Bradley Manning's lawyers seek to show 'cruel treatment' Bradley Manning is seeking to prove that he was held in torture-like conditions after being arrested on suspicion of giving classified army documents to whistleblowing site WikiLeaks, and has asked the judge to allow seven expert witnesses to testify at his next pretrial hearing on 1 October, according to documents filed by his …
"Well if you do try to cover up killing unarmed civilians in helicopter attacks [never mind the rest of the things you cover up] there'll eventually be someone with a conscience"
Yes and if they're a member of the armed services, they will be tried for treason. If Bradley sent the stuff to wikileaks then by the defination of the law he is guilty of treason and the punishment for treason is the firing squad. As a soldier, right or wrong it's not his place to decide what the public should or should not know. He has to obey orders and he didn't. He knew what he was doing and knew the consequences and felt that it was worth the risk. Now he has to face the consequences. No good deed goes unpunished.
Now on the other hand, it get scarey that the Amercians want to charge Assange with treason and stick him in the cell beside Bradley. Assange isn't a member of the US armed services and isn't even an American so I'm not really sure how he committed treason against a foreign government (or if that is even possible)
Bradley has to face the US legal system but Assange shouldn't. The governments of the world really need to bitchslap the US legal system back to the US. US law is not world law.
"Well if you do try to cover up killing unarmed civilians in helicopter attacks [never mind the rest of the things you cover up] there'll eventually be someone with a conscience"
Yes and if they're a member of the armed services, they will be tried for treason. If Bradley sent the stuff to wikileaks then by the defination of the law he is guilty of treason and the punishment for treason is the firing squad. As a soldier, right or wrong it's not his place to decide what the public should or should not know. He has to obey orders and he didn't. He knew what he was doing and knew the consequences and felt that it was worth the risk. Now he has to face the consequences. No good deed goes unpunished.
Yeah - after all, the defence of "I was just following orders" has worked perfectly well in the past
"....try to cover up killing unarmed civilians in helicopter attacks...." The attack had already been investigated and the chopper crew cleared before Manning went looking. Indeed, he said he found the vid in a JAG's folder, that being a military lawyer. The US did not try covering anything up, it's WIkileaks that edited the vid and tried to make a mountain out of a molehill, just for sheeple like you.
> he broke the laws of his country and his oath of service.
I voted you down for that, you ****.
You mean the laws and oaths that require him to witness treason and say nothing?
Required him to support unconditional genocide, incompetence and cruelty and say nothing?
Material seen as a catalyst for the Arab Spring?
Off with his head.
"I voted you down for that, you ****.
You mean the laws and oaths that require him to witness treason and say nothing?
Required him to support unconditional genocide, incompetence and cruelty and say nothing?
Material seen as a catalyst for the Arab Spring?
Off with his head."
Well he was right. Bradley would have signed the official secrets act which outlined the punishments for doing what he did. Official secrets are official secrets and Bradley signed that he would not blab it to the world upon pain of death. It was Bradley's job to move the material around. It was not his job to decide what the public should or should not see.
Now that it's all out, the people who did it and those who hid it should face the consequences but so should Bradley. The lesson for the day, if you can't keep your mouth shut don't sign the official secrets act.
"You mean the laws and oaths that require him to witness treason and say nothing?
Required him to support unconditional genocide, incompetence and cruelty and say nothing?"
WTF?
Sorry, but what treason did he witness and say nothing?
Support unconditional genocide?
Seriously, I think you need to take off that tin foil hat off and go out and get some fresh air.
But should a government be supported when it is doing what anyone would see is pure evil? look up on Wikileaks "children sold Afghanistan" and there you will see the US government was covering up for a PMC that was SELLING BOYS AS SEX TOYS as young as 9 to get better arms deals and that they had done the same thing in Kosovo with 11 year old girls and the US government covered THAT up as well.
I'm sorry but after reading some of the truly foul, disgusting, and depraved things the US government has done in the name of keeping its war profiteering friends happy? I don't blame him one bit, how anyone could live with themselves while knowing such evil sick sh*t was being done and supported by their own government is beyond me.
