US Is Apparently Torturing Bradley Manning, Despite No Trial And No Conviction
from the this-is-not-the-america-we-were-told-about dept
While there's been a ton of attention paid to Julian Assange's arrest and situation, much less attention has been paid to Bradley Manning, the Army Private who has been accused of being the source of many of Wikileaks' more recent leaks concerning the US government and military. It seemed like a reasonable question to ask, upon his arrest, whether or not he was simply whistleblowing or breaking the law. Certainly this is a question that is open for debate. What is pretty clear is that his intentions were absolutely to be a whistleblower.In his internet chat with Adrian Lamo (the guy who turned him in), Manning made it clear that if he was trying to cause problems for the US or had malicious intentions, he could have sold the info to foreign governments. However, his reasoning for leaking the info was clear, saying he was hoping it would cause "worldwide discussion, debates and reform." He also noted that he was driven to do this after being involved in detaining Iraqis who had simply done a scholarly critique of the current government, which he believed went against basic free speech principles. Again, no matter what you believe about his specific actions, it's pretty clear his intent was to whistleblow. He was upset about what he felt were illegal activities and his goal was to get that information out and to create discussion leading to reform. That's the classic definition of whistleblowing.
I knew Manning had been arrested and was being held somewhere, but Glenn Greenwald is now covering how he is being tortured, despite the fact he has not been tried. He has been held in intensive solitary confinement, meaning he spends 23 hours of the day in total isolation. He has not even been given a pillow or sheets for his bed. As Greenwald highlights, there is widespread agreement that such prolonged solitary confinement is well beyond the standard level of torture, is forbidden in many modern civilizations, and leads to long term psychological issues for those who go through it.
And all this for a guy who has not even been convicted of anything.
Again: I recognize that some people believe that Manning is a "traitor" or some sort of "enemy." But even if that's the case, why should he not be put on trial for it, before he's put into solitary confinement? As Greenwald notes, "Manning has been a model detainee, without any episodes of violence or disciplinary problems." Solitary confinement is normally used as punishment for such outbreaks for those already convicted. Putting Manning in such conditions is a purely punitive attempt to torture him, without him even being convicted.
We've already covered just how bad the Defense Department is at protecting whistleblowers, but this goes way beyond any of that. The message being sent here is that, even if your intentions are to expose wrongdoing, the military may lock you up and torture you for months without end and with no due process. This is not what America is supposed to be about. We're not supposed to support torture. We're not supposed to ignore due process. We're supposed to encourage whistleblowing. Instead, we're locking it up and torturing it with no trial or conviction.
This is, frankly, horrifying.
I'm not convinced that Manning did the right thing in leaking all of those documents. Rather, I think there's a compelling argument that he went way too far in releasing way too much. But it's a point that can be debated. However, Manning has no such opportunity to debate it. Instead, he's being psychologically tortured with no method of even making his own case.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bradley manning, due process, solitary confinement, torture, whistleblowing, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It is astonishing... whip the world up into a frenzy and they forget the basic humanitarian values and ideals we all claim to share.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not condoning it but sometimes there are reasons. Denying bed sheets would seem to not be something done for his own protection.
Though, one could strangle oneself with a sheet. Any insight on the conditions a suicidal or possibly suicidal prisoner is kept in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The article says there are no such indications (or there weren't early on -- since being in confinement so long, he's now on anti-depressants).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What I have to back it up is the time I served and the people I knew while serving. I can think of about half a dozen people in my last unit that I would not be surprised to hear had killed him in custody. Which is about as informed an opinion as any other you're likely to find on either side of the argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The frightening part is I believe you. I respect the hell out of our soldiers bravery, but if what you're saying is true, then we need to be doing something to weed these potential murderers out....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What really concerns me is the half of this guys unit that is apparently in prison with Manning. What the hell did they do to get there? Just curious...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Being trained to kill and being told it's not only acceptable but damned well expected of you to kill when ordered to, it doesn't leave you the happy-go-lucky guy you were when you entered. Even if you never have to fire on anything but targets at the range, it still leaves you more willing to kill another person than before you enlisted.
That's a damned good trait to have in a soldier because a soldier who won't kill isn't a soldier, they're a very expensive sandbag.
Then there's the concept that it's fine to kill someone when ordered without any moral justification other than the order but it's not OK to kill someone without an order even if you do feel morally justified. It's not a concept that suits a healthy human mind particularly well. But it's necessary that it be instilled in every soldier.
Top that all off with no two minds are created equal or react exactly the same and you end up with hundreds of thousands of people in different states of normality or even sanity.
Some people will go in fine and come out slightly less fine. Some will go in fine and come out borderline sociopaths. But it's not a case of look what the bad government has done to them or look at the monster who needs to be put down. It's a sacrifice each of them made willingly to protect you, me, and everyone else around us. Which is important and deserves respect but doesn't change the fact that each and every one of us comes out more dangerous than when we went in.
Like I said, complicated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
USA!!! USA!!! USA!!! USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I held high clearances and saw stuff that I wish I hadn't. My opinion of the GOVERNMENT went down the toilet. Same same with some of the Military leadership. There needs to be a wholesale weeding out of the upper chain of command (starting at about E-7) not a wholesale dumping, but EVERYONE in that range needs to be looked closely at.
Now, to address Bradley. Not saying I agree with WHAT he did, but I can understand WHY he did it. Not defending it at all, just stating I can see what drove him to it, assuming that he is HONEST about the 'why'. I saw a lot of stuff that turned me from UBER (Rush Limbaugh) right winger to an UBER Libertarin (a la Robert Heinlein - ALSO a Navy guy).
What they are doing to this guy is a crime - but shit, look at what they (USG) started off doing down at GTMO, Abu Ghraib, and the 'stans. We've gone off the reservation a long time ago. Torturing prisoners? And how is calling them 'Unlawful Combatants' make them something other than prisoners?
This ain't the US I was defending.....funny thing. That Oath I took? Never had an expiration date on it. Neither did anyone else's. How much of what's going on rises to conduct being done by 'Enemies of the Constitution'? THAT was what we swore to do - protect the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC.
