I still can’t believe that after the last decade, knowing everything we know, that there are still some idiots who will take the military and government’s description of Manning’s custody and believe it.
Reader Interactions
117Comments
Comments are closed.
NobodySpecial
FDL, therefore automatically incorrect and why do you hate freedom?
Alwhite
Maybe it was the times – I grew up during Viet Nam & Watergate – I just assume the government lies at it convenience. D or R, makes no difference the first story is usually a lie & the fall-back stories that trickle out as the truth gets known make successive approximations toward the actual truth. It always amazes me that people are surprised by this.
Of course we just went through a period where not only did the government lie to us but the people who exposed those lies were hounded, harassed and demeaned. With the entire government in the R hands it was unAmerican not to buy and spread the bullshit.
p.a.
sorry to go OT, but current CNN.com headline: GIANT OIL PIPELINE WOULD DISSECT US.
Run Awaaaaaay !!!
just to be sure, i went to Merriam/Webster online, and dissect, although it can mean divide in unequal pieces, is a transitive verb. Bisect, although the general meaning is divide in 2 relatively equal pieces, is transitive and intransitive. Not to go all William Safire or anything, but jeebus…
now back to our regular programming…
Omnes Omnibus
FWIW there is a difference between not automatically believing everything the government says and automatically rejecting everything the government says as a lie. One is a sensible response, while the other is just as foolish as automatically believing everything the government says.
funluvn
If the political winds were blowing the other way with Manning, there would be an uproar of corporate approval unto the heavens.
Yet, they are not.
The herd continues to follow behind the bell ringer….
Bill H.
Wait, wait, wait. You mean we might not be kicking Taliban ass in Afgahistan? And the rescuers of Jessica Lynch weren’t heroes? And Pat Tillman wasn’t…? I can’t go on. My illusions are shattered and I fear for my nation. I’m crawling under my bed now. Bye.
david mizner
This was favorite piece on this topic, in which a Daily Kos poster presumes to “correct” Greenwald on Manning’s conditions after he had one single conversation with a government official. Gullible is too mild a word.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/16/143254/46
eemom
@Omnes Omnibus:
will you hush up with that common sense!
Can’t you see Mr. Cole is bored after all these days of not blogging, and is setting us up for a flame war like pieces on a chessboard?
Omnes Omnibus
@eemom: The evidence on Manning’s treatment is starting to pile up. I am still unsure how much is Manning specific and how much is par for the course for prisoners. In either case, I would say the treatment is wrong and should be remedied.
El Tiburon
Paging General Suck.
Jude
I was always more of a shithouse poet than a lawyer. Must be the DFH in me.
mclaren
Good news, comrades! The chocolate ration has been increased to 10 grams.
A great victory has been achieved on the Malabar front! The enemy is falling back before us. America is at war with Afghanistan — America has always been at war with Afghanistan.
There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Democratic party. There will be no love, except the love of Obama. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science…. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always – do not forget this… – always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless….
If you want a picture of the future, imagine an American boot stamping on a human face – forever.
El Tiburon
UN to investigate Mannings confinement
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/
But this is Greenwald and he is a pompous ass. Sure there’s about 100 links to other sources of information, but still not good enough for General Suck, I am sure.
PS
@Omnes Omnibus: Agreed. Personally, I think you were a little less skeptical than appropriate in your previous comment. That the government lies is a decent working premise, it’s just not actionable without confirmation. I believe this translates to “Mistrust but verify” … and I’m not entirely joking.
NobodySpecial
@El Tiburon: Be fair. Prisonering is hard work.
DecidedFenceSitter
@PS: One could argue that the law system is based around “Mistrust, but verify.” Where the mistrust, and thus burden of proof is on the plaintiff/gov’t to disprove that the defendant is innocent.
Of course, this breaks down in this case because the gov’t is the defendant. And places the burden of proof on the side with all the power is well problematic at best for the incentives it places on the system.
NonyNony
@PS:
“Mistrust and verify” is actually about the only way to protect a democratic system of government. That’s why sunshine laws and a decent press are both important to a functioning democracy.
Maude
@NonyNony:
Okay, we are dead on the decent press, now what?
And yeah, verify everything.
PS
OK, I brought up “Mistrust” so I’ll also quibble with it: A society in which authority does not deserve our trust is one that is heading for some kind of disaster. And one in which the power structure reflexively solidifies around even the most minor member is in bad shape. Judge ought to mistrust cops, and tend not to. (We all tend to defend our in-group.) So I want to trust the government. I don’t, and haven’t for many years, and it’s not a matter of party so much as of power. I think it’s genuinely tragic.
Agreed on the sunshine laws, and FOIA, and indeed Net Neutrality. More could and should be done. But it’s pretty weird when Our Great Leaders can effectively shout “Squirrel!” and the Great American Public dashes off in that direction, as if of its own free will.
Joey Maloney
@mclaren: Except that “American boot” will leave a “Made in China” imprint on the human face.
SGEW
I just hope that the high visibility of this case will help efforts to end the use of long-term solitary confinement.
