I can't help but feel that while the treatment is severe and terrible that this isn't an appropriate post for Hacker News. This type of thing is a shining example of something that belongs on Reddit, where there's greater exposure and it's more on-topic. Is it interesting, yes (to some, although I'm sure there's plenty that could say not on hacker news as it's tied to wikileaks).
I would say that while the treatment of him is terrible, it meets the off-topic criteria (crime, politics, TV news). I'm posting this separately to my engagement in the discussion.
I'm so so so tired of people complaining about what is and what isn't HN relevant. Yes maybe the topic is not technology but isn't this something that effects us (Americans mostly) regardless of whether or not it's HN news?
I welcome the news because how else would I have the time to find all these articles on my own? I wouldn't, so I actually appreciate that someone posted it here.
If you really don't have interest in the article then just don't click it, move along. It seems like you're putting in more effort complaining than it would take to just skip to the next HN news article.
The problem is that when a forum like Hacker News loses its focus, it loses its value.
I've observed this as Reddit has expanded. /r/programming used to be a good source for learning about neat new technologies and programming techniques. Now, in part because it's one of the default front-page subreddits for an expanding user base on Reddit that mostly aren't programmers, the programming content gets buried beneath jokes, general technology or computer related articles that aren't about programming specifically, and the like.
If Hacker News loses its focus on programming and startups, it risks this happening as well. The detention conditions of PFC Bradley Manning may be interesting, but they are not on topic for a site like Hacker News. There are many other places you can read about and discuss that topic. There aren't many places where I can read about and discuss a broad range of programming and startup related information like I find on Hacker News.
Let's have that discussion when it's actually a significant problem, but it's not right now. Every time I load HN I find 10-15 relevant tech articles and maybe 1-2 articles like this. I'm fine with that ratio. Everyone seems to be making a bigger deal out of this than is justified.
Just because I don't expect it to happen to me doesn't mean it isn't relevant. The actions of our government are relevant to all.
If WikiLeaks were around in 2001 do you think it would have been as easy for Bush to feed us lies to justify going to war in Iraq? I don't. I applaud the actions of WikiLeaks.
I think it's perfectly fine to see this on HN. Much better than endless TSA stories around Thanksgiving. Unlike these it actually provides some interesting detailed information about something from a person with intimate knowledge of the matter, with minimal amount of opinion.
And instead of endless anger and frustration it seems to generate healthy debate of whether some of the details seem appropriate, or at least makes reader think how would they cope with situation.
I think you raise some valid points and you articulate them very well.
To clarify, my points are that the on-topic nature is questionable (which you've responded to, thanks and I think you raise some points that challenge my view very well) but that I also think that reddit is a better outlet for this.
To expand, Reddit has a whole load of people who are in a better position to spread the word, evangelise and have a greater reach than HN. As PostOnce says, HN is like a single subreddit and while one post of this nature is fine, lots of them would devalue the site. Thankfully this doesn't appear to have happened.
I'm not sure I agree with your point about anger and frustration, someone vented at me earlier on another comment. It's clear this is an emotional issue for some, with facts that are less than clear.
But how would you deal with it? If it's not Wikileaks or TSA, there will be some other topic that is borderline offtopic to HN. It's not feasible to start implementing content-based filtering IMHO.
The HN will eventually devalue and be replaced by something else, like it happened to Reddit, Slashdot and Usenet if you will. That's just normal circle of life. Pointless to fight it IMHO.
Most of this is fairly standard solitary confinement/suicide watch procedures, frankly. There are thousands of prisoners receiving comparable treatment who are not part of some politically trendy Wikileaks controversy. If you find any of this outrageous, don't think Bradley Manning is a special case in the slightest.
Exactly. How many people cared about the plight of people in solitary confinement and suicide watch last week?
There are people in prison having a far worse time than Manning. Come to think of it, if I were in prison I'd much rather be in solitary confinement like Manning than in with the general prison population (where my options would presumably be either to join the Aryan Brotherhood or get beaten up every day).
A lot of people have tried solitary confinement for the reasons you bring up, but more than a couple of days of it and most of them decide it's worth taking the risk in the general population. Solitary confinement is a weird experience.
