Press Realizing That Treatment Of Bradley Manning Is Indefensible

from the surprising dept

Tue, Jan 11th 2011 10:57am — Mike Masnick

The mainstream press has had a bit of a love-hate affair with Wikileaks over the past few months, often conflating some of the issues with Julian Assange with the overall operation itself. But what's been really troubling is how quiet the press has mainly been about the treatment of Bradley Manning, which is so severe that many people consider it to qualify as torture. Even the UN is now investigating whether the treatment qualifies as torture. Of course, even if you don't consider it torture, it's pretty clear that the treatment is designed to punish Manning, despite no trial and no conviction (or, perhaps, it's being used to pressure him to implicate Julian Assange in a potential conspiracy that might not actually exist).

However, it's nice to see at least some in the press realize this is a serious problem. The LA Times has an editorial suggesting that this treatment of Manning is clearly indefensible, and should be stopped. It does not come out and say he's being tortured and says that it's fine to punish Manning (within the limits of the law) if he's convicted, but that to do so prior to any conviction is immensely problematic:

Some see Manning as a whistle-blower who deserves leniency for exposing official duplicity; others believe that, like anyone who engages in civil disobedience, Manning, if guilty, should accept punishment for his actions. But regardless of one's view of his alleged conduct, the conditions under which he is being held are indefensible.

There's no reason that Manning can't be held under more reasonable conditions. It's sad that our government appears to not be willing to allow that to happen.

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, press, treatment, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

162 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

KenDowns, 11 Jan 2011 @ 11:09am

It's On Purpose
The treatment is not just to punish Manning, it is to make sure everybody reads about it gets the message. Don't let it happen to you! Keep quiet and keep your head down! Put away those fantasies from yesteryear about protest and redress of grievances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Johnny, 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:09pm
  
  Re: It's On Purpose
  ... and more importantly: don't join the Army!
  
  (although that may be an unwanted side-effect)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 5:17pm
  
  Re: It's On Purpose
  The treatment is not just to punish Manning, it is to make sure everybody reads about it gets the message.
  
  That sounds a lot like terrorism.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Revolutionist, 11 Jan 2011 @ 5:26pm
  
  Re: It's On Purpose
  Our founding fathers didn't just keep their heads down when they felt something wasn't right. This isn't 1985 dammit! It's time for a revolt! A revolution! Our system is corrupt and it needs to be torn down!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nick (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 10:44pm
    
    Re: Re: It's On Purpose
    Do you mean 1984?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 11:19pm
    
    Re: Re: It's On Purpose
    "Our founding fathers didn't just keep their heads down when they felt something wasn't right."
    
    That's because they were a bunch of traitors.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 11:21am

What is the problem?
Torturing prisoners has long been an accepted tactic worldwide. It doesn't matter if they have been convicted of anything or not. It doesn't even matter if they are accused of anything or not. Most governments, especially the U.S., feel there is nothing wrong with torturing anyone they want to get information out of or simply punish without the hassle of going through the judicial system.

/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 11 Jan 2011 @ 11:57am
  
  Re: What is the problem?
  I agree. If you're a true patriot, you'd gladly endure torture to ensure the safety of your country!
  
  In fact, we should start torturing ourselves at home just to prove how patriotic we are! I should start selling self-waterboarding kits!
  
  Turning torture and misguided ultra-nationalism, er...patriotism into a business opportunity is the American Way of Life�!
  
  /sarcasm
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 5:21pm
  
  Re: What is the problem?
  "/sarcasm"?
  Is it still sarcasm if it's true?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 11:39am

Looking at this on the positive side it is possible that there is much more to this story than has been reported. Assuming that that is true then it is reasonable to assume that the real objective is to keep Manning from revealing to reporters what else is happening and/or who else is involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RD, 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:08pm
  
  Re:
  "Looking at this on the positive side it is possible that there is much more to this story than has been reported."
  
  Will you people PLEASE stop rolling out this chestnut on EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE??
  
  When you get right down to it, there is ALWAYS "more to the story". Always. WE FUCKING GET IT ALREADY.
  
  "there must be more to the story" is not a valid counter argument or invalidation of the article when its true IN EVERY SINGLE CASE.
  
  If all you can come up with is "there must be more" because your tiny little mind cant comprehend a news item on an OPINION BLOG, please cease commenting, as you have nothing to contribute to the discussion.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcus Carab (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:25pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Woah calm down RD. I don't think the AC was claiming everything is fine or even criticizing this post in any way. As he said, he was just making one observation "on the positive side"
    
    And honestly I don't see people saying "there must be more to the story" on every single post... am I missing something?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chargone (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 1:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      not recently, but for a while there TAM basically used the line whenever he couldn't find something specific to object to about what Mike had posted at the time.
      
      every.
      single.
      article.
      
      it did get a bit tedious.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 5:24pm
  
  Re:
  Looking at this on the positive side it is possible that there is much more to this story than has been reported.
  
  Oh, the old "anything's possible" line. It's "possible" that you're a raging homicidal pedophile rapist. See, I can make stuff up too!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 11:40am

Replace "Press" with "Some members of the press" in the title and the story makes more sense.

Some members of the press also believe in UFOs and little green men. That doesn't mean all of the press does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Infamous Joe (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 11:49am
  
  Re:
  If you didn't have anything to say, you could have just let this article go by.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Invisible Hand (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:04pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You know that's not how TAM works.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:18pm
    
    Re: Re:
    There isn't a million things to add on this one. We have all been over the ground on this one (I don't think solitary confinement is torture, thousands of prisoners every day in the US are held in similar conditions). I also don't think it particularly that some newspaper editorialists might come out against his detention, especially because Wikileaks and Manning are both trying to play the journalist / whistleblower card.
    
    There is really nothing new here. It's just more fodder for the TD sheeple to chew on.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Infamous Joe (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Have those thousands of prisoners been convicted of something?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jay (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The perverse incentive of letting out the next Bin Laden keeps them locked up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 2:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Some yes, some no. Rikers Island in New York is a jail (rather than prison) and at any given time, dozens of prisoners are kept in solitary confinement. They are there for various reasons, including their own protection.
        
