Obama personnally supports treatment of Manning

[Thanas]

Obama came into office with an agenda of controlling leaks of information; he probably sees Manning as having personally insulted him by making such a massive leak. I’d rather have a proper Bush 2.0 in any case, because at least by now our fucking 250 billion dollars of warplanes would be bombing the shit out of Gaddafis tanks.

Yep. Bush was at least upfront and rather competent about executing what he thought was sound military and foreign policy. Unlike Obama who is incompetent and indecisive at best and has ulterior shrouded motives at worst.

Bush and competent? No. Just no.

[Zixinus]

Todeswind, what they are doing is torture, plain and simple. It is not a legally easily recognized form of torture and I am sure that Obama's lawyers can spin the same bullshit you are doing, but it is torture. Being an unorthodox form of torture doesn't change a thing on that fact.

What we are seeing now is nothing more than a long, drawn-out death-row of someone who has pissed of an imperialistic superpower by showing the world what it really is. The USA is not a place of justice or freedom any more than China. Only the cosmetics are different.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Agreed. We deserve all the scorn and vitriol the whole world has to heap onto us for this shit. We also deserve fucking riots in the streets in perpetuity for allowing it. Fuck Obama, that fucking insult to snakes and weasels!

[Todeswind]

Todeswind, what they are doing is torture, plain and simple. It is not a legally easily recognized form of torture and I am sure that Obama's lawyers can spin the same bullshit you are doing, but it is torture. Being an unorthodox form of torture doesn't change a thing on that fact.

I don't dispute that it will plausibly be defined as either torture or at least a violation of civil rights either as a legal precedent set by Manning himself or by legislation enacted in response to his treatment at some point in the near future. Neither of these will assist Manning in the here and now.

What we are seeing now is nothing more than a long, drawn-out death-row of someone who has pissed of an imperialistic superpower by showing the world what it really is. The USA is not a place of justice or freedom any more than China. Only the cosmetics are different.

Manning is being charged with treason for leaking thousands of classified documents to a foreign national who is part of a NGO who's sole function is the dissemination of information which is closely linked to officials in foreign governments.

His detention while unquestionably unpleasant and arguably a violation of his rights is not as heinous or arbitrary as the college students arrested and tortured with cattle prods in China for requesting greater political freedom.

[Thanas]

Because of course, China, unlike the USA, has a history of claiming to be the shining beacon of civil rights and freedom.

[PeZook]

You guys are aware there are several punishment for treason in US law, right?

It's not either "kill the fucker" or "let him go". You could...wait for it! Wait foooor it!

FINE HIM AND GIVE HIM A DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE

Or throw him in jail for a few years.

But the US is going for the death penatly because Manning embarassed the shit out of you. That's what makes your glourious country as bad as China. Somebody pointed out the Saudis and their public manglings of thieves - what the US is doing is exactly the same.

A civilized country tailors the punishment to fit the crime. An autocracy does whatever the hell the autocrat wants. The US is somewhere between these two extremes: not quite running over protesters with tanks, but not really just in its application of the law, either.

[Sarevok]

Obama came into office with an agenda of controlling leaks of information; he probably sees Manning as having personally insulted him by making such a massive leak. I’d rather have a proper Bush 2.0 in any case, because at least by now our fucking 250 billion dollars of warplanes would be bombing the shit out of Gaddafis tanks.

Yep. Bush was at least upfront and rather competent about executing what he thought was sound military and foreign policy. Unlike Obama who is incompetent and indecisive at best and has ulterior shrouded motives at worst.

Bush and competent? No. Just no.

Well he was competent at getting his way in politics. The common excuse for Obama used to be that he could not get anything done in the US political system. Now contrast his record with Bush. Right or wrong Bush actually got his way when it came to starting wars and implementing questionable security measures.

Bush could reach his goals alright, it's just that they happened to foolish or immoral types of goals.

[Thanas]

Pezook, a quick note: The prosecutor has stated that they will not go for the death penalty. Most likely they will go for life in prison.

Not fun either, of course.

[Todeswind]

Pezook, a quick note: The prosecutor has stated that they will not go for the death penalty. Most likely they will go for life in prison.

Not fun either, of course.

Either way the issue in question is the acceptable conditions under which the accused can legally be detained prior to trial which is neither here nor there.

