The attorney for accused WikiLeaker Pfc. Bradley Manning has petitioned his client's living conditions, which require him to be watched around the clock and forbid him from exercising except for one 30-minute period each day. The complaint was filed on Wednesday with the commander at the Quantico base, where Manning has been …
As someone who's spent time on suicide watch (in a hospital, not a prison) I can certainly see why the guy doesn't want to be on it - it really is one of the worst experiences you can think of.
And, has WikiLeaks ever donated the money to the guy like it said it was going to?
Suicide watch: Watch suicide
It sounds like these procedures were designed to encourage suicide attempts and self-injury, or at the very least induce severe depression. If anyone can come out of such treatment mentally unscarred, then they're surely made of stern stuff.
I just hope Pfc. Manning's stuff is stern enough.
Sure sounds like torture to me
I don't suppose the Geneva Convention applies to your own soldiers though.
Teah they donated
I think it was $15k or something surprisingly pitiful
on Suicide Watch
re: experience # Posted Friday 21st January 2011 23:28 GMT
> As someone who's spent time on suicide watch (in a hospital, not a prison) I can certainly see why the guy doesn't want to be on it - it really is one of the worst experiences you can think of.
Describe the difference symptomatically between clinically suicidal behavior and the effects of the anti-suicide treatment.
RE: Sure sounds like torture to me
It seems obvious that reading up on either the Geneva Convention or the military law that applies didn't strike you as a good idea too. It must be hard to type when you're wringing your hands so much.
"has WikiLeaks ever donated the money to the guy like it said it was going to?"
Yes. They gave him the magnificent sum of $15,100, if the press are to be believed:
It seems to me a pity Julian could not have donated one half of his salary, but I suppose he has to think of his creature comforts. Perhaps when the pay wall system is installed he will run to a greater contribution to protecting the goose that laid his golden egg?
I assume they want to be 100% sure he makes it to trial.
If he dies we have another David Kelly type situation where all the world's nutjobs decide he was murdered, or actually even worse than that - him actually being murdered by either other military personel or CIA types?
Seems like reason alone to keep him chained up and force-fed.
I am titled
I may be naive, I may have had too many on a Friday evening, but I can't for the life of me work out what the hell is wrong in the U.S.
After stories on Alternet about conditions and the treatment of prisoners in "maximum security" prisons, the continuing saga of Mr Manning, Gitmo et.c I am convinced that the United States is a barbaric country that cares not one whit about citizens, rights (human or otherwise) or anything else that doesn't mean more oil/coal/heavy metals/minerals/money/whatever for megacorp bosses/GOP leaders.
When I see their attempts at humanitarian responses and "fighting for human rights" in not just foreign countries but their own freaking backyard (New Orleans?) I can only laugh and thank $INSERT_PERSONAL_DEITY that I was not born there, my parents never emigrated there and that my only connection with them (aside from sending dozens of nasty emails to the shitehouse when Bush was in power) is a section of my family that buggered off 4 or 5 decades ago.
To think they believe they are a fount of democracy and "an example for the rest of the world" should give rise to a short skit that might become the funniest TV ever made. Their right-wing print and TV media are enough to make one want to put a bullet in someones' skull - more than likely me putting one through my own skull.
I just had to unload a bit. Wankers.
Let me get this straight. YOU want to put a bullet through someone's skull and yet WE'RE the "barbaric country" full of gun crazy people?
Maybe you're the one that needs to be on a suicide watch.
words numbers etc etc
The problem with the USA.... let me re-phrase that
The MAIN problem with the USA is that they have 'god on their side'
this excuses all,
1 hand; words best health care,
other hand 50 million denied access to it - god wants it that way.
1 hand; give me your starving huddled masses etc etc etc
other hand; green cards conditional on employment leading to green card slavery - god wants it that way
1 hand; land of the free
other hand: 1 million (mostly black and hispanics) in prison.- god wants it that way
1 hand: democratic republic
other hand; practically you have the choice between the far right and the loony right - got wants it that way.
1 hand: the worlds policeman
other hand: see themselves as above trhe law - god wants it that way
Just as there can be no negotiating with fundamentalist islam, their belief, their god. logic, common sense, or negotiation have no place in their tiny world view. God wants Jihad
The USA is EXACTLY the same,
just a different invisible friend
actually the same invisible friend, wearing a different patterned shirt.
that would be the self same invisible friend as israel
I rest my case
a pox on the lot of em.
Just ...wow ...
Ok, you've an issue with religion, we get it, but that's just gibberish.
Give us a link to anyone ever saying "God wants" people not to have access to healthcare, or black people to be in prison, or doesn't want people to have green cards etc.
You're just making shit up.
Enobled once more
I am so sorry Mr(s) AC if you feel denigrated by my previous post, but I must remind you again about what happens in your country:
- thousands, perchance tens of thousands of people gaoled for weed costing your government greatly in terms of the "crime" and their punishment
- military budgets that exceed the GDP of many, many countries as people starve and suffer horribly
- an arrogance and empire-building moronosphere(tm) of galactic proportions when I heard on an NHL game that "servicemen from America are watching this in at least 175 countries around the world" - whiskey tango foxtrot!!! Who the hell do you think you people are? 175 countries with American bases? Bloody hell, go home and stay there.