There are an estimated 75,000 to 100,000 Americans currently being held in solitary confinement. If it is “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” to do this (a fact of which I am convinced), that means we’re torturing thousands upon thousands of fellow citizens, every day. It’s almost too monstrous to think of . . . which is probably why we don’t think about it, very often.
This is an important issue, John. Thank you for keeping on it.
Mnemosyne
@Omnes Omnibus:
That’s what I find most disturbing about this: the way Manning is being held is not at all unusual. There are thousands of people in the US who are incarcerated under the same conditions (and often worse), but they don’t get the attention that Manning gets as a nonviolent prisoner.
It would be nice if people could realize how horrible it is that we confine anyone in this way, not just Manning.
ETA: And then SGEW shows up with actual facts to back me up. Thanks!
FlipYrWhig
@Omnes Omnibus:
Right, and that to me is the core of the whole matter, and that to me is what people keep blurring. Are we mad because any human being is being treated like this, or because this particular human being is being treated like this? Is he being singled out for harsh treatment or is his harsh treatment routine?
I think we can say at the same time that it sounds bad _and_ that we _don’t really know yet_ that Manning is being held in a unnecessarily punitive and deliberately excessive way. And that last bit was IMHO what Greenwald was contending.
FlipYrWhig
@Mnemosyne: Yours appeared as I was writing mine…
cleek
@Omnes Omnibus:
i would suspect that people suspected of treason are not generally treated kindly.
i hope his lawyer can improve Manning’s situation. but i am not surprised in the least that he’s being treated badly right now.
cleek
here is a fascinating story of what prison is actually like, from someone who went through it.
here’s a bit about solitary:
but you should really read the whole thing
Uloborus
@Mnemosyne:
Alright, that one I might buy, but I’m hearing a Hell of a lot of accusations and claims and no facts that don’t come from insanely biased sources. I don’t trust the government OR the prisoner and his lawyer. It’s the personal interest and duty of all those people to spin this in their own direction. And this FDL article is a joke. ‘No sheets or pillows’ was, in fact, two blankets and a pillow that’s just part of the mattress. At that point the writer’s bias becomes pretty damn obvious. Which is why I say @Omnes Omnibus: please give me some evidence, ’cause it ain’t in this article and I trust Greenwald as far as I can throw him. Glenn has a wonderful talent for mentioning only that information that suits his argument and leaving out context he must know as a lawyer that completely invalidates his claims.
On the other hand, if you want to claim that his conditions may well be ‘normal’ but nobody should be treated like this period, that’s a pretty good argument. Our entire concept of a prison system is pretty messed up. It’s not supposed to be pleasant, it’s supposed to be punishment, but… what purpose does that punishment serve? Why put someone through this kind of mental and sometimes physical anguish? Our concept of ‘Justice’ is more like ‘Revenge’ than ‘Discipline’.
PS
@Uloborus: It’s NOT supposed to be punishment before trial. It’s suppose to ensure that the accused appears at trial. That’s part of what makes this case different than the general population of convicted felons.
FlipYrWhig
@Uloborus: Greenwald is also doing that thing again where he piles up facts, draws a conclusion from those facts, then when challenged on those conclusions points back to the fact pile. The issue is how the facts lead to the conclusion, not the facts themselves. He does it over and over again.
Alwhite
@cleek:
Remember the move “Falcon & the Snowman?” That guy has been kept in solitary for decades & moved about the country at random intervals.
It can’t serve as a deterrent because it is not publicized. It has to be a sick, twisted, revenge.
PS
@FlipYrWhig: I’ll admit there’s some truth to that, but it’s better than piling up opinions and when challenged on them pointing to the hugeness of the pile. Nothing personal, that’s sorta kinda the Cheney approach to argument and it’s become rather common.
skc
Lurker here, just had to comment. I worked for 11 years in the Texas prison system as a psychologist in several levels of housing. Although I know that the military system is probably different than civilian, his confinement does not sound unusual or punitive. Most inmates told me they would rather be in a single cell than the dormitory/double housing, especially if they are allowed some privileges, which I seem to have read somewhere. Have you ever been to the county jail where the accused are housed prior to conviction? It is not a country club.
eemom
I keep coming back to all those poor people charged with petty crimes who languish in jail for months because they don’t have the money to post bond, and meanwhile lose whatever pittance of a life they had on the “outside.”
And all the poor women doing hard time for minor drug charges while someone else raises their kids.
Yes, there is an AWFUL lot that is fucked up about the criminal justice system in this country. Too bad it’s just the high profile case of one guy accused of leaking documents that high and mighty civil libertarians like Greenwald give a shit about.
Mnemosyne
@PS:
People aren’t supposed to be punished before their trial, but it happens all the time. People are frequently jailed for over a year before their case even comes to trial. Again, from everything I’ve read about PFC Manning’s confinement, it’s pretty standard solitary confinement.
That’s the sad part: people think it’s perfectly okay to treat other prisoners this way, and it’s only when it happens to someone who doesn’t “deserve” it that they freak out.
MoZeu
Nice straw man there. I very much doubt that many – if any – of your readers believe the government’s account of anything unquestioningly. I know I don’t.
