So After Torturing Bradley Manning For Months, US Officials Offer Him A Deal If He Says Assange 'Conspired' With Him

from the dirty-tricks dept

Fri, Dec 17th 2010 7:18am — Mike Masnick

This is hardly a surprise, but after locking up Bradley Manning in solitary confinement for seven months -- a condition that much of the world has deemed to be torture -- and looking for ways to use a computer hacking law to charge Julian Assange, rumors are that officials have offered Bradley Manning a plea deal, in which he would claim that Assange "conspired" with him to get and leak the documents. From all the info that's come out already, there's been little to suggest that there was any actual conspiring, but it appears that our Justice Department has decided (incorrectly) that Julian Assange is the more important target than Bradley Manning, and so it wants to bring Assange down.

Of course, as many have been saying all along, bringing charges against Assange, even with Manning accepting a plea bargain, will do serious harm to the US. It will highlight how the Justice Department twists laws in an attempt to harm the publisher of information, very much against the basic principles of the First Amendment. If this does come to pass, it will represent a massive chilling of free speech rights, from an administration that has put itself forth as a champion of such free speech rights around the globe. However, the one thing it won't do is actually chill such leaks from happening. As more and more competitors to Wikileaks pop up, you can bet that a legal attack on Assange will only increase the resolve of some of the folks behind those other offerings.

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, conspiracy, julian assange, plea bargain, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

177 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Paul In Canada, 17 Dec 2010 @ 7:22am

Can We Charge the Justice Officials in the Human Rights Court?
I wonder if we can charge all of the justice officials responisble in the European Court of Human Rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- interval (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 8:19am
  
  Re: Can We Charge the Justice Officials in the Human Rights Court?
  "I wonder if we can charge all of the justice officials responisble in the European Court of Human Rights?"
  
  That made me chuckle. To what end?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pixelation, 17 Dec 2010 @ 7:28am

Assanged
"If He Says Assanged 'Conspired' With Him"

You've coined a new term...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 7:39am
  
  Re: Assanged
  There are so many hilariously dirty ways to apply that word, I don't even know where to begin....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 7:51am
  
  Re: Assanged
  Assanged: -n To be violently made the center of ridicule for doing something that others have done and were considered correct in doing.
  
  Usage: I was assanged last night for two hours for saying someone had a nice shirt.
  
  Origin: 2010 political grandstanding against Wikileaks even though local media had reported about the documents before they were on Wikileaks
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 7:36am

I find it funny that for the most part, when there person who is the face of something the US doesn't like, one of two things happen.
1)If the person is just a face of group that has no real impact on situation, the US steps up, takes the spotlight, and parades around doing as much as possible.
2)If the person is just a face of a group the does have a real impact on the situation, the US quietly shuffles some paper and pretends to do something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 17 Dec 2010 @ 7:38am

Doesn't he have to be extradited first?
Before the US can charge Assange, doesn't he have to be extradited from his home country? What are the odds that his home country would allow that? I would hope that the US would not allow extradition of one of it's citizens in a case like this so the US should not expect Assange to be extradited either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 7:41am
  
  Re: Doesn't he have to be extradited first?
  Except that the some are saying that because he surrendered to British authorities, they may have the largest influence on extradition to the States. And since Britain has long proved to be America's bitch in matters of foreign policy and security, it'd probably be a forgone conclusion....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Designerfx (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 8:03am
    
    Re: Re: Doesn't he have to be extradited first?
    this, however, would be a mock of the international system and would likely spark some enormous issues in the EU.
    
    namely, think of those this sounds:
    
    "sweden wanted to take him to sweden, but instead we took him to the US for US charges".
    
    People are not prisoners to be cavorted around from country to country as each seeks to press charges for the individual. That is why extradition, by definition, is something that basically should not exist. Otherwise it's entirely possible someone could spend their entire life being ferreted to different countries on different charges for something whether proven or not. It also makes it impossible to mount a legal defense in any of them.
    
    Really, one citizen is expected to be able to hire lawyers in every single country that he's charged? good luck with that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 8:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Doesn't he have to be extradited first?
      "this, however, would be a mock of the international system and would likely spark some enormous issues in the EU."
      
      I've seen no evidence to date that British authorities give a rat's ass about the rest of the EU, nor their standing w/i it. They seem far more interested in prostrating themselves before America. Really, I wish they'd stop....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - interval (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 8:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Doesn't he have to be extradited first?
        "...likely spark some enormous issues in the EU."
        
        And?? Like anyone would care.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 9:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Doesn't he have to be extradited first?
        The probl;em is that the UK has soem reliance on the EU, and the EU could easily turn round and say 'tnx4play, nwfkoff' to the UK and then there'd be no-one to play with apart from the Americunts in power.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - crade (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 8:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Doesn't he have to be extradited first?
      The UK loves to make the EU mad anyway. I'm pretty sure it's the national passtime.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Hephaestus (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 8:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Doesn't he have to be extradited first?
        Kind of like germany making fun of scottsmen ... ;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dev, 17 Dec 2010 @ 8:50am
  
  Re: Doesn't he have to be extradited first?
  Since they are already trying to extradite him to Sweden, the US can jump the queue and attempt to extradite him first. Which many suspected the US would attempt when he was first "charged".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Haywood (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 9:28am
    
    Re: Re: Doesn't he have to be extradited first?
    "Which many suspected the US would attempt when he was first "charged"."
    
    I did.
    
    I still think the Swedes were being Americas bitch in the first place. It isn't without precedent, see The Pirate Bay.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dez (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 9:22am
  
  Re: Doesn't he have to be extradited first?
  No, you can be charged for a crime without being inside the country. That's when the extradition process can start.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 11:43am
  
  Re: Doesn't he have to be extradited first?
  Actually, no. He does not have to be extradited. He can be tried "in absentia".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 11:43am
  
  Re: Doesn't he have to be extradited first?
  Actually, no. He does not have to be extradited. He can be tried "in absentia".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 7:42am

Pledge
Liberty and justice for all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gabriel Tane (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 7:51am
  
  Re: Pledge
  Let me fix that...
  
  Liberty And Justice for All*
  
  *Subject to approval by authorities. Void where prohibited by our whims. No purchase necessary, only blind and unquestioning obedience required. Many, many restrictions apply. For a limited time only (that actually expired long, long ago).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PRMan, 17 Dec 2010 @ 10:40am
    
    Re: Re: Pledge
    No purchase necessary, but campaign contributions really help.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard Kulawiec, 17 Dec 2010 @ 7:44am

Let's suppose they get exactly what they want...
...then any competent defense attorney working for Assange will point out that Manning's statements were produced only after he was tortured and thus are not admissible as evidence. One would have thought they'd learned this lesson by now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 7:55am
  
  Re: Let's suppose they get exactly what they want...
  Then they would just define what they did as "not torture" (after all, they did not cut or threaten to cut any part of his body) and it magically becomes admissible.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Free Capitalist (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 8:11am
    
    Re: Re: Let's suppose they get exactly what they want...
    Then they would just define what they did as "not torture" (after all, they did not cut or threaten to cut any part of his body) and it magically becomes admissible.
    
    I think you are correct, this will not be deemed 'torture' in court. On the flip side, I would hope a defense lawyer could point out that Manning was clearly would have made the 'confession' under duress.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 6:37pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Let's suppose they get exactly what they want...
      Sleep deprivation, which Mannings has been subjected to, has been proven to cause permanent brain damage.
      
      The only difference is the damage is not readily visible.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
fogbugzd (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 7:48am

The fifth amendment is for things other than cop shows
The inquisition would torture people until they confessed. Part of the confession process was a requirement to give up the names of other conspirators.

Isn't that exactly what we have going on here? And what ever happened to the fifth amendment? I guess it went to join the first, fourth, and fourteenth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rich, 17 Dec 2010 @ 7:53am
  
  Re: The fifth amendment is for things other than cop shows
  The problem is when you join the military, you pretty much give up all your rights. This is why I back out of joining at the last minute.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - fogbugzd (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 8:29am
    
    Re: Re: The fifth amendment is for things other than cop shows
    You give up some rights, but not all. The prohibition against torture against US military personnel remains.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Johnny, 17 Dec 2010 @ 8:58am
  
  Re: The fifth amendment is for things other than cop shows
  The good old middle ages when you could "prove" any person's guilt by applying a bit of torture.
  
  Not a day goes by without the US government sinking to new lows.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 1:02pm
  
  Re: The fifth amendment is for things other than cop shows
  And the second.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 7:53am

How bad does it look to have the most powerful government on earth getting desperate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Capitalist (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 7:56am

'Torture' and the Never Known
As an aside to this article, and follow up to my comments on the original 'torture' article I want to say:

I feel the treatment Manning is going through is reprehensible. However this is far from uncommon in military prisons.

