Over 250 Top US Legal Scholars Condemn The Treatment Of Bradley Manning

from the moral-high-ground dept

For a while now, we've been quite concerned over the US's treatment of Bradley Manning, the guy who has been accused of being the source for many of Wikileaks' biggest leaks from the US government. Under most standard definitions of torture, it certainly appeared that Manning was being tortured. With the UN investigating, and even Obama administration officials who had long been propagandizing against Wikileaks claiming that the treatment was bad (leading to him being fired), it appears more and more people are recognizing how indefensible the treatment is.

The latest is that a who's who of US legal scholars, including the guy who taught President Obama constitutional law (and was a big supporter of Obama during the campaign), have written an open letter condemning the treatment of Bradley Manning as being unconstitutional. That law professor, Laurence Tribe, had actually been a legal advisor to the Justice Department until recently. The original letter was written by Bruce Ackerman and Yochai Benkler, and the list of signatories is pretty impressive.

When you have so many experts in constitutional law speaking up for the way President Obama is treating Manning, can Obama really ignore them completely?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    js, Apr 11th, 2011 @ 11:28am

    "... can Obama really ignore them completely?"

    Yes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    pj, Apr 11th, 2011 @ 11:35am

    With a nod to [js], i rather hope that was a rhetorical question...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Apr 11th, 2011 @ 11:37am

    silly

    Why do we pretend that the Constitution still exists?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 11th, 2011 @ 12:07pm

      Re: silly

      Why do we pretend that the Constitution still exists?Why do we pretend that the Constitution still exists?

      Because the people of the U.S. are, by and large, a bunch of hypocrites.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      PRMan, Apr 11th, 2011 @ 12:23pm

      Re: silly

      Because they're afraid that if they stop pretending, there will be a revolution. And they may be right...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Ralph Dratman, Apr 11th, 2011 @ 1:02pm

      Re: silly

      I have gotten over that delusion.

      After saying over and over, for years, "If (insert some new bad thing) happens, it signals the death of the Constitution." Of course, most of the bad things did happen, often with little or no opposition.

      Now I see no influence of the Constitution on our everyday politics, which have become a joke, one that would be truly funny if we weren't living through it. To pick only one example, the concept that U.S. elections can now be literally and legally bought with anonymous, unlimited monetary contributions would have surely struck the authors of the Constitution as a grand joke. But then maybe they would be surprised to learn that their document was actually useful for 200 years for as long as the country still possessed its abundant natural resource base. That's not a bad achievement, when you think about it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Apr 11th, 2011 @ 11:40am

    What Tribe, White Man?

    It's not like Lawrence is funding anyone's war chest.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    anymouse (profile), Apr 11th, 2011 @ 11:43am

    Ignore who? The new 'guests' at Gitmo....

    They have no legal authority to speak, right, so why would anyone listen to them....

    Oh, they haven't been rounded up and shipped off yet... give it a week or two, I'm sure some will be found to have 'conspiratorial ties to Manning' and will get a first hand sample of the treatment they criticizing.

    We all know hypocrites don't like to be called out or have their position called into question, or they react violently and with 'conspiratorial purpose'....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 11th, 2011 @ 11:46am

    In all seriousness, why don't we see this more often? We need these "top scholars" to team up more often.

    250 top legal scholars is much louder than a few legal experts speaking up.

    Why not join together and sue the Government?

    There's no accountability anymore. It's a scary time we live in, we're basically in a police state with no regard for our law or constitution (you know, that silly thing that this country is supposed to be based upon).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 11th, 2011 @ 12:03pm

      Re:

      Why not join together and sue the Government?

      Yeah, join together and sue the gov't in it's own courts, because that always works out so well. Why, if the founding fathers had only thought of that they could have avoided that whole War of Independence thing with a simple lawsuit instead.
      /s

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Apr 11th, 2011 @ 1:55pm

      Re:

      Why not join together and sue the Government?

      My understanding of the law would be that they would have no standing to sue, since none of them were "harmed" by the government. Unless Manning hires them all to represent him, they have no standing. Also, since Manning is military, there are different rules.