@Don Jefe
No AC, he broke the laws of his country and his oath of service
Bullshit
The oath of service requires the taker of the oath to ....well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.... However the Manual for Courts-Martial also states; "An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.". Implicit in this definition is that it is alos ileagal to either issue an unlawful command or cover up a crime.
The big failure though is in the “who” decides what is a lawful order, unfortunately in is the amerikan military
I would also assume that part of Manning’s defence was that he was whistleblowing on ilegal activiry in the military.
Amerika went to Iraq to topple an evil dictator who was selling oil in euros which would cause all those petro-dollars to come home thereby devaluing the dollar, and to search for weapons of mass deception destruction. The former ahs never been admitted while the latter turned out to be a lie. That would mean the war in Iraq was unlawful.
Much better for the amerikan military to keep Manning in inhuman conditions, pump him full of psychiatric drugs and attempt to chemically and emotionally lobotomise Manning than to have that one aired in court, by treating Manning in this way they may be 1) trying to ensure that this case never comes to court because they don’t want their dirty linen washed in public, I'm sure if they did have a good case against him he would already be in court so an example can be made of him and act as a deterrent to any other possible whistle-blowers; and 2) making an example of him and so that it will act as a deterrent to any other possible whistle-blowers.
Reading the Unlawful Pretrial Punishment Motion article it looks like the order to treat Manning in this way came from higher up in the command chain and is against the advice the local psychological staff.
Seems to me that to be a terrorist you do not always need to wear a tea-towel on your head or carry an AK-47.
"Seems to me that to be a terrorist you do not always need to wear a tea-towel on your head or carry an AK-47."
Terrorist is a handy label to stick on anyone you don't like to excuse you from doing whatever you feel to them. Just look at the US' homeland security laws. They can lock you up indefinately with no charges, no lawyer, no communication while they investigate if your a terrorist. Suspected terrorists are not entitled to basic human rights (or due process and such)
What happens when the oath of service/allegiance turns out to be diametrically opposed to the actions one's country is actually undertaking? Is the contract still valid?
In 1945, the US didn't give an inch when Nazis on trial used the Nuremberg Defense; back then, the US was a paragon of virtue in such matters.
So, with the passage of some 67 years, it's now OK in the US to use the Nuremberg Defense when one's country fucks up? Correct eh?
"....it's now OK in the US to use the Nuremberg Defense...." Usual, desperate, handwringer attempts to conflate the actions of the US with those of the Nazis. Despite an intense level of media scrutiny (unlike the Nazis in WW2, the US and allies gave unprecedented media access to Iraq and even combat zones in Aghanistan) with a host of countries desperate to find any US or allied wrong-doing, the list of warcrimes alleged to have been perpetrated by the US and allies is rediculously small compared to the Holocaust, so please get a grip, a sense of proportion, and a clue.
A key point to showing the stupidity of the "warcrimes" bleating is that no-one involved in the 12th July 2007 strikes - the actual events heavily edited in the "Collateral Murder" vid and the cornerstone of Wikibleats' paywall activities - are being investigated by the UN or any other legal agency for warcrimes. Indeed, even the headherder A$$nut has been forced to admit ".....Based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything.....", which just goes to show his determination to make some money out of the event regardless of the facts. Indeed, A$$nut was exposed here (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/07/military-raises-questions-credibility-leaked-iraq-shooting-video/) as looking for any excuse to edit out the weapons present.
And it is indicative of the lack of evidence of other wrongdoing that the "Collateral Murder" frame-up is the best A$$nut and Wikibleats can come up with out of the masses of material given to them by Manning. If they had found anything stronger they would have used it. Professional journalists have scoured through the rest of the Manning dump and found virtually nothing even they could inflate to make newsworthy. In short, Manning sold his own life away in a tantrum at the military, revealed nothing not already known (Reuters had been harping on about the 12th July 2007 events for amost three years before Wikibleats releaased the "Collaterla Murder" vid) or of real worth, and is now looking at fifty years in a military jail for his stupidity, whilst A$$nut is hoping to swan off to Ecuador where he can carry on living off the naivity of the sheeple.
