If Manning hadn't broke the law and committed a treasonous offense,

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

he wouldn't be imprisoned.

Is there any doubt that he broke the rules big time?

Just because you like what he did, does that make the law any less applicable?

If Manning had leaked to Iran instead of Assange, would that affect your opinion?

Why is there no outrage that other prisoners (terrorists, murderers, etc.) are receiving the same treatment?

Is it because they didn't "teach Obama a lesson" about transparency?

[dennis4868]

1. Is it because they didn't "teach Obama a lesson" about transparency?

Yep! Don;t you know that DU is the 24/7 HATE OBAMA CHANNEL....everything is his fault, whether it is based on facts or lies.

[JuniperLea]

2. If there is any outrage about his treatment...

The military treatment of lawbreakers should be investigated... but I find the martyrdom of this guy repulsive.

[Pirate Smile]

74. +1

[tallahasseedem]

85. +1

[Wait Wut]

115. +1

x 3

[Sky Masterson]

125. +1

:bravo:

[xchrom]

3. the banksters and financialists in collusion with their partner the U.S. government

have committed greater crimes against the U.S. than manning ever did.
they'll not suffer for that.

and frankly -- it is nothing short of horrific that sitting SoS is asking for the DNA of U.N. officials.

again -- i'm more concerned about the crimes of the government than manning.

[LeftyAndProud60]

4. If he leaked to an American publication I would have some sympathy, but I don't believe

Julian Assange(sp?) is some noble character. He has a lot for documents he refuses to release. Whatever happened to those Israel documents. He seems to have secrets of his own.

[phleshdef]

23. Or if he leaked something specific for an actual noble purpose... instead...

...he leaked anything he could get his hands on just for the sake of leaking it.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[newfie11]

9. DAMN RIGHT!!!!!!!!!! n/t

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[xchrom]

13. +1

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

14. funny, I did a search and couldn't find a thread complaining about making Terrorists sleep naked

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

25. Google search is like magic. You should try it sometime.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

28. Sure, because Google turns up every single thing ever. That's your problem right there

Sherlock. It's not like magic. It's called technology.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

36. ok then, mr. research expert. Why don't you find one post decrying making people sleep naked?

If you can find even one solitary post that includes that, I will request that this OP be deleted.

If you can't, then I will accept your apology.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

45. I've been here for about nine years. There were plenty of discussions

about prisoner treatment. Including the fact that they were made to sleep naked many times in cold conditions. I won't do your homework for you. But I am sure you have no idea what you're talking about.

[krawhitham]

172. Don't blow smoke up my ass, I've need here for 5 years and

This ONE man who is a trader to his country has gotten more threads and bitching than all the other gitmo/prisoner treatment threads combined

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

175. .

[LanternWaste]

179. Concern for one denies concern for the other?

Concern for one denies concern for the other? Or are we simply supposed to keep score, and give an equitable amount of concerns per subject..?

[phleshdef]

42. He is still right. There was nor has there ever been a memorable outrage...

...over the practices used during Manning's imprisonment. Waterboarding, stacking naked prisoners into pyramids and taking pictures, beatings... things like that were the things that we were all (rightfully) getting angry over during the Bush administration's torture days.

Isolated confinement and taking away people's clothing for various reasons are not things that have ever been treated as a serious crisis of justice around here (until now) or really in any of the internet-liberal circles. I mean, you MIGHT be able to dig and find someone bringing one or the other up as a concern, but you won't find it on any kind of memorable scale. Thats because the word "torture" use to imply something pretty serious, at this point though, its like the right's usage of the word "terrorist". Its being applied to anything and everything that puts a bad taste in one's mouth and is, as a result, starting to lose true meaning.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

49. No he's not. There were plenty of discussions here reg. Afghan and Iraqi prisoners being

forced to sleep naked especially in colder temperatures. Anybody who's been here prior to 2005 would know that.

[phleshdef]

68. I've been hanging around here since the 2004 elections and the colder temperatures part is key.

Prisoners and mental institution patients have had their clothes taken away for various reasons (good ones and bad ones) for ages in this country.

I've absolutely no problem with clothes being taken away if there is a real purpose behind it, such as protecting a prisoner from choking or hanging themselves with their clothing. That is, as long as they maintain a comfortable temperature in the prisoner's room. There is nothing to suggest that they were freezing Manning out.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

76. I have no argument with what you're saying. I'm not even calling this torture. I don't think

it's necessary either (as part of his imprisonment). But I do have a problem with someone who shows up here making stupid generalizations after a couple of days. Or as some suggested is a disgruntled former member.

As far as the temperature question I sure hope if the forced nudity accusations are true that the pentagon is taking every precaution. Given the pentagon's tradition of lying I can only hope, I guess. Also, that this is being done for the reasons you cite remains to be seen.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

90. so you don't even defend, Manning?

wow.

