe from Lowell
@cathyx:
Thanks, I will.
Sort of like how I keep insisting that Bush and Cheney are guilty of ordering torture based on what I read on the internet, and that the responsibility for the torture at Abu Ghraib extends beyond “a few bad apples” based on what I’ve read on the internet, and that the Bush administration fudged the WMD intelligence based on what I’ve read on the internet.
joe from Lowell
@Mike Kay (True Grit):
When it’s forced. You know, sort of like how we love sex and hate rape?
Mike Kay (True Grit)
@joe from Lowell: True. I saw a writer at GOS do this, and the far left loons lambasted her.
This whole outcry is phoney. Not just because of the creepy jon benet aspect of selectivity, but because parties are using it to fund raise for their blogs.
If they really cared about the issue, they wouldn’t use it to cash in.
But somebody has to pay their registration tags.
Omnes Omnibus
@Mike Kay (True Grit):
Going to the gym is voluntary, and you don’t have to change in the locker room. Context matters.
Edited to add the word “don’t.”
Mike Kay (True Grit)
@joe from Lowell: but we haven’t him object to this. for all we know he sleeps in the nude. and as you know, you have open showers in the military, he can’t be sensitive to this. I never was, I doubt he is.
the fact is people are projecting their personal feeling on to this situation.
That is why I say why are liberals queasy about nudity, because they’re the ones complaining, not manning.
joe from Lowell
@Mike Kay (True Grit):
There is a tiny, but loud, segment of the left that has decided that it’s their responsibility to act like the teabaggers. Every story in the newspaper must be spun as an indictment of Obama, and if you’re not with them, you’re with the terrorists.
No, not the whole outcry. There are legitimate, important issues raised by this case. While I can sympathize with the reflex to dismiss the case because of the dishonest spin it’s being given in certain quarters, that’s not the right response. The government’s treatment of Manning doesn’t become unimportant just because some people who write about it are assholes looking to exploit it for their own ends, any more than the repeal of DADT became unimportant just because some of the people who wrote about it are assholes.
Mike Kay (True Grit)
@Omnes Omnibus: you being silly. showers are open in the military. nudity is force because there are no private stalls with curtains. Plus, enlisted personal bunk together. there’s a lot of swinging dicks in a military environment.
Yutsano
@Mike Kay (True Grit):
I wasn’t aware Manning had any contact with the outside world to voice his objections. Do you have some information we don’t?
An open shower is much different than standing outside a cell naked. You can always time the shower to where you have a bit more privacy, or even forgo the bathing if you chose. Manning has no choice here.
Yes. Yes you are.
Again, HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS?? All his communications are going through his attorney who AFAIK has not relayed anything about his client’s feelings. I can’t fathom why you’re being so dismissive here. The base commander needs to be chastised for this heavily.
joe from Lowell
@Mike Kay (True Grit):
Again, there’s a difference between choosing to do something, and being forced to do it when you have no control over whether you’re being put into that situation or not.
You’re making essentially the same argument as the people who said that waterboarding can’t be torture because SEALs are waterboarded in SERE training.
joe from Lowell
@Mike Kay (True Grit): Boys shower together regularly in high school.
And yet, if you pants somebody in the hall, you get detention.
Why do you think that is?
Mike Kay (True Grit)
@joe from Lowell: the fact that only manning is receiving attention and not the tens of thousands of prisoners currently being held across the country makes it phony, because, by definition, to focus on one to the exclusion of others, makes it personal. To prove my point, if manning where to be released today, bloggers wouldn’t write about the issue of prison about tomorrow.
This is all about manning, it has nothing to do about the issue of abuse, because they don’t care about the others being abused. For all we know the other prisoners in his stockade are being abused, but we don’t hear peep about them, one way or the other.
joe from Lowell
@Yutsano:
Also, everyone is nude in the shower, so there’s no shame.
Being ordered to stand naked, at attention, by fully-clothed guards, is a whole ‘nother thing.
bourbaki
Did I just wander into a Free Republic thread on Abu Gharib circa 2004?
Jesus.
Omnes Omnibus
@Mike Kay (True Grit): I am at least as aware of the showering facilities, etc., in military as you are. There is a difference between being naked for a purpose like showering and being be forced to be naked as a tool of humiliation. In the broad scheme of things, I think Manning brought a lot of what is happening to him on himself. That, however, does not mean that he should be abused. Appropriate pretrial detention, trial, and, if convicted, sentencing are what he deserves.
Mike Kay (True Grit)
@joe from Lowell: are you saying open showers are an abuse, because they’re being force to shower together.
but once again, this isn’t about nudity. Prisoners across the country are forced to sleep in the nude for various reasons. yet no bloggers are weeping over that. Then again, it’s hard to fund raise over the Hillside Strangler’s clothing privileges.
joe from Lowell
@Mike Kay (True Grit):
Haven’t you ever heard of a poster boy? Look at all of the attention given to Rosa Parks. Oh my stars, they made segregation personnel.
Sadly, many wouldn’t. Many of them really are just exploiting this issue for political purposes, and would drop the issue of prisoner abuse tomorrow if Manning was released. Not all of them, though. I hold out hope that this case has increased interest in prison conditions and solitary overall.
Amanda in the South Bay
@Mike Kay (True Grit):
I was fortunate enough never to have to go to A-stan or Iraq, but IME, after basic (and in AIT we had our own rooms with 4 people to a room and private bathrooms-Ft. Lee) all barracks showers had stalls, or (like at DLI) we had 1 or 2 people to a room that had a private bathroom.
jon
@Mike Kay (True Grit): I work in a prison, and while there are strip searches and they are needed for security purposes, this kind of thing (keeping someone naked for extended periods of time) requires constant approval from mental-health professionals. Suicide watch is needed because inmates have been known to kill themselves with toilet paper stuffed down their throats or with whatever else they can manage. There are special blankets that can’t be torn, and those can be issued.
This punishment of Manning, which is clearly not meant to keep him safe, is just that: punishment. He may go to prison for life, but he’s going to end up rich in the process if he gets a decent civil rights lawyer.
joe from Lowell
@Mike Kay (True Grit):
No. I think I’ve explained my point sufficiently at this point. See the SERE/waterboarding example.
Some of which are legitimate, and some of which aren’t.
Anyway, it isn’t the sleeping nude that bothers me so much, but the being forced to stand at attention nude, the only nude person in a room full of fully-clothed, armed guards.
Barry
@Cacti: Would you like to compare histories of truth and lies?
Omnes Omnibus
@Mike Kay (True Grit):Manning’s treatment is receiving attention that does not go to other prisoners. Lara Logan’s assault received attention that lesser known assault victims do not receive Charlie Sheen’s addiction problems, also too. Now what?
soonergrunt
@Mike Kay (True Grit): I’ll say this–it’s not necessary. It’s wrong. It’s petty and stupid. Violating the rights of an Accused is just plain wrong, and it should stop.
It has no bearing on his guilt or innocence, unlike what the uninformed and ignorant seem to believe. It does not serve to weaken the case against him. It only bears on how much credit for time served he will get if he’s found guilty, because the MilJus system as devised by Congress is different than the various civilian systems.
@cathyx: This is Balloon-Juice, where we don’t concern ourselves with the petty things like actual trials, or didn’t you get the memo? See Roethlisberger, Ben.
FlipYrWhig
Um, I dunno, but it seems to me like if you’re not wanting to be treated like someone who’s at risk of committing suicide, you should think twice before making a joke about how easy it would be to commit suicide. Kinda like how when you’re in the security line at the airport, that’s not the best moment for a quip about the bomb in your underpants.
