Let's put the "torture" gumph back in the toybox.
Since many of the posters here seem to share in some delusion that Bradley Manning has been "tortured", let's help them out with the research they were incapable of doing for themselves, and look at the people saying as such on the Web. A quick Yahoogle of "Bradley Manning torture" gets 2,200,000 hits! Very impressive! Maybe the handwringers are on to something here? But a quick look through the results soon shows the hollowness of their bleating.
There are quite a few impressive sites in the results, but they don't say Bradly Manning is or was being tortured. Most are opinion pieces asking whether Manning's treatment constitutes torture, and they all agree that it does not meet the legal definition. Even sites like The Guardian, after much hype and froth (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/11/bradley-manning-wikileaks), can only manage to call it "shameful abuse". How about well-known criticisers of the military like the vocal ACLU? Even they pause at "gratuitously harsh treatment" and "cruel and unusual" (http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-calls-military-treatment-accused-wikileaks-supporter-pfc-manning-cruel-and-un). Professional handwringers Amnesty International? You're out of luck. When they wrote their protest letter to Gates, all they went with was more "cruel and unusual" (http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/024/2011/en/6c7dcd74-ccc2-43d3-9644-c538bcd88fcf/amr510242011en.html). What about that famous letter to the Obumbler from 250 "intellectuals", complaining of Manning's treatment? Wrong again - they stop at "degrading and inhumane" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/10/bradley-manning-legal-scholars-letter). Even out-and-out leftie loon hangouts like the World Socialist Web Site (please check your grasp of reality at the door) only go as far as the "cruel and unusual" mantra. A trawl through the remainder of the hits (warning - I suggest the mental equivalent of wellies to save you from the bile) shows that you have to get out to the lunatic fringes before you find anyone willing to say anything more strong than that they think, in their opinion, that Manning's treatment "equates to torture".
Now, the ACLU, AI and Guardian are all famous for saying the word "torture" when they can prove it, so why are they not saying it about Manning? Same reason you have to go out to the lunatic fringes. Because those big sites have lawyers that tell them they have to stick at least close to the truth and facts, and can at best imply - carefully - things that might get them sued for libel. The lunatic fringes are usually too drowned in bile to know the legals (or to care), and too tiny for the US authorities or USMC to bother suing. If the big sites could say Manning was or has been tortured they'd be all over it, but the don't and can't.
So, let's drop the "torture" tag, OK kiddies?