HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Bradley Manning didn't co...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 02:35 PM

Bradley Manning didn't complain about mistreatment, prosecutors contend

Source: CNN

From Paul Courson, CNN
updated 8:35 PM EST, Fri November 30, 2012

... While cross-examining Manning at a pre-trial hearing at Ft. Meade, Maryland, prosecutor Maj. Ashden Fein asserted that records of weekly visits Manning had with unit officers during nine months of detention at Quantico, Virginia, show no complaints about his treatment ...

... When Fein asked about the forms Friday, Manning acknowledged that he rated treatment by his guards as "excellent" and treatment by the facility overall as "very professional" ...

The judge, Army Col. Denise Lind, also asked Manning why he didn't complain about his treatment during a January 2011 meeting with a board examining the suicidal thoughts he expressed in a form months earlier ...

"I wanted staff to know I was fine, and (I wanted to) get off the POI status ... to enjoy an increased quality of life from my viewpoint," Manning said ...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/30/justice/manning-wikileaks/




Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/30/justice/manning-wikileaks/

106 replies, 9524 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 106 replies Author Time Post
Reply Bradley Manning didn't complain about mistreatment, prosecutors contend (Original post)
struggle4progress Dec 2012 OP
bluesbassman Dec 2012 #1
PerceptionManagement Dec 2012 #13
randome Dec 2012 #14
PerceptionManagement Dec 2012 #25
msanthrope Dec 2012 #26
PerceptionManagement Dec 2012 #89
msanthrope Dec 2012 #94
Mangoman Dec 2012 #96
randome Dec 2012 #97
randome Dec 2012 #27
NoMoreWarNow Dec 2012 #31
randome Dec 2012 #34
itsrobert Dec 2012 #41
morningfog Dec 2012 #58
alarimer Dec 2012 #91
randome Dec 2012 #98
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #77
R. Daneel Olivaw Dec 2012 #2
JDPriestly Dec 2012 #3
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #6
JDPriestly Dec 2012 #22
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #23
morningfog Dec 2012 #59
msanthrope Dec 2012 #63
morningfog Dec 2012 #66
msanthrope Dec 2012 #73
NoMoreWarNow Dec 2012 #32
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #78
AgingAmerican Dec 2012 #4
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #5
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #7
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #10
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #15
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #18
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #19
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #20
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #21
NoMoreWarNow Dec 2012 #33
msanthrope Dec 2012 #37
freshwest Dec 2012 #8
sendero Dec 2012 #9
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #16
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #17
KoKo Dec 2012 #42
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #46
msanthrope Dec 2012 #49
randome Dec 2012 #50
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #53
KoKo Dec 2012 #69
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #70
randome Dec 2012 #74
msanthrope Dec 2012 #84
saidsimplesimon Dec 2012 #11
blackspade Dec 2012 #12
msanthrope Dec 2012 #24
blackspade Dec 2012 #29
msanthrope Dec 2012 #30
blackspade Dec 2012 #35
msanthrope Dec 2012 #36
KoKo Dec 2012 #43
msanthrope Dec 2012 #45
blackspade Dec 2012 #56
msanthrope Dec 2012 #60
blackspade Dec 2012 #81
msanthrope Dec 2012 #82
blackspade Dec 2012 #85
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #71
msanthrope Dec 2012 #79
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #86
msanthrope Dec 2012 #87
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #88
msanthrope Dec 2012 #92
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #93
msanthrope Dec 2012 #99
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #101
msanthrope Dec 2012 #102
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #103
msanthrope Dec 2012 #104
randome Dec 2012 #105
msanthrope Dec 2012 #106
Renew Deal Dec 2012 #52
blackspade Dec 2012 #57
railsback Dec 2012 #28
JackRiddler Dec 2012 #38
msanthrope Dec 2012 #39
JackRiddler Dec 2012 #40
msanthrope Dec 2012 #47
KoKo Dec 2012 #44
msanthrope Dec 2012 #48
KoKo Dec 2012 #51
msanthrope Dec 2012 #54
morningfog Dec 2012 #55
msanthrope Dec 2012 #61
randome Dec 2012 #62
morningfog Dec 2012 #64
randome Dec 2012 #67
msanthrope Dec 2012 #75
randome Dec 2012 #76
msanthrope Dec 2012 #68
morningfog Dec 2012 #72
msanthrope Dec 2012 #80
msanthrope Dec 2012 #83
morningfog Dec 2012 #95
msanthrope Dec 2012 #100
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #65
railsback Dec 2012 #90

Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 02:47 PM

1. Probably a very wise move at the time.

I don't think I would have been complaining either if I was in his spot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluesbassman (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 06:10 PM

13. Why did everyone caring for Manning become so sadistic?

It's as though everyone in the food chain thought it was their god given duty to be as cruel as possible to him. He went from soldier to un-human piece of shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PerceptionManagement (Reply #13)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 06:31 PM

14. He's been treated pretty fairly for someone who handed over hundreds of thousands of documents...

...to a foreign national. Without review.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 10:47 AM

25. Oh, ok. Who determines how sadistic prison guards get to be? How much torture is ok?

By the way, he is still innocent right now. So your saying the military can torture an innocent person on their own..because they want to?

I hope civil society will get the opportunity to return the favor to you, personally. Then DU'ers can listen to you whine about your silly civil rights abuses and how you were wronged and we will laugh, laugh, laugh!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PerceptionManagement (Reply #25)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:03 AM

26. What is the specific claim of torture? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #26)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:59 PM

89. Bradley Manning's treatment was cruel and inhuman, UN torture chief rules

He concludes that the US military was at least culpable of cruel and inhumane treatment in keeping Manning locked up alone for 23 hours a day over an 11-month period in conditions that he also found might have constituted torture.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/12/bradley-manning-cruel-inhuman-treatment-un

Since msanthrope has an aversion to the google machine, I suppose he sees a difference between torture and cruel and inhuman treatment. There is a trial going on at the minute to determine just how badly Manning was treated. In reality, it is a distinction with out merit. An innocent (or guilty) active duty soldier must be treated humanely by the US Government he serves. Manning's jailers and superiors don't get to impose punishments of their own design, period.

But they do. They did. They were petty and let their emotions overcome their duty. They "cruel-ed and inhuman-ed" Manning because they could. Every. Step. Of. The. Way. Either the US has standards to live up to, or you weasel your way out and say "he was treated pretty fairly" to justify the failure.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PerceptionManagement (Reply #89)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 07:43 PM

94. Msanthrope is a she. Juan Mendez has an interesting opinion, but since he chose not to interview

Manning, nor his attorney, I will prefer to rely on this written account by Mr. Manning's attorney---


http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2010/12/typical-day-for-pfc-bradley-manning.html?spref=tw

These are restrictive conditions, for sure, but they are not torture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PerceptionManagement (Reply #89)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 08:06 PM

96. Now wait a minute

 

John Gotti was locked up for 23 hours s day for 9 years

Manning for 11 months ? ... And the UN is speaking up ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PerceptionManagement (Reply #89)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 08:19 PM

97. Mendez sees a clear distinction, also.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=9246

Mendez stated "If the effects in regards to pain and suffering inflicted on Manning were more severe, they could constitute torture."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PerceptionManagement (Reply #25)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:08 AM

27. No one's laughing at Manning.

Just about every high profile defendant's attorneys will claim mistreatment or even torture. There needs to be some evidence of such just as there needs to be some evidence of rape.

In our society, no one takes anyone's word for something, there needs to be evidence.

Manning did not go through Whistle Blower channels because he didn't think it would do any good. He didn't complain to anyone about torture because he didn't think it would do any good.

Makes me wonder why he bothered with anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:44 PM

31. wow-- why we don't we just hang him then?

 

I can't believe your attitude.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoMoreWarNow (Reply #31)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:55 PM

34. There is currently no evidence that he's been mistreated.

Just as with claims of rape, there needs to be evidence. Every defendant's attorneys -when plausible- will claim his/her client was mistreated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #34)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:14 PM

41. Agreed

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #34)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:27 PM

58. Manning's attorney did claim he was mistreated.

He was punished before his trial and due process by the conditions of his mistreatment. The defense attorney specifically argued that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #34)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 07:25 PM

91. Isolation IS mistreatment, whether he complains or not.

Let's face it, ALL prison conditions in the US are sadistic and bordering on torture. They should be illegal.

Keeping someone in isolation 22-23 hours a day IS cruel and inhumane, even if it is allowed by law.

And it most certainly does not fit the alleged crime (it's not a crime but actually a favor to the rest of the world to show what shitty things are being done by our government). He is not physically dangerous to anyone. And without access to computers, can not even do what he is alleged to have done. So the only point to this treatment is to break him. It's sadistic and evil.

