A question we need to ask ourselves re: Pres. Obama and Bradley Manning

markpkessinger

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Mar-12-11 11:46 AM
Original message

A question we need to ask ourselves re: Pres. Obama and Bradley Manning

It has become fairly clear, as the discussions concerning the treatment of Bradley Manning (and the apparent acceptability of that treatment in the eyes of the President) have unfolded here on DU, that we Democrats are split on the question of whether Manning is a hero or a traitor. I come down fairly firmly on the hero side, but I can understand the other side’s argument, and hence I respect that argument. But as Democrats, there is one thing that there should be no disagreement on if we are really being faithful to our party’s historic commitment to civil — and indeed, human — rights: the right of a person accused in either civilian or military courts to be treated fairly and humanely, and to be afforded, at all times prior to conviction or acquittal of the charges, the full presumption of innocence to which he or she is entitled both under the Constitution of the United States and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (“UCMJ”).

The simple fact of the matter is that, with respect to Bradley Manning, the military has violated its own laws concerning pre-trial confinement in its punitive treatment of Private Manning prior to trial and conviction of a crime. Section 813, Article 13 of the UCMJ is very clear on the question of how pre-trial detainees are to be treated:

813. ART. 13 PUNISHMENT PROHIBITED BEFORE TRIAL

No person, while being held for trial, may be subjected to punishment or penalty other than arrest or confinement upon the charges pending against him, nor shall the arrest or confinement imposed upon him be any more rigorous than the circumstances required to insure his presence, but he may be subjected to minor punishment during that period for infractions of discipline.

Solitary confinement for a period of 10 months is hardly “required to insure” Private Manning’s presence at trial. Quantico officials have stated that Private Manning is being held on a “prevention of injury” (“POI”) status, and that the extreme measures — solitary confinement, stripping him of his clothing at night, etc. — are required to ensure he does not harm himself. But Quantico’s own Brig Psychiatrist has evaluated Private Manning, and has assessed him as being “low risk and requiring only routine outpatient follow-up no need for … closer clinical observation.” So the military really has not made a reasonable case for the measures it has taken against Private Manning.

Democrats have, historically, been true believers in the concept that the U.S. is (or is supposed to be) a country of laws, not of men. Democrats have championed the rights of accused persons against the unchecked prosecutorial power of the government. We have upheld the belief that laws and legal processes can and must be enforced and administered fairly, and that great care must be taken to ensure that the rights of accused persons are recognized and protected. So, in light of that heritage, whatever we might think about the question of Manning’s guilt or innocence of the charges against him, and irrespective of whether we regard him as a hero for exposing war crimes or a traitor for possibly endangering lives, the question of his treatment while in custody awaiting trial should not be a subject of controversy; certainly not among Democrats. It is a question of fundamental morality that we should expect, and demand, that he be treated humanely and in accordance with all laws to which he is subject.

This presents a dilemma for the most fervent supporters of President Obama, who has recently made it clear that he has no problem with the conditions of Manning’s detention. No doubt they are feeling somewhat besieged on many fronts, as our party is deeply divided over the President's performance on numerous fronts. But I submit that on this issue in particular, before rushing to the President's defense, they should ask themselves this question: If Private Manning’s treatment were occurring under George W. Bush, would we, as Democrats, spend even five minutes debating whether or not it was defensible? I think not. We would all be raising a hue and cry about that administration's lawlessness. How, then, do some of us justify within ourselves giving President Obama a pass on this? Look, I'm not saying people need to forswear their support of President Obama generally, but on this particular issue, he is clearly and unambiguously wrong. It's not like it's a policy disagreement or a disagreement over political strategy; it is an unequivocal moral wrong that runs counter to some of the most cherished ideals we hold both as Americans and as Democerats. If Democrats are willing to give the President a pass on this issue without calling him out on it, if we are willing to effectively place our concerns about the President's or the party's political fortunes above the principles the party supposedly exists to protect, how, then, are we any better than -- or even qualitatively different from -- the Republicans whose policies we so despise?