" I had no idea that solitary confinement was used in cases other than to prevent physical harm to an inmate or to prevent violence."
Given which way the winds are obviously blowing around here, I fully expect to get downvoted into oblivion for what I'm about to say, but it needs to be said:
There are other valid reasons. In this particular case, the detainee is a demonstrated security risk. At this point I'm sure that people will be inclined to point out that he hasn't yet been convicted of anything. True. But the bar for "demonstrated security risk" is in a very different place from the bar for "guilty." Servicemembers who are given access to classified information, especially at the Secret level or higher, are required to sign nondisclosure agreements. These aren't like corporate "we'll sue you into oblivion" NDAs: they are chock full of language about criminal penalties and (beyond the normal criminal process) being subject to investigation, detention, sequester, interrogation, polygraph, etc. He has clearly demonstrated that he is perfectly willing to disclose secrets that are harmful to the security of the United States, and so the military has an obligation to prevent any further such disclosures. Given the scale and scope of his previous disclosures, any contact represents an opportunity for further unauthorized disclosure, and so his gaolers have an obligation to keep such contact to an absolute minimum.
In this particular case, the detainee is a demonstrated security risk. At this point I'm sure that people will be inclined to point out that he hasn't yet been convicted of anything. True. But the bar for "demonstrated security risk" is in a very different place from the bar for "guilty."
How did you make that distinction? He's not guilty, but he's a "demonstrated security risk" by virtue of what - the lack of a guilty verdict for allegedly being a demonstrated security risk? You can't have it both ways - he's either not proven guilty and therefore should not be treated as if he is a known threat to others or he has been tried and proven guilty. For all the evidence you've seen, not even being a judge, all charges could be false. At this time you have no idea other than a preexisting, evidence free belief based on things you've heard from some (mostly anonymous) government officials quoted in some random news article. And until you have further details, I can't see any logic beyond sadism or a misunderstanding of the concept of innocent until proven guilty that would allow you to support the reported treatment of Manning.
Haven't his handlers signed similar agreements? By your logic, no judge should be able to hear his trial lest he/she hear and expose the secrets that might be revealed.
Actually, it's entirely possible that his handlers don't have the appropriate security clearances to hear the things he knows. Even if they have the right clearances, they don't have a need to know, and so he would be committing another unauthorized disclosure if he were to reveal classified information to them.
Your second sentence does not follow from my logic: it is not Manning's knowledge of classified information which makes him a security risk, but rather his history of disclosing said information to people without the proper clearances or need to know. Unlike Manning, this hypothetical judge has done nothing to demonstrate a propensity for unauthorized disclosure of classified materials. This will be a court-martial, so the judge will be an officer. Presumably he will have the appropriate clearances to hear all of the evidence, and the trial itself constitutes a need to know.
These are not technicalities: he has done incalculable damage to the national security of the U.S. While there is no real way to prove it one way or another, it is entirely likely that his disclosures have resulted in the suffering or even deaths of others. There is only one way to be sufficiently certain that he does not cause further damage, and that is to keep him in isolation. If it is justifiable to keep an extremely violent criminal in isolation to prevent possible future harm to others, is it not equally justifiable to keep a nonviolent criminal in isolation in order to prevent possible future harm to even greater numbers of people?
EDIT:
Downvote if you like, but the question remains a valid philosophical question: if it is ethical to keep a person in isolation to preempt the possibility of physical harm to others, does the mechanism by which the harm is perpetrated matter?
This is a chicken/egg problem. If someone had leaked the truth prior to the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, then over 100K people would be alive today who were killed, some of whom are American soldiers.
I'd argue that the wars and inappropriate secrecy have done incalculable harm to American national security by creating for us many new enemies, people who had probably admired the US until one of their friends or relatives was injured, killed, taken captive, interrogated harshly and inhumanely, etc.
The Apache helicopter video showed a couple of scared-shitless youth raging against anyone in their sights. One can't help but feel sorry for them, and no sensible person blames them for the carnage. But is that really what America is supposed to stand for?