I guess I should check with you before making posts and get clearance.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

I'm not defending nor condemning anybody because I don't have all the facts, number one.

Number two, yes. make sure you do that in the future.

[dotymed]

162. YOU are correct.

During the Abu Gharib (msp?) scandal involving the mistreatment of Muslim prisoners and their torture including their living conditions, when the pictures were world-wide news, there were hundreds of negative posts about it.
This OP is, IMO, indicative of the change of posts direction on DU since the election of 2010. One thing it does prove is the short memory span of Americans.
Yes, the large majority of DU'ers posts were against the deplorable conditions that these (mostly) Muslim people were subjected to, as it should and still be.
Just because you are labeled "an enemy of the state", which the Patriot Act makes insanely simple, you should not be subjected to "cruel and unusual punishment." I thought this was agreed upon in the Geneva Convention.
I, for one, consider PFC. Manning a hero. Whistle-blowers are currently punished (like under most harsh political regimes) instead of "thanked" as the original protections enacted to protect their actions, suggested they should be.

[LanternWaste]

180. I imagine we see those things which better validate our opinions

"There was nor has there ever been a memorable outrage over the practices used during Manning's imprisonment."

I imagine we see those things which better validate our opinions, and turn a blind eye to those things which do not.

My own recollections is that the AG & Guantanamo threads were some of the most complete in both content and emotion I've seen on any subject at DU.

[superduperfarleft]

32. Trust me. We've been talking about the conditions at Gitmo long before you got here. n/t

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

43. so you've been complaining about making Gitmo prisoners sleep naked?

I couldn't find a shred of evidence for that.

But if you can prove me wrong, I'll delete this OP.

[superduperfarleft]

48. That's not what you asked.

"Why is there no outrage that other prisoners (terrorists, murderers, etc.) are receiving the same treatment?"

And I assured you that people have been objecting to practices involving forced nudity and humiliation at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo for years. If you seriously believe that a majority of people on a supposedly politically liberal board were okay with that, well, that's a level of delusion that I don't feel like indulging.

And I didn't suggest you delete your OP, false premises notwithstanding.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

56. so you don't have any proof of what you're saying? One post would be enough.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

58. You have no proof of what you're saying either. But that hasn't kept you from

running your mouth off.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

79. I see you don't like having to prove your assertions.

It's understandable. You wouldn't find anything if you looked.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

81. I'm still waiting for your proof. I guess you'll be apologizing to the members of this

board for making dumb ass blanket statements.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

My proof is that there is no evidence available that supports your claim that people have been

saying sleeping naked is torture for years here at DU.

The fact is they haven't.

This is a new form of torture reserved especially for Manning, apparently.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

95. My proof is that you made a silly ass blanket statement and have not backed it up yet. nt

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

105. you want me to post the links to the non-existing posts claiming sleeping naked is torture?

How should I go about that?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

111. No, you claimed you did some research. You can also post links to your empty searches. But

again we're talking about at least 7 years of posts from 1000s of people with a diverse range of opinion. So some half ass Google search you claim to have done (but haven't even posted after boasting so much) doesn't really seem like a lot of research. How many different combinations did you try. Are you using quotations and grouping words to make the search more specific etc, etc?

As has been explained to you already the idea of forced nudity was discussed at length here. There are also plenty of discussions on our own civilian prison system on this site.

[Raine1967]

144. What that person did, is set up a straw man, and THEN

threw in a red herring for good measure. It's nearly impossible to debate that.

[superduperfarleft]

63. Proof that people have shown concern over the treatment of prisoners at Abu Gharaib and Gitmo?

Sure, here's tons.

http://www.google.com/search?q=guantanamo+site%3Ademocraticunderground.com%2Fdiscuss&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=off&tbs=

Are we really disputing that DUers were showing concern for years over the treatment of the prisoners in these places? Really?

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

78. proof that people have claimed sleeping naked is torture.

and not sleeping naked in the freezing cold, because that is not what is happening to Manning.

[superduperfarleft]

84. Again, that's not what you asked.

And as far as a link to someone saying "sleeping naked is torture," I doubt you'd find that, since no one is saying that in this particular case either. What they are objecting to is the use of forced nudity as a way to humiliate a prisoner, just like what was done in Abu Ghraib.

See the problem when you frame your OP with nothing but false premises and strawmen?

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

98. keeping him naked is a suicide precaution, not new to Manning

and apparently, now he is sleeping in a suicide-proof uniform.
so he's not being humiliated by his nakedness any longer.

