Obama personnally supports treatment of Manning

[Eternal_Freedom]

Why exactly is he not allowed to excersise in his cell?

[Serafina]

Why exactly is he not allowed to excersise in his cell?

Are you honestly expecting a valid reason?
Well, if you want one: "We've got to punish that dirty bastard" is most likely the reasoning behind it.

Also, destroyong a prisoners initiative is a form of/part of torture. YOU control his life, unless you tell him to do something he is not allowed to do it.

[Elfdart]

I wonder if Nidal Hasan, who is awaiting trial for shooting fellow soldiers and clearly is a nutjob, is subjected to this kind of degradation? I also wonder in the soldiers awaiting trial for murdering Afghan civilians for sport are forced to stand naked in their cells on a regular basis.

Actually I don't wonder.

Very well what are the conditions of their detention?

I would think that if they had to endure this kind of thing that their attorneys would have spoken up about it. Hasan's attorney is certainly not shy when it comes to representing his client.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Why exactly is he not allowed to excersise in his cell?

Are you honestly expecting a valid reason?
Well, if you want one: "We've got to punish that dirty bastard" is most likely the reasoning behind it.

Also, destroyong a prisoners initiative is a form of/part of torture. YOU control his life, unless you tell him to do something he is not allowed to do it.

I wasn't expecting a valid reason, I was wonering what the guards stated reason was.

[Edi]

And if there was any doubt:

Sunday, Mar 13, 2011 13:14 ET
WH forces P.J. Crowley to resign for condemning abuse of Manning
By Glenn Greenwald

On Friday, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley denounced the conditions of Bradley Manning's detention as "ridiculous, counterproductive and stupid," forcing President Obama to address those comments in a Press Conference and defend the treatment of Manning. Today, CNN reports, Crowley has "abruptly resigned" under "pressure from White House officials because of controversial comments he made last week about the Bradley Manning case." In other words, he was forced to "resign" -- i.e., fired.

So, in Barack Obama's administration, it's perfectly acceptable to abuse an American citizen in detention who has been convicted of nothing by consigning him to 23-hour-a-day solitary confinement, barring him from exercising in his cell, punitively imposing "suicide watch" restrictions on him against the recommendations of brig psychiatrists, and subjecting him to prolonged, forced nudity designed to humiliate and degrade. But speaking out against that abuse is a firing offense. Good to know. As Matt Yglesias just put it: "Sad statement about America that P.J. Crowley is the one being forced to resign over Bradley Manning." And as David Frum added: "Crowley firing: one more demonstration of my rule: Republican pols fear their base, Dem pols despise it."

Of course, it's also the case in Barack Obama's world that those who instituted a worldwide torture and illegal eavesdropping regime are entitled to full-scale presidential immunity, while powerless individuals who blow the whistle on high-level wrongdoing and illegality are subjected to the most aggressive campaign of prosecution and persecution the country has ever seen. So protecting those who are abusing Manning, while firing Crowley for condemning the abuse, is perfectly consistent with the President's sense of justice.

Also, remember how one frequent Democratic critique made of the Right generally and the Bush administration specifically was that they can't and won't tolerate dissent: everyone is required to march in lockstep? I wonder how that will be reconciled with this.

Not much to add there, really. At this point Obama and his administration are just as guilty as the Bush junta for all the crimes committed during Dubya's reign.

[Aaron]

I wasn't expecting a valid reason, I was wonering what the guards stated reason was.

"I was ordered to."

The decision would have been made at a far higher level then the guards.

[Thanas]

UPDATE: Remember when the Bush administration punished Gen. Eric Shinseki for his public (and prescient) dissent on the Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz plan for Iraq, and all good Democrats thought that was so awful, such a terrible sign of the administration's refusal to tolerate any open debate? And then there was that time when Bush fired his White House economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, for publicly suggesting that the Iraq War might cost $100 billion, prompting similar cries of outrage from Democrats about how the GOP crushes internal debate and dissent. Obama's conduct seems quite far from the time during the campaign when Obama-fawning journalists like Time's Joe Klein were hailing him for wanting a "team of rivals", and Obama was saying things like this: "I don't want to have people who just agree with me. I want people who are continually pushing me out of my comfort zone."

