Mistreatment Of Bradley Manning

The picture above is of Private Bradley Manning, a member of the United States military. The United States government suspects Private Manning of being the person who leaked government documents to the website WikiLeaks (who then published them to the entire world). Although the leaked documents were deemed to be secret by the government, there is no evidence that their release put any American (or anyone else) in danger. They were embarrassing though, and that seems to be enough to hold Manning without a trial in very abusive conditions.

Here's how Glenn Greenwald described those conditions:

Brig officials now confirm to the New York Times that Manning will be forced to be nude every night from now on for the indefinite future -- not only when he sleeps, but also when he stands outside his cell for morning inspection along with the other brig detainees.  They claim that it is being done "as a 'precautionary measure' to prevent him from injuring himself."  

Has anyone before successfully committed suicide using a pair of briefs -- especially when under constant video and in-person monitoring?  There's no underwear that can be issued that is useless for killing oneself?  And if this is truly such a threat, why isn't he on "suicide watch" (the NYT article confirms he's not)?  And why is this restriction confined to the night; can't he also off himself using his briefs during the day? 

Let's review Manning's detention over the last nine straight months:  23-hour/day solitary confinement; barred even from exercising in his cell; one hour total outside his cell per day where he's allowed to walk around in circles in a room alone while shackled, and is returned to his cell the minute he stops walking; forced to respond to guards' inquiries literally every 5 minutes, all day, everyday; and awakened at night each time he is curled up in the corner of his bed or otherwise outside the guards' full view.  Is there anyone who doubts that these measures -- and especially this prolonged forced nudity -- are punitive and designed to further erode his mental health, physical health and will?  As The Guardian reported last year, forced nudity is almost certainly a breach of the Geneva Conventions; the Conventions do not technically apply to Manning, as he is not a prisoner of war, but they certainly establish the minimal protections to which all detainees -- let alone citizens convicted of nothing -- are entitled.

The conditions are so appalling that even some staunch defenders of the president are beginning to show their disappointment. UCLA Professor Mark Kleiman says, "The United States Army is so concerned about Bradley Manning's health that it is subjecting him to a regimen designed to drive him insane. . .This is a total disgrace. It shouldn't be happening in this country. You can't be unaware of this, Mr. President. Silence gives consent."

And even some critics of both WikiLeaks and Manning can't understand the abuse. Former Army officer James Joyner says, "Obama promised to close Gitmo because he was embarrassed that we were doing this kind of thing to accused terrorists. But he's allowing it to happen to an American soldier under his command?"

While on the campaign trail in 2008 Barack Obama said, "Government whistleblowers are part of a healthy democracy and must be protected from reprisal." I must have missed the part where he added under his breath that it didn't apply to whistleblowers while He was president. The fact is that President Obama has been as thin-skinned as his predecessor, and people who speak their minds in his administration are summarily dealt with.

Take P.J. Crowley for example. The senior spokesman for the U.S. State Department made the mistake of saying what he really thinks recently. He said that although he believed that Manning should be in jail, "I spent 26 years in the Air Force. What is happening to Manning is ridiculous, counterproductive and stupid, and I don't know why the DoD [Department of Defense] is doing it." A couple of days later Mr. Crowley has submitted his resignation. And anyone would have to be incredibly naive to believe he wasn't forced to resign.

I'm not saying that Manning shouldn't be punished if he really was the one who released the documents, but that is for a court to decide -- not the military or the Obama administration, and it is certainly wrong to abuse him or try to break him or drive him insane before any trial. One of the biggest mistakes of the Bush administration was the government deciding who would be given a fair trial and who would be tortured and tried by a kangaroo court -- in other words, a failure to follow the same rule of law with everyone. It makes me sad to see that the Obama administration has just continued that policy rather than rectifying it.

I think Matt Yglesias hit the nail on the head when he said, "Manning is alleged to have committed serious crimes. The correct response would be to put him on trial. To hold a person without trial in solitary confinement under degrading conditions is a perversion of justice."

If it is OK to treat Bradley Manning in this reprehensible manner, then it would be OK to do the same to any other American citizen. Our Founding Fathers meant for our rights to extend equally to every American citizen, because that is the only way they can be guaranteed. Allowing the government to choose who has rights is a straight road to the end of those rights for everyone.