Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Straight up...do YOU believe that Bradley Manning deserves this treatment?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:19 PM
Original message
Straight up...do YOU believe that Bradley Manning deserves this treatment?


If so...why?

And how is what they're doing to him consistent with the idea of this being a PROGRESSIVE administration?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
whathehell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. No and Hell No...He's not been convincted of anything. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #1
48. there is a very well known murder case....
... where the prisoner was, initially, forced to sleep nude (because of his suicide threat) and then kept in solitary for over a year.

And was later, even more famously, found not guilty.

~ strange but true ~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 02:08 AM
Response to Reply #48
102. This isn't about "sleeping nude"!
(...)

The most graphic passage of the letter is Manning's description of how he was placed on suicide watch for three days from 18 January. "I was stripped of all clothing with the exception of my underwear. My prescription eyeglasses were taken away from me and I was forced to sit in essential blindness."

Manning writes that he believes the suicide watch was imposed not because he was a danger to himself but as retribution for a protest about his treatment held outside Quantico the day before. Immediately before the suicide watch started, he said guards verbally harassed him, taunting him with conflicting orders.

(...)

He also describes the experience of being stripped naked at night and made to stand for parade in the nude, a condition that continues to this day. "The guard told me to stand at parade rest, with my hands behind my back and my legs spaced shoulder-width apart. I stood at parade rest for about three minutes The (brig supervisor) and the other guards walked past my cell. He looked at me, paused for a moment, then continued to the next cell. I was incredibly embarrassed at having all these people stare at me naked."

http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/11/stripped-nake...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whathehell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 02:31 AM
Response to Reply #48
111. What was his name?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emilyg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:22 PM
Response to Original message
2. No. A million times NO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneHalfNote Donating Member (2 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:23 PM
Response to Original message
3. I don't believe any human deserves that treatment
And frankly - I question the humanity of those who do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:23 PM
Response to Original message
4. I think he deserves a medal and a statue on the D.C. Mall for public service.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #4
166. OT somewhat, but Daniel Ellsburg has famously said that we will
not have completely laid Vietnam to rest until there is a monument on the D.C. mall to the Vietnam anti-war protesters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoTimeToulouse Donating Member (204 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:23 PM
Response to Original message
5. No. Of course not.
He should be charged with a crime, given access to legal counsel and a speedy trial date should be set for him to face his accusers. He should not be subject to any form of mental or physical anguish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #5
21. he has access to legal counsel, and has had access for quite some time-
he is a member of the military, and AS such, answers to them for the charges which have been made. The trial date has been slowed down in part by his own attorney. As for him not being subjected to any form of mental or physical anguish, that isn't very realistic. Simply being detained causes mental anguish.

You may want to read this, it is written by his attorney-
http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2010/12/typical...

PFC Manning wasn't drafted, and he was well aware of the fact that he would be answerable to military court- which is different than civil court.

I don't approve of the use of prolonged solitary confinement, but the fact is, it has been an established method of detention in this country for a long time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 02:16 AM
Response to Reply #21
104. Mere detainment isn't the issue, it's the *treatment*. The nudity without the benefit of
bedding on cold nights, having to stand in the nude at attention while the guards pass by. Solitary confinement 23 out of 24 hours. No exercising like other prisoners are allowed to do. Conflicting orders from guards. No visitors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 07:34 AM
Response to Reply #104
118. did you read the link to information from his own attorney?
he does have bedding, he does have visitors. He does leave his cell to 'excercise' (walking only).

I'm not saying that this treatment is good. But the facts from his legal representation don't jibe with what you are claiming.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #118
169. I get my "claims" from reading about his treatment.
There's no manor for Bradey Manning. As Glenn Greenwald noted yesterday, the alleged leaker of much of the WikiLeaks information--including the "Collateral Murder"video showing soldiers shooting Iraqi civilianshas been sitting in solitary confinement for seven months under torture conditions. Denied even sheets and a pillow for his bed, Manning is under constant surveillance to prevent him even from exercising for 23 out of 24 hours of every day. And now he's under a regimen of authority-administered anti-depressant drugs.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/157175/forgetting-bradley...

And, from Glenn Greenwald:

In sum, Manning has been subjected for many months without pause to inhumane, personality-erasing, soul-destroying, insanity-inducing conditions of isolation similar to those perfected at America's Supermax prison in Florence, Colorado: all without so much as having been convicted of anything. And as is true of many prisoners subjected to warped treatment of this sort, the brig's medical personnel now administer regular doses of anti-depressants to Manning to prevent his brain from snapping from the effects of this isolation.

Just by itself, the type of prolonged solitary confinement to which Manning has been subjected for many months is widely viewed around the world as highly injurious, inhumane, punitive, and arguably even a form of torture. In his widely praised March, 2009 New Yorker article -- entitled "Is Long-Term Solitary Confinement Torture?" -- the surgeon and journalist Atul Gawande assembled expert opinion and personal anecdotes to demonstrate that, as he put it, "all human beings experience isolation as torture." By itself, prolonged solitary confinement routinely destroys a persons mind and drives them into insanity. A March, 2010 article in The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law explains that "solitary confinement is recognized as difficult to withstand; indeed, psychological stressors such as isolation can be as clinically distressing as physical torture."