If you feel compassion for Manning's situation, give a thought to the many thousands of military personnel who suffered similar, if not more severe deprivations - no doubt there are many entirely innocent people among them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 9:15am
  
  Re: 'Torture' and the Never Known
  Let's put it this way: solitary confinement under US supervision probably has a higher quality of life than 95% of the world. And only Americans would claim this is torture. Now, go get in your BMW, drink that Starbucks, and lay in your comfortable bed. Two and a half men got cancelled?? Torture!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Call me Al, 17 Dec 2010 @ 9:25am
    
    Re: Re: 'Torture' and the Never Known
    Only Americans and the Europeans, probably the Australians, New Zealanders and perhaps the Japanese (not sure). That is a reasonable portion of the world and also those who wrote much of the international legislation so I'd say their opinion matters on this.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 9:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re: 'Torture' and the Never Known
      So you're saying we should ask the cushy, comfortable countries what they deem as torture? Spend a few years in Africa, or India and then we can talk about real struggle.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - crade (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 9:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Torture' and the Never Known
        So you're saying we should ask the cushy, comfortable countries what they deem as torture?
        
        No, saying that we *are* in a cushy, comfortable country, and thats what is deemed torture.
        Many of the wacky laws in many third world countries (fortunately) don't apply here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jim, 17 Dec 2010 @ 10:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Torture' and the Never Known
        You mean wacky laws like these?
        
        A law in Fairbanks, Alaska, does not allow moose to have sex on city streets.
        
        Arizona
        Donkeys may not sleep in bathtub
        
        Idaho
        the law states that all boxes of candy given as romantic gifts must weigh more than 50 pounds.
        
        -It is illegal for anyone to give lighted cigars to dogs, cats, and other domesticated animals kept as pets.
        
        Iowa
        -One armed piano players must play for free.
        -A man with a mustache can not kiss a woman in public.
        
        Louisiana
        -It is illegal to rob a bank, and then shoot the teller with a water pistol.
        
        Michigan
        -A woman is not allowed to cut her hair without her husbands permission.
        
        Minnesota
        -It is illegal to sleep naked.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        crade (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 10:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Torture' and the Never Known
        Yeah, I was thinking more the enforced kind :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The Infamous Joe (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 9:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Torture' and the Never Known
        I'm not sure what your point is, my Cowardly friend. Are you suggesting that locking a man from Africa in a cell for 3 months straight will have different results than locking a man from America? The people in those "cushy, comfortable countries" have educated people who have studied the effects of isolation on *humans*. They call it torture.
        
        Be aware, I'm not saying that being in prison is torture-- I will grant you that prisons in the US are much better living conditions than many places in the world. Hell, here in Massachusetts we spent a good deal of money outfitting our prisons with flatscreen TVs. (For reasons I can't understand-- at the time *I* didn't own a flatscreen TV)
        
        I suspect the reason you do not feel it is torture is because you aren't capable of imagining constant isolation, which is much different that "a little 'me' time". Please read the Wikipedia article on Solitary Confinement, including the references to the studies at the bottom, and educate yourself.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 12:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Torture' and the Never Known
        Look, the guy's both an American and a soldier. He deserves a fair trial. Which he would never get if he were not isolated from the other prisoners on account of being dead. The very same people who are crying torture now would cry even louder after the fact that he was not segregated for his own safety.
        
        Bottom line, if the only people alleging torture are online pundits (not his military lawyers, not him, and not his civilian lawyers), then it's not freaking torture.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Free Capitalist (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 9:41am
    
    Re: Re: 'Torture' and the Never Known
    And only Americans would claim this is torture.
    
    I am an American, but I did not call this treatment torture as it is pretty standard operating procedure. I called it reprehensible, though implied permitted, treatment, especially for accused before trial.
    
    None of my representatives oversee third world countries where daily life carries more deprivations than solitary in a U.S. military prison, so the point is moot and ad hominem. However, I can wish that people serving my country are treated with fair justice by our own standards and appropriate to the military. This they do deserve, and it's not impossible to modify the UCMJ for the better.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jim, 17 Dec 2010 @ 10:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re: 'Torture' and the Never Known
      "pretty standard operating procedure" doesn't make it any less torturous.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Free Capitalist (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 10:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Torture' and the Never Known
        "pretty standard operating procedure" doesn't make it any less torturous.
        
        You'll get no disagreement from me there.
        
        However, using the standard for torture being discussed here, basic military training could be deemed torture.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 12:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Torture' and the Never Known
        Nah, it's not torture if you sign up for it, just masochism. And after a couple months of being completely physically and mentally exhausted from when I woke up until I finally hit the sack again, I would have paid money for a few months in solitary though.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 10:35am
    
    Re: Re: 'Torture' and the Never Known
    Not torture?
    
    Have a free clue.
    
    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_gawande
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 1:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: 'Torture' and the Never Known
      Erm, the NewYorker is hardly an authoritative source. Not that there is an authoritative source on the human mind.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 7:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Torture' and the Never Known
        The Mighty Blowhard strikes again!
        
        Try reading the sources the New Yorker cites, that is even if you read the article (Hint: you didn't)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Any Mouse, 17 Dec 2010 @ 2:32pm
    
    Re: Re: 'Torture' and the Never Known
    I am an American. I'm disabled, living in a house of less than 500sqft with a furnace that barely works, and the average temperature this time of year is well below freezing. We struggle to even put food in the pantry. We have no car, we don't eat out, and we've got a bed that should have been replaced 20 years ago, but we can't afford to do that.
    
    Now, if you're done assuming all Americans are rich and comfortable, maybe I can start to take you seriously, but I doubt it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Aboo, 17 Dec 2010 @ 6:49pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: 'Torture' and the Never Known
      I'd suggest you save the coin you spend on the internet for a few months and buy yourself a new bed. "A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step..." and all that.
      
      Or just pick one up on Craigslist. Everybody knows somebody with a pick-up truck and some free time this time of year. :)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 19 Dec 2010 @ 9:34am
    
    Re: Re: 'Torture' and the Never Known
    "Let's put it this way: solitary confinement under US supervision probably has a higher quality of life than 95% of the world."
    
    Not true. Solitary confinement is one of the most terrible things a person can go through. It doesn't matter one white how physically comfortable the subject may be -- our need for social contact is such that it is a far greater torture to be physically comfortable but without contact than to be living in physically torturous conditions but be able to interact with other people.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
iamtheky (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 8:02am

They probably have a hard time understanding that kids these days would jack a couple hundred thousand classed files to acquire a new avatar on a forum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Howard the Duck, 17 Dec 2010 @ 8:10am

OMG!
Solitary is torture now? Next: Pedicures, WAR CRIME?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 8:21am
  
  Re: OMG!
  Let's throw you into solitary for seven months and see what you would confess to just to get out.
  
  There's a large difference between physiological torture and physical torture.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 9:35am
    
    Re: Re: OMG!
    Solitary confinement under US supervision has a higher quality of like than most of the world.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 9:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re: OMG!
      Well, does solitary torture in the US have different life altering psychological effects than anywhere else? Do you know what happens to someone who spends 23 hours a day to himself in a small room?
      
      Of course you don't. You're just a torture stooge for the United States Department of Pain and Suffering. Go back to waterboarding.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 9:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG!
        Torture Stooge, he was my favorite.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 10:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG!
        Sip your Starbucks, you're fine.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 11:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG!
        Yep, just ignore the plight of others and just sit back sipping your expensive coffee. Don't worry we won't come after you, we promise. You can trust us, we're the government.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 12:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG!
        Well, does solitary torture in the US have different life altering psychological effects than anywhere else?
        
        Yes, because you are not lying on dirt, but rather a climate controlled environment.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gabriel Tane (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 8:22am
  
  Re: OMG!
  "Solitary is torture now?"
  
  Yes.
  
  Here, since it's a few clicks in... I understand...
  http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning/
  
  In 2006, a bipartisan National Commission on America's Prisons was created and it called for the elimination of prolonged solitary confinement. Its Report [link below] documented that conditions whereby "prisoners end up locked in their cells 23 hours a day, every day. . . is so severe that people end up completely isolated, living in what can only be described as torturous conditions." The Report documented numerous psychiatric studies of individuals held in prolonged isolation which demonstrate "a constellation of symptoms that includes overwhelming anxiety, confusion and hallucination, and sudden violent and self-destructive outbursts." The above-referenced article from the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law states: "Psychological effects can include anxiety, depression, anger, cognitive disturbances, perceptual distortions, obsessive thoughts, paranoia, and psychosis." Link mentioned in quote: http://www.prisoncommission.org/pdfs/Confronting_Confinement.pdf
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 1:06pm
    
    Re: Re: OMG!
    If you want to be taken remotely seriously by anyone not already in your camp, pulling your quotes from salon.com is not the way to go. They're screaming their heads off while his own lawyers aren't complaining. Smacks a bit of sensationalist bullshit to me.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gabriel Tane (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 1:34pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: OMG!
      Did you read the report that they linked to and quoted from? Is that written by the 'Limbaugh�s and Hannity's' (which, I dislike those guys too, by the way).
      