Donald Rumsfeld
I stand naked for 8-10 hours a day. Why is nudity limited to 7 hours?
Yutsano
@soonergrunt: Plus, as mentioned above, he does have a decent civil rights case here now. Though I get the feeling he’ll never get the benefit of any judgment due to him.
Comrade Kevin
@soonergrunt: Mike Kay’s comments read eerily like those of people during the Bush regime who sought to trivialize what was happening at Gitmo.
Mike Kay (True Grit)
@Omnes Omnibus: denial of clothing happens in detention centers across the country, including worse – cavity searches.
I tell you what, if manning was in jail for raping and killing some civilians, not one blogger would be writing about him, much less his nudity. I know this because no one is writing a single word about his fellow inmates in Quantico.
General Stuck
Let him put his clothes on for morning formation, jeebus, if it is true.
Mike Kay (True Grit)
@Comrade Kevin: and your comment sound eerily like the bush officials and the wingnut media who smeared people for dissenting.
Amanda in the South Bay
@FlipYrWhig:
Or…those in power can exercise a bit of discretion and common sense? Even prior to all of this his confinement has been subject to tons of humiliation. I don’t see him complaining about anything that he doesn’t have a legitimate beef about.
Corner Stone
@FlipYrWhig: This is the tack you want to take?
Comrade Kevin
@Mike Kay (True Grit):
That’s about what you’re saying.
Comrade Kevin
Shorter Mike Kay:
“Since other prisoners are being mistreated, we should ignore Manning’s treatment”.
Mike Kay (True Grit)
@soonergrunt: yes, yes, that is all true. But the outrage is still selective. And fund raising off the gselective outrage is still disgusting.
Mike Kay (True Grit)
@Comrade Kevin: shorter Comrade Kevin: “there are other prisoners? Who knew?”
FlipYrWhig
@Corner Stone: Many of the installments in The Daily Humiliations Of Manning seem to raise legitimate concerns. On the other hand, when a guy who says — apparently in jest — that it would be easy to kill himself with his clothes is taken seriously and has his clothes taken away… I’m not too worried about that, no.
Mike Kay (True Grit)
@Comrade Kevin: how much money have to donated to manning’s defense?
FlipYrWhig
@Amanda in the South Bay:
True. Those are more legitimate gripes.
joe from Lowell
@Omnes Omnibus:
You know those people who are treating Lara Logan’s sexual assault as something unique, something that just so happens to advance their long standing efforts to demonize Muslims? As opposed to treating it as something that happens frequently, and has nothing to do with their anti-Muslim jihad?
How about if we not copy them?
FlipYrWhig
I mean, if he said he could easily kill himself with his underwear waistband, and everyone had a good laugh about it, and then he _did_ kill himself with his underwear waistband, what do you think the reaction would be?
soonergrunt
@jon: Under the military system, there is only one remediation for a proven abuse of the pre-trial confinee’s rights.
The first, if he’s convicted, is to have extra credit for pre-trial confinement granted. Normally, credit is granted on a one for one basis. If it’s proven to the trial judge or to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) or to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) that the conditions of his pre-trial confinement were equivalent to punishment (all divergences from the standard are considered thus–there are no layers of divergence) then he would get credit on a two days for one day basis.
If he’s acquitted, then he’s acquitted, and he doesn’t get anything. The proceedings to discharge him from the Army under Other Than Honorable Conditions for Repeated Willful Misconduct (he had three Article 15s in less than four years) that were taking place before the incident for which he is currently charged would, I assume, go forward.
Corner Stone
@FlipYrWhig:
Disgusting. By now it shouldn’t surprise me the lengths you go to rationalize bad acts.
FlipYrWhig
@joe from Lowell: I thought OO was saying the same thing: some incidents will focus more attention on an issue, and that’s not necessarily inconsistent or hypocritical.
FlipYrWhig
@Corner Stone: Oh noes, I’m gravely shaken to find myself disappointing you.
Mike Kay (True Grit)
@Omnes Omnibus: well, you prove my point. I’m glad you agree. the outrage is selective. As I said, he’s the jon benet ramsey of the of the blogosphere. If manning was accused of committing atrocities, bloggers wouldn’t care about his predicament. That says more about the bloggers then it says about the underlying treatment.
joe from Lowell
@FlipYrWhig:
I don’t see how you can look at this outside of the context of what else we’re learned about Manning’s treatment.
The part where the brig commander ordered this, not the shrinks, because he knew they wouldn’t agree that Manning actually posed a threat to himself, smells really bad, especially in light of the former brig commander improperly putting him on suicide watch earlier.
soonergrunt
@FlipYrWhig: given that a Captain in PTC killed himself a little over a year ago in their facility, they probably have a reasonable claim of being gun-shy. That doesn’t make the current thing right. It’s just that they’re damned if they do and they’re damned if they don’t, and that this is nothing to the howling and caterwauling that would go on if Manning were to off himself, with the added spice that they woould get extra blame because “He was under review for mental competency, ZOMG THE MARINES KNEW HE MIGHT BE CRAZY AND HE KILLED HIMSELF IT’S A SETUP–MULTIPLE EXCLAMATION POINTS AND ONES AND JANE FUCKING HAMSHER TRYING TO DRIVE ON THE BASE WITH EXPIRED PLATES AND NO INSURANCE AGAIN.”
All from the same assholes.
Omnes Omnibus
@joe from Lowell: Well, to the extent that Manning’s treatment is par for the course for pretrial detention, it is probably an indictment of pretrial detention procedures. To the extent that it deviates from the SOP for reasons not actually related to his health or safety, I see it as punishment and improper.
Mike Kay (True Grit)
@Corner Stone: that’s hilarious coming from a homophobic PUMA like you.
FlipYrWhig
I hear that when someone calls a school and says that they’ve planted a bomb there, even if they sound sarcastic, the cops and fire department actually make sure there isn’t a bomb there. Disconcerting, ain’t it?
joe from Lowell
@FlipYrWhig: That is what he was saying. I was adding something else – that the variety of “attention” a poster-boy case receives matters. It can be hypocritical and inconsistent, and even damaging to the larger cause – especially when the people giving the extra attention to the case affirmatively work to hide the connection to a broader context, and work to insert their own ideological goals in their stead. Like those who use the Lara Logan assault to push Islamophobia, or those who use the military brig’s treatment of Manning to push anti-Obama conspiracies.
This is what I was talking about in #s 51 and 53.
FlipYrWhig
@Omnes Omnibus: Agreed.
@joe from Lowell:
That’s probably right. All to itself, though, this doesn’t sound like much. It’s on the line between “messing with him” and “hypervigilance,” probably skewing towards “messing with him.” But it also seems like an unbelievably stupid moment to make a joke about suicide.
Omnes Omnibus
@FlipYrWhig: Correct.
FlipYrWhig
@joe from Lowell: Oh, OK, got it.
cat48
Actually, the treatment doesn’t sound that outrageous to me, but I’ve been in a Psychiatric Ward on suicide watch against my will. So after your finished straightening out the entire US Prison system, your next job should be straightening out the Psych Wards. Obama probably directly orders patient treatment for them & the rest of the prisoners in the US.
There was a prisoner strike in Georgia the last 2 months of 2010 where the prisoners were alleging abuse. I didn’t see a word about it on the blogs I normally read. It was violent.
joe from Lowell
@Mike Kay (True Grit):
It occurs to me that there is a big difference between the two cases: there really is a widespread problem (prisoner abuse, the abuse of solitary confinement) that the Manning case illustrates.
