Bradley Manning

[hippifried]

I agree with Stavros on the Afghan assessment.

First: The Soviets weren't fighting the Taliban, as some seem to think. The 2 wars are apples & oranges.

Personally, I don't think we needed to invade. The Taliban had already been routed before any outside troops hit the ground. The invasion itself was counterproductive. It's been almost 10 years, we're still there, & it's still a mess.

I don't see a "Nation of Afghanistan" making it any time in the forseeable future. There's no Afghan nationality, & I don't think anybody who's supposed to know what they're doing over there really gets that. They're tribal, & I see no reason why they shouldn't stay tribal if they want to. The only thing we really have the power to do is put one tribe in charge of the others. That's never worked. Instead of trying to create a nation out of nothing, that the people over there don't seem to want or understand, perhaps we should be trying to mediate a tribal convention to organize a system of treaties or maybe a confederacy. There's one thing that all these tribes seem to have in common. They don't want to be ruled by someone else. They really need to work this out themselves. We can probably help a little, but "hearts & minds" are never won by military occupation. Remaking Afghanistan in our image is a pipe dream, but a confederacy might be attainable in this generation.

[onmyknees]

That's not quite accurate. His trial will be governed by the UCMJ, but he is still suppose to be protected by the same constitutional rights and safeguards as someone outside of the military. The terms of his confinement are unnecessarily harsh, especially considering he has not even been convicted.

Nope...not quite correct sir...
A military detainee is not afforded bail for example, and his right to a speedy trial , although assured is left to the discretion of the military to decide what speedy is...further......


Many rights of the accused familiar in civilian courts are present in military court, but to a much more limited degree. The right against self-incrimination exists, for example, the accused must be informed of the crime, and double jeopardy is prohibited. The Court of Military Appeals has held that all rights afforded civilians are afforded service members, unless the UCMJ expressly overrides a right. As for the votes of the court-martial, the death penalty must be found by a unanimous vote. Other offenses are by a two-thirds vote. Sentences of ten years confinement or more must be agreed by three-fourths of the court.
Civilian courts have no jurisdiction to review military cases, with the sole exception of the Supreme Court, which, in 1984, was given appellate jurisdiction over the Court of Military Appeals. The only remaining exception to this exclusive jurisdiction is the habeas corpus process, in which a civilian court can compel the military to show cause to hold a prisoner.

[onmyknees]

Afghanastan was won....the Taliban routed and sent scurrying like the dogs they are. It took the Russians a decade to pack up and leave as losers, and in months we had won a decisive victory. It was one of the most stunning military victories in a century, and done by a handful of special forces, air support in combination with Afghan tribesman. Then we lost our focus and turned to Iraq, and the dogs returned.

I can't agree with this -the point of contention being the definition of victory. If you mean that the government by the Taliban was routed, you are correct even though by 2001 the Taliban was still not in control of the whole country. It was also the case that even before 9/11 local Afghans were fed up with the 'Arabi' Mujahideen who never went home after 1992, and even Mullah Omar after 9/11 considered handing in Osama bin Laden, so the argument that Afghanistan was always going to be a base for international terrorism was a weak one.

The problem is that the Taliban was not defeated as a social and political movement, after 2001 its members either remained in Afghanistan or migrated to the lawless frontier between Afghanistan and Pakistan to re-group. The inability of the successors to the Taliban to provide stable government, and even a sense of economic improvement plus increasingly outrageous corruption and the destuction of poppy fields was one cause of the resurgence of the Taliban -the corruption has been so bad it has created support for the Taliban where it did not exist before, some of whom want nothing to do with Mulla Omar and the 'diehards' and seek an accommodation with Karzai, some of whom reject it. Another cause has been the need that Pakistan has to prolong the conflict to maintain the flow of US dollars/aid and maintain pressure on India for its own regional interests, indeed the role that Pakistan played in creating the Taliban and maintaining it has re-bounded on its own politics with devastating effect.

The nub of the problem is that none of the governmental stuctures that have been in power since the revolution of 1974 have created statehood or a sense of citizenship; a fundamental weakness in both Soviet and Western Capitalist strategy has been the belief that such a thing can be created if you 'win hearts and minds' with stable government, elections, economic development projects, education and so on, most of which has not materialised anyway because so much of the money advanced for it has disappeared into deep pockets and foreign bank accounts-what you have left is a collection of tribes and other structures, some religious, some regionally based, most of whom despise the Karzai government and foreign armies. Afghanistan has played by its own rules since the British Empire first dug a hole for itself in the 1830s, it beggars belief that we could now be into the Fourth Anglo-Afghan war since then without learning a single lesson -Tony Blair, a man with a mission truly believed he could achieve what no other politician or soldier (including Alexander the Great) could achieve, the kind of pomposity and ill-conceived strategy that has filled too many graves and emptied too many wallets. The point being that in their hearts the diplomats and soldiers know that Afghanistan is lost, they just cant bring themselves to admit it in public, Manning's leaks or no. I don't necessarilly despair of the place, but I dont see any progress taking place in the near future.