      I'm sure some of the legal types around here will correct me if I'm wrong.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Chris in Utah (profile), Apr 11th, 2011 @ 11:49am

    Nah the double-think abounds and he's up for his second Nobel peace prize.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    anon, Apr 11th, 2011 @ 11:49am

    Manning PO'd some heavy lifters

    Sadly, Manning's status as an enlisted man removes him from most of the US citizen protections. Had he just been some guy in a foreign country I'd wonder if he'd get 'rendered' or not. As it is, it's the US military that determines his treatment. Until it gets too political and the elected have to take action, he'll be treated in the inhumane improper way that he is. It is every bit as debilitating to the nation midst our international peers as any of the leaks Manning is accused of.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Nicedoggy, Apr 11th, 2011 @ 12:40pm

      Re: Manning PO'd some heavy lifters

      If it is that easy to strip any American citizen of his rights or any human being for that matter, then I think we need to start buying guns.

      Lots of guns.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 11th, 2011 @ 11:50am

    If only they had 251 I'd be convinced.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    trench0r (profile), Apr 11th, 2011 @ 11:54am

    Mike, in answer to your last question: yes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    anonymous, Apr 11th, 2011 @ 12:09pm

    UCMJ

    As a previous poster noted, Manning is in the United State military and is covered by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

    Once he signed on the dotted line and took the oath, he surrendered a number of his rights. I would like to know how many of these 250 legal scholars are schooled in the UCMJ?

    Probably none of them.

    Now one of the things these "legal scholars" want is Manning allowed out of Solitary and put into the general population.

    In other words they want to get him killed.

    Manning wouldn't survive 20 minutes in a stockade exercise yard before he was knifed or beaten to death. Almost all the other prisoners are in for a wide assortment of crimes, but treason isn't one of them. It won't matter to them if he meets the constitutional definition, they consider what he did treason.

    All it will take is some lifer who isn't getting out and Manning is pushing up the daisies.

    Manning will get a fair trial, appeals when he is convicted then his sentence, whatever it may be, will be carried out. Military trials move a lot faster then civilian ones once they get going and the judges don't put up with the games a lot of civilian lawyers like to play.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 11th, 2011 @ 12:13pm

      Re: UCMJ

      In other words they want to get him killed.

      Do you have some proof that these 250 legal scholars all want to see Manning killed, or are you just another fascist stooge making crap up? I'm betting on the latter.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 11th, 2011 @ 12:16pm

      Re: UCMJ

      "Once he signed on the dotted line and took the oath, he surrendered a number of his rights. I would like to know how many of these 250 legal scholars are schooled in the UCMJ?

      Probably none of them."

      Oh good, let's just ignore them with a wave of the hand. That seems much easier than actually refuting their argument.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      crade (profile), Apr 11th, 2011 @ 12:20pm

      Re: UCMJ

      Are you saying you think you give up your constitutional right to not be tortured willy nilly because you join the military?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Brian Schroth (profile), Apr 11th, 2011 @ 12:25pm

      Re: UCMJ

      "As a previous poster noted, Manning is in the United State military and is covered by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

      Once he signed on the dotted line and took the oath, he surrendered a number of his rights. I would like to know how many of these 250 legal scholars are schooled in the UCMJ?

      Probably none of them."

      How could I forget the 28th Amendment, which states "Oh yeah, and none of this shit applies to people in the military".

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chosen Reject (profile), Apr 11th, 2011 @ 12:29pm

      Re: UCMJ

      If you had read the article, you'd see that some of them are familiar enough with UCMJ.
      Ackerman pointed out that under the Pentagon's own rule book, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Manning's jailers could be liable to prosecution for abusing him. Article 93 of the code says "any person who is guilty of cruelty toward any person subject to his orders shall be punished".
      Also, they aren't asking him to be released into the general population. They are asking for proof that solitary confinement is necessary. All evidence thus far shows that it's not. And even if he does need to be in solitary, why do they need to ask him "every 5 minutes" if he's OK? Even during the night? Why does he need to be stripped?

      In addition, while I don't speak for Manning, I think I'd rather have to defend myself against some "lifer" than to be humiliated and tortured indefinitely.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 11th, 2011 @ 12:29pm

      Re: UCMJ


      Now one of the things these "legal scholars" want is Manning allowed out of Solitary and put into the general population.

      In other words they want to get him killed.


      So his torture is to protect him from military prison incompetence which would get him killed?

      This is a great picture of our military.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 11th, 2011 @ 12:36pm

        Re: Re: UCMJ

        So his torture is to protect him from military prison incompetence which would get him killed?

