Posted by Tina
The Washington Times reported about a controversy surrounding Pfc. Bradley Manning’s treatment in a brig at Quantico. Manning, after threatening suicide, was separated from all items that he could use to harm himself and he has complained bitterly:
“I was stripped of all clothing with the exception of my underwear. My prescription eyeglasses were taken away from me and I was forced to sit in essential blindness.”
This is standard procedure for any person being detained in an American jail but that didn’t stop some sympathizers on the left from going a little bonkers:
“The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning’s detention,” ny Glenn Greenwald – Salon
“…he has been detained at the U.S. Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia for five months — and for two months before that in a military jail in Kuwait — under conditions that constitute cruel and inhumane treatment and, by the standards of many nations, even torture.”
A Google search reveals that simply placing this man in solitary confinement, also standard in cases like his, has resulted in several accusations of torture. The UN has even gotten involved:
According to the Associated Press, the U.N. office for torture issues in Geneva said it received a complaint from one of Manning’s supporters alleging conditions at the brig amount to torture. A spokesman for the Marines denied mistreating Manning, telling the AP he is being kept safe, secure and ready for trial.
So I guess President Obama’s name can be added to the list of torturers being compiled by the drama kings and queens in today’s liberal no consequences world, right. It’s only fair.
Solitary confinement is mental torture. This much is obvious.
If you think this form of torture is justified in this case, then explain why you feel this way. But don’t try to change the meanings of words because you find them politically incorrect.
According to the Salon article, Manning is not and never has been on suicide watch. The Times article implies that he has made a suicide attempt, but never actually makes that claim outright or provides evidence of such.
Is it really standard procedure to place a man who has been convicted of no crime in solitary confinement for months on end? If so, it certainly should not be.
Obama’s conduct regarding the issues of torture and prisoner abuse has been absolutely shameful. He shows zero interest in fulfilling his campaign promises on this issue, and it should be seen as a huge moral stain upon his legacy.
This excerpt from Greenwald’s article should explain to those of you pooh-poohing Manning’s grievances why exactly you should care about this:
“If you became aware of secret information revealing serious wrongdoing, deceit and/or criminality on the part of the U.S. Government, would you — knowing that you could and likely would be imprisoned under these kinds of repressive, torturous conditions for months on end without so much as a trial: just locked away by yourself 23 hours a day without recourse — be willing to expose it? That’s the climate of fear and intimidation which these inhumane detention conditions are intended to create.”
Seriously, Tea Party: If this doesn’t bother you, then your claims of being against “big government” are a complete sham. This is big government at it’s worst. If you do not protest this with at least the same fervor as you protested letting tax cuts on the rich return to the rates they were in the mid-nineties, then you are liars and hypocrites.
Chris, if I came across information that revealed a possible crime and I thought releasing it to the public would damage my country, not just the men committing the crime, I would be forced to pursue an alternative.
I don’t think Manning considered all the possibilities or consequences of his actions. He could not have known all that was in the documents that he recklessly released. This was too big, and too complicated to be trusted to the limited judgment of one man….one young man with limited life experience. He should have at least have known he was in over his head. He should have realized he didn’t have all the facts and the breadth of experience to make the call that he did. Wikileaks was way, way too dangerous and perhaps the worst thing he could have done. He should have sought the council of others, such as a Congressman or a Senator, even a priest, but he should not have done it all on his own. That was deadly stupid. .
The argument of serving the greater good is always a tough call and this time the call was badly handled. Manning deserves far worse than he’s getting.
Manning deserves far worse?
Convicted him already, have we?
Seriously, if this doesn’t bother the TEA party types.
Oh, what TH am I saying?
Constituitonal rights of a fair trial?
NOT in OUR TEA Party!
Jack, I am not asking you to agree with Manning’s actions, nor am I asking what he “deserves.” Our country is not based on what people deserve, it is based on principles of human rights. Torture is a violation of those rights. Holding someone in solitary confinement indefinitely, when they have been convicted of no crime, is a violation of those rights.
You and others on your side crow about the Obama administration violating your rights as American citizens over things as simple as letting tax cuts expire when they are supposed to. Now you actually have a legitimate grievance, an actual case of big government politically persecuting an innocent-until-proven-guilty man, and you show nothing but support for the administration’s actions? Your fear of tyranny and oppression, your anger and outrage at a government which oversteps its bounds is suddenly gone?
That is hypocrisy. A movement which holds that universal health care is one of the grossest violations of freedom that America has ever faced, yet has no problem with the government locking up American citizens as political prisoners in solitary confinement without trial, is a movement which reveals itself to have no actual principles whatsoever.
Chris, your concerns for Manning and his basic human rights are laudable. However, I can’t recall crowing about my human rights in regards to Obama letting tax cuts expire in the midst of a recession. I would think it unwise, I’ll give you that. But, connecting it to my civil rights is stretch and I wouldn’t go there.
We do embrace the concept of “innocent until proven guilty”, but only in the most superficial and technical terms for court.
We’ve been down this road before and I’ve stated for all realistic terms its the other way around, just look at the bail system if you need proof. Is the financial burden for bail greater on an alleged bank robber than an alleged drunk driver? But, this is taking us off course and you wanted to talk about basic human rights. Okay…
To argue against the need for basic human rights is something very hard to justify, because in a perfect world we know this is the right course of action. On the other hand you have the burden to define what you are defending.
You’re calling it “torture” when others say its not “torture”, its just incarceration. So you must clearly define what you mean and better yet justify it. The accepted past practice for incarcerating person awaiting trial for stealing national secrets is what Manning is getting and we’ve always said this not torture but now you want to change the definition of torture and that could get real complicated. His current situation has been justifiable and now its your turn to say what its not.
Being in isolation is done to prevent a number of really bad things from happening, I won’t list them all you can figure it out. So, does that help you to condone isolation?
Hitting the ball back to your side with my final shot, your contention regards Manning being tortured is by no means prima facie.
Keep searching for the truth Chris, it’s worth it.