I also do not believe Manning or his lawyer’s account unquestioningly.
I’d hope for some independent investigation.
I’d also like to know the procedure for appealing a POI status and whether that has been followed and what was the result. And whether there are any publicly-available documents (filings, findings of fact) resulting from the POI determination and any appeals. I’d also like to see actual evidence in writing that Manning was cleared by a military psychologist earlier this year, and I’d like it verified that he wasn’t reclassified POI at some subsequent point, assuming he was earlier cleared. I’d like to know a lot of things that I don’t know.
Even Manning’s account at face value doesn’t even approach torture. It certainly sucks. It may well be unduly restrictive. But I would need a lot more facts to know.
Hopefully, there will be an independent investigation or the brig will be required to provide specific and clear answers to the facts of his detention.
Just because someone doesn’t accept the word of someone who saw fit to fork over hundreds of thousands of classified documents to a sleazeball like Assange doesn’t mean that they are some stoolie who automatically believes that everything the government is telling them is the truth either. Manning’s conditions may indeed be excessive and there may be an underlying motivation to “turn” him. Just because someone does not believe that this has yet been established as fact does not make them naive.
Don’t you wonder why Manning says he’s been on POI the whole time and yet that it is only for the last 4 weeks that he hasn’t been permitted outdoor exercise. Something does not add up.
FlipYrWhig
@PS: Oh, definitely. IMHO Greenwald is not always great at distinguishing his opinion about facts from the facts themselves; he often argues that his conclusions count as facts because there can be no other explanation for them. But at least he uncovers facts. That’s a vanishing art in media and punditry.
FlipYrWhig
@Mnemosyne: Greenwald is probably pretty consistent about it, and believes that harsh treatment is harsh treatment no matter who receives it. That would match up with what a consistent civil libertarian would think. But muckraking against prisons and detention is getting all mixed up with defending Manning and the notion that the government keeps too many secrets in the name of national security. I think it’s leading us to have too many different conversations at the same time.
Mnemosyne
@FlipYrWhig:
You’re probably right. Part of the problem is the number of people who don’t realize that prisoners are routinely treated like this, so they think that PFC Manning is being singled out and persecuted with unusually harsh treatment when the sad truth is that this is how we treat all prisoners in the US. It’s just that most people don’t know or don’t care.
Omnes Omnibus
@Uloborus: I have consistently been skeptical about the claims. I have based my skepticism largely on my experience with Greenwald’s techniques. There has been enough published and not denied about about Manning’s treatment that I have largely accepted that the conditions under which he is being held are horrible. My question, one that I think is vital here, is whether he is being treated horribly because he is PFC Manning, which is one type of wrong, or if he is being treated horribly because he is a prisoner, which is another type of wrong. The type of outrage and to whom it should be directed differs depending on the answer to that question.
mantis
I don’t believe the military, I don’t believe Manning, and I sure as hell don’t believe anything over at FDL. Oh well.
debbie
@FlipYrWing:
I’d also bet that people are less offended by bad behavior if that bad behavior is in line with their beliefs. For instance, conservatives saw “the bigger picture” when Reagan et al. financed the Contras because it aligned with their political vision, while liberals were beside themselves because it didn’t.
I agree with Alwhite. Maybe it does take having grown up during the 1960s to realize basically just how corrupt this country has always been. I’d bet there’s been bad behavior by every single administration as far back as Washington.
While I don’t support Manning’s actions (who didn’t already know Iraq and Afghanistan were fucked up) and should anyone die as a result, I will think what he did was unforgivable. But I’m not even sure what the facts are anymore. I don’t even know where to find an honest accounting anymore.
sukabi
@Uloborus: so what’s he being punished for??? he hasn’t been convicted of anything yet? The way it works, is that you have to be convicted of something PRIOR to the punishment… and the punishment would consist of confinement for a certain amount of time, not solitary confinement w/o the “frills” of regular solitary.
and I’d like to say that heavy, stiff, carpet does not equal soft, warm blanket.
flyerhawk
John,
It’s not that people are easily duped by the government. It’s that they just don’t care.
A majority of Americans, perhaps even a large majority, tend to view wrongdoers as having no rights and that any poor treatment they receive from the justice system is their own fault.
If Bradley Manning didn’t want to be treated so poorly, well then he shouldn’t have leaked those documents.
If Todd Willingham didn’t want to be executed he shouldn’t have done all those bad things earlier in his life.
The American public may claim they support innocent until proven guilty but what they actually believe is guilty once accused.
MoZeu
@mantis: I think you’ve pretty much said it all there.
Omnes Omnibus
@MoZeu: I don’t believe mantis.
cleek
@sukabi:
well, that’s the theory.
in practice, you get arrested for something big and you go to jail while you await trial. “pre-trial detention”, “remand”, etc.. and it isn’t a special jail, it’s jail-jail.
burnspbesq
@Uloborus:
This discussion hasn’t advanced an inch since it started. There is nearly universal agreement that if Manning is being held under the conditions alleged, it’s barbaric, arguably criminal, and stupid (because it decreases the chances of getting any admissible evidence against Assange out of Manning). There is also a nearly complete absence of information that can reasonably be considered reliable. So on and on it goes. Cole, who is clearly not objective on this subject, will throw out another piece of fresh meat every few days, and people will tear it to shreds, creating more heat but no more light.