        Sometimes you have to destroy the village in order to save it.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 11th, 2011 @ 12:30pm

      Re: UCMJ

      Hmm, so all the government would have to do to take away everyone's rights is just to make some form of military service mandatory for everyone (as some countries do) and, poof, no more rights! Brilliant!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 11th, 2011 @ 12:33pm

      Re: UCMJ

      Once he signed on the dotted line and took the oath, he surrendered a number of his rights.

      Why so vague? Exactly which ones?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        John Doe, Apr 16th, 2011 @ 4:19pm

        Re: Re: UCMJ - There is a right to a speedy 120-day trial

        Manning did NOT surrender his right to a speedy trial when he entered the military. People in the military actually have a better right to a speedy trial than US civilians and certainly a better right than those few detained under the "Patriot" Act.

        Jailed people in the military have a virtually iron-clad right to a speedy trial within 120 days. The reason you don't see Manning's lawyer or Manning supporting screaming about this is that Manning voluntarily waived his right to a speedy trial.

        From a March 2, 2011 Army Press Release:

        "At the request of Manning's defense attorneys, the trial proceedings have been delayed since July 12, pending the results of a defense-requested inquiry into Manning's mental capacity and responsibility, pursuant to Rule for Courts-Martial 706. "

        If you have to ask why jailed people would waive their right to a speedy trial here are some reasons in addition to the one above: more time to prepare defense; realization that one is going to lose the case and delaying the inevitable; hope that delaying my bring out new evidence (or witnesses fade away, such as that informant hacker having second thoughts)

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Jeff, Apr 11th, 2011 @ 4:29pm

      Re: UCMJ

      Yes, he is subject to the UCMJ and so are his jailers. I don't know what they are holding him on but any one of them can and should throw up the BS flag.

      Since when does "just following orders" work as a defense?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    The Original Anonymous Coward (profile), Apr 11th, 2011 @ 12:33pm

    A few more specifics would help

    Mike - Please give some references when you write "Under most standard definitions of torture" and also, who else besides the former state department spokesman was terminated because they didn't agree with how PFC Manning is being treated? You mention "Obama administration officials" but I only know of Mr. Crowley.

    I also wonder if the legal scholars who signed the letter are opposed to similar treatment in other US penal institutions, or just that of PFC Manning. Neither the letter nor the Guardian article say anything about other prisoners, military or civilian, who may be held under the same type of circumstances.

    Is the letter a true denunciation of such prison activities or is it a political attack on President Obama by some of the folks who are unhappy with some of his recent decisions?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Any Mouse (profile), Apr 11th, 2011 @ 2:24pm

      Re: A few more specifics would help

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/torture
      tor·ture noun \ˈtȯr-chər\
      1 a : anguish of body or mind : agony

      As to your second, read the parenthetical after the part you quoted.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        The Original Anonymous Coward (profile), Apr 11th, 2011 @ 2:45pm

        Re: Re: A few more specifics would help

        By that definition (anguish of body or mind) everyone is tortured during some portion of their life, especially by ex-spouses.

        ;-)

        The U.N. definition is a bit more specific but it is still so general that just about any sort of pre-trial confinement situation could be classified as torture.

        My second point was that since Mike had referred to more than one person in the administration having criticized PFC Manning's situation, I was wondering who the other people are. There's only been one that I seen mentioned in the press, and that's PJ Crowley, the former spokesman for the State Department.

        This still seems more like a politically motivated attack on the President.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Apr 11th, 2011 @ 3:07pm

          Re: Re: Re: A few more specifics would help

          I don't know if this counts but the Guardian article notes:

          The list of signatories includes Laurence Tribe, a Harvard professor who is considered to be America's foremost liberal authority on constitutional law. He taught constitutional law to Barack Obama and was a key backer of his 2008 presidential campaign.

          Tribe joined the Obama administration last year as a legal adviser in the justice department, a post he held until three months ago.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            The Original Anonymous Coward (profile), Apr 11th, 2011 @ 5:39pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: A few more specifics would help

            I think that there are a good number of folks who originally supported then Senator Obama for the presidency, who now are not so happy with him, especially the very liberal types, like Prof. Tribe.

            They seem to not like his current stands on some of the things that he promised to do earlier, such as closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay, putting the 9-11 guys on trial in civilian courts, and so on.