Thought for the day: Fide splendet et scientia
Chris: “If you think this form of torture is justified in this case, then explain why you feel this way. But don’t try to change the meanings of words because you find them politically incorrect.”
Chris I would suggest to you that the definition of torture has already been changed, at least in the minds of the compassionate young, old (fog brained) hippies, and pop psycologists, to include just about anything they find distasteful or oookey.
“Torture” was once associated with extremes of pain, isolation and fear. The current pop culture definition dishonors the memory of those who have experienced real torture at the hands of cruel and heartless tyrants and muddies the water for those in leadership who must be able to rely on legal definitions to make very difficult and timely decisions. If these people want to use another term to describe this that would be fine. Torture it is not.
“Is it really standard procedure to place a man who has been convicted of no crime in solitary confinement…”
Has it occurred to you that this has been done for his protection? This is a man that, rightly or wrongly, could be targeted by other prisoners for harm. There are those who consider his actions traitorous. Headlines about “gay proclivities” have also made this man a target in prison conditions. You of all people should appreciate the need to protect him for this reason alone.
The Marine response to complaints is that he is being kept “kept safe, secure and ready for trial”. I trust our Marines to ensure his safety and to act with disciplined integrity.
“That’s the climate of fear and intimidation which these inhumane detention conditions are intended to create.”
At least in the minds of leftists who see life mostly in terms of victimhood and oppression. There are other things that come into play…protection of the accused being one.
“Holding someone in solitary confinement indefinitely, when they have been convicted of no crime, is a violation of those rights.”
This is an opinion that I’m not certain would hold up in court given all of the circumstances of his detention. There are legitimate reasons to hold a man in solitary that fall within the parameters of legal detention.
Now you actually have a legitimate grievance, an actual case of big government politically persecuting an innocent-until-proven-guilty man, and you show nothing but support for the administration’s actions?
Oh the drama! What did this man expect, that a party would be thrown to honor him? He had to know that his actions would have severe consequences. You should realize that this is serious. How about the message that needs to be sent to others who might think this is a fun thing to do or something that would bring them FAME? How about the message that needs to be sent about the seriousness of this charge?
Chris I’m quite impressed by your thought processes and your moral underpinnings. At the same time your postings cause me some concern that young people are being robbed of the ability to think beyond the single notion that every issue should be analyzed soley in terms of human rights. It isn’t that this shouldn’t be a concern, it should. But there are other considerations and matters of law that also must be included when evaluating issues and problems. Today’s youth seem incapable of thinking outside of the victim/oppressor box.
“A movement which holds that universal health care is one of the grossest violations of freedom that America has ever faced, yet has no problem with the government locking up American citizens as political prisoners in solitary confinement without trial, is a movement which reveals itself to have no actual principles whatsoever.”
“Political prisoners”…”solitary confinement without trial”…these are hyped up words with no foundation of truthy whatsoever in them.
This man is accused of a serious crime against the state. Confinement until trial is exactly what is done in cases like this. It always take time for trials to come about. speedy depends on many conditions including the defenses appeals for time to prepare. Solitary confinement has been chosen for good reason. There is no there, there.
Jack, I will take your word for it that you have not defined Obama’s initial position on the Bush tax cuts as a violation of rights. You have, however, described the individual mandate in such terms, and I do think that this position, contrasted with your position on government-approved torture, smacks of hypocrisy.
“You’re calling it “torture” when others say its not “torture”, its just incarceration.”
The “others” who say it isn’t torture have neither studied solitary confinement nor have they experienced it themselves. Everyone who has agrees that it is torture. Survivors of solitary confinement, including John McCain, have described it as being more mentally and spiritually damaging than actual physical torture. Study after study, legal report after legal report have confirmed that long-term isolation causes extreme psychological trauma. Why should I take your word over theirs?
Tina: “Chris I would suggest to you that the definition of torture has already been changed, at least in the minds of the compassionate young, old (fog brained) hippies, and pop psycologists, to include just about anything they find distasteful or oookey.”
Those who have studied solitary confinement are not “pop psychologists,” they are actual psychologists who have done their jobs, and found that solitary confinement does indeed qualify as torture. The insult you pay them rings extremely hollow, given that you have not studied the issue nearly as much as they have, and thus you have no grounds from which to criticize their well-researched and scientifically sound position.
“”Torture” was once associated with extremes of pain, isolation and fear.”
Uhhhh…how exactly is solitary confinement not an extreme of isolation?
“Has it occurred to you that this has been done for his protection? This is a man that, rightly or wrongly, could be targeted by other prisoners for harm. There are those who consider his actions traitorous. Headlines about “gay proclivities” have also made this man a target in prison conditions. You of all people should appreciate the need to protect him for this reason alone.”
There are plenty of other ways to protect him without causing permanent psychological damage. This is a high-security prison, surely he is well-monitored. Talk to any survivor of solitary confinement and they will tell you they would have preferred the danger of being roomed with other prisoners over solitary.
“The Marine response to complaints is that he is being kept “kept safe, secure and ready for trial”. I trust our Marines to ensure his safety and to act with disciplined integrity.”
I would like to trust them. The numerous reports of prisoner abuse by the military that have been reported over the past decade make that a bit harder for me.
But it is nice to know that you trust the big bad government when it is convenient for you.
“”Political prisoners”…”solitary confinement without trial”…these are hyped up words with no foundation of truthy whatsoever in them.”
The “political prisoner” term is a matter of debate, I will admit, but you cannot deny the fact that he has been held in solitary confinement without trial.
Chris I’m not asking you to take my word for anything, where did I say that? You are interjecting things I didn’t say. I merely asked you to define torture.
There’s all sorts of things I could call torture, but the world may not agree. Same goes for you. The Manning case is basically that he’s being held in isolation, away from the rest of prisoners. Okay, he held classified documents and released them to persons who then recklessly made them public and in so doing he and they did great damage to our country.
How do you keep Manning from revealing things to prisoners we may not want him to reveal without separating him from the general population? I am saying whatever Manning’s discomforts may be from being separated from other prisoners takes a back seat to our national security. You seem to be saying he has a right to be placed into the mainstream population, because isolation is torture. And that concern (avoiding torture) should be our only concern, because it takes priority over our national security. Is that correct or not?
