Occam’s Razor Can Explain
Bradley Manning's Treatment
The fact remains that after nearly a year of incarceration
without trial, the government has given no reason for continuing imposition of
its exceedingly restrictive prevention of injury watch on Bradley Manning, the suspected Wikileaks leaker. Many wanted to believe the comforting original justifications for
this type of detention, which were given to explain the severity of the
conditions. Unfortunately, as the
various explanations have been held up to the light, they were found to be
clearly faulty and were easily disproven.
After seeing various rationales and benign explanations go up in smoke,
those who have been interested in the government’s motivation are forced to
remember the reality that “once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no
matter how improbable, must be the truth.”
Over the past several months readers have seen arguments that the
conditions were simply an assessment, customary, or calibrated to promote
Manning’s health go by the wayside.
A quote from Manning himself is very telling. “I asked the Brig Operations
Officer, MSG Papakie, what I needed to do in order to be downgraded from
Maximum Custody and POI Status. MSG Papakie responded by telling me that there
was nothing I could do to downgrade my detainee status”. David Coombs, Bradley
Manning’s Description of Abusive Treatment at Quantico,
http://publicintelligence.net/bradley-mannings-description-of-abusive-treatment-at-quantico/,
(2011).Originally, when Manning was first detained, there were
theories that the government was attempting to make an assessment regarding
whether or not Manning was suicidal.
Notably, when an individual is officially designated as suicidal they
are placed on what is known as a suicide watch, which requires the recommendation of a mental
health professional at a military brig like the one in Quantico, VA. Notably, the prevention of injury watch is
generally used for assessment purposes.
Prevention of injury watch is an intermediary stage during which the
government decides whether an individual should be placed on suicide watch or
whether they can handle less restrictive conditions. Notably, this stage generally lasts about two weeks. Manning has been held in this condition for
nearly a year. Additionally, there is
one crucial element necessary for the theory that Manning is merely being
“assessed” to have any legitimacy. This
element is that of actual assessment.
The government must have some fact to assess if it wants to make an
assessment. An approach such as saying
there is “nothing” you can do that will remove you from the watch betrays the
fact that no conditions are being assessed and that there are not conditions
even being watched for, as “nothing” can lead to the removal from the watch.
Another justification given for the repressive conditions
is that they are customary and they are commonly applied procedures. Except they’re not. While this rationale may
be asserted, and it may be comforting to hear, its easily disproven. A prominent constitutional lawyer, Glenn
Greenwald, observed recently that to “ describe those statements as
‘misleading’ is to be extremely generous.” He stated further that Manning “was
the only detainee
being held under those conditions, the exact opposite of what Morrell told the
public.” Glenn Greenwald, The serial deceit of Geoff
Morrell,http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/04/morrell/index.html
(2011). Additionally, though the above
article disproves the “treated like everyone else” theory, it is also helpful
to read a summary written by Manning’s lawyer David E. Coombs which lays out
about 30 major ways that Manning’s treatment is more restrictive than the
typical detainee’s. David E. Coombs, PFC
Bradley Manning Is Not Being Treated Like Every Other Detainee,
http://www.countercurrents.org/coombs270111.htm (2011).
What listing of government assurances would be complete
without the time tested “well its for his own good” assertion. Manning, who is being subjected to solitary
confinement, sleep deprivation, forced nudity, shackling, forced drugging,
sensory deprivation, and isolation would likely disagree with the measures
solely being good for him or as being designed to make him less suicidal. Certainly expert Terry A. Kupers disagrees and says in a recent CNN article
that the “problem with the argument that Manning is being kept in long-term
solitary confinement to prevent his suicide is that long-term solitary
confinement causes suicide.” Terry Kupers, Cruel and Unusual Treatment of
WikiLeaks Suspect, http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-16/opinion/kupers.bradley.manning.prison_1_solitary-confinement-prisoners-mental-illness?_s=PM:OPINION
(2011). President Obama has
unfortunately bought into the government’s rationalization stating recently
that a number of the repressive measures being taken in regard to Manning were
for his own good. To ask someone to
believe that this is the only underlying reason for the conditions is to ask
one to believe an absurdity. As these
conditions are actually not mandated as a custom, requirement, or procedure its
fairly clear that the government is free in many areas to use its best judgment
as to how to treat Manning as indeed it has throughout his incarceration. This leads to the disturbing realization
that you need to believe the impossible or the highly improbable in order to
believe the benign explanations given.
You are asked to believe that complete isolation is an
absolute health necessity, even though Manning has never been deemed a suicide
risk. That it is only for Manning’s
“own good” that he is awoken and repositioned every night when he unconsciously
rolls over at night, even though his actions are observed 24 hours by video
camera. You are asked to believe that
forcing Manning to stand at attention naked every morning is somehow for his
own good, even as the government is unable to even assert a plausible
justification for this. Further you are
required to believe that Manning is forced day after day to never relax, study,
think deeply, or even nap because he is interrupted every five minutes for
“inspection” where Manning must physically signal to a guard that he’s “okay”,
even though no system nearly this disrupting is imposed on any other
prisoner. Even though, given Manning’s
waking hours this amounts to 180 inspections a day, 1260 a week, and 50,400
inspections since he arrived, you are asked to believe that this is not an
attempt to produce the very insanity the government claims to be guarding
against.
Theoretically all
of these justifications might prove to be true. However, most people are hopefully somewhat familiar with a
principle know as Occam’s Razor. This
is the idea that when two seemingly equally valid hypothesis are held up side
by side, more often than not the simpler of the two proves to be correct. So, theoretically, it may be possible that
the government is performing benign procedures that are so transcendentally
beneficial, so incomprehensively helpful, and outstandingly necessary that they
have a benefit impossible to describe to the unwashed mind of a non-military
observer. However, more likely than
not, a spade is simply a spade, and the government is committing abuse in the
case of this detainee. Draw whatever
conclusion seems more plausible, of course.
It is also interesting that the government has attempted to assert that this treatment is mandated by the specific legal doctrine which governs the military. This is interesting because the cases United States v. Crawford, 62 M.J. 411 and United States v. Inong, 58 M.J. 460, landmark military detainee rights cases, both stand
for the principle that the Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits both (1)
the intentional imposition of punishment on an accused before his or her guilt
is established at trial and (2) pretrial confinement conditions that are more
rigorous than necessary to ensure the accused’s presence at trial. Hopefully it is possible to realize that
both of these prohibited activities are clearly occurring in this case. Further, although its not always fun to use
the above Sherlockian method to get at the truth of what’s really happening,
especially in this case, the clear advantage is that you do get to see what’s
really going on. That truth, in this
case, is that the United States is engaged in treatment that many observers,
including scholars from the most highly regarded Universities in this country
have decried as violative of
the Geneva Conventions, the eighth amendment, and the very Uniform Code of
Military Justice that is cited as the basis here for each and every government
action that has been taken. In fact the
spokesman for the Obama administration’s Department of State recently went on
record as decrying the conditions in this case. It is clear, according to both
the actual letter of the law and common sense, that the only action consistent
with the governing principles of this nation is for this punitive pre-trial
punishment to stop.