I guess Obama's comfort zone extends as far as his left foot, which he uses to boot dissenters out of the door.

Obama = Bush 2.0. Now with less despicable dommestic things, but the same award-winning disgust for civil liberties.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

The simple fact this is being played up means the torture is meant for public consumption. Basically they aren't surviving by setting an example for us, they intend to by making an example of him for us, hat tip to Stuart's sig completely intentional. Today it sucks to be him, tomorrow it might suck to be any of the rest of us.

[Thanas]

Crowley on his comments:

“My recent comments regarding the conditions of the pre-trial detention of Private First Class Bradley Manning 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,” he wrote. “The exercise of power in today’s challenging times and relentless media environment must be prudent and consistent with our laws and values.”

[PeZook]

This obviously prevents evil terrorizering acts by Al-Quaueda. Every day another Bradley Manning reconsiders blowing the whistle about abuses by the US Government, God strikes down a terrorist in Iraqistan.

The sheer irony of the world's freedomest and justiciest nation doing this would've been funny if the US wasn't an 800 pound gorilla, which went on a rampage every time somebody looked at it funny.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Their national anthem says it all really:

"The land of the free and the home of the brave"
Yeah, gotta love that freedom. And the bravery.

But then there's also this bit:

"Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just"

[Raxmei]

That blanket sounds like a part of a suicide watch regime. They use special blankets that are harder to roll into a noose. That's also why they'd deny bedsheets and use a mattress with a built-in pillow. This stuff isn't coming out of nowhere, it's ordinary self harm prevention equipment being employed for whatever reason.

[Todeswind]

Think about this for a moment.

23 hours of isolation a day, no personal items, no exercise. You dont think horrific boredom is damaging to one's mental state?

It's certainly unpleasant but it isn't torture, at least not so far as US law is concerned. I agree that he ought to be permitted to exercise and permitted access to books but as of yet I do not believe there is a legal precedent to classify boredom as torture.

http://my.firedoglake.com/blog/2010/12/ ... onditions/

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.

That sounds fairly consistent with the shitty blankets they give out as part of a suicide prevention regimen. The tear resistant material isn't the most comfortable stuff on the market, it feels a bit like burlap. The blankets they give out are supposed to difficult to make into anything one could kill themselves with. Sheets are removed for the same reason.

The removal of all clothing other than his boxers seems excessive but I can understand the rationale for doing so.

You can make a case that it's intentional sleep deprivation, of course, but I think proving that that is the intent would be difficult. Considering how many separate charges of treason he's facing keeping him on suicide watch doesn't seem unreasonable. Are they being overzealous? Perhaps, but if anything happens to him while he's in prison that results in his injury or death people will eternally be accusing the USA of having assassinated manning or having attempted to do so.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ma ... ing-prison

It is the first time Manning has spoken publicly about his treatment, having previously only been heard through the intermediaries of his lawyer and a friend. Details that have emerged up to now have inspired the UN to launch an inquiry into whether the conditions amount to torture, and have led to protests to the US government from Amnesty International.

The most graphic passage of the letter is Manning's description of how he was placed on suicide watch for three days from 18 January. "I was stripped of all clothing with the exception of my underwear. My prescription eyeglasses were taken away from me and I was forced to sit in essential blindness."

Manning writes that he believes the suicide watch was imposed not because he was a danger to himself but as retribution for a protest about his treatment held outside Quantico the day before. Immediately before the suicide watch started, he said guards verbally harassed him, taunting him with conflicting orders.

When he was told he was being put on suicide watch, he writes, "I became upset. Out of frustration, I clenched my hair with my fingers and yelled: 'Why are you doing this to me? Why am I being punished? I have done nothing wrong.'"