If that’s the case then I think most people would find you’re not being logical or realistic, although you do get a kudo for your empthy and concern.
Jack–“I merely asked you to define torture.”
As you and Tina have pointed out, it’s not my place to define words. I’ll leave that to the dictionary.
“There’s all sorts of things I could call torture, but the world may not agree.”
“The world” can choose to agree or not; I trust the opinions of those who have actually gone through solitary confinement, and those who have extensively studied such people. I have read their arguments, and they are convincing (as well as haunting). If you disagree with them, explain why. But you’d have to have a pretty damn good reason to think you know more about solitary confinement than people who have actually experienced it. If you can’t provide such a compelling reason, then it should become abundantly clear that your “disagreement” with them is not one that you have arrived at using by using logic and studying the facts; rather, it is a reaction that results purely from blind partisanship.
“How do you keep Manning from revealing things to prisoners we may not want him to reveal without separating him from the general population?”
It’s my understanding that he has revealed all he knows, and that it is still online for all the world to see.
“You seem to be saying he has a right to be placed into the mainstream population, because isolation is torture. And that concern (avoiding torture) should be our only concern, because it takes priority over our national security. Is that correct or not?”
I am not certain that avoiding torture should take priority over national security. However, I do believe that a country that tortures its citizens endangers itself in ways that may not be readily apparent, but that may ultimately cause more damage to the country than anything else.
Chris: “Survivors of solitary confinement, including John McCain, have described it as being more mentally and spiritually damaging than actual physical torture.”
Now you have really gone too far. How dare you! How dare you compare what is happening to Manning to what John McCain endured for years on end in a foreign prison during a brutal war with an extremely brutal enemy. I’m doing my best to contain my anger and cut you some slack because you’re just a kid but it’s da%*#d difficult. This man is being held in the United States of America…his home country. He is being guarded by United States Marines. They are among the most disciplined people on the planet. The crime he is accused of is serious. One of the reasons he doesn’t know how serious it is is because we have murdered the language to the point where treasonous actions become just a silly prank in the minds of young fools. it is utter idiocy what we have done to the language!
Here are a few words used by a writer at Salon to describe Mannings situation:
“Now you have really gone too far. How dare you! How dare you compare what is happening to Manning to what John McCain endured for years on end in a foreign prison during a brutal war with an extremely brutal enemy. I’m doing my best to contain my anger and cut you some slack because you’re just a kid but it’s da%*#d difficult.”
Tina, perhaps your anger could have been avoided had you read more carefully. I was not comparing the specifics of John McCain’s brutal treatment to Manning’s conditions. I was specifically referring to the issue of solitary confinement, which both McCain and Manning have gone through, and which McCain himself talked about as being EVEN WORSE than any of the other torture methods he was subjected to.
Here are his own words:
“Its an awful thing, solitary, John McCain wrote of his five and a half years as a prisoner of war in Vietnammore than two years of it spent in isolation in a fifteen-by-fifteen-foot cell, unable to communicate with other P.O.W.s except by tap code, secreted notes, or by speaking into an enamel cup pressed against the wall. It crushes your spirit and weakens your resistance more effectively than any other form of mistreatment. And this comes from a man who was beaten regularly; denied adequate medical treatment for two broken arms, a broken leg, and chronic dysentery; and tortured to the point of having an arm broken again. A U.S. military study of almost a hundred and fifty naval aviators returned from imprisonment in Vietnam, many of whom were treated even worse than McCain, reported that they found social isolation to be as torturous and agonizing as any physical abuse they suffered.”
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_gawande
I am not being insulting or insensitive to John McCain by AGREEING WITH HIM. The words in the Salon piece that you call “psycho babble” match up perfectly with how McCain has described solitary confinement; in fact, had you read the entire article, you would see that they are based in part on statements McCain has made himself.
If anyone is being insulting to McCain here, it is you for ignoring his remarks on solitary confinement and claiming that this type of treatment is not torture. You are also insulting every survivor of solitary confinement who has reported feelings similar to McCain’s.
Again: if you have a principled reason for disagreeing with me, John McCain, other survivors of solitary confinement, the UN, most Western nations, and every psychologist who has seriously studied the issue, then present it. You still have not given me a cogent argument for why solitary confinement is not torture. “Look over here at these things that seem worse!” is not a valid argument, especially when survivors who have experienced solitary in addition to those other forms of torture claim otherwise. Trying to shame me for allegedly stepping over the line is not a valid argument, especially when I am simply basing my conclusion on the statements of people who have experienced torture.
I hope you slept well, and that you are feeling more rational and able to read carefully this morning.
Chris: “perhaps your anger could have been avoided had you read more carefully. I was not comparing the specifics of John McCain’s brutal treatment to Manning’s conditions. I was specifically referring to the issue of solitary confinement…”
Sorry sweetie but the comparison is still not possible. McCain’s experience would not have been the same had he been in isolation in an American brig. You cannot divorce the elements that added to his distress. We were at war, he was captured by the enemy, they had treated him brutally, his buddies were also held and he couldn’t check to see how they were doing or if they were still alive. There is no way to compare his isolation experience with Manningsnot with any degree of accuracy or integrity.
What is going on in Mannings own mind is another story but has nothing to do with how he is being treated.
“I am not being insulting or insensitive to John McCain by AGREEING WITH HIM.”
But you are not agreeing with him. You are assuming he would agree with you on this point in this case. You are also equating what might be sympathies for someone with a similar experience to a reasoned and legal explanation of what constitutes torture.
“…had you read the entire article, you would see that they are based in part on statements McCain has made himself.”
The writer in Salon is more than happy to USE McCains experiences to further his agenda. I’m not convinced or impressed and I did read the entire article.
“You still have not given me a cogent argument for why solitary confinement is not torture.”
Solitary can be an element of torture. It is not torture in Mannings case. I would say his safety has to be a greater concern than his feeling of isolation at this time and the only possible remedy is isolation. I’m certain he has access to his lawyers, he is given time outside of his cell, and he knows he is at home in a land that respects the rule of law.
