5 ms·

This is utterly shocking. I had no idea that solitary confinement was used in cases other than to prevent physical harm to an inmate or to prevent violence. I

• thrill 16y ago
  Do you think we should leave a mint on his (non)pillow every night? The accusations against this military person, who voluntarily violated his oath to protect the nation's secrets, are very serious, and PRIVATE, not Mister, Manning is being held to the same standards any other military person is liable to, and is quite likely to face execution by firing squad.
  • roadnottaken 16y ago
    Execution for treason is less morally offensive than psychological torture. That's why cruel and unusual punishment is expressly forbidden by the constitution. EDIT: To say nothing of the fact that he hasn't been convicted of anything yet.
    • Semiapies 16y ago
      "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." Even in the modern political climate, it's going to be hard for the prosecution to demonstrate that Wikileaks constitutes an enemy of the United States.
      • ugh 16y ago
        The Founding Fathers were traitors so it is not exactly a surprise that it is hard to convict someone of treason in the US.
        • Semiapies 16y ago
          More accurately, they'd seen people charged and convicted of treason for nothing more than criticizing the government. This definition wouldn't have exempted them.
          • ugh 16y ago
            Still, it’s a nice illustration that treacherous behavior is not inherently immoral. I think you can generalize that to “Illegal behavior is not inherently immoral.” This discussion is making me uncomfortable, though. Besides not really being HN material, I really in no way intended to compare Manning to the Founding Fathers. That would be ridiculous. I don’t think what he did was heroic, I think it was mostly stupid, probably immoral. But I cannot understand that hunger for blood (I have never been able to understand that, no matter the crime). Locking him up for a few years (in a normal prison) and destroying his career will be pretty certain to discourage anyone who could be discouraged (those willing to violate the law in general don’t expect to be caught). Why punish someone without any positive effect, just for punishment’s sake? That’s what I don’t get.
            • grandalf 16y ago
              Suppose that the American public only supported the wars because it believed some of the lies that the cables revealed to be false. If that were the case, then all the collateral damage caused by the wars happened against the will of the American people while at the same time it was done in the name of the American people. So if Manning believed that to be the case, then he acted heroically. If you don't believe that to be the case, then it's reasonable that you don't consider his actions heroic. I suppose that if the sort of leak Manning did isn't a good reason to risk life in prison, nothing is.
        • 16y ago
  • grandalf 16y ago
    He's being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. In case anyone had doubts who had the moral high ground (Manning or the US Government) this proves it was not the US Government. In general, prisoners should not be treated inhumanely. It's well known that many in prison are beaten and/or raped by other inmates (which itself is inexcusable) but this mistreatment is directly at the hands of those in charge of the prison. Manning has not been violent or dangerous and so there is no need for him to be treated this way.
  • wnoise 16y ago
    The oath is to protect the U.S. Constitution, not the nation's secrets (except as follows under general orders and the UCMJ). > "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." Is it necessary to leak these cables to support and defend the Constitution? Probably not. But there is clear precedent that illegal orders (contradicting either the UCMJ or the Constitution) are not supposed to be obeyed. Espionage charges are laid out in 10 USC 906a: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_10_00000906---a000-.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_10_00000906---a000... and conviction has to prove "intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation", and the death penalty requires one of a number of aggravating circumstances that don't seem to apply. He certainly will be locked up, undoubtedly for quite some time, but he's not going to be executed (if the law is followed).
    • grandalf 16y ago
      I'd argue that due to the leaked cables revealing lots of US Government propaganda, that his act served the constitution by allowing the democratic process to act after it had been hijacked by corrupt leaders.
    • bgentry 16y ago
      Hasn't he in fact disobeyed the orders of his superior officers by leaking the cables (which were marked "CONFIDENTIAL")? There are a few reasons why disobeying such an order would be acceptable, but I doubt the military will take it easy on him unless it his obvious that every bit of info he leaked was directly related to some kind of war crime being carried out by his superiors.
  • rbanffy 16y ago
    You could describe his crimes as to revealing government secrets to a nation he swore to protect. Sometimes you need to protect a country from its government.