      And lawyers don't usually "scream their heads off" because public outrage and grandstanding hurts your case. Do they think their client doesn't have much of a case? I don't know and neither do you... but just because they are quiet doesn't mean that they don't believe just as strongly.
      
      Oh, any by the way, to which camp do I belong? I'd be interested to know.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 1:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG!
        Clarification: "camp", in this instance, meaning the this is torture side of this particular argument.
        
        But, again for clarification, you're saying his lawyers would keep silent about torture of their client to win their case? While I generally have a pretty low opinion of lawyers, that stretches even my scorn of them to the breaking point.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gabriel Tane (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 7:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG!
        I'd rather have my lawyer focusing on my defense and keeping his mouth shut than have him standing on soapboxes pontificating and possibly painting my defense into a corner.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- interval (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 8:23am
  
  Re: OMG!
  "Howard the Duck"??? Wow, I'm surprised anyone remembers 'ol Howard. I had the entire run of comics marvel put out under my bed. Too bad the movie was so awful.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - crade (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 8:27am
    
    Re: Re: OMG!
    That through me back too!
    Howard the Duck was 50% of my exposure to comics when I was young.
    For some reason my dad only ever collected
    "Nick Fury agent of shield"
    and
    "Howard the Duck"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PRMan, 17 Dec 2010 @ 10:45am
      
      Re: Re: Re: OMG!
      Wasn't that back when Nick Fury was white?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - crade (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 11:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG!
        That was back when *everyone* was white :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 1:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG!
        No, even his Howling Commando, pre-eyepatch days were after the monocolor culture ended in comics.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        crade (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 2:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG!
        sgt. fury and the Howling Commandos!, those are the ones I was thinking of. Technically, I may have been exagerating a bit. There was even a black guy on the howling commandos. It was still pretty rare to see in comics from that time though.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 2:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG!
        From before that time, really. The Howling Commandos had Gabriel Jones (black) and Izzy Cohen (Jewish), so they were fairly progressive for the time. I think it was around 65-75 that most of the changes happened. Most notably to me are the X-Men (entire series is about racism really) and the Plato's Stepchildren episode of Star Trek (first interracial kiss on network TV).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 9:41am
  
  Re: OMG!
  I only hope he got his weekly ice cream, else the US will be seen as even more inhumane to those "innocent" people who only divulged classified information.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- airbrthr (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 12:09pm
  
  Re: OMG!
  Solitary confinement is torture, dude. If I had my choise of how they were going to torture me, I'd pick a week of solitary before a half hour of volts to the nutz, but I'd pick an hour of volts to the nutz before a month in the hole. you, obviously, have no idea...
  
  you'd be crying for your mama after 3 days, tuff guy.
  
  Not torture?!? what an ass-inine comment!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 1:13pm
    
    Re: Re: OMG!
    Well, it would save all the money and bother of a trial if we let him out into general population.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 3:12pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: OMG!
      Well, it would save all the money and bother of a trial if we let him out into general population.
      
      I think we've heard enough of you bragging in various comments about what your buddies would to him. Yeah, we know what you and your type do, but you're not scaring me. I still thumb my nose at you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 6:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG!
        Yes, yes. You're so very special and witty without adding anything whatsoever to the conversation. Time for your Ritalin now.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 7:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG!
        Funny blowhard, because I think we would all say the same about you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 8:21am

Don't do it, dude...
I've seen this movie: they blow up Alderaan anyway!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greevar (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 8:30am

If they continue to piss on the first amendment like this, Americans are going to revolt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 1:20pm
  
  Re:
  Wait, what? I could see a 6th amendment argument, possibly, on the grounds of he's having to stay in jail several months before trial. But 1st amendment? Get a clue. Espionage laws have been held constitutional for a very long time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Greevar (profile), 19 Dec 2010 @ 8:10am
    
    Re: Re:
    I'm talking about the powers-that-be trying to censor things like Wikileaks by way of criminalizing those whom operate the site in order to prevent the distribution of information they want kept secret. The government would be accused of violating the first amendment if they blocked the site directly, but by this indirect method, they can still censor without appearing to be violating free speech. By accusing Assange of criminal acts, they can censor the site by elimination.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Revelati, 17 Dec 2010 @ 8:48am

"If they continue to piss on the first amendment like this, Americans are going to revolt."

Most Americans know all that ammendment crap is for fine upstanding folk, not accused of crimes. In fact the only type of people who talk about that stuff are commies, or worse! (socialists)

Want to see a real revolt? Take gas prices over $4.00 again, why do you think the tea party got started?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 8:58am
  
  Re:
  "Want to see a real revolt? Take gas prices over $4.00 again, why do you think the tea party got started?"
  
  Ugh, I hope that's not the case. Of all the things to revolt against, I would hope higher gas prices wouldn't be one of them...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PRMan, 17 Dec 2010 @ 10:45am
    
    Re: Re:
    And yet, deep down inside, you know he's right...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 1:21pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Nope, it'll be the porn tube sites getting shut down for IP violations that does it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 12:42pm
  
  Re:
  Actually Socialism sucks as does Communism. You are no doubt too young and/or too stupid to understand that. Lucky for you you are growing up in a time when your peers are just as stupid.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 2:55pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Dude, please don't argue something I agree with unless you can do it well. It's bad enough Hannity does it so poorly every night.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 3:16pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Actually Socialism sucks as does Communism. You are no doubt too young and/or too stupid to understand that. Lucky for you you are growing up in a time when your peers are just as stupid.
    
    He *said* socialism is even worse than communism. What of that didn't you understand?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greevar (profile), 19 Dec 2010 @ 8:25am
  
  Re:
  Actually, you're wrong about the tea party. It had nothing to do with the price of tea. What the problem was that the Bank of England got the king to outlaw the colonies' prosperous, interest-free, fiat currency. Then, they raised taxes to astronomical levels to siphon out as much legal currency as possible, which led to massive poverty. That is what caused the Boston Tea Party.
  
  Constitutional rights are not just for "upstanding citizens", they apply to every American, regardless of their level of criminality. Only once you are proven guilty of a crime are you denied certain rights.
  
  Furthermore, your usage of the terms commie and socialist exposes your massive ignorance to their meaning. Communism is a system of a stateless and classless society. Ownership of labor belong to all citizens equally. Whereas socialism retains the power of state, but gives all citizens equal ownership to the means of production. What you assume socialism is, is actually a dictatorship. That is not socialism.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 8:59am

Please cite sources for "Solitary = Torture"
Mike, please stop using eye-catching headlines that are not substantiated in the article.

"locking up Bradley Manning in solitary confinement for seven months -- a condition that much of the world has deemed to be torture"

How much of the world has deemed it torture?

You quite often ask for the recording and movie industries to substantiate their statistics. Please do the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 9:11am
  
  Re: Please cite sources for "Solitary = Torture"
  Is it really that difficult to read links?
  
  http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 9:37am
    
    Re: Re: Please cite sources for "Solitary = Torture"
    Salon would consider this torture? How incredibly surprising!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Howard the Duck, 17 Dec 2010 @ 10:11am
    
    Re: Re: Please cite sources for "Solitary = Torture"
    I see the word "opinion" in that link. Is "cabin fever" torture too? What does the other 80% of the world think?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 11:23am
    
    Re: Re: Please cite sources for "Solitary = Torture"
    No, it's not difficult to read the article at the end of the links provided, but it is apparently difficult for many people to employ the critical thinking skills that enable a person to differentiate between opinion and fact.
    
    Next time cite some source other than Salon or the Huffington Post.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gabriel Tane (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 11:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Please cite sources for "Solitary = Torture"
      "but it is apparently difficult for many people to employ the critical thinking skills that enable a person to differentiate between opinion and fact."
      You're right... as you just demonstrated yourself. Until legislation is passed at some level describing what is and is not torture, it is a matter of opinion. The question, then, is whose opinion is weighed more by those making decisions based on that opinion (such as those who may wish to prosecute Manning or the government for engaging such tactics). And if these articles are citing sources such as independent, non-partisan groups/think-tanks/activists who themselves use the input of psychologists, psychiatrists, and experienced detainees... I'd say that gives them a bit of weight.
      
      So again, until a law is passed one way or the other, there is no 'fact' regarding what is or is not torture.
      
