Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

https://www.aclu.org/news/chelsea-manning-faces-new-charges-indefinite-solitary-confinement-related-suicide-attempt

July 28, 2016
LEAVENWORTH, Kan. — Imprisoned whistleblower Chelsea Manning received a document from Army officials today informing her that she is being investigated for serious new charges related to her July 5th attempt to take her own life.

If convicted of these “administrative offenses,” she could be placed in indefinite solitary confinement for the remainder of her decades-long sentence.

“It is deeply troubling that Chelsea is now being subjected to an investigation and possible punishment for her attempt to take her life. The government has long been aware of Chelsea's distress associated with the denial of medical care related to her gender transition and yet delayed and denied the treatment recognized as necessary,” said ACLU Staff Attorney Chase Strangio. “Now, while Chelsea is suffering the darkest depression she has experienced since her arrest, the government is taking actions to punish her for that pain. It is unconscionable and we hope that the investigation is immediately ended and that she is given the health care that she needs to recover.”

Since she was first taken into custody in 2010, Chelsea, a transgender woman being forced to serve out her sentence in an all-male prison, has been subjected to long stretches of solitary confinement and denied medical treatment related to her gender dysphoria.

These new charges, which Army employees verbally informed Chelsea were related to the July 5th incident, include, “resisting the force cell move team;” “prohibited property;” and “conduct which threatens.” If convicted, Chelsea could face punishment including indefinite solitary confinement, reclassification into maximum security, and an additional nine years in medium custody. They may negate any chances of parole.

“The U.S. government’s treatment of Chelsea is a travesty. Those in charge should know that the whole world is watching, and we won’t stand idly by while this administration continues to harass and abuse Chelsea Manning,” said Fight for the Future campaign director Evan Greer. The group advocates for civil liberties and free speech and collected more than 100,000 signatures last year when the Army threatened Chelsea with solitary confinement for possession of LGBTQ reading material and an expired tube of toothpaste.

In addition to these new charges, The Army continues to deny Chelsea access to basic health care, including inadequate medical treatment after her suicide attempt.

To be honest, I kinda feel sorry for her. Solitary Confinement can be torture, at least from what I've read.

So, what are your thoughts on Chelsea Manning? Do you feel sorry for her? Or what?

There is a fine line between punishment and revenge, and regardless of whether or not you think CM is guilty or not, courageous whistleblower, or verminous traitor, I think the US military is coming across as petty and vindictive...

Prison is not a holiday camp, nor should it be, but as a first world democracy, and a historic cradle of democracy and freedom, and respect for the rule of law, the USA still has a duty of care to treat its prisoners with a modicum of dignity and to treat them in a humane fashion.

I have no particular feelings on the individual in question and I'm not even particularly familiar with her case.

However, solitary confinement is inhumane treatment for anyone and it is used far, far to liberally so I'm gonna frown on that.

I also kind of question the wisdom of putting a transgender individual (transitioning in either direction), in the Men's prison. The other prisoners probably aren't going to be too keen on you in either kind of facility but at least the women are less likely to kill or maim them because of it.

 Chongara wrote:
I have no particular feelings on the individual in question and I'm not even particularly familiar with her case.

However, solitary confinement is inhumane treatment for anyone and it is used far, far to liberally so I'm gonna frown on that.

I also kind of question the wisdom of putting a transgender individual (transitioning in either direction), in the Men's prison. The other prisoners probably aren't going to be too keen on you in either kind of facility but at least the women are less likely to kill or maim them because of it.

The Disciplinary Barracks is not a typical prison. Prisoner on prisoner violence and rape happens very infrequently.

And it does have rules. And poor little Manning seems to have broken a few, and is being charged appropriately. 'Could Face' is a lot different than 'Was sentenced to'. Let the process play out. I very strongly suspect he is not being 'harassed and abused' if for no other reason than his dirt bag attorneys get articles like this in the papers every chance they can. The guards and chain of command know this and are not stupid.

Robert E Lee did far more damage to the United States than CM ever did, and yet, Lee is a national hero, and has dozens of high schools named after him...

What ya ment to do with her/him depending on biological or legal gender. Ok yes a female detention centre would be better.

However yes medical treatment should be provided, up to the point of required care. However they have no requirement to continue the voluntary sex change procedures.

Yes still in jail but treated right.

And rules should apply both ways... To gov and the prisoner.

I don't think solitary confinement should be used virtually ever, pretty much regardless of the offense.

 CptJake wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
I have no particular feelings on the individual in question and I'm not even particularly familiar with her case.