For that reason, many Western nations -- and even some non-Western nations notorious for human rights abuses -- refuse to employ prolonged solitary confinement except in the most extreme cases of prisoner violence. "Its an awful thing, solitary," John McCain wrote of his experience in isolated confinement in Vietnam. It crushes your spirit." As Gawande documented: "A U.S. military study of almost a hundred and fifty naval aviators returned from imprisonment in Vietnam . . . reported that they found social isolation to be as torturous and agonizing as any physical abuse they suffered." Gawande explained that Americas application of this form of torture to its own citizens is what spawned the torture regime which President Obama vowed to end:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #169
172. the articles you cite are fine .. but
they aren't as credible or as accurate as the words of PFC's own defense Attorney, who listed the circumstances which his client is living in the link I gave you. He has personal first hand knowledge of the details of what is happening to Mr. Manning.

I had read the "no manor" article earlier, and found it very compelling, especially the contrast made between the two individuals involved in this issue.

I find Mr. Greenwald's excusing solitary confinement in cases of convicted criminals, but not for others to be pretty cowardly. If he views this to be torture, and believes that torture is wrong, it shouldn't matter WHO is the recipient of the tactic. How can he begin to justify the reality of those who have been sentenced to LIFE in solitary given his perspective of how damaging and immoral it is?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #172
174. I was unaware that there are prison sentences of "life in solitary". Have we sunk THAT far?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #172
175. Please see my post at #102 for updated info. The info you gave is from 12/10.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:23 PM
Response to Original message
6. NO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:25 PM
Response to Original message
7. No
The concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is being breached here.

Manning is obviously being made to suffer to "encourage" him to turn over Assange and Wikileaks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CaliforniaPeggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:25 PM
Response to Original message
8. Not just no.........FUCK NO.
And this sure is NOT the sign of a truly progressive administration!

I am outraged and sickened that these actions are being perpetrated in OUR names.

:argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:25 PM
Response to Original message
9. No! Due process without torture. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
csziggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:27 PM
Response to Original message
10. No, no one does whether or not they have already been found guilty
Even the hypothetical situation in which some unspecified number of lives might be saved with the information a person might have, this treatment achieve nothing but proving how brutal our system has become.

This is not the country I grew up in. I want my country back - the one where no one had to show ID at the whim of an authority figure. The one where individual rights were more respected than the rights of the corporations. Where women and minority groups were getting closer to equal rights rather than seeing them fade away. Where working people were treated with respect even if they were employed by a branch of government and where union workers were paid a decent wage and people were doing better than their parents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:28 PM
Response to Original message
11. No. I will not be voting for Obama in 2012 because of this issue - n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BillyJack Donating Member (653 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
12. NO - his treatment is an abomination
Edited on Sun Mar-13-11 11:43 PM by BillyJack
and sullies any credibilty that the USofA has, as a nation, of being FAIR, HONEST, REASONABLE, and/or KIND.

We're not kind....the US. We're not. (individually yes, but collectively no).

(and I'm REALLY COVERING for those teabagger peeps who will HOPEFULLY come aroud to 'sensible' thinking. Some of us progressive/liberal thinkers even hold out hope for you tea-baggin' STINKERS to 'come around' to your senses and vote/care/understand/support things that are in your own best interests !!!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poll_Blind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
13. NO!
PB
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gemini Cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:30 PM
Response to Original message
14. No.
How can anyone justify the torture?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 02:21 AM
Response to Reply #14
106. Apparently by minimizing torturous acts as though it's just another day in the Mayberry jail.
And by demonizing someone who wanted to live in a better country by exposing corruption.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1monster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
15. No. Not under any circumstances.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maraya1969 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:34 PM
Response to Original message
16. NO!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:37 PM
Response to Original message
17. NO! Completely disagree with torture -- nation has always disagree with it -- so has military!!
Edited on Sun Mar-13-11 11:42 PM by defendandprotect
And rightly so -- that was before the introduction of our own "Nuremberg Laws" --

and the packing of our courts with right wingers to do injustice!

We still have military laws against torture --

What we're experiencing is the right wing bullying its way through to

introduce torture once again -- which many say is really about intimidating citizens --

I agree with that!

This administration is FRIGHTENED out of their minds by the idea of Manning -- and only

because they FEAR what could be revealed!!

One lone man -- and one WikiLeaks organization -- and Assange -- what a HUGE threat to

government that


Just want to add that Manning has done what Daniel Ellsberg did in trying to help his

country find truth which has been buried in right wing lies --

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dawson Leery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
18. Under no circumstances is torture acceptable.
Edited on Mon Mar-14-11 12:05 AM by Dawson Leery
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kas125 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
19. He absolutely does not! Nobody deserves such treatment,
but especially not someone whose only wrong was trying to expose the evil things that our government is doing in our names behind our backs!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snoutport Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
20. no
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:41 PM
Response to Original message
22. NO!
Still waiting for the posters - you know who you are - who i've seen posting ALL DAY that - "Oh Obama checked with some official who says everything is fine." What a load of crap. Come on here and debate me about this right now you torture supporters - I triple dog dare ya!

Why is Dennis Kucinich not allowed to see Manning after repeated requests starting a month ago?!?!

My theory is - they are trying to break him - trying to get him to implicate Julian Assange. I would bet money this is the case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Bacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:41 PM
Response to Original message
23. NO!
And WHY is Obama doing this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #23
30. Who? Obama doesn't know what's going on.
Why should he? The Pentagon is in charge. Just like at Gitmo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BluegrassDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
24. Well that's what happens to treasoners
Just sayin'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BillyJack Donating Member (653 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Manning didn't commit treason, he most likely EXPOSED the treason of others.
THAT is why he is being unduly punished today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. Prove treason. Presumption of innocence.
Edited on Sun Mar-13-11 11:49 PM by Hissyspit
You don't know he did shit.