Until there is hard info, I’m done with this topic.
General Stuck
That settles it then. If you read it on the hallowed pages of FDL, it’s like the Holy Scriptures written in Jesus ink. Let’s release the poor man into general population, and we can start a dead pool
General Stuck
And weren’t we previously arguing about what Manning’s attorney was saying, and that was most likely the best info, him being an officer and a gentleman.
Mnemosyne
@sukabi:
Sorry, you thought you actually had to be convicted of something to be treated badly in an American jail?
Hopefully, you’ll never have to find out but, no, Manning’s treatment is not unusual, even for people who haven’t been convicted of a thing.
JG
@eemom:
Um, no. Greenwald’s written about the intense depravity of our prison state on more than one occasion and well before the incarceration of Bradley Manning. Bunch of pikers commenting on this blog. GTFO.
sukabi
@burnspbesq: you’re assuming, against all available evidence, that Assange is personally responsible for and guilty of soliciting Manning for information.
sukabi
@Mnemosyne: I realize that, but if you start from the premise that “he’s getting what he deserved” (as is the case with all folks charged, but not yet tried or convicted) then there is very little hope for changing the overall structure of the process.
And I’m assuming that changing the process/levels of incarceration/treatment for prisoners is the goal…
General Stuck
@Omnes Omnibus:
And I don’t believe you. I once believed myself, but lately there are troubling signs, I don’t know that I don’t know what I don’t know. Thank gawd for the blogs though. That there is a place for that sort of thing.
joe from Lowell
I clicked on the link, expecting to find evidence of John’s thesis.
I was disappointed.
The government regularly spins facts to make itself look more sympathetic.
Lawyers frequently spin facts to make their clients look more sympathetic.
Here, we have the government and the guy’s lawyer saying different things, and we’re asked to take one side or the other’s word for it.
General Stuck
@joe from Lowell:
Today, we are all shithouse lawyers.
joe from Lowell
@Mnemosyne:
I’m bothered by the use of solitary confinement and the procedures in supermax prisons. It would be wonderful if this story were to lead to attention to that problem.
I worry, though, that the desire to politicize it – to make this a story an indictment of Obama, to conflate this detention with the actual torture that used to be official policy, to wrap it up in the larger Wikileaks story – will prevent that from happening.
joe from Lowell
@General Stuck: Bring on the UN investigation. At least there’s somebody objective looking into it.
General Stuck
@joe from Lowell:
Absolutely, or The Red Cross
General Stuck
@joe from Lowell:
Though i’m not convinced the conspiracy theorists would believe even the UN.
edit – It seems to me, we are entering an era of people believing what they want to believe, on a mass inconsolable scale.
burnspbesq
@sukabi:
I’m not assuming anything. What I have said from the beginning is that the known facts, and inferences from those facts that I consider reasonable, support a theory that Assange is guilty of conspiracy and aiding and abetting the theft of government property. I have never pretended that my theory is anything but a theory, and anyone who says that I have is either stupid or lying. It is entirely possible that when all the facts are known, there will be no basis for bringing criminal charges against Assange. But I doubt that will be the case.
I have no idea what “evidence” you are referring to. Put it on the table and let’s assess its reliability.
Mnemosyne
@sukabi:
Like joe from Lowell said, I have a feeling that this is going to become “PFC Manning, Persecuted Political Prisoner,” and no one is even going to mention that the treatment he’s getting is routine in American jails and prisons in their urge to make him a martyr. And that kind of pisses me off.
ETA: My point is that it doesn’t matter whether or not he “deserved” it. That just means that the system keeps going the same way because, hey, all of those other people must deserve it, amirite? The point needs to be that no one should be treated this way, deserving or not.
burnspbesq
@sukabi:
Also, I have consistently conceded that if all we can get Assange for is the “receiving stolen property” offense under 18 USC 641, that raises troubling First Amendment questions.
eemom
@burnspbesq:
re Assange, check out Michael Lind’s piece at Salon if you haven’t already. imo, he makes Greenwald look like the pissy little excuse for a “lawyer” that he is.
ETA: I think he also addresses the First Amendment point too, or maybe I read that somewhere else. I personally think the claim of Assange as “journalist” is absolute bullshit.
sukabi
@burnspbesq: (because it decreases the chances of getting any admissible evidence against Assange out of Manning).
that statement is based on the assumption that Assange conspired with Manning prior to Manning’s removal of the information. And that Manning is guilty.
It also ignores that there are supposed to be “whistleblower” protections for people like Manning who are trying to illuminate illegal activity.
sy2d
@Mnemosyne:
Remand to solitary? C’mon.
300baud
This is one fucked up discussion here.
There is the near-universal assumption that we can’t trust the government at all. And a lot of people seem to think that we can’t trust anybody opposed to the government’s actions (a leaker, his lawyer, a supporter, a journalist) because they’re partisan. With the frequent conclusion being, “Oh well,” or “a pox on both their houses.” Or perhaps we just need a third party to investigate.