I hate this fucking country. Absolutely hate it and I APPLAUD Manning and Assange for shining a light on our evil deeds.

Yes, EVIL deeds. This is an evil country, no two ways about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alarimer (Reply #91)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 08:23 PM

98. Evil deeds are sometimes done in the name of America. No doubt about it.

But Manning did indicate he was suicidal and it's the responsibility of his jailers to see that he doesn't get the opportunity to carry through with the impulse.

I'm not condoning the conditions he was kept under, but there is, at least, an alternate explanation for them. With neither you nor I being witnesses to it, it sounds plausible -to me- that being under suicide watch would be somewhat restrictive by its very definition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoMoreWarNow (Reply #31)


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 03:05 PM

3. I would have done the same thing Manning did,

make no complaints to my torturers.

That is because I would be smart enough to know that if I complained, my torturers would have all the more excuse to increase their torture of me and besides they would assure me, even if only implicitly and tacitly, that if I only agreed to plead as they wanted me to plead, my torture would end.

Manning was in solitary. The authorities were angry. Face it. Manning's story sounds more plausible than do the prosecution's excuses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 03:58 PM

6. We're getting close to the point where some real evidence will be required, such as

medical evidence of maltreatment

But that doesn't seem to be in the pipeline, perhaps because Manning was never actually maltreated

Most of the accusations we've heard to date seem related to official acts taken to prevent possible suicide attempts, such as: the authorities took away his clothes and gave him a non-shreddable smock

It seems the authorities actually had some cause to worry about a Manning suicide attempt, given this week's pretrial hearing testimony

In any case, to call such acts "torture" shows, I think, a real disrespect and disregard for those persons who have actually suffered torture

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:12 AM

22. The United Nations reviewed his situation and deemed it

to be inhumane treatment. That should not happen in any prison in the US but in particular not in a military prison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #22)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 09:54 AM

23. Please provide specific quotes from actual UN documents to support your claim

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:28 PM

59. 24 hour sleep deprivation gets a lot closer to torture than the suicide smock.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #59)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:49 PM

63. When was he deprived of sleep for 24 hours? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #63)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:53 PM

66. According to the testimony from the stand:

The lawyer asks for Bradley Manning to step off the witness stand. He steps off the witness stand. And on the floor they draw out the cell with a ruler, six by eight. This is the one at Quantico, Virginia. And they show where the rack is, or a metal thing for the bed. They show the toilet and where the sink is. Then they show that there's this screen in front of it, a mesh screen that you can see out of, but all you see is a man sitting in a chair on the other side and the observation booth where he's looked at 24 hours a day. There's a bright light on him the entire 24 hours. He can't really sleep, except facing the light, because if he doesn't face the light where they can see his face across the booth, they come in and they wake him up and they turn him around. So his sleep is interrupted all the time. When he wakes up in this booth—and this went on for nine months—when he wakes up in this booth, he's not allowed to lean against a wall or lay in bed. Once he's up for "Reveille", which is 5 a.m. (at least it's during the day), he's up. Once he's up, they say he can only stand or he can sit on the bunk with his feet on the ground and cannot put his back against the wall. And he's in this for nine months.


http://truth-out.org/news/item/13086-manning-testifies-about-his-torture-was-it-aimed-at-turning-him-on-assange

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #66)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 04:25 PM

73. Okay--that's not testimony. That's someone, who is not Mr. Manning's attorney, describing

Manning's testimony.

Here is Mr. Manning's attorney, describing POI conditions---

The guards at the confinement facility are professional. At no time have they tried to bully, harass, or embarrass PFC Manning. Given the nature of their job, however, they do not engage in conversation with PFC Manning.


http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2010/12/typical-day-for-pfc-bradley-manning.html?spref=tw



Read the rest---there's no sleep deprivation. I think Rattner is misleading here--what he's describing sounds like "suicide watch" which Manning did go on briefly after threatening to hang himself with his underwear (right after another brig suicide.) But he wasn't on suicide watch for 9 months.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:47 PM

32. Yes indeed. What a disgusting argument for the govt to make.

 

Who wouldn't just love being in solitary, forced to stand all day in a tiny cell, and then have their wake-sleep/day-night cycle totally interfered with?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoMoreWarNow (Reply #32)


