Glenn Greenwald has done an outstanding job of directing the blogosphere’s attention toward the U.S. Army’s inhumane pre-trial imprisonment of Private Bradley Manning, who is accused of providing classified information to WikiLeaks, which in turn published the info for the world to read.
The Manning affair has been bubbling just below the surface of public controversy for the past nine months. However, it started to become a full-blown public scandal last week when President Obama – who campaigned on the disingenuous slogan of “change we can believe in” – endorsed the military’s brutal treatment of this innocent young man while giving a feckless answer to a question about Manning’s treatment during a press conference.
Now, the Manning affair is turning into a firestorm. In addition to this scathing NY Times editorial, Greenwald’s latest post links to the international attention that our government’s abusive treatment of Manning is getting. Constitutional Law scholar Jack Balkin and his colleagues over at Balkinization have prepared and are circulating this excellent statement to the Obama Administration condemning the “degrading and inhumane” conditions of Manning’s “illegal and immoral” detention.
I applaud Greenwald for focusing attention on the gross injustice of the Manning case and for the others who are now objecting publicly to this outrageous misuse of governmental power. As with the government’s vapid security theater and overcriminalization of American life, Manning’s treatment is another powerful reminder of just how remote and unresponsive the government has become to civilized society.
Meanwhile, though, I’m wondering about something.
Why is Manning’s treatment – as barbaric as it is – generating much more outcry than the arguably worse treatment that R. Allen Stanford has received during his pre-trial incarceration?
If we are going to forego protecting the innocent because the accusations against them are serious and seemingly compelling, then – as Thomas More reminds us — “when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, . . . the laws all being flat?”
“This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, . . . do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?”
“Yes, I’d give the Devil the benefit of the law.”
“For my own safety’s sake.”
The treatment of Stanford and Manning has been politically popular because it reflects the will of the people to see those actions most offend society treated with great scorn. That being said, there is little present evidence to indicate these individuals aren’t being treated in a manner consistent with the rule of law.
Stanford has repeatedly been considered a flight risk by the federal court (he is currently arguing the same set of facts for the fourth time trying to obtain pre-trial release). Manning’s case is somewhat different in that the only reason we are given to question a competent psychiatrist’s opinion that Manning is a suicide risk is that “his civilian lawyer says his client is at no risk”. The argumment here is that if an attorney says something concerning the interests of an accused individual it just HAS to be true, so the accused must be afforded whatever consideration his attorney requests. I don’t think so. Solitary confinement is harsh but, at the moment, we have no real evidence that it is unwarranted in this case.
The rule of law long ago degraded into a game where truth and justice were tossed aside and the handling of many cases became something between political theater and an outright game. Defense attorneys make untrue statements with absolute impunity, judges regulary toss aside law and precedent to rule “as they see fit” and those inside the system willingly allow it to happen in order to keep “their piece of the pie.” As long as people are making a living off the system, whether the system is fair or not doesn’t matter.
The treatment of Stanford and Manning has been, by any objective measure, consistent with the rule of law. No one has claimed that the treatment these individuals has received is inconsistent with the treatment offered other similarly suited individuals. Manning stands accused of a capital offense of aiding an enemy during wartime and is being tried pursuant to the UCMJ.
At the end of the day, if either Private Manning or His Royal Highness, Sir Allen, were to be granted pre-trial release, they most likely would be dead within days. The government seems intent on making sure both of these individuals will certainly have their day in court. The amazing thing is, because of the political attention paid to each of these cases, they will both probably have a better shot at equitable justice at trial than many individuals who go before the federal judiciary.
I agree that the treatment of Manning is immoral and unjust. I think the reason is to show people that it’s dangerous to be a whistle blower, so don’t question things like the Official 9/11 Fairy Tale.
I think Stanford is being used as a token to make it seem like something IS being done to those greedy banksters. A few of them, anyhow. He has to be silenced because of his relationships with
the world’s largest drugs cartel – the CIA, and it’s muscle – the DEA.
Remember poison girls: police is a noun that means an armed force for protection and participation.
I don’t know all of the details, but i view the fundamental circumstances as entirely different.
I agree wholeheartedly with the theme of overcriminlalization by the US government(s) against US citizens as one of the very most dangerous problems of the 21st century; however, the military is different, and release of military or politically secret information, AT THE BEHEST OF FOREIGNERS, in order to damage the interests of the United States, (not just the “government” = oligarchical political/economic elite class) is very serious, worthy of serious treatment, and subject to military justice standards rather than full civil due process…
Exactly how is Manning’s treatment immoral? He was determined to be a maximum custody detainee held under a prevention of injury assignment. If he were allowed in the general population, he would be dead within an hour. He made comments about how if he wanted to kill himself, he could choke himself on his electic underwear band or on his flip-flops, so they took those items away. He sleeps without underwear for a week. WOW! How immoral!
Yes, the feds are playing hardball with Manning, but Manning should have expected such treatment when he decided he was going to steal 250,000 classified documents and make them public because his superior officers weren’t behaving how Manning thought they should. Those accused of aiding the enemy during wartime have traditionally received treatment similar to Manning’s. I don’t see any limits of morality being violated here. The entire thing has been reviewed by a judge. I don’t see and limits of lawful behavior being violated here, either. If people are mad at how Manning is being treated, don’t complain to the executive branch.
As for Stanford, if he were allowed on the streets, he too would be dead within an hour, and not because of any fictitious relationship he had with the CIA or the DEA. Stanford pissed off a lot of very nasty people. That Hittner doesn’t want Stanford to take off or get killed is no surprise. However, the Stanford matter is now being reviewed by the courts for the FOURTH time. How anyone can argue Stanford is being treated in a manner inconsistent with the rule of law if beyond me.