However, solitary confinement is inhumane treatment for anyone and it is used far, far to liberally so I'm gonna frown on that.

I also kind of question the wisdom of putting a transgender individual (transitioning in either direction), in the Men's prison. The other prisoners probably aren't going to be too keen on you in either kind of facility but at least the women are less likely to kill or maim them because of it.

The Disciplinary Barracks is not a typical prison. Prisoner on prisoner violence and rape happens very infrequently.

And it does have rules. And poor little Manning seems to have broken a few, and is being charged appropriately. 'Could Face' is a lot different than 'Was sentenced to'. Let the process play out. I very strongly suspect he is not being 'harassed and abused' if for no other reason than his dirt bag attorneys get articles like this in the papers every chance they can. The guards and chain of command know this and are not stupid.

I don't need to let it play out. "Could face indefinite solitary confinement" is functionally equivalent to "Could face the Brazen Bull" or "Could face 3 weeks on the wrack" or "Could face up 50,000 lashes", they very fact it is a possibility is in and of itself wrong. I don't care what the crime was, there exists no crime severe enough to warrant indefinite solitary confinement. You could put me in charge of sentencing literally Adolph Hitler and I wouldn't do it. Any process that can end in indefinite solitary confinement is morally illegitimate.

The only time isolating someone like that is warranted is when there exists no population of prisoners in which they could safely be housed.

 Ouze wrote:
I don't think solitary confinement should be used virtually ever, pretty much regardless of the offense.

"Solitary confinement" isn't necessarily that.

It's hard to explain, but the media likes to use "solitary confinement" as a buzzword for anything that has someone get put in a separate cell to other inmates.
In the case of suicide attempts, it's referred to as "suicide watch" and while it shares elements of solitary confinement(you're placed by yourself away from others--partially because of concerns that you will attempt to antagonize another inmate into killing you), the intent is that it is a cell which is proofed against someone attempting to commit suicide using elements of the cell to commit suicide.

In all likelihood, Manning is on an indefinite "suicide watch"--and probably under that because of statements Manning made to their legal counsel or family members that concerned attempting suicide. Can't speak for how a military facility would handle it, but a well-managed prison(rare beast that it is) would have someone being held on suicide watch in their own cell but still have them interacting with the guards and staff of the prison along with their legal counsel and family.

 Chongara wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
I have no particular feelings on the individual in question and I'm not even particularly familiar with her case.

However, solitary confinement is inhumane treatment for anyone and it is used far, far to liberally so I'm gonna frown on that.

I also kind of question the wisdom of putting a transgender individual (transitioning in either direction), in the Men's prison. The other prisoners probably aren't going to be too keen on you in either kind of facility but at least the women are less likely to kill or maim them because of it.

The Disciplinary Barracks is not a typical prison. Prisoner on prisoner violence and rape happens very infrequently.

And it does have rules. And poor little Manning seems to have broken a few, and is being charged appropriately. 'Could Face' is a lot different than 'Was sentenced to'. Let the process play out. I very strongly suspect he is not being 'harassed and abused' if for no other reason than his dirt bag attorneys get articles like this in the papers every chance they can. The guards and chain of command know this and are not stupid.

I don't need to let it play out. "Could face indefinite solitary confinement" is functionally equivalent to "Could face the Brazen Bull" or "Could face 3 weeks on the wrack" or "Could face up 50,000 lashes", they very fact it is a possibility is in and of itself wrong. I don't care what the crime was, there exists no crime severe enough to warrant indefinite solitary confinement. You could put me in charge of sentencing literally Adolph Hitler and I wouldn't do it. Any process that can end in indefinite solitary confinement is morally illegitimate.

The only time isolating someone like that is warranted is when there exists no population of prisoners in which they could safely be housed.

A very large chunk of the punitive articles of the UCMJ could result in death. There is always a maximum punishment. That does not mean it is always handed down, in fact in the US military justice system, it is extremely rare that it is. The system is in place for a reason, I'm with Capt, let it play out.

It is not wrong. There are parameters for sentencing that get followed. Manning broke rules and is being charged. He faces the potential consequences.

"Some military legal experts familiar with the facility expressed skepticism that Manning will actually be punished with indefinite solitary confinement.

Victor Hansen, a retired Army judge advocate who teaches at the New England School of Law in Boston, said conditions at Fort Leavenworth are less restrictive than for inmates in the federal prison system because inmates with a military background have some experience following orders and do “not chaff at rules and regulations like someone who has not had exposure to that.”