"If you mean that the government by the Taliban was routed, you are correct even though by 2001 the Taliban was still not in control of the whole country."

That is what my meaning of victory is....



"The point being that in their hearts the diplomats and soldiers know that Afghanistan is lost, they just cant bring themselves to admit it in public, Manning's leaks or no. I don't necessarilly despair of the place, but I dont see any progress taking place in the near future."

On this point you are dead wrong. Most Marines I know personally feel deeply committed to this war. You're projecting your dislike for the war onto them and that's a huge mistake. It is not uncommon to have critically wounded Marnies recover, and seek special orders to return. You view this in a historical context and from a distance. They live and breath it 24/7. When they tell me it's unwinnable, I'll capitualte....Harry Reid and his assinine statements notwithstanding.

[NYBURBS]

Nope...not quite correct sir...
A military detainee is not afforded bail for example, and his right to a speedy trial , although assured is left to the discretion of the military to decide what speedy is...further......


Many rights of the accused familiar in civilian courts are present in military court, but to a much more limited degree. The right against self-incrimination exists, for example, the accused must be informed of the crime, and double jeopardy is prohibited. The Court of Military Appeals has held that all rights afforded civilians are afforded service members, unless the UCMJ expressly overrides a right. As for the votes of the court-martial, the death penalty must be found by a unanimous vote. Other offenses are by a two-thirds vote. Sentences of ten years confinement or more must be agreed by three-fourths of the court.
Civilian courts have no jurisdiction to review military cases, with the sole exception of the Supreme Court, which, in 1984, was given appellate jurisdiction over the Court of Military Appeals. The only remaining exception to this exclusive jurisdiction is the habeas corpus process, in which a civilian court can compel the military to show cause to hold a prisoner.

They are in the UCMJ because they are required under the Constitution, not merely because Congress decided to enact it. If the Constitution didn't apply at all to members of the military then there would have been no need for the 5th Amendment to exempt the military from one particular clause, namely: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger."

Speedy trail requirements are defined by statute in both civilian and military proceedings, since the Constitution leaves great ambiguity as to what is "speedy."

Bail is a different story, since you're already confined to service in the military anyway, but even the "no bail" issue has been addressed as being problematic.

Long story short, the Congress is empowered to make rules and regulations governing discipline in the military, but those rules are still subject to Constitutional scrutiny. If they made a rule tomorrow that anyone that fails to attend Sunday worship at the base chapel is subject to imprisonment or execution, do you think that there would not be a First Amendment challenge? Like I said, it applies, it just so happens that certain provisions such as speech or bail are restricted due to the nature of service, but torture, due process, freedom of/from religion, etc are all Constitutional guarantees that continue to follow members of the military.

Here's a link to an very old hearing about some of these issues:

www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/const-rights-mil-pers.pdf

The issue with Manning is not that he is being held, nor that they intend to try him, it is that they are subjecting him to unusually harsh treatment in an attempt to punish and/or break him before he has even been convicted, and that is neither acceptable nor constitutional imo.

PS- I know where you got the info for your post from, and it's a really good site, but it's not exactly exhaustive in its analysis or explanation of any particular issue.

[Stavros]

"If you mean that the government by the Taliban was routed, you are correct even though by 2001 the Taliban was still not in control of the whole country."

That is what my meaning of victory is....

Your definition is too narrow -the Taliban were overthrown by force, and their extreme version of Shari'a law has been rejected by most Afghans, but the fact is that the Taliban were not succeeded by an effective government, and both the central govt and many of the localised power centres are so corrupt and inefficient the Taliban have been able to gain support from people and maintain their fighting presence -in addition to which Pakistan is deliberately arming the Taliban to maintain its own agenda, while Iran has also got stuck in having taken in a million refugees and because it suits it to bog down the US/NATO in the field. Petraeus has developed these 'local' power centres but a report in Friday's Independent in the UK claims one of the leaders of a local group has been condemned as a corrupt, violent thug. So in addition to the army, the police, NATO forces and those creepy 'private security' firms, you have warlords and in effect, US-sponsored 'gangs' who are supposed to take on the Taliban in their area -none of this is conducive to state-building, but contributes to an ongoing culture of violence and crime -maybe the soldiers who want to go back can't get anough of the adrenaline, but if they are not producing any practical benefits, whats the point?