And there is the sleep deprivation, and punitive nature of the whole thing. He is also woken up when he is curled up in his bed outside the view of guards. Keep in mind, this is under full hallway illumination of his bed, nude under what is basically a rug. Seems like a pretty good system for keeping someone deprived of sleep without anything as gauche as a boom-box or hourly buckets of cold water...

He's under suicide watch. If he moves out of view the guards are obligated to check to make sure he hasn't done any harm to himself. If that is not the norm for persons under suicide watch facing death penalty it ought to be. It seems consistent with suicide watch procedures to have someone checking to make sure no self-inflicted harm occurs and with the US government's vested interest in keeping him alive and unharmed (at least physically) till the trial.

[Alyrium Denryle]

He's under suicide watch. If he moves out of view the guards are obligated to check to make sure he hasn't done any harm to himself. If that is not the norm for persons under suicide watch facing death penalty it ought to be. It seems consistent with suicide watch procedures to have someone checking to make sure no self-inflicted harm occurs and with the US government's vested interest in keeping him alive and unharmed (at least physically) till the trial.

Suicide watch and prevention of harm orders are supposed to be short term, and done on the recommendation of say, the facility's medical staff. This is not the case for Manning. He has been held under a prevention of harm order for months, suicide watches with all of their restrictions are done against the recommendations of medical staff etc.

In other words, they are using long term what should be short term, and doing so punitively. IE. As a punishment.

Get put on a POI order for a few days until you can be assessed? Not torture. Be on one for months, despite the recommendation of the medical staff that it is not necessary? Torture.

They are using that order as a pretext to deny him sleep, stress him, and humiliate him.

[Todeswind]

Suicide watch and prevention of harm orders are supposed to be short term, and done on the recommendation of say, the facility's medical staff. This is not the case for Manning. He has been held under a prevention of harm order for months, suicide watches with all of their restrictions are done against the recommendations of medical staff etc.

In other words, they are using long term what should be short term, and doing so punitively. IE. As a punishment.

Under who's orders is the suicide watch and prevention of harm being enacted? I was under the impression that a medical professional's approval was required at some point to even get one.

Get put on a POI order for a few days until you can be assessed? Not torture. Be on one for months, despite the recommendation of the medical staff that it is not necessary? Torture.

How long has he actually been under POI for? To my knowledge he has only been under a POI since the early march. He has been in solitary confinement for longer but they only placed him under POI since he gave an interview in which he joked about killing himself with the elastic with he waistband. That would put the POI at over two weeks, above what is normal but not criminally so.

[Thanas]

Suicide watch and prevention of harm orders are supposed to be short term, and done on the recommendation of say, the facility's medical staff. This is not the case for Manning. He has been held under a prevention of harm order for months, suicide watches with all of their restrictions are done against the recommendations of medical staff etc.

In other words, they are using long term what should be short term, and doing so punitively. IE. As a punishment.

Under who's orders is the suicide watch and prevention of harm being enacted? I was under the impression that a medical professional's approval was required at some point to even get one.

Base commander, against the wishes of the psychiatrist who ruled there was no risk at all.

[TheHammer]

UPDATE: Remember when the Bush administration punished Gen. Eric Shinseki for his public (and prescient) dissent on the Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz plan for Iraq, and all good Democrats thought that was so awful, such a terrible sign of the administration's refusal to tolerate any open debate? And then there was that time when Bush fired his White House economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, for publicly suggesting that the Iraq War might cost $100 billion, prompting similar cries of outrage from Democrats about how the GOP crushes internal debate and dissent. Obama's conduct seems quite far from the time during the campaign when Obama-fawning journalists like Time's Joe Klein were hailing him for wanting a "team of rivals", and Obama was saying things like this: "I don't want to have people who just agree with me. I want people who are continually pushing me out of my comfort zone."