        Jail is a place most often filled with people awaiting trial, or who are currently on trial, or who are appealing their conviction.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gabriel Tane (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 5:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So we've gone from thousands to dozens? And do you have anything to back up the assertion that 'prisoners' being held pre-trial at any facility are being held in solitary confinement (regardless of 'for their protection')?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 1:23pm
      
      Solitary confinement isn't torture ?
      Ask John McCain what was the worst part of his wartime captivity, and he doesn't quote any of the horrendous physical abuse he suffered.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcel de Jong (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 3:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Manning WAS a whistleblower, and all Wikileaks does is let journalist rifle through the material and then releasing the documents AFTER the newspapers have published it. So yeah, perfectly valid whistleblower/journalist card.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 3:39pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Have you read the famous new yorker article discussing solitary confinement?
      
      http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_gawande
      
      I was skeptical at first too, but that article makes a very convincing case. Then you realize that the fact that tonnes of Americans are being held in similar conditions is an atrocity, not a rationalization.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 7:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Then you realize that the fact that tonnes of Americans are being held in similar conditions is an atrocity, not a rationalization.
        
        I don't think of it as an atrocity. I think of it as the law, as enacted by the government and having been duly challenged and reviewed by pretty much every court in the land.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 9:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I don't think of it as an atrocity. I think of it as the law, as enacted by the government and having been duly challenged and reviewed by pretty much every court in the land."
        
        Now where have I heard that before? Isn't that the same excuse that pretty much every corrupt regime uses?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2011 @ 4:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nope, because this is also been reviewed in many other countries with the same results.
        
        Everyone tries to make it sound like Manning is being kept in some hole in the ground, not fed, waterboarded twice a day, and left to fend for himself for food, fighting with the prison rats for scraps from the garbage pile from the officer's mess. It just isn't the case.
        
        He is being held in a prison. He is being held alone, fed, clothed, showered, etc. Just like thousands of other criminals, both convicted and pending trials all over the US and around the world.
        
        The rest of it is BS, everyone knows it, but because it's a "wikileaks" thing, all the bleeding hearts are out whining about the torture. You babies think torture is not getting your double latte in the morning.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Infamous Joe (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 5:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hello again, brainwashed coward.
        
        Nope, because this is also been reviewed in many other countries with the same results.
        
        Do you see how many of the people here defending Manning keep posting those pretty blue words that back up what they are claiming. Well, they're not just eye candy, my friend, but some sort of citation to back up their claims! Now, one can't help but notice that your post, while attempting to refute the other statements, is not adorned with pretty blue words. You might as well type "nu-uh!" in response without them. That's more free advice.
        
        Everyone tries to make it sound like Manning is being kept in some hole in the ground, not fed, waterboarded twice a day, and left to fend for himself for food, fighting with the prison rats for scraps from the garbage pile from the officer's mess. It just isn't the case.
        
        No has said anything of the sort. This would be a textbook example of a stawman.
        
        The rest of it is BS, everyone knows it
        
        I assume "everyone" doesn't include all the people (including doctors) who object to his treatment? In fact, can you please explain to me your definition of "everyone", because it seems to me that by the very fact that we are having this discussion that you are wrong.
        
        but because it's a "wikileaks" thing, all the bleeding hearts are out whining about the torture
        
        This has nothing to do with wikileaks. Manning is being held in solitary confinement. Without being convicted. Without even going to trial. *This* is why our hearts bleed, because people like you are defending our government as it shits on the Constitution. Wikileaks is a separate matter.
        
        Now, I have a question for you, Mr. Coward. Give us a little background on yourself. I don't need specifics, obviously. I would just like to know what type of man would defend these actions without actually thinking about the consequences.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2011 @ 7:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I learned strawman posting from TD. Many of the posts are just that, so why not join the party?
        
        Notice the important words "Everyone tries to make it sound like", it doesn't mean they are saying it, rather their level of rhetoric and outrage make it sound like this, as opposed to the thought that he doesn't get TV privileges, and no second servings of rice pudding.
        
        It's wahhhmbulance offence, I am sure.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Infamous Joe (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 8:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I see you are no longer interested in a discussion, if, in fact, you ever were.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2011 @ 1:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Notice the important words "Everyone tries to make it sound like",
        
        No, they aren't.
        
        Ever notice how so many of the Manning haters seem to be sleazy liars? Maybe those are the kinds of people afraid of being exposed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2011 @ 11:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Everyone tries to make it sound like Manning is being kept in some hole in the ground, not fed, waterboarded twice a day, and left to fend for himself for food, fighting with the prison rats for scraps from the garbage pile from the officer's mess. It just isn't the case.
        
        I don't see anyone here saying that. In other words, you're a liar. I bet you work for the government or something.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Monarch, 12 Jan 2011 @ 6:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He is not allowed to exercise. He is not allowed to have a pillow. He is only given a half hour of TV per day, and nothing to read. He is basically being tortured. He released the information believing he was a patriot trying expose a corrupt government. And.., in the way the government is treating him, I believe he was right!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 7:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You still haven't answered my question: Have you read that article?
        
        It's pretty vital information if you plan to have an opinion on this.
        
        Except, your stance seems to be that you don't have to have an opinion or think about it at all - it's currently the status quo and you are happy to swallow that without questioning it or thinking for yourself in the slightest.
        
        Do you have no interest in actually educating yourself on the subject? Are you happy to accept whatever the law says without consideration or question? Shame...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 5:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      (I don't think solitary confinement is torture, thousands of prisoners every day in the US are held in similar conditions)
      
      I hereby invite you to subject yourself to some "solitary confinement" at my pleasure. Please post your identifying and contacting information so that we can get started as soon as possible.
      