If he did leak, there are many illegal - possibly treasonous - acts exposed by him.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 02:31 AM
Response to Reply #28
110. Didn't he admit to doing it?
I remember reading somewhere that he did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 03:06 AM
Response to Reply #110
116. Chat logs were released. They could be forged.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/wikileaks-chat /

Lamo is a questionable character and has been prevaricating about what was in the unpublished parts of the logs.

Manning probably is the one who released the documents. He has not been tried and this country and legal system are based on the presumption of innocence. No trial has been held.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #24
37. Congratulations! You've just endorsed the use of torture as an
instrument of U.S. policy. Welcome to my Ignore list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dixiegrrrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #37
124. And mine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hong Kong Cavalier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #37
138. And mine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #24
51.  Have you checked to make sure you know the definition of "treasoner"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 01:53 AM
Response to Reply #24
94. You mean they took away Harry Treasoner's underwear at night?
Edited on Mon Mar-14-11 01:53 AM by Ken Burch


Dude...NOBODY wants THAT image trapped in their head...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #24
100. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #24
123. Really? So Cheney, Rove and Scooter Libby who outed a covert
CIA agent who was tracking missing nukes throughout the middle east are all in prison after spending a year in solitary?


Hey thanks for that assessment. I thought they walked away scott free.

Just sayin.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neverforget Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #24
141. You'll have your fair trial and then be shot!
Edited on Mon Mar-14-11 03:13 PM by neverforget
I believe I heard that on Hogan's Heroes.....seems to fit your attitude though
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
druidity33 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #24
170. Dude... that's not even a word. nt.
:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:44 PM
Response to Original message
25. No.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinkkillersheep Donating Member (155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:46 PM
Response to Original message
27. No.
I don't know whether I would call him a hero. I also don't know that I would call him a traitor. Maybe it's cheating, but I've decided to wait and see how history chooses to remember him.

Regardless, he is an American citizen. I find it appalling that he is subject to this kind of mental torture without a trial. Heck, a good portion of it was without even having charges brought against him.

I think Dems and Obama are ignoring it because if anyone says anything they will immediately have the label "traitor" attached to them. The number of people upset about his treatment is very, very small. The number of people that would be upset if Democrats tried to make something out of it is substantially larger - and includes much of the cherished "independents". I'm not saying that's an acceptable reason to allow this circumventing of the Constitution. It's just the reality of politics in America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BillyJack Donating Member (653 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #27
38. Hey if you were Manning or a prisoner in Guantanemo (sp?) or just
a lost pink sheep somewhere....wouldn't it be nice to know that there are ppl out there who CARE about the fact that you have LEGAL RIGHTS. And those stranger ppl out there are willing to FIGHT for your rights?

Your comment, "It's the reality of politics in America" is SUPER LAZY and I don't like you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinkkillersheep Donating Member (155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #38
69. I do care and would be more than willing to fight for his legal rights.
The poster asked why a progressive administration is doing nothing about it, and I gave my opinion as to why they aren't. Disagree if you want, but at least propose your analysis of the situation. Are you saying politics isn't playing a part in why the Dems have ignored it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hardcover Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:50 PM
Response to Original message
29. Yes. Obama answered this question straight up.
Obama knows more about this then we do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. And Obama wouldn't lie to us, would he?
We should trust our president to do what's right. he said he wouldn't sign a health care bill without a public option and he didn't, did he?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #29
52. No. He said he had been assured by the Pentagram that the treatment
was appropriate.

Which is the same thing George Bush said about torture -- that someone else told him is was okay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 01:54 AM
Response to Reply #29
95. You trust him when he says people DESERVE to be persecuted?
Mistreating a suspect is ok when a "centrist" president says it is?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #29
120. Is that you, Brittney?
The faithful are SO commendable!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPEV6twzxmE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shanti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:50 PM
Response to Original message
31. no!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lucinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:51 PM
Response to Original message
32. Nope. And I don't see this as a progressive administration.
And I didn't expect it to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:53 PM
Response to Original message
34. Yes,
of course I'm basing my opinion on the interview with his father who says Bradley has never complained to him about his treatment.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/03/13/brian-manning-t...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #34
54. Mannings Father Condemns Treatment of Imprisoned Son
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 02:15 AM
Response to Reply #54
103. the article cherry picks the interview and its title is completely misleading
in the frontline interview they asked the father where he learned of the 'mistreatment' and he said Bradley's attorney which does not comport with what he, the father, learned directly from Bradley in his many (8 or 9) visits with his son.

Reading the transcript and then that headline leads me to conclude the source, WIRED, is being less than honest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
veganlush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:58 PM
Response to Original message
35. I don't know how he's being treated
...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hardcover Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #35
43. That is right. We don't know. I'm not going to take the word of a lawyer or a distraught father
These stories are exaggerated. Manning is not naked. He has to turn over his outer clothing at night. He has his under shorts to sleep in. Most of us sleep in under shorts anyway so big deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #43
67. The Pentagon already copped to it. Try again. n/t
Edited on Mon Mar-14-11 12:35 AM by EFerrari
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #67
80. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Travelman Donating Member (326 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #67
127. Copped to what? That he is on suicide watch?
Big deal.

