>>Or are you claiming that we should put him out into the general population, and take the risk that he gets butt-fucked to death by some buffed up armed robber? That’s a better alternative?
Or should we take no more precautions against his suiciding than for anyone else, and if he hangs himself some fine night, shrug our shoulders at the reduced cost to the taxpayer?<<
I know little of the facts surrounding this case, but for the press accounts. A couple points:
First, from what I gather, a lot of the “parade of horribles” is coming from the defense team. While this source should not be discounted, it should be treated with high skepticism.
Second, with respect to the conditions of pre-trial detention in the military, the rules come from three general sources: Congress (UCMJ), Commander-in-Chief (Executive Orders, such as the Manual for Courts-Martial, Rules for Courts-Martial, etc.), and the Secretaries of the various branches of the Armed Forces. Generally speaking, a couple of those rules are important to keep in mind.
Art. 13, UCMJ prohibits pre-trial confinement as punishment. The Armed Forces’s highest court has long held that commingling of pretrial confinees with sentenced prisoners is “punishment.” Accordingly, those awaiting trial must be segregated from the general population of any facility, and held separately. And all that that entails, such as not wearing prison garb, etc., which have security implications for population control.
Pretrial confinees have long bitched in the military because of this commingling prohibition. For one thing, it prevents them from normal communal activities, such as working parties, recreation facilities, etc., and tends toward long, solitary stays in their cells.
Solitary confinement has been held not, by itself, to constitute pretrial punishment. It’s a situational determination. It has been authorized, in the past, for suicide prevention concerns, even when not formally elevated to "suicide watch,’ which calls for very stringent precautionary measures.
In this case, I’ve little doubt that real concerns exist about keeping this guy safe from other inmates or confinees. Given the nature of his alleged offenses, and the notoriety, the brig authorities are not about to let him mingle amongst a bunch of recent combat vets from Iraq and Afghanistan, who are arguably the most vulnerable to “whistleblowers” of Manning’s variety.
Finally, every brig or confinement facility has a well developed administrative appeal and complaint procedure, where a prisoner or detainee has an avenue of taking complaints “up the chain,” and outside the facility’s command authority. If there’s been violations of applicable rules and regs, I’d be flabbergasted to learn that his defense team have not availed themselves of this mechanism, and had his conditions carefully reviewed by a supervisory authority over brig officials. (Such as the base commander, via what’s called an “Article 138, UCMJ, Complaint of Wrongs,” consideration of which is not discretionary.)
Pretrial punishment is a big issue in the military. If interested, here is a brief overview of recent appellate scrutiny: TRIAL STAGES: Pretrial: Pretrial Punishment . Should Manning ultimately be convicted of something, I’ve no doubt these issues will again be raised before the military judge, and appellate courts, seeking sentence relief by an evidentiary hearing. We’ll hear all this, again, but this time with evidence, vice press releases from a defense lawyer. And all these brig practices and decisions by brig officials will be second guessed, big time.