My argument is that the word torture has been over used and used wrongly. I am willing to concede that this is stressful for Manning. I am willing to concede that it is uncomfortable and may cause him considerable anguish. I will not say he is being tortured. That I reserve for incidents that reach a much higher bar. How else are we ever to distinguish between horrific brutality as opposed to inconvenience, stress, or discomfort? The word loses all meaning when applied to Manning (barring evidence of brutal beatings, missing body parts, or video of constant verbal abuse and harassment).
I keep flashing back to the MEN of yesterday. Men like McCain. Whether in the military or not, men expected life to be brutal…they toughened themselves to meet the challenges that could befall them. McCain was tough enough to survive and make a life for himself. He said ultimately the experience strengthened him. That some men with him didn’t survive is a greater measure of the level of brutality that would call for the use of the word torture.
Men also used to expect consequences for their actions and accepted them when they came, especially if they did something wrong. This guy has had military training. He apparently chose to do something that took some guts; he had to know he was playing with fire…and now he’s too wimpy to withstand a little isolation? Sorry not buying it. (Could this be a bid for sympathy by a bunch who cheer him on in his anti-American endeavors?)
I apologize for exploding my anger in your direction. It would have been better placed with the leftists that use this nasty tactic of distorting the language.
It also really bugs me that so many young people swallow their tripe and build resentments they would not experience if more precise and accurate language were being used and “studies” were made by responsible people using science rather than feelings, wishes and dreams of utopia. Manning too may be a victim of this brave new world mentality with its expectations of unattainable human conditions.
And no Chris I will not supply a cogent argument other than what I have given you. I have no reason to believe that any of the studies you’ve read were written by anyone who knows what they are talking about. As to the accounts you have read I can only say that none of them were written as comparisons to this case.
I read an incredibly vivid and moving account (novel length) of the Bataan Death March by a survivor. It is in his honor, as well as the many other survivors of actual torture, that I argue the point of being very, very careful about what we call torture. At most Mannings circumstances are causing him great stress and anguish. It’s unfortunate but it is also wise to remember that he brought this on himself. He could have chosen other paths and he didn’t.
The New Yorker article you site begins with this question added to the title, Hellhole
This is an example of your very own pet peeve, Chris! How many people read just that headline and went away with a lousy (distorted) impression of America? This work isnt on a blog where the point is to post something quickly so that readers can comment and xchange ideas and thoughts. This is a big time, big NY City publication.
The article begins by making the case that human beings are social animals. I dont think anyone would argue the validity of this. But to make the case for isolation as torture using this as an intro is a set up. The next move is to invoke children who have been neglected and orphaned. The comparison is faulty. The closest this article came to Mannings situation or the prisoners in America they wonder about, was this example and still it misses the mark because of a significant missing element:
The sea holds all kinds of natural dangers that Manning (and prisoners) need not confront. Illness while alone at sea is a much different confront than is illness in an American brig where medical attention would be given.
More interesting to me is the language used to describe the sailors experience: physical terrors, difficulty, soul-destroying loneliness. Soul-destroying as a descriptor is compelling but subjective. Terrors nibbles at the edges of torture but is a word that would also describe the feeling one gets when in a plane in the middle of a bad storm. Notice the word torture was avoideda person wouldnt purposely torture himselfwould he?
Terry Anderson is a likely comparison but, like McCain, he was held by hostile people and in uncertain conditions. This is the missing element. He described his state of mind:
a formless, gray-black misery
brooded incessantly, thinking back on all the mistakes hed made in life, his regrets, his offenses against God and family.
I find myself trembling sometimes for no reason.
Im afraid Im beginning to lose my mind, to lose control completely.
These are similar to experiences that some who choose isolation as therapy might experience except for the element of hostile or brutal captors. That intensifies the terror element. Manning is being legally held within his own country under the rule of law. He is safe and he will be fine unless he chooses to go off the deep end as a legal defense.
The New Yorker article is interesting in terms of how isolation may affect a person mentally and socially but with respect to torture it fails to consider the differing situations (not to mention the responsibility of the individual in his own situation).
Would these psychologists and academics prefer Manning to be placed in the general population where his life may be in danger? I dont think so.
Perspective about the use of this word is definitely in order.
I hope you slept well, and that you are feeling more rational and able to read carefully this morning.
The anger I felt was not irrational. The anger I felt was appropriate, albeit misdirected.
Tina: “Sorry sweetie but the comparison is still not possible. McCain’s experience would not have been the same had he been in isolation in an American brig.”
McCain’s statement implies that he is speaking about solitary confinement in general. People who have experienced solitary confinement in U.S. prisons have given similar testimonies to McCain’s. Here is a
“What is going on in Mannings own mind is another story but has nothing to do with how he is being treated.”
Right, Manning’s mental distress has nothing to do with being stripped naked and placed in solitary confinement for 23 hours of the day…thank you, Tina, for showing why you are more qualified to explain the intricacies of the human mind than licensed psychologists who have actually studied this shit.
“But you are not agreeing with him. You are assuming he would agree with you on this point in this case.”
Based on his words, he does. If you can find statements from him contradicting what I have said, feel free to present them.
“I would say his safety has to be a greater concern than his feeling of isolation at this time and the only possible remedy is isolation.”
How can you possibly know this? Do you simply believe it because the government has told you so?
If that’s the case, then it seems to be more and more clear that you only distrust and oppose “big government” when it might affect your pocketbook.
“he is given time outside of his cell,”
One hour a day.
“and he knows he is at home in a land that respects the rule of law.”
Depends on your meaning. If you are talking international law, then no, the U.S. does not respect the rule of law when it comes to banned torture procedures. If you are merely speaking of the laws of the U.S., then your statement is essentially meaningless.
“I am willing to concede that this is stressful for Manning. I am willing to concede that it is uncomfortable and may cause him considerable anguish. I will not say he is being tortured. That I reserve for incidents that reach a much higher bar. How else are we ever to distinguish between horrific brutality as opposed to inconvenience, stress, or discomfort?”