Please don't pretend this is even in the same ballpark as naked human pyramids.
That is an insult to the men who were put through that.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[phleshdef]

18. Yea, except it made sense when people were actually being tortured.

If all Bush had done was authorize isolation and took away clothing, the word "torture" would not be getting thrown around like it is now. If they waterboard the guy or worse, then thats a different story. As it stands, not one illegal thing has been done to Manning.

[enough]

6. What I can't understand is people's assumption that they know this man is guilty before he has been

tried.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

16. so you doubt he leaked?

[KansDem]

52. Why has it taken 7 or 8 months and still no trial?

What is the government waiting for?

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

82. do you doubt there will be a trial?

and when there is a trial, do you think he will be proven innocent?

[KansDem]

102. Why the wait?

If they have proof, why not go ahead with the trial?

If they don't have proof, then release him...

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

107. they have a year after charging him to bring a trial.

I ask again, do you really doubt that there will be a trial?

[Travelman]

183. His attorney requested to delay the trial back in November

After the psych eval that the defense requested, he was then given the additional 22 (?) counts in January. He should get his Article 32 hearing starting in May or June, depending upon the judicial calendar.

[polmaven]

33. Well, let's see....

maybe his own admission that he did that of which he is accused may have a little to do with it. :think:

[treestar]

169. Not an assumption at all

we are talking about pretrial detention which happens in many cases.

If he were bailed out, there'd be outrage about the amount of the bail.

The whole outraged is based on the concept that the law should not apply to Manning. We like what he did, so he should not go through any legal consequences.

We'd live in complete anarchy if that were followed. And there would be a great deal of injustice. If others are charged with the same crimes, should they be released too? If others make comments about suicide, shouldn't they get the same treatment demanded here, that is, no prevention measures to be taken?

Then there would be suicides in jail and the Obama-obsessed would be calling him a murderer.

[polmaven]

184. Well, maybe

his admission might have a little to do with it, doncha think?

[newfie11]

7. There is no reason for his treatment

Whether you agree with what he did or not he deserves to be treated as a human. The things this country has done to prisoner's at Guantanamo are despicable. Now it seems anyone can be held in prison for an indefinite time without a trial.

[vaberella]

11. How is being treated less than a human?

Further more, he's not in Guantanamo, he's at Quantico. They have less of a negative background...just so you know.

[DCKit]

22. No dear, they HAD less of a negative background.

They've now succeeded in attaining the same status of GITMO and Abu Ghraib with their treatment of Manning.

[vaberella]

149. Uh no. They do not. And they are in no way the same treatment.

You're being ridiculous OTT.

[ReggieVeggie]

161. how many times do you have to be told?

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

20. if you are arrested at the local PD, they take your shoe laces.

if you are in a Federal Brig, they take your clothes.

They're both legal measures taken to prevent suicide.

You lose the right to determine what you wear when you commit an imprisonable offense

[vaberella]

8. You can have your own opinions about the USA.

But, if true that he did what he did, I don't support treasonous acts. I won't defend it either. And I want all the people who gave this kid clearance to be fired as well.

[CreekDog]

10. when was he convicted?

thanks.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

29. so you're sticking with the excuse that he's not guilty?? good luck with that.

[CreekDog]

34. i guess you're against the constitution

you want to start the punishment now.

i think you'd like it in Libya. what do you think?

[paulk]

35. actually, it has something to do with the notion

of innocence until proven otherwise. You know, kind of the basic tenet of our justice system...

[emilyg]

53. Did he have a trial? I must have missed it.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

57. lots of people are held pending trial. Do you object to this?

[emilyg]

88. Do you object to Geneva Convention?

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

117. what part of the Geneva Convention is being broken, do tell?

[Cherchez la Femme]

163. Do we follow the rule of law or don't we?

simple question

[Doctor_J]

192. What part of "presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty" to you not

understand?

[paulk]

31. that was my question also...

:shrug:

[eShirl]

12. There should be no exceptions to our rules about how prisoners are to be treated

no matter how much we may personally dislike them or what crimes they may have committed (or have been alleged to have committed before their trial).

[vaberella]

17. And we also have no proof he has been mistreated. n/t

[CreekDog]

39. how would such proof happen? maybe a guard would have a statement and photos printed

on the front page of the NY Times.

anything short of that is not proof and thus should not be believed.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

59. what proof do you have that he is being mistreated? His own father said he looked good.

[The Straight Story]

191. No proof he did anything either - see how that works? (nt)

[BklnDem75]

159. That works both ways

Manning shouldn't be treated differently because some see him as some sort of hero, either.

[Sky Masterson]

15. If what Manning did was ok

Then we should never have raised a stink about Scooter Libby. Treason is as treason does.