      Yeah, I didn't think so.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Meeble, 13 Jan 2011 @ 6:43am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I hope you get to experience solitary confinement someday, and then we'll see if you think it's torture. It's known to lead to insanity, which IMHO is worse than even pain because there's no coming back from losing your mind. How easy it is to sit there and say what is torture from the comfort of your fat ass. Fuck you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:04pm
  
  Re:
  The LA Times is ever-so-slightly more significant than some backwoods community paper running a local's conspiracy theory column.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:11pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Accord to TD, all newspapers are irrelevant in the digital world.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymouse, 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:16pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      *... citation needed.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chris Rhodes (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:19pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      According to TD, all newspapers who fail to adapt to the digital world will become irrelevant.
      
      Troll better.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        http://www.thedaily.com/
        
        Sort of why TD doesn't want to talk about this one. Old Rupe going digital on the IPOD.
        
        See, newspapers, once they go digital, are not newspapers anymore are they? Newspapers are irrelevant in the digital world. News isn't, paper is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        TD did talk about this one.
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101122/12544311971/why-murdochs-ipad-only-newspaper-misse s-point.shtml
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Invisible Hand (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Man, the green snowflake is wiping out all over this one.
        
        [Turns at green snowflake]
        
        Maybe it's time to pack it up and go home snowflake kid. You'll get the first place tomorrow. Never give up on your dreams!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 3:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        TD didn't address it, they just dismissed it. Considering there hasn't been a printed issue yet, dismissing it is very early, don't you think?
        
        Old Rupe makes more in a minute than TD has in it's existence. I know which one is likely to have better practical business sense.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 9:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Old Rupe has also showed his inability to adapt to digital publishing.
        
        Time will tell who is right (hint: it won't be you)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The news only available on one device?
        
        That's fucking stupid. Like, Myspace stupid.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:27pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      As someone who has written on the subject of newspapers on several occasions for Techdirt, I can tell you that you are quite wrong in that statement.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gabriel Tane (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Hmmm... nice red herring in answer to someone addressing your statement.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
tuna, 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:04pm

There does not need to be a trial if you are in the military. They can hold you as long as they want.

Military detainment facilities do not have the best of records as far as humane treatment goes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DCX2, 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:24pm
  
  Re:
  Tuna, you are seriously wrong. There does need to be a trial. A speedy trial, at that. Even if you don't believe the Constitution applies to our soldiers (it does), you should look up Article 10 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
  
  United States v. Thompson, 68 M.J. 308 (when a servicemember is placed in pretrial confinement, Article 10, UCMJ, provides that immediate steps shall be taken to inform the accused of the charges and to either bring the accused to trial or dismiss the charges; Article 10 creates a more exacting speedy trial demand than does the Sixth Amendment).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 1:20pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The problem is that (IIRC) the Supreme Court actually says the military can do this because you are effectively you lose rights as a government weapon.
    
    Although, Tuna does bring up a great point about them holding prisoners a while. Gitmo anyone?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DCX2, 11 Jan 2011 @ 1:54pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Sorry, but you do not recall correctly.
      
      "United States v. Thompson"
      
      http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/opinions/2009SepTerm/09-0145.pdf
      
      The Supreme Court has ruled that Article 10 of the UCMJ, which ensures the right to a speedy trial, "creates a more exacting speedy trial demand than does the Sixth Amendment"
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 3:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Based on the fact that supoenas were issues to Twitter recently, there is great potential that this is an ongoing investigation, and that while Manning has been charged, there is no required to move to trial before all investigations are complete. They would at best be required to show cause, and since Manning is the source of the documents, there is little more required. The question at this point is if he is acting alone, or as part of a criminal conspiracy.
        
        Until that issue is settled to a level that can be taken to court, he is caught in the middle.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Christopher (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 4:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually, you are wrong. Once a person is ARRESTED and put into jail, regardless of whether there are ongoing investigations or not, that person has to be CHARGED and TRIED for a crime within 1 year according to the Supreme Court of the United States.
        
        That includes in the military. Ongoing investigations have NO affect on that need to bring someone to trial for a crime immediately or within one year.
        
        In fact, if investigations are ongoing, the general rule of thumb is to NOT arrest the person in question, absent grave physical harm to someone else being probable, until the investigations are done.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2011 @ 4:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Exactly. Is the year up? No. So the rest of the discussion is moot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2011 @ 6:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Innocent until proven guilty.
        
        Now where have I heard that before...?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2011 @ 11:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        that person has to be CHARGED and TRIED for a crime within 1 year according to the Supreme Court of the United States.
        
        Trivially easy to get around. Arrest, hold for 1 year, release, immediately rearrest. Repeat indefinitely.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 1:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's not how it works, especially for something of this magnitude. Great work around, but the perpetrator has to do a second crime that could get them arrested again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2011 @ 7:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Great work around, but the perpetrator has to do a second crime that could get them arrested again.
        
        Not true. I presume you are referring to the double jeopardy protections. Those protections only mean that someone can't be *tried* for the same crime twice. There is no limit on the number of time they can be arrested for it.
        
        Another way to get around limits is to hold someone outside of the US. The Supreme Court has ruled that normal protections don't apply there (or even within the US within 100 miles of the border).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 5:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The Supreme Court has ruled that Article 10 of the UCMJ, which ensures the right to a speedy trial, "creates a more exacting speedy trial demand than does the Sixth Amendment"
        
        So? Who's gonna make them? The military is much better armed than the Supreme Court.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Christopher (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 12:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The Supreme Court can rule that money has to be taken from the military until they comply with their decision.
        
        When you are able to fine HEAVILY, in the billions of dollars? Even the military has to listen to you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Revolutionist, 11 Jan 2011 @ 5:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ok yeah, just because you have the "right" to a speedy trial doesn't mean you'll get one. How many times did Bush infringe on the right to privacy and almost legalize an illegal draft again? The constitution means SHIT to our government and only use it when in their favor.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Johnny, 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:06pm

Where does Obama stand?
That's what I really want to know.

If he stays silent on torture under his administration, then it means he condones it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ken Downs, 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:29pm
  
  Re: Where does Obama stand?
  Obama has accelerated all of the Orwellian practices initiated by George W. He's a better GWB than GWB was.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 1:21pm
    
    Re: Re: Where does Obama stand?
    Pffft.
    