[Metahive]

When the treatment of a person that hasn't even been convicted of anything yet mirrors that of people in a supermax then yes, it's here and there.

[Todeswind]

When the treatment of a person that hasn't even been convicted of anything yet mirrors that of people in a supermax then yes, it's here and there.

That was sort of my point. It should be irrelevant in any discussion of treatment of a prisoner prior to conviction whether the prosecutor is seeking the death penalty or not.

[Thanas]

It is however when it is part of a pattern of the Government coming down hard on him.

[Todeswind]

Fair enough.

[Zixinus]

Especially when said treatment looks suspiciously like an attempt at "braking in" the prisoner for brainwashing. This is a common tactic of dictatorships to give the cosmetics of a fair trial: brainwash, beat and torture until the accused is telling whatever the people pulling the strings want him to tell.

[Todeswind]

Unfortunately for Manning because "recreational sensory deprivation" isn't currently on the books I don't think anyone can do much more than kvetch about it. Manning might well set a precedent for this either to become standard practice in treason cases or for it to be prohibited treatment for all prisoners.

While I would frankly prefer it be established as prohibited I'm not hopeful.

[PeZook]

If his attorney is any good, maybe they can use the angle of cruel and unusual punishment.

It's good to hear the prosecutor isn't quite as barbaric as I thought, though. Life in prison gives the possibility of him being released later when/if your country grows sane again.

Unless he continues to be kept in supermax conditions, then he might just go insane after a few years.

[Todeswind]

If his prosecutor is any good, maybe they can use the angle of cruel and unusual punishment.

You mean the defender and yes, that does seem plausible. That would also have the effect of setting a legal precedent preventing it from happening in the future.

It's good to hear the prosecutor isn't quite as barbaric as I thought, though. Life in prison gives the possibility of him being released later when/if your country grows sane again.

It's common practice to toss as many charges as you think might plausibly stick at someone guilty of a crime in the hopes that if the one you actually want to convict them on doesn't work you might be able to fall back on a lesser charge. Al Capone being arrested on tax evasion is the most famous example of this.

It is likewise common practice to try and use a more serious charge like the death penalty in the hopes of getting a confession on a lesser charge. I suspect this is the reason the death penalty charge was put on the table.

[wautd]

In related news

Hillary Clinton's Spokesman P.J. Crowley Resigns After Criticism Of Wikileaks Suspect Treatment

Just days after news came out that State Department spokesperson PJ Crowley had called Bradley Manning’s treatment “ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid,” Crowley has resigned. Sources tell CNN Crowley’s resignation today was the result of pressure from an angry White House. He will be replaced by Mike Hammer, who previously served as his deputy. In a statement, Crowley said his comments “were intended to highlight the broader, even strategic impact of discreet actions undertaken by national security agencies every day and their impact on our global standing and leadership.”

"The exercise of power in today's challenging times and relentless media environment must be prudent and consistent with our laws and values," the statement continued. Crowley has told friends he is concerned that Manning’s apparent mistreatment will undermine his legitimate prosecution and could damage President Obama’s global reputation. Click for more on Manning’s treatment.

[Thanas]

Already posted on the previous page.

[Anguirus]

Thanks to Thanas and Edi for the articles they have posted. Been following this horrid saga here and on Twitter.

I'm doing some soul-searching right now, which may result in an essay or open letter summing up my feelings. Regardless, Obama has seriously, perhaps irreparably damaged my chances of voting for him for anything, ever again.

I'm in Texas, so for the most part voting a straight Democrat ticket is the best way to do a little good. But at the top of the ticket, blank unless I find a third-party candidate who's not crazy.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Out of the ordinary? Compared to what? The last case of a charge of treason in the USA prior to Manning was Adam Pearlman and it isn't as though we can compare their conditions till Perlman is apprehended or killed.

It is way the fuck out of the ordinary for someone in pre-trial detention. The charge does not matter in terms of the treatment you receive while awaiting trial.

[Todeswind]

It is way the fuck out of the ordinary for someone in pre-trial detention. The charge does not matter in terms of the treatment you receive while awaiting trial.

The crime you're being accused of does affect the manner in which you're detained prior to trial as well as the level of security under which you're held in detention prior to trial, the conditions under which someone awaiting trial for securities fraud may be substantially less restrictive than the conditions under which someone awaiting trial for a violent offense or a sexual crime for example. Likewise people who've committed state and federal crimes are kept under different levels of security and are permitted slightly different conditions of detention.