[vaberella]

21. Free Scooter Libby?

You know how DU will react to this statement, right?! They see this kid, and this is if he did what did, as a martyr for their cause.

[Sky Masterson]

24. I know.

I don't really mean it. :) I reworded my response

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

51. Exactly. He's a "Progressive Transparency Martyr", not a treasonous soldier.

[superduperfarleft]

27. You really see no difference in the two?

Oy vey...

[Sky Masterson]

37. How many lives were potentially put in danger because of Manning?

I think what both of them did was wrong.

[superduperfarleft]

44. Potentially? I don't know, you tell me.

On one hand we have a leak, orchestrated by the President's own administration, that jeopardized the life on one of their own agents in order to remove one of the last roadblocks to an illegal act of aggression against another country.

On the other hand, we have a leak that produced evidence of war crimes that were being ignored by Manning's superiors and covered up by the military.

Yes, totally the same. No difference at all.

[Sky Masterson]

50. That is true but that isn't all that was leaked.

..

[superduperfarleft]

66. So, again I ask, when you state that people's lives were put at risk by these leaks,

do you have any proof whatsoever?

[Sky Masterson]

80. About as much proof as those who believe Manning is being tortured.

:)

[superduperfarleft]

86. So you're going to make things up because you think other people are making things up?

Great. Remind me never to attempt to have a serious political discussion with you, since you're more than willing to use dishonest tactics as long as "MOMMEEEEEE THEY DID IT FIRST!!!!11"

[Sky Masterson]

89. I'm rubber and you're glue.

So you are going to blindly believe what could have been exaggerated by others because it suits your preferred assumptions..
Remind me never to attempt to have a serious political discussion with you. ;)

[superduperfarleft]

93. If the information changes, I'll change my opinion.

Notice I never once in this thread said definitively what my opinion was on whether Manning's treatment constitutes torture. I was just disputing your assertion that the leaks Manning is allegedly responsible for jeopardized lives.

You on the other hand will, by your own admission, promote falsehoods because it fits your agenda.

Seems I'm repeating myself: yes, totally the same thing. :eyes:

[Sky Masterson]

97. Has anyone ever told you that you have beautiful rolling eyes?

"The White House said the release of what it called “stolen cables” to several publications was a “reckless and dangerous action” and warned that some cables, if released in full, could disrupt American operations abroad and put the work and even lives of confidential sources of American diplomats at risk. The statement noted that reports often include “candid and often incomplete information” whose disclosure could “deeply impact not only U.S. foreign policy interests, but those of our allies and friends around the world.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html

[superduperfarleft]

104. That's what constitutes proof for you?

A vague warning and a completely unsurprising reaction by an administration?

Gee, well then that settles it.

[Sky Masterson]

108. Good.

I think second hand information in support of a person who stole classified documents and handed them over to a foriegn entity constitutes a greater proof. :eyes: I can roll my eyes too :loveya:

[superduperfarleft]

116. Hey, you made the assertion. I apologize for asking you to actually back it up. n/t

[Sky Masterson]

121. Apology accepted.

I'm glad that I was able to change your opinion. :sarcasm:

[Cherchez la Femme]

164. That's a ridiculous comparison

This thread just keeps sinking lower & lower

[peace13]

26. Who among us is judge and jury?

Where did my country go?

[newfie11]

30. no shit n/t

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

55. so, you believe he is innocent? really?

[superduperfarleft]

99. Maybe we just believe in the revolutionary idea that he should be given a fair trial.

As opposed to you, who wants him hanged immediately for the crime of "treason"*

* - note: this definition of "treason" is not in any way similar to the actual legal definition that has been in place since the adoption of the US Constituion, but is a radical new interpretation by esteemed legal mind ReturnoftheDjedi.

[vaberella]

148. I don't think anyone is against him having a fair trial.

However, if he did commit a crime---the way he's talked about as a hero. Which he is...is what is deplorable. Actually in a way it is fitting. Article 104, "aiding the enemy -- giving intelligence to the enemy" which is done when he gave it to wikileaks which puts it into the public eye so all enemies and "friends" are given secret information. That's where the aspect of treason comes into play.

[liam_laddie]

166. Nathan Hale anyone?

[Cherchez la Femme]

165. It's something called a

Principle.

Remember them?

[northoftheborder]

40. Manning has been arrested, but has he been convicted? much less tried? "right to a speedy trial"?

Do the answers to these questions matter when discussing his treatment? I'm just asking questions here, not making judgments.

[villager]

41. Those quaint considerations? Why, they've been... "changed!"

n/t

[phleshdef]

62. No, they haven't been. His right to a speedy trial has not been violated at all in the slightest.

[villager]

uh, aside from the fact he hasn't gotten one?

n/t

[phleshdef]

103. They have a year from the date the charges were issued (last July), before you can even suggest...

...that his speedy trial rights have been violated.