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 03:26 PM

4. They omitted the word "dare"

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 04:11 PM

7. The point is that there is no record of Manning complaining of maltreatment to anyone, even

to his own father:

... Brian Manning, Bradley Manning’s father and himself a military veteran, has told PBS’ “Frontline” that he has visited his son “8 or 9 times” (we have previously been led to believe that Manning supporter David House and Manning’s lawyer David Coombs have been his only visitors) … and that from what he’s seen and heard from his son, the young Army private is “doing fine.” It’s a flat contradiction of the torture claims that have taken hold in the media and pro-Manning online community ...
Curious: Bradley Manning’s father cites Coombs on ‘humiliation,’ says son ‘looks good’
March 13, 2011
http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/03/curious-bradley-mannings-father-contradicts-house-coombs-says-doing-well/

So, what kinds of mistreatment does Manning now allege? Well, for example, they took away his sheets and gave him a rough tear-proof blanket, which really he didn't like. The official reason was that they were worried he might commit suicide. And, in fact, he had at one time fashioned a noose from his bedsheets and had filled out paperwork indicating that he regularly thought about killing himself

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #7)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 06:54 PM

15. If you can provide any real evidence Manning was waterboarded, I'll start working for his release

but I think you're just blowing smoke

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #15)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #18)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 09:28 PM

19. Bottom line: there's no evidence whatsoever that Manning has been tortured in custody

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #19)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #20)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:02 AM

21. Facts about the world are not established by dictionary definitions, nor is implicit name-calling

a substitute for evidence

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:49 PM

33. are you claiming he wasn't held in harsh solitary conditions?

 

or what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoMoreWarNow (Reply #33)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:10 PM

37. The Quantico Brig is single cell, maximum security only.

Are you suggesting they should have gotten him a cellmate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 04:30 PM

8. In the interest of full disclosure, do you hold stock in Orville Redenbacher?





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 04:42 PM

9. If you are getting mugged in a parking lot..

... I would NOT suggest complaining to your attacker as the solution to your problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 06:56 PM

16. He's had visits from family, friends, and lawyers

The most common complaint I've seen is that the military treated him as if he were a suicide risk, which he sometimes actually seems to have been

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 06:57 PM

17. Has Manning, or anyone else, testified that Manning has been assaulted?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:22 PM

42. You Missed This:Manning Testifies About His Torture; Was it Aimed at Turning Him on Assange?

Manning Testifies About His Torture; Was it Aimed at Turning Him on Assange?

&feature=player_embedded#t=7s
Transcript at this site:

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=9246

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #42)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:42 PM

46. Ratner is sloppy with the facts, as usual. First, there was no uniform agreement that Manning

was not a suicide risk. Second, Ratner misrepresents the current status of the defense proposal to offer a plea to some substitute charges: Manning has been granted permission by the court to offer a particular plea, which would clear some (but not all) charges; however, he has not yet offered the plea and is under no obligation to offer the plea, nor is it known currently whether he will actually offer the plea that he has been granted permission to offer


FORT MEADE, Md. -- An Army private charged with sending U.S secrets to the website WikiLeaks had a history of suicidal thoughts and aloof behavior that outweighed a psychiatrist's opinion that he was no risk to intentionally hurt himself, a former counselor testified Sunday ...

Jordan, a former counselor at Quantico, sat on a board that recommended to the brig commander in January 2011 that Manning remain in maximum custody and on injury-prevention status - conditions that kept him confined to his cell 23 hours a day.

Jordan said under cross-examination by defense attorney David Coombs that besides the mental-health report, he considered evidence that Manning had contemplated suicide six to eight months earlier after his arrest in Iraq. The evidence included a noose Manning had fashioned from a bedsheet while confined in Kuwait, and a written statement he made upon arrival at Quantico in July 2010 that he was "always planning and never acting" on suicidal impulses ...

Bradley Manning's history showed self-harm risk, counselor testifies
By DAVID DISHNEAU
Associated Press
http://www.kansascity.com/2012/12/02/3944809/counselor-mannings-history-showed.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #42)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:47 PM

49. Again--what, precisely, is Mr. Manning's attorney claiming is 'torture?' Name the act. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #42)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:49 PM

50. What I've seen so far of this...

...is that the defense psychiatrist said Manning should not have been on suicide watch and then Rattner says that means he was treated 'very badly'.

He also says there is lots of corroborating evidence but then cites only the U.N. observer, Mendez. I don't know about the Mendez visit but I'll look that up.