      "Next time cite some source other than Salon or the Huffington Post."
      Why, because they express an opinion other than yours?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - airbrthr (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 12:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Please cite sources for "Solitary = Torture"
        I draw your attention to the 3rd Geneva Convention, Part III, Sections I and II. Various - and specific - requirements for treatment of individuals are outlined there-in; any treatment of idividuals that falls 'outside' these specific requirements is torture.
        
        Jason, do your own look-ups.
        
        Article 25 is generally considered one of the main prohibitions against solitary confinement.
        
        adherence to the specifics of Article 38 prevents prisoner isolation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 1:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please cite sources for "Solitary = Torture"
        I guess reading isn't your strong suit:
        
        Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area.
        
        When Manning gets named a prisoner of war (as opposed to just a military guy that violated the law) we can talk. Further, he is in a similar billeting as all other jackwagons who sent out 250,000 secret and confidential documents to a wingnut like Assange.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 1:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Please cite sources for "Solitary = Torture"
        Because you don't even have to read salon/huffington to know what they're going to say. The actual sites and people behind them could be replaced with a very small perl script. They are the Limbaughs and Hannitys of the left, with just as much credibility and rationality.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse, 17 Dec 2010 @ 2:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please cite sources for "Solitary = Torture"
        The Right has just as little credibility and rationality. Blaming someone's political leanings isn't rational. Hell, /belief/ isn't rational, that's why it's called belief. But it doesn't seem to matter in the slightest to you, does it? You toss out bullshit like 'if he was in the general population he'd be dead.' Nothing that could be supported by fact, just your personal belief.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 3:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please cite sources for "Solitary = Torture"
        I'm sorry, did pointing to Limbaugh and Hannity as examples of that happening on the right make me seem like I was saying only the left did it?
        
        And a blah blah blah to your complaints of my concern for his safety in GP. If you disagree, state why. It's clearly an opinion topic and you're entitled to yours, even if I afterward declare it stupid.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Paddy Duke (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 6:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Please cite sources for "Solitary = Torture"
      You got a source for that?
      
      No, not that source! I don�t like that source.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jason, 17 Dec 2010 @ 9:18am
  
  Re: Please cite sources for "Solitary = Torture"
  Good morning, and welcome to the internet's world wide web! If this is your first visit, please note that specially colored text is a popular convention used to distinguish hypertext or text with built-in hyperlinks. Hyperlinks are a network reference tool that allow the user to immediately jump to information in the same document or in any of bahjillions of documents anywhere on the web!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
JJ, 17 Dec 2010 @ 9:03am

If it had been 200 years ago, he'd be hung as a spy.. Just sayin...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Any Mouse, 17 Dec 2010 @ 2:45pm
  
  Re:
  If it had been 200 years ago, the point would be moot, as there wouldn't be 250,000 cables lying around on a computer system to be copied and distributed so easily. Just sayin...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael Lockyear, 17 Dec 2010 @ 9:06am

Americans let their government get away with:
1) Holding people without trial.
2) Kidnapping people and shipping them off to countries where they probably got tortured.
3) Killing innocent people (some of them journalists) and trying to cover it up.
4) Running assassination campaigns in foreign countries.
5) Going to war on the basis of lies.

I suspect that we will soon be able to soon add charging Julian Assange with exercising free speech to this list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard Kulawiec, 17 Dec 2010 @ 10:58am
  
  Re:
  Y'know, it's occurred to me that if EVERY military officer and EVERY politician and EVERY corporate officer around the world had the conscience that Bradley Manning has displayed, there would be no need for Wikileaks to exist.
  That's not reality, of course. Hence the need for Wikileaks and a thousand more just like it. They're coming. Get used to it. Because no government on this planet, nor all of them together, are capable of stopping it. (And those governments know it, which is so many of them are frightened out of their minds.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 1:32pm
    
    Re: Re:
    If that ever actually happened, it would last about five minutes. After that they would be dead and ruthless bastards would again be in power.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 17 Dec 2010 @ 3:12pm
      
      Re: ... and ruthless bastards would again be in power.
      So what you�re saying is that good can never triumph over evil.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 3:38pm
        
        Re: Re: ... and ruthless bastards would again be in power.
        Neither completely nor for any significant amount of time, no. Not for any grand ideological reason either. Simply because humans are, each and every one, a mixture of both.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 12:27pm
  
  Re:
  Ahh geez, another lackey.
  
  1) You don't hold people without trial, you hold them pending trial. The time of pending is determined by the system, not by the individual charged.
  2) Sort of a catch22 here. If someone is wanted or is a criminal in another country, and the US respects their extradition or rights in the case, what's the point? "probably" is right up there with "maybe" in the certainty scale.
  3) In war, some innocent people die. More so when the chickensh-t enemy hides amongst women and children, and uses them as human shields.
  4) unproven. Oh, the terrorists in Pakistan? You mean you support terrorists?
  5) It wasn't a lie, it was bad intelligence. Oh yeah, it was also a Republicant.
  
  If Mr Assange broke the law (and I am pretty sure he has in some way) he will get charged. Free speech does not excuse illegal means used to obtain source material.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gabriel Tane (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 12:51pm
    
    Re: Re:
    1) no argument there... but what about holding him in solitary 'pending trial'? I'm not sure if there's law against it, but it really looks bad on the people who are 'just holding him awaiting trial'... especially when they offer to let him out if he agrees to a conspiracy rap.
    
    2) Michael was talking about Manning, not Assange. I think he was talking about GITMO, but even that's not really a 'foreign country'.
    
    3) have you read the cables? Read about them here... http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20001802-38.html. That's not baddies hiding amongst civvies... that's soldiers shooting at the wrong guys. Yes, the heat of battle causes confusion, but two questions:
    
    A) if it was a simple mistake, why hide it? We've made mistakes before and they were publicized.
    B) if it was a mistake, why did Manning think it needed to be 'uncovered'?
    
    4) Unproven or not, that was the worst accusational ad hominim and non sequitor I've heard in a while... "oh you like terrorists?" Really?
    
    5) also unproven in my opinion.
    
    Finally, Mr. Assange's guilt is also unproven. Michael is wrong that he should be granted all of our constitutional rights; Assange is not a US citizen. However, given how hard the government is scrambling to find something to accuse him of, it's hard to image him guilty of much other than giving the US a black eye by airing our dirty laundry. And, by the by, your argument that he will be charged if he broke the law is backwards... he could be charged one way or the other... it's the results that state his guilt or innocence.
    
    And the whistle-blowing provision shows that there is some excuse for illegal action in gaining materials to be expressed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 4:05pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      1) plenty of prisoners in plenty of prisons in the US spend time in solitary confinement pending trial (or during the process). That can be for reasons that vary from their own bad acts in custody to protection from other prisoners. As for "you can get out if you make a deal", last time I looked the prosecution often makes deals with various criminals to reduce their sentences or change their incarceration conditions to make a deal. Are you suggesting all of them have been somehow tortured?
      
      2) GITMO is the US, just as the military base that Manning was working in was in the US.
      
      3) Sometimes there is the issue of "can't see the forest for the trees". You see it often used on opinion sites like this, where rather than discuss the full issue at hand, they instead focus on minutia, on the leaf on a single tree. While accidental civilian deaths are bad, and nobody supports them, reporting of them openly could end up changing public opinion, because it is what the media would focus on. it comes to the very heart of the argument as to why there are confidential and secret documents and reports, because sometimes the government doesn't want to end up in a battle about twigs, because they have forests to handle.
      
      (I know, it sucks... but it is reality).
      
      4) Killing terrorists, regardless of which side of a randomly drawn line that it happens on, should be applauded. Making sure they understand that they cannot hide by crossing a border between two regions is an important part of making them less comfortable. If you are for respecting those borders no matter what, one could wonder how you feel about the terrorists.
      
      5) of course it is unproven, and will never be proven otherwise. Well, maybe in 100 years. But for the moment, we have to accept to some extent that the guy in charge had reason. I don't agree with him, but constantly doubting and hating on your leader at some point isn't doing anyone any good.
      
      Mr Assange is the second part of a conspiracy to "expose the governement". Basically, Manning stole the documents, and Assange is the willing anarchist willing to put them on the internet and take the heat. Without Assange, Manning's acts would have been despicable but meaningless. With Assange, they are a danger to US relations, US troops, and even potentially to world peace.
      
      I would even go as far as to say without Assange, Manning likely would not have copied / replicated / downloads the documents in question, because he would have had no use for them.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 4:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        4) Killing terrorists, regardless of which side of a randomly drawn line that it happens on, should be applauded.
        
        You are aware that there are those who consider the US government to have engaged in terrorism, aren't you? So you would applaud the killing of US government officials and forces?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Michael Lockyear, 18 Dec 2010 @ 2:48am
        
        I am glad someone has pointed this out. No-one really minds when a bully get his ass whipped (other than the bully of course).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2010 @ 2:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, yes. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad thinks so. Then again, he thinks the holocaust is a story made up by Jews to get world sympathy. I am sure there are some people in the Pakistan mountains that think that way too (about 50 less today than last week... good shot!).
        
