The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning's detention

[Ajidica]

If you want to see him convicted, you cannot say that you don't have an interest in how he is represented. Your numerous posts in this thread demonstrate that you have an interest in seeing how he is represented.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

I'm sure it's been said somewhere here before, but there's not much distance between that sort of language and a bit of good old fashioned suppression of opposition, right-wing dictator style. Whatever people believe, they're still people.

No, because LANGUAGE does not wrongfully incarcerate someone or murder them.

What I said harms no one, and shames those who do believe that nonsense. What actually suppresses people is wrongful incarceration or murder. And executing Manning over this would be murder, and those who advocate his murder are not human beings in my eyes.

You murder, you're not people to me anymore, you're about on the same level as an animal that eats its own young. And that's how I feel, and I'll repeat it to someone's face if necessary, with emphasis. Because I have no time for people who treat political opposition like butcher meat, and I think they lack whatever characteristics that makes human beings civilized and better than butcher meat.

Lots of guts and bravery to potentially destroy the progress created by trillions of dollars and billions of man hours?

If you seriously believe what Manning has done has destroyed or ever had the potential to destroy the "progress" we've made, that's your business, I guess. But it's also pure fiction.

Tell you what, lets ask Manning in 40 years or so, after he has been in prison all that time if it was worth it to him. I'll be willing to bet he would take it all back in an instant.

Yeah, I bet a person who was entirely innocent of any crime whatsoever would say such a thing. "I'll never do it again, just let me out of jail."

You incarcerate someone long enough, they'll probably say anything. What someone will say after being punished or tortured by the state is not the same as what is right, or what they actually believe.

You sound as if you'd be happy with such future justification, because you managed to torment someone long enough to change their mind. In my view, it's a very weak position to hold that you can get your opposition to agree with you if you let them rot in prison, and that somehow it makes you right. That's precisely the antithesis of freedom, democracy, human rights, and progress, and it should have gone away during the Renaissance.

It still sickens me that people think this way. We can bully others into saying anything, that makes us right = Horse manure, and you should know that.

 

[Flying Pig]

No, because LANGUAGE does not wrongfully incarcerate someone or murder them.

Language influences thoughts, which influence action. Do you think it's a coincidence that anti-discrimination movements fight so strongly against the use of slurs against them? Once it's acceptable to start calling people niggers, it becomes acceptable to start deriding them, and soon acceptable to start thinking of them as less than human.

What actually suppresses people is wrongful incarceration or murder. And executing Manning over this would be murder, and those who advocate his murder are not human beings in my eyes.

Whatever you believe, murder is wilful killing in violation of the law. An execution therefore is never murder.

You murder, you're not people to me anymore, you're about on the same level as an animal that eats its own young.

Out of interest how do you feel about myself and Mobby, then?

If you seriously believe what Manning has done has destroyed or ever had the potential to destroy the "progress" we've made, that's your business, I guess. But it's also pure fiction.

Really? Please explain how you came to that conclusion.

 

[MobBoss]

You incarcerate someone long enough, they'll probably say anything.

Nelson Mandela didnt.

And in reply to the rest of your rant: if you cant do the time, dont do the crime.

 

[Ajidica]

Talking points do not an argument make.

 

[MobBoss]

Talking points do not an argument make.

But they are effective in pointing out holes in your opponents logic.

Nice talking point, btw.

And to answer your earlier comment, Ajidica, I want to see him convicted IF the evidence supports that conviction. If it does not, then I want to see him released.

Fair enough?

 

[Ajidica]

But they are effective in pointing out holes in your opponents logic.

They are effective only in showing that you have no arguments in reponse to their points so you rely on tired old sayings in an attempt to escape from intellectual responsibility.

Nice talking point, btw.

Same to you.

Ajidica, I want to see him convicted IF the evidence supports that conviction. If it does not, then I want to see him released.