We can distinguish this in very real ways: whether a certain method is unnecessarily punitive, which Manning’s treatment clearly is; whether it causes severe psychological damage, which solitary confinement does, even absent other factors such as in McCain’s case; whether it robs the prisoner of basic human dignity, which stripping a prisoner naked for no reason does; whether it robs the prisoner of basic human rights, which Manning’s treatment does.
These are all specific, reliable criteria for torture. I still don’t know what your criteria for torture is, because you have been intentionally vague on this matter. “A much higher bar” tells me nothing, and certainly does not help us “distinguish” between anything.
“I apologize for exploding my anger in your direction. It would have been better placed with the leftists that use this nasty tactic of distorting the language.”
No, it would be better served directed toward a big, powerful, rights-violating government. You know, the kind of anger you usually reserve for protecting the interests of the top 2% of earners whenever their tax rates might have to go back to where they were in the late 90s. Or the kind of anger you direct toward the left over the individual mandate or cap and trade, both of which were originally proposed by Republicans.
“It also really bugs me that so many young people swallow their tripe and build resentments they would not experience if more precise and accurate language were being used and “studies” were made by responsible people using science rather than feelings, wishes and dreams of utopia.”
Tina, can you appreciate how ironic this statement is, given that you have not provided me with a single scientific argument for why solitary confinement is not torture?
Surely, if your position on this is correct, there must be some reliable, objective study out there confirming that solitary confinement is not torture.
The Salon article is littered with links to studies that conclude solitary confinement is torture; I looked them over before I posted my first comment here. I haven’t found any study refuting these claims. I have based my position on the science.
Judging only by the appeals and arguments you have made in this thread, one would have no choice but to conclude that you are the one forming your positions based on feelings and emotion.
And this will be the case, until you actually provide a link to a reliable scientific study that supports your position.
“And no Chris I will not supply a cogent argument other than what I have given you. I have no reason to believe that any of the studies you’ve read were written by anyone who knows what they are talking about.”
Actually, you have many reasons to believe this. The fact that they have interviewed survivors and studied them in-depth, while you have not, is a pretty big reason. But that doesn’t mean you have to blindly believe them; you can review the studies and see if they meet certain scientific criteria. Then, you can report back whether or not you believe they have met those criteria, and why. Since you haven’t done this, you could just as easily say you have no reason to believe that they DON’T know what they’re talking about. As of now you haven’t provided a single logical reason for why you should feel either way about this issue, since you haven’t shown any indication that you’ve actually bothered to read the study. This strongly indicates that you are acting merely out of bias, and not on any logical basis whatsoever.
“The New Yorker article you site begins with this question added to the title, Hellhole
The United States holds tens of thousands of inmates in long-term solitary confinement. Is this torture?
This is an example of your very own pet peeve, Chris! How many people read just that headline and went away with a lousy (distorted) impression of America? This work isnt on a blog where the point is to post something quickly so that readers can comment and xchange ideas and thoughts. This is a big time, big NY City publication.”
I see nothing wrong with this headline. My pet peeve is when headlines contain lies in them, and that is something I have criticized Post Scripts for in the past. This headline makes a true statement, and then asks an important question that is on the public’s mind. What’s wrong with that?
“Manning is being legally held within his own country under the rule of law. He is safe and he will be fine unless he chooses to go off the deep end as a legal defense.”
Tina, have you seen the horrific photos that came out of Afghanistan today? Take a look and then get back to me with a good reason for Manning to feel safe.
Whoops–meant to post this link, to a radio documentary about people who have been through solitary confinement in U.S. prisons.
http://www.prx.org/pieces/36945-survivors-solitary-confinement-in-america-s-priso
It’s a half-hour, and you’ll have to register for a free account in order to listen, but IMO, it’s worth it.
Chris it would be a useless waste of your time and mine to go much further with this discussion. All of the “studies” about the effects of isolation on human beings comje from the same POV. That doesn’t mean there are those who disagree…they just have no compelling reason to do studies to prove isolation like Manning is enduring is not torture…not yet anyway.
It is still, IMHO, just an alternate opinion to call what they have determined to happen to people “torture”.
We may be running into difficulty too because of the different approaches to define torture. Are we talking about what someone experiences, the legal definition, or procedure?
McCain, for instance, was sharing his “experience” when he made the statements about isolation being worse than being beaten. He also said his experience made him stronger and obviously permanent damage has not altered his ability to live a normal life.
The things that were done to McCain were torture. Common sense tells me that being deprived of decent food and water, being beaten, being interrogated cruely and placed in isolation were methods used against him and were meant to harm him mentally, physically, and emotiinally. It was torture.
The legal definition out of the Geneiva Convention and other such sources are broad definitions and legal scholars disagree when it comes time to flesh out particulars.
There is no way to compare what happened to McCain to what is happening to Manning. I don’t care how many studies you show me, my conclusion is based in common sense.
I’ve been observing scientific studies in psycology for a number of years. A lot of them have proven to be bunk. That is why these studies don’t hold any particular appeal to me and why I won’t waste my time (which is valuable to me) reading them for this short exercise. If I were in a class and needed the grade it might be more compelling.
“Right, Manning’s mental distress has nothing to do with being stripped naked and placed in solitary confinement for 23 hours of the day…”
What I meant was his mental distress cannot be used to define what is torture. Different people will react differently in situations. Just as some people come home after serving in combat and have no mental problems while others do.
RE: Hellhole
Once again, this word is not only ridiculous when describing the brig that holds Manning…it is a lie. He is in a jail that has been used to house many others without uproar. Pictures of the actual hellhole that McCain was in are on the web…NO COMPARISON…unless you can show me pictures of Manning in such a cell I remain convinced this is an inflammatory word meant to incite ill feelings toward the US or the Marines.
“Tina, have you seen the horrific photos that came out of Afghanistan today? Take a look and then get back to me with a good reason for Manning to feel safe.”