His trial schedule is in accordance with the 6th amendment and its interactions with UCMJ laws.

[phleshdef]

60. He wasn't charged until last July. They have like a year or something to try him from that date.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

64. How is he being treated differently than any other soldier accused of treason?

[superduperfarleft]

69. For starters, he's not being charged with treason. n/t

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

87. The exact charge may not include the word "treason".

But that's what leaking secret information amounts to.

It is a betrayal of the oath he took when he joined the Army.

[superduperfarleft]

91. Again, you don't get to change the definitions of words when it fits your needs.

He's not been charged with treason so far. He's probably not going to be charged with treason in the future.

And your opinion that his actions constitute "treason" carries about as much weight as the that of the RW crowd that spent 8 years accusing everyone and their mother of "treason" with a similar disregard for the actual definition of the word.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

101. do you believe he leaked secret information?

if he did, do you think he should be incarcerated for doing so?

[superduperfarleft]

106. Yes, he leaked secret information.

Including proof of a war crime that was ignored by his superiors and downplayed by the military at large. I wholeheartedly support that.

Incarcerated? Sure. Tortured? No.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

127. how is he being tortured, again?

[Kennah]

46. So torture is justified?

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

67. when was he waterboarded?

[superduperfarleft]

77. You have a real problem with putting words in people's mouths, don't you? n/t

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

118. how was he tortured? people keep claiming this.

[atreides1]

47. Treason?

I've read his charges, and that isn't one of them.

The way he went about...yes he broke the rules...there are ways using his chain of command to report violations or suspected war crimes

But he didn't leak it to Iran, did he?

I can see your new here, but if you do a search you will find that there has been outrage about the treatment that prisoners at Gitmo have been subjected to...or are you talking all prisoners?

And as far as the administration's policy on transparency...it's selective at best.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

71. leaking classified material is treasonous whether that is the actual charge or not.

He leaked to the whole World, Iran included.

[superduperfarleft]

73. The crime of treason has a specific legal definition.

You don't just get to change the meanings of words when it's convenient.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

143. treason includes aiding an enemy, here is a direct quote from an article on Manning's charge

"He is charged with 22 counts, including aiding the enemy, for allegedly stealing classified documents and causing them to be published on the Internet while working as an intelligence analyst in Iraq."

That sounds like treason.

[superduperfarleft]

145. "That sounds like treason." It's not.

edit: and it'll be interesting to see if that charge even sticks.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[newfie11]

Personally I think he should be set free

If he is responsible for releasing that horrendous video he deserves an award. To my knowledge no one has been arrested that murdered those unarmed people. The same ones that shot and killed a man on his way with his kids to school (shooting his kids also). His crime was stopping to help a injured man crawling in the street. This country has gone to hell. WAKE UP STUPID! You are right in lock step with the repugs!

[TorchTheWitch]

61. it's nothing more than the defense of all things related to Wikileaks

Assange, Manning, Anonymous... same thing.

That's all it is.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

120. yep. Teach Obama a lesson about transparency, and no act is considered illegal.

[TorchTheWitch]

157. I think you may have missunderstood me

It has nothing at all to do with Obama. It's nothing more than the latest divinity worship and all entities associated with it. Hero of the moment syndrome. This one will be forgotten and another will emerge just like always happens here.

[hlthe2b]

65. Well, I know one thing...

I'm damned tired of the "sockpuppet" intrusion. :eyes:

[superduperfarleft]

72. And how readily tolerated they are. n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

70. wow. i missed the trial. weird. i thought i kept up on these things.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

75. I missed the torture. weird.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

83. i said nothing about torture. please dont lie and put words in my mouth. thanks.

i believe they used prolonged solitary confinement to psychologically break him down. whether this qualifies as torture, i am not sure, it does qualify as mistreatment

the reason people are upset with obama is because this goes directly against campaign promises to protect whistle blowers.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

114. Manning isn't a Whistle Blower. He didn't appeal to his superiors.

He leaked to Julian Assange.

He broke the law.

The reasons people are upset with Obama are many.
This is just a lame attempt by some to make Manning a martyr and Obama a torturer.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

122. this article explains why obama still has a torture problem

and its not really linked to assange/manning http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2010/nov/18/obamas-torture-problem/

he has a whistle blower problem with pj crowley.

also manning has not been convicted and there is no actual reason for his continued mistreatment

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

128. so Obama is a Torturer? I get it. That is the point of all of this, right?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

129. only if you are incapable of complex thought. nt

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

Just how complex is it to claim sleeping naked is torture?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

135. lol.

