I cocked an eye at this claim, as I wondered a) if it were true and b) how the military could get away with such a flagrant violation if it were true in this highly publicized case.
Then I began to wonder why, after all, is it taking so long to try Bradley Manning, and his trial has been postponed, and what's up?
Could it be, I wondered, that our Community-Organizer-in-Chief wants to kick the can down the road on this controversial case to either a) the Romney presidency where it won't be his fault if they throw the book at Manning or b) Obama II, where he could perhaps even pardon the lad?
Of course, you can't get any information from WikiLeaks itself, despite its claims to be a transparent leaker, and the Manning case tends to fall out of the mainstream news when there is nothing to report.
I personally am of the opinion that, as the tough guys say in the army, "Manning is right where he needs to be" -- behind bars. However, I think Juan Mendez, the UN special rapporteur on torture, should indeed be allowed to visit him, and that it's disgraceful (and counterproductive) that he hasn't been allowed to see him -- which then gives Russia or China or whomever the alibi they need to keep the UN mandates out of their prisons on the grounds of "national security". I'm for strengthening the universality of the UN system.
I've been perplexed at the fact that some of those in the Administration who quietly indicate that they think the treatment of Manning *is* some kind of cruel and inhumane punishment, even if not classic torture, haven't quit the Administration. But it seems to be an easy case to do politically-correct star turns on. And then there's Crowley, who lost his job over a tweet about this, so he took the bullet for all of them, you know?
But I wondered what was really "up" with the legality of this detention.
So I asked around and found a friend who knows about these things in a generic sense, and here's what he had to say, which is interesting -- he thinks that *the defense* has asked to keep Manning in pre-trial because then they can get that booked as "time served" and reduce his sentence:
I would be very, very surprised if the delay in going to trial is not the result of defense requests for delay of trial. This is almost certainly the case. I am guessing that the reason for the long delay is Manning is cooperating, any time he serves is time credited to his sentence anyway, and his lawyers are trying for a plea bargain (called a Pre-Trial Agreement, or PTA) and they are thinking that letting some time run will give them a more realistic, i.e. more favorable damage assessment concerning his treachery. And tempers cool.
I have heard a certain amount of jabber about the conditions of his confinement, and I doubt any branch of the military would be upset if potential leakers think he's being tortured. The reality most likely goes along these lines: well, yes, Marine brigs are pretty austere places. Not a lot of amusement there. But they are nowadays also clean and run according to regs and well supervised and well funded......which makes them among the best jails on earth. You want grim, try Horry County, SC.
Consider the problems from the Marine Corps' perspective now. They have a responsibility with regard to this prisoner, and they go by the book in addressing it. They have to keep him safe. Manning knows he's screwed up his life big time, and may well be suicidal. Which means, well, no sharp objects, no glass, no rope or string, constant surveillance (meaning in a well lit area) and so on. That's pretty constraining. They can't mix his with people who have been convicted, because that's illegal. And they have to accept the possibility that another pretrial detainee may decide to harm the sorry SOB. So.....the natural tendency is to segregate him from everybody.
I personally believe both military and civilian confinement professionals are inclined to publically underplay the horrors of solitary confinement, which is one of the few forms of torture that most people don't understand as torture, and is therefore useful in jails and prisons as an instrument of control. But....are we talking actual solitary confinement, or just very limited contact? There's a huge difference psychologically. Talking to a guard makes a huge difference. Okay, it's not his wiki friends, but it would be enough to keep his brain from melting. I would be surprised if his commander is not checking in with him on a regular basis; maybe they are deployed or too far away, but that is standard. I mean, look, it's standard even with forcible child rapists. Some officer stops in and talks to him for a few minutes and asks if he needs anything, etc. I would be very surprised if he doesn't get chaplain visits. I'm not saying his life is a picnic, but the big issue of solitary confinement is that deprived of all contact the human brain becomes unhinged from
Probably at sentencing he will apply for Allen credit, ie, argue that the harshness of his Pretrial confinement entitles him to more than day for day credit. Well, good luck, he gets his chance to argue that.