Oh brother. Manning is being held in his own country (not a N. Vietnamese hellhole). The rule of law is still in place in this country whether we like what our leaders have chosen to do in the current ME mess or not. There isn’t any real evidence to show that Manning is being mistreated, much less tortured, that I’ve seen. You have presented nothing except for generalized studies which is fine for a discussion but not proof that Manning is being treated differently than other prisoners have been treated or that isolation is torture. I get the opinion of all these studies is that it is torture. They also have an agenda…most likely an ideological agenda. How are they any different from me and my opinion based on common sense and a desire to distinguish between what is merely uncomfortable and unpleasant and what is truly harmful and permanently damaging (like MCCain’s arm).
My comments here are all about the need to use the word torture with caution. People toss the word rape around too. I seem to recall you objecting to that for the same reason.
I’m sorry if this is a bit disjointed. It’s late, I didn’t have much time and now…I’m gone zzzzzzzzzzzzz
*sigh*
Well, I guess “Screw the science; I’m right!” isn’t exactly a new debating tactic for conservatives, but it’s still disappointing every time I see it used.
Chris You are welcome to trust the science on this. I also have a right to question the science when I see that great efforts have been made over the past thirty years, using so-called science, to make things like a paddle on the butt “child abuse” or speaking in a raised voice “verabl child abuse” in every case.
My opinion is that what is happening to Manning is not torture. I don’t claim to be an expert or to have based the opinion on science. I think even conservatives still have a right to express an opinion.
What you have not done is address my concern. The need to make a distinction. How are we to destinguish between discomfort and torture? Where are we to draw the line? How are those who must make these decisions to know what is acceptable and what is not when the word has such a broad (fuzzy) definition? How are they to do their jobs when there are no alternatives offered that work?
There are those who actually think that prisons are cruel and should be eliminated. None of them bother to offer an alternative that would actually keep people safe from dangerous criminals or offer a suitable consequence for criminal behavior. They believe it is possible to rehab all criminals but this has proven to be false in most cases. But that doesn’t stop the emotiuonally based movement. This thinking is why prisoners now have weight training rooms, televisions, conjugal visits and free top notch health and dental care. Prison might as well be a day spa.
Some good could come out of these studies but I doubt that they will be used to make changes to the system that would keep prisoners from being mentally harmed AND support the purpose for isolating prisoners.
There is a definite agenda that drives this issue with and without this case. I’d appreciate hearing ideas for handling the problem of keeping the prisoner safe while ensuring there is no “mental distress” that would actually work. Lofty ideals are great until you actually have to handle real world problems.
Tina: “..they just have no compelling reason to do studies to prove isolation like Manning is enduring is not torture…not yet anyway.”
Tina, this is an interesting statement in what it says about how you think science works.
I would think, given your apparent nostalgia for the objective scientists of yore, you would prefer it if a study wasn’t done in order to “prove isolation…is not torture;” but rather, in order to see whether it is or isn’t.
You criticize the scientists who have reached conclusions that you don’t like for apparently having an “agenda.” Yet your solution is…an explicitly agenda-driven study, conducted by people who already have the desire to “prove” their point, rather than simply being open to whatever data they collect.
Very interesting indeed.
I agree Chris, It would be a shame if defensive science was practiced to counter what passes for science in the publishing realm. We are talking about conclusions put forth as fact rather than theory. This is exactly what has happened with egregiously false reports published about global warming. I did not mean to suggest that alternative theories would or should stem from “setting out to prove a point”. What I meant was that alternative theories have not been published but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
You’re also accurate about what I would prefer science to be. I have respect for those scientists who follow the scientific method and stick with calling unproven theories, theories. Concensus is not proof. Unfortunately we get to live with things as they are and when it comes to science way to much of it has become political theater rather than science.
Tina–“What you have not done is address my concern. The need to make a distinction. How are we to destinguish between discomfort and torture? Where are we to draw the line? How are those who must make these decisions to know what is acceptable and what is not when the word has such a broad (fuzzy) definition? How are they to do their jobs when there are no alternatives offered that work?”
I did address this concern earlier, when I wrote:
“We can distinguish this in very real ways: whether a certain method is unnecessarily punitive, which Manning’s treatment clearly is; whether it causes severe psychological damage, which solitary confinement does, even absent other factors such as in McCain’s case; whether it robs the prisoner of basic human dignity, which stripping a prisoner naked for no reason does; whether it robs the prisoner of basic human rights, which Manning’s treatment does.”
You are the one who has not offered any reliable criteria for distinguishing between torture and valid forms of treatment, other than your personal gut feelings on the Manning case.
“I’d appreciate hearing ideas for handling the problem of keeping the prisoner safe while ensuring there is no “mental distress” that would actually work. Lofty ideals are great until you actually have to handle real world problems.”
It seems pretty clear that the measures taken with Manning are extreme, and have little to do with his safety. Stripping a prisoner of his clothes in order to prevent a suicide is completely unnecessary when said prisoner is monitored by guards 24/7. This seems designed as a purely punitive measure, and the tactic of forced nudity may even be intentionally designed to demoralize Manning, break down his mental health, and weaken his ability to defend himself in court, as was the tactic perpetrated in Abu Ghraib.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/opinion/15tue3.html?_r=1
“Military officials say, without explanation, that these precautions are necessary to prevent Private Manning from injuring himself. They have put him on prevention of injury watch, yet his lawyers say there is no indication that he is suicidal and the military has not placed him on a suicide watch. (He apparently made a sarcastic comment about suicide.)
Forced nudity is a classic humiliation technique. During the early years of the Bush administrations war on terror, C.I.A. interrogators regularly stripped prisoners to break down barriers of resistance, increase compliance and extract information. One C.I.A. report from 2004 said that nudity, along with sleep deprivation and dietary manipulation, was used to create a mind-set in which the prisoner learns to perceive and value his personal welfare, comfort and immediate needs more than the information he is protecting.
Private Manning is not an enemy combatant, and there is no indication that the military is trying to extract information from him. Many military and government officials remain furious at the huge dump of classified materials to WikiLeaks. But if this treatment is someones way of expressing that emotion, it would be useful to revisit the presumption of innocence and the Constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
Philip Crowley, a State Department spokesman, committed the classic mistake of a Washington mouthpiece by telling the truth about Private Manning to a small group (including a blogger): that the militarys treatment of Private Manning was ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid. He resigned on Sunday.”