Have you not already said that you want to see him convicted? I don't recall seeing the 'if the evidence supports conviction' phrase in any of those prior assertions.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Language influences thoughts, which influence action. Do you think it's a coincidence that anti-discrimination movements fight so strongly against the use of slurs against them? Once it's acceptable to start calling people niggers, it becomes acceptable to start deriding them, and soon acceptable to start thinking of them as less than human.

So, in summary:

• Tossing someone in prison and torturing them without a trial, that's fine!
• Advocating someone's death, that's also fine!
• Saying people who think that way are less human as a result = bad.

Warped priorities.

Whatever you believe, murder is wilful killing in violation of the law. An execution therefore is never murder.

Executing an innocent person is murder, in my opinion. Executing someone for an offense that should never be a capital offense is also murder, in my opinion.

If you want to go with semantics, yes, it's not murder. If you want to go with reality, it's the same thing as murder.

Out of interest how do you feel about myself and Mobby, then?

I don't feel about you.

I don't know you.

I also don't know Bradley Manning.

I do know he was tortured without a trial, and is being treated worse than a dog because he stood up for what he believed was right. And what he did, does not warrant this kind of treatment. What he allegedly released was an embarrassment for people in governments. He didn't send troop positions to the terrorists and get people killed.

If people can't differentiate between an actual traitor and a hero, they should not get involved.

Bradley Manning may be proved to be a traitor, at some later date. He hasn't been so far, and therefore he's being punished as a traitor without a trial. In my universe, that's called injustice. In my universe, we stand up and speak out against injustice, rather than cheering it on, and calling for a man to be executed.

Some people are far too interested in bloodletting for the purposes of punishing others. In my view, they lack basic human empathy, and there's not a whole lot standing between that view, and the view that running around murdering people is fun. You lack human empathy, what's stopping you from harming others? Not a whole lot, except perhaps laziness.

I don't think highly of people like that. I'm not shy in expressing that view.

Really? Please explain how you came to that conclusion.

Let's see: It's the default conclusion until proved otherwise. I am not the commander in chief or a top general, and I don't have all the data. But no one has proved this man has single-handedly ruined the United States war effort, which is preposterous in itself, or that even a single soldier lost their lives as a result of it. All they've shown is that wikileaks has the capability of embarassing politicians.

Please explain how you came to the conclusion that a man, innocent until proven guilty, preferably in a court of law, deserves to be tortured before a trial and branded as a traitor to his nation when no one has shown that what he's done warrants even a fine.

Casting someone out and making them an outcast without just cause is something that strikes at the very heart of our humanity. How quick we are to just call this man garbage, lock him away, and forget he exists.

How cruel we are. How weak is our position that one man can destroy us all.... with our own words... that we must destroy him and spit on him and defame him before he's even had the chance to give his defense.

How sick we are as a society. How uncivilized, how barbaric. What a piece of work is man, when we eat each other like animals.

I'm disgusted by anyone who is very comfortable with their position that we must cast out one of our own and put them through a grinder without allowing a trial to take place. I'm disgusted by that attitude. I'm more disgusted with the excited calls for his execution. I think that's perverted.

I think some people get their jollies watching "enemies" die, so much so that they don't care who is actually an enemy or not.

Those people aren't human beings to me. That's how I feel. If it applies to you, be thankful I am just expressing words... and not throwing you in jail and torturing you without a trial. In other words, be thankful I don't have standards as low as the ones others here are advocating.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

And to answer your earlier comment, Ajidica, I want to see him convicted IF the evidence supports that conviction. If it does not, then I want to see him released.

Fair enough?

If the man is innocent enough to be released at some point, when the evidence shows him to be such, why are we so comfortable depriving the man of sleep, clothing, and other basic should-be-rights?

My objection is how we treat this man before he's been found guilty of anything. Presently, he should be treated like a guest in a comfortable holding cell awaiting a speedy trial so he can defend his innocence. If the man is suicidal, frankly, I think he should be afforded someone who watches him 24 hours a day.

If the man is such a high value target of our government, we can afford to watch him and make sure he doesn't kill himself with a sheet, so that he can be afforded the comforts of a sheet. If he's innocent, he deserves that much. And may I remind people, until proved otherwise, the man IS innocent.