Whereas the assault of little girls by sexual predators who are strangers to the family is a vanishingly-small problem.
Corner Stone
@FlipYrWhig: Probably for a split second, then your pragmatic programming took over and you realized that if it’s happening, then it must be necessary.
There can be no other rationale.
joe from Lowell
@Omnes Omnibus:
It’s not SOP for pretrial detention in general. Is is, however, par for the course in serious espionage cases. But, then, nobody gave a crap about Robert Hansen or Aldrich Ames, and there was no partisan political angle to be furthered by pretending their treatment was ordered from the Oval Office.
I don’t think the two points are in conflict, necessarily. Solitary confinement abuse is punishment and improper, but it is also, sadly, all-too-common.
FlipYrWhig
I don’t follow any of this stuff as closely as some of the rest of you do… so I have a question. IIRC there were some at least quasi-legitimate concerns that Manning had mental health issues even before any of the espionage incidents occurred. Am I remembering right?
joe from Lowell
@FlipYrWhig:
It’s a bit like being flamed by Brick Over Bill, isn’t it?
Ohnoes!
Mike Kay (True Grit)
@cat48: This.
Bob Loblaw
What is the deal with prisons and sexual humiliation?
The military should hire back Lynndie English and her Polaroid and get it over with.
Mike Kay (True Grit)
@Bob Loblaw: since when is being naked humiliating?
you’re such a prude.
Mike Kay (True Grit)
I have a larger question.
Putting aside the issue of prisoner abuse – after all, no one seems to write about the other prisoners who are abused, and bloggers were interested in manning before allegations of abuse.
Why does any blogger care about Manning?
There are thousands of people currently awaiting trial across the country, on various charges, but no one cares about them.
So why manning? Is it simply because he’s cute?
Omnes Omnibus
@Mike Kay (True Grit): WikiLeaks, Assange, Iraq/Afghanistan policy, espionage… I, for one, have no idea what Manning looks like, nor do I care. But thanks for trying to trivialize it.
Arclite
Are military courts and jails not subject to the constitution? Can’t a judge be issued an injunction? Can’t the officers be sued in civil court? Help me understand why this isn’t being stopped. This would never stand in the civilian world.
joe from Lowell
@Mike Kay (True Grit): Dude, it’s Wikileaks, obviously.
Manning helped Wikileaks. Wikileaks is awesome. Therefore, it’s wrong to go after Manning for helping Wikileaks.
Bob Loblaw
@Mike Kay (True Grit):
Oh I see, the “prisoners have it coming” defense. Coupled with the race baiting and weird sexual undertones, you’ve got an interesting thing going here.
Of course, this sort of hurts your position that you care about the well being of every prisoner across the land so much and the rest of us are just hypocrites a bit. You could justifiably sell the hypocrisy angle if you weren’t so blatantly and hypocritically trivializing prison conduct yourself…
I’d wonder if you took the same tact on the Abu Ghraib business with regards to the universality of domestic prisoner abuse in this country, but I think I know the answer to that one already. Protect the shield.
Bob Loblaw
@Mike Kay (True Grit):
Oh I see, the “prisoners have it coming” defense. Coupled with the race baiting and weird sexual undertones, you’ve got an interesting thing going here.
Of course, this sort of hurts your position that you care about the well being of every prisoner across the land so much and the rest of us are just hypocrites a bit. You could justifiably sell the hypocrisy angle if you weren’t so blatantly and hypocritically trivializing prison conduct yourself…
I’d wonder if you took the same tact on the Abu Ghraib business with regards to the universality of domestic prisoner abuse in this country, but I think I know the answer to that one already. Protect the shield.
Omnes Omnibus
@Arclite: Actually, a lot of it would stand in the civilian world, which is the valid part of Mike Kay’s argument.
ETA: We, as a nation, treat prisoners like shit.
Mike Kay (True Grit)
@Omnes Omnibus: so why do you care about him?
Svensker
@Mike Kay (True Grit):
Oh, good Lord.
Would you like mustard with your pretzel logic?
Cacti
@Mike Kay (True Grit):
Manning = The new “Free Mumia”
soonergrunt
@FlipYrWhig: Manning’s immediate supervisor tried to get him dropped off the deployment on the grounds that he believed Manning to be mentally ill. According to the Army Times, the Sergeant kept a diary wherein he detailed his experiences with Manning, the reports of other Soldiers, and his resulting concerns about Manning’s mental health. He apparently went to his Company Commander and convinced that officer to request that the Battalion Commander leave Manning at home. Such decisions have to be made by a Field Grade officer, and the BC would be the lowest FGO in Manning’s chain of command. This request was apparently rebuffed.
Manning deployed with the unit, where he got into trouble on a couple of occasions, including apparently an Article 15 reducing him from Specialist, E-4 to Private First Class, E-3 for Assault. Somewhere around this time, Manning’s chain of command decided to separate Manning from the Army under AR 635-20, Chapter 14. Discharges under that chapter or for habitual misconduct and are almost always categorized as Other Than Honorable in nature.
Shortly after he was informed of this, or so the story goes, he is alleged to have engaged in the misconduct with which he is currently charged.
The two questions I’d like answered, which have no bearing on his guilt or innocence are:
1–why was his access not revoked the moment it was decided by the Battalion Commander to discharge him for habitual misconduct?
2–given his previous misconduct while in training, at home station, why did the Battalion Commander override the Company Commander and order that Manning deploy?
On second thought, there’s third question for the BC–don’t you feel like an asshole now? Cause you sure look like one.
Svensker
@Mike Kay (True Grit):
Kind of like how Abu Ghraib was a fraternity prank, right? Why should people object to a bit of nudity when it happens all the time at the gym or at the sex clubs liberals frequent.
Glad to see you and Rush are such bffs.
Mike Kay (True Grit)
@Bob Loblaw: you need to go to home depot and get them to screw you head on straight.
I personally do not find nudity humiliating. I have never been ashamed of my body. But then again, I am not religious, and most of that shame crap is ingrained from religion (which is odd, considering there so much nudity in the bible).
To say nudity is humiliating is your own personal projection.
Omnes Omnibus
@Mike Kay (True Grit): Why do you? You are spending a lot of time and effort here. Personally, I am opposed to the abuse of anyone. See my comment above. And, to forestall your next question, while it has not been a major part of my practice, I have on occasion represented inmates in abuse cases.
Mike Kay (True Grit)
@Svensker: if you think abu ghriab was about nudity, and not torture, then you’re the one like rush et. al.
if it was only about nudity, hardly anyone would have cared.
Cacti
@Svensker:
One might say the same thing about you, Rush and public sector unions.
Glass houses, stones, etc.
FlipYrWhig
@Omnes Omnibus: Also, Manning fits well into the niche of the “political prisoner,” or “prisoner of conscience.”
ETA: As opposed to other prisoners who have been accused of other kinds of crimes.
Omnes Omnibus
@FlipYrWhig: That as well. I am not a fan of his set of choices, but he has arguments to be made on that front.
Mike Kay (True Grit)
@Omnes Omnibus: I don’t care. I don’t care if he’s found guilty or acquitted.
My objections were narrow: the outrage is sadly selective (no body care about any one else who is subjected to really abuse), and blogs raising funds off of manning predicament is disgusting.
I’m sorry for holding a mirror up to people’s faces.
soonergrunt
@Arclite:
Yes, they are subject to the Constitution. However, since there has been no Article 32 hearing, there is no court to go to. Military Courts-Martial do not actually exist as legal entities when a trial is not happening. The correct office to address these concerns to at this time is the office of the Convening Authority, who as I stated in an earlier post is Major General Karl Horst, Commanding General of the U.S. Army Military District of Washington.
