As we await what’s sure to be the coming hysterics from supporters of Army Pfc Bradley Manning over his “torture” at the hands of guards at Ft. Leavenworth, we’re learning a few things that really, weren’t all that hidden regarding his case.
The Army Times is among those reporting about the pending move of the Army private from the Marine brig at Quantico, Virginia to the Army detention facility at Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas. Among the things we’re learning:
1. Manning’s long stay at Quantico was not standard procedure, only because Quantico is not built for long-term pretrial confinement:
Jeh Johnson, the Pentagon’s top lawyer, said the move does not suggest that Army Pfc. Bradley Manning’s treatment in the brig at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va., was inappropriate.
The transfer, which Johnson described as “imminent,” comes in the wake of international criticism about Manning’s treatment at Quantico. The conditions of Manning’s detention have been the focus of repeated protests from human rights groups and lawmakers.
Johnson, however, said that “the fact that we have made a decision to transfer this particular pretrial confine … should not be interpreted as a criticism of the place he was before.”
Speaking to reporters Tuesday during a hastily arranged briefing, Johnson and Army Undersecretary Joseph Westphal acknowledged that Quantico was not designed to hold pretrial detainees for more than a few months.
“This is the right decision, at the right time,” Westphal said. “We were looking at a situation where he would need an environment more conducive for a longer detention.”
2. Manning will still be in a solo cell at Ft. Leavenworth (though he will have more exercise time and more contact with other prisoners)… because that’s the standard way prisoners are held, apparently, at military facilities:
The Leavenworth facility, they said, will be more open, have more space, and Manning will have a greater opportunity to eat and interact with other prisoners there. They added that the move was in Manning’s best interest because Leavenworth’s Joint Regional Correctional Facility has a broader array of facilities, including trained mental, emotional and physical health staff.
Lt. Col. Dawn Hilton, who is in charge of the medium-security detention facility at Leavenworth, said Manning will undergo a comprehensive evaluation upon his arrival to assess whether he is a risk to his own or others’ safety. The 150 inmates there — including eight who are awaiting trial — are allowed three hours of recreation per day, she said, and three meals a day in a dining area.
She said the facility, which opened in January, is designed for long-term detention of pretrial inmates. Officials agreed that Manning’s case, which involves hundreds of thousands of highly sensitive and classified documents, is very complex and could drag on for months, if not years.
Johnson said that Manning, who has been at Quantico for more than eight months, can be moved now because his interview in the Washington region to determine his competency to stand trial has been completed. That interview lasted one day and was done April 9.
3. The length and location of Manning’s pretrial confinement is partly the fault of his own lawyer, who after all, is the one who requested a competency hearing, also known as a “706 board” — ironically, simultaneously seeking to have him potentially declared mentally unfit to stand trial, and screaming via blogs, Glenn Greenwald and Twitter (but not by giving actual interviews…) that the Marines had no basis to conclude that Manning might be troubled enough to potentially attempt suicide:
Per the Armed Forces News Service:
Johnson explained the rationale noting that it is the right time to transfer Manning to a more appropriate facility for long-term pre-trial confinement.
“At the request of Private Manning’s defense counsel, an assessment is under way to determine whether Private Manning is mentally competent in this case in the event it goes to trial,” he said. “On Saturday, April 9, the inquiry phase of that process, known in military justice terms as a 706 board, was completed, and Private Manning’s presence in the Washington, D.C., area is no longer necessary for that purpose.”
“At this juncture of the case, we have decided that the new joint regional correctional facility at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., is the most appropriate facility for Private Manning for continued pre-trial detention,” he said.
“This is the right decision at the right time,” Army Undersecretary Joseph W. Westphal said, reinforcing Johnson’s explanation.
“This [facility] became available in January for pre-trial [confinees],” Westphal said. “We were looking at the situation where he would need an environment that was more conducive to a longer-term period, and this is why we made the decision to move him at this time. We needed to wait until the 706, and his participation in the 706 review process, was over, and that just became over.”
With the medical review of Manning’s competence to stand trial expected to take additional time, and a pre-trial phase that “may continue for months beyond that,” Johnson said the decision was made to transfer him to Fort Leavenworth.