I do have some sympathy for Manning, but the truth is Manning had a choice - he could have knuckled down and waited for a mdical discharge, or even pulled his socks up and tried to be anything but a loser. He CHOSE the course he took, with or without A$$nut's prompting, and so he has no-one to blame but himself.
"Fine argument for the defense...." The fact that the secrets Manning stole were boring does not in any way detract from the fact that Manning broke military law and his oath in leaking them.
"....but it was the actual WikiLeaks evidence that convinced the jury...." Convinced which jury of what?
With all the publicity this generated he was well looked after lest he tell the media he had been tortured.
Rumour has it that he was held in the best wing on the Beverly Hill Hilton, was given access to anything he wanted, including the best food and loose women.
Now he is on trial he knows that if convicted he will be locked up for good and in a less salubrious environment.
Should he be convicted? A plea of mental subnormality and instability may work yet statistically, being afflicted in such a way has never stopped people being enlisted in Uncle Sams Army.
"Rumour has it that he was held in the best wing on the Beverly Hill Hilton, was given access to anything he wanted, including the best food and loose women."
Well that rumour is bollocks.
"A plea of mental subnormality and instability may work yet statistically, being afflicted in such a way has never stopped people being enlisted in Uncle Sams Army."
He was deemed mentally unstable BEFORE he was shipped off to Iraq, so it won't work now. The US wants a trial to show how serious they are, in a similar way that the British Military would shoot men suffering from shell shock for desertion during the Great War.
".... Assange is living in terrible conditions....." The ironic thing is that A$$nut has imprisoned himself in a 15-foot room in the Ecuadorean embassy in order to avoid being imprisoned in a cell probably not much smaller. Indeed, seeing as at least in prison he would have access to a prison yard for exercise and some form of library, he's probably worse of in the embassy.
that grave orthographical disorder . Perhaps the «treatment» to which Mr Manning was forced to submit - in particular the «suicide[-]prevention bed, blanket and smock» would be helpful ? Drastic, I know, but yours seems to be a case that demands what are referred to in the profession as «heroic measures»....
Henri
Unlike you, I have to maintain a security clearance, which means I get psych eval'ed annually. You don't need an evaluation, it's obvious already you have serious issues, we just need someone to write up your histroy as a case-study for future psychology students.
All the alleged "cruelty" happened after he had been arrested after the alleged theft, so they in no way have any relation to the crime itself, which is what the trial is about. And as for Manning's state of mind, his superior officer ordered his weapon to be deactivated in Iraq beacuse Manning was considered a threat to himself and to others (one thing the "brave fighter for freedom" did was attack a female soldier in his unit) even BEFORE he was suspected of being a traitor. His legal team can only be working one of two angles - the court of public opinion or looking to imply that any evidence Manning has given since his arrest can be thrown out, i.e., protecting WIkileaks. Either way it should have zero bearing on the fact that Manning is accused of serious security breaches.
I agree as a person subject to the UCMJ he does not have rights a normal civilian has and so the case should be treated somewhat different than say the Pentagon papers case. Still treating a prisoner like this does nothing to help the governments case and does more damage overseas showing us like any other 3rd world repressive banana republic. In our justice system its supposed to be innocent until (broke?) proven guilty which he currently still is so he shouldn't be punished until after the conviction.
Sorry, but what if Manning did attempt and manage to off himself?
You would have his next of kin suing the government for a wrongful death and claim that they should have taken precautions to prevent his suicide.
Then you would have the tin foil brigade saying he was murdered and it was made to look like a suicide. Or that he was brainwashed in to committing suicide....
Its a lose/lose proposition.
But you have to err on the side of caution and then you are accused of 'torture'.
You want torture?
Try being bed ridden in an ICU ward.
You can't sleep because the lights are always on, bells and noise going on... patient in the space next to you moaning noise of carts coming and going... Not good and not much different from Manning's room in prison actually worse.