It's not torture. Sorry. Taking away someone's clothes so that they don't hang themselves just isn't torture, no matter how much people try to proclaim that it is. Whining about it just cheapens the word, so when actual torture happens, people will just shrug their shoulders and say "well, 'torture' doesn't mean very much."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #43
81. They take his shorts away at night.
They CLAIM that he might hang himself with the waistband.

They know damn well he isn't really suicidal though, and the claim that he is is just a pretext to persecute the guy further.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #43
92. The Army ADMITTED they take his underwear away at night.
Just admit he isn't suicidal and that there's no reason to keep him indefinitely detained rather than have the trial immediately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #43
96. But you'd take the word of the military-industrial complex?
:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ananda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:59 PM
Response to Original message
36. No, absolutely not!
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:59 PM
Response to Original message
39. Hell No!
Edited on Mon Mar-14-11 12:05 AM by DeSwiss
And by slowly attempting to drive him over the edge, they're making it impossible for him to provide for an effective defense. How can he aid his lawyer in mounting a defense if he's mentally unstable? But then they don't want him to have an effective defense because they've already found him guilty, haven't they? (just like a few people around here). Fuck facts. And to hell with the rule of law.

It's all a bunch of bullshit just like this government we live under is. And things won't get any better until it's totally scraped.

- Totally.....

K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:03 AM
Response to Original message
40. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
BillyJack Donating Member (653 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #40
44. Oh give me a break......boooyah for the "sleep suit"
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hardcover Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #40
46. Even that story has falsehood in it. He NEVER had to be naked. He was allowed to keep his shorts on.
The lie about him being naked has everybody in an uproar and it never was true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #46
75. Really? First Lt Brian Villiard states the brig commander decided otherwise.


Private Manning will also be required to stand outside his cell naked during a morning inspection, after which his clothing will be returned to him, said a Marine spokesman, First Lt. Brian Villiard.

Because of recent circumstances, the underwear was taken away from him as a precaution to ensure that he did not injure himself, Lieutenant Villiard said. The brig commander has a duty and responsibility to ensure the safety and well-being of the detainees and to make sure that they are able to stand trial.



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/world/05manning.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #40
68. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #40
90. He shouldn't be on suicide watch at all
the man isn't suicidal and they all know it. There's no good reason not to have his trial immediately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Travelman Donating Member (326 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #90
129. Yes, there is a good reason not to have his trial immediately.
It's called prosecutorial procedure, and the prosecution has every right to prepare their case as thouroughly as necessary.

A year or more to get to an Article 32 hearing is not the least bit unusual.



And once Manning is rightfully convicted for being the traitor that he is, everyone can continue on bitching and moaning about how awful it is that he has to not be given something with which to hang himself. And then when he manages to actually hang himself with something else, the VERY SAME PEOPLE will howl like banshees that it's just HORRIBLE that he was allowed to kill himself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #129
135. You've already convicted him in your mind
Edited on Mon Mar-14-11 03:00 PM by Ken Burch
Why? Secrets in government only serve the interests of those who want us to be perpetually involved in wars. Secrecy cannot lead to peace, or better conditions for the poor, or a decent life for working people or anything progressive.

Why do you trust the war machine? It's not like they care about you, buddy!

Nothing Bradley Manning has done could possibly justify the way he's being treated OR your hatred of him. You don't put people on suicide watch as a punishment, for God's sake.

And the prosecution could prepare its case just as well if Manning were sitting in his parents' home with an ankle bracelet. He should not be treated as if he's Charles Manson or the Green River Killer or something like that. What he did was in the service of peace and justice. It was purely positive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Travelman Donating Member (326 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #135
142. Well, first you need to get your shit straight
and stop with the idiotic pronouncements and presumptions about people and shoving words into their mouths.



No, I haven't "convicted" him. I'm not sitting on the jury. I'm not in the military, so I won't be involved in a court-martial jury. I have, however, looked at the actual facts and evidence in the case and it is plainly clear to me that manning will be convicted for this. He did it. He admits that he did it. He even bragged about doing it. And we know for a fact that what he claims he did was in fact done. So, if you want to take that set of facts and somehow cobble together some sort of coherent defense, then go right ahead. In the meantime, I'll be looking at actual facts, rather than ridiculous conjecture.

I never said I "trusted the war machine" nor did I claim that they cared for me. I merely looked at the actual facts instead of the hysterical hyperbole and formed a reality-based opinion.

What Bradley Manning has done completely justifies his treatment, which is completely standard for situations such as his. As I've pointed out repeatedly today, his treatment is no different from that of Jared Loughner, with the execption of suicide watch. Now, whethere anyone likes it or not, jailers have a specific obligation to ensure that those in their jails don't kill themselves. Manning has repeatedly threatened suicide. The jailers have not only the right, but indeed the responsibility to ensure that Manning does not take his own life. Suicide watch is not a punishment, no matter how much you try to claim that it is.

I do not hate Manning. That is a blatant lie on your part.

Manning is in pre-trial confinement. So are lots and lots of other people. Jared Loughner is in pre-trial confinement. Do you want to just spring him from the federal pen in Phoenix and put an ankle bracelet on him and just hope that he doesn't take another shot at Gabby Giffords? I sure as hell don't.