The facility Manning is headed to appears to be particularly well designed to deal with people who might have mental competency issues:
“The facility, which opened in October and opened a pre-trial confinement capability in January, is a state-of-the-art complex with the best and widest range of support services available to pre-trial prisoners within the Department of Defense corrections system,” he said.
The facility has resident medical and mental-health care staff “appropriate to meet Private Manning’s health and welfare needs for the remainder of the 706 Board process into the pretrial phase, Johnson said.
“When he is transferred to the Joint Regional Correction Facility, he will receive support from experienced, trained professional staff that has been doing this for well over 20 years,” said Army Lt. Col. Dawn Hilton, the facility commander. “And he will receive the mental health, physical health and emotional health [support] that he needs to go through this judicial process.”
“The Quantico brig is a level 1 facility that is not intended for long- term incarceration either pre- or post-trial,” she said. Typically, pre-trial prisoners are not incarcerated at a level 1 facility for more than a couple months.”
The Joint Regional Correctional Facility in Kansas is a state-of-the-art, level 2 facility, Hilton said. “So what that means is that I have the capacity to hold not only the pre-trial prisoners but post-trial prisoners with sentences up to five years. And with that comes all the support staff that Pfc. Manning may need,” she said.
“I have the experienced staff who not only work at the Joint Regional Correctional Facility but also at the United States Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth,” she continued. “So it’s more than just the facility. It’s the staff that comes with the facility. My facility is different than the [Quantico] brig. I am developed, designed and staffed with the experienced staff to provide those services for long-term incarceration.”
David Coombs, as per his standard procedure, did not give any interviews regarding Manning’s pending move. But he did post yet another blog entry, purporting to give Manning devotees the real reason Manning is being moved:
Like many others, the defense first learned of PFC Manning’s move to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas by reading that a government official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, leaked the information to the Associated Press. The defense was not officially notified of PFC Manning’s pending move until twenty minutes before the Pentagon’s press briefing. This is despite the fact that the Pentagon has “been thinking about this for a while.” Although the news of the move came as a surprise to the defense, the timing did not.
The defense recently received reliable reports of a private meeting held on 13 January 2011, involving high-level Quantico officials where it was ordered that PFC Manning would remain in maximum custody and under prevention of injury watch indefinitely. The order to keep PFC Manning under these unduly harsh conditions was issued by a senior Quantico official who stated he would not risk anything happening “on his watch.” When challenged by a Brig psychiatrist present at the meeting that there was no mental health justification for the decision, the senior Quantico official issuing the order responded, “We will do whatever we want to do.” Based upon these statements and others, the defense was in the process of filing a writ of habeas corpus seeking a court ruling that the Quantico Brig violated PFC Manning’s constitutional right to due process. See United States ex. rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 74 S.Ct. 499 (1954) (violation of due process where result of board proceeding was predetermined); United States v. Anderson, 49 M.J. 575 (N.M. Ct. Crim. App. 1998) (illegal punishment where Marine Corps had an unwritten policy automatically placing certain detainees in MAX custody). The facts surrounding PFC Manning’s pretrial confinement at Quantico make it clear that his detention was not “in compliance with legal and regulatory standards in all respects” as maintained at the Pentagon press briefing.
So … why hadn’t Coombs filed a habeas writ before? According to a very knowledgeable lawyer who has represented military detainees, and who unlike Mr. Coombs, agreed to talk to TRR, Coombs could have made such a filing at any time in the last eight months.
And the “nothing would happen on his watch” comment could refer to a suicide last February at Quantico, which it seems fairly reasonable to assume, the brig commander there wanted to avoid happening again, especially with such a sensational case as Manning’s.
As with everything in this case, the new info leads to more questions.
How can David Coombs seek to possibly declare his client mentally unfit to stand trial, while simultaneously arguing that there is no basis for deeming him to be a possible suicide risk?
Given Manning’s history of violent, erratic behavior, the prior suicide at their facility, plus Manning’s flip comments about strangling himself with his underwear, was it not reasonable for the Quantico brig commander to take every precaution to ensure that Manning lived to go to trial?
And why, if indeed that’s what he’s implying, has David Coombs not filed for a writ of habeas corpus before now?