That’s absurd. If we can’t trust the government to report basic facts or to not abuse the vulnerable for political ends, then that is a problem right there. A giant problem.
People like to bitch a lot about clueless CEOs fucking up the country by letting their employees run wild as long as things look fine on the surface. But given that we have a government of, by, and for the people, anybody who’s just shrugging their shoulders at this kind of thing is just as bad as those CEOs.
General Stuck
@eemom:
The latest scree from Glenn, on this story, just screams out crackup and desperation for credibility salvation. I almost feel sorry for the dude, now having his own publication raising doubts that does not much mince words.
joe from Lowell
@General Stuck:
Screw the conspiracy theorists. There are still people at the GOS insisting that Barack Obama opposed DADT repeal.
But clearly, concern about this goes beyond the usual suspects, and there seems to be a plausible reason for that concern.
There are plenty of weirdos on the internet, but there are a lot more reasonable people who would treat a credible report by a credible investigator seriously.
joe from Lowell
@sukabi:
But that’s just it – that’s not what Manning was doing. He, and Assaunge, were releasing huge volumes of information, much of which didn’t illuminate any illegal activity. They clearly had another motive – be it a broad belief in undermining secrecy, a desire to give the U.S. a bloody nose, or some other motive. A whole heck of a lock of what Wikileaks released can’t be described as whistelblowing at all.
General Stuck
@sy2d:
Here is the thing. A remand to solitary is usually done for several reasons. It could be vindictive, but also as Manning’s official status of “prevention of injury” may well have been done for Manning’s safety, either to himself, or from others in the general population of the prison. And the military is taking no chances on either count due to the high profile nature of this case, and political fallout, if something were to happen to Mr. Manning. And I am fairly certain, that those accused of doling out national secrets, are usually placed in solitary, as SOP, for such alleged crimes. And once in solitary status, there are strict protocols that are followed for every one of these cases. Since no report has claimed he is being interrogated at this stage, for further evidence against himself or someone else, it seems to me that logic would have it, it is being done as a safety measure. But I surely don’t know, and would welcome further investigation by an objective source. And not blatherings on blogs.
eemom
@Mnemosyne:
I agree. And also as Flip said above, the problem is that there are so many and varied larger issues affecting so many, many people that are being trampled and confused under this particular darling crusade of Greenwald and his selectively self-righteous ilk.
Questioning incarceration/punishment before trial, and questioning the use of solitary confinement for any convicted criminal, for example, are vastly different issues.
Mike M
I am in no position to judge, but if Pfc. Manning is being held in conditions that are in violation of the UCMJ for pre-trial confinement, then his attorney ought to file for relief in the courts, if he hasn’t already done so. I find it impossible to cut through all the noise on this issue, though, to feel comfortable that I understand the facts.
Pfc. Manning has been accused of some extremely serious crimes, so it makes me uncomfortable when he is hailed by some as a hero and political prisoner. If the accusations against him are true, he may have jeopardized the lives of hundreds of people or more worldwide. According to transcripts of IM chats, if accurate, Manning didn’t know the contents of most of the documents himself since they were too many to read, suggesting that his actions were reckless rather than carefully considered. Still, I want him treated fairly within the bounds of common decency and the spirit of the law.
Prisons are horrible places, and I wish there was more attention being paid to conditions for prisoners generally. I live in Phoenix, and if you commit a petty crime in Maricopa County you will likely serve your sentence in a tent, where summer temperatures routinely exceed 110 F. Even before conviction, you are likely to spend time in deplorable jail conditions if you are unable to make bail.
If any good comes out of this issue, I hope that it will lead to better treatment for all military prisoners and not just a single celebrity case.
joe from Lowell
@300baud: I think you have a quite mistaken view of how the public should relate to the government in a democracy. It is not a sign of a bad government for the public to feel that it should be skeptical* of what the government says. The public should always be skeptical of what the government says, even of reliable, dependable, transparent governments. It’s important that it remain so, because that skepticism is what will keep the government reliable and transparent in its dealings.
*skepticism needs to be distinguished from cynicism or hostility. Skepticism is the insistence on more information before drawing a conclusion, and that’s what the public should do. They should not merely reject anything the government says as a lie – that’s no different from just accepting anything the government says as the gospel truth, except with a pose of worldliness.
Tim I
Cole, if you’re starting to accept Greenwald as a trusted source, there may be no hope for you.
I would not want to be held under the conditions Private Manning is being held under – although I could read a lot of things that I never seem to find the time for. This is why, I avoid committing major Federal crimes. I’m sure Manning regrets his actions, but it’s a little too late.
I think you should read the Daily Kos post that David Mizner so kindly links to. Manning is being treated like any over maximum security prisoner held in this facility.
Jay B.
@eemom:
Awesome. Lind’s piece. As proof of something. You would think that was a well-reasoned piece, because it’s literally the dumbest thing Salon has ever posted since they put Paglia out to pasture.