Just words to consider.
Mucro publicus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then someone calls the person on their bullshit and they're all "Oh yeah well I DID read the provided material, BUT [insert ad hoc justification based on unspecified or vague details that allow person to maintain their ridiculous position]"
So annoying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
that's how military intelligence works: low ranking enlisted members with the ability to change the outcome of a war.
intelligence systems are so complex that they can only be operated by trained specialists, so military leadership relies on prepared reports, not raw intelligence.
it's the collision of outdated hierarchical military thinking and modern warfare.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But as you say, a clearance doesn't automatically give you access rights to all information at that level. Why did this guy need to have access to [i]every[/i] secret diplomatic cable?
It isn't like a classified network is one big database where you just log in and type "gimme everything marked 'SECRET'" and the computer returns you a zip file.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't bury the lead here....
But none of that is the point. He's a US citizen, what the govt. is doing falls under the category of torture, and I'm about as fucking pissed off about this as I've been in a looong looong time....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't bury the lead here....
"As the size of an explosion increases, the number of problems it is capable of solving decreases."
...or something like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't bury the lead here....
The snarky answer is the 'hostile work environment' of being shot at.
They get tried in military courts, not civilian courts, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't bury the lead here....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Don't bury the lead here....
About solitary being torture though, don't be so quick to jump to conclusions there. Put this guy around other incarcerated soldiers and his life would be in very real and immediate danger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't bury the lead here....
If that was the motivation, the CYA specialists in the military would have been shoutting that through a megaphone since the moment he was locked up....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't bury the lead here....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't bury the lead here....
It's not the first time they've tortured somebody either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Don't bury the lead here....
I've seen people in brigs before they're dishonorably discharged...
In terms of caloric intake, in terms of their wills...
It is NOT a joke. Damn near torture for people that served their country and did something to threaten their fellow men.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It Has a Lot to Do With Being Tortured
My partner is retired military and the terms to which military personnel agree go so far as to cover permitted sexual positions. Almost all rights are suspended.
This usurpation is not right and I regard Manning's actions as heroic and forward-looking, but the unfortunate fact of the matter is that he agreed to the terms. He needed to better shore up his defense before he took action. That and we citizens need to rally to his side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It Has a Lot to Do With Being Tortured
Let's run with this for a moment -- that is, let's presume it's completely accurate.
Then it's wrong. A military which cannot operate effectively while preserving ALL the rights of its members is an incompetent military. The proper response to this isn't to tolerate it; the proper response is to dismiss the chimps and baboons in charge, and replace them with intelligent, capable people who understand that their first duty -- the one that trumps all others at all times -- is to defend the Constitution. They must be willing to die for that, they must be willing to send others to their deaths for that.
Because the day that's gone, it really doesn't matter if our troops take such-and-such a ride or capture such-and-such a person. We've lost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It Has a Lot to Do With Being Tortured
Well, the military have no authority over me as a civilian (unless I'm on a military base or martial law has been declared). I have the right to refuse anything any member of the military might tell me to do. I don't think we can afford that right to members of the military.
It seems reasonable to me to curtail other rights as well. Freedom of speech (to an extent), freedom of travel (almost entirely, with the exception of time off/passes/whatever). Maybe some others. But we should offer them every freedom possible, and only curtail them where it's absolutely necessary to make the military function properly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It Has a Lot to Do With Being Tortured
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't bury the lead here....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Don't bury the lead here....
Under legal definitions, they don't apply to Manning. What applies to Manning is the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 'Coercive self-incrimination' is prohibited under the UCMJ, however, so if anyone is attempting to get Manning to talk by torturing him, they should be charged and court-martialed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't bury the lead here....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't bury the lead here....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't bury the lead here....
Side question: How hard is it to get Icelandic citizenship?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't bury the lead here....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't bury the lead here....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't bury the lead here....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't bury the lead here....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't bury the lead here....
And btw, you sure as shit don't give up ALL of your Constitutional rights as a soldier, so why don't you tell me exactly where I'm wrong here....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Don't bury the lead here....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't bury the lead here....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't bury the lead here....
Trial? who needs a trial? KG says that this guy is guilty of treason, somebody gimme the rope!
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.
Important Part Freakin BOLD here, man.
put simply, ever so simply.. you have to be found guilty of breaking a law before you can be punished for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't bury the lead here....
Not word for word, but I'm guessing the words "trial/tribunal" or "conviction" appear in there somewhere....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Don't bury the lead here....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't bury the lead here....
He may be a U.S. Citizen, but he is a member of the armed forces no longer protected by the same rules as you or I. The UCMJ is rather more harsh than the constitution and lawfully allows all sorts of "treatments" that would otherwise be prohibited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't bury the lead here....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't bury the lead here....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"You're either with us or against us." If you don't support torture, you must be against us. Quick, somebody grab him!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously, this guy is responsible for actions that are going to cause the deaths of people. But who cares about those people? This guy is who we need to worry about, after all, he is an American citizen. Why do we need a trial? We know this guy did it. Nobody is saying he didn't.
Damn Liberals, it's going to get to a point where a guy is gunned down committing a robbery and your going to complain he didn't get a fair trial and how do we know he is guilty if he didn't get a trail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Note: I don't think presumption of innocence is a "Liberal" concept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That might be the single dumbest thing I've ever read on this site....
"Seriously, this guy is responsible for actions that are going to cause the deaths of people."
Name just one case where that has happened or is likely to happen....
And now let's go back to the drinking game I talked about before, where you have to drink everytime someone says two things in one post that are incredibly at odds w/one another. In this case:
"he is an American citizen. Why do we need a trial?"
DRINK!
