4 ms·

" 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

" 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.
  - grandalf 16y ago
    The technicalities you describe do not in my mind excuse the poor treatment he's receiving.
    - lucasjung 16y ago
      These are not technicalities: he has done incalculable damage to the national security of the U.S. While there is no real way to prove it one way or another, it is entirely likely that his disclosures have resulted in the suffering or even deaths of others. There is only one way to be sufficiently certain that he does not cause further damage, and that is to keep him in isolation. If it is justifiable to keep an extremely violent criminal in isolation to prevent possible future harm to others, is it not equally justifiable to keep a nonviolent criminal in isolation in order to prevent possible future harm to even greater numbers of people? EDIT: Downvote if you like, but the question remains a valid philosophical question: if it is ethical to keep a person in isolation to preempt the possibility of physical harm to others, does the mechanism by which the harm is perpetrated matter?
      - grandalf 16y ago
        This is a chicken/egg problem. If someone had leaked the truth prior to the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, then over 100K people would be alive today who were killed, some of whom are American soldiers. I'd argue that the wars and inappropriate secrecy have done incalculable harm to American national security by creating for us many new enemies, people who had probably admired the US until one of their friends or relatives was injured, killed, taken captive, interrogated harshly and inhumanely, etc. The Apache helicopter video showed a couple of scared-shitless youth raging against anyone in their sights. One can't help but feel sorry for them, and no sensible person blames them for the carnage. But is that really what America is supposed to stand for? The Afghan war logs show a nation that has supported a war largely due to vital information about conditions being kept from the American people. Are we really supposed to be proud of a war that we only support b/c information is classified whenever it might make the war effort look somewhat futile or mismanaged? Both the Iraq and Afghan war logs show us how weak the US really is and how under-leveraged. We're negotiating with terrorists, thugs, and criminals left and right. It's far uglier than any realist would have dared imagine b/c of the lofty regard in which we hold our leaders. I am not persuaded by your argument that Manning poses a risk of additional secrets being revealed. The very nature of his alleged actions (he smuggled out a CD-Roms full of information, less than 1% of which has been leaked via Wikileaks so far) suggest that he'd be able to recite any classified information at all. Unless you tell me he has a flash drive implanted in his finger or an amazing photographic memory I'm going to have to say that your argument doesn't hold water. They're probably trying to make an example of him or break down his psychological stability. I suppose that's to be expected, but it puts our actions on par with the basest of regimes... at some point the legitimacy of a state comes from how it treats its citizens, guilty or innocent.
OpieCunningham 16y ago
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." How did you make that distinction? He's not guilty, but he's a "demonstrated security risk" by virtue of what - the lack of a guilty verdict for allegedly being a demonstrated security risk? You can't have it both ways - he's either not proven guilty and therefore should not be treated as if he is a known threat to others or he has been tried and proven guilty. For all the evidence you've seen, not even being a judge, all charges could be false. At this time you have no idea other than a preexisting, evidence free belief based on things you've heard from some (mostly anonymous) government officials quoted in some random news article. And until you have further details, I can't see any logic beyond sadism or a misunderstanding of the concept of innocent until proven guilty that would allow you to support the reported treatment of Manning.

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.
- grandalf 16y ago
  The technicalities you describe do not in my mind excuse the poor treatment he's receiving.
  - lucasjung 16y ago
    These are not technicalities: he has done incalculable damage to the national security of the U.S. While there is no real way to prove it one way or another, it is entirely likely that his disclosures have resulted in the suffering or even deaths of others. There is only one way to be sufficiently certain that he does not cause further damage, and that is to keep him in isolation. If it is justifiable to keep an extremely violent criminal in isolation to prevent possible future harm to others, is it not equally justifiable to keep a nonviolent criminal in isolation in order to prevent possible future harm to even greater numbers of people? EDIT: Downvote if you like, but the question remains a valid philosophical question: if it is ethical to keep a person in isolation to preempt the possibility of physical harm to others, does the mechanism by which the harm is perpetrated matter?
    - grandalf 16y ago
      This is a chicken/egg problem. If someone had leaked the truth prior to the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, then over 100K people would be alive today who were killed, some of whom are American soldiers. I'd argue that the wars and inappropriate secrecy have done incalculable harm to American national security by creating for us many new enemies, people who had probably admired the US until one of their friends or relatives was injured, killed, taken captive, interrogated harshly and inhumanely, etc. The Apache helicopter video showed a couple of scared-shitless youth raging against anyone in their sights. One can't help but feel sorry for them, and no sensible person blames them for the carnage. But is that really what America is supposed to stand for? The Afghan war logs show a nation that has supported a war largely due to vital information about conditions being kept from the American people. Are we really supposed to be proud of a war that we only support b/c information is classified whenever it might make the war effort look somewhat futile or mismanaged? Both the Iraq and Afghan war logs show us how weak the US really is and how under-leveraged. We're negotiating with terrorists, thugs, and criminals left and right. It's far uglier than any realist would have dared imagine b/c of the lofty regard in which we hold our leaders. I am not persuaded by your argument that Manning poses a risk of additional secrets being revealed. The very nature of his alleged actions (he smuggled out a CD-Roms full of information, less than 1% of which has been leaked via Wikileaks so far) suggest that he'd be able to recite any classified information at all. Unless you tell me he has a flash drive implanted in his finger or an amazing photographic memory I'm going to have to say that your argument doesn't hold water. They're probably trying to make an example of him or break down his psychological stability. I suppose that's to be expected, but it puts our actions on par with the basest of regimes... at some point the legitimacy of a state comes from how it treats its citizens, guilty or innocent.

OpieCunningham 16y ago

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." How did you make that distinction? He's not guilty, but he's a "demonstrated security risk" by virtue of what - the lack of a guilty verdict for allegedly being a demonstrated security risk? You can't have it both ways - he's either not proven guilty and therefore should not be treated as if he is a known threat to others or he has been tried and proven guilty. For all the evidence you've seen, not even being a judge, all charges could be false. At this time you have no idea other than a preexisting, evidence free belief based on things you've heard from some (mostly anonymous) government officials quoted in some random news article. And until you have further details, I can't see any logic beyond sadism or a misunderstanding of the concept of innocent until proven guilty that would allow you to support the reported treatment of Manning.