 

[Flying Pig]

• Tossing someone in prison and torturing them without a trial, that's fine!

Who said anything about torture? But actually, I reckon that it's only fine so long as every effort is being made to get a trial done as soon as possible; perhaps our cousins over the pond are being slightly lethargic about that part.

• Advocating someone's death, that's also fine!

Well, I'd be slightly hypocritical if I came out now as a pacifist, wouldn't I? But I'm not advocating Manning's death, whether he's proved guilty or not - but I respect the right of people to do so without losing their humanity

QUOTE]

• Saying people who think that way are less human as a result = bad.

[/QUOTE]

One hundred times yes. As I keep saying, once you say that one group of people are worth less than another it becomes very easy to start sliding to the point of outright discrimination. After all, people view kicking a dog as far less horrible than kicking a person, but kicking dogs pales to squashing ants... or untermenschen, if you see my point.

Executing an innocent person is murder, in my opinion.

Hence why everybody (everybody bar the lunatics, that is) wants to see Manning tried and found guilty before being executed or imprisoned or whatever. No-one's saying we should just skip the whole due process part and bring out the guillotine.

Executing someone for an offense that should never be a capital offense is also murder, in my opinion.

Well I don't agree with the death penalty either. It's not murder - as I said, murder has to be illegal - but it's certainly immoral on the part of the law-makers. Of course, who decides what crime 'should' have which punishment?

I do know he was tortured without a trial,

That's a bit extreme and frankly insulting to people who actually are tortured.

and is being treated worse than a dog because he stood up for what he believed was right.

Well, squaddies do get very attached to their dogs - not so much their prisoners.

What he allegedly released was an embarrassment for people in governments. He didn't send troop positions to the terrorists and get people killed.

No, but he did sent motivation and what amounts, in a counter-insurgency, to weaponary to the terrorists. He's probably encouraged Ahmed from Lashkar Gah to sign up for the Taliban, and next week he'll be pointing his rifle at Tommy from Aldershot - because the mullah found this cable on the internet which proves that the British and Americans are evil. Counter-insurgency is basically a giant slagging match and he's just given the allies a major kick in the arse.

Bradley Manning may be proved to be a traitor, at some later date. He hasn't been so far, and therefore he's being punished as a traitor without a trial. In my universe, that's called injustice. In my universe, we stand up and speak out against injustice, rather than cheering it on, and calling for a man to be executed.

He's not being punished for anything. Jails aren't nice places, true, but nobody's actually punishing him; life in a military prison isn't fun.

If you want to go with semantics, yes, it's not murder. If you want to go with reality, it's the same thing as murder.

I don't think that when using legal terminology you can get away from legal definitions. Try 'immoral' or something that doesn't so strongly mean 'unlawful'.

I don't feel about you.

I don't know you.

I also don't know Bradley Manning.

It was more to do with the fact that we've spent most of our working lives either directly killing (mostly) innocent human beings or helping others to do so. Are we both less than human?

You lack human empathy, what's stopping you from harming others? Not a whole lot, except perhaps laziness.

Well I can give a fairly personal answer to that one - I have been in situations when I've felt not a lot of human empathy for the people near me, for various reasons, but I haven't gone on a murderous rampage quite yet - what keeps us from harming others? Our discipline, our knowledge that we don't want to lat ourselves sink to their level, the fact that we'll have to answer for it before the law, or before God)... quite a lot, and that's when the instinct of 'don't hurt people without good reason' isn't there.

I don't think highly of people like that. I'm not shy in expressing that view.

Nor do I, but they're still people

Let's see: It's the default conclusion until proved otherwise. I am not the commander in chief or a top general, and I don't have all the data. But no one has proved this man has single-handedly ruined the United States war effort, which is preposterous in itself, or that even a single soldier lost their lives as a result of it. All they've shown is that wikileaks has the capability of embarassing politicians.