A cynical person might wonder if all the over-the-top “torture” allegations might be designed to bolster an incompetency defense, by making Manning’s alleged mental deterioriation the “fault” of the Marines at Quantico.
UPDATE: let the Greenwaldian carping … begin! And cue the overblown analysis filled with speculation and activist enthusiasm, too.
WTF Has Barack Obama Done So Far?
Please get the spelling of Bradley’s name right. It’s M-U-M-I-A.
Anyone who believes that Manning’s extreme treatment isn’t summary punishment is either ignorant of the conditions in which he has been held, or clinging to a fantasies. Solitary punishment, as it has been practiced in this case, is simply another form of torture. Examine this for yourself, please don’t take the word of jailers.
I believe Dam means the conditions in which it is alleged he has been held. Not fantasies, Dam, just hopeful of learning the facts some day.
Gee can you kiss Obama’s and the Military’s asses any more than this? Prvt Manning hasn’t even been to trial, why is he even in lock up?
@Troublecomine: if Manning is being illegally held why doesn’t his lawyer get him out?
Yeah, I’m sure Reid’s legitimate questions are all about kissing Obama’s ass. Don’t trust jailers but GG’s words are absolute?
Seriously, you have to ask why someone who gave away classified government info is in jail?
And I’d like to know since when solitary confinement is torture? I’ve seen activists try to abolish the death penalty but I ain’t ever seen a movement to abolish solitary confinement throughout this country.
You Manning-haters are incorrigible. (1) If Quantico is not equipped for long-term detention then Manning should never have been there in the first place. (2) The fact that Manning is in a solo cells is not, and never was, an issue. (3) A 706 board is standard procedure and shouldn’t take 10 freakin months. (4) Coombs did not file a habeas petition before because he just found out about the January 13 decision. He had previously been pursuing an appeals process with the Secretary of the Army.
Let me just say this: Coombs is doing exactly he right thing by putting his statements on his blog. That way they can’t be taken out of context and distorted by haters. Why doesn’t the military write its own detailed account? Because they would rather deal in sound-bites because the facts are not on their side. Finally quoting a “knowledgeable lawyer” who won’t give his name is just the sort of MSM hackery that is unbefitting TRR.
What bmull said, and then some.
Using exclusively military newspaper sources – nice. Extensive research.
Also great that you were able to perform a psychological evaluation on Manning based on a 911 call from five years ago. Meanwhile, the actual psychologists who evaluated Manning at Quantico saw no reason for solitary or forced nudity. Also meanwhile, MSNBC today has Pentagon sources openly admitting that his treatment was punitive, not for his protection.
Look, if you, Shoq, ABL, and whoever else don’t think Manning’s treatment is an issue, that’s fine – everybody has their own priorities. But the way you’re twisting yourself Into knots just to troll Greenwald and FDL is a goddamned embarrassment.
@BMull:
The fact that you extrapolate “hatred” of Manning based on people simply not buying the “torture” histrionics of people who are, to your and Walter’s point, taking the word of just one source — Greenwald — who is in turn taking the word of just two sources: David House (who believes Manning shouldn’t even be charged with a crime) and Manning’s lawyer, derails your arguments, however sanctimoniously made. You do not “know” that Manning is being tortured, you “believe” it, and based on no actual evidence. The “expert” I spoke with did go on the record with me. My Herald column next week will flesh that out. I don’t post my columns in advance on this blog.
If you are an advocate, say you’re an advocate. Don’t pretend to have facts that in fact, you do not have. Have either of you seen physical evidence to support your torture claims? And please. The solo cell has been mischaracterized as “solitary confinement” so many times, it’s almost a meme.
There is no “hate” involved. I have no personal feelings about Bradley Manning. There is no emotion involved here for me. Can you folks say the same?
@JReid: Torture is a fuzzy enough term that reasonable people can disagree as to whether Manning is being tortured. I happen to believe he is, but if you don’t that’s fine. And it’s not the solo cell that’s the problem, it’s the 23 hours a day in his cell and other POI restrictions that go along with it.
Of course we all have feelings about Manning or we wouldn’t be discussing it. Your bias is obvious in your writing, as is mine. Why can’t you see it?