[denverbill]

92. Treason has a specific definition.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

And it's pretty hard to say he was 'adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort' without throwing just about anybody in the world under the same bus. If publishing secret cables which embarrasses the US government is treason, then shouldn't anyone who publishes anything which embarrasses the US government also be charged with treason? I mean, I know right-wing idiots like to call anyone who disagrees with them a traitor, but if Manning is a traitor then why not Orrin Hatch for disclosing that we were monitoring bin Laden's phone calls, or Ollie North for selling arms to Iran, or Dick Cheney for uncovering a top-secret nuclear spying program, or Rush Limbaugh for publicizing embarrassing details about Clinton's sex life.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

110. leaking secret info is most definitely giving aid to our enemies.

Why do you think the Rosenbergs were hanged?

[denverbill]

141. The Rosenbergs gave the USSR information to make nuclear weapons.

What, specifically, did Manning release that gave our enemies the capability to destroy the US?

So far I've seen nothing that gives our 'enemies' any more 'comfort' than I could claim this thread on DU does. After all, any display of disunity in the US could give al Quaida comfort.

[msongs]

94. Meanwhile the military commits war crimes with impunity nt

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

112. so that absolves Manning of any guilt?

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

133. I get it. Our Military is Evil, Manning is a Saint, and Obama is a Torturer. What did I miss?

[tekisui]

139. You missed adding a couple of strawmen, I think.

Did I say anything near what you wrote? NO! Your tired game of trying to goad people by putting words in their mouth will not win you many friends and will likely limit your time as DUer.

Here's a suggestion, you could actually read what a poster writes and respond to what they actually write.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

142. the poster I initially replied to implied that our Military gets away with High Crimes

while poor Manning is being tortured.

Maybe you didn't read what was written.

[Jeneral2885]

96. At 22

Please don't say he didn't know what he was doing or that he didnt know what his consequences would be. Yes he did not expect to be stripped naked and kept in solitary confinement but did he expect to be treated as a King?

[JuniperLea]

109. People assume military law and punishment is the same as civilian...

It's not.

[tekisui]

113. I have long criticized the conditions of any prisoner's whose conditions

are considered part of their punishment. It is worse when it is not an actual convicted person, but a detainee or someone who is held even without charge.

I stand for prisoner's rights, as they are entitled to human dignity. My opinion cannot and will not change regardless of the person, the alleged crime or the convicted crime.

BTW, welcome (back) to DU. Enjoy your stay!:hi:

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

119. care to let me in on the conditions of Manning's so-called torture?

[tekisui]

124. Did I say it was torture?

It may be, it may not. I'm not privy to all details. You aren't either. What I do know is that I don't approve of his treatment, solely an accused, as it has been reported. His condition seems to be used as a form of punishment.

I do consider solitary confinement for extended periods a form of torture, however.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

130. Is sleeping naked torture?

not in the freezing cold, either. in a temperature controlled cell.

[tekisui]

132. I can see you have come with an axe to grind as you ignore

my points just to continue this flame bait. If you want to re-read the past few posts and try an actual conversation rather than this pathetic trolling, I am game. Otherwise, have fun playing with yourself.:hi:

[superduperfarleft]

134. Wise move. n/t

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

138. you made no point. I asked you what you thought about all these claims of torture.

It looks like you don't think he's being tortured.

Can you help me understand all those around who keep claiming he is being tortured?

[vaberella]

150. What conditions are you speaking about particularly?

The private cell?

[Travelman]

185. Erm....

"I have long criticized the conditions of any prisoner's whose conditions are considered part of their punishment."

That makes no sense. Being a prisoner in the first place is a condition that is punishment. That's what prison is for: punishment.

[tekisui]

186. THe punishment is taking away their freedom to travel,

associate, etc. The conditions they are kept in should not be punitive. They are still entitled to food, clean water, a bed to sleep on. The condition of their detention should be humane, not is isolation. They still deserve human dignity.

I happen to disagree with your perspective anyway. I don't think prison should function as a punishment. It should serve as a deterrent for future crimes, a place for rehabilitation and in extreme cases a place to hold those that society deems too dangerous to be released. Punishment doesn't actually work to make society better.

[jwirr]

123. He needs a trial before he is considered guilty. After all he is an

American citizen and we are so proud of our great country and its constitution.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

131. and he will get a trial.

[jwirr]

136. A speedy one? He is not even indicted yet. I am not against seeing

justice but that cannot be seen without proper use of the rule of law. This is what I am objecting to mostly - once again we seem to be throwing away the freedoms we have under the constitution. That is scary.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

140. Isn't there is a one year period for a trial to happen after charges filed isn't there?

Once that passes I'll support you on the demand of a speedy trial

[bergie321]

137. "Is there any doubt that he broke the rules big time?"

We have this little thing called the Constitution in this country. It states that Manning is innocent until PROVEN guilty.

[lamp_shade]

146. You got that right. Great post. K&R

[superduperfarleft]

147. .

nevermind, why bother.

[Ramulux]

151. I must have missed the trial

[Alexander]

152. If the US had not committed war crimes and atrocities, Manning wouldn't have leaked anything.

[Exilednight]

153. Did I miss the trial? And there is outrage about other prisoners. I'm just as pissed off about

Gitmo as I am about Manning.

[OmahaBlueDog]

154. I think the rule in the US is 1) Fair Trial then 2) First Class Hanging

So, with that in mind, I think he deserves to face his Court Martial facing only slightly more forceful than ordinary interrogation.

If he's found guilty .. firing squad or Leavenworth.

[swilton]

155. Break the law?

He upheld the Geneva Conventions against deliberately killing/slaughtering non-combatants.

[DirkGently]

156. As far as the law is concerned, Manning is exactly as guilty as you are. Still okay w/his treatment?

Some real selective appeals to law and order in the Manning torture apology arguments.

[ljm2002]

158. To my knowledge, Manning has not confessed...

...and the only evidence they have so far comes from chat logs from a somewhat impeachable witness.

Furthermore, whatever he may or may not have done, that does not mean he should be treated wrongly while he is imprisoned, particularly when he has not yet been tried. You may recall that we were able to get more information from German officers through the means of being humane and kind, than through the use of torture, which we actually avoided using during WWII.

The word treason has a very particular meaning. Now if he did what he is thought to have done, then he certainly broke the military rules of conduct. But I have to ask you -- was Daniel Ellsberg guilty of treason? He was certainly accused of it by many, many people. Yet what he did was lift the veil and expose the dark corruption at the heart of the Vietnam war. Similarly, whoever leaked these documents and videos has lifted a veil. Now many of us already knew, or thought we knew a lot of this stuff. But these cables and videos have removed all doubt about the fact that what they say publicly and what they do privately are two different things; and also, that war crimes are being committed in all of our names.

One of the principles established at Nuremberg was that a soldier cannot defend war crimes on the grounds that "I was just following orders". So it seems to me that if Manning did what he is thought to have done, he has an affirmative defense: he cannot be expected to turn away when he witnesses war crimes, as we saw in the infamous video where journalists and others were gunned down. Now I do understand quite well that we have turned away from the Nuremberg principles, in fact we've done a 180-degree about-face. But that doesn't make it right, and it does not make the Nuremberg principles wrong.

Can you name one person who was harmed by these leaks?

And have you missed all of the posts here at DU decrying our treatment of the prisoners at Guantanamo, not to mention the abuses of the entire prison-industrial complex both in the military and in civilian life? Really?

[Norrin Radd]

160. Well put.

The rest of this thread is what is truly repulsive.

[liam_laddie]

167. VERY well said!

:fistbump:
I'm amazed that no one has mentioned the Geneva Conventions. Particularly in reference to crimes by militaries. ALL militaries. In my view, Manning showed good moral conscience.
Many government workers have the ability to stamp material "secret." My guess is that this is used far too often to cover up embarrasment or illegal activity. Recall the Bush 43 administration? Cheney's collusion with Big Oil?

[AtomicKitten]

170. He confessed ...

here ---> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/wikileaks-chat/

* edited regarding your claim that nobody was hurt by the leaks ...

The first document drop from Wikileaks with the info Manning had leaked was exposed without redacting the names of Iraquis that had worked/are working with the U.S., something that has often culminated in the death of those found collaborating with the U.S.

[ljm2002]

173. Re: "he confessed"...

...that was in the chat logs that I referred to, collected by Lamo who is anything but a reliable witness. Also, Wired has never released the full chat logs.

"something that has often culminated in the death of those found collaborating with the U.S." -- that statement falls far, far short of documenting anyone who was actually harmed.

But the videos we saw showed actual unarmed people killed by our soldiers, in what looks like a war crime.

[AtomicKitten]

174. He confessed; he knew what he was doing --

-- the Wire v. Greenwald scuffle over records notwithstanding.

Regardless of whether you support what he did or not, he broke the law and the Wire email exchange shows he clearly knew what he was doing.

Even Wikileaks admitted they should have redacted the names of Iraquis working with the U.S.; they knew the repercussions could very well be catastrophic because of a history of Iraquis being killed for cooperating with the U.S. Subsequent data dumping was done with more care.

[ljm2002]

176. He confessed according to Lamo...

...and according to chat logs which have never been released in their entirety, and which have never been vetted in a court of law.

We have courts for a reason, remember?

