Bradley Manning was claimed to be a suicide risk and thereby placed on suicide prevention watch, under conditions so severe that the military judge overseeing the case later gave a reduction on any eventual sentence based on his initial treatment. So no matter what you do you're apparently going to make somebody very unhappy.

Heymann's actions were unpalatable, but it's based on its own merits (using high-pressure tactics more appropriate for drug lords), not because someone else claimed he might later kill himself. Either way, Good was Swartz's own attorney, not a psychiatrist.

What I find much more concerning is that plea deal involving no jail time had been reached, and fell apart because of MIT. a) Why was MIT concerned that he serve time behind bars, and b) Why did the prosecution care that much what MIT thinks?

Oh please, like the way Schwartz or Manning were treated are the only two options?

If you don't think Heymann sees this as a win then you're beyond naive.