Chris: “….whether it robs the prisoner of basic human dignity, which stripping a prisoner naked for no reason does; whether it robs the prisoner of basic human rights, which Manning’s treatment does.”
But you have not addressed how those who are charged with keeping him safe can handle this problem without putting him in isolation. That’s the need to be able to distinguish that I’m talking about.
“It seems pretty clear that the measures taken with Manning are extreme, and have little to do with his safety.” ** (He apparently made a sarcastic comment about suicide.)”
He “apparently” took an oath to defend his country too but allegedly chose instead to betray it. I doubt the military can take a chance on his only being sarcastic when he makes such statements. They must take him at his word. I can only imagine your outrage if he were placed in the general population and someone killed him.
Let’s forget Manning. If isolation is so horrific how do you suggest such a prisoner be protected, how, other than in isolation, will it be possible to house such a person?
“Philip Crowley, a State Department spokesman, committed the classic mistake of a Washington mouthpiece by telling the truth about Private Manning…”
He expressed an opinion…it may or may not be the truth. All you really have is opinion and in some cases, as with the lawyers who have a job to do, that opinion might just be exagerated or embellished. It’s not that tough to find expert witnesses with opinions.
Tina, once again, Manning is monitored by armed guards 24 HOURS A DAY. There is not a single moment he is out of sight. There is no reason for him to be kept in solitary for 23 of those hours with that kind of supervision. There is also no reason to take his clothes away. There is no reason to forbid him from exercising in his cell. These measures are completely unnecessary to “protect” a prisoner whose every move is watched.
“All you really have is opinion”
I have the opinion of people who have been through isolation, as well as those who have studied them in-depth. Your opinion seems to be shaped not by experience or research, which makes me wonder if it is based on partisanship. I like my odds of being right in this case.
How Manning is guarded is a matter the Marines must decide. You have the right to question as you have.
Your assumption that you know everything about that decision, and therfore you know better, is another matter. It is based on opinions and it is entirely possible that those opinions (and assertionds) are biased or partisan.
You are welcome to “be right” but you cannot claim absolute authority regarding the use of the word torture.
My original thought, that the word torture is overused, remains a question that should concern all of us. When every discomfort or embarrasement is called torture perspective is lost and those who are tasked with making decisions lose the ability to function, often in situations where lives need protecting.
No alternatives to isolation have been suggested for keeping Manning safe.
According to Manning’s lawyer he says the guards are required to speak to him about every 5 minutes or so just to ask if he is okay and Manning is suppose to nod or say he is. Gee that’s terrible, that’s a form of torture, asking those poor guards to speak to that creep. I sure hope they are holding up okay? This goes on except when he is sleeping and Manning can put a blanket to have some privacy. Privacy, he has to put up a blanket to have privacy? Wait, I thought he was in solitary? Why are the guards talking to him all the time is this a new form of solitary?
Tina–“No alternatives to isolation have been suggested for keeping Manning safe.”
Not true. I have explained to you that he is monitored 24 hours a day. I do not have any problem with this measure. It is perfectly appropriate for a high-security prisoner, and it should be enough to keep him safe from harming himself or being harmed by other prisoners.
“I doubt the military can take a chance on his only being sarcastic when he makes such statements. They must take him at his word.”
No, what they must actually do is take the word of a military psychiatrist. In this case, the psychiatrist has said that Manning is not at risk of suicide, which is why he is not officially on suicide watch. The decision to strip Manning of his clothes was made by the commander.
http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2011/03/truth-behind-quantico-brigs-decision-to.html
“The defense communicated with both PFC Manning and the Brig forensic psychiatrist and learned more about the decision to strip PFC Manning of his clothing every night. On Wednesday March 2, 2011, PFC Manning was told that his Article 138 complaint requesting that he be removed from Maximum custody and Prevention of Injury (POI) Watch had been denied by the Quantico commander, Colonel Daniel J. Choike. Understandably frustrated by this decision after enduring over seven months of unduly harsh confinement conditions, PFC Manning inquired of the Brig operations officer what he needed to do in order to be downgraded from Maximum custody and POI. As even Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell has stated, PFC Manning has been nothing short of “exemplary” as a detainee. Additionally, Brig forensic psychiatrists have consistently maintained that there is no mental health justification for the POI Watch imposed on PFC Manning. In response to PFC Manning’s question, he was told that there was nothing he could do to downgrade his detainee status and that the Brig simply considered him a risk of self-harm. PFC Manning then remarked that the POI restrictions were “absurd” and sarcastically stated that if he wanted to harm himself, he could conceivably do so with the elastic waistband of his underwear or with his flip-flops.
Without consulting any Brig mental health provider, Chief Warrant Officer Denise Barnes used PFC’s Manning’s sarcastic quip as justification to increase the restrictions imposed upon him under the guise of being concerned that PFC Manning was a suicide risk. PFC Manning was not, however, placed under the designation of Suicide Risk Watch. This is because Suicide Risk Watch would have required a Brig mental health provider’s recommendation, which the Brig commander did not have. In response to this specific incident, the Brig psychiatrist assessed PFC Manning as “low risk and requiring only routine outpatient followup [with] no need for … closer clinical observation.” In particular, he indicated that PFC Manning’s statement about the waist band of his underwear was in no way prompted by “a psychiatric condition.”
While the commander needed the Brig psychiatrist’s recommendation to place PFC Manning on Suicide Risk Watch, no such recommendation was needed in order to increase his restrictions under POI Watch. The conditions of POI Watch require only psychiatric input, but ultimately remain the decision of the commander.
Given these circumstances, the decision to strip PFC Manning of his clothing every night for an indefinite period of time is clearly punitive in nature. There is no mental health justification for the decision. There is no basis in logic for this decision. PFC Manning is under 24 hour surveillance, with guards never being more than a few feet away from his cell. PFC Manning is permitted to have his underwear and clothing during the day, with no apparent concern that he will harm himself during this time period. Moreover, if Brig officials were genuinely concerned about PFC Manning using either his underwear or flip-flops to harm himself (despite the recommendation of the Brig’s psychiatrist) they could undoubtedly provide him with clothing that would not, in their view, present a risk of self-harm. Indeed, Brig officials have provided him other items such as tear-resistant blankets and a mattress with a built-in pillow due to their purported concerns.”