He quoted “New York Times v. Sullivan” as the “Pentagon Papers case” (which we all support right? The Pentagon Papers? Yeah?), when of course, what he cited was the case that determined what constitutes libel and not “New York Times v. United States”, which determined the legality of publishing classified material.
And even beyond his botched citation, he completely obliterates HIS OWN CASE by citing the Pentagon Papers:
And conceivably gold coins will come out of my ass. And yet they haven’t. So where is the eventuality of Assange’s guilt on the Espionage Act? Is it because he’s a US citizen? What’s conceivable that he is, in fact, guilty of anything? Asserting someone is guilty is NOT, in fact, proof of guilt.
On top of that, as Scott Lemieux said, Assange is actually the Times in this case, not Ellsberg and that, your moronic assertion aside that “Assange is not a journalist” (because I guess that requires some kind of special badge), the U.S. would face a high burden to shred the First Amendment in order to prosecute him.
Lind continues:
And since prosecutions automatically equal “guilty”, I guess I’m glad about the standard Lind is laying out. The Left, evidently, disregards the “rule of law” when the government decides not to prosecute the media when the Court said it “could have”. This is in every way stupid, so I can see where you guys support the thesis.
Lind, immediately following the hypothetical prosecution AND hypothetical conviction that proves his case against the lawless Left:
Oh, well then, Ellsberg and Russo got off on a technicality! You really believe that? Or is it ALSO possible that the government, in addition to funding a dirty tricks team to discredit Ellsberg, decided that, in fact, there was no way they could successfully prosecute Ellsberg in the first place?
So under Lind’s theory of why the Left is equally uncommitted to the rule of law as the right (and most of you assholes), when the state decides not to prosecute for whatever reason is proof of our objection to due process (?) but because it in some sense could have prosecuted a guy like Dan Ellsberg it means that he, like Assange, would have automatically be found guilty.
QED.
El Cid
@joe from Lowell: Oh, c’mon. The Founding Fathers clearly had in mind that the people should allow the government to do what it thinks it needs to do without them knowing, and when it’s absolutely necessary, to explain things to the citizenry based on secret evidence that they promise they have but just can’t share it with the public. What kind of fringe weirdo are you?
sukabi
@joe from Lowell: you’re also assuming that Manning and Assange were working together from the beginning… and that they shared similar goals.
I doubt that this is the case.
What has been illustrated is that for all the “security mania” that this country has been subjected to over the last 10 years, is that the very people who are supposed to be the most security conscious are pathetically inept and stupid.
That Manning, a pfc, had access to such a wide range of information from diplomatic cables to raw footage and transcripts of combat operations AND that he could copy and remove all that information WITHOUT being caught after the first day is a testament to how badly broken and how stupid the classification system has become.
burnspbesq
@sukabi:
I don’t have the statutory text in front of me, and I have no knowledge of what the case law is, but I would be inclined to think that whistleblower-protection statutes apply to civilians. As you may have noticed, Manning is not one of those.
sukabi
@burnspbesq: so then in your view he should have no protections for exposing war crimes?
sy2d
@General Stuck:
What/who is an objective source?
burnspbesq
@sukabi:
Even if that’s true, I’m sorry to inform you that it doesn’t work as a defense to any charge that Manning is likely to face. You should try harder to not conflate issues that are unrelated to each other.
burnspbesq
@sukabi:
Set aside for a moment whether any of the stolen material actually exposes war crimes, which is a red herring in this discussion. Yes, I think that if it can be proven that Manning committed a crime, he should be punished. Why do you have a problem with that?
Jay B.
@burnspbesq:
Speaking of conflating, I’d like to know where sukabi wrote that this was a defense of Manning in any way, rather than an indictment of the Security State. But feel free to continue to be condescending, it makes you look incredibly smart!
Suffern ACE
@PS: Yes. I do believe that the punishment is supposed to start after the trial.
sukabi
@burnspbesq: ahhh, but they are related.
It depends on the level of security clearance Manning had or if he had any at all, and the classification level of the information he gathered and released.
It doesn’t seem to me that the information was being safeguarded at all, if he was able to copy and burn it to a disk… if it was “secured information” the files would have been protected against copying.
General Stuck
@sy2d:
The UN or the International Red Cross to investigate comes to mind.
sukabi
@burnspbesq: what I have a problem with is people who assume that a “crime of illumination” is greater than the crime being illuminated.
And also, that someone is guilty because their names ended up on the evening news.
burnspbesq
@sukabi:
I’m sorry, I must be unusually dense today. Can you help me understand how that is relevant to the question of whether Manning violated either Article 108 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice or 18 USC 641?
sukabi
@burnspbesq: since you’ve already set yourself up as prosecutor, judge and jury it doesn’t really matter, does it?
polyorchnid octopunch
Well, after reading all this, it’s become very apparent to me why the US is the most dangerous criminal nation on earth.