I guess Obama's comfort zone extends as far as his left foot, which he uses to boot dissenters out of the door.

Obama = Bush 2.0. Now with less despicable dommestic things, but the same award-winning disgust for civil liberties.

As a spokesman, Crowley's job was to be the voice of the State Dept - and that voice was only to say what it was approved to say by the State Dept. It was not his job to express his personal opinions to the media, and he should have known better than to do so. Its not that his comments where morally wrong, but if he wanted to be free to make them he needed to resign.

I don't think it is dissent that Obama had a problem with. Its the airing of dirty laundry in public. If he'd made these comments in private to the President (which is what he meant when he said he wants people to push him out of his comfort zone) then you'd have a different result.

[Sea Skimmer]

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.

[PeZook]

It's certainly unpleasant but it isn't torture, at least not so far as US law is concerned. I agree that he ought to be permitted to exercise and permitted access to books but as of yet I do not believe there is a legal precedent to classify boredom as torture.

Awesome. You're one of those guys who take a regimen that's obviously designed to humilitate and break a prisoner (as evidenced by, oh, I don't know, the fact the same methods were used by Stalinist secret police?), trivialize it as "boredom" and then smugly proclaim there is no problem. There is a problem. Legality of the matter doesn't come into it: if anything, the fact Manning can be legally abused in this manner only makes things worse, not better.

You can make a case that it's intentional sleep deprivation, of course, but I think proving that that is the intent would be difficult. Considering how many separate charges of treason he's facing keeping him on suicide watch doesn't seem unreasonable. Are they being overzealous? Perhaps, but if anything happens to him while he's in prison that results in his injury or death people will eternally be accusing the USA of having assassinated manning or having attempted to do so.

How about denying the man contact with other prisoners, reading and writing material, taking away his glasses and oh yeah only letting him walk in a tiny room while shackled?

Tsarist political prisoners in the XIXth century were allowed to read and write in their cells ; The fucking NKVD allowed the prisoners pen and paper if they behaved/did what they wanted (what, is Manning violent to the guards or other inmates? Oh wait yeah he can't even see other inmates! No matter!)

He's being treated like a violent psychopath or...a political prisoner. But the US doesn't do that! Look, other country X did much worse so neener neener!

It's disgusting - especially since in the information age it's impossible to keep such things secret. The citizenry of the US have the tools and the information to act and crucify the administration over their human rights record.

But it appears they just don't care. Frankly, your nation deserves every bit of scorn and mockery and embarassment that is laid upon it.

He's under suicide watch. If he moves out of view the guards are obligated to check to make sure he hasn't done any harm to himself. If that is not the norm for persons under suicide watch facing death penalty it ought to be. It seems consistenht with suicide watch procedures to have someone checking to make sure no self-inflicted harm occurs and with the US government's vested interest in keeping him alive and unharmed (at least physically) till the trial.

He's been under "suicide watch" for months. This despite psychiatric evaluations finding no reason to suspect he might attempt suicide. Yeah, that's totally not a transparent attempt to make him into an example. Totally.

[Todeswind]

Awesome. You're one of those guys who take a regimen that's obviously designed to humilitate and break a prisoner (as evidenced by, oh, I don't know, the fact the same methods were used by Stalinist secret police?), trivialize it as "boredom" and then smugly proclaim there is no problem. There is a problem. Legality of the matter doesn't come into it: if anything, the fact Manning can be legally abused in this manner only makes things worse, not better.

Unless I am very much mistaken the only comments I have made so far on the subject have been either clinical assessments of the legality of the actions taken against manning or requests for clarification, nor do I believe I have trivialized the issue. Simply because I'm not frothing at the mouth like a rabid dog doesn't mean that I'm taking this issue any less seriously than you are.

"I do not believe there is a legal precedent to classify boredom as torture." and "It is not torture" do not mean the same thing. Believing that you ought to try people based upon existing legal code isn't hickish American ignorance, it's due process under the law.