Mendez stated "If the effects in regards to pain and suffering inflicted on Manning were more severe, they could constitute torture."

He also said he thought Manning's incarceration amounted to 'inhumane' treatment. Unfortunately, according to Mendez, that doesn't amount to torture. I agree that no one should ever be treated inhumanely while incarcerated but I can understand the reluctance of officials to take Manning off suicide watch, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #42)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:53 PM

53. BTW, there do not seem to be any assault claims documented there

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #53)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:56 PM

69. Not all torture is by physical assault. As an attorney you should know that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #69)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:58 PM

70. I am not an attorney. Nor have I ever claimed to be one, either on DU or elsewhere.

I responded originally to a post comparing Manning's treatment to "getting mugged in a parking lot"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #70)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 04:26 PM

74. You and msanthrope look so much alike, it's easy to get you confused.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #74)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 05:39 PM

84. Indeed. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 05:34 PM

11. I'm not qualified as parent material. If I were, Bradley would be my

adopted son. So, I can only relate to him as someone who shares his disillusionment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 05:42 PM

12. Your agenda is showing!

This sums it up right here:

"I wanted staff to know I was fine, and (I wanted to) get off the POI status ... to enjoy an increased quality of life from my viewpoint," Manning said ...


What good would complaining to your torturers be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blackspade (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 10:37 AM

24. Then why didn't he complain to his father, lawyer, doctor, etc???

Are you saying Mr. Manning was lying?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #24)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:39 PM

29. Maybe because he was always monitored?

are you saying coercion and torture are OK for someone who hasn't been charged with a crime?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blackspade (Reply #29)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:43 PM

30. His visits with his lawyer were not monitored. Again, what specifically was 'torture?' nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #30)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:04 PM

35. And how do you know that? We are servailed all the time without our knowledge.

As for the torture, the news reports and this link amply demonstrate it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101783552

Note, that when all of this was going on, he was not charged with a crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blackspade (Reply #35)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:08 PM

36. Because I am a criminal defense attorney, and I know the law. Attorney-client privilege

is sacrosanct, even in the military. His visits from his attorney were not monitored.

As for 'torture,' kindly write down what act his defense attorney is claiming is 'torture.' Don't give me a link to a 16 minute clip on Youtube, just tell us what specific act is 'torture.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #36)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:31 PM

43. The "You Tube" is interview with Michael Rattner who is Assange's defense attorney, who was in

the Manning Pre-Trial Courtroom. He's a civil rights Attorney.

The transcript is there of the interview with Michael Rattner who heard all the testimony and is familiar with the Manning case because it laps over into Assange's detention.

I don't know where you practiced or if you are an attorney as you say...but, taking your word I'd think you would have at least watched the video or read the transcript or were even familair with Bradley Manning's treatment which has been reported on extensively by outlets other than CNN the "War/Propaganda" cable news outlet.

Just saying... You seem very closed minded for a Criminal Defense Attorney.













Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #43)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:35 PM

45. Again--what, precisely, is Mr. Manning's attorney claiming is 'torture?' Name the act.

Michael Rattner is not Mr. Manning's attorney.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #36)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:24 PM

56. As a criminal defense attorney I would expect you to do your own homework.

I don't have the time to do it for you.

And your welcome to your quaint notions about surveillance in our modern society as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blackspade (Reply #56)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:34 PM

60. You made the claims, back 'em up. Show us all where Manning is claiming 'torture.' nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #60)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 05:28 PM

81. I did, but you don't care to watch.

Yawn, I'm done.

Take care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blackspade (Reply #81)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 05:35 PM

82. Michael Rattner is not Mr. Manning's attorney. Name the act that Manning's attorney is alleging is

'torture.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #82)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 05:43 PM

85. I guess you didn't actually read my last post.

I'm done.
Take care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #36)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #71)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 05:15 PM

79. Yes. Unfortunately, it is the 6th amendment that guarantees the right to unmonitored attorney

visits, not the 8th or the 5th.

If you have any other questions, I shall be happy to try to answer them, but I do not give personal legal advice except to those DUers who may hire me.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #79)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #86)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:13 PM

87. Yes. You made that claim. I was speaking of unmonitored attorney's visits, and you brought

up the 8th and 5th amendments, which had nothing to do with that issue.