No, the officers involved cannot be sued in civil court. See the Feres doctrine. They are, however, also subject to the UCMJ although at this point you may think that doesn’t mean much if anything.
As has been pointed out many times in this very thread, this happens all the time in civilian jails all over the country.
Yutsano
@Mike Kay (True Grit): What part of YOU GET A CHOICE IF YOU ARE NUDE OR NOT AND MANNING DOES NOT GET SAID OPTION is escaping your brain??
@Omnes Omnibus: Personally I think it’s better to have someone be the representative for righting a wrong than leaving it as a vague abstraction. And FWIW (and I don’t think you addressed this but I r being lazy commenter and addressing this to you) Manning is kind of on the cute side. But he’s also a 19 year old kid. Legally an adult, but why the hell that gets lost in all this I don’t understand.
Mike Kay (True Grit)
@Omnes Omnibus:
But my larger argument is that no one cares.
It is offensive to see people wring their hands over private cutie-pie and then turn a blind eye to the 1,000s of prisoners who are subjected to extreme abuse. They wouldn’t even care about manning if he was accused of war crimes or if he was ugly.
joe from Lowell
@Mike Kay (True Grit):
Not nudity, Mike. Forced nudity, in a specific set of circumstances, against one’s will. This has been pointed out to you over and over again, and your avoidance of this objection, while you continue to make the argument, smacks of bad faith.
You’re making the same argument that the people who claimed the waterboarding wasn’t illegal because of SERE training, or that the forced nudity at Abu Ghraib was unobjectionable.
Omnes Omnibus
@Mike Kay (True Grit): You do realize that people truly do not have the time or attention capacity to be outraged by everything that is outrageous. Manning happened to bring these issues to the attention of people. Are some using the situation for their own ends? Yes, of course. Why would you expect this issue to be different than any other?
joe from Lowell
@FlipYrWhig:
What?
Are you saying that he’s being prosecuted because of his political beliefs, not because he accessed and disseminated classified material?
Or are you saying that he did those things, but political motives obviate those acts somehow?
Svensker
@Mike Kay (True Grit):
Strike out on the whiffle ball point, man.
Bob Loblaw
@joe from Lowell:
Actually, I think he explicitly made that argument. And then said it was the Iraqis fault for being such stupid Muslims with their prudish religion and shit.
Between that and his fascination with Manning’s sexual desirability, I can’t even begin to figure out what he’s trying to achieve here.
Svensker
@Cacti:
That is such a compelling argument. Totally destroys anything I’ve said about torture, etc.
MattR
@joe from Lowell: According to Mike Kay once you have voluntarily accepted something once, it can be forced upon you at any point after that since it is clear that you are willing to accept it. So it is impossible to rape a person if they have consented to that same type of sex in the past.
Mike Kay (True Grit)
@joe from Lowell: forced nudity in itself is not humiliating if the underlying person is not humiliated. Manning may well find this humiliating, but we don’t know that. The fact is people aren’t considering his own personal perspective, instead they’re projecting themselves into his situation. I’ll repeat, manning may find it humiliating, but then again, he may not.
soonergrunt
Having noted that Manning’s current situation seems like a load of shit even to me, I’ll note that Mike Kay isn’t really wrong on much with respect to the community’s attitude here.
If Manning were in PTC for a rape charge or something similar, not only would very few of the people round these parts care about his confinement conditions, they would applaud it, and most of these people would allow their internet tough guys to come out with all sorts of chest pounding assertions about what they’d like to do with him (with him suitably restrained, which is never said of course).
Anyone who denies this is either lying, a newbie here, or possessed of a memory capacity rivaling that of a fruit fly.
And Mike Kay–whether Manning finds it humiliating or not is immaterial under the law. If the intent is to humiliate or punish, it is unlawful under the UCMJ. It’s also morally wrong from my perspective. As I noted earlier in this very post, that’s pretty subjective for most people whether they will admit it or not.
Mike Kay (True Grit)
@MattR: you can’t consent to rape, pea brain. non-consent is the fundamental element of the crime.
Emma
Bourbaki: Yes.
bourbaki
I was waiting for a variant on that classic Rumsfeldism:
“I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?”
MattR
@Mike Kay (True Grit): Where did I say you can consent to rape? My whole point is that under your rules there can be no rape since the consent was given previously (even though it was to some other person under completely different conditions).
Yutsano
@Svensker: Ya know that thing you were saying about pretzel logic?
Break out that Grey Poupon! Primo example right there.
joe from Lowell
@Mike Kay (True Grit):
And being punched in the face isn’t painful if it doesn’t hurt.
And shit doesn’t stink if it isn’t smelly.
joe from Lowell
@soonergrunt:
Also, if it is being done to collect intelligence.
Mike Kay (True Grit)
@soonergrunt: True. If Manning was charged (simply charged) with with a war crime which he may well be innocent of, not one blog would be raising money for his defense, not one blogger would be crying over the conditions of his detention.
joe from Lowell
@Mike Kay (True Grit):
Nonconsent is the element of the forced-nudity abuse of Manning, too.
joe from Lowell
Nonconsent is why your argument “I’m not ashamed of my body” is so irrelevant.
Omnes Omnibus
@Mike Kay (True Grit):Of course the political situation surrounding Manning is a factor in some people’s opinions. If a person does not believe that Manning should be tried or jailed for giving the documents to WikiLeaks, that person is going think that anything that happens to him in jail is unnecessary and abusive.
soonergrunt
@Omnes Omnibus: Which condition also marks it as utterly unserious bullshit only being used to score political points.
In that respect it’s just like most other liberal and conservative invocations of “I Support The Troops!” ™
Mike Kay (True Grit)
@Omnes Omnibus: I agree, that’s why I find the selective outrage shameful. Abuse is wrong, period. Not just when it happens to someone you like.
Mike Kay (True Grit)
@joe from Lowell: we weren’t talking about abuse, we were talking about humiliation. They’re different acts. Forcing a person to do 100 push ups or run extra laps without consent is punishment, but it’s not, by itself, humiliation.
You can humiliate someone, without engaging in a prohibited act. And you can abuse someone, without causing humiliation.
Omnes Omnibus
@soonergrunt:
@Mike Kay (True Grit):
People may believe that the treatment meted out to Manning would be appropriate for someone they consider to be a criminal, but not to him. That is, they think the treatment is abusive because he should be free. I think this is wrong-headed, but it is not selective outrage.
Also, I noted that the political situation is a probably a factor in some people’s reaction. Some, I think were genuinely unaware of how prisoners are treated until this case brought it to their attention. Should they be castigated for this? Some are using it to score points against Obama. Some are using it to highlight conditions in prisons.
FlipYrWhig
@joe from Lowell:
There are certainly people who defend Manning’s underlying acts by seeing him as a kind of conscientious objector or whistleblower exposing wrongdoing. From that perspective, the conditions of his detention are punitive and the deed itself righteous. To this group, Manning could be seen through the lens of the “political prisoner.”
Then there are people who don’t defend Manning’s underlying acts but object to the way he’s been treated in custody. IMHO this latter group substantially outnumbers the former. But the former group does exist, and it’s vocal online.
soonergrunt
@Yutsano: Actually, due to the Feres Doctrine, he has no civil rights case at all.
He has a real good chance of getting several months or years knocked off his confinement, if he’s convicted and sentenced to that. Other than that, he doesn’t have anything but a book deal after he gets out.