Manning did nothing positive. Sorry. There was no "peace and justice" in stealing classified documents and handing them over to a foreign entity. That is called "espionage," not "peace and justice."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #142
145. You can't really compare Bradley Manning to Jared Loughner
Loughner killed people. Manning has probably PREVENTED killing. Secrecy just leads to death.

Bradley Manning has only harmed those who want our kids to die in endless wars. Secrets can't liberate anyone or end injustice anywhere. Secrets can't improve life for working people and the unemployed. Secrets only help those who hate most of the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #142
146. You called him a traitor.
Edited on Mon Mar-14-11 04:04 PM by Ken Burch
The only things he was disloyal to were war and death. Only negative, life-destroying things are protected by the national security state. Secrecy in government never helps the people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Travelman Donating Member (326 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #146
151. "Secrecy never helps the people."
OK. Then post your credit card number, your PIN, your bank account number and routing number....


Oh, and while we're at it, let's just broadcast how to, say, build nuclear bombs. And where all of the plutonium is to do that. After all, we don't want to have any secrets, now, do we?



I hate to burst your bubble, but trying to pretend that the government should never have secrets is just ludicrously nave. The real world just doesn't work that way. We have secrets, other governments have secrets, we share some of our secrets with some other governments and not with some, and vice-versa. If you want to live in a world without secrets, then go strip off all of your clothes and live in a commune somewhere, isolated from the rest of socitey. Absent that, you just are not going to live in a world without secrets. Sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #151
153. Secrecy in GOVERNMENT...personal secrecy is different.
Edited on Mon Mar-14-11 04:03 PM by Ken Burch
And government secrets are never about anything but setting up wars. They can never be about making life better for the people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Travelman Donating Member (326 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #153
163. Oh. So now it's just government secrecy.
So we should go ahead and just publish how to build a nuclear bomb on the internetz, then? Let any Tom, Dick, or Harry out there with an axe to grind know how to build a nuclear bomb, with the right proportions of fissile material and such?

After all, government secrets are a bad thing. Right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #163
168. All weaponry instructions are available by now anyway.
Nothing about nuclear weapon construction is still hidden anymore. THE PROGRESSIVE magazine proved that decades ago.

What you've actually done in that post is prove we should never have DEVELOPED the bomb in the first place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 02:30 AM
Response to Reply #40
109. An apology because he now wears a dorky green potato sack?!
Psst...they're not trying to be humane while being cautious; it's another way to make him feel isolated from the norm. I wouldn't doubt it that potato sack were a couple of sizes too large (or small).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:06 AM
Response to Original message
41. Hell No
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zanzoobar Donating Member (618 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:07 AM
Response to Original message
42. I think of it like this
Does a person acting on his own conscience deserve what he gets when he jumps into a meat grinder?

It is a meat grinder after all.

He is a hero to some, a fool to others.

Sadly, those who consider him either will face the inevetible fact that he jumped into a meat grinder.

I feel sorry for him. He's a fool. He was taken to the bank and will suffer for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BillyJack Donating Member (653 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #42
49. Nope - he wasn't "taken to the bank"
and that is why he suffers now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zanzoobar Donating Member (618 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #49
59. 'splain, Ricky.
There is no need to be ambiguous. Spell it out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnroshan Donating Member (333 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #42
73. That is the most ignorant shit I've heard on DU...
He deserves to be given a free and fair trial without torture.


"It is a meat grinder after all."

That is exactly what we are trying to change. It is most definitely not supposed to be a meat grinder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zanzoobar Donating Member (618 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #73
78. Good luck changing military protocol
You will fail.

It is unbending whether you consider it ignorant or not. You will fail. Manning has failed.

They will nail him to the wall. Like I said, I feel bad for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #42
97. "he jumped into a meat grinder"? that's a pretty despicable thing to say
Manning had no reason to assume that a "free" country would treat a pro-democracy whistleblower like this. And he's done no harm. None of the secrets he released could ever have led to anything positive. Secrecy in foreign policy is always right-wing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cecilfirefox Donating Member (404 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:14 AM
Response to Original message
45. To be honest, there's stuff going on we may not know about.
And as best I can tell the only issue with treatment people seem to care about was his forced to be naked. I don't think it was justified, certainly by the lack of any psychologist giving an actual classification of suicidal. But, the man is a criminal. Although he has yet to be convicted I think the concept of him being proven completely innocent is something that even the most strident conspiracy theorists on here wouldn't claim. I really wish folks would stop treating him like a hero. He's not some whistleblower who released info to stop a cover up, save a life, or expose something terrible. He blindly let loose a ton of classified information for no real reason, other then to just do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hardcover Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #45
50. Finally, someone who makes sense. Except for the naked part. He was not naked.
Look, reporters can sensationalize by using the word naked but in your skivvies is not naked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #50
63. Yes, they are using forced nudity on him, just like in Abu Graib.
That's in addition to isolation, sensory deprivation, and sleep disruption on top of no speedy trial.