This has nothing to do with whether I support what he did or not. And I understand that Wikileaks should have redacted information. NONE of that alters the facts that (a) there is absolutely NO excuse for mistreatment of Bradley Manning; (b) he has now been held for the better part of a year in harsh conditions without trial (and he's a U.S. citizen, not a so-called "enemy combatant"); (c) there is no documented incident of someone being harmed by the release of these documents, while there are many, many documented cases of innocents being killed by the actions of the U.S. military. Oh and one more thing: the fact that Wikileaks mistakenly dumped these documents without redacting names is not on Bradley Manning, it's on Wikileaks.

Again: was Daniel Ellsberg a traitor? Inquiring minds...

If Bradley Manning did what he is accused of, there is no question that he broke the rules. However, if what he did revealed war crimes, then I must ask: was what he did illegal? Or, under the standards of Nuremberg, was it required?

[AtomicKitten]

177. It's rather breathtaking that some are purposely oblivious to the ramifications of breaking the law.

You have revealed yourself not to be taken seriously when you reserve judgment of Manning and blame Wikileaks for releasing data that was not redacted. Manning was the source of the material and the consequences ultimately are his.

The anarchist far left have glommed onto this as a cause celebre; FDL is raising money on it. The rest of us understand laws were broken quite possibly jeopardizing national security, and that puts Manning in some self-imposed serious deep shit.

[ljm2002]

178. It is also rather breathtaking...

...that you studiously ignore the questions of law regarding the mistreatment of Bradley Manning, an American citizen; and the apparent commission of war crimes by our own troops.

I don't give a damn whether you take me seriously or not. I have a great respect for the rule of law. Unlike you, apparently, I think that the rule of law must be applied across the board. That includes the rules of evidence, which apply during trial; so far, Bradley Manning has been tried in the court of public opinion but not in any real court. I am well aware that those who choose to break the law also must be willing to face its consequences. However, apparently war crimes can be committed with impunity (see Bush, GW; and Cheney, Darth).

When laws are selectively enforced, when the U.S. rejects the Geneva Conventions as "quaint", when someone who leaks information is more reviled than those who kill innocents -- well, I'll see your "breathtaking" and raise it an "un-friggin'-believable".

[AtomicKitten]

181. "I could kill myself with the elastic in my underwear or with my flip-flops."

A quote from Manning that triggered the suicide watch. Manning now wears a suicide-proof sleep suit. There's your "abuse" ... Oh, the horror!

It is the responsibility of his captors to keep him alive. If he objects to the precautions taken, he shouldn't have yelled "fire" in a crowded theater.

[ljm2002]

182. So that's it? That's the sum total of your concern?

Not the fact that he has been held for nearly a year without trial, not the fact that he is kept in solitary confinement in a single cell for 23 hours of each day, not the fact that he was made to stand naked for early-morning muster, not the fact that he was deprived of any and all activities including reading, writing, watching TV...

Sure, that's humane and normal treatment. Sure, that "meets standards".

The thing is, Bradley Manning is not even a pet cause of mine. There really are bigger things going on in the world, and there are millions of people who suffer worse. But we (as in, our society, our military, our criminal justice system) are not in control of all that. The system we have in place, however, is in control of how those within the system are treated. The system we have in place is supposed to represent the rule of law, and obey the strictures against cruel and unusual punishment. And how the system is acting towards him is inhumane and IMO inexcusable.

[treestar]

168. Rec'd.

The law does not change on a dime to suit people's current feelings about something.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

171. what law?

[Mimosa]

187. In America we have trials. People are presumed innocent until proven guilty of crimes.

Look it up.

[Very_Boring_Name]

188. +1

[TorchTheWitch]

190. In a court of law - not public opinion

THAT is the law. Look it up.

The presumption of innocence IN A COURT OF LAW also applies to civil cases that don't involve crimes at all, but the level of proof is different - in a criminal trail the burden of proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt while in a civil case the burden of proof must be based upon preponderance of the evidence.

Manning will get a fair trial where he will be presumed innocent until proven guilty just as the law you cite requires (presuming that he doesn't plead guilty).

Incidentally, Manning has not yet had his trial because HIS attorney requested and was granted a long delay in order to prepare his case which will hinge on his treatment and his mental health which requires much psychiatric evaluation by experts, etc. You will notice his attorney is not even attempting to approach the case on any basis that he didn't steal and leak the information he has been accused of. That alone makes it glaringly obvious that there isn't any question as to whether or not he stole the documents and leaked them.

[nolabels]

189. You just don't get it, do you?

In a paranoid world where everybody is your enemy the appeasement becomes the only tool of use.

He is sort of like that guy who first figured out some good use for fire and of course by village law he now must be punished

Yea, he broke the law, be me thinkest they be a wee little bit heavy on the piling on of him