White House picks its side re: Manning

I thought he was in the military. They don't have the same rights as a "citizen" and are under the jurisdiction of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

813. ART. 13 PUNISHMENT PROHIBITED BEFORE TRIAL

No person, while being held for trial, may be subjected to punishment or penalty other than arrest or confinement upon the charges pending against him, nor shall the arrest or confinement imposed upon him be any more rigorous than the circumstances required to insure his presence, but he may be subjected to minor punishment during that period for infractions of discipline.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm#SUBCHAPTER II. APPREHENSION AND RESTRAINT

I don't agree with his firing over those comments. OTOH, your PR mouthpiece needs to say what you tell him to say, by definition. So I only agree with it because of the nature of his job, not because of what he said.

shadowwalker said:

813. ART. 13 PUNISHMENT PROHIBITED BEFORE TRIAL

No person, while being held for trial, may be subjected to punishment or penalty other than arrest or confinement upon the charges pending against him, nor shall the arrest or confinement imposed upon him be any more rigorous than the circumstances required to insure his presence, but he may be subjected to minor punishment during that period for infractions of discipline.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm#SUBCHAPTER II. APPREHENSION AND RESTRAINT

Click to expand...

I guess that really hinges on how you define punishment and confinement.

Heh. I seem to remember the Bush administration presenting a unified front to the media, and anyone who strayed off message got axed.

shadowwalker said:

813. ART. 13 PUNISHMENT PROHIBITED BEFORE TRIAL

No person, while being held for trial, may be subjected to punishment or penalty other than arrest or confinement upon the charges pending against him, nor shall the arrest or confinement imposed upon him be any more rigorous than the circumstances required to insure his presence, but he may be subjected to minor punishment during that period for infractions of discipline.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm#SUBCHAPTER II. APPREHENSION AND RESTRAINT

Click to expand...

Ok.

Perhaps you'd care to add what punishment he is being subjected to?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...3/05/AR2011030503624.html?sid=ST2011020802057

[Defense lawyer] Coombs said that although Manning is technically not held in solitary confinement, "the cumulative effect of his confinement conditions are tantamount to solitary confinement." He said that there are no other detainees on either side of his cell and that the cell lacks a window or natural light. If Manning tries to speak to others several cells away, "the guards will likely view it as disruptive and require him to stop speaking," he wrote in his blog.

...

On Wednesday [March 2nd], the government denied Manning's request to be removed from maximum custody and prevention of injury watch, said Coombs, who will appeal.

Villiard said the prevention of injury watch status is reviewed every week with input from mental health providers.

Coombs has asserted that the facility's forensic psychiatrist recommended that the watch be lifted. A separate psychiatrist hired by the defense concurred, he said.

Click to expand...

It looks like there's some she-said he-said going on here. Based on him being charged with some major, major crimes, him being assigned to maximum custody and injury watch is probably SOP.

Slushie said:

maximum custody and injury watch is probably SOP.

Click to expand...

One also shouldn't forget that his suicide watch, which brought about the most recent bout of outrage, resulted from Manning's own words. According to multiple sources, including Coombs, Manning's own attorney, Manning did utter the phrase that if he wanted he "could kill myself using the elastic band of my underwear".

Prozyan said:

Ok.

Perhaps you'd care to add what punishment he is being subjected to?

Click to expand...

Well, I guess anything that he's subjected to that other military personnel being held pre-trial are not could be considered punishment (or retribution pre-trial). What I've read of suicide watch procedures in prisons do not include taking away the prisoner's clothing, or waking the person up - only in-person observation. I would think that anyone who is 'suicidal' for more than a few days should be transferred to a psychiatric unit, but then...

Prozyan said:

One also shouldn't forget that his suicide watch, which brought about the most recent bout of outrage, resulted from Manning's own words. According to multiple sources, including Coombs, Manning's own attorney, Manning did utter the phrase that if he wanted he "could kill myself using the elastic band of my underwear".

Click to expand...

This is basic CYA, used as an excuse to do what they're doing. I mean, they could hardly say they just felt like screwing with him, could they?

One may or may not take the stance that he deserves whatever treatment he gets, but lets not pretend it's SOP for his own protection.

shadowwalker said:

include taking away the prisoner's clothing, or waking the person up - only in-person observation.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should read more closely:

In California:

What happens when an inmate is put on suicide watch? He's put in an observation room and kept away from dangerous objects. Suicide watch is mostly designed to prevent hanging, which is far and away the most common suicide method in prisons and hospitals. An observation room might have little more than a mattress on the floor. Any stray bits of fabric could be used as a noose: Some states make sure the inmate sleeps with an extra-thick blanket that can't be tied or torn into strips. In extreme cases, a prisoner may be undressed and given a paper gown.

Click to expand...