• rookie 16y ago
  And especially without being convicted of anything yet. Very disgusting and shocking to learn of this.
• Semiapies 16y ago
  We're doing it to rather a few people, unfortunately. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermax
• elblanco 16y ago
  The original penitentiaries were actually designed as all solitary -- the idea was that an inmate, isolated from the corruption of the world, would find their innate inner goodness and spend the time praying - hence the "penitent" part of "penitentiary. This place http://www.easternstate.org/ http://www.easternstate.org/ is a fascinating place to visit -- it's the model for many many prisons around the world still in use today. The idea of putting prisoners in what amounts to group housing is actually a very new notion and not at all clear that it provides a better environment than solitary.
  • wnoise 16y ago
    It's actually quite clear -- group housing doesn't inherently drive most people insane after months. Solitary confinement does. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_gawande http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_... Change it from less than 1 hour of contact per day to something like 4, and I doubt it would be harmful.
    • elblanco 16y ago
      Perhaps I should clarify, one of the outstanding issues with the group environment in modern prisons is the highly unsupervised nature of it all. Prisoners form prison gangs, establish strict social rules, violence becomes the norm, gang rape is used as a control mechanism,...etc. A shocking number of first time prisoners end up deep in bizarre race segregated gangs, or if they aren't strong enough, used as sexual barter pieces for stronger prisoners. The list goes on and on. Guards are there to keep them in the facility, and more or less from killing each other, but that's about it (and the guards are often as much the ones causing the problems as the prisoners). Most people don't realize the prisons these days are largely like this: http://www.buzzfeed.com/sgtdopushups/cop-killer-updates-facebook-from-his-prison-cell-21dz http://www.buzzfeed.com/sgtdopushups/cop-killer-updates-face... So what I mean is that it's not clear, from a correctional standpoint, that the modern group environment is a safer or more sane environment than the original isolation concept. To my understanding, the main reason prisons have largely moved to a social environment had more to do with cost than perceived harm from extended isolation. I won't dispute that extended solitary is also mentally damaging...but your idea of more solitary than today for the typical prisoner, and a few hours of contact, is pretty sound to me.
• lucasjung 16y ago
  " I had no idea that solitary confinement was used in cases other than to prevent physical harm to an inmate or to prevent violence." Given which way the winds are obviously blowing around here, I fully expect to get downvoted into oblivion for what I'm about to say, but it needs to be said: There are other valid reasons. In this particular case, the detainee is a demonstrated security risk. At this point I'm sure that people will be inclined to point out that he hasn't yet been convicted of anything. True. But the bar for "demonstrated security risk" is in a very different place from the bar for "guilty." Servicemembers who are given access to classified information, especially at the Secret level or higher, are required to sign nondisclosure agreements. These aren't like corporate "we'll sue you into oblivion" NDAs: they are chock full of language about criminal penalties and (beyond the normal criminal process) being subject to investigation, detention, sequester, interrogation, polygraph, etc. He has clearly demonstrated that he is perfectly willing to disclose secrets that are harmful to the security of the United States, and so the military has an obligation to prevent any further such disclosures. Given the scale and scope of his previous disclosures, any contact represents an opportunity for further unauthorized disclosure, and so his gaolers have an obligation to keep such contact to an absolute minimum.
  • grandalf 16y ago
    Haven't his handlers signed similar agreements? By your logic, no judge should be able to hear his trial lest he/she hear and expose the secrets that might be revealed.
    • lucasjung 16y ago
      Actually, it's entirely possible that his handlers don't have the appropriate security clearances to hear the things he knows. Even if they have the right clearances, they don't have a need to know, and so he would be committing another unauthorized disclosure if he were to reveal classified information to them. Your second sentence does not follow from my logic: it is not Manning's knowledge of classified information which makes him a security risk, but rather his history of disclosing said information to people without the proper clearances or need to know. Unlike Manning, this hypothetical judge has done nothing to demonstrate a propensity for unauthorized disclosure of classified materials. This will be a court-martial, so the judge will be an officer. Presumably he will have the appropriate clearances to hear all of the evidence, and the trial itself constitutes a need to know.