            This thing with PFC Manning is just one more irritant for them. If they would come out against similar pre-trial confinement treatment for all the other folks who can't make bail or who were denied bail, then I might believe that it's not a politically based move.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              The eejit (profile), Apr 12th, 2011 @ 12:23am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few more specifics would help

              How many people do you know who have been refused bail for 12 months before the trial and have literally only just had a date set?

              I'm betting very few.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2011 @ 5:44am

      Re: A few more specifics would help

      "Is the letter a true denunciation of such prison activities or is it a political attack on President Obama by some of the folks who are unhappy with some of his recent decisions?"


      Are you kidding me? Even if this was another attack on Obama no one deserves what he is going through. It truly is a sad day for humanity when we abandon all civility and resort to torturing our own citizens because of the gov. incompetence and we have trolls like you that actually ask if this is a sincere letter of denunciation, like i said what does it matter as long as someone stands up and get him out.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 11th, 2011 @ 12:36pm

    "speaking up for" or "speaking out against"?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 11th, 2011 @ 12:45pm

    The only ones who know what is in fact transpiring are the defendant and those in the military who are overseeing his confinement.

    I have read statements made my the defendant's attorney that make some of the claims noted in the correspondence, but then again defense attorney's always use any and all means at hand to try and place their client in a sympathetic eye before the public.

    It seems to me what we have here are a number of academics, several of whom are, of course, well noted, who seem inclined to accept as true statements of fact unsubstantiated statements.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 11th, 2011 @ 1:01pm

      Re:

      The only ones who know what is in fact transpiring are the defendant and those in the military who are overseeing his confinement.

      And "those in the military who are overseeing his confinement" have been caught lying, repeatedly. I'd say they don't have much credibility.

      ...defense attorney's always use any and all means at hand to try and place their client in a sympathetic eye before the public.

      That's simply not true. There are limits to what most defense attorneys will do. If you have examples of Bradley's defense attorney lying to the public, I'd like to see it, please.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 11th, 2011 @ 2:45pm

      Re:

      Except of course that military officials have confirmed the facts.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 11th, 2011 @ 12:57pm

    Just string the guy already and get over with it...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 11th, 2011 @ 1:17pm

    The mistreatment of Bradley Manning underscores the need for transparency and accountability in the government and the military.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 11th, 2011 @ 1:25pm

      Re:

      The mistreatment of Bradley Manning underscores the need for transparency and accountability in the government and the military.

      It also underscores the unlikelihood of the government and military willing allowing it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 11th, 2011 @ 3:11pm

    "We've been quite concerned over the US's treatment of Bradley Manning"

    Read: exploiting his situation via blog posts without actually offering any solutions / direct help.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Gwiz (profile), Apr 11th, 2011 @ 5:58pm

      Re:

      Read: exploiting his situation via blog posts without actually offering any solutions / direct help.

      Wow, so I guess we aren't using the Marquess of Queensberry rules today, because that was low blow, even for an Anonymous Coward.

      First off, concern and action are completely different things. But you already knew that, didn't you?

      Second, Mike's articles ARE doing something, which is raising public awareness which IS direct help that could lead to solutions.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      The Groove Tiger (profile), Apr 11th, 2011 @ 9:13pm

      Re:

      Direct help? You mean like blowing a hole in his cell and breaking him out?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    alephen, Apr 11th, 2011 @ 5:08pm

    torture?

    seems odd that so many are willing to call this torture.
    1) manning is under self harm watch, close to suicide watch. that includes very high levels of supervision and not all the amenities (sheets with which to hang oneself for example) other prisoners might have.

    2) he is accused of passing classified and secret information (including name of informants - endangering their lives) thus he gets VERY little communication with others.

    while everything on the web should be taken with doubt, including these lawyers claiming torture, a simple read of his wikipedia entry illustrates why he is under the conditions he is. his lawyer saying he can hurt himself with his flip flops, underwear - good joke, now you dont give them and attesting to the professionalism of his guards.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Gwiz (profile), Apr 11th, 2011 @ 6:24pm

      Re: torture?

      seems odd that so many are willing to call this torture.

      What are you willing to call it?