        There is always another side, there is always another opinion. But the battlefield of war doesn't stop at some invisible line in the ground, and those who choose to think so can eat drone food.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Gabriel Tane (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 7:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        1) Feel free to supply citation for how many prisoners are kept in prison solitary confinement awaiting trial for 5 months. And I mean that as kept in solitary for 5 months... I know many people wait in prison longer than that awaiting trial.
        
        And let me add one more caveat to keep us looking at apples here: Only prisoner's awaiting initial trial... not those found guilty but are in the processes of appealing.
        
        2) we're on the same page as this, and really, it's not a big deal to the conversation at hand... we can drop this one.
        
        3) I really don't see it as "losing the forest for the trees". Nice dodge though. You didn�t' address the fact that the cable I mentioned speaks very loudly for how this war is being conducted. Does stuff like this happen in war? Sure. But why hide it when we've been called out on similar instances?
        
        " While accidental civilian deaths are bad, and nobody supports them, reporting of them openly could end up changing public opinion, because it is what the media would focus on."
        Would you prefer such blatant propaganda to truth and full-disclosure?
        
        4) your statement was still an ad-hominim attack. You said, basically, "you don't agree with the 'assassination programs'? Oh, you must support terrorists". In my opinion: bad form.
        
        5) No we don't have to accept the fact that the person who got us into these wars "had reason". If his reasons were wrong, evil and monetary, why the hell would we 'accept' them? That's the attitude that will keep us in this war long after it should be done (�Oh it�s okay� President XYZ has a reason to keep us there�). Constantly doubting and hating the leader we had is pointless... you're right... but questioning our government's actions is (and let me emphasize this)~ahem~ EXACTLY WHAT THIS COUNTRY IS ALL ABOUT
        
        And I'd really like to see some kind of backup on this 'conspiracy'. Again, as I stated before, if the government knew it was a conspiracy and have proof thereof, why are they having to offer plea deals w/ Manning to get a 'confession'?
        
        And saying that without Assange Manning would not have released those documents is not only fallacious logic, it's also foolish. He could have released it to news stations all over the world; he could have created a blog and posted them there; he could have sold them to our enemies. Wikileaks is NOT the only source out there. And, speaking of which, even if Assange himself wasn't there, Wikileaks would still be.
        
        And Assange is a willing anarchist? Funny how this 'anarchist' has been given awards for blowing the whistle on some pretty damned despicable acts on other countries. So why is it so evil when it's our actions under the microscope?
        
        And your last statement:
        "I would even go as far as to say without Assange, Manning likely would not have copied / replicated / downloads the documents in question, because he would have had no use for them."
        I'm glad you'd go that far, but it's the wrong direction regardless how far you go. As I mentioned, Wikileaks is not Assange and would continue operating without him and Wikileaks is/was not Manning's only option. Sorry.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 9:06am

But Manning is Traitor
And as such there should be a court-martial and then his execution by firing squad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Infamous Joe (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 9:21am
  
  Re: But Manning is Traitor
  A court-marshal would be nice. He hasn't even gotten that yet.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 1:51pm
    
    Re: Re: But Manning is Traitor
    Yeah, I've got a beef myself with what passes for a speedy trial these days. My county currently has about a month and a half wait in jail if you can't make bail before they give you a trial. For anything.
    
    If everyone were arguing speedy trial rather than screaming sensationalist, unsubstantiated torture allegations, I'd be right there with them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jason, 17 Dec 2010 @ 9:33am
  
  Re: But Manning is Traitor
  You suggest that he's guilty of treason? Perhaps you should read up on the US definition of that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 9:18am

So, in return for a shorter sentence, the government tells alleged "criminals" to make stories against other alleged "criminals," regardless of how much basis those stories have in truth, so that they can have "evidence" against those other criminals to (potentially falsely) convince them.

Even if Bradley does make up the conspiring story against Assange, I don't see how any reasonable court can possibly accept this as evidence. Any real criminal would probably make up stories in a second in return for a lesser punishment, how can a court ever accept such a bribed admission against someone else as evidence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 9:18am
  
  Re:
  convict them *
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 9:38am

Well, we know the UK probably doesn't consider solitary torture, since they have been doing it themselves.

There was a post here talking about this "torture" and it seemed like Techdirt had not made up its mind. Today it is torture. Either a slow newsday, trollbait or you made up your mind quickly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 9:57am
  
  Re:
  Having protested at the same treatment of Ian Huntley (NOT the crimes he commited, which were horrible), I can say that I will call this torture, no matter the circumstances.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 9:49am

Here. Another "Solitary = Torture" article with plenty of real-world examples, including POWs explaining why the solitude was so bad, given what else they were experiencing.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_gawande
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PaleoSapiens, 17 Dec 2010 @ 9:50am

Torture???
You cite incompetent authorities on torture? Next you'll believe that anything making anyone uncomfortable is torture.
Welcome to the bandwagon of arbitrary definitions and the Orwellian world of 1984...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 9:55am
  
  Re: Torture???
  If you'd actually read the article (which, given its length, I doubt you have), you'd know that it also references various respectable sources.
  
  Furthermore, and relevant to this issue, it talks about how the UK has already made an attempt at going down the road the US is taking but realized that it was counter-productive and reversed the trend.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- airbrthr (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 12:44pm
  
  Re: Torture???
  wait.
  
  a POW with personal experience of 'why I think solitary sucks' is an "incompetent authority?"
  
  so... how can I put this nicely, and constructively...
  
  yer a moron.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 12:52pm
    
    Re: Re: Torture???
    To whom are you referring when you use "POW"? You personally? Someone else?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Darryl, 17 Dec 2010 @ 9:54am

Allways trying to justify crime..
months, he's a traitor, he'll be there for years, and after that, he's screwed. who is going to trust a moron, traitor, who put his follow military 'friends' in mortal danger.

He's in solitary because if he was mixed with the rest in military prison. They would kill him.

there is a military disipline act, that hold those who sign onto it, to a higher legal standard that civil laws.

There are some things (alot of them) that you can do as a civilan but you most certainly cannot do in the military.

If you break those laws, you face military court, and receive military punishment in a military prison.

This manning, like everyone else who is in the military SIGNED this document, and are bound by its rules and laws.

There is no doubt therefore that he is guilty of breaking both military and civil laws. And the fact that he handed or made availible that information to assange, means he conspired with him.

even if he did not directly talk to assange, he was aware what assange does with such information, so it was a complicit agreement.

The conspiracy to gather secrets and make them public is what wikileaks is. so yes, to give wikileaks information, without even talking to them, is conspiring to commit.

If you find something in the street, of value, if you keep it you have conspired to commit a crime, and you have commited a crime. If you take that item and hand it into police you have not commited a crime, and you have conspired with yourself or any other group to commit a crime.

As soon as manning made that information available to wikileaks he conspired with assange and wikileaks to release that information, which is an illegal act because its the use of stolen goods (at the least) for the purpose of making money..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gabriel Tane (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 10:21am
  
  Re: Allways trying to justify crime..
  Hi Darryl... make yourself comfy...
  
  "months, he's a traitor, he'll be there for years, and after that, he's screwed. who is going to trust a moron, traitor, who put his follow military 'friends' in mortal danger.:
  Once again... for however many times this is... be so kind as to produce even a shred of evidence that this has caused or could cause any harm to American soldiers.
  
  "He's in solitary because if he was mixed with the rest in military prison. They would kill him."
  I'm glad you're an expert on prison psychology. But even if you're right (yeah, I know...), solitary is not the only option for keeping him separated from general population.
  
  "there is a military disipline act, that hold those who sign onto it, to a higher legal standard that civil laws."
  Feel free to post a reference. I'm glad you would hold our soldiers to a higher standard. Personally, I would hold my elected officials to the higher standard. But that's neither here nor there. What is here is which crime he broke. If it�s just being unethical, that�s called Conduct Unbecoming and is not treason.
  
  "If you break those laws, you face military court, and receive military punishment in a military prison."
  And the fact that he hasn't had a trial yet factors into your reasoning how?
  
  "This manning, like everyone else who is in the military SIGNED this document, and are bound by its rules and laws."
  So you do have basic understanding of the concept of contractual obligation... now, care to point out where in that contract it states solitary confinement as the pre-trial holding for supposed treason?
  
  "There is no doubt therefore that he is guilty of breaking both military and civil laws. And the fact that he handed or made availible that information to assange, means he conspired with him."
  So because he is being held by authorities, he's 'obviously guilty'. Wow Darryl, I haven't seen a abortion of justice so horribly exemplified in a loong time. And, how does any of what you've said back up a claim that just because he leaked documents he was 'obvioulsy conspiring'? I'll wait for proof from you, but I'm not holding my breath.
  