Even within this they will commonly alter the conditions of a someone awaiting trial, theoretically speaking to ensure the well being of the person in question till trial. The most obvious example of this and the most comparable to Manning's current situation is the practice of keeping pedophiles out of the general population prior to trial as "prison justice" tends to mean that they don't survive to trial. They are kept under similar conditions of isolation to keep them safe so that they can face trial. Manning is, by all accounts, a nonviolent offender but simply being hit with the treason label is more than enough that the general population is overtly hostile to him.

--> Edit: Falsely accused pedophiles are killed just as frequently as guilty ones in general prison population, so far as they're concerned the accusation is enough. This does not excuse the rest of the treatment but it does explain why they would keep him in isolation for 23 hours out of the day (excluding lawyers visits)

[Thanas]

Update

The forced "resignation" of State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley -- for the mortal sin of denouncing the abusive detention of Bradley Manning -- has apparently proven to be a clarifying moment for many commentators about what the President is and how he functions in these areas. Writing at Time's Swampland, Mark Benjamin identifies the real crux of the controversy:

Free speech advocates are shocked, and, as I wrote last week on TIME.com, concerned over Obama's record as the most aggressive prosecutor of suspected government leakers in U.S. history.

Those advocates have wondered whether the penchant for secrecy in the Obama administration comes from the President, or those around him. Obama's statement on Manning, followed by Crowley's resignation, seem to suggest some of this comes from the President himself.

It's long been obvious that the Obama administration's unprecedented war on whistleblowers "comes from the President himself," notwithstanding his campaign decree -- under the inspiring title "Protect Whistleblowers" -- that "such acts of courage and patriotism should be encouraged rather than stifled." The inhumane treatment of Manning plainly has two principal effects: it intimidates future would-be whistleblowers into knowing that they, too, will be abused without recourse, and it will break him psychologically (as prolonged solitary confinement and degrading treatment inevitably do) to render him incapable of a defense and to ensure he provides whatever statements they want about WikiLeaks. Other than Obama's tolerance for the same detainee abuse against which he campaigned and his ongoing subservience to the military that he supposedly "commands," it is the way in which this Manning/Crowley behavior bolsters the regime of secrecy and the President's obsessive attempts to destroy whistleblowing that makes this episode so important and so telling.

Denunciations of the President from his own supporters are as intensive and pervasive here as they have been for any other prior incident, if not more so. Matt Yglesias wrote that "to hold a person without trial in solitary confinement under degrading conditions is a perversion of justice" and that it's a "sad statement about America that P.J. Crowley is the one being forced to resign over Bradley Manning." Andrew Sullivan -- writing under the headline "Obama Owns the Treatment of Manning Now" -- said that Crowley was forced out "for the offense of protesting against the sadistic military treatment of Bradley Manning," that "the president has now put his personal weight behind prisoner abuse," and that "Obama is directly responsible for the inhumane treatment of an American citizen." Meanwhile, Ezra Klein previews his denunciation of the President's treatment of Manning and Crowley by announcing that it's his first ever lede "that isn’t about economic or domestic policy" but rather is "about right and wrong," and then questions "whether the Obama administration is keeping sight of its values now that it holds power." Those strong words are all from supporters of the President.

Elsewhere, The Philadelphia Daily News' progressive columnist Will Bunch accuses Obama of "lying" during the campaign by firing Crowley and endorsing "the bizarre and immoral treatment of the alleged Wikileaks leaker." In The Guardian, Obama voter Daniel Ellsberg condemns "this shameful abuse of Bradley Manning," arguing that it "amounts to torture" and "makes me feel ashamed for the [Marine] Corps," in which Ellsberg served three years, including nine months at Quantico. Baltimore Sun columnist Ron Smith asks: "Why is the U.S. torturing Private Manning?," while UCLA Professor Mark Kleiman -- who only last year hailed Obama as "the greatest moral leader of our lifetime" and eagerly suggested on Friday (before Obama's Press Conference) that Crowley was speaking for Obama -- mocked Obama's defense of the Manning treatment as "clueless on the Bush level" and now says of Crowley's firing: "The Torturers Win One," while lamenting Obama's overt support for a policy that he calls "unconscionable and un-American and borderline criminal."