- right wing-nuts that think shooting innocent civilians and shooting a Congresswoman is a step forward
- GOP-sponsoring businesses that feel their workers, unions (if allowed) and the poor are just the worker ants in some freakish US-centric hive are there to be down-trodden and denied the basics of humanity that you try to promote to other nations
- sod it, I'm bored and fed-up with this
If you cannot or will not see your country in the light of day then you have no right at all to disparage me or put-down anyone else.
Finally, I'd just like to add that SHOUTING will get you nowhere and your post will follow much American rubbish - into my wastebin, ignored and treated in the way your country does to others.
Sort out your problems, remove the fundamentalists that permeate your country as much as they do others you have tried to force into your own way of thinking and just, for once, think before you act, stop being so imperialist and above all, just try and enjoy life without trying to control it.
Some people from your country feel it is a sign of their freedom that you have guns. I have read of others who feel that is their moral duty to do so.
That sounds pretty close to bats**t crazy to most people not in your country.
Having worn a uniform in my past, I know what to do with firearms. Having this knowlege makes me really glad that guns are less common over here.
Carrying a gun would not protect me from someone in a tank. It would not protect me from spooks battering down my door at 04:00. It would not protect me from a criminal when I was not aware they were there.
In fact, the possibility of my being armed would make potential adversaries more likely to shoot first and ask questions later.
Carrying a gun because of some peoples interpretation of an 18th century statement that a militia is a good thing is like holding onto your privates when making a legal contract because that is what it says in the Old Testament - for a different type of society. The imagined reasons are no longer relevant.
Re: Enobled once more
Listen - I haven't read this scrap in its entirety and I don't want to be glib (heaven forfend etc), but if we could all remember that we are not our respective countries, and that there isn't a country in the world that hasn't done something evil at some point in history (and we're not exactly unimpeachable now), that might help us all to keep a cool head.
Oh come on
It was quite clearly sarcasm. Bloody Americans.
That saved me a load of typing...
No country (or individual) is without sin. Some countries (and individuals) however have significantly more skeletons in their closet than others. The issue with American however is not merely one of sin. It is one of /hubris/. When you combine America's various sins with rampant hypocrisy and American moral exceptionalism it is a very miserable combination.
I think you will find that the kinds of people on these forums taking a bite out of America would be perfectly happy to sit down and discuss with anyone who asks the faults and flaws of their own country. I’d bed you a nice bottle of your favourite drink that they’d also be perfectly willing to have a very candid discussion about their own personal individual faults as well.
The issue is that – on the balance – American moral exceptionalism prevents any real discourse from occurring within America about its own faults. Every time they try it breaks down into pathetic (often violently aggressive) partisan politics. That’s when (or if!) you can even get Americans to admit there even is anything wrong in the first place.
We are none of us without sin, Sarah…but I posit that there is a distinct difference between those capable of analysing their own sins (and working to better themselves) and those unable or unwilling to do so. I know my faults. I work on them every day. That I have faults in no way prevents me from seeing the faults in others, nor wishing, hoping, and striving to see them work towards remedying theirs.
A country may be complex, and filled with individuals that are perfectly good, productive members of society. A gangrenous leg may also have a great many perfectly healthy cells in it. Eventually however the time comes where you must remove the leg in order to save the patient. The time comes when you must prevent the spread of the disease lest it kill the host.
I do not advocate “killing” Americans. Literally or figuratively. I do however advocate the metaphorical removal of damaged tissue (ideas and societal mores) before the excision becomes necessary. In this particular case, I would have to say that the polarisation of their society has to be brought to a screeching halt. They need to look at their society and make some hard choices.
The issues that America faces are her own doing. They are linked to the very core of that society. They are part of and parcel of what the overwhelming bulk of the voting population of that country believes. Only education, time, a collective willingness to admit mistakes and a strong desire to buckle down and do the hard work necessary to recover from them will save them now.
You can call it catastrophising if you want, but that country is on the edge. They are facing the very real possibility of federal financial insolvency. One wrong move and the entire house of cards comes crashing down. Combine this with the ever increasing partisan tensions in that country and I posit that there is a very real possibility of seeing an honest-to-god American civil war within our lifetimes.
None of us wants that. I don’t think there is a reader of The Register who honestly and truly wants that to happen. To say however that we shouldn’t be pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes simply because we ourselves are not without sin…
…well it takes away what little feeling of power, control and influence we “little people’ feel we have. I cannot personally stop America from destroying itself. I cannot slap each and every American upside the head with a wet fish and say “Wake The Fucking Holy Hell Up And Pay Attention.” I truly and honestly wish I could. There are a great many very excellent innocent people in that country. Some of my very best friends in this entire world live in that country. I want to be able to do something to help. I wish I had the power to make a change.
The only power I have – the only power that almost anyone on these forums who isn’t an American has – is that of the words we write. Would you deny us the opportunity to attempt to convince our American brethren that there is something critically wrong – something that desperately needs their immediate attention – with their country? We have no power except that of our words. No way of exerting influence or providing help or succour excepting that we might open the eyes of the only people in this world who truly decide the fate of America…
…her registered voters.
This is clearly torture in a very flimsy disguise. I really pitty this man, and all americans who might one day be subjected to this treatment.
Cruel and Unusual Nanny Statism. (Euphemistically speaking, of course; it's legalised torture.)
It's par for the US course.
You should look up the numbers in US "Supermax" prisons, and their practices. It is completely not fitting for social species like us primates (but creationists will dismiss that argument then probably).
The central idea is sensory deprivation --- stuck in a small empty cell 23h or 23h30 per day, no natural (varying) light, solitary confinement, no contact with humans. Clearly a recipe for mental breakdowns, and arguably torture. To a large extent this is an extrajudicial punishment, because it is usually decided by prison authorities, not by an panel of judges, as a procedural matter to simplify the officers' lives. It is in often given to "difficult" prisoners, with "difficult" to an outsider usually translating to "obviously mentally extremely distressed" (e.g., covering themselves in faeces).
The numbers are staggering, and what will happen after returning those to the streets after a decade of that hardly bears thinking (well, reoffending clearly, and that's then posthoc justification?).
There should be stronger UK campaigns against this, as this government (and the last!) are too pro-SuperMax for comfort. Although I shouldn't personally care --- me & nobody I know will end up there so why care?
the USA legal system worked on the basis of innocent until proved guilty. What on earth will happen to the poor chap when they have sentenced him?
Is it really Suicide Watch or Drive Prisoner To Suicide? I know that no country is always perfect in these matters; but the USA seems to be almost always imperfect. Ugh.
He's being held under military law.
Apparently it's different to civilian law.
I thought it was a military court martial? If so, normal rights need not apply.
In the military...
You have no rights when you are in the military. And considering what Manning did, like it or not, it was akin to treason. That is why he is being treated this way. Civilian rules don't apply, just like they don't apply to prisoners of war. I'm just telling it like it is, 'cos some people seem confused here.
So how does this work then:
" At night, if the guards cannot see him clearly, because he has a blanket over his head..."
"He will not be allowed to have a pillow or sheets."
Blanket != Sheets
RE: So how does this work then
I'm guessing the author was merely repeating verbatim the set of orders that apply to suicide watch under US military rules, without stopping to actually ascertain which ones might be applied in Manning's case. You also have to consider that Quantico Brig is part of a US Marine Corp base and therefore Manning is actually under military juristiction, not civil. So what you'd normally expect in a civillian prison (lot's of professional handwringers, quiet sessions with the psychiatrist and probably time in a comfier prison hospital ward) just aren't going to happen, the USMC don't have a lot of respect for those that "break the code". For all those that seem to have forgotten, Manning was a member of the military, he signed up and accepted their rules of employment, which include both the security aspect he alledgedly deliberately broke, plus the rules and conditions under which he would be imprisoned awaiting trial should he be caught doing what he shouldn't. For his friends to cry foul now is simply silly, but then it's probably just a publicity ploy on their part.
As to whether the USMC is trying to make him commit suicide, I wish the posters that came up with that would stop and think coherently for just a second. Firstly, the last thing the US administration will want is Manning committing suicide and all the conspiracy freaks then frothing about "assassinations". Secondly, they want Manning alive and capable of standing trial so they can link Assange and co to the act prior to the data theft, as then Assange is "guilty" under the Espionage Act and they can lock Assange away too. Without Manning, it will be much harder to put a watertight case against Assange and co. If anyone is likley to be willing Manning to top himself it's most likley to be Assange and his legal team.
Re: So how does this work then:
Such inconsistencies in the speculation make it more suspect than before.
Your hood is slipping-
and we can see your face.
...that the Tseka has not taken over the world. But who knows ?
... convicted of what, please tell us?
Pfc. Bradley Manning has NOT been convicted of anything
so he can not be named as the source of Wikileaks material.
The treatment he is suffering is unadorned governmental torture as he is very lightly, partially clothed, denied all reading material, prohibited from exercising in his cell where he remains for 23 hours each day.
Every 5 minutes he is visually checked on and if he is sleeping face to the wall, he is awoken.
By any measure he is being tortured but what else would you expect from a country that abducts people (rendition) and then tortures them in an isolated prison. Hypocritically the U.S, accuses other countries of torture.
I might possess a U.S. passport but I refuse to use it as the government abuses it's very own citizens it is duty bound to protect.
RE: Pfc. Bradley Manning has NOT been convicted of anything
More sensationalist frothing from JaitcH, again without a shred of logical thought attached.
".....so he can not be named as the source of Wikileaks material...." The fact that he has been charged can be cited in court. However, I expect the US administration will want a successful conviction against Manning first to ensure a simpler job against Assange.
".....The treatment he is suffering is unadorned governmental torture...." Nope, it's just standard US military procedures, under US military law. Torture is very carefully deifned under both international and US miltary law, and what Manning is undergoing is niether. You would know this if you bothered to do some research of your own rather than just letting people spoonfeed you what they want you to think.
".....Every 5 minutes he is visually checked on and if he is sleeping face to the wall, he is awoken...." To ensure he is not dying through a self-inflicted wound or action. Of course, if Manning did manage to kill himself you'd immediately start squealling that the US military should have taken more care to stop him topping himself, wouldn't you. As I posted earlier, the US administration wants Manning alive, not dead.
"....I might possess a U.S. passport but I refuse to use it...." Good, one can only hope that means you won't be travelling and spewing your idiocy abroad. Of course, it does mean you have very little chance of actually getting out in the World and actually seeing and learning anything for youself. Probably less of a shock to your fragile mentality if you just stay in your Mom's basement and dream on.
"Torture" is defined as:
"... any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity." ... Taken from the UN website.
Perhaps it's you who should do some research.
Just because the US Government says: "This, that and the other doesn't constitute as torture" doesn't make it so. If you are intentionally inflicting suffering onto someone without "The State" decrying it ... It's torture!
AC as I don't want BB coming to get me.
RE: "Torture" is defined as
".....severe pain or suffering...." Please explain the severe pain or suffering involved? Is Manning undergoing "severe suffering" because they won't let him read a magazine? What, Attitude or Playgirl? Is Readers Digest now an experience the human body cannot survive without? I think not. And real sleep deprivation is also tightly defined both in the US military manuals the USMC also comply to, in international military law, and also available for you to actually do some research on at said Library of Congress website. Please take the time to educate yourself a bit more on what is obviousy a very emotional subject for you.
".....Perhaps it's you who should do some research...." Perhaps it's you that should read the article - his lawyers are not accusing the US military or administration for committing a crime because what they are doing to Manning is completely legal. Got that? His lawyers are petitioning the court, because nothing illegal is happening to Manning. Please try really hard to comprehend this - just because you want it to be so, doesn't make it so in the real World. You'll probably find that applies to more in your life than just this forum.
"....Taken from the UN website....." Always make's me laugh when someone quotes UN deliberations as though they were the Pronouncements of The Gods, without first taking a long and hard look at some of the UN members and their histories of torture and repression. But, more to the point, it simply doesn't apply here as Manning is under US military juristiction - the UN could pronounce him a saint and it would make SFA difference.
"....Just because the US Government says: "This, that and the other doesn't constitute as torture" doesn't make it so...." Actually, seeing as the US is a sovereign state, it does! It is a state with checks and balances and a democratic process missing from many of the states that drafted the UN hogwash you so blithely repeat. That means the US can make it's own laws. If we were all bound to what the UN said regardless then the UN courts would be busy right now dealing with countries like Sudan, China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc, etc, but the fact is the UN is largely a toothless tiger even when members sign up to UN charters. The funniest bit is that it is usually the US that supplies the pressure - financial, commercial, political and military - that makes any of the UN actions practical in the first place. Ever wonder why the UN headquarters is in New York? Without the US the UN is just a talking shop for despots and dictators keen to blame all their ills on the West.
".....AC as I don't want BB coming to get me." More like the kindergarten teacher is going to come along and ask why you've been skipping class.
How many people, if treated in that way, would be seriously thinking about suicide after only a few days???
This is the result of the Bush era.
When a country has no qualms about holding foreign citizens hostage, torturing them, kidnapping them and flying them to various secret prisons, putting political pressure on foreign nations to curtail their investigations and outright threatening its own citizens and government into submission over all of the previous, then it is absolutely, completely naive to expect that they will treat their own citizens any different.
I'm not even going to get into whether or not Bradley Manning broke the law. That's not the point. What is being done to him is nothing more than psychological torture, making him ripe and tender for the beating he's about to be given in court. They want him weak. They want him broken. Despite the fact that, according to every news source available (and from the military themselves), he has done absolutely nothing wrong in prison nor shown himself to be violent or a threat, he is being put through conditions that not even maximum security inmates are forced to endure.
The fact that his lawyer and all of his advocates are being rebuked at every step paints an extremely clear picture of what the military are doing and why. Military law is far more strict than civilian law and you can get away with a lot more in regards to how you treat alleged criminals. The fact that over the past ten years there existed a culture of lawless coyboyism regarding detainees most likely doesn't help the poor man's situation, either. You would expect Obama, his administration and this (well, the previous, now that the elections are over) congress to have done a partial about face on Bush era tactics, but it appears that they are all too happy to toss the book, throw the book, chew up the book and spit it and possibly even launch it out of a cannon at the guy.
The way in which our government scorned is choosing to treat an American citizen says far more about us and our priorities than Manning's own actions ever could about him. When someone is put into prison, either as a suspect or a convicted criminal (guilty or not), we don't want rehabilitation, or a sentence to fit the crime, we want a penance in blood, drawn out from willfully, sadistically inflicted suffering, either through the psychological destruction of the man in question or through the physical destruction of the beast our very own rehabilitation system creates.
Again, whether or not he is guilty isn't at issue here any more than whether or not a rapist is guilty is. What IS at issue here is the way in which we Americans and our government choose to treat suspects, prisoners and convicted criminals. Bradley Manning, like so many convicted criminals and even innocents, is the victim of a culture of retaliation, that is both petty and cruel, and reaches from the poorest in our nation to the most powerful.
Even if the guy is guilty, even if he did act in severe malice, even if he committed high treason, he is still an American citizen and, far more importantly, a man. Gather the evidence, hold a trial, find him guilty, throw him in prison and put him to death, but don't toy with him as you would a mere insect, don't take away his dignity. The constitution was written to prevent exactly this sort of dehumanizing destruction of a man's sense of self, and it seems that the military-industrial-congressional complex, in combination with our rush to militarize what it means to be an American, has done everything it could make us forget that. That and, in the last 230 years, every legislator who ever wrote an exemption to those protections and every judge who ever validated any breach of protocol and conduct.
In case you haven't noticed, this isn't the Bush era. Although it's convenient, you can't blame him forever. Why don't you put some pressure on the current administration?
This is happening under Obama's watch. Don't get me wron, I'd try Bush for perjury and possibly treason, but Obama has ordered the assassination of US citizens abroad on the suspition that they are terrorists.
He's supposed to be the good guy!
RE: This is the result of the Bush era.
The standard Dummicrat excuse in the title does give away both your political affilliations and hints at the laughable content to follow. In case you forgot (and I'm sure you celebrated the event), Obambi was elected Prez in November 2008. The Dummicrats had a majority in both houses long before then, so all this "blame it on Bush" nonsense is just burying your head in the sand. If anyone is doing "unspeakable things" to Manning it's under the direction of Obambi and co, and nothing to do with George W Bush.
".....holding foreign citizens hostage, torturing them, kidnapping them and flying them to various secret prisons, putting political pressure on foreign nations to curtail their investigations and outright threatening its own citizens and government into submission over all of the previous...." Please state how any of that - even if it was true in other cases - applies to Manning? He hasn't been kidnapped, he's been arrested by the US military for breach of US military law. He hasn't been flown to a secret prison, he's in Quantico Brig, an established US base, and his friends, family and lawyers have all been given access to him. He hasn't been tortured, he's been kept under US military prison rules, including their rules on how prisoners judged likley to self-harm should be kept. Seeing as I doubt you have any psychiatric training and have likley never even met Manning, I don't see how you are qualified to question the conclusions of trained doctors. There is no "pressure" on foreign governments, all Manning's wrong-doings have been committed in US bases under US militray juristiction, so no need to involve foreign powers at all. And please give a single example of how the US administration has threatened it's own over Manning? In short, you can't for any of the above, because all you sprouted was a load of mindless, unsubstantiated drivel.
@ Anonymous Coward, 03:32 GMT
In case you haven't noticed, I laid my fair share of blame on Obama. Of course, you didn't actually read my post, did you, or you would have known that.
@ Paul 106
I don't exactly think Obama's worse. I think he's a hypocrite and a charlatan for running the campaign that he did and then trying to play Chicago politics on a national level. That's not the point, though, and I'd really rather not debate it. He's merely a technocrat posing as a liberal, as are so many supposed Democrats today. His jockeying for position, a very specific and powerful one in fact - President - belies his and nearly all politicians true nature. They want to uphold the status quo while scoring just enough political points to guarantee power and position for as long as constitutionally allowed. When done, they want to have networked well enough and made as many friends in business as possible to guarantee continued influence and employment. The end.
Obama is a bad President because he reneged on nearly everything he ever said regarding Bush's policies. He continues many of them and, in true Presidential fashion regarding foreign policy and motherland security (wink wink), he seems to have only changed his mind the moment he stepped into office and was given "the talk" that only people of a certain security clearance are given. I don't doubt that the landslide of information - both true and fabricated - presented to a new President can change his mind. The jump from junior Senator to President is that of going from Duke of Gloucester to Prime Minister or King. (That is an imperfect analogy, my apologies, but I hope you gather what I am trying to say.)
Still, that is no excuse for Obama not to try and uphold his campaign promises. As is, Obama is a completely different President than he was a candidate. Not so different from Obama the Senator. I lived in Chicago at the time Obama was elected and I did not vote for him, nor would I ever vote for any politician from Chicago or Illinois. I did not drink the kool-aid. Many did. I expected him to break many of his campaign promises, as anyone who thinks that anyone in power will discontinue programs that enlarge their power is largely naive.
All that I have written above are the reasons why party politics, no matter how many parties and politicians involved, is bullshit. The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is largely one of ideologies. Not all Democrats support abortion and gun control, but it is a large and valid power group within their base. Not all Republicans support limitless intrusion into our private lives under the guise of security, but it is a large and valid power group within their base. I am neither, and I vote neither, and when I withhold my vote - as I did in the last President and congressional elections - it is not out of spite or anger, but out of a lack of other reasonable options. I do not play their game, as voting for one candidate just to block another is just as dangerous as voting a straight ticket simply because that party skews more to your own bias.
I know the difference between chicken shit and chicken salad.
@ Matt Bryant
How is it that you've posted nearly 2100 times and I've yet to see your name but in this one thread alone I have seen it pop up numerous times, nearly every single one regurgitating the same tired partisan tripe? Yes, sorry, my apologies, I brought out the post count argument. I concede!
Perhaps my previous response to Paul 106 will hint as to where my sensibilities and loyalties lie. I doubt it, as you just want to rail off your pedestrian opinion while masquerading it as high-brow intellectual analyzation. You didn't read my post, or you'd understand the correlation between a society that condones secretly shipping off POWs to secret military bases (ie doing everything it can to "protect" us from people we denote as "evil") and one that has no problem stripping everyday citizens and soldiers of their rights (ie doing everything we can to set an example for would-be "traitors" and constitutionally protected leakers alike). Our obsession with security has led us to accede to the continual and wanton stripmining of rights and protections from both the constitution and federal law. Moreover, our acquiescence to the turned blind eye of oversight has caused the moral and ethical erosion of government that seeks to domestically abuse the powers given to it to fight terrorism and foreign espionage. To wit, we treated foreign nations like shit for so long, simply because they're foreign, that we fail to recognize what's wrong when we treat our own citizenry the same. As I said in my post, which you failed to read, I pointed out that the military CAN and WILL treat him like this as military law is far more strict than its civilian counterpart. All the same, that certainly doesn't make it right.
Now, because you're obviously here for no other reason than to spout off crap rhetoric, I'll give you a line by line response:
"Please state how any of that - even if it was true in other cases - applies to Manning?"
- No, thanks, you'll just take it out of context again in a crude and infantile attempt to discredit what I'm saying and repeat partisan talking points because you lack both the originality and cognition to form your own opinions about the matter.
"He hasn't been kidnapped"
- I never said he was, that was in regards to our treatment of should've-been-POWs-instead-of-detainees and the fact that they were flown to secret prisons and never charged. Don't even attempt to straw-man me.
"he's been arrested by the US military for breach of US military law."
- Yes, a fact which I stated and bears repeating. Thanks, Matty!
"He hasn't been flown to a secret prison,"
- Again, never said he was. Don't straw-man me.
"he's in Quantico Brig, an established US base, and his friends, family and lawyers have all been given access to him."
- This is not a flat out lie, but it's disingenuous, as you leave out the part where his friends, family, lawyers and journalists have all been harassed by the military. Their cars have been searched and towed, they have been given court summons for things such as not having up to date car insurance paperwork on them (and then refusing to take electronic insurance papers), they have been written ticket after ticket for infractions found without having probable cause, etc. There are more ways to skin a cat than one, and just as Bradley Manning's treatment amounts to torture, so too is constant harassment a tool used to keep his friends, family and lawyers from having easy access to him.
"He hasn't been tortured,"
- Legally he hasn't. Nor has he been subjected to what is torture under international law. Still, his treatment is torturous, and I wager that is the implied meaning of most people's posts on this subject. This is not a nit you should be picking, as you are neither a pedant nor clever, you are merely trying to score points by feigning to not have understood our posts and then hoping we don't come back to clarify.
"he's been kept under US military prison rules, including their rules on how prisoners judged likley to self-harm should be kept."
- Yes, just as prisoners as Camp X-Ray and Abu Ghraib were kept under military prison rules, including their rules on how prisoners judged likely to self-harm should be kept. These rules and their interpretation are ripe for abuse, however, and the fact that you don't even think that they could be is appalling. The military is doing everything they can to prevent oversight of his treatment, and therein lies the problem. You understand this, yet you, again, acted as obtusely as possible to make an asinine point.
"Seeing as I doubt you have any psychiatric training and have likley never even met Manning,"
- While I have no psychiatric training, many people do. People being kept from meeting and evaluating Manning. My lack of training and personal interaction with Manning does not preclude me from forming an opinion about his treatment, just as your own personal inadequacies don't preclude you from forming yours. Again, willfully obtuse. Again, don't straw-man me, buddy.
"I don't see how you are qualified to question the conclusions of trained doctors."
- Trained military doctors with an agenda who are operating under the cover of a military that is doing everything it can to prevent oversight of their treatment of Manning. Look, if you don't understand that the military looks out for its own, and has in the past gone to the exact same extremes it is now to threaten, demoralize and discredit people that have scorned it, then you are even more deluded than I thought.
"There is no "pressure" on foreign governments, all Manning's wrong-doings have been committed in US bases under US militray juristiction,"
- Again, this was part of my correlation/causation bit regarding how... fuck it, you know what, you don't care about this argument, you're just a partisan asshole that has made this thread into his own personal crusade against against anyone who is taking a moral stand against his treatment. His treatment is legal, yes, but it isn't right, and that is why you have gone to the fringes of misunderstanding and misrepresentation to make our arguments look weak because you lack the ability to bolster your own arguments through reason, logic, empathy and understanding. The four previous sentiments are not something only Democrats are prone to, and your incredible ability to incorrectly slander many people for holding those opinions (and ones that you simply made up and credited to them) is simply astounding.
"so no need to involve foreign powers at all."
- Oh, no? So the United States government leaning on Sweden to prosecute him for crimes in their country so that the United Kingdom can extradite him to a country that is then far more likely to extradite him to the United States isn't involving foreign powers at all? I realize that is, of course, not what you meant, as you were merely warping my easily understandable post to suit your own needs, but it is what the US is doing.
"And please give a single example of how the US administration has threatened it's own over Manning?"
- Straw man. Straw man. STRAW MAN. STTTRRAAAWWW MAAANNN!! My post contains three extremely separate points that tied in to make one overarching statement about the way in which this country is operating. (1) Obama is continuing Bush era policies, (2) many of which began to intrude domestically, (3) the treatment of Manning is morally, if not legally, wrong, which directly descends from (1) and (2). Again, I don't expect you to make that logical leap, seeing as how your entire purpose here is to score points and manipulate what we're all saying. I doubt you even read to the point of comprehension the majority of our posts in your hurry (as indicated by the legion of misspellings and typos) to post as many platitudes as humanly possible. It looks as if you just scanned for as many talking points as you could and then vomited up some pointlessly vitriolic reaction, all of which boil down to "it's A-OK legally" and "democrat crybaby wah wah wah".
"In short, you can't for any of the above, because all you sprouted was a load of mindless, unsubstantiated drivel."
- I apologize for my inability to properly germinate. I promise to consult with an arborist before next posting.
As my favorite "liberal" once said, "Don't kick cow crap on my boots and call it bull shit."
RE: I know the difference between chicken shit and chicken salad.
Oh my aching sides! I haven't laughed that much since... well, the last post by an equally deluded Fosjay.
"How is it that you've posted nearly 2100 times....." Good system design, good management software, and a good team to keep the lusers at bay. True, that number was accrued over several years, though.
".....and I've yet to see your name but in this one thread alone...." Well, I'm guessing that was because you know SFA technically. I tend to post in technical articles, though I have noticed we're seeing more of the handwringer crowd appearing on this site in recent years. Why should I pass up the fun of mocking their poorly argued whinings? A quick perusal of your posts shows both a trend in "human rights" interest and a trend of hating the Police, hating Republicans, hating big companies like Google, hating all phone companies, hating patents, hating China, hating old ladies that speak loudly in resteraunts..... seems to be a lot of hate in your life! But very little technical interest, and on a technical website. My two faves from your posts are below:
Regarding John McCain: ".....as usual he is careless with his words, lacks comprehension of the situation and is completely biased. Fuck him. It'll be the Cold War all over again if we elect that asshole....." So non-partisan, no tripe involved at all! No leaping to conclusions or hyperbole, just calm and logical reasoning - NOT!
Regarding other Reg forums posters: ".....I swear some of you tits need to go back to the Daily Mail and LEAVE THE REGISTER ALONE....." Well, that was original thought there, I've never heard that one before! But let's get back to poking fun out of your last post.
"....You didn't read my post...." Sorry (and I am, it was truly a waste of time) but I did read all of it.
"....or you'd understand the correlation between a society that condones secretly shipping off POWs to secret military bases (ie doing everything it can to "protect" us from people we denote as "evil") and one that has no problem stripping everyday citizens and soldiers of their rights (ie doing everything we can to set an example for would-be "traitors" and constitutionally protected leakers alike)....." You haven't understood that other people may have different opionions than yourself, and just because you rabbit on it doesn't mean we're all going to magically convert to your point of view. Even if you can provide some reasoned argument rather than just copious amounts of chicken excreta, it still doesn't guarantee you'll convince anyone. As an example, implying that because there have been cases of the US using extraordinary rendition of foreign nationals to foreign countries for torture, there must be a dark and nasty reason for the US detaining a "traitor" in a military prison is simply a massive stretch. It's a bit like saying the Nazis did some bad stuff so we must always approach any German government ideas as evil (cue inevitable Godwin post). Sorry, the keeping of non-uniformed combatants (not "POWs") in Gitmo is completely unrelated, it's just a typical, unoriginal, kneejerk, handwringer response in an attempt to link a current event with a "bad Bush" event of the past. Please try harder, much harder.
I'm particularly amused by the way you completely ignore all the evidence in order to trot out your pat conclusions. In some cases you even display the evidence and then sweep it under the carpet! ".....Legally he hasn't. Nor has he been subjected to what is torture under international law. Still, his treatment is torturous...." So, you consider yourself a more authoritative figure than the international or US courts, then? Are you some super-experienced, human-rights lawyer, maybe Alan Dershowitz? My, what an ego you have!
".....While I have no psychiatric training, many people do...." So you even admit you don't have the qualifications to analyse Manning's state of mind even if you had met with him, but somehow that's irrellevant because lots of other people do! Of course, you then assume all those people will follow your thoughts exactly, if only the Big, Bad USMC would grant all and sundry free access! Newsflash - Manning is being held for treason and espionage, it's not normal to give someone like that unlimited visitations. In fact, even in civil prisons, access is very controlled and restricted to family, close friends and associated lawyers. If the USMC were breaking the law in not letting anyone that liked visit Manning then his legal team would already be bringing charges against the USMC, whereas they are PERTITIONING for a change in his terms of incarceration. But what's the problem? You already told us you don't need a psychiatrist or doctor to make a reasoned judgement based on actually seeing Manning, you have already concluded he must be being driven suicidal by his "torture". And seeing as you're just such an authority on everything....