Hansen said it is unlikely that prison officials would go after Manning just for having reading material, and that there has to be more behind the charges than either the military or her supporters are saying. Most discipline in the military is progressive and meted in a measured way, with the solitary confinement reserved as kind of “the nuclear option.”

Michael Navarre, an adviser to the National Institute of Military Justice and former Navy judge advocate, said Fort Leavenworth is well run, well organized and known to keep “a good rein on inmates.”

“My impression has always been that the military — particularly the U.S. disciplinary barracks at Leavenworth — has fewer prison-violence and serious-offense issues than other systems do,” Navarre said. “And so I would think there would be a less prevalent use of solitary confinement.”" From: http://cjonline.com/news/2015-08-14/military-defends-treatment-chelsea-manning-other-fort-leavenworth-prisoners#

So I guess we disagree. I'm willing to let the process play out, as it should.

 CptJake wrote:
I very strongly suspect he is not being 'harassed and abused' if for no other reason than his dirt bag attorneys get articles like this in the papers every chance they can.

 CptJake wrote:
He faces the potential consequences.

Why are you repeatedly misgendering her?

 djones520 wrote:


A very large chunk of the punitive articles of the UCMJ could result in death. There is always a maximum punishment. That does not mean it is always handed down, in fact in the US military justice system, it is extremely rare that it is. The system is in place for a reason, I'm with Capt, let it play out.

Death is also a morally bankrupt punishment. That something morally wrong has been codified into law does not make it any less wrong. Just about every imaginable breach of human indecency has at one point been part of "The system is in place for a reason". I'm fine with them enforcing rules and keeping their facilities orderly, but I'm not fine with them doing so through solitary confinement any more than I would with them using bolt cutters to take a toe when prisoner steps out of line.

It's really not this person and their potential sentence specifically I'm objecting to. I have no idea who they are or what they did, I'm objecting to the fact that indefinite isolation is even part of the list of possible punishments. However this does naturally means I do object to it being considered in this case because it is by definition this case is a part of the set of all cases.

 Chongara wrote:

 djones520 wrote:


A very large chunk of the punitive articles of the UCMJ could result in death. There is always a maximum punishment. That does not mean it is always handed down, in fact in the US military justice system, it is extremely rare that it is. The system is in place for a reason, I'm with Capt, let it play out.

Death is also a morally bankrupt punishment. That something morally wrong has been codified into law does not make it any less wrong. Just about every imaginable breach of human indecency has at one point been part of "The system is in place for a reason". I'm fine with them enforcing rules and keeping their facilities orderly, but I'm not fine with them doing so through solitary confinement any more than I would with them using bolt cutters to take a toe when prisoner steps out of line.

It's really not this person and their potential sentence specifically I'm objecting to. I have no idea who they are or what they did, I'm objecting to the fact that indefinite isolation is even part of the list of possible punishments. However this does naturally means I do object to it being considered in this case because it is by definition this case is a part of the set of all cases.

Ok, I can understand your POV on that. I'm not in agreement with it, but I respect it.

 djones520 wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 djones520 wrote:


A very large chunk of the punitive articles of the UCMJ could result in death. There is always a maximum punishment. That does not mean it is always handed down, in fact in the US military justice system, it is extremely rare that it is. The system is in place for a reason, I'm with Capt, let it play out.

Death is also a morally bankrupt punishment. That something morally wrong has been codified into law does not make it any less wrong. Just about every imaginable breach of human indecency has at one point been part of "The system is in place for a reason". I'm fine with them enforcing rules and keeping their facilities orderly, but I'm not fine with them doing so through solitary confinement any more than I would with them using bolt cutters to take a toe when prisoner steps out of line.

It's really not this person and their potential sentence specifically I'm objecting to. I have no idea who they are or what they did, I'm objecting to the fact that indefinite isolation is even part of the list of possible punishments. However this does naturally means I do object to it being considered in this case because it is by definition this case is a part of the set of all cases.

Ok, I can understand your POV on that. I'm not in agreement with it, but I respect it.

Just to clarify, as I was kind of making two statements which part are you in disagreement with:
A) With the idea that solitary confinement (and death), are cruel punishments akin to torture.
B) That cruel punishments such as torture can't justified no matter what the system says.

A I definitely disagree with you on. B... I'd say I'm about 85% in agreement with you.

Definitely agree with B.

But, as Kanluwen stated, there may be a place for solitary confinement if applied as a safety measure.

However, I am against the death penalty.

 whembly wrote:
Definitely agree with B.

But, as Kanluwen stated, there may be a place for solitary confinement if applied as a safety measure.

However, I am against the death penalty.

It has a place for those too violent or hostile to other inmates of staff
or in cases of suicide. you want to control what comes and goes from there cell perfectly.

its a tool not a punishment

 djones520 wrote:
A I definitely disagree with you on. B... I'd say I'm about 85% in agreement with you.

Interesting.

With regard to A what is the metric you use to determine what a cruel punishment is? If Torture is a cruel punishment, why is it cruel? What property does it have that makes it cruel? What would be an example of another cruel punishment, what properties make it cruel and does it share any or all of these with torture?

With regard to B under what circumstances is cruelty acceptable when the system says so? Is cruelty still acceptable under those same circumstances if the system says they are unacceptable?

 jhe90 wrote:
its a tool not a punishment

... solitary is commonly punitive as well. This is not a controversial idea, right?

 Chongara wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
A I definitely disagree with you on. B... I'd say I'm about 85% in agreement with you.

Interesting.

With regard to A what is the metric you use to determine what a cruel punishment is? If Torture is a cruel punishment, why is it cruel? What property does it have that makes it cruel? What would be an example of another cruel punishment, what properties make it cruel and does it share any or all of these with torture?

With regard to B under what circumstances is cruelty acceptable when the system says so? Is cruelty still acceptable under those same circumstances if the system says they are unacceptable?

At work man, so don't have the time to devote to a lengthy response that this would require. Just didn't want you to think I was ignoring your question.

I wouldn't sugar coat any system ran by the military as being a well oil impartial efficient system without potential flaws. Anything involving the military is susceptible to vindictive and toxic leaders and leaders that can operate often with out question and immunity. Judging by military personnel reaction to Manning from individuals that are not responsible for her, it isn't impossible that those that are responsible also lack that empathy towards her.

I'd also add that MPs don't call the soldiers working at Leavenworth cage-kickers for their award winning personalities. Seems MPs tend to consider 95Cs as bastards and only bastards choose 95C. So there is that to consider I suppose.

It use to just an additional school for Identifier for MP's to be Correctional Officers. Its a new MOS specifically for that. Separate Jaded MP's towards SM, EXAMPLE, like Manning, (Human Male One Each, you enlist as either a Male or Female and stay the gender till you get out) is avoided by those who become straight Military Correctional Officers. Those taking that MOS's now are not familiar with Manning situation.


Edit

Military Correctional Facilities and Federal Prison are two different animals


Edit II

Incase for those not familiar with 95C

ASVAB Minimum Score: ST:100

a. Major duties.

(1) MOSC 95C1O. Assists with supervision and management of military prisoners, and provides external security to confinement/ corrections facility.

(2) MOSC 95C2O. Supervises, counsels and manages military prisoners in confinement/correction facilities.

(3) MOSC 95C3O. Supervises confinement facility operations, counseling, management, training and employment of military prisoners in confinement/corrections facility.

(4) MOSC 95C4O. Supervises confinement facility operations and establishes procedures for counseling, management, training and employment of military prisoners in confinement/correction facility.

(5) MOSC 95C5O. Supervises and establishes procedures for all type activities within confinement/correction facility.

b. Physical demands rating and qualifications for initial award of MOS.

The corrections specialist must possess the following qualifications:

“
(1) Physical demands rating moderately heavy.
(2) A physical profile of 222221.
(3) Red/green color discrimination.
(4) A minimum score of 100 in aptitude area ST.
(5) No court-martial convictions. No record of any disciplinary action under UCMJ which indicates behavior inconsistent with the high standards of corrections specialist.
(6) No record of more than 15 days lost under section 972-10- USC, appendix 3, MCM 1068.
(7) No record of civilian convictions other than minor traffic offenses.
(8) No information in Provost Marshal Office, Intelligence Office, Military Personnel Record Jacket (MPRJ) or medical records whch would prevent the granting of a security clearance under AR 604-5.
(9) No record of pre-trial intervention or conviction by military or civil court of the following:

“
(a) any offense involving force or violence.

(b) Any offense listed under AR 601-210, para 4-22, misdeanor), or similar offense not listed for which the miximum possible sentence exceeds 4 months of confinement.

(c) Two or more offenses within 5 years prior to the date of enlistment listed under AR 601-210, para 4-21, (minor non-traffic), or similar offense not listed for which the maximum possible sentence is less than 4 months confinement.

(10) Must possess a valid state motor vehicle operator.
(11) Minimum age of 18 at time of entrance on active duty.
(12) No medically diagnosed history of alcoholism, psychotic disorders, antisocial behavior, objection to bearing and use of arms when necessary of any hehavioral characteristic which may be considered prejudicial to the reliable performance of corrections specialist duties.
(13) No record of possession or use of any narcotic or nonnarcotic drug as defined by Article 134, UCMJ and AR 600-50. (Personnel entering active duty may be granted waiver at Military Entrance Processing Station by the PERSCOM Security Interviewed per DoD Policy on cannabis use).
(14) Formal training (completion of MOS 95C course conducted under the auspices of the Commandant, U.S. Army Military Police School) mandatory.

c. Additional skill identifiers.

“
(1) H3-Physical Security Operations (skill level 2 and above).
(2) P5-Master Fitness Trainer.
(3) V5-Military Police Investigation.
(4) 2S-Battle Staff Operations (skill level 3 and above).
(5) 4A-Reclassification Training.

d. Physical requirements and standards of grade.

Physical requirements and SG relating to each skill level are listed in the following tables:

“
(1) Table 10-95C-1. Physical requirements.
(2) Table 10-95C-2. Standards of grade TOE/MTOE.
(3) Table 10-95C-3. Standards of grade TDA.

Bradley Manning is both a coward and a traitor, I don't care for any defense remarks about whistle blowing, there is a system in place to bring things like that to the public eye or at the very least to a courts attention, instead he took it upon himself to break several laws and in the process compromised the IC's ability to prosecute its job. He should have been stood against a wall and shot.

Go ahead left and start the harassment. I am waiting.

SemperMortis wrote:
Bradley Manning is both a coward and a traitor, I don't care for any defense remarks about whistle blowing, there is a system in place to bring things like that to the public eye or at the very least to a courts attention, instead he took it upon himself to break several laws and in the process compromised the IC's ability to prosecute its job. He should have been stood against a wall and shot.

Go ahead left and start the harassment. I am waiting.

It really says a lot about you that you insist on misgendering her and using the wrong name. Perhaps if you can't address the substance of the case without sinking to that level of offensive posting you should leave the discussion to other people?

 Peregrine wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Bradley Manning is both a coward and a traitor, I don't care for any defense remarks about whistle blowing, there is a system in place to bring things like that to the public eye or at the very least to a courts attention, instead he took it upon himself to break several laws and in the process compromised the IC's ability to prosecute its job. He should have been stood against a wall and shot.

Go ahead left and start the harassment. I am waiting.

It really says a lot about you that you insist on misgendering her and using the wrong name. Perhaps if you can't address the substance of the case without sinking to that level of offensive posting you should leave the discussion to other people?

Peregrine if that is all you have to say on the subject, talking about the gender of the male soldier who turned female in the middle of a treason investigation, then maybe you should leave the discussion to other people.

SemperMortis wrote:
Bradley Manning is both a coward and a traitor, I don't care for any defense remarks about whistle blowing, there is a system in place to bring things like that to the public eye or at the very least to a courts attention, instead he took it upon himself to break several laws and in the process compromised the IC's ability to prosecute its job. He should have been stood against a wall and shot.

Go ahead left and start the harassment. I am waiting.

Seriously? The feth happened to the OT lately?

I dunno, man, this is just how it is now.

At least we don't have the sweeping observations about Judaism that also seemed pretty much OK.

SemperMortis wrote:
Peregrine if that is all you have to say on the subject, talking about the gender of the male soldier who turned female in the middle of a treason investigation, then maybe you should leave the discussion to other people.

I wouldn't have to talk about it if you could post with basic decency. Regardless of how you feel about her actions the correct pronouns are she/her, and her name is Chelsea. Her gender identity has nothing to do with her crimes (or lack thereof) and calling her a man is blatant anti-transgender bigotry.

 Peregrine wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Peregrine if that is all you have to say on the subject, talking about the gender of the male soldier who turned female in the middle of a treason investigation, then maybe you should leave the discussion to other people.

I wouldn't have to talk about it if you could post with basic decency. Regardless of how you feel about her actions the correct pronouns are she/her, and her name is Chelsea. Her gender identity has nothing to do with her crimes (or lack thereof) and calling her a man is blatant anti-transgender bigotry.

If you say so, I just choose to use the gender that is not only on HIS birth certificate, HIS enlistment papers but also HIS court documents.

The fact that he chose to become a woman is his own business, I am under no obligations to honor his desires anymore then I am obligated to call you a Snowmobile if you identify as one.