All this feels like 1984...
While reading it I got anxious,stressed and wanting to exercise. It has to be horrible that the only hour a day that you can really move the only thing to do is walking.
The point most people want to make is not that he may be treated in this way if he has been proven to be guilty, but this is exactly what you are doing in the eyes of people that consider the treatment acceptable. The constant calls upon the 'innocent until proven guilty' mantra are a huge red herring. If you want to argue the treatment is wrong, you should argue exactly that and not argue against the treatment based on the current circumstances.
Effectively, this argument achieves the exact opposite of what you want: it strengthens the other side in their belief that Manning may be treated in this way. This is because of two things:
- he's in the military
- he's pretty much confessed
People feel that 'innocent until proved guilty' is not really an issue because of those two things and arguing against that feeling is a colossal waste of time, when what you actually want is to convince people that Manning shouldn't be treated like he currently is, period.
While I can't comment on the details of this case, it is perhaps worth noting that lots of people confess to crimes they didn't commit for a variety of reasons including coercion and/or mental illness.
The grandparent doesn’t express any personal belief about the veracity of Manning’s confession.
Her or his last sentence is the important one: “People feel that ‘innocent until proved guilty’ is not really an issue because of those two things (i.e. because Manning confessed and is in the military) and arguing against that feeling (i.e. the feeling of people that Manning is guilty) is a colossal waste of time, when what you actually want is to convince people that Manning shouldn't be treated like he currently is, period.” (Emphasis and annotations in brackets mine.)
I would also add bragging. People claim to be pimps, drug dealers, and tax cheats for some reason. Then you get the ones that brag about acquaintance rape.
People say all types of things for seriously strange reasons.
"The guards are required to check on PFC Manning every five minutes by asking him if he is okay. PFC Manning is required to respond in some affirmative manner."
My initial reaction was the same, but on second thought I think it may not be that bad. I agree that it would initially prevent the subject from concentrating, but he might get used to it in such a way that he can acknowledge the question with a 'yes' without breaking concentration.
Some people can work with the radio on, others only when it doesn't contain commercials, others can't work with any music. I can sleep virtually anywhere, while others, in the same room, can't stand a certain buzz, regularly recurring electromechanical noises or other sounds. However, with prolonged exposure, I think anyone would start to be able to work and sleep in environments with intruding noises.
If they're only checking up on him when he appears to be hiding something, that's nothing.
You see, a former co-worker of mine spent about a month (spread out over many weekends!) in the infamous "Tent City" jail in Phoenix, AZ after a DUI conviction. He said that the guards would come through the room several times a night to perform ID checks on every bunk, basically assuring that you couldn't get a reasonable night's sleep. The 100F+ temperatures didn't help either.
He also said that the leaders of each ethnic group/gang (whites, blacks, Latinos) had access to contraband mobile phones, and had made deals with the prison wardens to keep them. Apparently they also had their own food supply.
If PFC Manning is being treated in exactly the manner described in the article, then he's in better shape than many prisoners in America, where it seems torture is practiced every day.
They are not waking him every 5 minutes: that only happens during the day. At night he is awakened under some circumstances, but whether that constitutes sleep deprivation depends on how often it happens and there is no report on that.
"The guards are required to check on PFC Manning every five minutes by asking him if he is okay. PFC Manning is required to respond in some affirmative manner. At night, if the guards cannot see PFC Manning clearly, because he has a blanket over his head or is curled up towards the wall, they will wake him in order to ensure he is okay."
Right, so he's not woken at night unless they can't see him. Kinda like how the flight attendants will wake you if there's turbulence and they can't see whether you've got your seat belt buckled or not.
Well shit, he probably got more done yesterday than I did.
Anyway, if your definition of torture involves reading a book or a magazine while someone asks you every five minutes whether you're okay, you have (a) a pretty low bar for torture and (b) obviously no children.
Try going through this for 6 straight months, and then tell us if it's torture or not.
Even children go to sleep eventually. His guards never sleep, and keep waking him up in the pretext of "checking" on him. Don't tell me it's not torture.
