Why Won’t Jeh Johnson Answer Hank Johnson’s Question about Forced Nudity?

The House Armed Services Committee is having a hearing on Law of War Detention. Much of it has focused on Jeh Johnson affirming that military commissions line up with American values. (In other words, it is fairly depressing.)

But an interesting exchange happened when Hank Johnson had his turn. He set up his question by talking about a recent trip to Gitmo. He described the good treatment he saw the detainees being subject to. Jeh Johnson said that we’re following the Geneva Conventions.

Then he said (working from memory), so why is Bradley Manning being subject to worse treatment.

Frankly, Hank Johnson got a few details incorrect (for example, he said that Manning had to wear shackles in his cell). But he went through Manning’s treatment reasonably well.

In response, Jeh Johnson reverted immediately to the importance of pretrial detention. He used the same old lie about Manning being able to talk to others in his cell block. Here’s a rough liveblog:

not in solitary confinement. Public misinformation. It is public that he is currently in classification status called Maximum security. Someone in Max occupies same type of cell that a medium security pretrial detainee. Same time of cell. You could have Max security and medium confinee in the same row of cells and they could converse with one another.

(That would be true if anyone was in a cell close enough to him to be able to talk to, but there isn’t.)

But perhaps most tellingly, Jeh Johnson didn’t address Hank Johnson’s question about the forced nudity Manning is being subject to.

Ultimately, Buck McKeon cut off Hank Johnson, saying that Jeh Johnson could answer him “off the record.” (?) I hope he meant for the record; we shall see.)

But for now, at least, it appears that Jeh Johnson really doesn’t want to talk about why Manning is being subject to a policy implemented–and then rejected–at Gitmo.

image_print
  1. PeasantParty says:

    Ultimately, Buck McKeon cut off Hank Johnson, saying that Jeh Johnson could answer him “off the record.” (?) I hope he meant for the record; we shall see.)”

    Why? Off the record for what? Is he too ashamed to talk about teh nekkid?

    The more they skirt around this the more shame they bring on the American Military. Period! They are doing it to themselves when they tighten the screws on Manning and the transparency to America. If that kid did have of what they claim he did, it would already be done and over with. So far, they have nothing but nekkid!

  2. cregan says:

    It is also possible that discussing “why the nudity” might make public private information about Manning–meaning, things he’d done or said, etc. that indicated the suicide procedure was needed, but would be the type of private items you don’t give out in a public forum. (this is not it, but an example: “Manning used to wet his bed during his high school years once or twice a week.” No one would likely want that released to the general public an open hearing)

    Again, before the comments start, that example was only meant to illustrate an embarassing, personal type of thing you would not, as policy, release in a public hearing. I am sure Manning never did such a thing.

    On the other hand, Johnson could be hiding something.

    You also have to take into account, that lawyers and friends being human, those on the other side might not be giving you an accurate picture but one designed to steer sentiment in another direction. NOT saying that people lie, but I’ve heard sometimes they shade the truth.

    • emptywheel says:

      I’m taking my evidence partly on the public statements from Quantico, reporting from long-time DOD reporters, and the uncontested quotes from the Brig Psychiatrist.

      Those guys in the bag for Manning too?

      Right, I didn’t think so.

      • cregan says:

        Everyone has an axe to grind.

        Not saying what they said is untrue, I don’t believe that is anywhere in my post.

        Only, that each statement from anyone, including the Pent, and lawyers and friends, and reporters need be examined.

    • Margaret says:

      Your speculation is just that and is far less credible than the people who have been reporting on this. They at least have some facts to base their reporting on.

      • eCAHNomics says:

        cregan’s a troll who shows up with talking points & never shows any evidence of the slightest familiarity with the subject. Don’t waste your breath.

        • cregan says:

          That is a great way to never look at the other side of an issue.

          I’ve presented an alternative view and another factor. I didn’t say it was true, in fact, I said, “it is also possible.”

        • bobschacht says:

          Many things are “possible,” and very few of them are worth considering.
          Is it “possible” that Jesus was a space alien from Alpha Centauri?

          The low-probability “possibilities” are worth looking at only if you’re building a nuclear reactor, or a space ship. And even in those cases, they’re willing to look at “rare” events, but only above a certain threshold. For example, is it “possible” that a golf-ball sized meteorite will smash into our space ship on its way to the space platform? Well, yes. Does that mean we should actually plan for such a possibility? and at what cost?

          “Possibilities” are a dime a dozen. They are like swarms of gnats. I’m more interested in *probabilities,* not possibilities.

          Bob in AZ

      • cregan says:

        #1, I am not reporting. I brought up an alternative explanation of Johnson’s actions.

        What FACT do you base the idea put forth in the original post? Not facts of a direct natrue, only facts that SUGGEST a motivation. And, one that very well might be true.

        My fact, so to speak, is that you would not, as a policy, release personally embarassing things of a personal nature at a public forum. That is a policy in many governmental, medical and police agencies. (might be violated, but it is the policy). So, based on that fact, I put out an alternative reason.