  I'm not sure what you mean by 'complicit agreement'... did he agree to allow Assange to post the documents? Yeah, I'm pretty sure he did. In fact, I think he even admitted to that. So, what are you getting at?
  
  "The conspiracy to gather secrets and make them public is what wikileaks is. so yes, to give wikileaks information, without even talking to them, is conspiring to commit."
  No... that's what you accuse them of being. Me, Mike, DH, hell, a lot of people around here... not to mention all over the damned world... including the people who gave Wikileaks an award for uncovering conspiracies in the past... yeah we all believe that Wikileaks is about transparancy of goverment actions.
  
  "If you find something in the street, of value, if you keep it you have conspired to commit a crime, and you have commited a crime. If you take that item and hand it into police you have not commited a crime, and you have conspired with yourself or any other group to commit a crime."
  Do I even have to try on this one? Wow man. Try here: http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c103.htm. According to 18 U.S.C. 371, a conspiracy must have multiple people who have reached an agreement to act in such a way as to break another law. Someone just picking up something on the street is not a conspiracy. And before you mention that he's a soldier under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 18 of the UCMJ states that there must be more than one person. You can't 'conspire with yourself'.
  Jezzus Darryl... how bad are you trying to stretch here?
  
  "As soon as manning made that information available to wikileaks he conspired with assange and wikileaks to release that information, which is an illegal act because its the use of stolen goods (at the least) for the purpose of making money.."
  So now we're talking about what? Theft? Copyright infringement? Darryl, we're talking about an accusation of treason... which is NOT what you just described. I wish it was just theft... then the poor guy would be facing a bit of brig-time and be done.
  
  As far as your statement there of it being a conspiracy... if it was a conspiracy, and they had proof (look out! that's a dirty word apparently!), why would the be offering him a deal if he admits to conspiracy? Hmm... good question.
  
  In case you missed this, we�re talking about the fact that he�s being held in solitary before being found guilty and sentenced. Which is outside of due-process.
  
  Now that you've been let out and had a bit of exercise, why don't you go lay down again before you hurt yourself.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 1:03pm
    
    Re: Re: Allways trying to justify crime..
    Gabriel, allow me to point out some idiocies in your post.
    
    "So because he is being held by authorities, he's 'obviously guilty'."
    
    And then you say:
    
    "did he agree to allow Assange to post the documents? Yeah, I'm pretty sure he did. In fact, I think he even admitted to that. "
    
    The problem lies in the fact that you don't think anyone is guilty of anything until they have had their trial. Some times a trial IS just a formality. Nobody is saying Manning didn't release the documents. He IS a criminal.
    
    The law says a lawyer cannot defend a person whom they believe to be guilty. Lawyers get around this by saying nobody is guilty until a jury says so. This isn't reality, just legal bullshit. Example, O.J. did kill his wife, EVERYBODY with a brain knows it. To say he is innocent according to the law is one thing, to say he isn't guilty of having done it is another. Manning may or may not be guilty of treason but he is a criminal. Let him rot, Americans already have lost too many of their real freedoms and liberties because of criminals.
    
    Board a plane, ridiculous, loss of liberty. Buy a gun, further ridiculousness because criminals use them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gabriel Tane (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 1:27pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Allways trying to justify crime..
      You're right... there is a difference between being guilty-in-belief and guilty by law. I was pointing out Darryl's error in assuming that just because he was in custody then that's proof of his guilt. Which is fallacious.
      
      "The problem lies in the fact that you don't think anyone is guilty of anything until they have had their trial.
      And they're not. You cannot just toss someone in jail even after they've admitted to guilt. There are still processes that have to be followed.
      
      "The law says a lawyer cannot defend a person whom they believe to be guilty. "
      Another fallacy... A lawyer must recuse themselves if their personal feelings about the accused create a conflict with their ability to give them fair representation. The whole cornerstone of our legal system is that every single person gets the opportunity to have a fair trial where both sides have the chance to make their argument.
      
      "This isn't reality, just legal bullshit.
      Well, guess which one matters in court... and matters in the legality of the manner of detention of the accused.
      
      "Example, O.J. did kill his wife, EVERYBODY with a brain knows it. To say he is innocent according to the law is one thing, to say he isn't guilty of having done it is another. "
      Easy one: He was not found innocent, he was found not-guilty. The jury was unable to say beyond reasonable doubt that he did it. Because our justice says we must strive to never put an innocent person to death, capital crime requires 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. Thus, OJ was found not-guilty even though, as you put it, �everyone with a brain knows it�.
      Civil law, on the other hand, is different. Which is why he was found guilty in the civil wrongful-death suit brought by his wife's family.
      
      "Manning may or may not be guilty of treason but he is a criminal."
      Not yet he's not... not until he's been found guilty by a Court Martial. And he's being treated as though he was.
      
      "Let him rot, Americans already have lost too many of their real freedoms and liberties because of criminals. "
      And this is why I weep for our legal system and our country. Someone plays a patriotism card (look at all the risk he�s putting his fellow soldiers in!!! Yes, I know you didn�t say that) and all of the sudden everyone's crying for blood. This man found things that showed his government was doing things that are illegal (or at least highly questionable) and made sure that they saw the light of day. Did he follow the established path to do so? No. For that he is charged with crimes. Fine. But I will not condemn him. In the same sense that our founding fathers said that a tyrannical power must be opposed, I say this man is a patriot... much more than those who would say "but those are our secrets!!"
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Richard Kulawiec, 17 Dec 2010 @ 1:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Allways trying to justify crime..
        Someone plays a patriotism card (look at all the risk he�s putting his fellow soldiers in!!! Yes, I know you didn�t say that) and all of the sudden everyone's crying for blood. This man found things that showed his government was doing things that are illegal (or at least highly questionable) and made sure that they saw the light of day.
        4429 US military personnel have died in Iraq since March 2003.
        FOR A LIE
        Somewhere between 30,000 and 100,000 have been wounded, with the wide variation dependent on who's doing the counting and what methodology they're using.
        FOR A LIE
        Nobody has died or even been wounded over anything in the released cables. At least not yet.
        So why aren't the "patriots" here, who putatively have such concern for US lives put at risk that they're willing to see Manning summarily executed without benefit of due process, howling for the blood of George W. Bush and Colin Powell and anyone and everyone else who instantiated and propagated that lie?
        
        You can't call for one and not the other. Well, not honestly, at least.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gabriel Tane (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 2:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Allways trying to justify crime..
        I'm not really sure what you're arguing with on this one. I agree that the war in Iraq was wrong and that the people who perptrated it should be brought to justice.
        
        And I agree that there is no "soldiers at risk" because of Manning's actions.
        
        Are you agreeing with me? Or what?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard Kulawiec, 17 Dec 2010 @ 2:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Allways trying to justify crime..
        Yes, I'm agreeing with you; I probably should have been more explicit that I was reinforcing/augmenting your point.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gabriel Tane (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 2:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Allways trying to justify crime..
        Ah. Cool. :) I was trying to rush out of the office and get home while reading it and was worried that I was misreading something.
        
        Have a great weekend!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MD2000, 21 Dec 2010 @ 10:11am
  
  Re: Allways trying to justify crime..
  Well, if you are going to get technical...
  Unless/until Manning is **convicted** of a crime, he is the same innocent-until-proven-guilty perp as anyone else in prison, and so entitled to the same consideration.
  If he is in solitary for his protection, then why the isolation and deprivation? Why no visits and independent lawyers and entertainment (even a book to read?)
  I don't doubt he is at risk in the general population, but the odds are 50-50 it would be inspired or explicitly ordered by the prison management.
  Keeping him away from public visits, etc. is simply petty revenge and petty torture. If they don't know everything they need to know about what he did by 1 year later, then when will they? How long until interrogation is over?
  Solitary may not be torture at the level of waterboarding or mutilation, but it is a petty expression of power that someone sadistic would do for revenge - and this is exactly what is being done. It's not necessary, it's just revenge.
  Shouldn't this sort of punishment come **after the trial**? If they think he should not have any luxuries before the trial, then get a move on with the trial. If you can't establish th facts and have a trial within a year, that's the system's failing - which all the more reason it should be exposed for ridicule...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jon (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 9:58am

Torture?
So solitary confinement is called "torture" now too?

Whats's next? Take their TV away? The food is good enough? Give me a break, people.
Making some prick sit alone in a cell is not torture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- teka, 17 Dec 2010 @ 11:45am
  
  Re: Torture?
  Oh, its not?
  
  thanks for clearing that up for us all.
  