Jack–“Privacy, he has to put up a blanket to have privacy?”
In order to maintain privacy from the guards who have taken all his clothes away, yes.
“Why are the guards talking to him all the time is this a new form of solitary?”
It is actually an old one; solitary confinement has never meant that the prisoner doesn’t have interaction with his guards.
Chris: “No, what they must actually do is take the word of a military psychiatrist. In this case, the psychiatrist has said that Manning is not at risk of suicide, which is why he is not officially on suicide watch. The decision to strip Manning of his clothes was made by the commander.”
And unless we know the commanders motive there is really nothing to talk about. He’s the commander and he may well have a reason that we have not been told.
Manning is in the military. He knows how things work in the military. He brought this on himself knowing what could happen to him. I have little sympathy for him and unless evidence is brought forth that shows him bruised, bleeding, or drooling, he will have to endure whatever fate befalls him until his trial. He will also have to endure whatever befalls him following the trial. Actions have consequences. This was a very dumb decision on his part and may result in grave consequences that are much worse than anything he is going through now. Manning’s sarcastic quip is just the sort of thing the military doesn’t suffer…he should know that but, to borrow a famous phrase from Cool Hand Luke, “I think what we have here is a failure to communicate.”
It’s a shame we don’t respect the concept of consequences and personal responsibility for our actions anymore…everything is now driven by excuses and manufactured victimhood. Manning has not received the support of a society that teaches respectful behavior. Instead society encourages him to be a smart alec and he foolishly thinks he will be rewarded. I believe this trend began in earnest just prior to the infamous twinkie defense in SF. A woman fell off a cable car and won a huge settlement by claiming the fall made her a nymphomaniac! Our court system has never been the same and defense lawyers ever more inventive.
“the decision to strip PFC Manning of his clothing every night for an indefinite period of time is clearly punitive in nature”
Could be…and so what! So are extra push ups when you smart off in boot camp. So is detention when you talk back to a teacher. So is jail time when you break the law. This little twirp just doesn’t learn.
Tina, did you just say that forced nudity is an appropriate form of punishment for American prisoners? And that it’s OK if it’s done only to punish the prisoner by humiliating him, and not for the safety of the prisoner?
Is this a small government principle?
“Actions have consequences.”
Apparently there will be no consequences for the U.S. government’s several breaches of the Geneva Convention. But this doesn’t bother you, because your fear of big government only extends as far as your wallet.
Oh Chris calm your britches!
I said I didn’t know what was motivating the commander. I said things are done differently in the military and as a military person, Manning should know better than to make sarcastic threats. I also said I have little sympathy for him. But I’m sure his lawyers are doing what they deem necessary for him; my opinion doesn’t mean squat and it certainly has nothing to do with small or big government.
Run outrage somewhere else…I’m done.
Well, when you’ve lost the debate you’ve lost the debate. If you’re done, I guess there’s nothing left for me to say on the matter.
The debate is not won or lost by who has the last word, but who has used their words the best and I believe Tina has won easily, but let me explain further why I think so:
Here’s the way I see it. First, you’re trying to make a near impossible case. Torture is is arguably anything that causes unwarranted pain and suffering. Spanking a child is technically torture, but under some circumstance most of the world would say it is reasonable and prudent and that’s not our view of real torture. So we really have to be specific about what it is that is being called torture and then back it up with really good evidence. Chris, you’re about half way there in citing that almost all medical experts agree that pure isolation of a prisoner is mental torture, but…. and there’s always a but…its about why and how much and how it’s applied, etc..
Lets remember that Manning is not in pure isolation, he’s ONLY separated from other prisoners and under a suicide watch. He is NOT in a dungeon, chained to a wall, cut off from outside noise, light and sound. Now that’s clearly torture!!!! I agree – we all would agree. Manning is not in strict isolation, on the contrary, he is regular contact with other soldiers, but not inmate soldiers. So if his mental health is deteriorating we could understand, he is in serious trouble, but as a civilized nation we provide him access to a medical doctor, he kept warm, he’s fed just like any soldier inmate or otherwise. He’s given clean clothes, a reasonably soft bed with blankets and a pillow. He’s being treated in the same manner we would treat anyone who has allegedly stolen national secrets.
Actually, hHe stole national secrets and they caught him and he admitted it, so we can play the game and call it allegedly, but we know the score. So far he refused to name who else was involved. If he was truly the quivering mass of jello you seem to think he is, he would have given up his co-conspirators namely his contact at Wikileaks. But, he’s not done that has he? He’s defiant and continues to resist cooperation.
That shows me has a strong will and is in full control still of his mental state. He might be depressed, but thats normal, not much we can do about that. Now as to anything else being alleged by you, I have seen NO proof. There’s not been any neutral 3rd party come forward and support the claims you have alleged. I must ask again, where’s the proof of being forced to stand naked for hours on end? Until there is something you can add there’s nothing left of this part of your case.
However if past practice means anything to anyone and it certainly does to a court of law, then isolation of a prisoner a commonly accepted past practice and trying to get it thrown out is to go against many test cases and hundreds of years of history worldwide. That’s a big order!!! Here is what I need to see if there is anything to what you are saying. Where else in the world is isolation prohibited? If you are to be credible and make a compelling case that isolation as it is in Mannings case is torture, then tell me what countries will not allow isolation of a prisoner in similar ways as this? If you ca’nt then your case gets really weak.
“Lets remember that Manning is not in pure isolation, he’s ONLY separated from other prisoners and under a suicide watch.”
“He’s given clean clothes, a reasonably soft bed with blankets and a pillow.”
As has been explained several times, he is NOT under suicide watch. He is also not given a pillow. These two statements lead me to believe you haven’t really been keeping up with this debate.