[Ben]

That's not quite accurate. His trial will be governed by the UCMJ, but he is still suppose to be protected by the same constitutional rights and safeguards as someone outside of the military. The terms of his confinement are unnecessarily harsh, especially considering he has not even been convicted.

Yep! The military code of justice prohibits holding people in pre-trial detention in a way that's designed to punish them.

[Ben]

Bradley Manning Treatment Reveals Continued Government Complicity in Torture

by Marjorie Cohn

Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, who is facing court-martial for leaking military reports and diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks, is being held in solitary confinement in Quantico brig in Virginia. Each night, he is forced to strip naked and sleep in a gown made of coarse material. He has been made to stand naked in the morning as other inmates walked by and looked. As journalist Lance Tapley documents in his chapter on torture in the supermax prisons in the United States of Torture solitary confinement can lead to hallucinations and suicide; it is considered to be torture. Manning's forced nudity amounts to humiliating and degrading treatment, in violation of U.S. and international law.
Nevertheless, President Barack Obama defended Manning's treatment, saying, "I've actually asked the Pentagon whether or not the procedures . . . are appropriate. They assured me they are." Obama's deference is reminiscent of President George W. Bush, who asked "the most senior legal officers in the U.S. government" to review the interrogation techniques. "They assured me they did not constitute torture," Bush said.
The order for Manning's nudity apparently followed what he described as a sarcastic comment he made to guards after their repeated harassment of him regarding how he was to salute them. Manning said that if he were intent on strangling himself, he could use his underwear or flip-flops.
"In my 40 years of hospital psychiatric practice, I've never heard of something like this," said Dr. Steven Sharfstein, a former president of the American Psychiatric Association. "In some very unusual circumstances, when people are intensely suicidal, you might put them in a hospital gown. ... But it's very, very unusual to be in that kind of suicide watch for this long a period of time."
Sharfstein also was concerned that military officials appeared to defy the recommendations of mental health professionals. "He's been examined by psychiatrists who said he's not suicidal. ... They are making medical judgments in the face of medical evaluations to the contrary," Sharfstein noted.
After State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley criticized Manning's conditions of confinement, the White House forced him to resign. Crowley had said the restrictions were "ridiculous, counterproductive and stupid." It appears that Washington is more intent on sending a message to would-be whistleblowers than on upholding the laws that prohibit torture and abuse.
Torture is commonplace in countries strongly allied with the United States. Vice President Omar Suleiman, Egypt's intelligence chief, was the lynchpin for Egyptian torture when the CIA sent prisoners to Egypt in its extraordinary rendition program. A former CIA agent observed, "If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear - never to see them again - you send them to Egypt." In her chapter in the United States of Torture, New Yorker journalist Jane Mayer cites Egypt as the most common destination for suspects rendered by the United States.
She describes the rendering of Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi to Egypt, where he was tortured and made a false confession that Colin Powell cited as he importuned the Security Council to approve the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Al-Libi later recanted his confession.
Although there is general consensus that torture does not work - the subject will say anything to get the torture to stop - what if it did work? Would that justify torturing people into providing information? Philosopher John Lango's chapter asks whether an extreme emergency can ever trump the absolute prohibition of torture. Lango rejects the nuclear weapon and ticking bomb scenarios as "fantasy" and declares, "Terrorism can never warrant terroristic torment." He suggests a protocol to the Convention against Torture to fortify the moral prohibition of torture and cruel treatment.
The moral equivalence of torture and "one-sided warfare" is explored in Professor Richard Falk's provocative chapter. He contrasts the liberal moral outrage at torture with uncritical acceptance of one-sided warfare. Nations, particularly the United States, inflict horrific pain on primarily non-white people in other countries, but suffer no consequences. Falk draws an analogy between the torture victim and the subjects of one-sided warfare - both are under the total control of the perpetrator. He recommends adherence to international humanitarian law and repudiation of "wars of choice."
In the United States of Torture, an historian, a political scientist, a philosopher, a psychologist, a sociologist, two journalists and eight lawyers detail the complicity of the U.S. government in the torture and cruel treatment of prisoners both at home and abroad, and strategies for accountability. In her compelling preface, Sister Dianna Ortiz describes the unimaginable treatment she endured in 1987 when she was in Guatemala doing missionary work while the United States was supporting the dictatorship there. The first step in changing policy is to understand its history and the motivation behind it. I hope this book will accomplish that goal.

[Ben]

[maaarc]

IMHO this what Bradley deserves

[robertlouis]

IMHO this what Bradley deserves

Innocent till proven guilty, eh?