Ultimately Manning will be tried based upon current US legal code, not what we wish the US legal code would be. I happen to agree that what is being done to manning will probably be eventually classified as torture, or at the very least unacceptable treatment of a prisoner. I very much doubt, however, that it will help Manning in the slightest.

How about denying the man contact with other prisoners, reading and writing material, taking away his glasses and oh yeah only letting him walk in a tiny room while shackled?

Tsarist political prisoners in the XIXth century were allowed to read and write in their cells ; The fucking NKVD allowed the prisoners pen and paper if they behaved/did what they wanted (what, is Manning violent to the guards or other inmates? Oh wait yeah he can't even see other inmates! No matter!)

He's being treated like a violent psychopath or...a political prisoner. But the US doesn't do that! Look, other country X did much worse so neener neener!

It's disgusting - especially since in the information age it's impossible to keep such things secret. The citizenry of the US have the tools and the information to act and crucify the administration over their human rights record.

But it appears they just don't care. Frankly, your nation deserves every bit of scorn and mockery and embarassment that is laid upon it.

You seem to have read for specific words that you can get angry about and ignored the parts where I agree with you.

I agree that he ought to be permitted to exercise and permitted access to books

In future I suggest actually reading what people write rather than just skimming for the parts that you're expecting to be there.

He's been under "suicide watch" for months. This despite psychiatric evaluations finding no reason to suspect he might attempt suicide. Yeah, that's totally not a transparent attempt to make him into an example. Totally.

No, he's been in solitary confinement and a lesser order or protection for months, he's only been on suicide watch since early march following an interview in which he joked that he could easily kill himself with the waistband of his trousers. The 23 hour solitude, the hour of exercise, and the absence of personal items were imposed upon him as conditions of his solitary confinement and have been in pace for months. While there has been an order to ensure that he doesn't harm himself in place the POI resulting in changed bedding, clothing, and 24 hour supervision is more recent.

I've stated repeatedly that the argument can be made that what is being done could be deemed malevolent (and I admit it's plausible) but I'm of a slightly different opinion. While I do not believe that what is being done to manning is by any means altruistic it seems more likely to me that the US government is being overzealous in their attempting to keep Manning alive long enough to face trial. Is it a stupid and ham fisted way of going about it? Certainly but I see more indifference than malevolence.

[PeZook]

Unless I am very much mistaken the only comments I have made so far on the subject have been either clinical assessments of the legality of the actions taken against manning or requests for clarification, nor do I believe I have trivialized the issue. Simply because I'm not frothing at the mouth like a rabid dog doesn't mean that I'm taking this issue any less seriously than you are.

You trivialized it by calling solitary confinement, denying him access to books, 23 hour lock up etc. "boredom", and commenting there's no legal precedent to classify it as torture. Of course if you put it this way there's no legal precedent!

You see what you've done here? It's not "boredom", much like waterboarding is not a bath despite both water and towels being involved.

"I do not believe there is a legal precedent to classify boredom as torture." and "It is not torture" do not mean the same thing. Believing that you ought to try people based upon existing legal code isn't hickish American ignorance, it's due process under the law.

You have distorted your analysis by triviliazing the issue under discussion.

Ultimately Manning will be tried based upon current US legal code, not what we wish the US legal code would be. I happen to agree that what is being done to manning will probably be eventually classified as torture, or at the very least unacceptable treatment of a prisoner. I very much doubt, however, that it will help Manning in the slightest.

Which is a damn injustice worthy of the worst Stalinist regimes, which also did things that were perfectly legal under their own laws. I really hope the treason charges won't stick, as otherwise you'd have reached a proper police state level of legal practice where anything the regime doesn't like is an offence punishable by death, regardless of actual harm done.

You seem to have read for specific words that you can get angry about and ignored the parts where I agree with you.