The Afghan war logs show a nation that has supported a war largely due to vital information about conditions being kept from the American people. Are we really supposed to be proud of a war that we only support b/c information is classified whenever it might make the war effort look somewhat futile or mismanaged?
Both the Iraq and Afghan war logs show us how weak the US really is and how under-leveraged. We're negotiating with terrorists, thugs, and criminals left and right. It's far uglier than any realist would have dared imagine b/c of the lofty regard in which we hold our leaders.
I am not persuaded by your argument that Manning poses a risk of additional secrets being revealed. The very nature of his alleged actions (he smuggled out a CD-Roms full of information, less than 1% of which has been leaked via Wikileaks so far) suggest that he'd be able to recite any classified information at all. Unless you tell me he has a flash drive implanted in his finger or an amazing photographic memory I'm going to have to say that your argument doesn't hold water.
They're probably trying to make an example of him or break down his psychological stability. I suppose that's to be expected, but it puts our actions on par with the basest of regimes... at some point the legitimacy of a state comes from how it treats its citizens, guilty or innocent.
Misconduct by the U.S., perceived or real, does not cancel out the harm done by Manning's leaks. He just piled extra suffering and death on top of the old. Given the conditions that led up to the war in Afghanistan, no amount of leaks could have prevented it. I will concede that particular well-timed leaks might have prevented the Iraq war. However, this is not several years ago, this is now: war is not a state function, you can't just rewind it, you have to find a path out based on the realities of the moment. Right now, the reality is that if we unilaterally withdraw from Afghanistan, the death and suffering that will follow will be far worse than what is currently happening. The impact of these leaks, if anything, was to destabilize the situation, thus moving us farther from a peaceful resolution.
The issue of confinement is not just about what happened previously, but about what could happen in the future. He doesn't have to have a hidden thumb drive or a photographic memory to cause a great deal more harm: a few carefully chosen secrets committed to memory could put many lives in jeopardy. Only he knows if he has such secrets, and we can't trust his word if he says he doesn't, any more than we could trust the word of a violent inmate who promises to be good from now on.
"The Apache helicopter video showed a couple of scared-shitless youth raging against anyone in their sights."
Watch the FULL video: it shows no such thing. It shows a couple of professionals following the rules of engagement to the best of their abilities in a very chaotic and uncertain situation that involved their comrades getting shot at. I do not feel sorry for them at all, except that they had to be the subject of a heavily edited propaganda film.
EDIT:
Since I can't reply any deeper, I'll respond to the latest to replies here.
I didn't claim that wikileaks didn't release the full version: I presumed that parent didn't watch it, based on his characterization of the events. I'll add this: the heavily-edited version got a hell of a lot more attention, and it was indisputably a work of propaganda. Releasing the full video on the side doesn't excuse the misrepresentations in the edited version.
In regards to the death and/or suffering I presume to have been caused by these leaks: no I can't prove it. I can't sweep into a war-torn third world country with a CSI-style team and determine, of the dozens of people abducted and/or murdered each weak by the taliban and/or al qaida and/or various warlords, which were killed as a result of these leaks and which were killed for other reasons. However, I can take those thugs at their word when they stated that they would use this information for reprisals.
Nor can I be sure which particular ambushes against NATO troops benefited from knowledge of NATO tactics. Nor can I be sure how many ambushes could have been avoided if sympathetic Afghanis hadn't been too afraid to give tips because they could no longer trust the Americans to protect their identities. However, it is unreasonable to assume that these effects are not taking place.
EDIT 2:
"The Apache video was edited to show the chain of events that led to the killing of a bunch of journalists...but I don't believe permission to fire would have been granted if the guys in the helicopter hadn't been so scared and hadn't embellished their account of the people on the ground."