But the news isn't all bad for the President. Aside from his shrinking though still-vocal The-Leader-Can-Do-No-Wrong loyalists (whose mirror image counterparts stood behind George W. Bush to the end no matter what he did), Obama is finding support for his conduct in the Manning/Crowley episode from the Far Right. HotAir's Ed Morrissey, as but one example, lavishly praises the President's decisions: "The White House acted appropriately in kicking Crowley out at State, and should be commended for taking quick action," and goes on to defend the conditions of Manning's detention as appropriate and necessary. It really is quite striking -- and quite revealing -- how, at least in the areas about which I wrote most (civil liberties, secrecy, surveillance, privacy, war, due process, detention, etc. etc.), and for many of the specific controversies on which I've focused (WikiLeaks, Manning, indefinite detention, Afghanistan, drone attacks, the due-process-free assassination program, legal immunity for Bush officials, state secrets, etc.), the greatest support for the President's policies (with a few early exceptions) are found, by far, among the same faction of America's Right who so eagerly supported the Bush/Cheney policy framework. That's just a fact.

* * * * *

When Obama was asked on Friday about Manning's treatment, he said in part: "I've actually asked the Pentagon whether or not the procedures . . . are appropriate. They assured me they are." When George W. Bush, in his book, attempted to justify his torture regime, he wrote, as summarized by Newsweek's Jacob Weisberg: "When [Bush] asked 'the most senior legal officers in the U.S. government' to review interrogation methods, 'they assured me they did not constitute torture.' Case closed. You can't argue with the choices Bush defends in this book, because he doesn't argue them himself. He describes, asserts, and cites any authority handy, usually the authority he hired to defend his decisions"

* * * * *

When Anderson Cooper last month accurately described statements from the Mubarak regime as "lies," numerous colleagues of his criticized him for "taking sides," but then patronizingly suggested that he had likely lost his "objectivity" because he had been beaten by regime supporters in Egypt -- as though only being beaten could cause a journalist to become so emotional and reckless as to describe an official lie (from America or its allies) as a "lie."

Now, a similar tactic is being used to discredit Crowley and impugn the reliability his comments. Politico's Mike Allen, as he always does, conveys the Washington conventional wisdom today: "Crowley is unusually sensitive to the treatment of prisoners because his late father, a B-17 pilot, was a prisoner of war for two years in a camp that at the time was part of East Germany." In other words, one would object to abusive detention only if one were "unusually sensitive" because of some overwrought, emotional family issue; no rational, objective person -- with Beltway power -- could possibly find anything wrong with inhumane detention. So Crowley is just a weird, emotionally affected outlier because of his "unusual sensitivity" to such matters.

"Crowley's firing will make it even less likely in the future that decent public servants will speak out against such needless sadism." - Andrew Sullivan

[fgalkin]

I am wondering where Assange is during all this time. Now that it has been discovered that his source is being mistreated, he's been rather quiet about the whole thing.

Needless to say, I am not impressed.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Thanas]

I am wondering where Assange is during all this time. Now that it has been discovered that his source is being mistreated, he's been rather quiet about the whole thing.

Oh, really? Maybe a bit of googling would help.

There is pressure that’s been applied to one of our alleged sources, Bradley Manning in his prison cell. He is a young intelligence analyst being held in Quantico, Virginia, for some six months now, prior to trial, and there is pressure on him through his physical cell conditions, according to his lawyer David Coombs, to coerce him into testifying against me, or against the organization, to try and suggest that there is some kind of a conspiracy to commit espionage. Which there is not.

But let’s look at the allegations. Regardless of whether he was the whistleblower behind some of these res — revelations or not, he is a young man that has been caught up in this, kept in solitary confinement for some six months — some 5,000 hours now — in conditions that were even worse than the ones that I was in, held in a — he’s now held in a military brig. His visits are very limited, only once a week. And his lawyer has said that they have been getting worse and that his psychological health has been getting worse.

If we are to believe the allegations, then this man acted for political reasons. He is a political prisoner in the United States. He has not gone to trial. He’s been a political prisoner without trial in the United States for some six or seven months. That’s a serious business. Human rights organizations should be investigating the conditions under which he is held and is there really due process there?