Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bradley Manning's Pretrial Detention is Illegal

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
 
soryang Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-26-10 11:13 PM
Original message
Bradley Manning's Pretrial Detention is Illegal
Manning's pretrial detention is prolonged and illegal. It violates Article 10 of the UCMJ which provides for speedy trial.

What is an army soldier doing in a USMC brig for a prolonged detention before trial? It is prima facie evidence that he is being punished without due process.

Speedy trial rights in the military are more extensive than the Sixth Amendment, for reasons that are all too apparent from the conditions of his confinement to his political persecution. It seems that Manning is already well inside the Barker inquiry period.


The prinicples of Article 10 are discussed on this website:

http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/digest/VB3.htm

He detention apparently began on May 29. This is outrageous!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
snagglepuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-26-10 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. Thanks for posting this. I'm profoundly disappointed that DUer's
familiar with UCMJ haven't mentioned this small insignificant detail. I am referring to posters who have simply reiterated that Manning knew the rules when he enlisted and what is happening to him is nothing out of the ordinary for military prisoners. Having no knowledge of UCMJ, I was left stammering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alex cross Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-26-10 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Well I'm disappointed that our Commander in Chief, who by all
reports is supposed to be a Constitutional Law Professor, hasn't been made aware of the situation by someone on his staff and hasn't issued orders to remedy the situation.

It's the least he could do, and he must have the authority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-26-10 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. What orders should Obama issue?
It's up to Manning's attorney to file a motion if he thinks that a speedy trial standard has been violated.

The OP still hasn't explained just how this violates Article 10.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alex cross Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-27-10 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Umm, I think that was my point. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-27-10 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. As the CIC he has the authority......
...to tell his underlings to charge him or cut him loose.

- At least in theory......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-27-10 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #8
16. Dude, he was charged in July. 5 seconds on google would clear that one up for you. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhaTHellsgoingonhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-27-10 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. We've even lost the moral high ground...
pathetic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-26-10 11:56 PM
Response to Original message
3. Explain, precisely how, this violates article 10?
I mean, you've posted a bunch of cases, but you've failed to make a legal argument as to why Article 10 has been violated.

Further--Manning's own attorney hasn't filed the requisite motion to trigger a Barker inquiry. Have you considered why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zanzobar Donating Member (276 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-27-10 12:47 AM
Response to Reply #3
12. Me 2
Edited on Mon Dec-27-10 12:47 AM by Zanzobar
"Any person subject to this chapter charged with an offense under this chapter shall be ordered into arrest or confinement, as circumstances may require; but when charged only with an offense normally tried by a summary court-martial, he shall not ordinarily be placed in confinement. When any person subject to this chapter is placed in arrest or confinement prior to trial, immediate steps shall be taken to inform him of the specific wrong of which he is accused and to try him or to dismiss the charges and release him."

Likely they're investigating. Investigation would be considered evidentiary procedure, thus, "try him or dismiss the charges".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-27-10 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. Well, he's been charged (July) and is not facing charges that
would indicate a summary court martial.

Nor has his attorney filed a speedy trial motion. Why the OP thinks they are more on top of this case than Manning's attorney is beyond me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-27-10 12:02 AM
Response to Original message
5. You might ask the admins to set up a special section for Manning and Assange
Because this story isn't going to go away for many months.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-27-10 02:06 AM
Response to Reply #5
14. Just BRIEFLY heard a snip of the torture of the type of confinement he's
experiencing -- that after X number of days, the person is almost mentally/emotionally harmed beyond help. :(

I can NOT believe this is how they treat an American citizen on our own soil!

I'm grateful his friend is able to communicate with. I couldn't even listen to the interviews or read much about it - it just distressed me too much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TorchTheWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-27-10 06:38 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. for heaven's sake this is nothing new
This type of treatment and worse has been going on in prisons all over the US for decades. Where have you been??? Manning is hardly the only one, yet I've yet to see a single supporter acknowledge this basic fact even when it's pointed out over and over again. Why is that?

Look, either it's a disgrace for EVERY prisoner regardless of their offense, regardless of whether or not it's pre or post trial and regardless of whether it's under a military or civilian justice system or his supporters are ONLY upset about it because it's HIM. Continuing to complain about just HIS treatment without complaining or even acknowledging this treatment for scads of other US prisoners makes it obvious that as long as it isn't Manning subjected to this treatment than it's just peachy for the US to continue doing this to all the other prisoners subjected to it... which makes the claims of his being tortured a bunch of baloney. Either it's torture for everyone subjected to it or it isn't torture at all or his supporters or perfectly ok with what they profess to believe is torture as long as it's not happening to something they like.

Personally, I DON'T support what Manning did and think he does belong in prison, but the solitary conditions are a disgrace, I do believe they should be considered torture, and unlike his supporters I'm not going to take the HYPOCRITICAL stance that it's only a problem because it's just this one guy being subjected to it.

It's a disgrace that the US does this at ALL to ANY prisoner, and even though I don't support Manning, at least I'm big enough to acknowledge this very obvious point, something that his supporters here are just hell bent on "overlooking".



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-27-10 12:14 AM
Response to Original message
7. This is what Police State America looks like.
- K&R

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dystopian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-27-10 12:37 AM
Response to Original message
10. KandR.

Imprisoned for 215 Days


peace~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidinalameda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-27-10 12:41 AM
Response to Original message
11. has his counsel brought this up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crabby Appleton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-27-10 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. His attorney David Coombs has stated the delay is
because of several defense motions for a preliminary classification review which need to be resolved before proceeding with the Article 32 hearing, there's no Article 10 violation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-27-10 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #13
18. So the OP's entire premise is incorrect, then? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidinalameda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-27-10 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. pretty much
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidinalameda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-27-10 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. love how people get their panties in a bunch
without having all the facts

the DU Olympic jumping to conclusion team would take the gold!

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 Fri Jul 30th 2021, 01:07 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