Well, that paragraph was more about prevailing attitudes amongst the american public, rather than a specific stab at you personally. My most important problem with your post was you saying that 23 hour confinement with no access to books is mere "boredom".

No, he's been in solitary confinement and a lesser order or protection for months, he's only been on suicide watch since early march following an interview in which he joked that he could easily kill himself with the waistband of his trousers. The 23 hour solitude, the hour of exercise, and the absence of personal items were imposed upon him as conditions of his solitary confinement and have been in pace for months. While there has been an order to ensure that he doesn't harm himself in place the POI resulting in changed bedding, clothing, and 24 hour supervision is more recent.

Well the most vile things done to him like the 23 hour confinement, lack of proper excercise, books and human contact were in effect much longer. Compared to that, taking away his clothes and blanket is nothing.

Besides, didn't the psychiatrist conclude there was no risk of suicide?

I've stated repeatedly that the argument can be made that what is being done could be deemed malevolent (and I admit it's plausible) but I'm of a slightly different opinion. While I do not believe that what is being done to manning is by any means altruistic it seems more likely to me that the US government is being overzealous in their attempting to keep Manning alive long enough to face trial. Is it a stupid and ham fisted way of going about it? Certainly but I see more indifference than malevolence.

The fact this can be done at all is damning upon your legal practice.

[Todeswind]

Unless I am very much mistaken the only comments I have made so far on the subject have been either clinical assessments of the legality of the actions taken against manning or requests for clarification, nor do I believe I have trivialized the issue. Simply because I'm not frothing at the mouth like a rabid dog doesn't mean that I'm taking this issue any less seriously than you are.

You trivialized it by calling solitary confinement, denying him access to books, 23 hour lock up etc. "boredom", and commenting there's no legal precedent to classify it as torture. Of course if you put it this way there's no legal precedent!

You see what you've done here? It's not "boredom", much like waterboarding is not a bath despite both water and towels being involved.

I used the word "boredom" because frankly I'm not sure how to otherwise classify "the absence of stimulus" under US legal code. There are reams numerous existing statues explaining what prisoners must have access to (food/water/shelter) and what they must not be exposed to (disease/death/physical torture/threats thereof) but to my knowledge there hasn't ever been a case of prisoners being provided all the things that a prison is obligated to provide, not doing all the things they're prohibited from doing, and simultaneously denying a prisoner all avenues of recreation or self-harm.

Even as you're wording it I'm unaware of a precedent that would help Manning's current situation.

"I do not believe there is a legal precedent to classify boredom as torture." and "It is not torture" do not mean the same thing. Believing that you ought to try people based upon existing legal code isn't hickish American ignorance, it's due process under the law.

You have distorted your analysis by triviliazing the issue under discussion.

I hardly agree with that. Perhaps extreme absence of positive stimulus is a better phrasing of what I was trying to say but what the issue really boils down to is that manning isn't really being allowed to do anything other than exist. To date "deprivation of recreational stimulus" isn't recognized under us legal code and while I don't doubt that it might be added in future Manning will be tried under current legal code with current legal precedent.

Ultimately Manning will be tried based upon current US legal code, not what we wish the US legal code would be. I happen to agree that what is being done to manning will probably be eventually classified as torture, or at the very least unacceptable treatment of a prisoner. I very much doubt, however, that it will help Manning in the slightest.

Which is a damn injustice worthy of the worst Stalinist regimes, which also did things that were perfectly legal under their own laws. I really hope the treason charges won't stick, as otherwise you'd have reached a proper police state level of legal practice where anything the regime doesn't like is an offence punishable by death, regardless of actual harm done.

You may feel that the information age entitles you to complete transparency for all classified government actions taken by the USA. The USDOJ disagrees, which gets back to the issue of "is what manning did treason?" which is an entirely different discussion.

I would be astounded if they don't stick. I wouldn't even be surprised if the "aiding the enemy" charges stuck. He's in the military courts and they have a history of strict treatment on those providing classified documents to foreign nationals during what is ostensibly wartime.