Your 'actual text' argument is simplistic, and ignores the fact that the concept of Liberty expands. Indeed--the 8th amendment, which you profess to know about depends on the doctrine of "evolving standards of decency." That is not text in the original amendment, but application of the 8th would be meaningless without it. So too the 5th--I think it is a terrible injustuce to characterize something such as the Miranda warning as a "judicial gloss."

There is no LaSalle Law School.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #87)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #88)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 07:34 PM

92. Well, when I watch my Owls play LaSalle in February, I'll be sure to wave to the law

school across the street that I apparently didn't go to. Forgive me if I confused a member of the Philly Big Five with a school that closed 30 years ago.

Wikipedia law!! A scholar you are!!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #92)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #93)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 09:25 PM

99. The term judicial "gloss" was used to deny the civil rights of gay people--and I've never heard the

term used in a court, only read it when it was used by some of SCOTUS's most conservative members and other social conservatives to dismiss SDP.

"Judicial gloss" was a term used by Justice White to dismiss substantive Due Process judicial theory. He and Harlan critiqued the Miranda warning as an impermissble "gloss" on the 6th Amendment. (Which is why I referenced Miranda, above--I thought you knew what I was talking about. Apparently you didn't.)

Justice White used the term "judicial gloss" to dismiss rights for people of color in his racist dissent in Moore v. East Cleveland. He used it again when he wrote the majority opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick, which was a disgusting piece of jurisprudence.

I don't know why you are proud of knowing or using this term. It seems sort of archaic--I can't find a Justice alive who uses it, but a Lexis search turned up a whole bunch of conservative commentators who think Lawrence v. Texas is an impermissible "judicial gloss."





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #99)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #101)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 04:27 AM

102. Okay--you don't have to believe that I am an attorney.

You can think I am a liar, and that I lied when I wrote that I was an attorney working as an election monitor for the Obama campaign.

Why not report me, then, to admin? Because let's face it--claiming you are an attorney working as an election monitor for the Obama campaign, when you are not should be a bannable offense.

Since they already have my name, (I'm a star member--- I've been a member since 2001) they can look me up. Heck, I'll even give them my bar id number.

http://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/pa_attorney_search.php

So go ahead. Tell the administrators that because I didn't go fetch case law for a pro-RKBA poster who has been here barely a year then I must not be an attorney.


And when you are done, I am going to suggest that you start a Meta thread to deal with the obvious anger you have towards me regarding Hope Hoops, and glacierbay, and 4th law. Did you think I forgot you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1240&pid=168928



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #102)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #103)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 12:09 PM

104. Like I said--you can settle this, and let the board know if you were right or wrong, rather than

just accuse and then stomp off and put me on ignore. I mean, your Wikipedia searches have been impressive!! Let's not stop there! I mean, your insight about Lexis/Lexus was brilliant!

Thing is, I am more than willing to reveal to admin my bar ID #. Heck--they have my name, so they can search it on the PA bar website at the link I provided.

Look, if I am lying about being an attorney, then that's a bannable offense--particularly since members contact me from time to time for legal advice.

So come on--I get that you are angry about HopeHoops, and glacierbay, and 4th law being banned, and I am more than happy to talk to you in Meta about that, but if you are going to accuse me, then follow through.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #104)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 01:09 PM

105. How can you continue this with your pants on fire?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #105)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 04:40 PM

106. I know!!! If only there were some way to prove I was lying!!! Oh, wait!!

Funny how the poster has the opportunity to prove to the whole board that he caught me in a lie. But he stomped out of the sandbox and put me on ignore.....

Wasn't someone in this thread accused of being a lawyer when they are not? Oh, the irony....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blackspade (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:52 PM

52. Who's agenda?

There is no comment at all in that post. It's a copy and paste from CNN.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #52)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:26 PM

57. If you follow his posts then you would know.

My excerpt spells it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:02 PM

28. Manning is a self admitted liar.

 

What kind of idiot would believe this guy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to railsback (Reply #28)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:21 PM

38. He was doubtless enjoying the torture.

What a liar, claiming now that being held naked under bright lights 24/7 without covers or underwear was some kind of maltreatment! Did he complain to the guards who carried out this cruelty? Hell no! Case closed!