    Bush is a lot of things but all of these problems started LONG before Bush.
    
    Look into the problems of Nixon, Reagan and Bush Sr before saying "let's blame the last president for everything wrong"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Joe Tyranny, 11 Jan 2011 @ 1:58pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Where does Obama stand?
      Bingo!
      
      What's happening today is just a continuation of the Executive gathering power a bit at a time and not letting it go, regardless of party, because IMO, they like it. Makes sure things like Congress or Republican Ideals don't get in the way of running a war/economy/emergency du jour.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Johnny, 11 Jan 2011 @ 2:40pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Where does Obama stand?
      Regardless who started it, there's a good reason to blame the *current* president, because he can change it, but doesn't.
      
      What's worse is that the current president promised to change it all - and many many people believed him (especially over here in Europe) - but instead he's taking everything one step further in the wrong direction!
      
      They should take back his Nobel Peace Prize.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 2:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Where does Obama stand?
        Correct!!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jay (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 4:49pm
        
        Obama and the presidency
        I hate to disagree, but you're looking at the wrong thing here.
        
        It's not the President that is the problem. If you learn anything about leadership, any organization changes from the bottom up, not the top down.
        
        One thing I noticed about the wikileaks is how a LOT of information is going through the system, but it's not getting out to the places it's needed. Something such as weather info about climate change should be a divested interest. The problem is the bureacracy that any President or government official has to wade through.
        
        Take for example, military needs vs business needs. How would you balance both plus add to this the fact that those needs have to be enforced?
        
        I think that everyone has to realize that Obama isn't truly to blame. Look at the administration and how they enforce the policy. Things such as the RIAA being in league with the Justice Department didn't come out of thin air. What we need is for laws in place to stop THAT, not Obama. He's merely a figurehead.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Johnny, 11 Jan 2011 @ 5:05pm
        
        Re: Obama and the presidency
        Have you heard of the chain of command?
        
        The guys currently torturing Manning take orders from the people who run the prison, who takes orders from the pentagon, who takes orders from the administration, where the president has the final word.
        
        If Obama objects to (psychological) torture being used in US prison, he can order it to stop... it goes down the chain of command and it should stop. He hasn't given that order, so apparently he doesn't object.
        
        If he doesn't object, he is to blame. It's certainly his fault that he has no moral compass on this issue.
        
        BTW, if a presidential order to cease torturing people doesn't get implemented then it means that there is no longer civilian control over the Army, and your country is in much deeper sh*t than I first thought.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Revolutionist, 11 Jan 2011 @ 5:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Obama and the presidency
        Obama doesn't have the final say. Congress does. Believe it or not, Congress holds the most power over the US cause while Obama may veto something, Congress will have it 'Reevaluated' and pass it without his authority.
        Also keep this in mind, any law or bill passed to the president, will have three or four different bills with it and if he veto's one he veto's them all. So lets say there's a bill to stop cruelty to animals, but attatched to it is a bill to allow convicts out of jail. Well you don't want the convicts out so he veto's that and in so doing, veto's the prevention of animal cruelty. Media hears about it and assumes the president is an animal hater and therefore is given a bad image. That is our system.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Johnny, 12 Jan 2011 @ 10:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Obama and the presidency
        Yes the system sucks.
        
        Let's imagine for a moment that the US president is not the commander in chief and the army does not act on his orders. Then that still doesn't prevent him from having an opinion and stating that in public, if congress then vetoes it the blame can be laid there... fact is he doesn't do anything of the sort, he just stays quiet. Which means to me that he condones it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Monarch, 12 Jan 2011 @ 7:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Obama and the presidency
        The President can stop the torture just by releasing a presidential decree for it to stop. Why? Because he IS the commander of the military. Congress has NO power in this issue. There is no Bill that needs to be brought before the Congress. No vote is needed. All that is needed is an order from the President of the United States of America to stop the torture and it WILL stop! Which means, President Obama is condoning the torture, as he alone has the power to stop it!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2011 @ 8:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Obama and the presidency
        Which means, President Obama is condoning the torture, as he alone has the power to stop it!
        
        While Obama certainly has the authority to stop it, I'm don't believe he'd be the only one. (Unless he is the one who ordered it, which for all we know he very well may have.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 6:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Obama and the presidency
        Ok... Who carries out an executive order? Obama is inundated with information and since he has been back on the job for... 6 days now? (He was in vacation on HI since the 3rd) he's probably swamped with other things that take his time.
        
        In a way, the executive Branch is the easiest control because you have ONE person you give info to. Do you really believe that all of those generals, colonels, etc, are going to tell Obama the day to day treatment of Manning? Or will they say "He's in custody." and move on towards the next order of business?
        
        Again, I think it's pointless to think that merely the guy at the top is scrutinized so severely. Information can be easily left out until such time as it garners a lot more attention.
        
        Just think about this for one second...
        
        The guys currently torturing Manning take orders from the people who run the prison, who takes orders from the pentagon, who takes orders from the administration, where the president has the final word.
        
        All of these people in a top heavy underworld society, do you think any of them can truly help Manning?
        
        Let's think about how long it took for Bush to respond to Abu Ghraib or Gitmo and be realistic... We haven't heard the last of this, and I'm sure so long as more people put up a stink, THEN he'll be treated better.
        
        Such is what I mean when I say the President has to hear about his plight so that people can know what the problem is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Silver Wolf, 11 Jan 2011 @ 6:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Obama and the presidency
        People making a stink?
        All I smell is a fart. A weak one.
        COME ON.
        ARE PEOPLE BEING BRAINWASHED BY MASS MEDIA?
        
        Start posting signs and dissing the gov'mnt websites.
        LETS SHOW THE WORLD THAT THE PEOPLE ARE IN CHARGE!
        Anonymous rally JAN 15!!
        ALL START NOW.
        
        What we really need is someone from a MNN (Major news network) to broadcast this, which they won't cause they are mostly corrupt. If not fully.
        