“As for Stanford, if he were allowed on the streets, he too would be dead within an hour, and not because of any fictitious relationship he had with the CIA or the DEA.” You can believe what the government & corporate media want you to know…
but in the very next breath you say: “Stanford pissed off a lot of very nasty people.”
Yes, including CIA and DEA.
I take it you’re unfamiliar with the allegations of him having been an informant.
Oh, and if the government says torture is okay if you call it something else, then it certainly can’t be considered immoral — and especially
if Manning released documents which reveal government hypocrisy, and worse.
In the interest of fairness and being consistent,
I would agree that when VP Cheney, via “Scooter”
Libby outed CIA agent Valarie Plame, that act, which many believe was treasonous, should properly be viewed as mere whistle-blowing — as part of the
propaganda to justify the arguably illegal war against the country of Iraq.
Dick is no worse than Bradley. Really. Cough.
Bill,
The allegations of harsh treatment have not been found to constitute torture. Even if Private Manning had evidence of government hypocrisy, that would not be a defense for his actions.
As for Stanford and his fantasy that he was a CIA informant, I worked for the asshole and I do not believe representations by His Royal Highness that he was a secret agent are anything other than delusions similar to his claims that he was a direct lineal descendent of Leland Stanford and that he was knighted by Queen Elizabeth’s son, Prince Andrew. Stanford is a pathological liar in my opinion and his claims that he was a secret agent are pure fiction.
As for Scooter Libby, I wasn’t aware that his actions rose to he level of aiding the enemy in time of war. Evidently not many others, yourself excepted, were not aware of this either (which may explain why he was never even accused of a capital crime as Private Manning has been). Your insinuations that VP Cheney and Libby were involved in a conspiracy to aid the enemy in a time of war are simply wrong. The actions of Manning and Libby are certainly not in anyway close to each other. Cheney wasn’t even charged with unlawful activity.
CBR, both alleged crimes are serious. But if we allow prisoners who are charged with serious crimes to be tortured while awaiting trial, then it is a very small step to countenance that standard of imprisonment for far less serious crimes. There have been many serious espionage cases over the years — some of which appear to be far worse than Manning’s alleged disclosures — and I cannot recall one of them in which the conditions of the defendant’s imprisonment were even close to Mannings.
Look at it this way. Manning has been so abused in jail that, if he did confess tomorrow, nobody could tell if it was the truth or something squeezed out of him The US may be right to imprison Manning as the alleged WikiLeaks source. But it is wrong in every way to abuse him in prison.
Outing a CIA agent is a serious felony, and if
anyone other than Cheney/Libby had outed Plame, they might well have been charged with a capital offense. Based on your logic, Colin Powell’s lies to world in the U.N. speech which boosted boosh’s
conspiracy to wage an illegal war on Iraq – Powell’s lies don’t even rise to the level of BS, since he was never indicted.
When has Stanford ever claimed to be a “secret agent”?
In an interview with CSNBC (Scott Cohn), Stanford stated he was “not going to talk about” his connections with the CIA or the DEA or the US Government after being asked about it. That clearly constituted a claim he did indeed have a role. He used an ex-DEA spook in Antigua to recast the banking laws. The speculation that Stanford would be dead within days after being released from, let’s face it, protective custody, is nearly a law of nature. Judge Hittner knew that but of course did not say it. Read my book “Sir Allen and Me.” It’s on amazon.com.
I don’t think protection of Stanford had anything to do with his pre-trial imprisonment. Stanford has not been held in any protective custody, highlighted by the fact that at one stage one stage of his imprisonment, he shared a cell with 25 other prisoners, which resulted in his brutal beating. My belief is that Judge Hittner’s pre-trial imprisonment of Stanford has more to do with the case of Harris Dempsey “Butch” Ballow than anything else.
Stanford also used the ex-head of the Miami Customs office to help get the Antiguan money laundering laws changed in his favor (an act that incited Congressional outrage at the time). Just because he used former government officials doesn’t mean he had any connection to the CIA or the DEA.
Stanford is a pathological liar. He claimed he was a direct lineal descendent to Leland Stanford. Leland Stanford had one son who dies at the age of 12. His Royal Highness, Sir Allen, could not have been a direct lineal descendent to Leland Stanford. I could cite other lies Stanford has used in the past to embellish his name, but I will pass on that opportunity.
Both Stanford and Manning committed acts that put a certain high ranking chief executive in a stiuation where he needed to act to protect his political reputation. The fact that these cases have been arguably mishandled is of no surprise to those who believe this un-named chief executive is in way over his head on a lot of matters. The fact that exactly zero Wall St execs have even been called to account for their roles in the financial crisis is also of note.
Manning and Stanford made themselves political targets. That being said, there is nothing to indicate their treatment constitutes torture. Since the treatment of both individuals have been reviewed by the courts, any concerns about their treatment shouldn’t be directed at the executive branch. Rather, those concerns should be directed to teh judiciary and, quite frankly, I don’t believe Judge Hittner or the 5th Circuit having condoned torture. As for Manning, I don’t see his treatment as torture either.
If he is still ambulatory and can still talk, then obviously he hasn’t been tortured, right?
TomK: pls. say more about Ballow(sp?) and how his case relates to Stanford’s situation.
Bill, Ballow was a Ponzi schemer who Judge Hittner released on bond pending his trial and sentencing. He skipped the country right before sentencing. You can read more about him here: http://www.justice.gov/usao/txs/releases/November%202010/110210%20Ballow.htm