I love how easily people defend this shit. USA!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #50
84. Will you stop the insistent bull---t already?
Edited on Mon Mar-14-11 01:49 AM by chill_wind
You were given a direct quote from a spokesman mil officer. They copped to it already, as several posters here have already pointed out to you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #50
91. The Army ADMITTED they took away his underwear at night.
Face it, he was forced to be naked. Even the war machine cops to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #50
98. The army ADMITTED they took his underwear STOP LYING.
n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 02:36 AM
Response to Reply #50
112. Planet earth calling...
He also describes the experience of being stripped naked at night and made to stand for parade in the nude, a condition that continues to this day. "The guard told me to stand at parade rest, with my hands behind my back and my legs spaced shoulder-width apart. I stood at parade rest for about three minutes The and the other guards walked past my cell. He looked at me, paused for a moment, then continued to the next cell. I was incredibly embarrassed at having all these people stare at me naked."

http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/11/stripped-nake...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #45
55. "I really wish folks would stop treating him like a hero."
nailed it .... agree spot on w/ the last 3 sentences .... except to say that after reading the interview w/his father I think it's clear he did it 'cause he hates the military ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #55
58. Even if the only thing he'd leaked was the video
proving that MURDER was being covered up by the Pentagon, he'd be a hero.

Forget the hundreds of other things cablegate revealed. Or, just look at a hundred things.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Hates the military. LOL

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #45
56. Punitive pre-trial detention is illegal in this country. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Travelman Donating Member (326 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #56
128. How utterly asinine
Edited on Mon Mar-14-11 12:20 PM by Travelman
WTF are they going to do with him otherwise? People are held in pre-trial confinement all the time.

Houw about Jared Loughner? Should we just cut him loose to go shoot Gabby Giffords in the head again, since it's so fucking awful that he's being held in pre-trial confinement? After all, HE hasn't been convicted, so he's not a criminal, right? Just let him loose to go do whatever the fuck he wants to, and maybe he'll show up for his trial, or maybe he won't. Whoopie! Who cares? Just for God's sake don't *gasp* keep him locked up in the meantime. That would be awful.




Sheesh. People seriously need to get a grip on reality here. He's being held, he's on suicide watch because he himself threatened suicide. That means they don't leave him with stuff that he can use to kill himself, including his clothes at night.




Edited to correct Loughner name.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BillyJack Donating Member (653 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #45
60. "The man is a criminal" you say.
What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

Do you believe in that concept/tenent?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cecilfirefox Donating Member (404 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #60
64. I do believe in that concept, BUT
There's also something called common sense. It is pretty clear to say that Manning took that material on a CD disguised as a music CD. Why did he do it? That's the million dollar question. Whether or not he gave it to Wikileaks is another. The fact that he hasn't pointed the finger at Julian Assange tells me that maybe he didn't. I'd expect him to have made a deal by now. /shrug
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #64
70. It's not just a "concept", it's the law.
What the Pentagon is doing to Manning is an Article 13 violation and could vitiate their entire case against him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #45
89. He isn't a "criminal" unless he's actually been convicted of a crime.
Edited on Mon Mar-14-11 01:48 AM by Ken Burch
And the events of the last few months have vindicated WikiLeaks over and over again. Secrecy on these questions only benefits reactionary and militarist forces in the world. Secrecy CANNOT be progressive, pro-human rights, pro-social justice OR pro-peace. All foreign policy secrecy is Kissingersprache.

There's no good reason why he couldn't at least be released with an ankle bracelet until his trial. And there's no justification for NOT having such a trial immediately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jannyk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:15 AM
Response to Original message
47. No
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
steve2470 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:24 AM
Response to Original message
53. No.
He needs a fair trial as soon as possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libodem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:29 AM
Response to Original message
57. hell no
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raksha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:30 AM
Response to Original message
61. Hell no!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
themadstork Donating Member (797 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:31 AM
Response to Original message
62. No. And I don't give a flying fuck if it's a mlitary court
Sick of the military posing as some ultimate moral authority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zanzoobar Donating Member (618 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #62
74. I was in the military
Edited on Mon Mar-14-11 12:43 AM by Zanzoobar
Not one time in my multiple UCMJ hearings did any officer ever equate military authority with morality.

They pointed to the big poster on the wall. The one with all the UCMJ regulations. Then they brought the hammer down on me.

The military relies on simplicity and obedience. Comply or fail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
themadstork Donating Member (797 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #74
131. I mainly meant the way
In which the military and the CIA can themselves decide when the violation of human rights is OK. The official reasoning here seems to be that because he is a military prisoner, this sort of treatment is allowed. That's bullshit. The party in position to violate human rights should never be the party deciding when we can morally (if ever) do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:32 AM
Response to Original message
65. No. The unhumane treatment of Bradley Manning goes beyond the degrading forced nudity
or any suddenly conceived remedies of sleep suits in the overwhelming face of public/political backlash. They didn't just invent those a few days ago.

There has been more to understand about this, all along. Much more.

Wednesday, Dec 15, 2010 01:15 ET
The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning's detention

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krabigirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:34 AM
Response to Original message
66. No..he hasn't even been tried or convicted yet, but no, he doesn't deserve to be tortured!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:38 AM
Response to Original message
71. Absolutely not. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
highplainsdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:40 AM
Response to Original message
72. No.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:43 AM
Response to Original message
76. It is shameful. But the plutarchy can't have peasants exposing
the dirty little secrets about using our military as corporate mercenaries in their wars to protect corporate interests and profits.