        The USA gov'mnt is in the pay of the money-greedy corporations.
        
        I can't wait till the whole world crashes like the great depression, but global. Then I'll make millions.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 9:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Obama and the presidency
        Do you really believe that all of those generals, colonels, etc, are going to tell Obama the day to day treatment of Manning?
        
        Do *you* really think that they're all lying to him? Do *you* really think that they have him completely isolated and he can't even read the same stories that the rest of America can? If that's what *you* believe, then I think you need a serious reality check.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Johnny, 12 Jan 2011 @ 10:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Obama and the presidency
        Sorry I think your argument is weak. I doubt the President has not been briefed on Wikileaks and Manning, I doubt that the President hasn't seen any news reports and hasn't got any idea that this is happening.
        
        Much like I am sure Bush knew that water boarding was being used, Obama now knows that Manning (and many others) are being psychologically tortured.
        
        Yes we need to make more of stink about it, for as long as Obama thinks that most people don't care about the treatment of Manning, he'll do as any other politician: i.e. nothing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 12:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Obama and the presidency
        *&^%&*%$&$
        
        Unfortunately, my post was eaten from before. But think about all of the things that the President is debriefed about:
        
        Foreign issues (EU's issues and concerns, Assange, Middle East, Africa's concerns, N. Korea...)
        
        Domestic issues (Business meetings, economic crisis, legislation)
        
        Crisis aversion (Arizona shooting, Haiti, Assange on a platter...)
        
        With all of the things he has, I don't think Manning's condition ranks highly, especially with people thinking about him as a betrayer of the country.
        
        Hell, if Mike hadn't investigated the story, I probably would not have known how he has been doing for the past 7 months.
        
        Your last point says exactly what I think will have his treatment made better. People begin to discuss what they're doing to him.
        
        I just think that people need to focus on pressuring the Secretary of Defense (Robert Gates) in regards to the treatment of military personnel. Asking for the President when his opinion can be swayed by other demands and needs is a bit much.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 5:38pm
        
        Re: Obama and the presidency
        "It's not the President that is the problem. If you learn anything about leadership, any organization changes from the bottom up, not the top down."
        
        Yeah, anyone can tell you that the generals take their orders from the privates.
        /s
        
        What an idiot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 6:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Obama and the presidency
        My point stands about the bureaucracy and the people that surround the President to carry out the orders of the executive and legislative branches have far more push behind closed doors than Obama does in the open.
        
        Funny how you miss that point to try for a cheap shot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 8:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Obama and the presidency
        "Funny how you miss that point to try for a cheap shot."
        
        It's only cheap because you make it so easy with such absurd statements.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 9:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Obama and the presidency
        *sigh*
        
        Please explain.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:09pm

Your country has always loved to torture, then, someday, maybe, if we feel like it, put on trial. It's nothing new, why would it change with Assange?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:29pm
  
  Re:
  I don't know. Who's talking about Assange?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Any Mouse (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:56pm
  
  Re:
  I would bet your own country has a history of this practice, as well. Especially in its own younger years.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcel de Jong (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 3:13pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Does that mean yours should repeat the mistakes or actually learn from history?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Any Mouse (profile), 18 Jan 2011 @ 2:43am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No, I'm saying Pot, meet Kettle.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Johnny, 12 Jan 2011 @ 10:46am
    
    Re: Re:
    What if his country is Iceland?
    
    Must have been a very long time ago that their government tortured somebody. Maybe back in the middle ages, or do you mean to say that that's where the US is now?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Any Mouse (profile), 18 Jan 2011 @ 2:43am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Woosh! Missed the point entirely, didn't you?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:26pm

There is no doubt of his guilt so stop playing the "until proven guilty" card. He has committed high treason which is an offense that is punishable by death. He is a traitor and should be treated like one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Infamous Joe (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:34pm
  
  Re:
  You're right, I forgot about the "unless obviously guilty according to some guy on the Internet" clause.
  
  Thank you for clearing that up.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 2:06pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Give me your best guess as to the chance that he didn't steal secrets? Go ahead, give me a percentage of the chance that he is innocent.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Eugene (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 2:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The whole point of a trial is so that nobody HAS to guess. Nor are they legally allowed to, by the way.
      
      I mean, go head, guess away! Just don't try submitting it as evidence, okay?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Infamous Joe (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 2:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I can't tell if you don't grasp the concept because you can't, or because you don't want to.
      
      He is 100% innocent. How do I come by this number, you wonder? Well, he hasn't gone to trial. Thus, he is presumed innocent. Any deviation from 100% innocent before proven guilty deviates from the Constitution. You know, that thing that protects your right to say stupid, un-American shit on the internet. Yeah, that thing.
      
      The chance that he didn't steal secrets? Well, they "caught" him because a self-described "hacker" turned him in after allegedly having an Instant Messenger conversation with Manning and "fearing for his family's safety". Is that the type of "proof" you feel is iron-clad?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 3:35pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Pro Tip: the law does not function based on anyone's "best guess"
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 5:40pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Go ahead, give me a percentage of the chance that he is innocent."
      
      There's a 100% probability that's he's being punished without due process.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:37pm
  
  Re:
  Hyperbole. It's not even clear that Manning can be charged with treason, let alone high treason (which typically only refers to direct collusion with hostile enemies)
  
  Moreover, treason still has to be proven. In fact, it bears a pretty high bar of proof. You don't just brand people traitors because it seems at first glance like they are.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Christopher (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 4:19pm
    
    Re: Re:
    True. Personally, Manning might be covered under the Whistleblower laws after that whole thing about Afghani kids being used as sexual bartering tokens by our corporations in AFghanistan came out.
    
    If that isn't whistleblowing, nothing is. The sheer BULK of the leaks also doesn't make this any less whistleblowing. Manning might have seen that thing or something else just as bad, and said "WOW! If we are covering up this, what else are we covering up!" and done a directory dump.... which I would have also done, to be honest, if I had seen that thing above.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 7:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      1 count of whistleblowing, 249,999 cases of treason. That should shorten his sentence by about 4 seconds.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Christopher (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 12:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Only treason in your opinion, AC.... and by the way, AC's are not widely listen to on here.... MAKE AN ACCOUNT!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2011 @ 11:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        and by the way, AC's are not widely listen to on here.... MAKE AN ACCOUNT!
        