        Is Manning being treated worse than those at Gitmo? Well, I heard about beatings, loud music, physical torture and many other things happening at Gitmo. So, far, I have not heard of any beatings or physical torture of Manning.

        • emptywheel says:

          Hank Johnson’s assertion is that Manning is CURRENTLY being treated worse than detainees at Gitmo. Not that he is being treated worse than they were in the past.

    • spanishinquisition says:

      It is also possible that discussing “why the nudity” might make public private information about Manning–meaning, things he’d done or said, etc. that indicated the suicide procedure was needed, but would be the type of private items you don’t give out in a public forum

      Manning is not on suicide watch – which takes approval of the brig psychiatrists – but instead this is being done by the brig commander. If this was actually the case, the pyschiatrists would be involved, but they’ve been distinctly kept out of it.

  3. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Sixteen or more psych evals on Mr. Manning conclude that he is not a suicide risk and should be taken off POI. If there is a deterioration in his mental state and/or physical condition, it is a direct result of his treatment, not of his intent to harm himself.

    The more actors like Johnson go on record with these Rumsfeldian claims that up is down and black is white, and Congress fails to refute them, the more readily this treatment becomes established doctrine. It’s a routine that Sheriff Joe in Phoenix and others will be bringing to privatized detention centers near you.

  4. powwow says:

    The House Armed Services Committee is having a hearing on Law of War Detention. Much of it has focused on [DOD General Counsel] Jeh Johnson affirming that military commissions line up with American values.

    And so it formally begins: The slow, painful process to enlighten – or keep blissfully in the dark, as the case may be – Members of Congress and the media about the laws of war (a process which ought to remind them of the irreplaceable role of an independent judiciary in a nation whose sovereign people believe in liberty). Laws of war/armed conflict which (with or without the cover of pressure from the All-Holy Brass) were essentially “outsourced” nine years ago (and counting) to the self-directed whims of the military and CIA leadership, by way of both active Congressional delegation and abrogation of Legislative Branch responsibilities, and suspended Congressional oversight, critique, and even understanding of the profound fundamentals at issue.

    Which four incisive emptywheel tweets today during that House Armed Services Committee hearing managed to capture in a nutshell:

    Bizarre discussion in HASC right now. http://1.usa.gov/eTEScn Basic admission we’re no longer at war against 9/11 people….
    about 2 hours ago via TweetDeck

    Article I fighting for rationale to contiue ceding power to Article II. No one asking “why not just declare victory & use law enforcement?”
    about 2 hours ago via TweetDeck

    So we need a new AUMF because, uh, we’ve got to have a war to authorize unlimited executive power. Congress fighting for that.
    about 2 hours ago via TweetDeck

    Of course, Article I is fighting to make sure Article III is gutted, too. It’s like they’re jealous children.
    about 2 hours ago via TweetDeck

    Ironically, as Carol Rosenberg highlights, on the same day as McKeon’s DOD hearing – at 10:00 a.m. today, in a Washington, D.C. courtroom of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit – the new United States Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR) is hearing its second oral argument in the appeal of the first Guantanamo Military Commission conviction (one of only two Commission convictions eligible for appeal), on essentially that very question: Whether “military commissions line up with American values” – specifically, with our law, and the law of war.

    The case is CMCR #09-001, and concerns the only formal “lifer” in Guantanamo – Ali Al Bahlul. Together with the appeal of (now-freed) Salim Hamdan, these two “war crime” Commission conviction appeals are the only remaining portal to a “justice system” beyond the temporary military/CIA-run Commission “trial” courtroom on the Guantanamo base itself. [Because the only other Commission “convictions” were obtained by plea bargain (one under Bush, three under Obama), and require the convicted not to appeal their Guantanamo Military Commission “war crime” convictions and sentences.]

    Based primarily on informal blog information, since accurate, timely official information is not available on-line from the behemoth Department of Defense, the CMCR is presently composed of nine military officers, of whom seven are hearing today’s second oral argument in Al Bahlul (a three-judge panel heard the original oral argument, but apparently only one of those military judges remains on this case).

    The limited issues at question in the second Al Bahlul oral argument – held more than a year after the first oral argument was conducted in Washington, D.C., in January, 2010, to almost no notice – are elaborated upon in this recent blog post and its comments. By now, I certainly hope that more than the one or two reporters who covered the January, 2010 CMCR oral argument managed to show up to cover today’s repeat argument in a convenient Washington, D.C. location. [Apparently no second oral argument has been planned for the Hamdan appeal, which likewise had its original oral argument in January, 2010, has had no decision rendered to date, and has meanwhile had a wholesale change in the composition and number of military judges hearing the appeal since the oral argument. Both appeals are now formally before the en banc CMCR, at the court’s own motion.]

    Only after the CMCR has finally issued its decisions in one or both Commission “war crime” conviction appeals now before it, will the convicted have the opportunity (if need be) to appeal their Executive Branch-jailed, -juried, and -judged “war crime” convictions to our independent federal judiciary, via the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and then the Supreme Court.