  I am sure you would have no problem spending a month or two in the same situation? If it would help, i could accuse you of treason and you could be locked up "for your own protection"
  
  23 hours in a cell with no input. no wristwatch, no phone, no conversations, unable to even spend your time doing pushups or jogging in place. Maybe you will get lucky today and have a meeting with your lawyer for a short time before you are searched and returned to your little room with no sheets on your bed and no input from other human beings.
  
  At least you have that 1 hour to enjoy! where an unsmiling military guard takes you to a room where you have a chance to watch a tv, maybe, and play with a basketball for a short time before being put back in your little room.
  
  No problem, right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaleoSapiens, 17 Dec 2010 @ 12:44pm
    
    Re: Re: Torture?
    @Teka & (coward 10:18 post)-
    You have no idea of what torture really is. I do.
    Based on what is here, so far, only a tiny few know. Thus, it's a waste of time to point out the gaping flaws in your "group think" mentality...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Any Mouse, 17 Dec 2010 @ 3:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Torture?
      I sure you're a shining example of the psychiatric community with years of study under your belt to make such sweeping statements.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - teka, 17 Dec 2010 @ 4:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Torture?
      Ah, a torture expert?
      
      Lovely. Thank you for this input, I am sure that we have all learned an important lesson.
      
      However could we have survived without that fact-filled reply, casting out our "group think" misconceptions with the power of.. Patriotism.. or something.
      
      I suppose pointing out the "gaping flaws" would take up far too much of your time when you have to rush back to the dungeon, but at least you made the effort.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 5:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Torture?
        @teka - You have illustrated and thus proven my points, Danke.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        teka, 18 Dec 2010 @ 3:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Torture?
        thanks for the smug non-response, mein Freund.
        
        I am so glad that we have had a constructive discussion that fully explores the source of your superior nature. Truly you are cut from a fine cloth, cast from a mold of a different shape and more perfect then we mere mortals.
        
        Yes, that is indeed sarcasm. You are correct, it shows that i have a fairly low opinion of you.
        
        Lets try a more direct response.
        Are you so convinced that Mr. Manning's enforced living conditions are wonderful that you are willing to undergo the same treatment?
        
        After all, its not torture, right? so what is it? Why are governments around the world turning against prolonged enforced solitary restricted confinement?
        
        Ignoring the little details, like the way he was not a violent prisoner, or a suicide risk, or, heh, even found guilty of any particular crime, is this the way you want people to treat each other? to treat you?
        
        So, please, elaborate on those points that you claim i illustrated for the class. Lets have a nice, short explanation in your own words about how you are self-proclaimed torture expert who can diagnose everyone's gaping flaws.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 1:42pm
  
  Re: Torture?
  Want to try it some time? How about sensory deprivation? Either one can easily drive somebody to the point of insanity very, very quickly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 10:00am

Another misleading title. Manning was not tortured. If he was tortured, then there are hundreds or even thousands on inmates in the US right now be tortured.

When you start with such a stupid assertion, the rest of your story looks stupid. Classic TD material for sure!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 10:05am
  
  Re:
  Um, yeah. That's exactly the point of the article I linked to. The US prison system is complicit in mass torture and, until you recognize that most prison commissioners perpetuate it only because they know they'd lose their jobs if they tried to change things, you'll make incorrect conclusions based on a false premise.
  
  Hence why it'd be a good thing to read. Here's that link again to save you some time:
  
  http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_gawande
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PaleoSapiens, 17 Dec 2010 @ 10:07am

Torture???
@coward - 09:55
Au contraire, assuming one. I have read and reject the so-called authorities you mention. Your statement is proof of my point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 10:18am
  
  Re: Torture???
  True, but in that case, we have no reason to continue talking since we're not going to change each others' minds.
  
  I don't know about you, but I've got more useful things to do with my day than argue with some stranger without making any progress.
  
  If you really care about the truth, feel free to look up the relevant research and come to your own conclusions as I have over the years. (I'd link you, but Google is being uncooperative)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 10:31am

The attitude of those who come to the support of the Army enlisted man who released the information without authority and contrary to lawful orders he was duty bound to obey as a member of the US military is nothing short of amazing.

Is anyone even the slightest bit concerned that he released raw, unvetted information to a foreign national in a foreign country?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Free Capitalist (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 10:43am
  
  Re:
  Is anyone even the slightest bit concerned that he released raw, unvetted information to a foreign national in a foreign country?
  
  It makes no difference what content was released or in what form, if he released classified material to which he had privileged access, he broke the law.
  
  However some of us are concerned not only about what effect his treatment may have on a potential 'confession', but how the UCMJ basically allows it.
  
  The saddest part is that while it is quite distasteful, the treatment he's getting sounds like they're using 'the kid gloves' compared to what they could be doing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard Kulawiec, 17 Dec 2010 @ 10:43am
  
  Re:
  Is anyone even the slightest bit concerned that he released raw, unvetted information to a foreign national in a foreign country?
  Nope. Not even a little bit. As I've pointed out here several times previously, anyone who thinks Manning is the only leaker is naive, delusional, and very, very stupid. He constitutes an existence proof -- a lower bound, if you will, on the number of leakers. It is a huge mistake (but a common one) to presume that the upper bound is the same as the lower bound.
  And beyond the leakers, there are the intelligence services of foreign governments. They get paid to find this stuff out, you know, and some of them are very good at it.
  So any rational assessment leads us inexorably to the conclusion that some subset of these cables -- and quite possibly all of them -- and quite possibly MORE than these -- were read years ago in Madrid and Cairo and Moscow and Rio. The US knows that. The politicians jumping up and down frothing and screaming for blood know that. (Well...maybe that lower primate Palin doesn't.) The CIA knows that. The NSA knows that. EVERYONE knows that because that's how the game is played. All this fuss is simply part of the pretend game -- i.e., nobody else is supposed to know this.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 12:13pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Nope. Not even a little bit.
    
    Is there any kind of information that if released would give you pause for concern? Your answer above can be read to suggest the answer is "no".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard Kulawiec, 17 Dec 2010 @ 12:57pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      s there any kind of information that if released would give you pause for concern? Your answer above can be read to suggest the answer is "no".
      Please do me the courtesy of allowing me to answer questions put to me. (After all, if you're going to pose them and then also answer them on my behalf, there's no reason to involve me.)
      The answer is "yes". Something like "we're attacking at 0500 tomorrow over the west ridge" is clearly sensitive with respect to time, place and manner. However, years later, almost none of that is true. (Yes, I'm aware that savvy enemies can and do study past behavior in an effort to predict future behavior. However...if that attack actually DID take place, then they already know, and giving them possession of a document which merely reiterates it doesn't help them.)
      The problem is that very little information actually falls in this category -- comparatively speaking. A secondary problem is that every year it's harder and harder to keep any information secure. And a tertiary problem is that -- with disturbing frequency -- we're finding that these procedures are being used to conceal malfeasance, incompetence, illegal activities, war crimes, shady deals, treaty violations, and just about everthing else. Which suggests that the solution is to figure out how to operate the mechanisms of government, from diplomacy to military action, with as few secrets as possible, because of course the fewer there are, the lower the probability any will escape.
      Of course, that's heresy to many in government. They've spent decades creating more and more secrets, and more and more levels of secrecy, so the notion that they've got it all wrong is just going to make their brains explode. But I think they do have it all wrong, and I think what they're getting here (wrt Wikileaks) is an object lesson in why.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 1:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I posed a question and did extend the courtesy, as evidenced by my noting merely that it could be read in an absolutist manner.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gabriel Tane (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 10:45am
  
  Re:
  The attitude of people blindly saying "he broke the law, let's hang 'em" is just as astounding to me.
  
  Remember, there was a large group of insurrectionists long ago who said that they didn't feel it was right to pay taxes they found unfairly levied without their representation in the governing body. They broke the law that was laid down by the authorities ruling them because they felt the moral imperative outweighed the legal imperative. Do I need to give names, or and I being obvious enough?
  
  I'm not saying my opinion on who's right or wrong is the correct one. But keep in mind that the only difference between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War is whether or not the ruling body won.
  
  And if you're going to say "the law is right" then why aren't you angry about the fact that he's been placed in solitary confinement 'for his protection' even though he hasn't even been tried yet?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 10:35am

Gabrial, there is no need to prove that any information given by Manning harmed anyone.

He is said to give classified information to Wikileaks. Period, end of story. That is a violation of the UCMJ. He can't claim wistleblowers status because the military has a way with dealing with that. He is bound by the UCMJ to run it up his chain of command and until he isn't satisified with what the President of the US says about it, he broke the law.