        That's funny coming from someone posting anonymously. What a hypocrite. You must be American, right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Invisible Hand (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:37pm
  
  Re:
  You have no idea what a true traitor looks like .
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Joesephus Inquisitior, 11 Jan 2011 @ 2:03pm
    
    Heresy!
    Speak not the name of the Traitor!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DCX2, 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:37pm
  
  Re:
  If "there is no doubt of his guilt"...why not charge him with crimes and get him convicted?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 1:18pm
  
  Re:
  If you think refusing to cover up for pedophiles is treason, then yeah...
  
  http://www.chillingmesoftly.com/content/wanna-small-boy-big-mac-sir
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 2:00pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Treason = the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
    
    I think he fits that description
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - weneedhelp (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 2:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Cherry picked the third one huh?
      
      http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t103.htm
      
      TREASON
      
      This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.
      
      The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offense is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Christopher (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 4:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That also leaves an exception for being FORCED to give aid or comfort, or adhering to obligations under the Hippocratic Oath to 'treat all who come to you', regardless of whether they are a foreign combatant or not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Johnny, 11 Jan 2011 @ 2:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Upholding ideals of justice and reporting war crimes that have been covered up is the duty of every man and woman.
      
      The only people who betrayed the US and the US constitution are those who tried to cover up war crimes as well as those who ordered and execute the torture of Bradley Manning.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 1:24pm
  
  Re:
  I caught you going 300 mph on the highway. We don't need a trial for your guilt.
  
  Thank you AntiCitizen 3-0-1W-U-S-S, for your cooperation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Eugene (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 2:05pm
  
  Re:
  lol, I'm pretty sure the only thing playing the "until proven guilty" card is that pesky U.S. Constitution. Don't ya jus' hate that silly ol' thang?? Sum1 shud jus take 'er out back, y'know wut ah mean?!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2011 @ 10:28am
  
  Re:
  No doubt? Can you pass an IQ test?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:31pm

Don't want to sound cruel, but he must be court-martialed. I don't think there is any whistle-blowing provision for military conduct.
Good for him, Iraq campaign is not a "real war". Would it be, most probably he'd be executed already.
Anyway, somehow, after reading about his personality, i have really little pity for him. He wanted to become famous and prove something? He got it, alright. Too bad, he didn't realized the fame comes at a price.
IMHO, Assange deserves more compassion; at least the guy is on a crusade...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:38pm
  
  Re:
  but he must be court-martialed
  
  A court martial is a military trial. That's exactly what we are saying: that he needs a trial, not months of questionable pre-trial custody.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Infamous Joe (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:44pm
  
  Re:
  Also court martial is simply a military court. So, I would agree, he should get a trial.
  
  There is a whistleblowing provision for the military, but from what I can tell, he didn't follow it, as it says you should tell a member of Congress.
  
  Fame, from what I read, had nothing to do with it. He saw what he thought was an injustice and sought to resolve it. Whether or not he made a mistake or not is another story.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Christopher (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 4:22pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Actually, that doesn't just say that you should tell a member of Congress... it says that you should tell ANYONE WHO CAN GET THE INFORMATION OUT, and need I remind: Deep Throat didn't go to a Congressman. Neither did the guy who leaked the Pentagon papers.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Infamous Joe (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 4:50pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I'm not saying I think it is right, but I just re-read both the DoD Directive (pdf!) and the Applicable US Code 1034 and can't find anything that says a member of the military can leak to the general public.
      
      If you could be so kind as to point out your source, that would be awesome.
      
      Once again, to prevent any unneeded anger, I don't agree with the law, but I can't see a way around it, either.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Christopher (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 12:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There is a 'way around it it'.... ignore the law, because it is stupid and insane. Congressmen are MORE than willing to cover up for the government, to be blunt.
        
        The fact is that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it goes against the First Amendment, which also makes it illegitimate to take away a person's choice of spokesperson.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Infamous Joe (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 4:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Chris, buddy, work with me here.
        
        You said he did not break the law because it said a military member was allowed to inform anyone who could get the information out. I was interested because when I *defend* Manning in a conversation, this point is bound to come up.
        
        Now you say he did go outside the guidelines of the law, but it's a bad law, so it should be ignored. Do you see how you have contradicted yourself?
        
        While I wouldn't go so far as to say every member of Congress is corrupt, I also agree that the law is naive in thinking that telling a government officials about the wrongdoings of the government will guarantee that knowledge will be used to thwart those wrongdoings.
        
        Since you have switched paths from "not illegal" to "illegal but bad law" i should point out that civil disobedience often results in accepting the punishment for the protested law to bring light on the issue. (Google "martyr") Thus, using the "it's a bad law" is unlikely to get him out of jail anytime soon.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Revolutionist, 11 Jan 2011 @ 5:47pm
  
  Re:
  It's people like you that make this country such a piece of shit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- anonymous cowards mortal enemy, 12 Jan 2011 @ 12:50pm
  
  Re:
  most of the people that want to "burn" manning only say they want to see him do so but without really going into detail of why that is which means the whole entire point of them wanting this has absolutely no justification, or maybe it's like this such people don't want to actually come clean on their own behavior on what they really think of other people? gee maybe granny should tuck and roll out of our car because, um we feel the need to be that way today
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Synaps, 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:39pm

The Masters have spoken!!
Those who we have employed to administer our collective services Have once again overstepped the mark.
The "rule of law" is often evoced as if it is an absolute. It is not. It's whatever suits them. It use to be used (mostly?) for the benefit of society. Generally in a paternalistic way as we are considered to stupid to know how to behave. However, it is now becomeing obvious that that's out the window. Now it's "shut up and do what your told or else" Manning, who has been convicted of nothing, is experiencing the "or else"

http://exploreingtheinfinite.blogspot.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Christopher (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 12:26am
  
  Re: The Masters have spoken!!
  True. Personally, I see people saying "DA LAW" "DA LAW" like it is some mythological thing that is never wrong.... HARDLY. Laws are created by men/humans, and men are fallible.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Daniel J. Lavigne (profile), 13 Jan 2011 @ 1:25am
  
  Re: The Masters have spoken!!
  Actually, adherence to "The Rule Of Law" is the quintessential requirement of all citizens.
  