The video was edited to make them look rash and to make their account look embellished. And I really don't know where you keep getting this idea of "scared;" I never hear anything remotely like fear in the voices on the tape. It wasn't just a "bunch of journalists," it was a few journalists standing around in the midst of a much larger group of armed men who were shooting at American troops, with no indication whatsoever that they were not members of the larger group.
I call it propaganda because it leaves out the part about the armed men shooting at Americans and focuses on the part about journalists being killed. I call it propaganda because it leaves out the very considered discussion of the role of the van, which stretches back to before the initial engagement when the pilots noticed it driving around the area in a loiter pattern reminiscent of insurgent support tactics. In short, I call it propaganda because it removes all context in order to make the decision to fire look as feckless and cavalier as possible.
"As for the leaked information putting lives at risk, Wikileaks offered to let the US Government redact any information it saw fit to. This offer was refused."
Frankly, I call BS. Their "offer" had unacceptable strings attached, such as acknowledging the legitimacy of the release of large quantities of classified materials by wikileaks. By statute, the government can't just arbitrarily decide to declare that it's OK to do something like that. Furthermore, sufficient time was not provided to properly go through all of the materials, a complaint raised by many (former) wikileaks partners/employees/volunteers. Finally, I am deeply skeptical that they really would have redacted ANYTHING the U.S. Government asked for.
In regards to your attempt to compare the U.S. to dictatorships: There are legitimate reasons for states to keep secrets, and the fact that you happen to personally disagree with particular secrets doesn't change the fact that the decision to keep those secrets was not made by any one person, but rather by following processes established by duly elected representatives.
On the day that the U.S. turns a foreign country into another U.S. state by force of arms, I will mail you a check for $100. Until then, please don't make such ridiculous claims about the motivations behind our foreign policy: go ahead and question the judgement to keep the troops there, but don't claim implausible imperial motivations.
You continue to assert that his disclosure is causing "extra suffering and death". Your entire premise is based on this assertion. So, with all due respect, I'm asking you to fucking prove it. For months, nobody from the Press to the DoD to the White House has been able to demonstrate a single harm caused by these releases, but perhaps you have some information we haven't seen yet.
And somebody please downvote the parent comment for knowingly propagating a blatant lie; the full, uncut Apache video was released right next to the edited version.
As for imperial motivations, I think that's the strongest claim I made.
I think there are generally two perspectives on US intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan:
The idealist perspective is that we invaded to thwart evil and to decrease the chances of domestic terrorism in the US.
The realist perspective is that wars are not about good and evil but about land and resources, and that the rest of the rhetoric is just a veneer added to help sell the war.
Iraq is the most valuable piece of land in the middle east. Afghanistan is also tremendously valuable. Perhaps my mention of them being the 51st and 52nd US states was hyperbole, but clearly the US wants to install client regimes in both places.
What are the characteristics of a client regime? Democracy is not usually valued all that much (hence our removal of democratically elected leaders around the world), thuggery is tolerated (hence the bribing of Afghan warlords, etc.) and all that is expected is that the state do the US's bidding in exchange for military protection and often aid.
In terms of military strategy, all this makes sense. You want to use soft power... better to bribe some warlords than to risk American lives, etc. Better to install a client regime that will prevent a possible enemy from consolidating power, etc.
The issue I have with this is that most people fail to see this as the brutal power projection of a massive empire.
In my opinion, we can't have it both ways... we can't be a pluralistic, free society and also cause so much suffering via our imperial "churn".
If you read the essay that Condi wrote in Foreign Affairs a few years ago in which she described in detail the "Bush Doctrine", you'll notice that she musters her significant academic training in an attempt to merge the notion of free society values with imperial power projection.
In my view, any explanation boils down to saying "We're going to civilize those savages, even if we have to kill quite a few to do so".
At this point, the side-effects of past Imperial actions are nearly impossible to differentiate from organic events. What we do know is that Al Qaida was largely a consequence of US efforts to use soft power to kick the Soviets out of Afghanistan, that Saddam had received significant military aid from the US, and that the US overthrew democratically elected regimes in Iran.
None of it was done for any abstract value such as freedom, but simply to control a very valuable area and attempt to create client regimes there (or prevent others from doing so), since such machinations are cheaper than US soldiers' lives and represent the use of "economy of force" compared to all-out war/conquest.
The Apache video was edited to show the chain of events that led to the killing of a bunch of journalists. I agree that the rules of engagement were followed, but I don't believe permission to fire would have been granted if the guys in the helicopter hadn't been so scared and hadn't embellished their account of the people on the ground.
Are you claiming that the film was propaganda because we were shown that there were children killed? Or because we were told that those children were not given access to top quality medical care after they ended up accidental casualties?
If it's propaganda to include such information, then it's surely propaganda to omit it, which is what the US did by classifying it.
As for the leaked information putting lives at risk, Wikileaks offered to let the US Government redact any information it saw fit to. This offer was refused.
It seems odd that a government that negotiates with thugs, warlords, torturers, criminals, etc., all over the world, and let that one guy flee with $42M in US cash, will ceremoniously refuse to "negotiate" in a way that would have removed any chance that the leaks would have caused ANY harm whatsoever.
This is at best hypocritical and at worst stupid. I should be honest it irritates me to hear anyone say "we don't negotiate with terrorists" because so much of what the US does is identical to terrorism -- dropping bombs from very high altitudes into the middle of civilian areas, etc.
The realization I've made after reading the leaks is that the US is a propaganda state every bit as much as North Korea. The only thing we have in our favor is a far more favorable mix of natural resources, etc, so we simply had to deal with $5/gallon gas instead of being called upon to make tea out of pine needles by our illustrious leader.
There's an easy way to avoid ambushes: Send the troops home. The only rationale for staying is to essentially convert the territories into the 51st and 52nd US states. Already we've tolerated ethnic cleansing, etc., and things are far worse under US rule than they were under Saddam or the Taliban. We need to be honest with ourselves about this and decide if we really want two more states at the expense of so many indigenous lives. We should not be pretending that we can wage sterile war with smart bombs and that we're fighting against evil. We're simply taking valuable land. It's neither sterile or smart.
On balance the US has caused far more suffering in the past decade than the Taliban, and perhaps the leaks will allow the public to realize what is going on and call for it to stop. So maybe you're right, maybe Manning would emerge a folk hero, reveal one or two more key tidbits, and run for office himself from behind bars.
My favorite line from Sun Tzu is where he describes how a strong nation has children playing along its borders and a weak nation has soldiers lined up. Ever since George W. Bush took office we've been acting like a weak nation.
Sure the leaks were embarrassing. So fix the major security holes in military IT systems, apologize to the allies that were embarrassed, and move on.
I could buy controlled isolation, though not via your arguments. However, he is also being kept in a tiny cell without a pillow or a blanket, and continuously observed. They are not only isolating him, they are trying to do him permanent psychological damage.
That's not isolation to protect the passing of information that's being malicious and vindictive.
Given which way the winds are obviously blowing around here, I fully expect to get downvoted into oblivion for what I'm about to say, but it needs to be said:
There are other valid reasons. In this particular case, the detainee is a demonstrated security risk. At this point I'm sure that people will be inclined to point out that he hasn't yet been convicted of anything. True. But the bar for "demonstrated security risk" is in a very different place from the bar for "guilty." Servicemembers who are given access to classified information, especially at the Secret level or higher, are required to sign nondisclosure agreements. These aren't like corporate "we'll sue you into oblivion" NDAs: they are chock full of language about criminal penalties and (beyond the normal criminal process) being subject to investigation, detention, sequester, interrogation, polygraph, etc. He has clearly demonstrated that he is perfectly willing to disclose secrets that are harmful to the security of the United States, and so the military has an obligation to prevent any further such disclosures. Given the scale and scope of his previous disclosures, any contact represents an opportunity for further unauthorized disclosure, and so his gaolers have an obligation to keep such contact to an absolute minimum.