I hope it’s not too late to pull your Herald column because this is going to be hugely embarrassing. Might as well do it on Trig Birtherism. Your pal Shoq thinks there may be something to it.
For my part, I never said “torture,” although I think there’s an argument to be made that 23 hour a day solitary and forced nudity could be psychological torture.
If you really cared about this issue and weren’t just trolling, you would probably be asking more loudly why DOD won’t allow Kucinich or Juan Mendez unsupervised access to Manning (something Bush allowed for Gitmo prisoners). After all, if there’s nothing irregular here, then what’s the harm? All it will do is bolster your case and humiliate Greenwald. So why are you quoting army newspapers instead of calling for the visits?
As to my “advocacy,” I’m an advocate for anybody not being humiliated and isolated before they’re given a fair trial. If Manning is convicted of a crime, he should get whatever penalty is proper. Personally I think what he may or may not have done was courageous, all the more so because he would have known the legal risk he was taking, as all who practice civil disobedience do.
Oh and just by the way, the MSNBC story I cited sourced people (anonymously, probably to avoid following Crowley) claiming mistreatment presumably without any coaching by Greenwald or Coombs. And no brig psychiatrists that I’m aware of have come forward to dispute Coombs’ claims as to their statements about Manning’s mental health.
I know it’s really convenient for you to pretend that Greenwald and Coombs are the only sources here, just teaming up to pull one over on the world (and the world is watching), but they do actually have some legitimacy here.
Your tone in this post was a surprise to me. I would like to know how you think you would do if you had been imprisoned under similar sanctions? And the answer to that question is not that you would never have gotten yourself into the trouble Manning did in the first place.
As a journalist surely you expect full protection of your right to free speech granted by the Constitution and upheld by the SCOTUS. Member of the military or not, guilty or not of wrongdoing for which he has yet to be charged, Manning is also fully entitled to the protections offered by the Eighth Amendment, and those protections have clearly been withheld. It doesn’t matter that his father said he is holding up ok nor does it matter that his lawyer did not, in your opinion, serve his client well; he still is entitled to those protections.
Most reasonable people would agree that being stripped naked and completely prevented from falling asleep all day under the guise of protecting him from himself is a crock. PJ Crowley, a person in a position to learn much more than you or I about the situation, risked and lost his job because he felt the need to speak up about Manning’s situation.
Those hysterics like I who have been fighting on Bradley’s behalf are also fighting for you, for Jose Padilla and for the right of everyone in the country to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment. The attitude displayed in this entry is one I would expect from tea partiers but certainly not from someone I had gathered was more politically progressive.
NOTE: This reply was initially posted in error in the comments section of another of your blog posts.
FREE MUMIA!!!
@LEO: You follow Shoq. Are you a Trig birther too?
Mr. Mull and Mr. Glass –
This begins to take on an era of cultishness. You are essentially arguing that one cannot disagree with Glenn Greenwald because it is heresy. You attack me for not naming my source, then cite an MSNBC story with “unnamed Pentagon sources” – but you justify that because “they fear retribution.” You buy every word out of Greenwald’s mouth despite the fact that neither he nor Mr. Crowley has personally seen Mr. Manning, and so they, as I have repeatedly said, cite only Mr. House’s account. Mr House is, just like the two of you, an advocate for Manning’s not having committed any crime. And his account is disputed by Manning’s own father, who of course you guys do not believe because he does not support your/Greenwald’s deeply held, but not at all fact based belief.
You now go on to insist that I reform myself by advocating for Dennis Kucinich to get what no one besides a doctor or lawyer is legally entitled to in a military brig: an unsupervised visit with an espionage suspect. Read the Navy manual on detention, which governs the treatment of prisoners, including those in Maximum Custody. They don’t get unsupervised visits, except from their lawyer, and a doctor. I know, I know, Dennis Kucinich is right, and Greenwald is never wrong and PJ Crowley sent tweet so he knows better than I do that poor Manning, who did nothing wrong (except allegedly violate the terms of his agreement to get a security clearance along with the … um … law) is being tortured, or now you’re walking back from torture but the UN raconteur on torture said … and etc.