Mike Kay (True Grit)
@Omnes Omnibus:
I agree with your points, but not this one, only because I have a higher personal opinion of bloggers. I think this is generally well known, but ignored. In any event, they know about it now, but they haven’t exhibited any interest in any other prisoner, not even the ones in Manning’s cell block.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
Christ on a crutch, Manning was already halfway out the door on a less than Honorable Discharge for assault? Yeah, uh, I’m starting to see why he’s so popular inside the brig. This isn’t looking any better for our anarchist hero-martyr here.
@soonergrunt:
I’ll wager a couple guesses:
1- His charge was assault, so I’m guessing they figured he wouldn’t play nice with others but he would play nice with top secret info. Oopsie.
2- Lack of personnel? Are we still suffering from recruitment shortages, or have things improved?
soonergrunt
@Cacti:
I think this is closer.
AhabTRuler
Man, Mike Kay is and always has been such an awesomely effective troll that I often wonder if he isn’t DougJ.
Mike Kay (True Grit)
@soonergrunt: actually, I think it’s largely, but not exclusively, a rear guard PUMA action.
I mean, if Howard Dean was president, would the volume be as loud. no. There would be some volume, of the free Mumia variety, but most of the usual suspects would be silent, and certainly not saying, Dean is worse than Hitler/Bush.
joe from Lowell
@Mike Kay (True Grit):
Not in this case. The actions were abusive because they were intended to humiliate and shame.
Mike Kay (True Grit)
@AhabTRuler:
True. I am the best.
soonergrunt
@The Sheriff’s A Ni-: I can’t remember where I read it, but I’ve read something to the effect that your answer #2 was the reason they took him with them.
As far as the first part, they attitude should have been “if he’s not fit to be a Soldier, he damn sure isn’t fit to handle or access Classified, and we need to stick him on unarmed internal guard duty, like maybe post him outside the MWR facility for 12 hours a day as Courtesy Patrol.” This especially after his first Article 15 which he got while still in training for disclosing restricted information on his Facebook.
I think I read somewhere that they took the bolt from his rifle at some point, but I haven’t found that again, nor have I seen other information to corroborate it.
Mike Kay (True Grit)
@joe from Lowell: It’s all about intent.
What others have been arguing is that non-consent nudity is always humiliating. But in any event, it’s irrelevant to the underlying elements of abuse. You don’t have to prove that a humiliation actually occurred, rather that someone tried to humiliate another.
if the intent wasn’t to humiliate, no abuse occurred even if he was humiliated. Conversely, if the intent was to humiliate, abuse occurred, even if he wasn’t personally humiliated.
But the outrage posted here and elsewhere hasn’t been about the legal elements of abuse, rather it’s the opinion that forced nudity is automatically humiliating. But that’s a personal matter. For some people it is, for some it’s not.
Cacti
@Svensker:
Nope, just shows you’re a hypocrite.
eemom
@Mike Kay (True Grit):
dude. Fer fucks sake. I totally agree with your position about the hypocrisy of those who treat Manning as some kind of exceptional case of an abused martyr when they don’t give a shit about the rampant abuse, suffering, and injustice that is business as usual in US prisons.
But will you pleeeez GET OFF arguing that forced nudity is not humiliation? That’s just stoopid. And the more you twist yourself into knots trying to justify it, the stoopider it gets.
soonergrunt
@Omnes Omnibus: I’d rather they were just honest about it.
Geg6’s statement “The military mind is sick.” is as honest as it is intellectually lazy. At least with her, I know I can safely ignore anything else she says.
It’s less morally contemptible than the ones who only care about such things because their hero is dealing with it. The majority of them don’t give a shit, except for their political favorite. Honor and integrity are defined by what you do when no one’s watching.
I’d rather they just screwed up their intellectual courage and admitted their biases and hatreds.
Tony
The Manning supporters need to eat a bag of dicks. Free Mumia muthafuckas.
eemom
@Omnes Omnibus:
I think most, if not all, of the vociferous ones — i.e., certain bloggers who shall remain nameless — are using it exactly for that purpose.
The secondary motive is to pimp the glorification of Assange/Wikileaks.
I give that crowd zero credit for giving a shit about the suffering of any actual human being who is not themselves, as they’ve repeatedly demonstrated that they don’t.
Wolfdaughter
Mike:
Your stance seems to be essentially predicated upon what you believe other bloggers believe re abuse of people in jails and prisons nationwide.
1. I think all abuse of prisoners, even those convicted of horrific crimes, is wrong. Not just on moral grounds, but also on pragmatic grounds of turning people committing smalltime, low impact crimes into hardened criminals who go on to commit serious crimes.
2. Although I cannot summon up chapter and verse, I do recall seeing protests on blogs against prisoner abuse. There was a lot of outrage some years back when Joe Arpaio let some people die because he denied them necessary medication and because he didn’t offer cooling to prisoners during Phoenix summers.
Basically, your argument doesn’t hold water because you aren’t arguing facts but just your own suppositions about other people’s motives, which you have no way of knowing.
And as others have pointed out, there’s a HUGE difference between nudity voluntarily undertaken and forced nudity.
Your arguments make you look petty and smallminded. I hope that doesn’t describe you in general.
And the old saw about two wrongs not making a right certainly applies here. The fact that many prisoners in this country are treated abominably doesn’t justify Manning’s treatment. In fact, hopefully Manning’s situation can be used as a springboard for investigating prisoner abuse nationwide. This probably won’t happen, but a girl can hope, can’t she?
I agree with those of you who have said that you don’t believe that Manning’s situation is a conspiracy at all sorts of governmental levels. That said, I hope Obama quietly lets it be known through back channels that Manning’s treatment is unconscionable.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@FlipYrWhig:
Except that’s not what’s happening here: The focus is on WikiLeaks and the domestic politics of the case.
Omnes Omnibus
@Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again): There is an extent to which it seems that Manning is a blank screen on to which a lot of people are projecting the image of their choice.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@Omnes Omnibus:
You left out Japanese whaling issues and the thoughts of someone in the US embassy in Rome regarding the relationship between Silvio Berlusconi and Vladimir Putin.
David Koch
FDL has turned out to be one of my best investments.
Jenny
@Wolfdaughter:
How in the world would Obama know about Manning? It’s not like he reads blogs.
Jenny
There are 15 departments in the executive branch of the federal government.
1) Agriculture,
2) Commerce,
3) Defense,
4) Education,
5) Energy,
6) Health and Human Services,
7) Homeland Security,
8) Housing and Urban Development,
9) Interior,
10) Labor,
11) State,
12) Transportation,
13) Treasury,
14) Justice,
15) Veterans Affairs
All these departments generate daily briefings and traffic.
In addition to all of these departments, he receives a daily briefing from the CIA and the Economic Security Council.
Then he has to deal with Congress, with Governors, with Biden, with foreign Prime Minsters.
And when he’s done juggling all these balls, he has to give a speech and press conference.
That’s a lot of shit to deal with. Just when does he fit in one particular prisoner’s care. And you know, Manning isn’t the only prisoner in federal and military detention.
soonergrunt
To say nothing of the fact that the President can’t get involved in Manning’s case. The military justice system has a concept that does not exist in civilian law called Unlawful Command Influence.
With the President’s position being inherently political, ANYTHING he does in relation to a criminal case in the military justice system is liable to be appealed as UCI.
Even if he knows about it, his best bet is to keep out of it, and not do anything that looks like it might be trying to affect the outcome of the case.
Corner Stone
@Jenny: So you’re serious then?
I’ll tell you what, if a one line nugget regarding one of the top 3 US detainees doesn’t make it into his high level summary then he should fucking fire the people who prepare it.
Ridiculous.
General Stuck
@soonergrunt:
I think it is understandably hard for people not having been in the military to wrap their heads around what a different world it is. While the mil justice system contains a basic framework mirrored against the major elements of civilian jurisprudence, there are caveats and carve out elements that are quite different, as related to it’s oddly undemocratic lines of authority, or musingly, existing to defend democracy, not practice it. I suspect the entire concept of “Convening Authority” and the power and influence of that entity just does not compute for non vets, as their really is nothing quite like it in civilian courts. Nor the rigorous demands of mil chains of authority.
From the CiC, on down.
In cases of high political profile, I suspect a president has a plausibly deniable way to address situations where the UCMJ is being violated, for say someone like Manning.
soonergrunt
@General Stuck:
People on Balloon-Juice pontificating on things they know jack shit about?
I think you’re lying. I’ve never seen that.
soonergrunt
@Corner Stone: Manning is famous to a cross section of the blogs. That doesn’t make him important.
General Stuck
@soonergrunt:
I look at blogs and the internet as an avenue, or medium, where the id can express itself and flourish in the nethers between the hazy world of emotion and knowledge, or lack therof. It usually makes it easier to digest, usually.
Jenny
@Corner Stone: go back to firebagland, you guys are laughing stocks.
soonergrunt
@General Stuck: That’s a highly intellectual way of saying that a large number of people get together, shit their pants on cue from a few leaders, and then scream and whine about how they smell shit all around them, and how they feel something squishy, but theirs isn’t shit (or at least it doesn’t stink.)
At other times I see a perpetual Junior High School debate meet writ large. A huge number of short, socially awkward people with acne endlessly going at each other with poorly researched, borderline-illegible screeds that bear no relation to the world in which they live, and will not change a thing. When I realize that I am the chubby eighth-grader with braces and thick glasses who just figured out that it’s all bullshit of no meaning and less value, and that the cool kids still aren’t going to invite any of us to their parties, and the others still don’t get this, then I start laughing.
Corner Stone
@soonergrunt: C’mon man. That’s just silly. They just added 22 more counts which could lead to the death penalty.
Obama and AG Holder have spoken out about the potential for harm regarding the WikiLeaks dump release. Half the military command structure have made comments.
Am I saying he’s as powerful as an AQ #3 guy in custody? No. But to insinuate he’s not a high profile detainee is straining credulity.
He is on the radar.
Corner Stone
@Jenny: How do you type with both index fingers stuck in your ears?
General Stuck
@soonergrunt:
But facts are no fun, and a lot of them will poop any party. They are often random and lead in several directions at once, and not where the crowd wants.
Somebody has to be the chubby kid with braces and thick glasses, holding up their hand to correct the record. Might as well be you soldier.
Jenny
@Corner Stone: And how does that develop into reports about his treatment at Quantico?
How would he know that?
Who would put that in a brief to the President, that Manning or bloggers supporting Manning or his defense council are complaining about this treatment?
I’m sure he was told that some one named Manning was arrested in connection to the leaks months ago.
But how would he know about the complaints about his confinement? I’m sure there are other prisoners who are complaining about their confinement. Is he informed about those complaints as well?
Jenny
This is the daddy syndrome. MoDo has written crap about how she views the President as a national daddy figure. Well, some bloggers are no different. Obama is daddy, a daddy they don’t like, but a daddy nonetheless. And they assume that daddy knows about their problems, because he’s daddy.
There is no way daddy receives reports about the conditions of Aldrich Ames’, Jonathan Pollard’s, Carlos Lehder’s, nd Bernie Madoff’s confinements.
Jenny
And the firebloggers are going about this the wrong way. If you want to get some answers, contact Pat Leahy. He’s chairman of the Senate judiciary committee. He has oversight over the justice department. The AG has to testify on a periodic basis to his committee.
After all, you guys already hate Obama. Why appeal to him, he’s worse than Bush.
This makes no sense. Why would you focus on Obama when you consistently dismiss him.
soonergrunt
@Corner Stone: I didn’t say he wasn’t famous. One could even call him a high-profile detainee. That would be correct, as far as it goes. It also does not make him important.
There is far more downside for the President than upside. If he interferes in the miljus system and gets away with it, he’ll never get credit for it. If he intervenes and gets caught, there’ll be no end of stories about the President Interfering In The Military Justice System! Every prisoner and every Accused in the system will file immediate writs of mandamus compelling release due to the Unlawful Command Influence. And some of them will get it. If there’s anything that the military branch Courts of Criminal Appeals and the CAAF tee off on in a moment, it’s UCI. A lot more people that you think should be in prison will be let out. They won’t have any choice because “UCI is the deadly enemy of the military justice system” in the words of one former Chief Judge of the CAAF.
Murderers, war criminals, rapists, child molesters, drug dealers, and so on–everybody ever convicted under UCMJ since Obama was elected will get another bite at the apple.
In re the new charges, only one of them has a capital component, and it was referred as a non-capital charge. The CA could still charge it as a capital offense, but this is highly unlikely. Conviction for capital offenses requires a unanamous panel of 12 in the findings portion, followed by a unanamous panel of 12 in the sentencing portion. Non-capital conviction, with LWOP eligibility only requires a 2/3rds majority.
–Due to the method by which sentences are determined, long sentences tend to happen less in the military than they do in the civilian world. long story though.
As far as the Attorney General’s statements, they have as much force with regard to PFC Manning as the statements by the Secretary of the Interior.
The best thing the President can say, if asked about this is “Manning who?”
Corner Stone
@Jenny: Not to speak to the rest of your babbling about your Dowdesque Daddy issues, but:
IIRC all those mentioned have had a trial, and were convicted.
It is beyond ridiculous to imagine for a second Obama does not know who Manning is.
He knew about what happened to Prof Henry Gates but the man suspected of endangering national security and aiding the enemy during “war time” is an unknown.
Gotcha.
Corner Stone
@soonergrunt: I’ve never asked, nor expected Obama to publicly call out details related specifically to Manning. And if you think I have please quote it here. You can’t because I haven’t.
There are lots of things that could happen here, and not just specifically to/for Manning.
But for some here to say the POTUS is not aware of the conditions related to Manning is just gobstopping to me.
Is it better if we assume the CiC is unaware?
I guess for some it must be.
Corner Stone
And broadly speaking, I have been very consistent on the issue of detainee treatment/torture for at least the last 9 years, the last several very vocally here at BJ.
Manning isn’t a special case for me.
Mark S.
Jesus, people are actually arguing over whether Bradley Manning is high profile prisoner? He sure as fuck is, and it doesn’t do Obama any favors if the world thinks we’re torturing the guy to get another low profile guy.
Man, I love when it’s convenient we shove the 11 dimensional chess to the side and pretend Obama is as clueless as W.
soonergrunt
@soonergrunt: I’ll give you an example of just how serious the Courts of Criminal Appeals take their roles–
US v. Gaskins, 2008 in the Army–
A panel of officers and enlisted members sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant, contrary to his pleas, of carnal knowledge, indecent acts with a child, and indecent assault, in violation of Articles 120 and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 920 and 934 [hereinafter UCMJ]. The convening authority approved the adjudged sentence of a dishonorable discharge, confinement for twelve years, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to the grade of Private E1.
Gaskins appealed on the grounds that the Court Martial was not completed (any sentence in excess of a year confinement or a punitive discharge is automatically appealed, and the case is not legally completed until the automatic appeals process is exhausted) and at some point, part of the trial record was lost. To wit, the only extant copy of the “good soldier book,” which the Defense puts together of all the guys the Accused knows who say “he’s a good Soldier, I’d follow him into hell” leaving out the “I wouldn’t let him anywhere near my kids” part and also all of the Accused’s prior awards, efficiency reports, etc. was lost.
Now, you and I both know that whether or not SSG Gaskins always made it to formation on time has fuck-all to do with whether or not he raped and sodomized a twelve year old girl. But it has everything to do with whether or not the government can punish him. After many fits and starts, and there being NO question by anyone associated with the case as to the factual sufficiency (his guilt) of the case, he’s going to get the maximum penalty the UCMJ will allow in a case of incomplete trial record–six months confinement and reduction to E-1. That means he has to get back pay for every day he was in Leavenworth past day 180, and they have to promote him under a schedule that assumes he would advance on average time.
He’ll be discharged under some chapter of AR 635-20, but he won’t have a federal conviction for child molestation, he won’t have to register as a sex offender, he’ll get back pay, and while he won’t have an honorable discharge, it won’t be a dishonorable discharge either.
The courts of appeals take their jobs pretty seriously. I don’t think the President wants to do ANYTHING that might put conceivably hundreds of cases in front of them for the appearance of UCI.
Jenny
@Corner Stone: He was asked about Gates at a press conference exactly three days after the incident. Before a press conference, the staff preps the president (any president) with possible questions that may arise. This surely included the Gates arrest because the media loves to focus on race.
As I said earlier, I’m sure he was told that some one named Manning was arrested in connection to the leaks months ago.
The nature of his arrest and the complaints over his confinement are two different issues.
Once again, how would he know about the complaints about his confinement?
Who would put that in a brief to the President, that Manning or bloggers supporting Manning or his defense council are complaining about this treatment?
And why would they even bother him with this? Why? Because of some blogger who can’t even pay her registration tags?
You think Obama is being briefed on the upcoming Edwards indictment? I doubt it. The charges are salacious, but they don’t waste the President’s time with garden variety indictments.
Obama held a press conference on February 15 for a full hour, and not one person asked about Manning. No one asked him about Edwards. No one. If they’re not newsworthy enough for the Washington press corp, then why would the staff brief the President?
But keep your conspiracy theory going. This is how you cope. Some evil monster is behind all your problems.
Jenny
@Mark S.: He is a high profile prisoner. The details and complaints surrounding his confinement are not. Put it this way, if his confinement issues were a big deal, why isn’t Rachel Maddow discussing them?
soonergrunt
@Corner Stone:
edited to fix fywp blockquote issue
Then you have a problem with the way you are communicating your ideas, because that is exactly the way you are coming off–that you expect the President to be intimately involved in this situation and are suprised that he’s not doing anything, or more specifically not doing what you want.
Jenny
@Mark S.:
You have to answer the question, who would brief the President that people are complaining about Manning’s confinement, and why would they bother to raise this matter with the President.
Just because something is in heavy rotation on a boutique blog doesn’t mean it worthy of a presidential briefing.
Jenny
@soonergrunt:
Obama can’t be portrayed in a menacing light without conveying that he is personally involved in Manning’s treatement.
Corner Stone
@soonergrunt: You’re right. I’ve never said that I wanted him to, expected him to, or thought it would be helpful for him to.
If criticism exists it must ergo hoc sum qui tam be criticism of Obama himself.
ETA, see Jenbot’s post at 211.
Jenny
If you guys can’t get Rachel Maddow to cover issues surrounding Manning’s confinement, someone who is completely inclined to give you a full hearing, if you can’t get Rachel to take notice this issue, then how do you expect it to reach an even higher level, that of the oval office.
Corner Stone
@Jenny:
Daddy issues, conspiracy theories, evil monsters.
Your therapists’ kids must love you for putting them through college.
Mark S.
@Jenny:
I imagine someone at the WH keeps abreast of what’s being reported at the New York Times.
Jenny
@Corner Stone: So what are you trying to say, take the marbles out of your mouth and spell it out.
Which is it, that Obama has personal detailed knowledge of the issues, but doesn’t care. Or Obama is personally directing the harassment. Which is it?
Mark S.
@Jenny:
(Shit, too many links on my first try)
I imagine someone at the WH keeps abreast of what’s being reported at the New York Times.
Jenny
@Mark S.: I imagine they do. Now how does that rise to Obama’s level. You can’t explain that can you. Do they simply tell him everything that appears in the every major paper and every major newscast in the country – I don’t think so. I don’t think he gets daily reports on what is being reported on the Rachel Maddow show.
soonergrunt
@Corner Stone: Then why even mention him at all in this context?
If you don’t want the President to do something, if you think that he can’t do something helpful (whatever that means) then what are you getting at?
Because other than interfering in a potential criminal case in the military justice system, what do you want from him? I’m assuming that you want something from him with respect to this topic or you wouldn’t have mentioned him. Over and over again.
Jenny
@Mark S.: What I don’t understand is why do you guys even care about what Obama knows or doesn’t know. You guys dislike Obama.
If you want to increase the profile of this case get Bernie Sanders or Al Franken to give a speech on the Senate floor. Get Pat Leahy to hold hearings.
Simply saying Obama is worse than W won’t advance your cause a single inch.
Corner Stone
@soonergrunt: I think you need to reading comprehend again. The first oblique reference I even hinted at Obama in this thread was 188 after Jenbot spewed her stupid bullshit that this was too paltry for President Obama to be aware of.
I didn’t bring him in.
Try again amigo.
Mike Kay (True Grit)
@Jenny:
But it does make for great fundraising. In fact this would be the perfect time for supporters of PVT Manning to make a contribution to [insert the shameless blog] who has been leading the fight against Obama’s torture of PVT Manning. Show Obama you mean business with a contribution of $25, $50, or more.
@Corner Stone: you’re nutz. Dude, Hillary lost. Get over it. After all, she did.
Mark S.
@Jenny:
Sorry, I’m not a firebagger and I don’t dislike Obama. But every couple months I get tired of the Obots morphing into Sgt. Schlutz and saying “He knew nozing!”
Yutsano
@Mark S.: I think he’s well aware of the situation. I think he also knows that if he interferes in any way with the case that it will blow up to no end. So Obama stays the hell out of it. Not even a public declaration.
Anne Laurie
@Mike Kay (True Grit):
And according to Rush Limbaugh, the abuses at Abu Ghraib were ‘just like a frat hazing!’
You’re a bigger arsehole than the explicit trolls like Caz or Church-Lady. At least they enough minimal self-awareness not to go preening their ‘progressive’ credentials.
Mike Kay (True Grit)
@Anne Laurie: stick to cat blogging. that’s the only thing you’re good at. That and cutting and pasting long articles.
Anne Laurie
@soonergrunt:
Thank you for this, and for your other comments about military conditions. Nice to hear from someone who knows what he’s talking about, even if this is the internet.
Jenny
@Mark S.: Yet you can’t answer why anyone would bother to brief Obama about Manning’s complaints.
Just because you know about this you think the President knows about it, but that’s merely you projecting.
soonergrunt
@corner stone–you’re right, you didn’t mention him until Jenny brought him in.
Having conceded that, you did say to her:
You stated to me, “He is on the radar.”
So I gotta ask cause I’m curious–so what?
The President can’t do anything about it (as I hold.) Do you disagree, and if you do, what if anything should he do?
Mark S.
@Jenny:
I said a little earlier:
Maybe you disagree, but that’s my take.
soonergrunt
@Anne Laurie: I think the guy’s guilty as hell, and I think he did it mainly to stick it to a bunch of people who didn’t appreciate just how smart and special he is. I think that he tells himself that he did it for higher reasons because the truth about what he did is too hard to bear. I believe these because I have known quite a few junior enlisted personnel who were very much like him. Most of them don’t go as far as he did. I know that I didn’t for various reasons.
I think he should spend a large portion of the remainder of his natural life behind bars. I believe that the government will carry it’s burden in the relevant respects.
None of that means that we as a country or as a military service should lower ourselves with gratuitous violence against those in our custody. We are supposed to be better than those out in the world who do evil. And I have seen evil in this world. Soul-breaking evil that I cannot even describe because I cannot understand it myself. It is not enough to say “at least we’re not that bad.”
But slipping, when we do, does not under any circumstances forgive or excuse the charges and specifications against PFC Bradley Manning.
Mark S.
@soonergrunt:
I take it your position on why Obama can’t do anything is this:
Then why can’t one of the President’s aides convey to Horst (or to his superior) that the WH does not like the bad publicity Manning’s treatment is garnering and to treat him like anyone else accused of a crime? Or that the Justice Dept. is concerned that this treatment might compromise a future trial? I just don’t buy that the Prez is so powerless.
Jenny
@Mark S.: Oh gawd. Talk about grandiosity. This is the problem with an echo chamber. You begin to think everyone thinks the same way, because everyone agrees with you on a particular subject.
Why would anyone outside of the blogosphere care about Manning’s pillow? You think Chavez is wringing his hands over Manning nudity? You think France cares? You think Russia cares? Bring it closer to home, the fact is, the general population of the United States doesn’t care about Manning complaints. Hell, Rachel Maddow doesn’t even care.
soonergrunt
@Mark S.: I’ll take them in reverse order.
As I mentioned earlier, the Justice Department’s concerns are utterly irrelevant to the potential Court-Martial or whatever other preceding the Convening Authority may deem necessary. The Attorney General has no more authority in this case than does the Postmaster General.
If the President, as Commander in Chief tells the Convening Authority that with respect to the potential precedings against Bradley Manning, he, the CinC, thinks any certain thing should happen, it will (rightly) be siezed upon by Defense Counsel and brought up in trial as Unlawful Command Influence.
“Your honor, Defense calls the Convening Authority to discuss the fact that the President, under political pressure from the left, violated the rights of the Accused by interefering with the CA and ordering him to do whatever it took to fix the public perception of the Accused’s treatment while in the custody of the Quantico Brig, the goal of which was to ensure the conviction of my client at Court-Martial.”
Do you really think the President should risk that? There’s a very good reason that Presidents never make statements about criminal proceedings, and especially about Courts-Martial.
Jenny
@soonergrunt:
What makes you say that. Various blogs say he’s innocent.
soonergrunt
Further to my last, the CA can, and in my non-lawyer opinion, should consider moving Manning from the Brig at Quantico. It is questionable at best as to whether or not the Marines are capable of treating Manning in a professional manner.
Having said that, I don’t know where they would keep him. Pretrial confinement is reasonable given the charges and specifications against Manning, and the designated PTC facility for the entire eastern seaboard is the brig at Quantico.
I’ll have to research this.
soonergrunt
@Jenny: But I don’t give a fuck what various blogs claim. Of course, since I am not a court member (juror to you civilian types) it doesn’t really matter what I say, either.
Jenny
@soonergrunt: What a lot of people don’t understand, including myself, is how would the President addressing Manning’s confinement complaints be a violation of his rights?
Jenny
@soonergrunt: I didn’t say that to be insulting, I’m legitimately asking why. I’m sure you’ve seen the arguments: that there’s no evidence that he downloaded and or passed any materials, etc., etc.
Yutsano
@soonergrunt: They housed Padilla at a bring in South Carolina. Different category of defendant (and Padilla’s treatment was worse) but I guess it’s at least a possibility.
Mark S.
@soonergrunt:
All right, brain fart on the Justice Dept.
As for the defense counsel, what would that get him? “Your honor, because my client got treated better, you should dismiss all charges against him?”
As for more general matters, doesn’t the Prez have some authority over how prisoners are treated? If Bush found out about Abu Ghraib (and he had a conscience), would he be powerless to do anything about it?
Anne Laurie
@soonergrunt:
Again, thank you for this. You may well be right in all respects about Manning (certainly I have been exposed to enough 19-year-olds who react inappropriately when they feel their Superior Credentials have been slighted, and that’s not including the internet). But, YES, even if Manning did every bad thing imputed to him, his crimes do not justify “us”, the US military, descending to the level of a fourth-rate autocracy to “retaliate”.
soonergrunt
@Jenny: It gets back to the concept of Unlawful Command Influence. Please see any number of my earlier postings on that. It’s not even necessarily a violation of Manning’s rights, but every member of the military Defense bar will start filing complaints about UCI because if the President involved himself in this case, he probably involved himself in my client’s case…
As far as the statement that there’s no evidence that Manning committed the crimes for which is charged, one need only look at the charge sheet. It’s pretty specific about him having documents on his personal laptop that were on SIPRnet and not authorized to have. It’s just as specific about him installing software on the SIPRnet terminal to which he was assigned. Then there’s also the chat logs with Adrian Lamo.
In any event, the government thinks they have a case, and the standard is not to have to convince every Tom, Dick, and Harry on the internet, but 2/3rds of a panel of Soldiers, which may or may not include enlisted members if the Accused asks.
soonergrunt
@Mark S.: In re your first question, please see my last entry. Even if the judge and the ACCA didn’t agree with a UCI claim, it would be a political disaster, and there would be a flood of UCI claims the moment he opened his mouth.
As for the question of whether or not he has some general authority in regards to military prisoners, the answer is yes because he is the Commander in Chief. However, he has to act extremely carefully with regards to a pending or active court martial.
As far as UCI claims go, there was an Assistant Deputy Whatever The Fuck He Was of Defense last week who said “we need to do more about sexual assault in the military.”
Given that the military prosecutes at more than twice the rate of the civilian world, and Convening Authorities routinely disregard the advice of their Article 32 investigating officers and convene courts-martial even when there’s not enough evidence to convict, the moment he said that, the military bar lawyers I know (I do computer tech support for some lawyers on the side) are all prepping UCI claims for their clients who are facing charges of that nature.
The military justice system is not like the civilian one.
Jenny
@soonergrunt: I’m glad I asked. It’s good to hear a different perspective.
Ed-M
@homerhk:
He has a “suicide blanket,” which is commercial carpet with the weight of an x-ray ribbon. Try sleeping naked under THAT.
My prediction? He will be “suicided” against his will, i.e., murdered. >:(
Ed-M
x-ray APRON.
Jenny
@Ed-M: why would he be murdered, but not Aldrich Ames, John Walker, Jonathan Pollard, or Robert Hanssen?
officious_pedant
@Jenny: Wait, did you just say that Manning, now thought to be the person who provided Assange with secret material to publish, triggering an internation firestorm of criticism and counter-criticism, is unknown to the President? One of the central figures in the Wikileaks imboglio is a non-entity? That’s…an intriguing stance to take.
Not to mention that Unlawful Command Authority might–might–be argued if he was to get treatment better than that of other prisoners, or a reduced sentence, or summary judgement. To give him back his clothes and let him excercise unshackled? Not so much.