Keep believing the military wasn't making a statement on this. The sad thing is based on how Obama has handled whistle blowers in general the order probably came from higher up. Obama has been a giant disappointment in many ways but non bigger than his lack of transparency on many things.
@IMG
You had a point until you went on about ICU.
ICU = Intensive Care Unit. You go in a gnats breath from being dead and hopefully come out in a better condition. Torture, or any semblance of torture, doesn't come into it whatsoever. In fact, care is taken to alleviate any suffering including that caused by the environment, the machines that are keeping you alive, and the constant attention required to provide the care you *need*. You most certainly do not go into ICU a fit and healthy person and come out a broken shell.
Seems you've never spent time in an ICU.
I have.
I watched what my father-in-law went through for several weeks.
Because he didn't have a DNR and it was his wish that they do whatever they could to keep him alive... well, it was his wish and we were bound to follow it.
No real sleep, no peace and quiet, patients in the beds on the ward dying around you. Nothing peaceful about it.
Yeah as they try to 'save' you, they end up torturing you. Too bad you don't see that irony.
The point was that its the same for Manning. You call it torture, the Regulations call it keeping him safe.
In the ICU they are keeping someone safe, yet from the patient's view, it can be a living hell.
For those who think the MPs went out of their way to 'torture' Manning, they followed regulation. I'm so glad that many of you are omniscient and know what's in the hearts and minds of the MPs and their commanding officers.
@IMG: Thought you'd try that claim.
Not spent time in ICU? erm, yes I have. More so than you, most likely, and more than most people ever want to.
There is no irony in what happens in ICU. Without that ICU treatment, the patient dies. Period. No maybe about it: That patient is dead. What Manning was put through? Well, he might tried to commit suicide, he might not have, and he may or not have succeeded if he tried. The question is: Was what he was put through justified, and was it necessary? Sure the military claim so, and his lawyers disagree, but that's what the courts are for, and that's where I leave that can of worms.
What your father-in-law went through is unfortunate, and it is very stressful for the family, I know. However, you admit that it was his wishes that they do whatever they could to keep him alive, and that's what they did. If you feel that your father-in-law was made to suffer, or was poorly treated, then you, too, can take your claim to the courts and see what they have to say. But do not say he was tortured: That is insulting to all ICU staff.
Problem is that American's are brought up to be deeply loyal to their country to the point of religous fervor and nothing is worse than a traitor to America and risking American soldier's lives so to his guards Bradley is lower than a dog turd and they will do every list thing they can do and get away with to make his life hell. He will then be paraded around as an example of what "Real Americans" do to traitors. Osama would be treated better.
I'm not saying what Bradley did was morally right or wrong but he broke his oath and now has the pay the piper. He can't have expected to do this and then get a slap on the wrist followed by an interview by Oprah
He can't have expected to do this and then get a slap on the wrist followed by an interview by Oprah
***
Doesn't that go to the heart of his mental state at the time of the alleged leak by Manning?
He was sent to discharge 6 weeks after enlisting because those working closest to him didn't consider him stable. Once in Iraq he had violent outbursts, was recommended for discharge by the psychologist and had the bolt removed from his weapon because those working around him didn't trust him.
Seems the leaking of Intel to a news organisation, not even the enemy directly, was a pretty good outcome given he had access to a lot of weaponry and which his own colleagues feared he might use.
And as usual they punish the lowly turd on the bottom instead of all his superior officers whose dereliction of duty put him in position for this to happen. Just like the muslim Ft. Hood shooter military bureaucracy would rather shuffle warm bodies from post to post instead of actually dealing with its common personale problems.
I guess you weren't paying attention. Manning's immediate superiors and some of his fellow soldiers were reprimanded and faced administrative punishment for their lax security.
So you have the main culprit facing trial.
Nothing new and of course his civilian lawyers are going to flail.
> All the alleged "cruelty" happened after he had been arrested after the alleged theft
Actually all the alleged cruelty was (atrocities included) committed by the US military.