War pigs are war pigs; it's what they do and they'll crush anyone that gets in their way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oilwellian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:45 AM
Response to Original message
77. No, he does not
I feel great shame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 01:10 AM
Response to Original message
79. I feel like I don't know what is going on.
I wish Kucinich could speak with Manning and figure out what is actually happening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timtom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 01:15 AM
Response to Original message
82. Absolutely not!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beam Me Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 01:21 AM
Response to Original message
83. Absolutely not. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 01:29 AM
Response to Original message
85. Absolutely Not! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grahamhgreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 01:29 AM
Response to Original message
86. Not even if he's guilty of leaking the docs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donheld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 01:39 AM
Response to Original message
87. No! No excuses
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Electric Monk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 01:40 AM
Response to Original message
88. No
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 01:51 AM
Response to Original message
93. Of course not, only a very few people here do.
Edited on Mon Mar-14-11 01:52 AM by Rex
And most keep quiet about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #93
99. That's not my experience
there's been several "throw Manning to the wolves" threads. You'd think we'd turned into Free Republic everytime those threads started.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 04:05 AM
Response to Reply #99
117. From your own thread, the 'nos' seem to have it.
People seem to be backing away from what they know is wrong, I've seen maybe 1% of DU in GD throw Manning under the bus if that many.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bragi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 08:01 AM
Response to Reply #117
119. Agreed, torture has only a handful of supporters on DU
The pro-torture types here are small in number, but sufficiently vocal to make it appear as a though there is a lot of divison on this matter at DU.

On a totally different subject, wasn't creating an appearance of divisions on the left one of the social media tactics advocated by the sleeze PR firm tring to undermine support for Wikileaks?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #119
136. "torture has only a handful of supporters on DU"?
Does anyone else find the thought that DU HAS torture supporters at all disturbing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #117
134. I'm glad this response is happening in this thread
it's incredibly reassuring.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bragi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #134
137. Me too! /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PufPuf23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 02:06 AM
Response to Original message
101. No. The treatment is criminal regardless of Manning's guilt.
The PR indicates a warning to individuals that speak truth to managed public perception. This is not democracy nor freedom regardless of party and indicates to me the power of the DoD and supposed "shadow governemnt" that are apparently not bound by Constitution, Bill of Rights, and human decency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
themadstork Donating Member (797 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #101
130. Yes, this. Our government is bound by the principles of human decency,
except when they decide they're not. They don't deserve our respect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Betty Karlson Donating Member (902 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 02:19 AM
Response to Original message
105. No. It's ahuman rights abuse
and a travesty of justice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duende azul Donating Member (608 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 02:25 AM
Response to Original message
107. No. Deserves a medal instead and a promotion. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TorchTheWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 02:26 AM
Response to Original message
108. I don't believe ANYONE deserves such treatment
Again, this is not about the treatment of one single individual, it's about this same treatment and worse that is already and has been for decades epidemic in this country (or by this country hidden away in another country).

If you're going to make an argument about him being tortured because solitary confinement is torture, then you MUST also include in the complaint every other person this country subjects to such treatment. Making it all about HIS treatment and no one else that gets such treatment makes the complaint to easy to disregard.

Solitary confinement is torturous and it is wrong for everyone. If you only make the complaint that it is wrong for ONE person, than you can't be believed that you really think that solitary confinement is torture or that it's wrong.

That said, some of Manning's treatment seems reasonable considering the need to protect him and to keep him safe from himself. There needs to be a happy medium between general population and solitary confinement for all prisons.

As far as the current administration being a progressive one... are you serious???? This administration is very nearly as right wing as the last one. Being a Dem in DC for the last 30 years has usually meant Repub Lite. There hasn't been any progressive power in this country for decades, and anyone that even remotely follows politics would know that. Being progressive has to do with policy, not what letter you wear on your sweater.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 02:43 AM
Response to Original message
113. No. I used to think only backward-thinking third-world countries would stoop so low.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gkhouston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #113
133. I used to believe we weren't a backward-thinking, third-world country. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 02:48 AM
Response to Original message
114. I do not think that anyone deserves the treatment that Bradley Manning
is reported as getting. It is cruel and unusual punishment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burrowowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 02:52 AM
Response to Original message
115. NO!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 08:12 AM
Response to Original message
121. Absolutely NOT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hobbit709 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 08:16 AM
Response to Original message
122. NO. Even if convicted he doesn't deserve that kind of treatment.
Total violation of a person's dignity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riderinthestorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
125. No!! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
126. No n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gkhouston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
132. No. I wonder if they're trying to coerce a confession or induce a suicide. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bragi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #132
140. They want to break him and intimidate other whistleblowers
Edited on Mon Mar-14-11 03:09 PM by Bragi
I think the goals are 1. to break Manning so he will implicate Assange and/or Wikileaks in his testimony, and b) to send a message to any other potential whistleblowers that if they are caught, the Obama administration will engage in torture, and that no law can stop them.

Pretty fucking chilling messages, I'd say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aerows Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
139. No! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
143. Fuck no. It makes me sick. And people who support his torture make me sick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mochajava666 Donating Member (771 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
144. It scares the Hell out of me that many on DU support torture
blindly just because it's during a Democratic administration.

It is the Nihilism of the New Age.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #144
147. What's worse is that so many blindly trust the war machine
That's the only thing that the defense of the secrecy state could mean. You can't defend it and STILL claim to be skeptical about what our generals and politicians want to do to the world.

Secrecy in government is the enemy of all humane values in the world. It protects killing, torture and barbarity. It never protects the people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mochajava666 Donating Member (771 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #147
148. Well said
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #147
150. exactly right
& that is VERY disturbing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
149. My take--so far the only issue I've seen is the clothes thing. If Manning were to committ suicide
Edited on Mon Mar-14-11 04:03 PM by ecstatic
all hell would break loose in the blogosphere. There would be so many murder and conspiracy accusations flying around that a whole new board would have to be created to contain all the speculation. So for Manning's own safety and to preserve the integrity of the proceedings, I think it's best that they just keep him on injury prevention status.