There was a Lt. Col. that refused to deploy because he said that Obama had no right to be president because he wasn't born in the US. He was found guilty. Hopefully they make him a private (and revolk his security clearance, like Manning should have had his revolked when he was demoted.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gabriel Tane (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 10:39am
  
  Re:
  "Gabrial, there is no need to prove that any information given by Manning harmed anyone."
  
  When others try to use the 'danger he created' as a reason for his arrest/incarceration/treatment... especially when making a play to the nationalism-wrapped-in-a-false-patriotism emotional view of "for the troops!"... you bet your ass someone better pony up some proof. If there isn't, everyone can stop claiming he "put his fellow troops in harm's way".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 10:45am

A new peer-reviewed study calls into question the so-called �consensus� on the causes of global warming by saying that �Nature, not man, responsible for recent global warming.� The new study authored by three Australian scientists and published in the Journal of Geophysical Research says that the El Ni�o-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) accounts for the vast majority of temperature variability.

So here is a study that says global warming isn't manmade. There are studies that says man is causing global warming.

What does that have to do with Manning? You can find any number of doctors and scientists that would say solitary is torture and as many that would say it isn't.

Personally, I don't think it is torture. Quite a few things that you go through in boot camp would also be considered torture, maybe we should just ban the military.

In my view, quite a few people are quite frankly, pussies. We keep pushing more and more "rights" in terms of society yet it seems society keeps getting worse. Think maybe all these "rights" are what is making things worse? We make learning "fun" and "exciting" so junior says involved but our education keeps getting worse. Maybe what someone needs is to actually be held responsible for their actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 7:21pm
  
  Re:
  Confusing consensus with a single research article is asinine.
  
  Comparing what a few uniformed doctors would say to a huge body of research is stupid.
  
  Research stands on it own merits and will be judged as such.
  
  You sir, are an idiot.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
monkyyy, 17 Dec 2010 @ 10:59am

the more i hear about governments the more i hate them,
at lest with no government people would listen to their own morals and only do things that directly beafit them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 11:18am

Wikileaks exists and others like it will always be around. Even before Wikileaks, we had the Washington Post, the New York Times and any other millions of outlets for state secrets.

The case against Manning is quite simple. Does he deserve to die? I don't think so, give him time served and a BCD.

The world isn't pretty and most people do not understand what the purpose of the military is. The military is there to win wars. Congress and politicians screw up the military with their policies and the US would be better served if the military ran the execution of wars.

Soldiers need to follow orders, Manning didn't. That can get people killed. Soldiers have to follow any lawful order, refusing is about the worse thing someone in the military can do. If you have a problem, take it up the chain of command, not to Wikileaks. Hell, he could have at least leaked it to the New York Times and boosted the US Economy or something.

Richard, I ask you this, if you were a line officer in Afghanistan, watching the troops in your care fight, become wounded, some die, and you caught an insurgent, how would you treat them? Would you consider torture or would you just want to put a bullet in his head.

People talk about our founding fathers like they were gods but in fact war crimes were committed by them in the War of Independence. War crimes were committed in the Civil War. The only thing is that they didn't consider them war crimes. Times change, maybe not for the better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard Kulawiec, 17 Dec 2010 @ 11:42am
  
  Re:
  Richard, I ask you this, if you were a line officer in Afghanistan, watching the troops in your care fight, become wounded, some die, and you caught an insurgent, how would you treat them? Would you consider torture or would you just want to put a bullet in his head.
  Neither: both of those are breaches of Article 3 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (1949). I think any fair reading of them would classify them as "grave breaches", which means that under US law (specifically, the War Crimes Act of 1996) they would be crimes. The penalty for such crimes is life imprisonment or death, the latter being more likely in cases where loss of life is involved.
  But beyond that: it's very stupid. There is no faster way to generate dedicated enemies than to mistreat prisoners. (A lesson that the insufferable morons who support Gitmo have failed to learn. Apparently the exercise known as "learning from our own recent, painful history" is beyond their feeble intellects.)
  And beyond that: it's wrong.
  
  Yes, I'm fully aware that people are placed in difficult positions and faced with these choices. If they're not up to the task of making the right choice -- even when it makes their difficult position that much more difficult -- then they're not ready to serve. Which doesn't make them bad people, per se; lots of people aren't ready to do lots of things, including you and me. But it does mean that they shouldn't be there.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wolfy, 17 Dec 2010 @ 11:23am

As far as I know, Pvt. Manning has not yet been convicted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 12:21pm

I daresay that even if this enlisted man was secunded to a Ritz Carlton suite there would be people who would cry "torture" if he was not permitted to stroll to a local Starbucks and order his favorite latte.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 1:03pm

Torture and the Geneva Convention. Hahaha. In boot camp, a whole platoon will be punished because of one person's bad attitude or mistakes. That is against the Geneva Convention. Hell, my high school football coach punished the whole team for one person slacking off.

Mostly America is the land of the pussies and those pussies try to make everyone act like a pussy, probably so they would be considered normal instead of the pussy that they really are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 2:02pm
  
  Re:
  Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 7:23pm
    
    Re: Re:
    No surprise there blowhard
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 7:15pm

Solitary confinement = Torture
All of you that are denying that solitary confinement is not torture are highly unintelligent and horrible researchers. I pulled up several scholarly articles within 3 seconds on Google and every single one of them highlight that solitary confinement causes severe psychological as well as physical brain damage.

http://www.law.wustl.edu/Journal/22/p325Grassian.pdf

http://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/bits tream/handle/10539/8104/HWS-419.pdf?sequence=1

http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2010/04/13_gawande .html

The only scholarly study I even found that seemed to put doubt in the notion used self reporting. It was important to note that one of these prisoners who said he was "ok" had a gaping wound were he was trying to dig out the FBI chip that was implanted on him.

There are many more scholarly articles about this but most are behind paywalls. There is no excuse for a stance that is based upon opinion when medical doctors, psychologists, and researchers are all clearly equating solitary confinement to torture and long term brain damage.

So what's the story, are you idiots or just ignorant asses?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
athe, 17 Dec 2010 @ 10:45pm

Uhh...
So, they want him to "say Assange conpired with him". But, if in fact he didn't "conspire", wouldn't Manning be committing purgery?

Sounds a bit like a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't to me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sam, 18 Dec 2010 @ 2:49am

Private individuals and not Govt may trip him
The idea of Wikileaks is here to stay. And many will support anything that gives us a more open transparent Executive, Congress and military.

What may trip up Assange is the fact that he has accessed personal information of private individuals who have nothing to do with Governments. This week, Gawker published an article on how a 19 year old girl alleged that Assange had somehow managed to get her phone number, car number and other details.

Filmmaker Richard Lowenstein, director of award-winning music videos for the likes of INXS and U2 as well as the feature film Dogs in Space has written an article in Australia's largest newspaper that Assange had accessed intimate data of his personal life

http://www.theage.com.au/national/portrait-of-the-hacker-as-a-paranoid-and-secretive-young-m an-20101211-18thz.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2010 @ 5:36am

Mannings treatement shouldn't be "wonderful" as he is charged with quite a few crimes. The military isn't your mamby pamby house of joy. Just because you don't agree with how its run doesn't mean that it is wrong.

It is the same as how people are talking about DADT. Sure, the politicians (well, some of them) talk about the military not having a problem with it, doesn't make it so. Yeah, the Sec of Defense supports it, but he isn't the military. Ask the top Marine about it. If a guy walks into a womans bathroom, he can be arrested. So you want to tell a 18 year old kid from Alabama that he has to live in close quarters with a person that he has been taught all his life to believe is going against God. Right or wrong, that will cause disruption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2010 @ 10:15am
  
  Re:
  The person who has the problem is the one who believes in the unproven diety of god, rather than what his own eyes show him.
  
  We shouldn't ban gays from the military, we should ban narrow minded religious zealots. God Bless America, except for those horrible gay people, right?
  
  You don't have to be straight to shoot straight.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2010 @ 5:04pm

I have no issue with gays or gays serving in the military. I was in the Marines, and I know that a percentage of line company Marines would have a problem with openly gay Marines. You have to remember that the vast majority of combat ready troops are 18 and 19 year old kids, quite a few of them from Texas, Alabama and the like.

Do you segregate sleeping quarters? Showers? Make gays share tents? Would you want your sister to take showers in front of 18 year old Marines? You will force your brother to do so. I know that all gays don't want to have sex with every guy out there, but all guys don't want to have sex with all women, but there are still women's bathrooms.

Do you really think all those guys that received medals for jumping on the grenades really did that to save their buddies? Most of them were dirtbags that were thrown on top of them. You can pass all the laws you want, but shit happens and if you force DADT on the military before its ready for it, people will die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dave333, 10 Jan 2011 @ 9:55am

i dont think solitary is the only form of 'torture' they're offfering...
http://www.yorkagainstthewar.org.uk/blog/blog_images/bradley-manning.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]