      The reasons for the conditions do not change the facts of the conditions.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        alephen, Apr 11th, 2011 @ 11:33pm

        Re: Re: torture?

        i do not call putting someone into a cell, treating him professionally, minimizing his discomforts while acknowledging the severity and reality of his crimes torture.

        neither his teeth nor his fingernails have been ripped out. no electricutions that anyone has reported. are we really so soft as a people that we need to open up the prisons and let all the criminals out because the fact that life isnt fun in prisons makes it torture?

        prison is not supposed to be fun. or is it?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          The eejit (profile), Apr 12th, 2011 @ 12:26am

          Re: Re: Re: torture?

          No, but not being permitted to sleep is torture. Being told YOU MUST WAKE UP WHEN WE CALL YOUR NAME EVERY FIVE MINUTES is torture. Ask any insomniac. That fact that other people are doing this in a supposedly civilised society is reprehensible at best, and outright treasonous at worst.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Apr 11th, 2011 @ 7:20pm

    Another view

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    alephen, Apr 12th, 2011 @ 12:28am

    (seperate post since this is separate from the above response, please forgive me if i err in doing this)

    alot of people are attacking mannings treatment not so much due to his treatment, but because they think mannings act was noble and really dont want manning punished much at all. ultimately, if this is torture, then it is likewise torture to place a prison gang leader who has ordered murders while in prison in similar custody. so what do we do with him? allow him to continue to order murders?

    so in that vein: if you believe mannings treatment is torture, what should we do with prison gang leaders who order or commit murders while in prison? do they get released into general population so the can continue with their business - after all to keep them in solitary is torture.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Gwiz (profile), Apr 12th, 2011 @ 9:36am

      Re:

      alot of people are attacking mannings treatment not so much due to his treatment, but because they think mannings act was noble and really dont want manning punished much at all. ultimately, if this is torture, then it is likewise torture to place a prison gang leader who has ordered murders while in prison in similar custody. so what do we do with him? allow him to continue to order murders?

      Actually, I do think some of the treatment in regular prisons could be considered torture.

      The specific problems with Manning's case seem to go beyond that though. Things like (from my understanding, which is limited) making him lie still and naked for most of every 24 hour period, sleep deprivation, etc. Things that are above and beyond a normal US prison environment (except for Gitmo, of course).

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Justin Olbrantz (Quantam), Apr 12th, 2011 @ 2:38pm

      Re:

      Wow. There is a reason people usually only post such blindingly obvious straw men as ACs; now you will learn it first-hand.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2011 @ 5:32am

    Sure he can he's done a pretty good job so far.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    alephen, Apr 12th, 2011 @ 9:30am

    i dont think it is trolling to question the motivation of these people who have an obvious political goal. there are some 20,000 other people in solitary confinement who are not highlighted in this article because the vast majority of them are obviously bad people and thus unsympathetic. that should give one pause for thought.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    green2, Apr 12th, 2011 @ 10:27am

    I know it is not good manner to advertise myself without approval on this site, but I am desperated and even if you don't like what I say, please read and give me help. I made my mind to sell my virginity. If you have little time to read my story, please visit my blog(http://virgingreen.wordpress.com) or email(green2345@live.com) me. If you are interested in taking my virginity, you are giving me hope and helping me. I even didn't know that I became the one who leaves comment like this on where I used to enjoy reading articles. Please only send me email if you are interested. Don't send me with disrespect words. I am sorry if you dont feel uncomfortable about this but at least hope you could understand how I am desperate.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    alephen, Apr 12th, 2011 @ 11:24am

    very similar circumstances (solitary while being woken regularly): http://echrnews.wordpress.com/tag/solitary-confinement/

    the european court of human rights found this not to be torture. france , sweden, germany, and england all use solitary confinement, thus do not think it is torture.

    my issue with this article and some of the replies is the assertion, matter of factly, that his treatment is 'torture.' if you think it is torture, that is fine, but most people disagree. even the most liberal of countries disagree. and most importantly the courts disagree.

    thus there seems to be no basis for the statement this is torture. the only one i have seen anywhere is the psycological effects on manning, which is common to general population. neurosis is VERY common in prisoners. if that is the only standard for what is torture, then any incarceration is torture and must be stopped.

    that this particular person is treated this way is a second issue:
    he filed an appeal with regards to his treatment in march of 2011. he thus has access to legal recourse if, indeed, his treatment is illegal.

    he is naked because he made a joke about being able to hurt himself with his underwear. if the guards allowed him to keep his underwear and he did hurt himself with them, they would be held responsible. stupid, but that is the american tort system. it isnt sleep depravation, he is given ample time to sleep, but is woken regularly to check on his well being. again, if he injured himself and wasnt checked the guards would be liable.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      The government, Apr 12th, 2011 @ 4:06pm

      Re:

      The only thing that I can say when reading your post is:
      I hope for more citizens like you, that take everything they get fed as truth,that believe the other countries really would object to things all of them do more or less.
      In short "Hail Obama".