BTW, I don't think anyone on DU condones torture. There's a disagreement as to whether torture is happening with Manning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #149
152. The ARMY shrink ruled a month ago that Manning wasn't suicidal.
Why wasn't that ENOUGH?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #152
155. Probably because he openly made a remark
about killing himself using his underwear or flip flops? :shrug:

Ken Burch, what would you think if Manning was taken off suicide watch and turned up dead? Be honest. You would think he was murdered right? Isn't it better to remove that possibility entirely from the equation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #155
156. He said that BEFORE the shrink's ruling, and has repeatedly stated he was just being sarcastic
What the hell does the guy have to do to prove he ISN'T suicidal? And is it fair to use a "suicide watch" as, effectively, an additional punishment?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #156
158. If I make a comment about a bomb on a plane
and then say I was being sarcastic, do you think that would fly? Words do have consequences.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #158
159. This isn't the same thing.
And somebody who did a bomb joke on a plane would have just been fined, lectured and sent on their way by now.

It's WRONG to use a suicide watch as an additional punishment. And it's disturbing that you'd compare the two, especially since what Manning said, unlike a bomb joke on a plane, didn't harm anyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Travelman Donating Member (326 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #159
164. No one is using suicide watch as an additional punishment
No matter how many times you claim that, it won't somehow become true all by itself just because you keep repeating it.

Manning threatened suicide. They put him on suicide watch. That's what happens when you threaten suicide. And no amount of doctor's opinions will change that fact if he turns up dead in his cell swinging from his underwear like he threatened to do, not a month ago, but indeed just a few days ago. And those folks guarding that prison will not be able to use that doctor's statement as some sort of defense in the wrongful death suit that will doubtlessly be filed against them by someone if Manning manages to off himself.

So, I'm terribly sorry, but tough shit. He declared, on multiple occasions, his intent to commit suicide. The folks guarding him can't take that risk, so they don't. That means that Manning stays on suicide watch so that he doesn't come up dead one morning during bed checks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #164
165. So what are you saying....that Manning has to be kept on suicide watch for the REST of his time in
custody? And if you say the doctor's opinions don't matter, who's opinions do? You can't seriously be arguing that we should leave that decision to the non-medical people who are running that prison.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elias49 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #164
173. Oh heavens no! Suicide would not do!
That wouldn't be punishment enough in the minds of the Neanderthals running the brig or their apologists on these boards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sallysense Donating Member (25 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
154. Another letter sent to the President and other Officials.
Mr. President,

Please properly investigate the possible/probable inhumane treatment of PFC Bradley E. Manning, being detained in the United States Marine Corps Quantico Brig in Virginia.

Common sense tells the conscience that possible/probable inhumane treatment must be fully investigated.

Facts of the case, as reported by David Coombs, PFC Manning's defense lawyer, indicate that:

Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell has stated that PFC Manning has been a model detainee.

Brig forensic psychiatrists have continually stated that there's no mental health justifications for the extreme conditions of PFC Manning's detainment.

Quantico Commander Colonel Daniel Choike has denied a fair request by PFC Manning to be removed from the medically unnecessary extreme current conditions of his detainment.

Chief Warrant Officer Denise Barnes used a sarcastic remark made by PFC Manning, (referring to the waistband in his shorts), as an unfair convenient excuse to unjustifiably further increase the extreme conditions of PFC Manning's detainment, with no contact of, nor recommendations from, the mental health staff to do so.

The Brig (excluding mental health staff as they don't recommend the extreme current conditions) is using loopholes in policies to unfairly increase the extreme conditions of PFC Manning's detainment.

These extreme conditions, inconsistencies between policies, and possible/probable abuse of authority, must be investigated.

The communication and exercise and sleep of PFC Manning is being severely restricted to the viable concern of inhumaneness.

Hence, to now rely on the sole assurance of those allegedly behind this alleged mistreatment, does nothing to justly bring the truth to light.

Our country's principles of conscientiousness, deserve to have a serious matter such as this be fully investigated by unbiased independent third parties.

Again, please properly investigate the possible/probable inhumane treatment of PFC Bradley Manning.

Anything less falls short of truth and justness, and hence the American way, as your words so often convey.

Sincerely,

Sally Kline

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
al bupp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
157. Hell, no!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojeoux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
160. No No No No No No and NO!
Because Logical argument by logical argument Manning should NOT be in solitary confinement, or even, confinement at all. Have they charged him? Is there a day in court in sight?

If anything, he could be in protective custody and allowed to have visitors, and live like a human.

I am afraid that our POTUS, who has had more that 400 times more threats to his life that any president in history..............Is SCARED to cross the military. TERRIFIED to cross the military.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
161. Nope! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okieinpain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
162. of course he does't but he put his dumb butt in the situation so I
do not feel sorry for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zorahopkins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
167. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!
Manning did NOTHING wrong.

He does not deserve this treatment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
171. NO... but those wishing this treatment on him
do deserve it done to themselves. They remind me of the crowds cheering during a public hanging... losers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dhpgetsit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 10:28 PM
Response to Original message
176. NO!
And besides, remember "Innocent until proven guilty?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Aug 27th 2014, 09:24 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC