US soldier Bradley Manning, held in military custody facing charges of leaking large amounts of classified data, is to be moved to a different jail. At present, Manning is being held in the US Marine Corps brig at Quantico, Virginia. According to an announcement by top Pentagon lawyer Jeh Johnson, he will now be moved to the …
Next that'll happen?
If it's suicide, his jailors will go "told you so", smugly grinning in the knowledge that they made him do it. I'd do it, having been driven completely stark raving nekkid mad by such treatment for months. It's what they call a "self-fulfilling prophecy", and in this blatant and institutional abuse of power kind of case, ought to be criminal.
RE: Next that'll happen?
You sound like you'd be completely disappointed if he doesn't take his own life! What, would that deny you a martyr to grind on and on about? So predictably hilarious that you get what you want - Manning moved to a "softer" facility - and you still find something to whine about. Seriously, let go of the hatred.
Do I now?
That's not how I wrote it.
Since you're asking, no, I don't want him or anyone else dead. If anything I'd rather he'd been treated humanely from the start and not possibly driven to suicide by dint of this "suicide watch". To me that reeks of extreme pettiness on the part of his jailors, trying to get back to him for being, as they see it, a traitor. But seeing, say, gitmo, it really wasn't unexpected. Not to me at any rate. You seem to believe differently.
What I did was draw lines between dots in a certain way, which might be termed cynical. Though others might term it realist; it's not as if we haven't seen much worse from yon country already. If noting that is hate to you, then I suggest you might try something safer to your sensibilities. Something with teletubbies in it, perhaps?
RE: Do I now?
"....To me that reeks of extreme pettiness on the part of his jailors...." I'm guessing that's because you know nothing about US military law (which Manning is subject to) or the standard procedures that the Marines were following. Seeing as they have been discussed here in these forums before, and are available on the Web, I can only assume you are ignoring the facts to allow you to vent some more, are willfully ignorant because you don't want to admit Manning put himself in the position through his own actions, or just stupid.
".....What I did was draw lines between dots in a certain way...." You even fail at dot-to-dots! People like you will see what they want to see because they are so busy hating "The Man". You're so full of prejudice and denial it's impossible for you to get a realistic view of anything, you just wait for the next set of spoonfed ideals from conmen like Assange.
"...you get what you want - Manning moved to a "softer" facility..."
Dunno who you're addressing, but what I "want" is either a release, an apology, an honorable discharge, and a large pension if they don't have enough to try him; or, a speedy and properly conducted trial -- and I *mean* a trial, rather than a court-martial or a military commission -- followed by either the aforegoing, should he be acquitted, or a long sentence should he be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.
Of course, I also "want" a pony, and look how that's worked out.
"People like you"
Just so you know, you're doing the exact same thing you're accusing me of.
Also just so you know, now that you've conveniently put me in a box, you're equally conveniently foregoing discussion while you busy yourself putting more labels on the box. Maybe it makes you feel better but it entirely fails to impress me.
It doesn't even do anything to convince me of the righteous rightness of your, er, arguments. To do that you'll have to quit the ad hominem assault with your labelmaker long enough for a bit of a breather, a wipe with a hanky, and an actual argument, perhaps with those references I'm sure you have handy, to show me wrong. That's how civilised discussion goes. Maybe things are different on the other side of the pond, but that's not where we are.
RE: "People like you"
"......you've conveniently put me in a box....." It was your own rediculously ignorant statements that put you in that box, without any need for labels given the way you scrawled "eedeeot" in crayon all over it. You cast slander at his jailers, not just implying but outright saying they deliberately did this to make Manning suicidal, without for a second looking at the facts - they were standard brig procedures, not the actions of sadistic guards. They are based in military laws, not random political machinations. The procedures were there to actually keep Manning from harming himself after a qualified psychiatrist examined him and said he was likely to self-harm. I'm betting you have zero psychioatric training, have definately not appraised Manning's state of mind in any other way than regurgitating whatever you read on some loon website, and haven't bothered to read up on any of the laws Manning broke or the terms under which he can be kept. In short, you are a know-nothing blow-hard, riding around on your moral hobbyhorse and thinking you know better than those that actually bothered to look at the facts. Don't bother going back to IndyMedia, go back to school and start from scratch.
I'm guessing you do not consider Manning's actions "criminal", then? So, you just want to ignore the military laws he broke, or the oath he took, all because it lines up neatly with your political faith? You want the US to apologise because he couldn't hack it as a gay in the military and chose (yes, chose, not by accident but by design) to break the laws he had signed up to follow, rather than just resigning and leaving? Manning dug his own hole and Assange took pleasure in giving him a bigger shovel.
"mix with other prisoners"?
Whilst the move to a new facility following his abominable treatment by the Marines is welcome, I have to wonder whether putting him in the same room as other prisoners is going to be a good idea because there's more than a chance that at least some of them will consider him a "traitor" and decide to try to mete out their own version of "justice".
He is also gay. Traitor charges aside, I'd guess thats a safety risk in its own right when in military prison.
That's probably the intent
A trial will be messy now. Far better to have an "accident".
RE: That's probably the intent
Just listen to yourselves - keep him in solitary and you moan that's an attempt to drive him to suicide, but then they say they'll move him to general population and you start implying it's a plot to get him killed because all soldiers just must be a bunch of uber-patriotic queer-bashers!?! Please, put down the Kool Aid and the get some perspective, otherwise please post your full names so we can look forward to seeing you listed as future Darwin Award nominees.
Now the slippery slope starts.
First the US Military was condemned for solitary confinement and suicide watch.
Now its condemned for putting Manning in a facility where he will be around other prisoners.
It sucks to be Manning right now and he has only himself and Assange to blame for it.
(IMHO he was duped by Assange.)
And for what?
No War Crimes were exposed.
(Except that Assange leaked some of the identities of people who worked with the NATO forces.)
(Also lets not forget the leaked details of sensitive operational material which even the NYT wouldn't print and the NYT does like a good expose...)
Nothing but embarrassing diplomatic posts that had no value but to injure the US's reputation and to air dirty laundry.
War crime, depending how you look at it, probably not.
But the video did look like a bunch of Hick sounding jocks using 50mm weapons on people, who even in the shitty video did not appear to be a direct threat to anybody, not only on the insurgent targets but women and children, whilst yeeeeeharrrring!, and obviously enjoying it, just make the US forces look bad.
Manning was a bit of a misguided twat, almost certainly not directly connected to Assange, if there was any evidence of such, it would have been leaked by now to make the Military look a bit better.
Paris she knows how to handle a bunch of tossers.
Personally I think the military should have hung out the prats in helicopters to dry, it must have been known what they were doing, but perhaps it's endemic in the Military and that's why not.
Ok, its no wonder you post anon because you don't even get your facts straight.
"War crime, depending how you look at it, probably not."
Its not how I or you look at it. Its how the US and other Nations view it. And I'm not talking about any conviction but just enough evidence to bring charges or an investigation. None, nada, zip. No cover ups, nothing in the reports to even hint at an investigation.
No 'probably not' anywhere.
"But the video did look like a bunch of Hick sounding jocks using 50mm weapons on people, who even in the shitty video did not appear to be a direct threat to anybody, not only on the insurgent targets but women and children, whilst yeeeeeharrrring!, and obviously enjoying it, just make the US forces look bad.
You mean the door gunner?
First if it was a 50, its 50 caliber. (M2 'Ma Duce' machine gun). That means the bullet diameter is 1/2". 50mm is a cannon shell and has a diameter of over an inch. Second, I'm not sure if they have 50's on door gunner platforms. Usually its a 7.62mm NATO aka .308. Or even a 5.56 NATO (.223 cal) machine gun/ mini gun.
Third... you seem to forget this thing called RoE (Rules of Engagement) and of course that what you saw was edited by ASSange himself to be prejudicial. Putting that footage in context and you get a different picture.
I can go on, but I think you get the point.
And if you want to do some homework check this out...
The photo was taken by Eddie Adams.
You should read the web page but here's a quote that I think you should try and understand...
"I won a Pulitzer Prize in 1969 for a photograph of one man shooting another … The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People believe them, but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths. What the photograph didn't say was, "What would you do if you were the general at that time and place on that hot day, and you caught the so-called bad guy after he blew away one, two or three American soldiers?" General Loan was what you would call a real warrior, admired by his troops. I'm not saying what he did was right, but you have to put yourself in his position.
--Eddie Adams "
Go follow the link and read the web page. Then you might start to understand the dangers of Assange's dumping of documents without providing any context. You might begin to appreciate the damage he's done.
I don't believe that Manning did this all on his own. Sorry, but his actions don't fit.
Haha I missed the wikileak where apaches got fitted with doors, let alone door gunners. 50 cal herp derp etc. I can tell by the pixels.
Land of the free
For fans of truly world class hypocrisy, there's a splendid youtube moment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUctxdsKk9Q from 11 April where the White House spokesman explains how China's evil for not allowing UN access to prisoners... and then confirms that the US won't allow UN access to Bradley Manning.
Thanks for the video link, philipc ;
viewing it, I almost felt sorry for poor Mr Toner : defending the indefensible has ever been a delicate task and probably one far above Mr Toner's pay grade. Still, as a much younger man than P J Crowley, Mr Toner probably doesn't yet have his pile made, and given the current labour market in the US, he's probably grateful to have any job at all. So I suspect he will just keep soldiering on....
I don't recall seeing any condemnation at all...
As for this bit:
including a range of qualified mental, emotional and physical health professionals.
Is the CO required to listen to them, as the last did not.
"No War Crimes were exposed."
Depends on your definition of war crimes. Civilians getting shot by accident happens. Civilians being deliberately targetted is more questionable, as is indiscriminate bombardment of buildings in a residential area. (See the "Collateral Murder" video.) Sure there were guys with guns around, but demolishing an entire apartment block with missiles to kill the one soldier who's ducked in there demonstrates an utter disregard for the lives of civilians. Would anyone ever have known that this is standard practise for the US military unless it had been leaked?
I suggest that you spend some time Google'ing what is the definition of a war crime.
Its not so arbitrary.
Also look up the definitions of "Rules of Engagement' (RoE)
"Fog of War".
Your argument relies on Assange's edited version of the video to try and prove your point. Yet in context,the chopper crew were acting in accordance of their RoE.
BTW, while you casually say ... "Sure there were guys with guns around, but demolishing an entire apartment block with missiles to kill the one soldier who's ducked in there demonstrates an utter disregard for the lives of civilians."
Lets point out the following:
1) Bad guy uses civilians as human shields.
2) Bad guy attacks and kills NATO troops.
3) Bad guy part of group which was firing RPG rockets at US forces.
BTW... lets also look at a simple fact.
More innocent civilians were killed by insurgents and suicide bombers than from US/NATO troops. But don't let the facts get in the way of your pipe dream.
«Your [Graham Bartlett's] argument relies on Assange's edited version of the video to try and prove your point. Yet in context,the chopper crew were acting in accordance of their RoE.» Just what is the «context» of which Mr Gumby, with his characteristic objectivity and freedom from bias, speaks ? He attempts to convince us that the version seen by Mr Bartlett and upon which the latter bases his comment was «edited» by Mr Assange, as if «editing» here should be taken to mean that the video had been manipulated to give a false picture of the events it portrays. My understanding, however, was that the 17'47" version of the video which Wikileaks released (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0) was indeed the raw footage taken by the Apache crew. Has Mr Gumby seen another version which demonstrates that this is not the case ? If so, perhaps he would be so kind as to provide us with a link ? While awaiting Mr Gumby's response, those interested can take a look at the AlJazeeraEnglish video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zok8yMxXEwk), on which both Julian Assange and a «military analyst», Ivan Eland, comment on what we see....
You are mistaken.
I suggest you read some of the articles written in the NYT, specifically the one written by an editor of the NYT who said that Assange edited the footage and put it out under a very prejudicial title.
Of course I also suggest that you also read my post and follow the link to the story about the Pulitzer prize winning photo (1969) that was taken during the Tet Offensive in 1968.
You do remember this thing called the 'Viet Nam War' which was technically a policing action when the US bailed the French Imperialists out as they lost their colonies in Asia... Dien Bien Phu ring a bell?
But I digress.
Since you wish to question me, let me ask you what was the RoE at the time of the incident?
Why was the 'copter doing in the area at the time?
Why were the press corps not up in arms about this so called 'massacre' of their own? I mean innocent cameramen getting torn up by a 30mm chain gun?
When you start to look objectively (meaning trying to understand both sides, along with what War is...) you tend to see things in perspective.
Oh and one slight correction... On the Apache its a 30mm chain gun if memory serves. Meant more for taking out vehicles and armor, along with re-enforced positions. Blackhawks have door gunners. The OP that I was responding with said 50mm and wasn't sure what he was blathering about.
If you don't grok the meaning of RoE, or why the 'chopper was in the area, then you will never understand what you saw, even in the edited footage.
As long as this issue has been out. I've always said that you have to take what information you want to process and put it in context. Without context, you will more than likely jump to the wrong conclusion.
...the transfer from the Marines to the Army will involve several flights of stairs.
Whatever the bullshit about suicide risks, if a country such as North Korea, Iran, Yemen or any other of a fairly long list had held a western citizen under the same conditions as Manning has been held - extended solitary, forced nakedness / hypothermia and sleep deprivation - there would not have been any qualms in the west about calling the treatment by it's real name - torture. If there is any doubt that this treatment had nothing to do with potential suicide, just ask yourself why he was restricted to 1 hr exercise a day and not allowed to exercise in his cell - did they think he was going to exercise himself to death??
Shame on the US (although at least they have belatedly started improving the situation).
Irrespective of whatever he has done and even if he is guilty as hell, there's a reason why modern western countries do not mistreat their prisoners - It's called civilisation
Ah, grasshopper, you have derived the second law of politics - "It's different when we do it". You are well along the path to enlightenment. Now, you must discover the first law.
When Mainstream Journalists...
...get mauled by Apache helicopter machine gun fire is should be considered a crime.
Using a security classification to hide the evidence, is simply unforgivable. The Nazis did that on many occasions and were roundly punished for it. The excuse of "just following orders" died during Nuremberg as well.
In 2007 on a dusty Iraq street, Saeed Chmagh, and Namir Noor-Eldeen plus numerous others (including children) died for no military reason whatsoever on .
While I do not condone Mr. Mannings actions in releasing a broad range of classified materials, the release of that video was more than justified.
When mainstream journalists embed themselves with the insurgents and the insurgents are firing on US troops, well, they knew the risks of what they were doing.
Of course I wonder if you remember this guy Daniel Pearl?
And you do realize that the video you refer to was edited by Assange, right?
Please see my earlier post referencing Eddie Adams and his Pulitzer Prize winning 1969 photograph from the Viet Nam war.
Not quite, Mr. Gumby
If you watch the video and read the relevant articles, you'll find that the journalists in question did not mingle / embed themselves with terrorists, but were mingling with unarmed civilians. Hard to tell from a faraway helicopter, but that's why intelligence should be gathered before shooting.
The video exposed the blase approach of some US military personnel to shoot before properly establishing the targets. For doing that (and thereby, hopefully, changing the way the military shoots up civilians), Manning deserves a price!
Let's not fool ourselves, the military would rather cover up such incidents and public exposure is the only way to make them clean up their act.
Re: Not quite, Mr. Gumby
'intelligence should be gathered before shooting'
What planet did you say you came from? Take a good look at what you wrote, think about war, and think again.
Colourful WikiLeaks supremo
If he whad been stripped naked, had his glasses taken, had his sleep interupted more than a few times each night anywhere else other than the USA the case would be thrown out as torture was involved.
If the army prisons regime is any diferent than the hell hole he just come then it would be resonable to ask why was he classed as a suicde risk by the marines.
sadly whole nother ballgame
There are many unalienable human rights in the USA that only way you can lose is to join the military. The legal rules are far different under the unified code. Morally though I agree with you.
Haha I missed the wikileak where apaches got fitted with doors let alone door gunners. Herp derp 50 cal I can tell by the pixels etc.
hmm he was a Marine
I can understand some dumb Army rear in the gear yahoo (isn't that most of the Army these days) doing this but a Marine? They generally are held to a bit higher standard. This seems more about embarrassing the government as opposed to outright treason but that is what probably chaps their hide is that it was a Marine that pulled this.
"Lt Col Dawn Hilton"
So that'd make it the "Fort Leavenworth Hilton" then....
For TS access you sign a contract. He did break it. At the time I left it was 5 years and 25 grand; last I checked it was the same. During pretrial you can expect "killing" conditions. He acted as a spy of sorts--rather stupid, but a spy--and suffered the consequences. The consensus seems to be it would have been better to just take him in the bushes and shoot him, as would have happened in most countries. Interesting situation.
free bradley manning
thank you Obama! finally someone has a brain to say something about this. i'm a 13 year old girl who started a rally about freeing Bradley manning. so if you want to threaten or cuss me out go ahead because your going to look pretty stupid as you already are. Bradley manning is a hero. if it wasn't for him i wouldn't be doing this right now. i'm sick and tired of the governments selfish ways! Bradley manning has not been proven guilty yet and your still keeping him! yeah thats right i just proved you wrong and i'm only 13. you must be STUPID!!! your a complete asshole (and i know i'm not supposed to cuss but in this case, things need to be said). we are NOT going to allow him to be hung. for saying that you should be hung. we are going to keep fighting for this man and we WILL be watching!
- Breaking news: Google exec veep in terrifying SKY PLUNGE DRAMA
- Geek's Guide to Britain Kingston's aviation empire: From industry firsts to Airfix heroes
- Analysis Happy 2nd birthday, Windows 8 and Surface: Anatomy of a disaster
- Google CEO Larry Page gives Sundar Pichai keys to the kingdom
- Something for the Weekend, Sir? SKYPE has the HOTS for my NAKED WIFE