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      nasch (profile), Apr 12th, 2011 @ 8:53pm

      Re:

      it isnt sleep depravation, he is given ample time to sleep, but is woken regularly to check on his well being.

      It is not possible to get good sleep and also get woken regularly. You need time to enter and stay in the deep sleep stage to get the most benefit from sleeping. He could be sleeping 10 hours a day, and if it's only 15 minutes at a time he could still be sleep deprived.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        alephen, Apr 12th, 2011 @ 9:52pm

        Re: Re:

        didnt say it was good sleep. he is in prison after all. it is moot anyway as the European Court of Human Rights has even declared this treatment to not be torture.

        calling this torture is a lie. i do not expect the layperson to know this. common usage of this word could include these conditions. last year SF giants baseball fans used the term quite often to describe the consistent habit of the closer to let 2 batters get on base in a close game.

        the lawyers who called it torture know it is a lie, however. (i give them credit for having a basic understanding of a subject they place their names upon, at least.) i can only guess as to their motivations for this, but i get as offended when people use fraud to attempt to gain political results as when they use violence.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Justin Olbrantz (Quantam), Apr 12th, 2011 @ 11:10pm

        Re: Re:

        From a scientific standpoint, there is no "could" about it. Sleeping for 15 minutes at a time will prevent death due to sleep deprivation, but that's about it. With that kind of a sleeping schedule he'd be lucky to get the equivalent of 2 or so hours of "good" sleep per day (again with respect to brain physiology). Under no definition of the term is that not sleep deprivation.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    alephen, Apr 13th, 2011 @ 12:02pm

    being woken sucks, i agree. being woken is not legally torture, that is fact.

    the definition used in the letter "torture, defined as, among other things, “the administration or application…of… procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality.”" even being sent to the principles office or given detention in grade school is torture by this definition, as it's intent is to get the children to stop misbehaving -that is a disruption of their personality.

    it is an absurdly broad definition

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      nasch (profile), Apr 13th, 2011 @ 1:02pm

      Re:

      even being sent to the principles office or given detention in grade school is torture by this definition, as it's intent is to get the children to stop misbehaving -that is a disruption of their personality.

      Influencing or altering someone's behavior is not the same thing as disrupting their personality. And this is not splitting semantic hairs, because behavior and personality are not even close to synonymous, besides the difference between disrupting and affecting.

      And sleep deprivation can definitely disrupt the senses, since it will eventually lead to hallucinations.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    alephen, Apr 13th, 2011 @ 2:44pm

    if anyone has any facts to counter the following statement, i will gladly apologize and retract.

    "every government and every court system on this planet, including ones tasked specifically to combat torture have ruled this treatment does not fall into that category. the 'scholars' who signed this paper knew, or should have known this. thus their characterization is fraudulent"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      nasch (profile), Apr 19th, 2011 @ 4:51pm

      Re:

      if anyone has any facts to counter the following statement, i will gladly apologize and retract.

      "every government and every court system on this planet, including ones tasked specifically to combat torture have ruled this treatment does not fall into that category. the 'scholars' who signed this paper knew, or should have known this. thus their characterization is fraudulent"


      http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning:

      "A U.S. military study of almost a hundred and fifty naval aviators returned from imprisonment in Vietnam . . . reported that they found social isolation to be as torturous and agonizing as any physical abuse they suffered."

      'In 2006, a bipartisan National Commission on America's Prisons was created and it called for the elimination of prolonged solitary confinement. Its Report documented that conditions whereby "prisoners end up locked in their cells 23 hours a day, every day. . . is so severe that people end up completely isolated, living in what can only be described as torturous conditions." '

      So that's a part of the US government calling solitary confinement torture, which immediately disproves your claim.

      Reading on... 'And in its 1940 decision in Chambers v. Florida, the [US Supreme] Court characterized prolonged solitary confinement as "torture" and compared it to "[t]he rack, the thumbscrew, [and] the wheel."'

      So that should be enough to get that apology and retraction from you, right?

      PS sorry it took so long to get around to this

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This