You seem to have read for specific words that you can get angry about and ignored the parts where I agree with you.

Well, that paragraph was more about prevailing attitudes amongst the american public, rather than a specific stab at you personally. My most important problem with your post was you saying that 23 hour confinement with no access to books is mere "boredom".

It's a legal limbo to be sure but it's still legal. And terrifying as this may sound it's not substantially worse than most prisoners who are kept under supermax conditions. The US prison system needs considerable work.

No, he's been in solitary confinement and a lesser order or protection for months, he's only been on suicide watch since early march following an interview in which he joked that he could easily kill himself with the waistband of his trousers. The 23 hour solitude, the hour of exercise, and the absence of personal items were imposed upon him as conditions of his solitary confinement and have been in pace for months. While there has been an order to ensure that he doesn't harm himself in place the POI resulting in changed bedding, clothing, and 24 hour supervision is more recent.

Well the most vile things done to him like the 23 hour confinement, lack of proper excercise, books and human contact were in effect much longer. Compared to that, taking away his clothes and blanket is nothing.

The 23 hour confinement is in place to separate Manning from the general population who, by and large, would gladly see him dead. Of all the things to do with Manning's treatment this is actually the part that bothers me the least. I would prefer he survived to trial. The people in Ft. Levinworth are by and large soldiers who are criminally violent I don't think he would survive in general population.

I do agree that he ought to have better access to exercise and books.

Besides, didn't the psychiatrist conclude there was no risk of suicide?

Yes, very recently however the POI was only enacted as of early march so it's entirely possible it will be overturned. He will still be in solitary confinement for 23 hours out of the day but he might get more suitable bedding.

I've stated repeatedly that the argument can be made that what is being done could be deemed malevolent (and I admit it's plausible) but I'm of a slightly different opinion. While I do not believe that what is being done to manning is by any means altruistic it seems more likely to me that the US government is being overzealous in their attempting to keep Manning alive long enough to face trial. Is it a stupid and ham fisted way of going about it? Certainly but I see more indifference than malevolence.

The fact this can be done at all is damning upon your legal practice.

Any legal system can be manipulated to ill effect and I would argue that the US legal system, by and large, gets things right. Manning is in an uncomfortable situation because he's pissed off pretty much everyone in government who's sole job it is to figure out the laws and how to exploit them. He will probably lead to some legislation for future treason cases but I suspect he'll be dead long before then.

[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.

[Edi]

Yes, very recently however the POI was only enacted as of early march so it's entirely possible it will be overturned. He will still be in solitary confinement for 23 hours out of the day but he might get more suitable bedding.

The POI status being overturned has about as much likelihood of happening as me being elected President of the United States (note that I'm not an American). If you had bothered to do even some cursory research into this, you would know that Manning's treatment is very much out of the ordinary and has been so despite numerous objections and the previous brig commander had was removed from that position because of the abuses, which have continued unabated under the new commander. Those orders are coming from somewhere very high up.

Your apologism for this state of affairs is nothing but ignorance and an idiotic extension of benefit of the doubt towards people and an institution (the US military) that lost any right to it long ago in cases like this.

[Todeswind]

The POI status being overturned has about as much likelihood of happening as me being elected President of the United States (note that I'm not an American). If you had bothered to do even some cursory research into this, you would know that Manning's treatment is very much out of the ordinary and has been so despite numerous objections and the previous brig commander had was removed from that position because of the abuses, which have continued unabated under the new commander. Those orders are coming from somewhere very high up.

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.

Your apologism for this state of affairs is nothing but ignorance and an idiotic extension of benefit of the doubt towards people and an institution (the US military) that lost any right to it long ago in cases like this.

I don't expect laws that don't exist under the US legal code to get enforced. Manning's situation might realistically set a precedent for future cases (especially with the dubious POI) but until it does the conditions of Manning's detention are legal under current US law, if perhaps not morally sound.