El Cid
I don’t think this will go very far towards happening, but via Greenwald, here’s this from the AP:
Omnes Omnibus
@polyorchnid octopunch: Do share.
sukabi
@burnspbesq: personally I don’t care / don’t know that he violated anything other than Very Important People’s “sensibilities”, and neither do you…
what I do know, from my own military experience, is that it used to be the case that any confidential or secret information and access to that information was tracked… the person gaining access had to sign for access, and their clearance for that information was checked prior to being granted access. That NONE of that seems to be the case here, I’d have to question whether the information was actually classified at any level and that it seems to have been stored in a large “info dump”. And if it was classified, then the “security protocols” protecting that information are at best laughable to non-existent.
Uloborus
@FlipYrWhig:
Greenwald is marvelous at piling up facts. Here is the problem: Greenwald pretends to be an expert, but argues like a lawyer. If there is perspective that his audience needs to understand a fact, he ONLY includes it if that perspective supports his conclusion. He is quite happy (for example) to rant about something being done illegally in defiance of the constitution when in fact it was court reviewed and approved as is the standard practice. It’s not technically a lie, he’s just leaving out the part that makes his entire argument void.
Have you ever been lied to with half-truths? Have you ever known someone who does it systematically, and then seen what the actual truth was? That approach is worse than if they just flat-out lie to you. It’s much harder to disprove, and you learn that you can’t even trust the things they say that SEEM to be true when you look into them.
And that’s not touching on the way his conclusions frequently have no relation to the facts he’s dug up and instead are based on his monolithic hatred of all government, period. He’s a libertarian and he acts like one.
joe from Lowell
@sukabi:
I’m not actually, although I can see how you could get that impression from the way I phrased my comment.
I just sort of threw “or Assaunge” in there because his motives were clearly not just whistleblowing, either.
I don’t have an opinion one way or the other on whether they were working together, or whether Manning just dumped all of this stuff on Wikileaks.
John - A Motley Moose
A lot of different points of view have been made in this thread. Leaving aside the miserable state of our justice system and focusing only on Manning’s treatment, the biggest issue, at the moment, seems to be the POI. Get that lifted and his treatment would definitely look different.
One thing that struck me from that post on FDL hasn’t been mentioned. I seriously wondered about his mental state after reading this part of the post.
“Our conversations, which take place in the presence of marines and electronic monitoring equipment, typically revolve around topics in physics, computer science, and philosophy; he recently mentioned that he hopes to one day make use of the GI Bill towards earning a graduate degree in Physics and a bachelors in Political Science.”
Is he so sure of being acquitted that he thinks he’ll be able to use the GI Bill someday or is he incapable of facing reality?
sukabi
@John – A Motley Moose: don’t think that piece in the article was to question his mental stability, but to put a “human face” to the man…
It also puts the lie to claims that he’s being held in the conditions he’s in because he’s a threat to himself… A guy that’s making plans for his future (regardless if they are realistic or not) isn’t suicidal.
joe from Lowell
I didn’t think the protective status was based on the fear of Manning hurting himself, but a fear of Manning being attacked by other prisoners.
No?
sukabi
@joe from Lowell: if his “solitary confinement” is for protection from other prisoners, then why does he not get regular blankets and pillows in his cell? Why is he barred from exercising in his cell?
Surely the other prisoners can’t telepathically smother him in his sleep… or increase his heart rate to dangerous levels…
AhabTRuler
@joe from Lowell: My understanding is that a POI order is solely concerned with self-harm.
However, I would speculate that there would be a different administrative process if he were threatened by the general population of the brig.
moops
@FlipYrWhig:
but if you don’t dig further than just the facts, then you don’t get at the motives, and without motives you will never change anything.
People have become blase about prisoner cruelty, so it is now time to get people to think a little bit about *why* cruelty seems to be important here.
Greenwald’s hypothesis here is that the harsh treatment is meant to break him and get him to provide incriminating testimony against JA. He piles up facts to support this hypothesis, and most likely truly believes it himself. If true then we should be sickened and fearful.
another hypothesis floated here at BJ is that this is typical torture for american prisoners. Some evidence was provided on that score. If true, we should be sickened in a different way, and possibly also fearful for other reasons.
The actions we should take are dependent on the hypothesis you are working with.
polyorchnid octopunch
@Omnes Omnibus: Well, you certainly seem to have more criminals than everyone else, if your prison population is anything to go by.
polyorchnid octopunch
@moops: This is pretty much where I’m at. Your country’s prison system (and by extension, it’s justice system) is seriously broken. When you turn prisoners into profit centres, you end up with more prisoners. Has anyone been following the GA prisoner’s strike? The thing that is most shocking about the demands is the demand to end the slavery.
As for Manning, I find the idea that they’re rolling this in to help break him down to get a confession out of him quite believable. I’d like to refer to the scene in Darkness at Noon where the interviewer is talking about how to get the peasants to listen to the demands for where their food was hidden.
General Stuck
It’s called isolation from the general population. Kind of what is happening, minus the intense personal observation by the guards and clearing of any potential means of suicide.
General Stuck
@John – A Motley Moose:
I would like to co sign your comment. All of it.
Dilbatt
I will say that I naively hoped that I would have more trust in our government when Obama got elected. I now realize that was extremely naive. I am proud of many of this administrations achievements, but we still have a way to go.
mclaren
@skc:
That’s because the real torture in American prisons is rape.
