Bradley Manning: Get Him a Nightshirt

By Jeralyn, Section Inmates and Prisons
Posted on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 12:45:34 PM EST
Tags: Bradley Manning (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Chief Warrant Officer Denise Barnes, the commander at the Military brig at Quantico says Bradley Manning will continue to be stripped of his underwear at bedtime because he is on a prevention of injury watch (which is different than a suicide watch.)

He is given two blankets. What can he do with a pair of underpants that he can't do with a blanket? And what prompted this? According to Manning's lawyer, David E. Coombs, on his blog today, events went like this. Manning was told his petition to be moved out of maximum custody had been denied due to the prevention of injury watch. Manning, who has been a model detainee, asked what he could do to change it. He was told there was nothing he could do, because of the perception he was 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.

[More...]

Manning's lawyer says:

“There can be no conceivable justification for requiring a soldier to surrender all his clothing, remain naked in his cell for seven hours, and then stand at attention the subsequent morning,” he wrote. “This treatment is even more degrading considering that Pfc. Manning is being monitored — both by direct observation and by video — at all times.”

Also making little sense: According to Lt. Villiard at the brig:

Detainees are awakened each morning and immediately come out of their cells. Private Manning cannot be given his underwear back before then, he said, because that would require waking him up ahead of time.

Manning's lawyer makes a good point when he says:

“If a person is at risk of self-harm, then you get them treatment, you get them to a mental health professional and address the issue — you don’t strip them..."

(Nightshirt available from the Vermont Country Store.)

< Friday Night Open Thread | Psychiatry 2011: No Sigmund Freuds Here >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Bradley Manning: Get Him a Nightshirt | 73 comments (73 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I would say this is cruel and unusual (5.00 / 6) (#1)
by KeysDan on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 12:52:08 PM EST

punishment, but it seems that this type of treatment is, unfortunately, not all that unusual. What have we become? This treatment is more in line with what we would expect from a Soviet gulag.

Indeed ... (none / 0) (#21)
by markpkessinger on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 05:36:27 PM EST

...And all the more so in light of the fact that Manning has not yet been tried or convicted of anything.


I do not agree (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Peter G on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 08:39:55 PM EST

Treatment of this kind would be cruel and unusual punishment if Manning had been tried and convicted. His pretrial status does not render it any more cruel, or any less lawful.


It could be the extra glass of wine... (none / 0) (#32)
by Anne on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 08:46:15 PM EST

but I think you might have meant to say that even if Manning had been convicted, the treatment he is receiving would not be any less cruel or any more lawful.

Feel free to tell me I've had one too many glasses of merlot... :-)


How is that different from what I said? (none / 0) (#33)
by Peter G on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 09:01:43 PM EST

Mark suggested that Manning's treatment was more cruel because he has not been convicted of any crime. I responded that his pretrial status does not make the treatment more cruel. Main point being that it would not be permissible, nor any more acceptable, to treat a convicted person this way. Isn't that the same thing you are suggesting, Anne? We had a Pennsylvania Redleg Riesling tonight, however, so I'm not sure I can fully de-merlot-ify your response.


: You're right, Peter, (none / 0) (#34)
by Anne on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 09:14:00 PM EST

and I am going to blame the merlot, if that's okay...the treatment is cruel no matter what Manning's status is, which is a point that is well worth making, even if it seems to fall on deaf ears.
[That Riesling sounds tasty...and quite reasonably priced - might have to check that out. Not that I need an excuse, but...between tax season getting into full swing, which means my brain is a little toasted, and getting a little hint of Spring in the air today - in advance of a rainy Sunday, I think - the wine may have packed more of a punch than usual!]

I don't know what saddens me more (5.00 / 8) (#2)
by MO Blue on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 01:00:18 PM EST

The fact the standard for human rights in the U.S. have deteriorated to this point or the fact that the majority of people don't seem to care.

: Apparently, we don't worry about such things (5.00 / 4) (#9)
by Anne on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 03:53:03 PM EST

as human rights anymore, because all that matters is (cue scary music) National Security!
The people have been deemed to have no right to know anything about what their government is doing, and now know they can face this kind of treatment - or worse - for believing and acting from the premise that we do have the right to know; conversely, there are almost no boundaries that exist anymore that protect our every move, every communication, from the government's prying eyes. There is no constraint the government can't justify breaching.
I am truly sickened by what we have become.

: The Democrats do not care (none / 0) (#43)
by Andreas on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 11:21:41 AM EST

It is not normal people who do not care but the Democrats who helped to install the Obama regime.

He could chew his wrists wide open... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by Dadler on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 01:44:41 PM EST

...and bleed out if he really wanted to go. Or smash his head into the concrete wall until it cracks.

is there a person with a rational bone in their bodies in this system?

Evidently (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Kimberley on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 04:02:30 PM EST

He can do none of those things.

Glenn Greenwald reports that Manning is subjected to:

"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."

In addition, brig officials confirm that this forced nudity will be an indefinite feature of his imprisonment.

Disgusting and shameful.


: That's the thing, Kimberley... (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 04:44:00 PM EST

It makes NO SENSE whatsoever that PFC Manning is now being forced to sleep naked, without so much as the pair of underpants he was previously allowed to wear.
I mean, if PFC Manning's clothing is not deemed to present a suicide risk during the day when he is awake, why does his underwear pose such a risk while he is asleep? After all, he is watched 24/7 by guards, both remotely and in person. Of course, if PFC Manning were to make that point, the Brig commander might strip him of his clothing at all times.
This forced nudity is a mind-fu@k, pure and simple -- a step toward inducing learned helplessness, a la Abu Ghraib -- also a step toward having the Brig personnel, and the public, view PFC Manning more thoroughly as a 'terrorist' detainee.

Watch out, (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by dkmich on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 07:24:11 AM EST

they could pull his teeth next. Looking forward on war crimes, torture, and white collar fraud while punishing whistle blowers for exposing it is what America now stands for. Between Bush and Obama, I don't know which is worse.


No, just a lot of rationalizing (none / 0) (#19)
by BackFromOhio on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 05:23:05 PM EST

Prevention of Injury Watch vs. Suicide Watch... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 02:39:31 PM EST

what's the difference?

PFC Manning's attorney, David Coombs, addresses that question on his blog today (also linked above by Jeralyn): The Truth Behind Quantico Brig's Decision to Strip PFC Manning.

If I understand correctly, the conditions of a POI Watch allows the Brig commander to make decisions about the terms of a detainee's confinement and Brig psychiatrists only have input.

On the other hand, the conditions of a Suicide Watch puts the Brig psychiatrists in charge of making recommendations to the Brig Commander.

So, if Manning were on Suicide Watch the Brig psychiatrists would be the ones making recommendations as to whether or not PFC Manning should be kept naked in his cell overnight. However, under the existing POI Watch, the Brig commander has the ultimate authority to strip Manning naked, even though Brig psychiatrists have clearly indicated that they don't think this is called for.

Note: I'm making the point that the POI Watch (5.00 / 3) (#12)
by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 04:10:34 PM EST

appears to be more subject to abuse from the Brig commander. It's my understanding that PFC Manning's attorney was making that critical distinction on his blog today.

By comparison, if Manning were on Suicide Watch he would be under the care of Brig mental health professionals who, evidently, do not believe Manning is a threat to himself, nor do they approve of this forced nudity.


At least in CA state correctional (none / 0) (#14)
by oculus on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 04:27:52 PM EST

facilities, being placed on suicide watch is not a good thing. Supposed to be w/i constant view of correctional officer. Kind of a rubber room. No clothes. Most unpleasant.


In Manning's case, he is not even being (5.00 / 4) (#15)
by Anne on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 04:36:15 PM EST

allowed to get an uninterrupted night's sleep - crucial to maintaining some kind of hold on sanity:

From Glenn:

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.

He hasn't even been convicted of anything, for God's sake, and this is how the greatest democracy in the world, the beacon of freedom and civil/human rights treats its American-citizen detainees?

Gosh, I'm just so proud...


If they could (5.00 / 3) (#24)
by Zorba on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 07:34:36 PM EST

treat José Padilla (a US citizen and civilian, not subject to military "justice") the way they did, to the point where he was diagnosed "mentally unfit" for trial by two defense psychiatrists, and who exhibited "a facial tic, problems with social contact, lack of concentration and a form of Stockholm syndrome" (Link), then I suppose they can do what they want to break down Manning. It sucks. Human rights abuses seem to have become standard operating procedure. I don't even recognize my country any more. I thought I had seen the worst we could offer, having lived through the Vietnam War era, Watergate, etc, etc. I was wrong.


Military in jailed situations (none / 0) (#51)
by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 08:49:50 AM EST

have none of the rights that civilians in comparable situations have. It makes it very scary if you refuse an illegal order. Your commander can have you jailed and who knows when you will come up for air....and even if you are cleared....you will have gone through hell getting there.


They have the right to be (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by Anne on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 08:56:11 AM EST

treated humanely.

Or at least they used to.


They have made certain (none / 0) (#55)
by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 09:12:39 AM EST

that his treatment is a form of being humane. They are preventing him from harming himself. That falls under the definition of humane treatment. To allow himself to harm himself would be inhumane. See, they have us all by the short hairs.


But they don't think he's in danger of (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by Anne on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:11:37 AM EST

killing himself, apparently, because that would mean putting his care under the direction of the psychiatrists, who have already said that they wouldn't go to these lengths...

They are breaking him as sure as I'm sitting here, and my guess is, they're hoping that by the time he gets a trial - if he ever gets a trial - he will be unable to assist in his own defense and they will pack him off to wherever it is we send what used to be bright, intelligent young men with a conscience after we turn their brains into oatmeal.

Man, can't you just smell the freedom and democracy?


In the military, that commander is (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 01:36:48 PM EST

responsible for his wellbeing. It is very cut and dry. It isn't like in the civilian world where something like this isn't necessarily heaped upon a warden of a civilian prison. All eyes are on Manning. If anything happens to him it is her scalp. Sorry, once again this is how the military works. One of our friends retired out last year as a Colonel. He was in command of all the upkeep of the helicopters on Fort Rucker. He literally barely slept for two years here, he was so glad when his command was over and he decided to retire out and works for a contractor now where you don't have that kind of stress. Everytime a student screwed something up the whole thing was picked apart item by item and if the problem could lead to an improperly maintained helicopter the blame goes right to that command. This guy is also a West Point graduate too, but when something BIG happens during your command you are responsible and there is very little passing the buck even when your command consists of having several hundred people under you. You must know all the right people and even then you probably won't get a pass. There is no passing the buck much when undesirable things in the military, and Manning harming himself would be the very worst thing that could happen to her. And because he said what he said, he has made her personally responsible if he did anything and she didn't do what she had to the utmost of her ability to prevent him harming himself. The buck stops with her.


Her command is free to let her off (none / 0) (#64)
by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:01:59 PM EST

the hook though and tell her if he does harm himself it won't be laid at her feet. Will they? I doubt it, because then it would be their hides then if he does. I suppose the President could let everyone off the hook :)


: really, I think you should stop (none / 0) (#67)
by sj on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:14:43 PM EST

there's no justification for this. There really isn't. "That's how they do it" isn't a justification. Giving up rights to the military isn't a justification. Frankly, there is no justification for having a POI watch that is separate from a suicide watch except to provide the leeway for these sorts of personal indignities without oversight from the medical community.
I wish I could find a better word than "indignities" for this treatment. I'm stuck with three words: long term torture.

MilitaryTracy in a word "you were there" (none / 0) (#71)
by Gerald USN Ret on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 04:26:39 PM EST

Hey soldier! These guys and gals on the forum are bright but they "just weren't there." They haven't a clue. "You had to have been there."

You are saying pretty much what I said in my longer post. To put it in the vernacular, the local command of that brig and her higher ups are doing it by the numbers. Anything that Bradley or anyone in a similar position has said or done is scrutinized with the eye toward "what will happen or be said if something goes wrong" and the higher ups (and lawyers) come back and see this tiny iota of information and then ask "why didn't you act?" THEY all know that if something bad happens to Bradley, then as a practical matter the least thing that will happen to them is that their careers are over.

I gave my own example of the sailor on suicide watch. He basically had bad news from home and tried to kill himself with a drug overdose. Found out that he had been using badly for a month or two because of his problems at home and then just decided to go all the way.

He was found and cleaned out as best could be done with our limited means, but he was very resistive and combative, and as said in the old Navy lingo, very "able bodied." He was also smart. How do I know this? Well he worked for me in the engine room back when I was a young guy. Once this happened though the Captain took over completely.

The man was bound in some very soft restraints but so completely you might say as a practical matter he was "hogtied" and placed on a smaller faster escort vessel. They decided not to sedate him because of the crap in his system so the command assigned two sailors to be with him at all times and eventually had each of them keep a hand on an arm watching for any kind of activity or inactivity. If one had to leave for any reason, a replacement was called. A medic was also present or immediately available. (I think now days, they have better kinds of first responder treatment.)

The escort vessel was diverted to enable a faster pickup by air with a specialist. Our commanders decided that with the exception of turning the group around they would do everything that they could to keep that sailor from dying by his own hand on board one of "their" vessels. Or again in the vernacular, "on their watch."

I was left back on my ship hovering like a frantic mother bird praying that the man would get to shore and live, probably for my own sake more than his, trying to think of what to say when and if I was asked "Why the hell didn't you notice something and do something?" I also didn't want to have to write a letter to his mother.

Bradley is safer right now than a babe in his mother's arms, but no he isn't very comfortable, and if he is smart enough to get all those files, then he is smart enough to know what would happen if he wised off like he did and in the way he did. The question is whether he has the habit of thinking before he acts. I think from what he is alleged to have done that he doesn't think things through very much.

As for your Col friend, MT, I understand completely. Later on I had tremendous responsibility and though I wasn't personally involved in every repair or refit or build or rebuild or or purchase or change project or duty assignment and despite what the lower ranks thought about the blame being placed on them, the blame always eventually rises and falls on the commander. I chose to retire after 31 years though I loved the work and especially (yeah, call me crazy) being at sea, because I spent so much time and worry trying to cover everyone's a** including my own.

Now I do the same thing for a lot more pay with much less hours and deal with more reasonable bosses and on jobs I choose.

As for the sailor who though he didn't have anything to live for, he did live and he remarried a young religious lady. He was actually a good man who just got involved with one of those evil hearted women that Johnny Cash used to sing about.
Lost track after that.

Again in a vernacular "Praise be!"


Aw, MT (none / 0) (#57)
by sj on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:26:37 AM EST

I understand that you are a very proud supporter of the military without generally being a brainless cheerleader. But really, come on.

There is no way this treatment is humane.

"They are preventing him from harming himself."

Excuse me but that's total bullsh!t. They aren't doing this to keep him safe. Tney are doing this to punish him. And in your heart you know that.

Although after nearly a year of this treatment they might have driven him to point that he'd consider it. If so, it's a created insanity, not an intrinsic one.


If you have an argument that is valid (none / 0) (#59)
by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 01:39:24 PM EST

Why isn't it doing anything? Other people are trying to fight this and they are getting no place because the military has covered its arse. I wish Manning wouldn't have said what he said, he can't take it back now. He knows how the military works too, not that that has ever deterred him from his planned courses of action :)


I would say (none / 0) (#61)
by sj on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 01:57:43 PM EST

that the military hasn't so much covered its arse as it is thumbing its nose. And I don't think it will change either. As long as these types of things can go happen, publicly, with impunity.


It isn't thumbing its nose though (none / 0) (#62)
by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 01:58:44 PM EST

If it were, someone could do something about that


And who would that someone be? (5.00 / 1) (#68)
by Anne on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:17:43 PM EST

Someone who understands that in terms of the conditions of his detention, Manning is now being punished for not being together enough to self-censor when he reacts to yet another deprivation?

You don't have to defend them, Tracy, although you may feel some sort of obligation to explain away what is happening; I think there's a very dark and malevolent irony in the base commander shoveling this BS about protecting Manning from himself when it is his jailers - or do I call them "captors?" - who may be doing more harm to him than anyone.

And please don't hand me the "well, whose fault is that?" line, because no other detainee is being subject to to the same treatment Manning is getting - and I'm not just talking about the nudity.

"Someone" could do something about it, but apparently "someone" is happily on board with it - which, by the way, doesn't make it right, it just means that inhumane treatment of American military detainees is now fully state-sanctioned.

This is quite some world we now live in...


: I'm not defending things Anne (none / 0) (#70)
by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 04:08:05 PM EST

Just telling you how it is and the military is not a democracy.

It most certainly is (none / 0) (#63)
by sj on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:01:18 PM EST

And some one could do something about that. He simply chooses not to.


: If you mean the President (none / 0) (#65)
by Milita