Seriously, go away. You're getting your nationalism all over my country....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How am I a troll exactly? Am I making inflammatory or off-topic posts? Please, let's hear your reasons for saying that I am. I post what I honestly believe to be true, backed with reason and research. It never ceases to amaze me how much venom and anger I get in response to my posts from people on TD. I'm called names and accused of all sorts of things for stating my beliefs. In lots of people's minds, apparently, anyone who disagrees with them is (1) evil, (2) lying, (3) stupid, (4) a sorry sack of shit. Unreal. And by the way, your post, the very one I'm responding to now, is inflammatory. Are you a troll?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The preceding was a joke. Anyone offended should look into acquiring a sense of humor as soon as possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, it's NOT backed with reason and research. You just claim that it is, but it often turns out not to be. That's why people call you those names.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you referring to my views of copyright? If so, then I think you misunderstand my position. I don't claim the research proves copyright is the right choice. I don't know what the research says. I let other people worry/argue about that. The bottom line is that Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to create copyright laws. Courts will review those laws with great deference since Congress is exercising an enumerated power. That being the case, I don't see any real possibility that Congress is all of the sudden going to do away with copyright. Nor will the courts strike down copyright as unconstitutional. In other words, copyright isn't going anywhere and there's pretty much nothing anyone can do about it. I look at it pragmatically.
If you weren't talking about copyright, then you're statement is too vague for me to address directly since I don't know what posts of mine you're referring to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
PS. there are meds to help out with that vagina you have...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I offer my condolences for your loss (of your sense of humor - regarding my immediate previous post, that is!)
Care to point out where my post is of a troll-ish nature?? I'll defer to you, the expert here
{Smile! All humor has a glint of truth!}
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
you come off as a shill for the entrenched lobbyists (big media/ entertainment industry)with virtually no regard for "society as a whole" over the right of the monopolist/copyright/content creator to be paid repeatedly for the same piece of work
And I generally think many people on techdirt have little regard for society as a whole, so the feeling's mutual I suppose. Honestly, I couldn't care less what the copyright laws are. What I do care about is people thinking it's OK to infringe because they disagree with the law. Actually, I don't even care if people infringe. I just don't want to hear any whining if they get caught. It's not so much that I'm pro-big media. I'm pro-law and order. If you don't agree with the laws, work to change them. If you can't get them changed, then too bad. It's part of our social contract that we have a duty to follow the law whether we agree with it or not. To me, that is how you respect society as a whole--if you respect it, then you'll follow its rules. Otherwise you're just taking the law into your own hands and you're putting your needs ahead of those of others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It must be nice to live in a world where everything is black and white. In the real world, our president has to be told he can't violate the constitution while trying to spy on citizens. In the real world, corporations are treated better than citizens, with more rights and less taxes. In the real world politicians can be bought and traded like baseball cards and laws are made to benefit special interest groups with little to no regard to how it might affect society as a whole.
If there was every a time on this planet where a person could trust his government to have his best interests in mind, it certainly has come and gone. How does the saying go? Well, after reading the Espionage Act we clearly have lost the soap box. As I hinted before, this country's politicians are corrupt. If elections actually are in our control (which I am beginning to believe they aren't) then the choices we have are between two evils. We are now on the "jury box" using our power as citizens to strike down bad laws by nullifying them or outright ignoring them. I would rather not need that last box, thankyouverymuch.
If you can't get them changed, then too bad. It's part of our social contract that we have a duty to follow the law whether we agree with it or not.
This is the most retarded sentence you've posted in a while, though, to be honest, I rarely read what you post these days, so maybe you've said something dumber and I missed it. So, would this have been you advice for slavery, too? "Sorry guys, we gave it a good shot but they wouldn't budge. Back to the fields with ya, best of luck!"
The "social contract" is void if they don't keep their end of the bargain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You yourself would have turned Ann Frank into the authorities, because that was the law at the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's some great satire there. You sound just like your average Amer'cun!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course, there is still the issue that Manning apparently hasn't been charged yet. Even that is permitted under some circumstances. However, if necessary, I suspect a charge of treason (among many others) could be levied against him in fairly short order. He, as a soldier, disclosed information during a time of armed conflict ("war"?) that arguably provided aid to the enemy. Seems like there's at least enough there to justify a full-on trial/court-martial, even if he is eventually acquitted.
HM
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, it is. Conditions need not be harsh in order to secure, but it sure makes for a convenient excuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
While a crime is a crime, the intention of the criminal often does weigh into the judicial system's treatment of him, and should weigh into any reasonable person's opinion of said criminal.
Much more to the point, whistleblowing is a protected action, but treason is (obviously) not. So what he intended to do is relevant. He might have gone way overboard with the cable dump, but that is for a court to decide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And yes, intent does have some bearing in cases like these. Especially as a whistleblower and someone who is trying to change something he viewed as illegal and wrong. He will likely still be punished unless it can be shown that he was in the right, but until that point he should not be treated with such utter disregard for the fact that he is a human being.
Furthermore, your snarky comment about liberals is unnecessary and out of line. I'd hope that EVERYONE regardless of political stance recognize that people are guaranteed due process, and a fair trial. The point of the trial is to prove that a wrong was committed, even if the circumstances, before a trial, shows what happened. Lord knows your 'guy' could have been forced into what he did by some other party, and not taking the time to ensure he was solely responsible for what happened could have far worse consequences than having a fair trial for him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually that is a problem. Corrupt officials can easily plant drugs or alter crime scenes. Do you know it is to film an arrest even to prove the officers did break the law in many states? What if the NRA was labeled a terrorist organization since it condones violence? (hunting) Does that change your opinion?
If the law does not protect ALL citizens then who ever writes the law can justify rounding up and quelling dissenting opinions. That is why defending RIGHTS in ALL cases is important.
I want to live in a democracy. I saw your "free speech zones" firsthand and they were terrifying on so many levels I can not imagine how you consider yourselves free. You are chained by your ignorance of current affairs. FOX news and the uninformed american populace is becoming the laughingstock of the world...
Your ignorance of the constitution and why people have fought and died for it sullies your dead. You would throw away what they died for because someone else telly you the right is inconvenient when used to defend people who exposed corruption in your own government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The only part I'd nitpick is this. I'd change it to "rights-based society" or somesuch, since democracy just means that people generally vote to do bad things as a collective, instead of individually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Democracy
Chris Rhodes wrote:
And who is going to guarantee your rights? Are you going to trust some �benevolent dictator� to uphold them? Good luck 1) finding one, and 2) finding an immortal one.