I don’t argue with religious believers, which you are. I am not persuaded that Manning is being mistreated, or treated differently than any other prisoner at Quantico. I’m sorry you don’t believe I have the right not to become a Manning/Greenwald cultist, but no thanks on the Kool-Aid.
And love the flourish about warning me not to write a column about it. You do still believe in the first amendment, right?
@Pattybee –
Your reaction, based on the single-sourced information that has flooded the media, is understandable. But the conditions you describe are not Mr. Manning’s permanent condition. He was on POI watch for several days in January after making a comment about strangling himself with his underwear band. He is not “stripped naked and prevented from falling asleep.” And he will still be in a single cell at Ft. Leavenworth, as are ALL prisoners both at Quantico and Ft. Leavenworth.
As to what I would do in that situation, it would suck to be incarcerated under ANY circumstances, not just at Quantico, but I imagine, at Rikers Island, where prisoners also face the threat of rape and even murder at the hands of fellow inmates. Being in prison absolutely sucks, so I will indeed do my damndest never to go to prison. And if God forbid I was in prison, I would expect my lawyer to do everything possible to improve my conditions, as Mr. Coombs is. But I sure would hope my lawyer didn’t wait 11 months to file a Habeas petition.
As to my “tone,” it is skeptical, not hostile to Mr. Manning. I don’t believe the Greenwald torture claims and I don’t believe Mr. Manning to be a folk hero. Sorry if that disappoints you.
Ms. Reid,
You not being convinced that Manning is being mistreated is every bit as much a leap of faith as anyone assuming he is being mistreated. There’s clearly a lot of claims flying around on either side, the only way to resolve these claims is to allow Manning access to some impartial observers (Kucinich probably doesn’t count, I know), draconian brig regulations notwithstanding.
If you were actually interested in this issue or in knowing the truth, you would take this suggestion seriously, but you’re not. You just want this issue to go away, so you throw up some DOD spin and then stick your fingers in your ear and yell about the Greenwald cult.
If there is actual abuse happening in this case, that’s a big deal to some of us, even if it isn’t to you, which is fine. You don’t have to care about this issue over any other. But the more you concern troll this issue, the more you marginalize yourself.
Mr. Glass,
It’s classic misdirection to accuse me of “concern trolling” an issue on which I am opposing those who are relentlessly flogging — ie “concern trolling” — an unproven allegation they state as fact; namely that Mr. Manning is being “tortured, mistreated, falsely incarcerated, etc.” I am simply stating that this allegation is not proven, which is the opposite, by definition, of concern trolling. But whatever makes you feel righteous.
As to what I “should” do — I reject your command that I “concern troll” on behalf of Dennis Kucinich. I have no obligation to demand that he or anyone else get what the standard policy of military detention facilities does not allow. To demand such on my part would be um … concern trolling.
By the way, you are the one who is repeatedly returning to this cite to demand that I call for this, and to demand that I pursue the “truth” that you have apparently concluded you already have regarding Mr. Manning. You are other Greenwald cultists are the ones attacking other posters, including finding out who they follow on twitter. What’s that all about?
You cannot bully or intimidate me into pursuing a non-fact. I have seen no evidence that this person is being tortured, so I will not attempt to prove that he is being tortured by helping Dennis Kucinich to … concern troll.
Have a nice day.
Well done, JReid.
I wasn’t being snarky when I said Kucinich doesn’t count as an impartial observer – I’m not dumb enough to think you’d ever agree that he would be impartial. But surely we can agree that the UN Special Rapporteur on torture would be the ideal person to weigh this out. If he wanted to take a look at alleged human rights abuses in, say, China, and the Chinese military denied him access citing military codes, would you be okay with that?
I’m not certain of any truth – I have reasonable suspicion, based on the statements of sources I find credible. You obviously don’t find those sources credible, which is fine, but if you’re being rational then we have a shared interest in finding out the truth. And you don’t get the truth by accepting DOD spin, the same way you don’t by only listening to Manning’s lawyer.
But go ahead, call me a Greenwald cultist again, it’s clearly very cathartic for you.
Yes Mr. Mull, I believe everything from all people at all times. Who the hell are you the C.I.freaking A?! Carry on my progressive friend!