Here's an idea: please post your phone number. I will set up a Twilio account that will dial it every 5 minutes, from 6AM to 9PM, and ask you if you're OK. If it doesn't get a satisfactory response, it may alert the emergency services that something has happened to you. We'll do this for 6 months, and see if you still think it's torture or not.
An awful lot of that does sound like psychological torture dressed up to just about make it possible to present some kind of legal argument that it's for other purposes, and the damaging effects on the detainee are an unfortunate by-product.
I don't understand the use of the word "force" and "require", as in "required to respond every five minutes". What if he doesn't? They'll send him to prison where he'll be required to respond to their questions every five minutes? Oh wait.
(I understand that in "regular" prisons, there are privileges, like socialization, that can be taken away to coerce you into following the rules. But in this case, it seems like there's nothing left to take away, so what's the incentive to follow the rules?)
I gather the checks are to ensure he is conscious. I would guess they simply go into his cell, pick him up and check he is healthy and he is not attempting suicide.
When you have so few forms of entertainment, I am sure the loss of TV or your books and magazines are a BIG incentive to follow the rules.
As a high-profile US citizen military prisoner in a military prison within the United States, he probably doesn't have to worry about that too much.
I'd much rather be guarded by soldiers than by civilian prison guards. If a soldier hits you, he has a commanding officer who is going to jump down his throat. If a civilian prison guard hits you, he has a union who's going to cover up for him.
At extreme risk of sanctimony, but worth it to me because I follow your comments:
Maybe consider whether you want to be this glib about military prison guards. MCB Quantico is presumably staffed by the USMC. As I understand it:
(1) People don't join the USMC and then get to choose to work as a brig guard stateside; these are people who volunteered to serve at an extremely difficult time.
(2) The people who land in stateside posts tend to have first done a tour overseas; the "angry guys with guns" administering "minor beatings" are likely to be people who have already served their country in ways I can't possibly imagine doing myself.
I might consider giving these people the benefit of the doubt. (I'm anti-war, a liberal dem, but I have a healthy dose of respect for people who volunteer for the armed services.)
If you disagree, that's fine, I won't have a temper tantrum, but I thought it was worth saying.
Incidentally, there's a Reddit AmA with an MCB Quantico brig guard running right now.
The people who land in stateside posts tend to have first done a tour overseas
Actually, that's less likely than one might think. Deployments to Iraq/Afghanistan are distributed in a very non-uniform manner throughout the military. See [1].
the "angry guys with guns" administering "minor beatings" are likely to be people who have already served their country in ways I can't possibly imagine doing myself.
I don't think the implication was that the guards would abuse him because they were in the military -- but rather because they were in a position of power that tended to turn people into violent crazy people. Power corrupts and all, to say nothing of the Stanford prison experiment.
If you look at the crosstabs for those numbers, you find that the number of Marines in the "Corrections Specialist" MOS that haven't deployed at all are absolutely dwarfed by people with MOS like "Personnel Clerk" and "Finance Technician" and "Administrative Clerk" (and, "Combat Illustrator"? Really?).
One gets the sense that "Corrections Specialists" do in fact deploy.
The Stanford Prison Experiment is probably not a license to assume that anyone working as a prison guard is breaking the law and their own honor code. But, who knows.
I didn't mean to besmirch the honor of the prison guards... "angry" only meant that they would be angry because of the detainee not following the rules, not because they are inherently angry people.
I was reasonably confident that said minor beatings were codified into what the guards are supposed to do. If Manning doesn't do one of the things he is not allowed to do, he will be forced to comply, and said force is likely to resemble a beating.
Glen Greenwald's salon.com piece on this is also a worthy read; it discusses the irreversible physical harm to the brain these conditions have probably already caused Manning. They also have him on a steady dose of antidepressants... All this makes me sick to hear about.
That must be hellish. It seems a lot of these restrictions were intended to be for his own good to prevent him from causing himself physical harm. What good are they if they are causing him psychological damage?
I am disappointed your comment is being upvoted. Just because the conditions are terrible, outright and false hyperbole should not be used on the site like HN. We don't need propaganda here.
Being in regular contact with people (every 5 minutes), being able to watch TV for hours each day, corresponding via mail and being able to read books means he is not even remotely in the same league as people being tourtoured with real sensory deprivation [2]
While the military can do and has done [1] sensory deprivation , this is not it.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." [0]
It sounds to me like they are trying to prevent him from committing suicide. But the prevention is probably doing him a lot of damage.
That's why I said controlled sensory deprivation. It's a spectrum. Just because it doesn't involve ketamine and float tanks doesn't mean they aren't trying to destroy his brain. First of all there are no indications that he is or has ever been suicidal, so that explanation is laughable. And how exactly is preventing him from doing any exercise supposed to keep him from committing suicide anyway?
What makes you think there's no indication that he's been is or has ever been suicidal? Why would we know about it, if there had been? Is it not plausible that a kid who was pretty screwed up in the first place, who committed treason on a lark, and who is now facing life in prison for betraying his country, might turn suicidal?
The only indication we have one way or the other is that he's on Prevention of Injury watch, which is a pretty good sign that somebody thinks he is.
"When he was first arrested, Manning was put on suicide watch, but his status was quickly changed to "Prevention of Injury" watch (POI), and under this lesser pretense he has been forced into his life of mind-numbing tedium. His treatment is harsh, punitive and taking its toll, says Coombs.
'There is no evidence he's a threat to himself, and shouldn't be held in such severe conditions under the artifice of his own protection.'
"The command is basing this treatment of him solely on the nature of the pending charges, and on an unrelated incident where a service member in the facility took his own life," Coombs said, referencing the February suicide of a marine captain in the Quantico brig. Coombs says he believes Quantico officials are keeping Manning under close watch with strict limitations on his activity out of an overabundance of caution. Both Coombs and Manning's psychologist, Coombs says, are sure Manning is mentally healthy, that there is no evidence he's a threat to himself, and shouldn't be held in such severe conditions under the artifice of his own protection."
C.f. also Glenn Greenwald's column from the other day, where he says:
"From the beginning of his detention, Manning has been held in intensive solitary confinement. For 23 out of 24 hours every day -- for seven straight months and counting -- he sits completely alone in his cell. Even inside his cell, his activities are heavily restricted; he's barred even from exercising and is under constant surveillance to enforce those restrictions. For reasons that appear completely punitive, he's being denied many of the most basic attributes of civilized imprisonment, including even a pillow or sheets for his bed (he is not and never has been on suicide watch). For the one hour per day when he is freed from this isolation, he is barred from accessing any news or current events programs."
So possibly he was on suicide watch for a couple days, but they quickly determined he was not suicidal and have since been taking punitive action against him.
It all varies by person, doesn't it? We can't really know for sure whether that treatment amounts to sensory deprivation or not in his case. What books did he get? What channels is he allowed to watch? Maybe it's only Fox and Life TV? Let's wait until we hear his story, not some dry desctiption of the procedures.
This makes me think the most. The restrictions seem a good reason to actually commit suicide or any other form of harm to yourself just to keep yourself occupied or to end the current state a subject is in.
So the feedback of the rule would actually be that it causes the thing it was meant to prevent. Are those restrictions common and is there any research that ratifies them?
I'd vote for Manning for President if he ever gets out of jail. The guy obviously has morals, integrity and a spine. I really think he's a hero. The government should be accountable to the people.
Think about Iraq/Afghanistan if there were WikiLeaks in 2001 would Bush have been able to get away with all the lies he told to push us into two wars? I really doubt it.
The world is safer with WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks ripped off the clock of secrecy and now they have to operate in public as it should be.
Also, if Julian Assange were say a Chinese citizen and this were happening to the Chinese government he'd be cheered on, called a dissident, and given a Nobel Prize.
Is this terrible treatment? Yes. Is it inhumane? Possibly. It's important to bear in mind several factors:
* PFC Bradley Manning signed up to all of this. He will have been aware of the treatment he should expect in this situation if he was exposed.
* He confessed. Innocent until guilty in a military scenario is different to a civilian scenario. Given that he's confessed guilt, there's little to defend.
* This is a military case, not a civilian one. Things are different. You might not agree with the way he's treated but there are specific rules and those rules are in place for a reason.
So to restate, he's being held without charges and psychologically tortured, but it's okay because he's in the military and the rules of the military say that's okay.
Would you support a military rule that required officers to eat ten newborn babes apiece to be eligible for promotion? Let's say it's a specific rule and it's in place for a reason.
> So to restate, he's being held without charges and psychologically tortured, but it's okay because he's in the military and the rules of the military say that's okay.
That's not what I'm saying. It's not psychological torture against someone who's completely unprepared for it and never signed up for it. It's imprisonment under the terms of a contract he willingly signed up for. He is being charged with breaking that contract in a manner where the rules and consequences are clear. That's the call he had to make, that's the trade-off he had to make and that's something he must've known before he did what he did, otherwise he's taken a massive uncalculated risk without thinking about the potential consequences.
He "signed up" for all this? Really? Can you point me to the document one signs when enlisting which say that they (the military) are allowed to do this?
Secondly: HE DID NOT CONFESS. Stop making shit up just because you feel like it.
I appreciate this is an emotional issue but your inflammatory response is unwarranted. Please try to keep debate civil here.
To answer your first part about enlisting. US Military Justice is covered by Congress, primarily through the Uniform Code of Military Justice (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm). As I've mentioned before, there will be a process for everything. It will be documented. They will follow it.
The standard enlistment/re-enlistment form DD Form 4/1 is used by all branches of the US Military (http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/enlistment.pdf). In Section C, Clause 9 there's a whole load of stuff about being subject to military law, laws changing and still being applicable and being potentially up for court-martial. That's where it says they're allowed.
On your claim that he did not confess - he has not confessed in court, I do not know whether or not he has confessed to any military staff, but he has confessed to Adrian Lamo through various chat logs, which have since been turned over to wired magazine and partially published (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/wikileaks-chat/). I don't have any confirmation that the logs themselves were provided to the military, although there is confirmation in that article that Adrian Lamo tipped off the FBI and Army.
When I see lies repeated again and again, without being challenged, it angers me.
You say "he did not confess in court". Followed by "I do not know whether he confessed to any military staff". And yet you continue to claim that "he confessed". Chat logs are not a confession! It just boggles the mind that any sane person would consider "chat logs" a confession! Especially on a site like Hacker News. How would you like it if you were locked up in solitary based on what you said on IRC?
So tell me, what is more inflammatory: The repeated lies by biased people who want to punish an INNOCENT man (remember "innocent until proven guilty"?) based on some stupid chat logs with a known felon; or calling out such lies?
I apologise if this was misleading. I can see how it can be interpreted as he confessed in court, but he's not had a hearing yet so he can't. He confessed to Adrian Lamo, who promptly turned the logs to wired magazine, who then published excerpts.
Its a subtle form of torture... I have heard/read that to keep oneself sane in a solitary you have to occupy yourself - and not go into internal monologues, because they will drive you mad. So the best form of occupation is exercise - pacing the cell (however small it is), meditation (keeping your mind void), etc...
So they are effectively preventing him from clinging to his sanity. Make no mistake - solitary confinement is meant to drive you mad, thats all there is to it.
He's on Prevention of Injury watch in a Supermax prison. I'm not familiar with US rules, but on suicide watch in a high security UK prison you're not usually allowed to exercise. This is partly because there's a risk you may be able to overpower guards, but also because you can injure yourself if you over-exercise.
Whatever the reason in Manning's case, it'll be more to do with bureaucratic rules than any particular desire to torture. If they wanted to torture him they'd submit him to the treatment signed off by the Bush administration.
I am sorry, but having been in the military myself, I cannot feel sympathy for a serviceman who intentionally leaked classified material. And if found guity, he should spend the rest of his life in prison for doing so.
While I am in general rather critical of most methods employed by the US in recent years, in this case the situation is quite different.
If you sign up for the US military and then as a soldier commit what may very well be seen as an act of treason, you can't really expect great treatment.
Mind you, this is very, very different from what goes on in Guantanamo, for which there is no justification.
I would say that while the treatment of him is terrible, it meets the off-topic criteria (crime, politics, TV news). I'm posting this separately to my engagement in the discussion.