Much ado has been made of PFC Mannings imprisonment. However, questions have arisen (more so to the light than in general) about the prison system in America as a whole as a result.
"Since his arrest in May, Manning has been a model detainee, without any episodes of violence or disciplinary problems. He nonetheless was declared from the start to be a "Maximum Custody Detainee," the highest and most repressive level of military detention, which then became the basis for the series of inhumane measures imposed on him."Excerpt from the Salon article about his treatment in military prison.
The basis of the argument on both sides is as such:
CON: Solitary confinement without any amenities such as a pillow or extended interaction (Past the hour for exercise, visits) is in accordance with solitary confinement being torture. The prison system in the US is messed up and is treating prisoners worse than it should, especially the military prison system.
PRO: The conditions for solitary confinement in supermax military prisons does not meet the criteria for torture. In PFC Mannings case, he is a high-profile prisoner accused of releasing documentation classified as "Secret" to an entity known for publishing said information, and while he awaits trial the conditions he has been put in, for his type of crime, are the norm.
This seemed to be a pretty weighty subject in the Wikileaks thread, so I decided to make another OP before the tangent took over the discussion.
Any ideas? Opinions?
Posts
Although I would imagine solitary prisoners having different exercise time than the rest of the inmates, presumably under direct supervision. That's always been my understanding of the process.
Edit: And if I'm remembering my John Grisham correctly, the conditions he's being kept under are those only usually applied to death row inmates, or as a temporary punishment for violent prisoners. After conviction.
If the process is similar to Supermax, they get a 40x40 yard concrete box to run around in, by themselves. No interaction with anyone, save the brief trip there by the guards, who are very likely under orders to keep talking with him to a minimum.
Outside of meal delivery, medical, and any trips to the exercise yard, that's probably it, and probably very scant interaction. Part of the psychology of 'doing your time', is learning to find ways to pass the time. Since he doesn't have anything in cell, and they won't let him exercise in his cell, God knows how he's staying sane.
This makes it a lot harder for them to work in concert with European nations on the war on terror (or just crime in general if we go by what some people were saying in the last thread in that this isn't out of the ordinary for civilian prisons/jails as well) because the US won't be allowed to extradite suspects out of Europe due to the threat of torture. Also going to generate a ton of bad press because "the US tortures!" is going to get brought up everytime this happens.
It could also effect evidence sharing as MI6 have said
Obviously a lot rides on the cases that are mentioned in the salon article in the first post.
this part made me laugh out loud
Yeah, Manning is being treated this way because he's being made an example out of. "Embarrass the political elite and we will throw you in a hole until your mind snaps, then force medicate you and keep on keepin' on."
I'm not saying I agree with it, but that's how it's being spun.
Agree or disagree with it, the leaking of secret documents is considered:
Breach of security clearance
Breach of military oath
Just because the leaks are "lol stupid politicians news at 11" doesn't mean he didn't willingly violate some pretty clear conditions of his situation, both the clearance and being in the military. Betrayal of country may be a little harsh or dramatic terminology, but the basic principle is pretty sound, as far as legally.
Morally, well, going on whether or not's never gets anywhere. Discussion should be framed in the context of existing laws, because discussion the legality of said context is an entirely different thread altogether. This is a discussion about the conditions of where he is, not the morality of the laws he broke to get there.
I wonder exactly how much our prisons would benefit from the decriminalization or legalization of marijuana.
I just imagine the places getting cleared right the fuck out, like it's a penal Christmas break.
Judging by the treatment I've seen of other people who have violated military law, and going by the fact that, in accordance with standing standard operating procedures and laws, his treatment isn't that far off the mark from the norm in the UCMJ side of the law. However, his prominence in the media may have prompted a harsher condition than normal, under the guise of "protecting him" from other inmates or even guards.
The military has a history of "making an example of" people. It's ingrained into the culture.
We had a guy get 6 months for selling 3 non-secret military laptops with the hard drives wiped. If he had sold them with secret information in them, even just a few scraps, then 6 months turns into 6 years in the blink of an eye, and it's no longer being placed in a corrections facility: It's off to Kansas.
The violation of clearance carries with it some extremely harsh measures.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
As far as Pvt.Manning goes, isn't there some sort of allowed exception to orders that you feel are immoral? While I doubt any of his actions can ever be interpreted as allowed under that exception, is there any type of information leak that would have been allowed? If so, where is the line?