No one seems to want to talk about how American prisoners are constantly savagely gang-raped. Look up the term “covered wagon.” You’ll get an education.
mclaren
@Dilbatt:
Quite true. Ordering American citizens kidnapped and thrown into dungeons forever with charges is a good start, and commanding the military to assassinate U.S. citizens without even alleging that they have committed a crime is even more impressive — but Obama can do better.
If Obama impales babies on a sharpened stake while giving a speech about the importance of common human decency, that should do it.
I look forward to Obama’s second term, when he will probably re-enanct the ixiptli rite of the Aztecs and flay American citizens alive, then do a dance while dressed in their bloody skins. Perhaps his second inauguration will feature the ritual sacrifice of dozens of children by cutting out their hearts while he gives an eloquent speech about the need to uphold basic human dignity…?
300baud
@joe from Lowell:
Or you could have a mistaken view of my view.
I’m not saying people shouldn’t be skeptical. I’m saying people are deeply cynical, and also apathetic about that. Like their government is the weather or something, utterly beyond their control.
The attitude reminds me of the Russians I know. Which is terrifying. Assuming that it’s all awful and you can’t fix it guarantees that things will be awful and unfixable.
Tim I
@sukabi:
He has a pillow and two blankets. No prisoner in maximum security is allowed to exercise in their cell – I will admit that I don’t really understand why.
He is being treated like every other prisoner in his wing of this brig.
sukabi
@Tim I:
the “pillow” is built into the mattress, meaning it’s a useless fucking lump for your head…
and from the article:
Pfc. Manning, as well as all other detainees, is issued adequate bedding.” — Quantico brig official Brian Villiard Interview with Glenn Greenwald, posted online December 14 2010
“…First Lieutenant Brian Villiard, an officer at Quantico, said [Manning] is allowed bedding of “non-shreddable” material. “I’ve held it, I’ve felt it, it’s soft, I’d sleep under it,” he told The Daily Beast.” — Quantico brig official Brian Villard, Interview with Daily Beast, December 17 2010
Manning’s Response
Manning related to me on December 19 2010 that his blankets are similar in weight and heft to lead aprons used in X-ray laboratories, and similar in texture to coarse and stiff carpet. He stated explicitly that the blankets are not soft in the least and expressed concern that he had to lie very still at night to avoid receiving carpet burns. The problem of carpet burns was exacerbated, he related, by the stipulation that he must sleep only in his boxer shorts as part of the longstanding POI order. Manning also stated on December 19 2010 that hallway-mounted lights shine through his window at night. This constant illumination is consistent with reports from attorney David Coombs’ blog that marines must visually inspect Manning as he sleeps.
it’s nice that you will accept the “official” response without question…
soonergrunt
@John – A Motley Moose:
It is extremely unlikely that he will get the GI Bill.
For one thing, they have his bragging to Adrian Lamo as one piece of evidence, the presence of classified information on his personal laptop as another piece of evidence, and things he specifically bragged about taking and uploading to Wikileaks have…shown up on Wikileaks.
Additionally, his chain of command had begun the paperwork for an early discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions for habitual misconduct under AR-635-20, Ch. 14 before he pulled his little stunt. (What the fuck was in their minds not revoking his access, I’ll never know.)
Even if he’s acquitted at court-martial, he will never see a dime of GI Bill, because you have to be Honorably discharged get to get it.
soonergrunt
@joe from Lowell: Supposedly it’s both.
His chain of command in Iraq supposedly was concerned about his mental health (but I’ve seen no details) and there is currently an RCM 706 Sanity Board convened to determine whether or not he is capable of assisting counsel in his own defense.
Now, the Government has denied requesting the RCM 706 board. Manning’s lawyer has not denied requesting the board. I don’t know anything about how the brig is run, but I’d be surprised if they weren’t aware that Manning’s sanity was an issue at question in the up-comming court-martial. All those psychiatrists in and out to see one prisoner were probably noticed by somebody.
General Stuck
@soonergrunt:
That’s what I figured, and can you imagine the response from his supporters if the POI was lifted for self injury, and Manning tried, or succeeded in offing himself. Or was sent to general population and got shived.
FlipYrWhig
@sukabi: Um, I’m not terribly concerned about his uncomfortably heavy and scratchy blankets and ill-positioned pillow. It’s not supposed to be luxury accommodations. Details like that seem to me to be so calculated to sound pitiful that they end up having the reverse effect. Other aspects (like isolation from other inmates and interruption and deliberate annoyance-making by the guards) sound much more objectionable. I’d focus on those.
soonergrunt
@General Stuck: Oh, if either of those happened, this place would be in full-on freak out mode with post after post about how the military either had him killed or intentionally allowed him to kill himself.
The main reason for that is because his supporters think he shouldn’t be in jail, he should be getting a medal.
This is because they are fucking stupid, but that is beside the point.
What most people do not seem to understand is that where Bradley Manning is concerned, the Commanding Officer and staff of the brig have one goal and one goal only: to deliver him to safely to his court-martial.