At least he's not a self-admitted destroyer of nations and killer of millions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #38)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:27 PM

39. What specific act are you claiming is 'torture?' nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #39)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:01 PM

40. The answer is all over this thread...

reported on in the media extensively, and doubtless well-known to you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=323592

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #40)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:43 PM

47. No--it's not. Name the act that Mr. Manning's attorney is claiming is 'torture.' nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #39)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:32 PM

44. Watch the interview with Michael Rattner, posted twice here on this thead.. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #44)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:44 PM

48. Michael Rattner is not Mr. Manning's attorney. Name the act that Manning's attorney is alleging is

'torture.'


Come on---it should be easy to name the act and the date it allegedly happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #48)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:49 PM

51. You'd have to watch the video or read the transcrip that's linked at the site.

and then get back to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #51)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:18 PM

54. Again--what, precisely, is Mr. Manning's attorney claiming is 'torture?' You seem confused---

Michael Rattner does not have a client in that courtroom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #48)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:20 PM

55. Manning's attorney does not refer to his treatment as torture,

not as far as I can tell. He does claim it was pre-trial punishment, and argues that the punishment was improper and grounds for dismissal of the charges or reduction in sentence. Here is a summation of what the defense elicited form Manning on the stand:

He opens his mouth, and you had this confident, bright, intelligent, articulate person who could really describe what happened to him, not nervous, straightforward.

And what happened to him was really outrageous. It was an essential effort to break him down as a human being. And I'll just summarize it quickly. The first two months, roughly, he was held at a military camp in Kuwait. And here's how he was held. He said he went into a tent, and there were two cages like they keep animals, each about 8-foot cubes. He was put into one of the cages. The other cage was empty. And he was essentially kept there almost the entire two months. Most of the time had to eat in those cages.

And then his day was as follows. He would be awakened at 11 at night. Eleven at night to 1 p.m. in the afternoon was the time he was up, when he sat in the cage and there was some light on, or he was taken out maybe for a brief time, 20 minutes, to get some air or something. And then he was fed in the cage. That went for almost two months.

* * *

Finally, he's flown out to Quantico in Virginia, a Marine military base. When he gets on the plane, he says, I have no idea where I'm being sent; I thought it might even be Guantanamo. This all happens to give our people a timeframe. From about end of May 2010 he's in Kuwait till the end of July 2010, then goes to Quantico till probably April or so of 2011. He gets to Quantico, he's put on suicide watch, as well as on possibility of injury, as well as supermax and all this, and the conditions are terrible.

And you see what happens next in the courtroom. The lawyer asks for Bradley Manning to step off the witness stand. He steps off the witness stand. And on the floor they draw out the cell with a ruler, six by eight. This is the one at Quantico, Virginia. And they show where the rack is, or a metal thing for the bed. They show the toilet and where the sink is. Then they show that there's this screen in front of it, a mesh screen that you can see out of, but all you see is a man sitting in a chair on the other side and the observation booth where he's looked at 24 hours a day. There's a bright light on him the entire 24 hours. He can't really sleep, except facing the light, because if he doesn't face the light where they can see his face across the booth, they come in and they wake him up and they turn him around. So his sleep is interrupted all the time. When he wakes up in this booth—and this went on for nine months—when he wakes up in this booth, he's not allowed to lean against a wall or lay in bed. Once he's up for "Reveille", which is 5 a.m. (at least it's during the day), he's up. Once he's up, they say he can only stand or he can sit on the bunk with his feet on the ground and cannot put his back against the wall. And he's in this for nine months.

JAY: And so if he puts his back against the wall, they rush in and they force him to sit up?

RATNER: Exactly right. So this, if you look at this, Paul, in a certain way, it's reminiscent of the stress positions and the other—what we call the Rumsfeld techniques that they used on Guantanamo people—you know, 24-hour light, the stress positions of standing, no communication except with his guards 'cause there's nobody near him, he's watched all the time, his meals are in the cell.

And then, of course, what was really dramatic was the moment they talked about what happened when he was forced to get naked. There was a point they said, well, we're going to make him get naked, they claim because of a suicide risk. But the doctors throughout this period are saying he was normal, there was no suicide risk when he was in that prison, he was no more able to hurt himself or commit suicide than any other prisoner, and they kept telling the administrator of prison he should not be in these conditions, he should not be. If he has a problem, they're going to make it worse.


* * *

JAY: And was—Manning's testimony was all about the conditions of being held. It didn't relate to any of the other issues of the case.

RATNER: No, doesn't relate, didn't relate at all.

JAY: So what does the defense hope to achieve? So if the judges decide that this in fact was cruel and inhuman punishment, then what?

RATNER: You know, that's a very good question, because what the lawyer asked for is under Article 13 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which says you can't be subjected to punishment before trial. And this was obviously a form of punishment. It came out as that.

And so the lawyer's asked for two things. He's asked for a dismissal of the entire case.
Now, this is—look it, this is an aiding-the-enemy case, this is a case that carries a potential death penalty, certainly life imprisonment. Is the judge going to do that? You know, it's speculation, but this is obviously not the most readily accessible remedy for this violation. On the other hand, it has been done on occasion very rare that the government misconduct is so bad and that it has such dirty hands, the government, that a judge'll say, that's it, goodbye. So that's what he's ultimately asking for.

But he has a second remedy, because he understands that this first remedy might be difficult for the judge. He's saying, look it, this guy may get sentenced at some point. And, in fact, there was part of a guilty plea discussed at this court hearing yesterday. And whatever sentence he gets, I want it reduced by the amount of time he spent in pretrial detention, which would be normal, but I want it reduced by ten to one. So for every day he spent in these cruel and degrading, inhumane conditions, I want ten days off his sentence. So the lawyer came up with the number 293 days, almost a year, and he says, therefore I want the sentence reduced 2,930 days, which would be, what, eight or nine years.


http://truth-out.org/news/item/13086-manning-testifies-about-his-torture-was-it-aimed-at-turning-him-on-assange

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #55)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:38 PM

61. Yes--I've written about the defense's use of the Article 13...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1911082

I think he's more likely to get a 3 to 1 ratio, if Judge Lind accepts his arguments at all. And I'm not sure she will, given the evidence produced on cross.

Not a single poster on this board has been able to substantiate the overblown claims of 'torture' however.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #61)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:42 PM

62. What evidence might that be?

Video and logs of his incarceration? Visitors' testimony? It seems like they must have safeguards in place for instances where an inmate wants to claim torture or inhumane treatment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #61)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:51 PM

64. The closest is the claims of 24-hour sleep deprivation, in my opinion.

I honestly don't know if that would be considered torture and to what extent it was used against Manning. I certainly think it should be considered pre-trial punishment and worth noting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #64)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:53 PM

67. I don't know how this can be proved. Not that it has to be, if there is cause to think it occurred.

But if it's one side's word against another, is there any hope of sorting it out?

Would the military have video logs, for instance? Maybe not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #67)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 04:29 PM

75. His attorney claims no such thing--

"The guards at the confinement facility are professional. At no time have they tried to bully, harass, or embarrass PFC Manning. Given the nature of their job, however, they do not engage in conversation with PFC Manning."

http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2010/12/typical-day-for-pfc-bradley-manning.html?spref=tw


I think Rattner is describing the "suicide watch" that Manning was put under after he threatened to hang himself with his underwear. He was on that briefly, but he was allowed to sleep. These claims contradict Manning's own attorney.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #75)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 04:37 PM

76. Well, that sounds pretty clear.

Strange that so many are willing to suspend objectivity so easily. I'm always fascinated by that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #64)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:54 PM

68. When was he deprived of sleep for 24 hours? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to morningfog (Reply #72)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 05:19 PM

80. And see upthread where I reply with his attorney's writing---there's no claim of sleep

deprivation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #64)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 05:38 PM

83. There are no claims of 24-hour sleep deprivation, according to his attorney.

http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2010/12/typical-day-for-pfc-bradley-manning.html?spref=tw

That is Mr. Coombs describing a typical day for Bradley Manning.

You seem to think that Michael Rattner is Mr. Manning's attorney. He is not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #83)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 07:52 PM

95. I don't think anything of the sort.

We only know what was testified to and elicited by Manning attorney through reports. Until we get a transcript, there isn't much more to go on. I don't think Rattner made it up, but I could certainly see him overstating or misunderstanding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #95)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 09:49 PM

100. I think Rattner has an agenda--as Assange's attorney, it is to his benefit to overstate.

1) It drums up sympathy for both Assange and Manning.

2) It helps undercut any plea deal that may implicate Assange; i.e., Assange's defense would claim that any plea deal was reached under duress, and therefore any information given by Manning regarding Assange is unreliable.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #55)


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #38)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 07:11 PM

90. Ah, finally a real WITNESS!

 

So, how was it in that cell?

Give me an 'effin' break.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread