From the beginning of his detention, Manning has been held in intensive solitary confinement. For 23 out of 24 hours every day -- for seven straight months and counting -- he sits completely alone in his cell. Even inside his cell, his activities are heavily restricted; he's barred even from exercising and is under constant surveillance to enforce those restrictions. For reasons that appear completely punitive, he's being denied many of the most basic attributes of civilized imprisonment, including even a pillow or sheets for his bed (he is not and never has been on suicide watch). For the one hour per day when he is freed from this isolation, he is barred from accessing any news or current events programs. Lt. Villiard protested that the conditions are not "like jail movies where someone gets thrown into the hole," but confirmed that he is in solitary confinement, entirely alone in his cell except for the one hour per day he is taken out. Salon
David Seaton's News Links
We are living is rather surreal times, so it is normal that a conversation like this one about Pfc Manning can have a dream-like quality of disassociation at times. I think I first realized how totally wacky our world had become, when after 9-11 Dubya said that America's reaction to the attack should be to go out shopping. The Manning conversation is moving in that direction.
When we talk about Private Manning (or anyone else wearing the uniform of the US armed forces) we are talking about a member of a collective that is at this moment engaged in two wars. Members of this group, wearing the same uniform as Manning are regularly getting killed and maimed. You might say that this is all deadly serious for this particular collective, group or "family". What has been leaked appears to be State Department material, but it could easily include the order of battle of US forces. From a military point of view, this is all "code red", heads must roll, serious. For the army the most important thing now is to find out if this is just an isolated individual acting alone and make sure it never happens again.
There is plenty of room to discuss the role of Julian Assange, myself I think he's a messianic scumbag, but most of my friends think he is a hero, like I say, plenty of room for discussion. But Private Manning is either a poor, innocent, chump, who has been skillfully manipulated by Assange, or if not he is person who has betrayed the trust of his comrades and anyone who volunteers to join the army must know that carries a price.
There seems to be some confusion about military discipline. My late father was a US Army officer for over twelve years, with service in field artillery and the Corp of Engineers, and as he colorfully explained it to me once, this is how the military operates, "Cap'n stubs his toe, hollers 'SHIT!', whole company squats and sounds off back, "WHAT COLOR... SIR!!" Soldiers are supposed to follow orders, fall on grenades, take machine gun nests, sit on bayonets, peel potatoes and clean latrines with their toothbrushes, not have opinions, that is what soldering is about. If you think differently, you've probably seen "Judgment at Nuremberg" too many times.
I don't defend injustice, but the justice of the military is different from civilian justice, just as military music is different from normal music. The first thing to remember about soldiers, even though it sounds dramatic, is that they are expected to actually die as part of their job description. The first loyalty is to the group, because those are the people that have got your back... to let them down, to put them in any kind of unnecessary danger is a cardinal sin. Loyalty and honor are a fetish, with death around. The mentality is so different from the civilian mentality that there is always tension between them. Manning should never have been allowed in the army in the first place, I don't think he ever understood where he was... maybe now, when it is too late, he is getting the idea.
Reading more about him, I think it would be an understatement to say that he wasn't military material, that he was as cut out for army life as Ewan McGregor's character in "I love you Phillip Morris". However, Pfc Manning volunteered to serve, he wasn't drafted against his will, he took an oath, he knew that what he was doing was a serious breech of military discipline. I would think the only possible defense he could have would be temporary insanity. I feel sorry for him, but there are people I feel much more sorry for, like, for instance, another Pfc, the late Erin L. McLyman. Somehow I don't think Erin would have cut Bradley much slack. DS
15 comments:
Most of the ime I agree with you, however, on the matter of brother Manning, you seem to have missed the point. No matter how you feel about him personally, what the US government is doing to him is wrong, very wrong. The man is being held in virtual isolation, withou charges. He is slowly being driven insane.
Like I say, military justice is like military music, when you volunteer you agree to its jurisdiction. I think that is the bottom line, Manning is not a draftee.
Your response to my comment leaves me somewhat bewildered, As both a criminal defense lawyer and a military veteran, I know that the Uniform Code of Military Justice bars torture and cruel and unusual punishment on military detainees, whether they are volunteers or draftees. Under your logic it seems ir would be permissable to waterboard PFC Manning, since he is a volunteer.
But brother Seaton, there is no distinction in the military between enlistees and draftees with regard to their exposure to military justice. I don't usually see that term as oxymoronic; in Manning's case I do.
I worked in the Intelligence Community for a few years. While we had the occasional "romantic" who passed intel to "lost causes" such as Cuba, as well as mercenary types like Pollard, it's only post-9/11 that children gained access to "useful" information. Geeze -- look at his face! Manning shouldn't be allowed to go the bathroom unsupervised, much less be given access to a classified work station!
There is a distinction between volunteers and draftees... there no longer is a draft. It is an all volunteer force. Nobody is forced to serve anymore.
Anybody that is in an army during a war can expect anything to happen if they screw up. War is a very nasty business, something that for some reason many pacifists seem to ignore.
Despite you being slightly screwy on the volunteer v. draftee matter,anyone who loved James Moody has to be ok.
Thank you for this vote of confidence.
What I am trying to say is that in war, by definition, there is no limit to the cruelty... That is why war is evil. Anybody who volunteers enters into that dynamic.
I'm sure that The Decider would agree with you, David.
Bush was happy to have a war, because his presidency was floundering until the towers went down. Precisely because the logic of war is what it is, Bush was happy to have those powers. He would have been a one term president without Osama bin Laden. This is the reason that war should be avoided, because once begun, its logic is implacable.
I feel no particular sorrow for your Pvt. Erin McLyman, who signed up to kill other people and instead had her life taken. Who cares who she would cut slack to, as if she were some moral authority just because of volunteering to serve in the military? And as long as you are worried about betraying the trust; the loyalty to the group, what of the rampant raping of women in the military by their brothers-in-arms? How is forcing women onto their backs as they are forcibly violated considered having their backs? Are they not let down as they are pinned down or is this also part of the implacable logic of war? Signing into the military, volunteer or conscript, does not mean you now get to rape 14 year old girls, burn their bodies and kill the remaining family members because war is dirty business. It does not mean that you have to round-up people and deliver them to certain torture just because your superior has ordered you to. The military code of honor is not the highest and has a tendency to be very unevenly invoked. And no, I've never seen "Judgement at Nuremburg."
Right now, for me the "primary contradiction" is building a welfare state where all citizens receive equal, health, education, etc. There is no welfare state without a state itself and there is no state without an army. To think otherwise is anarchism. Armies, because they operate in mortal danger run on discipline, loyalty and trust. Rape, like divulging secrets is also a violation of discipline.
So, military discipline trumps all else. A superior tells you to load people into ovens, all you can say is "How many at a time, sir?", or "Women and children first, sir?". In order to supply universal healthcare to its citizens, a state (and all of its citizens, without which there is no state) must allow its necessary military to do whatever it wants to the rest of the world's citizens in the name of sacrosanct military discipline. You seem to be favoring tyranny to avoid anarchy.
Post a Comment