  Absent such commitment, we are left with nothing to guide our discourse; leading to situations where the vilest and most violent amongst us WILL have their way.
  
  Indeed, that very "Rule Of Law" calls upon ALL to REFUSE to support societies that participate in plans and preparations that are predicated on a will and capacity to commit murder, and, especially so, "Mass Murder".
  
  Still, it remains that the vast majority, as self-centered cowards, DARE not act on such right and duty until it is absolutely clear to them that there shall be no costs or consequences, just "Tax Savings", if they should develop spine sufficient to act on such.
  
  And so we are left to do what we can, while the world slides into a cesspool of anarchy and worldwide mass murder due the demands of America's Corporate Leadership.
  
  There is BUT ONE WAY to save our collective future:
  
  We MUST, regardless the risk, ACT on our lawful duty to refuse to support any society that would use its nuclear and / or other weapons of mass murder in order to secure the oil and other natural resources without which the whole of that society shall suffer as all others as the "downslope" of "Peak Oil" limits the amount of energy available to "share" amongst the nations and their millions who all DEMAND that THEIR ACCESS to such not be curtailed or even limited to any degree.
  
  ***********************************************  
  Add your voice to reason's call.  
  
  Join the Tax Refusal.  
  ***********************************************  
  http://www.TaxRefusal.com
  ***********************************************
  And the related effort to wake the world:
  
  http://www.StopYourEngines.com
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:59pm

gaaaaa
The boneheads who are responsible for his safety and security should be arrested and tried for human and civil rights violations, and sent to live in the same conditions they are subjecting him to! This situation is reprehensible!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DS, 11 Jan 2011 @ 1:08pm

Yes, it's terrible that he's keep in a room with basic cable, and is allowed to read. Terrible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 1:26pm
  
  Re:
  He is being kept in solitary confinement 23 hours per day in a room 6 feet by 12 feet with a toilet and a bed. He isn't even allowed to exercise in his cell.
  
  I don't know who you're talking about, but I'm talking about the guy we are torturing who has never been convicted of a crime.
  
  http://www.bradleymanning.org/15952/psychologists-for-social-responsibility-open-letter-to -robert-gates-on-mannings-confinement/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DS, 13 Jan 2011 @ 1:14pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Yes, it's true that he's on suicide watch, which ends up meaning no exercise. Granted, the faster he goes to trial the better, but if this is your definition of torture... egads, there are homeless people on the street that would sign up for this.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Infamous Joe (profile), 13 Jan 2011 @ 1:33pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I agree with you. We should ignore all the studies, all the psychologists, the governments and the people who have lived through being a prisoner of war who say it absolutely *is* torture. Some anonymous guy on the Internet says it's not torture, so it must not be.
      
      Case closed.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Groove Tiger (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 1:42pm
  
  Re:
  I'm sure the way your grandpa lives is very interesting, but we're discussing this guy here who's pretty much sleep and exercise deprived with near zero contact with any sort of exterior news.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 5:46pm
  
  Re:
  "Yes, it's terrible that he's keep in a room with basic cable, and is allowed to read. Terrible."
  
  I've read that the US military has people whose job it is to troll internet forums, posting lies favorable to the military.
  
  So, how's it going, DS?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DS, 13 Jan 2011 @ 1:17pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Wow, that is so off the mark, I don't even...
    
    Yes he has basic cable. Yes he has "approved" reading material. And yes, he even has "approved" visitors on the weekend.
    
    Next thing you know they'll really step up the torture and only look at him with frowny faces.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gabriel Tane (profile), 13 Jan 2011 @ 1:48pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Anything to back that up?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Infamous Joe (profile), 13 Jan 2011 @ 2:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Clearly you don't understand what you are talking about. Solitary confinement isn't mentally stressful because you get bored, you fool. They could give him every channel there is for 24hrs a day. Do you know what it is like to be completely isolated from the rest of humanity? You have no clue. He gets to talk to people for 3 hours a *week*. I would tell you to try it, but aside from deliberately stranding yourself on a deserted island, you'd never be in the position where you lost the control to puss out when you did get bored.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
framitz (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 2:06pm

I can find no sympathy
I can't feel much for Manning. I believe he is a traitor to his country.

We need to get him tried and convicted and move on. This should be tried as a capital offense because of the level of potential damage.

MSgt USAF Retired.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- weneedhelp (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 2:29pm
  
  Re: I can find no sympathy
  Maybe one of your brothers opinions would matter
  http://crushingbastards.org/blog/2011/01/04/i-am-a-us-air-force-intelligence-veteran-of-the- war-in-afghanistan-and-i-support-wikileaks/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ron Rezendes (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 2:46pm
  
  Re: I can find no sympathy
  "Potential damage"? Really? If you were speeding down the highway you could "potentially" kill hundreds of people if you chose not to avoid them.
  
  Perhaps we should send all the speeders to jail, then at the trials mention the fact that they "potentially" could have killed hundreds of people each. Subsequently we could put these folks to death since they "potentially" could have been mass murderers!
  
  Thank you for your service to our country but your statement above, I find incredulous.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 2:57pm
  
  Re: I can find no sympathy
  But...But...PATRIOTISM!
  
  He shouldn't be tried for treason. Last I checked, the NYT isn't an Enemy of the State.
  
  He should, hoever, be tried. Because right now, your country is looking more hypocritical than Darth Benedict.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 5:51pm
  
  Re: I can find no sympathy
  "I can't feel much for Manning. I believe he is a traitor to his country.
  blah blah blah
  MSgt USAF Retired."
  