No, but - for the reasons I've set out - it's both impossible to prove that and extremely naive to think that he's had no effect whatsoever.

Please explain how you came to the conclusion that a man, innocent until proven guilty, preferably in a court of law, deserves to be tortured before a trial and branded as a traitor to his nation when no one has shown that what he's done warrants even a fine.

He doesn't. He isn't. Next!

Those people aren't human beings to me. That's how I feel. If it applies to you, be thankful I am just expressing words... and not throwing you in jail and torturing you without a trial. In other words, be thankful I don't have standards as low as the ones others here are advocating.

If I took the view that it was OK to do anything provided that I never sank as low as those I oppose, I'd be a far less moral person... and probably would have gone on at laest one of those murdering rampages mentioned earlier.

 

[MobBoss]

Executing an innocent person is murder, in my opinion.

I hold that same opinion. However, thats not the argument.

Executing someone for an offense that should never be a capital offense is also murder, in my opinion.

Treason has been a capital offense since our countries beginning and fwiw, I think it should remain so. I find very little more heinous than betraying ones own countrymen to an enemy that would kill us wholesale if given the chance.

I don't feel about you.

I think FP was referring to our military service, and as part of that service, we may have to kill someone. Do you think that would be murder?

I do know he was tortured without a trial,

No, you dont. You read an opinion piece alleging he was. Thats not the same as absolute knowledge of an event....and fwiw, what was alleged in those stories wasnt even torture by any stretch of the word. Was it a walk in the park? No. But torture? Hardly.

and is being treated worse than a dog

Michael Vick disagrees.

because he stood up for what he believed was right.

Since you already stated you dont know Bradley Manning then how can you know this? In other words, you dont know this either. At all.

He didn't send troop positions to the terrorists and get people killed.

Actually, some of the information he released could be very analogous to this, and certainly put people in more danger. Its precisely why the treason charges were made in addition to the original charges of releasing confidential information.

If people can't differentiate between an actual traitor and a hero, they should not get involved.

Good advice for yourself as well since you dont really know the facts of the case.

Bradley Manning may be proved to be a traitor, at some later date. He hasn't been so far, and therefore he's being punished as a traitor without a trial. In my universe, that's called injustice. In my universe, we stand up and speak out against injustice, rather than cheering it on, and calling for a man to be executed.

In my universe, I actually have a good definition of punishment. What Manning went through wasnt that. In fact, I posit that the military took steps to ensure that DIDNT occur as they absolutely knew the fallout from attempting any such thing.

Please explain how you came to the conclusion that a man, innocent until proven guilty, preferably in a court of law, deserves to be tortured before a trial and branded as a traitor to his nation when no one has shown that what he's done warrants even a fine.

He wasnt tortured. If we cant agree on that, then /oh well.

Casting someone out and making them an outcast without just cause is something that strikes at the very heart of our humanity. How quick we are to just call this man garbage, lock him away, and forget he exists.

How cruel we are. How weak is our position that one man can destroy us all.... with our own words... that we must destroy him and spit on him and defame him before he's even had the chance to give his defense.

How sick we are as a society. How uncivilized, how barbaric. What a piece of work is man, when we eat each other like animals.

I see no one engaging in cannabalism.

But, wow...over the top much?

 

[civ_king]

Please stop the quote wars

 

[MobBoss]

Have you not already said that you want to see him convicted? I don't recall seeing the 'if the evidence supports conviction' phrase in any of those prior assertions.

If you can quote me in context saying that, then go ahead and post it. Otherwise, my answer to you just now will have to suffice.

But my opinion remains that I think this is one of those cases where its not much of a challenge for the prosecution to prove their case concerning what I have heard of the evidence against Manning is. Apparently the have a witness, the guy he turned the stuff over to, and his digital footprint all over the stuff he took. As I have said several times now, it doesnt look good for Manning at all.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Nope. Its my experience that young soldiers, like him, very rarely do. And please consider my experience in this. I deal directly with young soldiers like him all the time each and every day.



And I am speaking generally from my experience as a career military paralegal who deals with such soldiers each and every day of his work.