In October 2007, he decided to enlist in the army. His father had spent weeks persuading him to consider it because he was concerned about his future, and Manning hoped to gain a college education and saw no other way to get it .
Six weeks after enlisting was sent to the discharge unit after doubts arose about his stability. He was allegedly being bullied, and in the opinion of a soldier who spent time with him there, he was having a breakdown.
The soldier told The Guardian: "The kid was barely five foot ... He was a runt, so pick on him.
He's crazy, pick on him.
He's a faggot, pick on him.
The guy took it from every side. He couldn't please anyone."
Manning was used to being bullied and fought back:
If the drill sergeants screamed at him, he would scream at them – to the point where they started calling him "General Manning."
Sounds like the bull dyke he thumped was riding him, doesn't it?
Anyone know anything about her?
The decision to discharge him was revoked, and he was "recycled," because the army needed his IT skills.
He trained as an intelligence analyst, receiving a Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information". This gave Manning access to an unprecedented amount of classified material.
Source: Wikipedia.
Sounds like this is a classic case of Top Brass looking for a natural born scapegoat.
I would bet real money that he was kept in those cruel conditions precisely so that he could not be assassinated without "someone noticing".
"The decision to discharge him was revoked, and he was "recycled," because the army needed his IT skills.
He trained as an intelligence analyst, receiving a Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information". This gave Manning access to an unprecedented amount of classified material."
Democracies need strict laws to stop authority placing people in situational jeopardy as was Bradley Manning. If reporting is correct, then clearly Manning was not suitable for the job, ipso facto, due diligence--even by its loosest definition--was not carried out by his seniors (those who were (and are) responsible for him).
If Manning's seniors--those who promoted him into this sensitive position given the circumstances, security etc., and what they should have known about Manning--were given a similar treatment for their incompetence (malfeasance) then we'd never have heard of the Manning case for it would have never happened.
Moreover, the administrative decision to group secret and sensitive information into large blocks of data for wide dissemination so as to simplify the distribution system almost defies sanity. Someone or group is culpable for this almighty security failure. Again, they too are responsible for further contributing to Manning's situational jeopardy.
Here, again, we have the State pulling rank when it's being incompetent and disingenuous, and in so doing it's seriously jeopardized one of its own citizens and continues to do so! I consider this to be one of the worst aspects of modern democratic states; even if legal, it's not in the spirit of how democracies should work. Moreover, it'd take a lot of evidence and cajoling to convince me that the all-too-often abuse of power by the State is not one of the major reasons why the citizens of Western democracies hold so little respect for their systems of governance and for those who are supposed to govern them in their best interests.
I've always considered myself a friend of and barracked for the US, but in recent years the US's actions have been so extreme and objectionable, both on the international stage and with respect to its inability to respect its own laws, that I along with many others I know, have seriously begun to question our views.
Once the US was seen as a respected authority, now it's being perceived as a bully-boy who has lost his honour, respect and dignity.
".....Sounds like the bull dyke he thumped was riding him, doesn't it?...." Whilst the rest of your post is amusing enough, that little bit of homophobia is very illuminating. Please do supply the information that you think shows Showman was "riding" Manning, or that she is a "bull dyke"?
Wow.
Where have you been hiding? I mean I know that they have tv's in prison...
Manning had an Article 32 hearing where he had legal representation. Based on the Article 32 hearing, it was determined that there was enough evidence to proceed with a court martial.
Manning had hired civilian council for the Article 32 hearing but based on the non classified evidence... he didn't stand a chance.
Now during the court martial, he's still fighting an uphill battle. The problem for Manning is that there is evidence that he required help from Assange. (At least this was presented in the Article 32 hearing).
It is also something which is causing Assange some pain too. )
Essentially Manning is going to face the music. Get sentenced to a very long sentence to a military prison. While his lawyers try to find an appeal, Manning will probably turn evidence against Assange.
"....Manning will probably turn evidence against Assange." That's the only bit I'm not sure of. So far, Manning has demonstarted a massive ability to do whatever could be the worst for his position simply to get nack at the military. It's beyond cutting his nose off to spite his face, Manning has trimmed himself all the way down to his ankles! If I was the prosecutor looking at building a case against A$$nut I'd not be banking on Manning suddenly getting a clue.
Nice one. I hadn't realised it was enshrined in the Old Bailey.
Not one of His Most Catholic Majesty's Judge, Jeffries stumbling blocks though.
"In 1982, during the Falklands War, the British Royal Navy sank the Belgrano".
A civil servant, Clive Ponting, leaked two government documents concerning the sinking to a Member of Parliament and was charged with breaching section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911.
He had clearly contravened the Act. His main defence, that it was in the public interest, was rejected on the grounds that "the public interest is what the government of the day says it is"
The jury acquitted him.
He had argued that he had acted out of 'his duty to the interests of the state'; the judge had argued that civil servants owed their duty to the government."
Again source = Wikipedia.
It's a strange one really, there are things that have 'leaked' that weren't necessarily in the public interest. But, when feeling generous, I'll accept that perhaps the whistleblower thought they were. The difficulty I have is that it isn't really down to the individual to decide, we vote a government in by popular mandate (normally) and it should be them who decide. Problem is, you get these corrupt fuckers, and sometimes it's an unelected civil servant that decides...
I guess you've either got to always do what sits best with your conscience or accept that it's not your decision to make. I've always gone for the latter (not that I've witnessed atrocities mind) on the basis that I don't always have the full facts. What I find difficult is that I'll often support those who leaked something that was in the public interest, whilst I feel the book should be thrown at those who's leak wasn't. It's strange as I suspect their gut-feelings were probably the same, it's just that one misjudged the situation.
Of course, if the whistleblower sold their story to a tabloid, that's a pretty key indicator of their true motivation.
Manning, I think, was just misguided. He certainly doesn't seem to have been discriminatory about what he leaked, so he falls more in the category of those who need to be taught a lesson (though not in the way he has, I hasten to add). It certainly sounds like their are more than a few mental issues, and his superiors should really be question as to why he was put in contact with sensitive material, but indiscriminately dumping classified material isn't something that can be tolerated.
In all fairness to him, given the distortion field that surrounds Assange, I can quite see how he may have become involved with Wikileaks. It seems like you either love or loathe the blond haired aussie, certainly plenty of people more focused on his purported intentions than the possible reality of what he may or may not have done.
the public interest is what the government of the day says it is
To get back on topic, that still seems to be the belief within Government, but there is now another issue. People seem to be becoming confused between "Of interest to the public" and "in the public interest". One is newsworthy but makes bugger all difference to the public, the other is supposed to be protecting the public from the Government. It's that confusion that leads to pointless shit being leaked. A good example being the woman who leaked that we were going to bug a UN conference, the security services do a lot of bugging (as do FIA's) and it wasn't really 'In the public interest' to leak that info IMHO.
the judge had argued that civil servants owed their duty to the government."
Sure the judge argued it? In either case, civil servants owe a duty not to the Government but to the crown. What the distinction is from a whistleblowing point of view I don't know, I guess it means that you can tell the world (for example) that Cameron kicks the Corgi's, but not that the Queen does!
Anyway, too much beer tonight, will stop waffling
"A civil servant, Clive Ponting, leaked two government documents concerning the sinking to a Member of Parliament and was charged with breaching section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911."
Ah yes but Clive was a civillian and Manning was army. Clive gets a civillian court and is judged by his peers. Manning get a miltary court and is judged by a couple of generals who thought he should of shut his mouth.
If you want to see a miltary court in action watch the episode Corporal Punishment from Blackadder the Fourth
I don't know about all this alleged torture or if he did hand over sensitive information to Julian Bungholio, but if he's guilty then he needs to be punished just like any other traitorous turncoat bastard would be. Since he is in the military, he should have known what the possible outcome of him being a turncoat bastard would be. It's no different than when John Walker and his bunch of turncoat bastards gave away top secret and sensitive information to the soviets from the 60's to the 80's.
You conflate the treasonous activities of real spies (of which the UK had it's share as well, and Canada's recently had their own) with the Wikileaks material. There was nothing of genuine military value or state importance in the Wikileaks, it was largely the state trying to cover its tracks, using secrecy to hide things that were embarassing.
Very different to deliberately and knowingly pass over material to your state's enemies that puts the lives of your citizens at risk (as Walker did), and to release a wadge of material that puts at risk the bloated dignity of your politicians, or exposes the not always competent actions of military commanders.
Sorry, but they can allege torture however, their loose definition of torture doesn't cut it in the Military.
They claim that the suicide prevention was uncalled for because Manning hadn't attempted bodily harm prior to his arrest.
Again here, that doesn't cut it. All it takes is one attempt which is successful and you can then hear not only the calls for a wrongful death lawsuit, but also all of the tin foil conspiracy nuts who will claim that it wasn't suicide but that he was murdered and they made it look like a suicide.
Can't have your cake and eat it too.
Break the law, he did break his oaths. Militiary law is stricter than civil law. Not to mention that solitery confinement while it might not have done a lot for his mental stablity would probably have protected him from the other inmates (I reckon in a military prision he would been slighty less popular than a pedo in a normal prision). As others have pointed out anything that had happened to him at his own hands or the hands of other inmates it would always been spun as sanctioned (no matter how well the guards kept an eye out chances are the other inmates would have made their displeaure felt).
I could respect someone standing by their principles while obbouring their actions bud he would need to be fucking retared to think he was going to get a slap on the wrist for what he is alledged to have done.
I won't discuss the Ethics or lack thereof in Manning's actions. That is a different issue. What I want to call your attention to is this:
- The treatment given to Manning fits perfectly into the definition of Torture given by the UN and many international treaties.
- If Manning can be tortured by the State for his actions, what prevents said State from applying the same measures against any other suspects for any other crimes?
- If Manning can be tortured, what makes you think you or your loved ones can't receive the same treatment if ever considered suspects of a crime?
- If Manning can be tortured 'cause he was a soldier' how can the USA prosecute people or regimes that torture captured american soldiers?
- ...
To clarify my point: I'm not asking you all to become a bunch of idealist hippies and peaceniks. What I'm asking of you is to be selfish and defend your own rights and interests, instead of blindly following whoever has the power in your country at the moment.
The American Founding Fathers had seen first hand what an unbridled State could do, and created a system of 'Checks and Balances' that at least had the potential to prevent these situations.
Don't you find it ironic - in a rather sad kind of way - that so many posters in this thread seem to second the most used defence argument at the Nuremberg Trials? The "I was following orders" line? A few dozen Mannings in the German military would probably have saved many millions of lives seventy years ago, perhaps even prevented WWII and most of the Holocaust.
"Godwin evoked by you!"
Are the Nazis some kind of new taboo? If you think that that comparison doesn't belong to this discussion you should state clearly why. Otherwise, your comment will look like one of those bs kindergarten memes, i.e."If you step on the pavement cracks your parents will die".
"college level courses in world history"
So, you claim to have better data on the subject, but you refuse to share it with us. You just state something without giving any kind of argument, and based only on your supposedly better education. Reason what you wrote or STFU.
And by the way, Ian, 'history' should be 'History', with a capital H. They teach that in primary school, if my memory doesn't fail me. :-)
You're welcome.
I would agree with him being found guilty of treason as long as the evidence/facts fully supported the accusation. My issue is that in this case, the US Military was fighting as a mercenary force outside of the approval of the UN and refused to stand down even though the UN specifically requested that the US do so. The UN then debated the legality of the war and ways to sanction the US to halt the supposedly “illegal” war.
How can one who swore to “protect” and defend the constitution be held accountable for acting arguably in line with the mindset behind the Charters of Freedom when the military is being used as a mercenary force?
Did we ever find those Weapons of Mass Destruction? Were the people responsible for that intelligence disaster ever charged with a crime? I would say that sending America into the Iraq war had a higher death toll and cost the Country more than anything Bradley could have achieved with releasing sensitive data?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