(Link)

In Michigan:

...regulations at their most general include confiscation of personal items, such as belts and other articles of clothing, that might be used to facilitate a suicide. Any departure from such regulations may supply the necessary negligence to establish liability should a suicide result. Young vs City of Ann Arbor, 119 Mich. App. 512, 326 NW 2d 547 (9182).

Click to expand...

(Link)

And not about clothing, but isolation. Karen Irby in Mississippi:

Between meals, she has one hour of outdoor exercise. The other 23 hours of her day? She spends them alone in her maximum-security cell.

Click to expand...

(Link)

Considering Manning specifically stated he would use the elastic band in his own underwear, are you really surprised he lost access to his underwear? This isn't extreme, it isn't cruel, and it isn't unusual. If he wanted to keep his underwear, he probably shouldn't have made the comment he did.

Also, it should be noted about liability. If something did happen to Manning, the detention center would be liable. Is it really so hard to understand that when someone claims if they wanted, they would kill themselves with the elastic band from their underwear is placed under extreme watch conditions?

As for waking up, someone is once again mistaking the wellness checks for his being woken. Here is the specific regulation:

At night, if the guards cannot see PFC Manning clearly, because he has a blanket over his head or is curled up towards the wall, they will wake him in order to ensure he is okay.

Click to expand...

Do you have evidence or cites that he is being woken unnecessarily, or are you just assuming so?

rugcat said:

This is basic CYA, used as an excuse to do what they're doing. I mean, they could hardly say they just felt like screwing with him, could they?

Click to expand...

Of course it is CYA, but used as an excuse? For what reason and what support do you have for such an assumption? Manning's own attorney has stated the guards have been nothing but professional and at no time have attempted to harass, bully, or otherwise mess with Manning.

So why the assumption this is being done only to mess with him?

If someone call a suicide line and claimed to be suicidal, would it not be treated seriously? Why should this be any exception?

Can you imagine if he did manage to commit suicide? There would be many who would refuse to believe it really was suicide.

What do we really know is being done to him, as opposssed to speculation?

shadowwalker said:

813. ART. 13 PUNISHMENT PROHIBITED BEFORE TRIAL

No person, while being held for trial, may be subjected to punishment or penalty other than arrest or confinement upon the charges pending against him, nor shall the arrest or confinement imposed upon him be any more rigorous than the circumstances required to insure his presence, but he may be subjected to minor punishment during that period for infractions of discipline.

Click to expand...

NOTE: I bolded the section of the article that's the best response to Shadow_Ferret's post.

Like I said in the other thread, the conditions of his confinement do not match his crime. He's not a danger to other prisoners. Neither has anyone here shown any sort of evidence that he's a danger to the other prisoners.

So, who actually thinks he's a danger to others? And why?

Prozyan said:

Of course it is CYA, but used as an excuse? For what reason and what support do you have for such an assumption? Manning's own attorney has stated the guards have been nothing but professional and at no time have attempted to harass, bully, or otherwise mess with Manning.

So why the assumption this is being done only to mess with him?

Click to expand...

How about the brig psychiatrist evaluating him and stating that there was not a legitimate basis to put or keep Manning on suicide watch?

WikiLeaks' Manning still on suicide watch


ETA: And The New York Times has a really good article on the subject. Obama Defends Detention Conditions for Soldier Accused in WikiLeaks Case

Prozyan said:

One also shouldn't forget that his suicide watch, which brought about the most recent bout of outrage, resulted from Manning's own words. According to multiple sources, including Coombs, Manning's own attorney, Manning did utter the phrase that if he wanted he "could kill myself using the elastic band of my underwear".

Click to expand...

Words uttered to the guards holding him in what could prove to be severe conditions. Words that Manning's other formal words filed in his complaint letter claim to have been uttered in sarcasm and in dissent of said severe conditions.

For someone complaining about other people not doing their research, you're doing a marvelous job of filtering out your own.

So sad to watch an empire in decline.

Don't speak your mind or you'll be fired.

Gale Haut said:

For someone complaining about other people not doing their research, you're doing a marvelous job of filtering out your own.

Click to expand...

Nice try. Quoted from the other thread:

Prozyan said:

His own lawyer admits that Manning claimed he would attempt suicide using his own underwear. SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) in ANY prison does not treat such threats as a joke, regardless of whether the person making them claims it was said sarcastically or not. Most prison's I know about feature isolation and the removal of potentially harmful objects as part of their suicide countermeasures. It has nothing to do with what Manning did or didn't do in the Wikileaks case, but rather was he DID say while in custody. I'm sorry, but in this case, he did bring the suicide watch on himself. I doubt very much he's enjoying the treatment, but then again, he shouldn't go around joking about committing suicide.

Try this: Get on an airplane, yell that you have a bomb, then when tackled and apprehended, try to get out of trouble by saying "Hey, I was just being sarcastic".

Click to expand...

I've not filtered anything. Sarcastic or not, the threat has to be taken seriously. What would you have them do, completely ignore it because he was supposedly being sarcastic? That would go over real well if he did manage to kill himself afterwords. It is often said here: Own your words. What if one of your own children or a good friend threatened suicide? Would you ignore it because it was said sarcastically?
Also, from your first link:

But Coombs said Manning was subsequently seen by a brig psychiatrist who deemed him to be a low suicide risk.
"In particular, the psychiatrist said that Manning's statement about his underwear waistband was in no way prompted by a psychiatric condition,'" Coombs wrote.

Click to expand...

It doesn't seem to say "No suicide risk". I stand by the point: If he didn't want to be on suicide watch, he shouldn't have made statements that he would kill himself.

Gale Haut said:

He's not a danger to other prisoners. Neither has anyone here shown any sort of evidence that he's a danger to the other prisoners.

So, who actually thinks he's a danger to others? And why?

Click to expand...

If you are referring to his being a maximum security detainee and his isolation status, I don't believe it is a case of him being a threat to others but rather others being a threat to him. No matter what one thinks of Manning's actions or motivations, and the very core of it he is a snitch. The type of people who usually end up in prisons tend to take a dim view of a snitch. It isn't very hard to imagine some other prisoner deciding to exercise a little street justice on Manning.

As for the injury prevention/suicide watch, I believe we've discussed that.

Since Mr. Haut thought my previous comment was trollish, I'll try for a little more in-depth comment. I find myself quite ambivalent about the whole situation. I think that there's a definite need for transparency in most, if not all, areas of our government and if it is not provided voluntarily through the strata and structure provided by the Constitution, there is still no less a need for it. I want to be proud of my country and fellow Americans, but that is an emotion I find increasingly difficult to obtain.

We are an organization that attempts to promote human rights by revealing abuses that are concealed. So, of course, we never want to be in a position where through our releases we actually are causing harm to individuals. Or at least not more harm than the good we are causing.

Through our four-year publishing history, there has never been-- an example of any individual-- coming to any sort of physical harm of all that has been alleged. The U.S. government has made it clear, when it has been asked, that it is not aware of any single incident.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/17/eveningnews/main7161070.shtml

Click to expand...

Still, from what I've read, Pvt. Manning abused his position and his actions appear to fit the definition of treason. And yet, he must have known that his actions would result in imprisonment, etc. so I wonder if he somehow thought his complicity in the reveal was more important than the rules as stated. I have personally felt the sting (many, many times) of injustice inflicted on my person for actions that were well-intentioned and (to my mind) honorable, but were ultimately found to be in violation of the letter of the law, while at the very same time, were actions that celebrated the spirit of the law. My mind says he's a traitor but my heart says he's a patriot. So I shall watch and wait. In the meantime:

It's so sad to watch an empire in decline.

The charge sheets say Manning illegally obtained and transferred 380,000 records from a U.S. military database of military incident reports in Iraq, as well as another 90,000 records from a similar database for Afghanistan. He is also charged with obtaining a video of a 2009 U.S. bombing incident in western Afghanistan that resulted in many Afghan civilian deaths, another item that WikiLeaks has promised to reveal publicly.
According to an Army press release, Manning is being charged with introducing "unauthorized software onto government computers to extract classified information, unlawfully downloaded it, improperly stored it, and transmitted the classified data for public release and use by the enemy.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mili...t-bradley-manning-suspected/story?id=13041445

Click to expand...

Prozyan said:

If you are referring to his being a maximum security detainee and his isolation status, I don't believe it is a case of him being a threat to others but rather others being a threat to him. No matter what one thinks of Manning's actions or motivations, and the very core of it he is a snitch. The type of people who usually end up in prisons tend to take a dim view of a snitch. It isn't very hard to imagine some other prisoner deciding to exercise a little street justice on Manning.

Click to expand...

I see. So there worried he wouldn't be able to defend himself. And that's why he's only allowed outside of his cell covered in chains. To protect him?

Your speculations don't fly with me.

Oh dear, I see a lock coming.

Has it been determined yet for sure whether he hacked into things, btw? That's a big point for me to decide how I feel about it.

I 'know' there's no way he read or had enough knowledge about all of the things Wikileaks released. That's not OK, in my book.

I don't think the treatment sounds unusual for someone held regarding such serious charges. I'm not saying I fully support that, at all, but imho, it doesn't sound off the charts or anything. We are pretty darned hard-nosed in our prisons, more so for soldiers. At least he knew that, I'd presume. I don't know how many military folks he knew before volunteering, but it's a voluntary culture.

A draftee is a whole nother kettle of fish, to me.

I thnk Manning may have jumped in to a lot of things without looking first. I think effective civil disobedience just can't have that. It's too reckless. You have to understand the reasoning behind the 'opponent's' point of view before you try to take it down by fire, because that's bold, bold stuff. Imho, of course.

His 'opponent' is the most hard-nosed, secretive and grey-area part of any government you can find anywhere, I think. It's downright dangerous to screw with, usually.