Solitary Confinement and the UCMJ
Sent to you by John via Google Reader:
Our friend at Confederate Yankee is gravely concerned about the solitary confinement of a certain private.
Bradley Manning, traitorous little bastard that I suspect him to be, is still entitled to defend himself in court, and it seems to go beyond the pale to treat him in the manner Greenwald describes and that the military doesn't dispute.
He deserves better that this, and as a nation of free men, we must demand better for the sake of our own souls, if not for his.
CY has his heart in the right place, but I think most of us who bothered to notice the piece that inspired CY's own shrugged and said to themselves, "Perhaps you remember how they treated the Haditha Marines?"
The accusations in both cases were serious, but only in one case was the harm done directed at the United States of America. I'm sure we all noticed that many people who were perfectly happy to see those who allegedly killed Iraqis "in cold blood" shackled and in solitary while they awaited their trial, are suddenly horrified. After all, Manning is allegedly young, "sensitive," and a "whistleblower," meaning that he is said to have broken his oath and faith with us all. People like that can only be idealistic and wonderful (and fragile! How much worse for someone allegedly so gentle at heart that he was allegedly driven to this by alleged war and alleged intolerance: not like those cold blooded killers, who are obviously hardened souls).
But, tu quoque is another one of those informal fallacies: and CY is a good guy, not of the type described in the previous paragraph. So let's discuss it fairly. Is this treatment improper for military men who are alleged to have committed a serious crime, before they are charged, let alone tried or convicted? It seems to me that it is, for the following reasons:
1) They are military men, and are thus trained in violence and combat; thus, if they are suspected of serious crimes, they must be treated with the respect due to dangerous men. (It will not do to say that any given one of these is not dangerous: if he is not a dangerous man, he has failed in his duty as a soldier or Marine. There is no reason that his failure should bind others.)
2) While we might take the word of a man who was honorable, the question of crimes of this magnitude (directed in the one case at civilians, and the other against the brotherhood) must also raise a question about their honor. Their honor may prove to be stainless, but unfortunately, at the moment it cannot be assumed to be.
3) Those charged with their custody are also servicemembers. They ought to be allowed to use what they feel are appropriate and reasonable measures to contain dangerous men of questionable honor.
There is also an argument that it sends a message about the severity of the offense; I am not sure this one holds, however. That might be better done by firing squad, in the case of a conviction.
That seems to me to be the appropriate position. Now: what do you think, ladies and gentlemen?
Things you can do from here:
- Subscribe to BLACKFIVE using Google Reader
- Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites
Comments