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?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bradley manning, torture, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
silly
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What Tribe, White Man?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ignore who? The new 'guests' at Gitmo....
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'....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Manning PO'd some heavy lifters
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
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
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: silly
Because the people of the U.S. are, by and large, a bunch of hypocrites.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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.
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: UCMJ
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: UCMJ
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: silly
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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."
How could I forget the 28th Amendment, which states "Oh yeah, and none of this shit applies to people in the military".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: UCMJ
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: UCMJ
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: UCMJ
Why so vague? Exactly which ones?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A few more specifics would help
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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: UCMJ
Sometimes you have to destroy the village in order to save it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Manning PO'd some heavy lifters
Lots of guns.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: silly
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It also underscores the unlikelihood of the government and military willing allowing it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: A few more specifics would help
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: A few more specifics would help
;-)
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: A few more specifics would help
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Read: exploiting his situation via blog posts without actually offering any solutions / direct help.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: UCMJ
Since when does "just following orders" work as a defense?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A few more specifics would help
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: torture?
What are you willing to call it?
The reasons for the conditions do not change the facts of the conditions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another view
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: 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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few more specifics would help
I'm betting very few.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: torture?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: A few more specifics would help
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
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).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
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".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"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"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: UCMJ - There is a right to a speedy 120-day trial
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)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"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
[ link to this | view in thread ]