"....My lack of training and personal interaction with Manning does not preclude me from forming an opinion about his treatment...." Well, seeing as you have limited access to the facts - you haven't met with and examined Manning or his environment - and you don't have the skills or training required to form a professional opinion, I'd say there is nothing to stop you forming an uninformed, personal opionion, based on heresay and your obvious emotional and political biases. But I'm also saying - due to you not having the training, information, access or impartiality to make a qualified judgement - don't expect the rest of us to just swoon in wonder at your pronouncements as your opinion is no more valid than one from anyone else here, in fact it seems to be of little value at all.
"....you're just a partisan asshole...." I shall refer you back to your McCain comment above. But your complete cop-out of an answer simply shows that you can't formulate a reasoned reply, hence the name-calling.
"....So the United States government leaning on Sweden to prosecute him for crimes in their country...." Ah, I think you're confusing Assange and Manning at this point. Maybe you'd like to take this chance to go do a little background reading before your next Great Pronouncement of The Truth?
Then after you get all excited about your straw men, you sweep off on a tangent wth the following: "....(1) Obama is continuing Bush era policies, (2) many of which began to intrude domestically, (3) the treatment of Manning is morally, if not legally, wrong, which directly descends from (1) and (2). ...."
(1) What did you expect? I'm no fan of Obambi, but it's a bit unrealistic to expect him to reverse or remove all Bush's actions in just two years.
(2) Obambi is the US Prez, of course his actions will "intrude domestically", and so will those actions set in motion by his predecessor, Bush. This is just more smoke and mirrors, where's the meat?
(3) The treatment of Manning is morally and legally wrong IN YOUR EYES due to your own political and emotional preferences. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and for the people that count (that's the US military and courts, not you) they are simply following the laws that apply. I suggest you try that logical leap, though it seems one you are not willing or capable of accomplishing. As a case in point, the US military laws being used in Manning's case pre-date the Bush presidency, so your "blame it all on Bush" whining is just that - childish whining.
You see, the big difference between how you and I post is that you set out opinions as though they were unchallengeable fact and assume that we're all going to fall in line, whereas I don't have the faintest belief that any of you Fosjays will suddenly "see the light", at most I hope you may stop and consider an alternative point of view. I don't expect you to change your opinions simply becasue I poke car-sized holes in them, but that's becasue I don't think the cow manure is on your boots, I think a fair chunk of it is lodged between you ears.
I offended you so much you went through my back history on the Register cherry-picking items in an attempt at forming your oh so coherent argument?
I'm not even going to bother. This is simply the most unreal experience I've ever had on here and this one time I used Google to completely out a pro-Google Googler by finding out everything there was to know about him after he said "Google wasn't evil" and there was nothing to fear.
Good day, sir. I look forward to another four years of failing to recognize you post here.
"I offended you so much...." Sorry to bruise your ego, but you AMUSED me so much I thought it would be fun to take a peak at what other howlers you might have posted. Some of them are real corkers, indicative (in my unprofessional opinion) of some deep-seated issues! If you hadn't realised by now, it's very easy to look at another poster's comments, all you do is click on their name. It seems we have only posted in the same threads once before (the Israeli D9 "Killdozer" thread), one where I probably left no doubt as to my pity of the fashionably outraged such as yourself.
"....I'm not even going to bother...." I'm not surprised, so far your efforts have been verbose but lacking in any real content. I'm actually hoping you put a little more effort into some real action regarding Manning, as the poor kid is probably going to need all the support he can get when he realises Assange and co have left him to carry the can.
".....This is simply the most unreal experience I've ever had...." What, someone that actually has an opinion counter to your own? I find it very strange that is "unreal" to you, have you never tried debating anything before, or is it that you just swallow whatever the "hip'n'trendy" line du jour is? Try widening your circle of aquaintances beyond the local student union bar.
".....I look forward to another four years of failing to recognize you post here." So you'll be steering clear of the technical threads then? I can't promise I won't wander into the "human interest" threads if the fosjays keep on ranting, so maybe best if you just go back to the Disney site where you can mingle with minds on an equal footing.
They're torturing the geezer. Its not big and its not clever.
should go on to say:
RE: Yes torture
Yeah, I'm just guessing what accusations you'll start throwing around if Manning were to manage to kill himself. Please, get a clue and go read the relevant US military laws, they apply because Manning was a member of the military. Manning wasn't some script kiddie hacking from his Mom's basement, he was an enlisted soldier that saw fit to break military laws and abuse the trust given to him by his security clearance. His legal team know this, you would know this if you had an ounce of common sense, so please stop squealling and - frankly - grow up. You could start at the Library of Congress website which has a search tool and complete articles on all the miltary laws that apply both to Manning's alledged crimes and the terms of his incarceration whilst awaiting trial.
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Something for the Weekend, Sir? Why can’t I walk past Maplin without buying stuff I don’t need?
- Review 'Mommy got me an UltraVibe Pleasure 2000 for Xmas!' South Park: Stick of Truth
- The land of Milk and Sammy: Free music app touted by Samsung
- Privacy warriors lob sueball at Facebook buyout of WhatsApp