Your concern about Obama is misplaced, I think. First off, forget the Nobel Peace Prize, the Obamanites are as secretive as anybody else. It's the default setting of the mid level bureaucrat. Yeah yeah, I know the rhetoric, but unless you have seen different assume they're all the same. The brief flowering of openness was about 9/11 and intelligence sharing, not Obama. Manning ended that era, I'm guessing.
Now, as we know from the reports by Andy Greenberg at Forbes
(who is always obsessively fascinated with the subject of WikiLeaks seemingly to the point of sneaking admiration) about David House's interrogation, maybe the prosecution is also hoping that if they drag out the pre-trial, they will get more people to sing.Ideally, I imagine the Justice Department and/or CIA and the military of course want to get more evidence that Julian Assange is directly tied to Manning, so that they can do more to attempt to prosecute, or perhaps justify more punitive actions regarding WikiLeaks.
My gut on this is that US law is not going to enable Justice to really come up with a case against Assange. But perhaps the G-men will surprise even me, even under Obama. After all, they killed bin Ladn, remember?
I don't see the *lawyers* of Manning complaining about the 900 days, but just WikiLeaks. That makes me think perhaps the theory that they are getting him time served off his sentence could well be the case. Of course, the defense is also trying to get Manning released completely and even arguing that his pre-trial was so harsh that he has already been punished enough. But that gambit is not likely to work on the military.
While the 900 days in a military prison, where Manning has been well fed and clothed at least, isn't the Siege of Leningrad, it isn't a picnic and may indeed be characterized by the UN -- if they got to examine it -- as cruel and inhumane. So this isn't going to last forever.
I'd be interested to study up further on "group of Boston hackers who attended BUILDS, a hackerspace House founded" and HOPE (Hackers on Planet Earth) -- House's group. I'm reminded that it was in Boston that the conference mentioned at this summer's tech@state conference some years ago promoting WikiLeaks to Boston and New England hackers was also key to the "Wikification" of the mindset of tech managers at State. It's always been my theory that the WikiLeaks became possible not because of the vindictive dweeb Bradley Manning or the anarcho-communist Julian Assange -- or at least not only because of these bad actors -- but because of the Wikification of the State Department and military themselves. They collated their files and took them out of silos first, making them more vulnerable.
It's unfortunate in a way that the trial of Manning will now preclude any discussion of whether WikiLeaks was harmful or not. Of course, the defense finds that awful, because they think they could exonerate their client by showing that WikiLeaks didn't really do any damage -- the old "it's virtual, dude" excuse. Liberal media coverage of the case has also sought to discount or even scoff at the damage.
But I think it would be great if this aspect were examined because it will enable testimony on how WikiLeaks *did* harm sources and the United States. And even though this function won't be achieved in this trial, it should be achieved somewhere else, possibly in a Congressional hearing, to counter the narrative that the WikiLeaks frauds themselves are perpetrating, to the effect that no harm was done (or worse, as Birgita Jonsdottir told me in Dublin in answer to my direct challenge to her about WikiLeaks harm, that the harm done was justified by the disclosures of supposed US wrongdoing, and that the harm done to her Twitter followers for Twitter having to turn over her account information to the DOJ is just as bad -- of course it isn't, and she's disgraceful.)
Defense attorney David Coombs will have to come up with some kind of narrative for his client -- and regrettably, he's still sticking to the "my transagender made me do it line":
In addition to asserting there was no real damage done to U.S. security, the defense argued that Manning was a troubled man struggling with gender-identity issues, that the command structure in his unit failed him and that the information should not have been classified.
This undermines gay rights as I've pointed out
and as a gay journalist has pointed out more eloquently.PS Here's an interesting blog providing a critical view of the reporting by Glenn Greenwald and others on the Manning case.
Recent Comments