  You, sir, are the traitor. You took an oath to defend the constitution of the United States, not its politicians. Perhaps it is people like yourself who should receive capital punishment, "because of the level of potential damage."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 7:33pm
    
    Re: Re: I can find no sympathy
    Stop, we don't need name calling for this.
    
    Thing is, his sentiments run even deeper in the military community than the ones who say that Manning did the right thing.
    
    In a way, I think he did the right thing, at the right time, for all of the wrong reasons.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 9:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: I can find no sympathy
      "Stop, we don't need name calling for this."
      
      Interesting that you didn't object when it was Manning being called a traitor.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jay (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 11:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: I can find no sympathy
        I don't think he is. That is my personal belief and I'll stick up for it if asked as you did. However, what I am telling you is that a quite a number of military personnel feel betrayed by Manning almost on an instinctual level. I doubt that they've had knowledge of his motivations. The first thing that comes out from them is that "you don't do that".
        
        It's like a mystical taboo was broken...
        
        The only thing I can't agree is that Manning wasn't doing this for his own personal motivations and notoriety.
        
        The fact that he may have been doing this just to say it was his work gives me the impression he could have done worse, but he also could have done better.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 10:02pm
    
    Re: Re: I can find no sympathy
    "You took an oath to defend the constitution of the United States, not its politicians."
    >>>Bingo. That's a solid hit.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 11:22pm
    
    Re: Re: I can find no sympathy
    You, sir, are the traitor. You took an oath to defend the constitution of the United States, not its politicians.
    
    Oh come on, you don't really expect him to defend THAT do you? It was written by a bunch of TRAITORS!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2011 @ 10:36am
  
  Re: I can find no sympathy
  Boy what a troglodyte. You wanna look that word up, Masturbater Sergeant?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 2:31pm

Mike, You're clearly clueless about the military. Go ahead and let him out while awaiting trial. He'll never make it through the week and all his contacts will be lost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Christopher (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 4:24pm
  
  Re:
  Yes, he will make it through the week, because they will assign a 'protective detail' to the man. Frankly, if someone kills him.... they are the ones who are wrong and should be put in jail for the rest of their lives.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marco, 11 Jan 2011 @ 5:30pm

America ... land of the free ... and the world's shame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2011 @ 10:39am
  
  Re:
  What's so free about it? Free to drop bombs on other peoples and invade countries? Freedom to get sickly fat? Freedom to watch Faux News? Freedom to be unbelievably stupid? You're the envy of everyone.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Silver Wolf, 11 Jan 2011 @ 6:52pm

WTF?
Come on. This is basically what caused the huge middle-east mess. Corrupt government.
CMON AMERICA!

You wanna become another Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan?

Holy F**k
They really are brainwashed.
Here, in australia, things ain't much better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Silver Wolf, 11 Jan 2011 @ 6:52pm

WTF?
Come on. This is basically what caused the huge middle-east mess. Corrupt government.
CMON AMERICA!

You wanna become another Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan?

Holy F**k
They really are brainwashed.
Here, in australia, things ain't much better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nathan, 11 Jan 2011 @ 8:26pm

Military service members are subject to the UCMJ
He has the right to stand duty wherever he is ordered to stand duty. Currently he is ordered to stand duty in a military prison awaiting trial. This prison is not that different than civilian prisons and waiting for trail in confinement is not unusual in military or civilian cases for such magnitude. He will see a courts marshal in good time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Christopher (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 12:28am
  
  Re: Military service members are subject to the UCMJ
  Which by the UCMJ, has to be AS SOON AS POSSIBLE... meaning, at most, within 6 months to a year.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 9:13pm

This prison is not that different than civilian prisons

His conditions are much different than those in civilian prisons or even for most other military prisoners.

waiting for trail in confinement is not unusual in military or civilian cases for such magnitude.

So who said otherwise? (other than your straw-man, that is)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Christopher (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 12:29am
  
  Re:
  I would say otherwise. The fact is that pre-trial confinement is usually limited by judges to ONLY cases where a physical danger to someone else could be argued, like letting a suspected murderer out of jail/prison while on bail while awaiting trial.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Libor Soural, 12 Jan 2011 @ 1:08am

I see it all as a badly-scripted movie, I'm a genius screenwriter
Impressed? In what instance? I'm an imitator, intellectually impotent. Increasingly irate and inconsolably insensitive. I assure you that my goals are to incite and inspire. To illustrate the illegitimacy of the idiotic instigators of the ruling industry. To implicitly ignite the inquisition of the population against the "illustrious" politicians. I imagine a world of illumination, free from the ill will of those who seek to incriminate and immolate the intelligence and integrity of the individual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 9:50am
  
  Re: I see it all as a badly-scripted movie, I'm a genius screenwriter
  Not exactly sure what you are saying here.
  
  But, as a consolation prize you get a +1 for a post with the most words starting with the letter "i".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
stuart duckworth, 12 Jan 2011 @ 10:16am

Mr. Manning's imprisonment
This is a criminal government run by the rich. The fact that nobody pays attention really to the murderous reality of this nonsense is indicative of just how sick and dangerous this country is. America is a dnager to the world, but will soon be replaced by even more dangerous powers. It's over for America and it's about time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Hayes, 12 Jan 2011 @ 2:27pm

Bradley Manning
It seems to me that when you read newspaper articles about any subject there is a fair chance it is edited. Therfore, you will only read what the editor wants you to read. When a Government,or its employees, does something wrong and are found out, they immediately go into 'damage control' mode.
This is what has happened to Bradley Manning. He is a hero to the ordinary person because he told the truth...unlike Governments.
His incarceration is the shameful result of a Government employee being found out. His treatment is getting close to the contempt that the 'Crazy Horse' Apache pilot used when he murdered 14 innocent Iraqi's in the 'Collateral Damage' film you "were'nt supposed to see".
Shame on you America!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Luther, 14 Jan 2011 @ 1:29am

ye ye ye
yeah,I am really glad to learn about this because it helps me to increase my knowledge.
the word is big~~~~~
[ link to this | view in chronology ]