Democracy is the only system we�ve been able to come up with that comes anywhere close to such a guarantee. Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Democracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Democracy
Merely being a democracy is no guarantee of freedom. It needs to be a rights-based democracy to have any lasting chance of upholding justice.
I strongly agree with Churchill: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There are a few hundred thousand dead Iraqis who would like someone to be held responsible for the war based on lies that lead to their death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Alfred
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Alfred
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Put things in perspective
My only hope is that this will all eventually lead to the prosecution of some of the criminals in positions of power in the military and government. Sadly, I hold little hope that it will.
Justice for all huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Alfred
Moreover, we cross a dangerous line when we start saying, "well, he's guilty. we don't need a trial." You sound conservative, so I'd imagine you are for smaller govt. So why on earth would you want your govt. arbitrarily deciding who's guilty, who's innocent, and what punishment to deal out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't make shit up. This is not the case and NO one has been killed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Awful
The harsh reality is he is being held under military jurisdiction and with the rights of an accused soldier, not a citizen. This type of torture sounds like something they may very well be able to do without repercussion.
Also, is there such a thing as a soldier whistle blower and protections for the same? I'm doubting it but I do not know.
If he leaked, he did bring this on himself, as heinous as it may be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Awful
Incorrect. The Constitution doesn't get suspended merely because someone's in the military.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Awful
�(The Supreme Court of the United States) has long recognized that the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society�(t)he rights of men in the armed forces must perforce be conditioned to meet certain overriding demands of discipline and duty.�
Parker v. Levy, 1974
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Awful
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Awful
Now as to the content of the decision: like nearly all Supreme Court decisions, it's written quite narrowly, and it absolutely does not, in any way, shape or form, state the Constitution is suspended merely because someone's in the military. What it does say, in circumscribed, precise language, is (a) articles 133 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice are not unconstitutionally vague under the due process clause (b) those same two articles are not unconstitutional on their face because they're overly broad and (c) Levy's contention that he avoided participating in a war crime is not a Constitutional issue. But don't take my word for that; read it here: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/parker.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Awful
PDF
Also note the content of the SCoTUS decision is basically telling Levy, "What the hell are you doing here, you're a soldier, not a civilian. We've been over then before."
While Manning might some day get to go to the SCOTUS himself, he will most definitely be held by the military and tried in a military court first. His rights and the process are very different from those of a civilian citizen. Until he is discharged from service, that is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Awful
Please cite the portions of the decision that you believe say this. (I do recognize that you're paraphrasing.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Awful
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Awful
He needs a trial before anyone can say "committed treason". Actually, he needs to be charged with the crime of treason before you can even say "alleged traitor".
Talk about the ignorant court of public opinion...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Awful
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Awful
Uniform Code of Military Justice, 64 Stat. 109, 10 U.S.C. Chapter 47
This applies to soldiers but not civilians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Manning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It was stupid for the Bush administration to torture but that was expected since he was never the sharpest spoon in the drawer. It is insane for the Obama administration- He claimed to know that it was wrong when he was running.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Army Property
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Army Property
1860 is calling. It wants its Zeitgeist back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Army Property
I'll see your zeitgeist and raise you two paradigms. When you join the military you are, in effect, property of the U.S. government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Army Property
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, if Manning had any doubts or regrets about whether or not it was the right thing to do before, I would hope his treatment by his own government with no due process would lay those doubts to rest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You can only stand so long in the hole without going insane.
Bullshit excuses about "for my own protection" notwithstanding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Treason" assumes that the government you are betraying is doing the right thing. We applaud men and women who stand up to governments like North Korea and China because we feel that those governments are in the wrong and we aknowledge that their citizens should stand up against those wrongs. Should we not do the same if we feel our government is in the wrong?
Honor. Courage. Commitment. He has displayed them all, whereas you, my carion-eating friend, have only displayed that you would murder a man based on Truthiness instead of Truth.
For shame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Agreed. Some soldiers forget that they're sworn to protect the US Constitution. They seem to think instead that they're supposed to collect benefits for protecting the US Government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Plus, he gets to go out for an hour each day, just kill him then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Plus, being a soldier, he has extensive experience with exercise he can preform within the confines of a cell. I can personally remember enough different ones to make me feel tired just sitting here thinking about them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In my humble opinion, by taking measures like these to ensure the torture aspect of solitary is worse for him
(if that part is true.. I have a bit of a hard time believing this part of the article.. the only purpose I can imagine would be to make his suffering worse), they have made any claim that the reason is for his protection bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When I was in the NG, I was shown a little piece of fine print on my ID badge, it said Property of US Gov't. I was then informed that it did not refer to the card..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unsubscribing from TechDirt....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah...right...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Subscribed?
Good riddance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The guy isn't being tortured, he is being held in maximum security and maximum detention possible. Considering his crimes, you wouldn't want him near anyone else, you wouldn't want him wandering around in public, and you certainly wouldn't want him in any general population.
To suggest it is torture is really going way past the point. He is getting the minimums required in detailment. 1 hour per day out is actually pretty good, considering that many maximum detention prisoners US state and federal facilities often get less than that, and only on every 3rd day.
As for the time of his inprisonment, considering he will not get bail pending trial, he can be like all of the other nasty criminals in the system, who often spend years locked up waiting for their trials to start and complete.
I have to say that commentaries like the one on Salon and the post made here are certainly good at whipping up a frenzy, but honestly, what else do you do with a man who has treasoned his country, put every one of his military peers at risk, and divulged almost a quarter of a million state secrets? Would you like to give him a medal and a pat on the tush to send him on his way?
Wake up people!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
False dichotomy much?
"Either we torture him, or we'll have to throw him parties with hookers and cocaine! Is that what you want your taxes going towards? HUH?*"
*Incidentally, the answer is yes, but only if I'm invited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Read: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning/index.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As a side note, all of this and nobody is upset that Wikileaks appears to be renegging on their promise to help him with legal fees?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Second, of course it's an opinion piece. Duh. However, unlike many other opinion pieces, it's well-written and well-researched: agree or disagree with Greenwald, you must admit that he's a very smart guy who does his homework (and is the first to issue a correction when he makes a mistake).
Third, of course any evaluation written by a lawyer -- or for that matter, any statement produced by a court -- would also be "an opinion". It might be a more rigorously argued opinion, but still an opinion.
So instead of trying to dismiss this because it happens to be an opinion, how about reading it for content and analyzing it on its merits?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why do you think the Middle East hates us so much? Well open your damned eyes and read then you might find out that we're locking up, torturing, and killing THOUSANDS of those countries citizens. If anyone did that to any American you'd be pretty damned pissed the fuck off too and want to see all those motherfuckers die, no?
So yes, give this guy a medal for being the only person with a spine, integrity, and true American patriotism left. People are meant to control the government, not allow it to control them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hey DH... mind if I borrow your 'nationalism' comment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Shit, of course!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, Bush committed treason by leading us into two unjust and senseless wars, which put not only the entire military but the civilian population at risk. Cheney leaked the fact that Valarie Plame was CIA.
So, in response to your question, you elect them President and make sure they never ever face any criminal charges and remain rich for the rest of their nasty little natural lives.
Manning did none of what you accuse, except divulge secrets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am not defending those who were exposed/embarassed by this, but Manning and Assange are no freedom fighters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Deep Throat and the Watergate scandal: someone speaking to the press rather than his superiors about a criminal act done by their own country leaders.
If you don't trust your superiors to act responsibly on you blowing the whistle, who do you leak the information to? To your superiors? I didn't think so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are we sure the whole government hasn't been replaced with pod-people?
See, I can make stuff up too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Solitary is torture???
By keeping Pvt Manning away from other military prisoners he is being spared certain verbal and most likely physical assault. I would even go so far as to say putting in with the general population would but his life at risk.
At best Pvt Manning violated many regulations concerning classified documents any one of which could result in many years in prison. It would not be difficult to make a case for treason, during war time. The penalty for that is the firing squad or hangman's noose.
Some will think this harsh, and it is, but Mr Manning voluntarily swore and oath. In violating the trust placed in him he committed a heinous crime in the eyes of his fellow soldiers. He will made an example of so that no else is tempted to do the same or worse.
As for the statement "Manning made it clear that if he was trying to cause problems for the US or had malicious intentions, he could have sold the info to foreign governments". I have never heard such a ridiculous lie. Unless they have forgot how to use the internet, he has given our secrets to them.
As soldier the law that applies to him is the Uniform Code of Military Justice or UCMJ. It is far different from civilian law. Given the attention this case will generate and the number of charges they will most likely bring, the military will want to make sure it has researched and prepared the case.
Also even if they are not charged, this will end the careers of Pvt Manning's supervisors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Solitary is torture???
Using bad behavior by others to justify ours? Pathetic.
At best Pvt Manning violated many regulations concerning classified documents any one of which could result in many years in prison.
Allegedly.
I have never heard such a ridiculous lie. Unless they have forgot how to use the internet, he has given our secrets to them.
He didn't sell them, though. In other words, he wasn't trying to sell out his country for personal gain, like he very well could have by shopping the data around. That gives him a much stronger case for whistle-blower status (although he'd have to explain exactly what he thought he was blowing the whistle on, since the huge cable dump was unlikely to be related to anything he knew about personally).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Solitary is torture???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Solitary is torture???
Punishment before conviction, eh? Why even have trials?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ Mike
Your title and write up imply that it is OK for our government to torture us if we are convicted. I feel strongly that our government should never torture anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ Mike
In other words, Manning's actions are debatable.
Torture is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @ Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @ Mike
That's the biggest exaggeration in the history of the Universe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @ Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @ Mike
That's the most awesomeist comment in the history of the multi-verse....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if they were private corporate documents?
What if in both of the above cases; they clearly showed corruption - would the person leaking them be jailed?
Doubt it.
It seems little are really related to 'national security' - but most have a very direct relationship on the personal security of job and positions held within government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe he went a bit far with how much he leaked, but his intent was to cause reform, not harm. And no one has yet provided any empirical, detailed evidence that anyone has been harmed or was put at risk of harm because of his leaks. That is something that needs to be factored into his trial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What he did do was provide all of our enemies a clear understanding of how our military gets information in the field. It even provided the names of people who helped us and in some cases the names of covert American agents. Don�t even get me started on the leaked State Department documents.
Bradley Manning is no hero, he�s a tool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You have no evidence to support that.
You don't have that evidence because it doesn't exist.
As I've explained several times here, the fact that Wikileaks (and the newspapers it's partnered with) have 250K diplomatic cables constitutes an existence proof that a leak vector exists.
Only a fool would presume that there's only one.
So if government X turns up in possession of cable number 13,832, that doesn't mean that they got it via this leak. Maybe they did. Or maybe they got it via one of the others.
And then we have to consider that every government has intelligence services that spend all day, every day trying to lay their hands on material like this. They spy, they steal, they bribe, they blackmail, they seduce, they drug, they hack, they do whatever works the best because after all...it's why they exist. Some of them are pretty good at it. (In a fair fight in a dark alley, I'd take Mossad over the CIA, 5 to 3.)
So there is no reason to presume that ANY of this material wasn't already read a long time ago in 17 different countries. C'mon, a private had access to it here, do you REALLY believe that generals there weren't reading it too?
The naviete' and conceit over these "secrets" is stunning. It's as if people actually believe you can open a large and valuable database to a couple of million people and then still pretend that it's magically "secret".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, but the American *people* didn't know. That's what they're upset about, not foreign governments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
O_o
Wait, I'm talking to myself!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wow. You've never even read a word of the leaked cables. You have no idea what's in them. I like how even the Pentagon disagrees with you, stating unarguably that there is not one single verifiable instance of harm to any agent of the United States to come from the leaks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Then what's the problem?
What he did do was provide all of our enemies a clear understanding of how our military gets information in the field.
Again, if that was "previously reported in the mainstream media", then what's the problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Contradict yourself much?
Either the documents were secret and revealing them damaged US interests OR Manning is not a whistleblower because the information was already widely available.
You can't have it both ways.
Also, too - I think a lot of people are pretty ignorant about the actual content of what was provided to WL. The news media (as is their wont) focused mostly on the petty gossip and diplomatic faux paus but this site has a number of important revelations that Manning provided: http://sowhyiswikileaksagoodthingagain.com/
Not all of these are coming from Manning, but they all do illustrate the point that when the news organizations abdicate their responsibility to provide the information that citizens need in order to hold their government accountable, the government will act in ways to increase and consolidate its power, to the detriment of the citizenry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
His case for being a whistleblower falls apart when Assange and Co. say that they were given, and refused to publish, battle plans, critically sensitive documents, etc. that had nothing to do with the illegal capture and interrogation of dissidents.
While Manning's conditions seem a little harsh, I would really hesitate to call it torture. He's obviously on suicide watch and kept isolated from other inmates. So what? He's not being water-boarded, beat, frozen, or sleep-deprived. When I'm kept in solitude without a pillow or sheets, I usually call that backpacking, but that's just me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"For reasons that appear completely punitive, he's being denied many of the most basic attributes of civilized imprisonment, including even a pillow or sheets for his bed (he is not and never has been on suicide watch)."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looking at the crimes he is accused of...
Under UCMJ Article 92 he is guilty if there was in effect a lawful order, he had a duty to obey it, and he disobeyed the order. Intent is irrelevant, and it is a strict liability offense.
Under 18 U.S.C. 793(e) he is guilty if he has information that could be used to injure the United States and then he "willfully communicates" that information. Intent is certainly relevant here, but not in the way that you suggest. They do not need to prove that he intended to injure the United States since this is not a specific intent statute. Instead, it is a general intent statute and it is enough to prove that his communication of the information was willful. His intentions otherwise are irrelevant.
Under 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2) he is guilty if he "knowingly" accessed a computer to obtain restricted information in a way that exceeds his authorization and then "willfully communicates" that information. This is also a general intent statute, and it is enough to prove that he intended to access and communicate the information. His intentions otherwise are irrelevant.
Under 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2) he is guilty if he "intentionally" accesses a computer in excess of his authorization and obtains information. All they need to prove is his intent to access the computer and obtain the information. His intentions otherwise are irrelevant.
I think his intention to cause "worldwide discussion, debates and reform" would come into play at his sentencing, but it doesn't play a part in determining his guilt. He could have the absolute best intentions and still be guilty of the crimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Huh? What I'm saying is true as a matter of law. His intent to cause "worldwide discussion, debates and reform" is irrelevant in determining liability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Intent, in the legal realm, is generally about whether or not you intended to do the deed in question, and not about whether or not you thought you were doing the right thing.
If he did what he is alleged to have done, there is no question he intended to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The military allowed him to keep that access even after his first reprimand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Would you care to share details on how the Lockerbie bomber was released?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One point of contention:
My understanding is that he was authorized to access the information. So 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2) wouldn't apply.
I could certainly be wrong, of course.
Either way, the guy's OK in my book. Not the brightest bulb in the box, perhaps, but his "treason" is far less serious than the activities revealed in the leaked documents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
My understanding is that he was authorized to access the information. So 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2) wouldn't apply.
The statute says the access in question must have been in excess of his authorized access. I don't really know what exactly that means, but apparently they thought it applied here. If it doesn't, I'm sure his lawyer will be pointing that out.
Either way, the guy's OK in my book. Not the brightest bulb in the box, perhaps, but his "treason" is far less serious than the activities revealed in the leaked documents.
I don't think it's treason, or even "treason," but he's not OK in my book. I hope he goes to jail for a very long time. Whistleblowing can be a good thing. If he felt a need to blow the whistle, he should have done it through proper channels. We can't have people who are entrusted with classified information just spilling the beans in public when they don't like what they see. That's not how it works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The "proper channel" for whistleblowing, by definition, is *outside* the organization you are whistleblowing. Generally (and typically) the media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whistleblowing? Nah, I don't buy it.
So, let him argue that some of it was whistleblowing, but I think there is a whole lot that is merely breaking the law.
As for his current detention, I would like to see some corroboration before I jump on the "he's being tortured" bandwagaon that I suspect will quickly get rolling here. Is he actually in solitary confinement? Or is he merely in some form of segregation from the general prison/jail/stockade population - potentially for his own protection? Is the lack of bedsheets (assuming this is true) some form of legitimate effort as part of a suicide watch? Does he have reading materials, decent food and contact with legal counsel and/or family?
And if he's a "model prisoner", good for him. I give him some credit for manning up (pun un-intended)and dealing maturely with the consequences of his actions. Even if he is eventually determined to be a legitimate whistleblower (which I do not stipulate), he still took an action he knew to be illegal, and SHOULD have been prepared to deal with being treated like a suspect in a very, very serious criminal matter until such time as his name is cleared.
Personally, I suspect he is going to grow old in the stockade.
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whistleblowing? Nah, I don't buy it.
Manning did not dump all the cables on somebody's doorstep. Instead he gave them to an international organization with a long-running career of releasing sensitive information in a manner that employs both rigorous responsibility and maximum impact. That he gave it to a widely trusted organization is highly indicative of his intentions.
I also challenge your notion that exposing corruption is not "whistleblowing" if it does not meet your personal definition of "discretion". I argue that he did use remarkable discretion, but even if he hadn't, vetting such a body of information by himself would have been an impossible task. Releasing the entire body would have been indiscreet. Instead, he chose to give them to an organization capable of doing the work needed to properly expose the information.
Whistleblowing is still whistleblowing, whether I tell one person or the world, and if you have more information on corruption than you can handle yourself, it is not indiscreet to seek help from an organization with a history of editing and releasing such information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but right or wrong, our country!" -Stephen Decatur
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." -Carl Schurz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh? Accessing and communicating restricted information in the way that he is accused of is a crime. Are you making a normative argument that it shouldn't be a crime? If so, perhaps you should be more clear about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Make a choice.
See, hear, or otherwise sense your enemy in front of you out in the open without restrictions. aka anarchy?
or
Keep it all hush hush in the sake of morality? aka "shoulda,coulda,woulda"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Make a choice.
See, hear, or otherwise sense your enemy in front of you out in the open without restrictions. aka anarchy?
or
Keep it all hush hush in the sake of morality? aka "shoulda,coulda,woulda"
That didn't make anything clear. There are proper channels for whistleblowing in the military. From what I know about his case, he did not follow these channels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Huh? Of course there are ways for them to "blow the whistle" in those kinds of circumstances. See, for example, the Military Whistleblower Protection Act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Manning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Back to basics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Back to basics
Start sending messages that neither party represent your beliefs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Back to basics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bunch of BS
He is being held in Gitmo in Solitary Confinement - which is not torture... it's punishment.
His trial is scheduled for Spring of 2011.
He has an attorney.
He can be considered a TRAITOR to the USA for leaking confidential and classified documents. If he felt the way things were being done wrong - there are better, legal paths to reform.
Sharing CLASSIFIED documents with potential enemies of our country is considered treason and is punishable by death.
If he had done this for the other side, he would have been beheaded by now - so let's not call this torture.
Bunch of babies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bunch of BS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bunch of BS
What is more horrifying is that the sheeple posting comments on this blog (and others) are too quick to call the government out, without considering either the validity of the information or the reality of the situation.
We the sheeple, indeed. TD included.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bunch of BS
Thanks for making the point for us. He's being punished even though he hasn't been convicted of anything.
That churning sound? It's the Founding Fathers spinning in their graves upon learning that the nation they struggled so mightily to build has been overrun with cowards, weaklings, and fools who simply Do Not Get It.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bunch of BS
Keep trying. When you get tired, you can admit that this entire story is a shock value pile of bull crap, probably started by a wikileaks supporter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bunch of BS
Seriously... ever heard of Pentagon Papers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bunch of BS
All I can say of people like that is that they absolutely deserve the government they have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Torture? Says who?
From my knowledge, TFA is written by someone who is not an expert in any relevant field such as psychology, law enforcement, corrections, or something similar. He expresses his opinions as if they are fact.
He mentions "widespread" agreement that solitary confinement is a form of torture without giving much in the way of evidence of just how widespread this opinion is.
He also does not have any first-hand knowledge of the situation of PFC Manning. He writes about things that he heard from others and although he says that a Quantico official confirms his story, he doesn't tell us what questions he asked of the official nor does he quote the official's exact response.
That makes this whole thing a tabloid-style story about fourth-hand unsubstantiated hear-say and rumor.
-5 mod points for pandering...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Torture? Says who?
Look it up bunnie boy, it's been a known fact for many years and there's plenty of research to back it up. There's a reason it is used as punishment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do have to say, America is becoming the land of the pussies. In Philadelphia, there is a big debate about the kid who was Taz'ed and how that was too much force. Hell, 20 years ago the Philly police would have beaten the hell out of him.
In the military, there are brigs that are known as Red Line Brig, Quantico is one. There are red lines panted on the floor and any "guest" that crosses the red line will either be shot or need a visit to the hospital. Military brigs are a bit different than the nice confines we call prisons. Military folks also don't have the same rights as a regular citizen, and yes, parts of the constitution don't apply to them. Thems the breaks, they explain that to you in boot camp.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Manning will get a VERY fair trial
Note that his attorneys had not played the 'torture card'.
His confinement situation is no different than that experienced by any solider accused of a serious crime.
He will be tried before a jury of his military peers.
If he really did release this document collection to civilians then he is in no way a 'whistle blower'.
Glen Greenwald knows nothing about the military.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has an article 32 hearing been scheduled?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Solitary confinement is terribly stressful to the mind. Solitary confinement is not sensory deprivation, but it is close to it, and to contrast, 15 minutes of sensory deprivation results in visual and auditory hallucinations. A day results in altered states of the mind and a bucketful of symptoms like paranoia, anxiety, depression, temporary schizophrenia, hallucinations, withdrawal. A week of sensory deprivation results in insanity.
The brain needs sensory input. Solitary isn't just being bored and confined. It is incredibly stressful and fatiguing. It is very hard on the mind. Your opinion would change if you actually experienced it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As for solitary confinement, the subject has been pretty well explored for it's pychological effects and I'm pretty sure that an interrogator you happen to know will tell you that psychological tortures are far more effective (and have often longer term effects) than physical torture. If you don't believe I suggest you try and explain what you *would* consider torture and perhaps try such a solitary confinement/deprivation regime as is described.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you have any info on the average time before trial in say a civillian murder trial? How about average time for court martial in serious charge military trials? Civi trials can take years to come to court. This isn't even delayed at this point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In this sense intentions matter not one iota. Once the infomation is released he has no control over its distribution. How many eyese are at wikileaks? How many in the fold of wiki are foreign agents, buyable, pressurable? How many copies have been made? Can we even know that the full unredacted content has never been sold to a third party/government? It is irrelevant what this institution's rep is or what they claim to want to achieve. The information and the secrets within are 100% unprotected upon release. No matter the kind of harm he "intended" to do, he was aware that once released all the information is presumed to be known in its entirety by anyone and everyone.
He knew what he released. He knew to release it was to break the law. He had no way to insure things that he didn't intend to get out would not. He has no way to know whether it has gotten out or not. Intentions here are worthless to the defense of this crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And if water-boarding were torture, they would have never done it. So that proves that water-boarding isn't torture either!
Yeah, I see how that works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Waterboarding was deemed torture by every adminstration and every president for the last 40 years. Only when Shrub Bush was in power, was it suddenly not torture, and that was done on the basis of a single legal opinion. In his own words, paraphased "I am not a laywer, I follow what the laywers told me, and this one gave me an opinion that it was legal". Since that time, it has once again by deemed torture by the current President and is not in use.
But the whole thing is a bit of a misdirection, because you miss the point. The assumption being made is that maximum confinement (23 hours per day solitary) is torture. It is not. It is not pleasant, and some people have issues with it, but it is something that is used in almost every state and federal prison.
Are you saying, example, that Charles Mason is currently being tortured?
Are you saying that Ted Kazinski is currently being tortured?
Please think before you post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Are you saying that Ted Kazinski is currently being tortured?
1. They aren't being subjected to the same harsh conditions as Manning.
2. They were convicted of crimes and are serving sentences. Manning has not and is not.
Please think before you post.
Indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you don't like classifications the railing should be against the power to classify and the proper methods/timing to unclassify. Otherwise we have the rule of men not laws. We can't be OK with this leaker and then imprison someone who profited from selling to the Chinese. The damage isn't controlled by the "intent" of the leaker and we can't situationally prefer one guy vs another becuase we like his or her politics. We can debate what and how things should be classified and who should have oversight but there's no basis to let this guy off the hook because he's meek, gay and liberal with the best of intentions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
now covering how he is being tortured, despite the fact he has not been tried.
I don't think it's the intention, but that comes out as this treatment would be ok if there was due process. it's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Real Reasons This Came Up
Why the sudden concern for someone who has been locked up in solitary for months? The answer is pretty simple:
Julian Assange was being held in Solitary (until his release moments ago). Don't you think someone was trying to set up a case to show that solitary confinement would be torture? After all, we wouldn't want to torture dear leader, would we?
The timing is so perfect. Could TD and all the others have been suckered into it? Looks like it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So...
...DH just makes me laugh. Ta for that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't know what this kids intentions were (and neither do you) but it really doesn't matter. If he had a beef with what was going wrong, he should have taken that to his superior. If his superior didn't act on it, he should have taken it to his superiors superior. It goes on and on, its called following your chain of commmand. Violating that is a big problem.
Why a demoted private had access to this information is beyond me. One would think that someone that was demoted might just have their clearance pulled, but this kid is in for a rough life.
Personally, I hope he is given a break, give him time served and a bad conduct discharge. I seriously doubt that will happen though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"what you *would* consider torture and perhaps try such a solitary confinement/deprivation regime as is described..."
is irrelevant.
If solitary was torture it would long since have been ceased in our prisons. It hasn't, therefore by our legal definition, the only definition that matters, it is not. It's irrelevant if other countries call it torture, if HR orgs do or if peoole on this thread are horrified.
As a word totrure can be defined very very broadly, as a crime, not so much. And, no one has made the case that his solitary isn't for his protection from the other inmates and that as such it is protective rather than punishment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In an argument between "standard practice" in US penal institutions and a bunch of doctors telling me it's not good which correlates with other sources, I'm inclined to go with the doctors and say that whether you call it torture or not, it's not something that should reasonably be done to anyone without extreme justification.
If the aim were to "keep him alive" as suggested, there really ought to be a better way to do so without psychologically damaging him don't you think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hang on, you're saying that because we're doing it, therefore it isn't illegal? Have you not been paying attention for the last several years?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Evil America
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One law here in the US is that the military doesn't police their own people (State National Guard are not Federal Military)and that is a very good law.
There was a dickwad Lt. Col. that refused to deploy because he said Obama had no right to be president. He was convicted in his court marshal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Torture, cruel and unusual punishments, are immoral and indeed illegal.
Detaining someone without an expedient and just trial reminds me of another such incident, that is ongoing. Why can the US detain people without trial or prosecution of evidence? When North Korea did it they sent a former president to get the poor sods out.
Bad form, really bad form. The founding fathers would be ashamed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Torturing Manning?
The US jail and prison systems can do anything they want to do as long as they want to do it. They have reasons that justify it under the laws. I survived it and so will manning. I was committed for a misdemeanor to a state prison on a "safe keeping order" and went through far more hell than Manning and my crime was nothing compared to his.
Stop whining. The dude committed multiple felonies, broke his oath, stole documents that didn't belong to him and gave them to an asshole that published it.
He knew the consequences of his actions when he did it so he can live with it. He's no hero, the men and women fighting and keeping their honor in tact are the heroes and he put them in more danger.
Crawl out of your diapers and get over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just a couple of things to say.
Solitary confinement is used for people who are a threat to themselves or others (with special cases and such), but at no point (that I'm aware of, at least) was he violent in any way that would make someone fear for their safety or his. It's terrifying that we can now be locked up for months on end with about 90% of our day in utter silence... and not even see a trial of any kind. Whatever happened to our right to a speedy trial?
It's sad to hear what has happened, and is still happening to him... and honestly, this makes me ashamed to admit that I am a member of the United States.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF kind of headline is that, TechDirt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
solitary confinement is not considered torture under US rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Root cause?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Root cause?
Now, the downside is when no one else, or a minority, thinks as you do. So then you have to settle for writing your elected representatives. Have you? I know that it carries little weight on it's own, but my little email to my reps along with others, when they bother, may affect the decisions they make. Maybe.
The root cause of why we are where we are at, is that we have, a majority of us, have decided NOT to be actively involved in the political process. It is easier to yell at the TV about those 'damn union members coerced by Obama and the crooked union leaders' up in Wisconsin, but think about this. Who was out there protesting? I didn't see a lot of Conservative Republicans out there. Blame the media? Tired excuse.
WE have abrogated OUR RESPONSIBILITY to be INVOLVED! It's much more fun to yell at the TV, watch 'Idol' and go to church on Sunday and hear how the godless liberals will burn in hell.
Yeah, we are all SO good.
Mucro publicus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Assange was the publisher, no different than NYT, Guardian, etc.,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Assange was the publisher, no different than NYT, Guardian, etc.,
Unconstitutional
Mucro publicus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
-----------
The corollary to this is that it would be ok to "torture" Manning had he been convicted.
His treatment, however harsh, is irrelevant to his guilt or innocence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Logically speaking, "it's not OK to torture someone who hasn't been convicted of a crime" does not imply that it is OK to torture someone who has been. Though Mike could have made that more clear, and I think he did in later posts on this topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]