    And while the CMCR withholds judgement, and thus delays review by the Judicial Branch of government of its actions, into the vacuum created comes Jeh Johnson, and all the other self-interested others, in and out of Congress and the Executive Branch, who prefer to govern without check or restraint by that inconvenient Constitutional system of separated powers.

  5. tjbs says:

    Why isn’t there a date certain for Manning’s trial ?

    My beef goes the government should be only able to use the evidence discovered before the arrest. Seems they don’t or didn’t have a provable case at the time of arrest. Why hasn’t he been tried with the evidence they indicted him with ?

    • eCAHNomics says:

      Why isn’t there a date certain for Manning’s trial ?

      The USG hasn’t tortured a false confession out of him yet so they can do a plea bargain.

  6. Jeff Kaye says:

    He set up his question by talking about a recent trip to Gitmo. He described the good treatment he saw the detainees being subject to. Jeh Johnson said that we’re following the Geneva Conventions.

    We should not take as good coin the supposed fact that the detainees are being treated well, which is how I read Carol Rosenberg’s recent article about the HV Detainees and their treatment. Let’s not forget that indefinite detention of this sort is against Geneva, so is the solitary confinement many of the prisoners are condemned to. By a number of accounts, prisoners about to be released are subjected to beatings, as happened to Binyam Mohamed.

    There’s a name for the kind of treatment journalists are allowed to see, and it’s as old as Czardom — Potemkin village. In Nazi Germany, it was Theresienstadt, the “model” camp.

    How soon does the press forget the reports in the NYT and the WashPost about abuse and torture at Bagram, and this under Obama’s regime.

    If anyone here really believes things are great at Gitmo, then I’ve got a proverbial bridge to sell you.

    • eCAHNomics says:

      Thanks. I was going to point that out, but better you, as you are so much more familiar with the details.

  7. Margaret says:

    In other news, welcome to war number 3.

    The U.N. Security Council authorized a no-fly zone over Libya and called for Arab states and others to use “all necessary measures” to protect civilians the oil from attacks by Moammar Gadhafi’s forces.

    (correction mine)

  8. onitgoes says:

    But for now, at least, it appears that Jeh Johnson really doesn’t want to talk about why Manning is being subject to a policy implemented–and then rejected–at Gitmo.

    Not surprised at Jeh Johnson wishing to distance from this discussion, but glad to see some pressure continuing to be applied to the PTB.

    Thanks for the update; whatever that can be done to keep the pressure on is good. If, in fact, Gitmo detainees are being treated “better” than Manning (now there’s a *great* comparison…), that’s all well and good. But it certainly staggers the imagination that Manning continues to be tortured while not having been yet brought to trial.

    Free Bradley Manning!!

  9. workingclass says:

    Jeh? Is that a masculine or a feminine name? And in what language? Does it rhyme with Feh?

    I want to get it right when I say – fuck you Jeh!

  10. Bobster33 says:

    Having just worked on the 200 cell military brig expansion in Miramar, I know that the guard station has a touch screen that lists the cell, the name of the occupant and the status of the prisoner (1-7). One is basically nonviolent offender waiting to be charged. Seven is the shitbag that would cut your throat if you looked away. My question is what is Mannings’ status on that classification scale?

    • emptywheel says:

      First, the public justification they’re using for keeping him on Max is the length of sentence that his charges comes with. (Though of course the life sentence stuff came only later.) In other words, it has nothing to do with the violence, but with the seriousness of the charges along with possible length of sentence.

      As to excuse for keeping him there–that’s the big problem. The brig psych has said on at least 16 occasions he should be taken off of POI. He never has been.

  11. Bobster33 says:

    Also, I forgot to say that according to the guards, the brigs usually put people in the Adseg area (Administrative Segregation Area for the first 1-2 months to see how the prisoner handles new confinement. If they pass without incident, they are put in general population. So what did Manning do to remain in Adseg for more than 2 months? Someone should ask the brig personnel.

  12. fitley says:

    Obama knows exactly what’s going on. I think he fancies himself as Bush Lite. You know, not as bad when it comes to torture. Less filling too.

  13. ilikefree says:

    America land of the free and the brave, unless you do or say something your government does not like.
    America where international law does not count,
    C.I.A. can fly into foreign countries in unmarked planes and kidnap private citizens at will.
    America can go to war (to steal oil)without UN declaring a war on anyone.
    I remember when the Saudi government was not getting the protection USA had agreed to,in exchange for cheap oil,and was in fact supplying the Saudi opposition with arms.
    When the Saudi threatened to withhold the oil supply America drew up plans to invade and steal the oil.
    Who needs friends like these

  14. CassandraBearingWitness says:

    This is one and the same Jeh Johnson who asserted that Dr King would approve of our government’s current war crimes. As an African-American, he should understand what prison brutality is all about, but sadly he puts on an act that is fooling no one other than himself.