Shit, they'd have prosecuted the leak of the Pentagon Papers if not for Mike Gravel being a sneaky senate ninja. Basically, the Constitution forbids the prosecution of legislators for business conducted in the house, so he was able to use his time on the Senate floor to read them into the Congressional Record.
You can't justify leaking classified docs without levying an indictment at the entire corrupt system, which nobody is going to be willing to do.
Making it more sane would lead to higher unemployment!
Basically, policing has been expanded while mental health and other services have been withdrawn, meaning that the police and prisons are now responsible for handling drug addiction and mental illness. It no work so good!
While I agree with the idea of decriminalization, there have to be more steps taken before it can happen. The rate of recidivism is ridiculous in the US due to poor prison management and an even worse parolee system.
Just releasing a bunch of former inmates "into the wild" so to speak, overnight, would have really bad consequences. Most of them, faced with the inability to find a job, both due to the current economy and the negative stereotype put on former inmates, along with the general personality shift that a person goes through due to an extended stay in a correctional facility, pretty much guarantees most of them will return to a life of crime at some point.
I don't know the exact numbers now, but I know they're high, like 75% high.
Decriminilization has fuck-all to do with releasing prisoners currently serving jail time.
Post-conviction, solitary or supermax-type imprionment should only be used in very unusual situations.
In Manning's case, unless there is some evidence that he is an escape risk or there is some danger to him or others, I don't see any reason to keep the guy locked up in close to solitary conditions.
Rigorous Scholarship
I agree. Take note, everyone: whenever I agree with ModernMan on something, the rightness of that position is ridiculously obvious. The way Manning is being treated is despicable and tortuous.
This is why I laugh whenever somebody is all "I can't believe they let that guy walk on bail!!" They aren't guilty yet. Provided you trust they'll show for trial, there's no reason for them to be confined at all.
Let alone like this.
Even if he's ruled to be a danger to himself, or others are a danger to him, the situation should be no more restrictive than necessary to protect him...not punitive. Particularly pre-conviction. But even post-conviction, the confinement itself should be the bulk of the punitive action against them; not the conditions. It shouldn't be Club Med, or anything...but this is ridiculous.
Then there's the fact that once you build Supermax prisons there's the incentive to fill them...regardless of whether the convict in question is appropriate for it. So you wind up with relatively low-level drug offenders in them.
But yeah our civilian penal system is pretty bad but what do you expect from a society that views prison rape as a joke?
Well isn't there an economic incentive behind wanting to put fraudsters and murderers in a place where they don't have the freedom to repeat their offenses?
But I'll just assume your meaning is more "...incentive to put B][I]non-violent/harmless[/I][/B people in prison..."
You are incorrect sir. A FOIA request is just that - a request. Under no circumstances is the government obligated to disclose anything (See: The Intelligence Authorization Act of 2002) More importantly, a diplomatic cable (arguably what got Manning in this hot water) will never, ever be released by a FOIA request - ever. Maybe...30 years from now, which is a standard 'declassify on' date. Basically, when it loses it's usefulness to anyone.
To clarify: I routinely work with classified information, and on rare occasion, see a FOIA request come by.
when something IS decriminalized, what does happen to people serving time for breaking that law? is it just tough titties, you're grandfather clause'd into finishing your sentence?
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
But when private interests works with government official to make laws that'll put more people in prison, that shit is mess up.
Prison corporations were throwing up tent prisons left and right in Arizona in preparation for the racial profiling law that they helped write.
Good question. If something isn't very serious then I would imagine the bill that decriminalizes it forgives the offense, but I don't think there is any legal obligation what so ever to release people if their crime is later legalized. Sort of like a reverse of the way you can't be put in jail for something criminalized after the fact.
Rigorous Scholarship
A FOIA request is only optional if the government can show that it meets the criteria for not disclosing.
However I think "being classified" is actually one of those criteria, so...yeah.
I think they would have to be released in the latter but am unsure of the former. A repeal is saying a law is no longer required, not that the law was wrong or unjust. Those who broke it (hypothetically) still broke a law in effect at the time they broke it.
Believe it or not, it was kind of in a gray area - the The Intelligence Authorization Act of 2002 exempted any Intelligence Agency (military, Treasury, and appropriately Department of State).
that doesn't seem right.
edit: was just thinking african descent
It varies. If you're convicted under an appealed law you're still considered a convict unless the repeal specifically mentions releasing said convicts.
I can tell you from experience this is incorrect.