In fact, I posit that his main emotion was one of revenge for possibly feeling unjustly punished by his previous article 15 prior to his actions. Soldiers often get a over-riding self-righteous attitude about such punishments, and end up doing something stupid they never really think through. I see it all the time in my work.

So much for grunts being America's best and brightest then.

Military bases, even in the USA, are almost all doubled fenced with concertina/razor wire strands on top of the fences in question. One just doesnt 'wander in' accidently onto a military base.

Nor does one release top secret information without knowing the implications of it, whether real or imagined.

What he did wasn't right. If he thought it was, then, that's called stupidity.

I thought we had already established that your opinion was troglodytic.

Moderator Action: Trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Flying Pig]

So much for grunts being America's best and brightest then..

Ha, squaddies, the best and brightest? Even over here we have 'gems' like Pte 'Dozy' Atkins, who during a tour of Belfast shot himself in the foot. His explanation to a bemused platoon sergeant was 'well, sergeant, I often rest the muzzle on my toecap and play with teh trigger!'... I love them, but they can be precious sometimes.

 

[MobBoss]

So much for grunts being America's best and brightest then.

Dont confuse intelligence with wisdom. Manning was surely intelligent enough computer wise, but not wise enough to see the hole he was digging for himself.

Nor does one release top secret information without knowing the implications of it, whether real or imagined.

I beg to disagree. I hardly think Manning read the UCMJ concerning his possible violations, and fwiw, young soldiers in those type of positions are merely counseled that they face 'punishment under the UCMJ' and not the specifics involved.

Come on Cheezy, stop assuming about things military. I know my business.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Ha, squaddies, the best and brightest? Even over here we have 'gems' like Pte 'Dozy' Atkins, who during a tour of Belfast shot himself in the foot. His explanation to a bemused platoon sergeant was 'well, sergeant, I often rest the muzzle on my toecap and play with teh trigger!'... I love them, but they can be precious sometimes.

It's a common trope stateside.

Dont confuse intelligence with wisdom. Manning was surely intelligent enough computer wise, but not wise enough to see the hole he was digging for himself.

Come on. A child can see that telling secrets will get you in trouble if you get caught.

I beg to disagree. I hardly think Manning read the UCMJ concerning his possible violations, and fwiw, young soldiers in those type of positions are merely counseled that they face 'punishment under the UCMJ' and not the specifics involved.

Come on Cheezy, stop assuming about things military. I know my business.

Do I think he knew precisely what his sentence would be if convicted? No. Do I think he knew he would get into trouble? Absolutely. Was he driven by emotion and a quest for vengeance? Probably. But if you think we're talking about Ahab or Nemo, then where this man belongs is some sort of psychiatric ward or mental therapy institution, not Leavenworth.

 

[Flying Pig]

I beg to disagree. I hardly think Manning read the UCMJ concerning his possible violations, and fwiw, young soldiers in those type of positions are merely counseled that they face 'punishment under the UCMJ' and not the specifics involved.

Surely even your squaddies were saying 'man... you're going to get nailed for that one'? Granted not many will know exactly how long they're going t oget in prison, but few won't realise that they're going to be in serious trouble when someone finds out. Of course, like murderers, they either assume they'll never be found out or think it's worth it.

 

[NickyJ]

Non-Catholics said the same thing after they were prisoners of the Inquisition. Hardly a comparison you want to be going for.

Oh boy, he's a Protestant now.

 

[MobBoss]

Come on. A child can see that telling secrets will get you in trouble if you get caught.

Same child has no idea what said punishment will take the form of either. Could be a spanking, grounding, face in the corner, etc. etc. or it could be a pat on the wrist or a pointing finger saying 'dont do that again'.

My point is the UCMJ has a lot of violations in it, and all of them carrying differing levels of punishment. Did Manning know it was wrong to do what he did? Absolutely. Did he stop to think how MUCH trouble he would eventually be in? Hell no. He probably thought he wouldnt even be caught.

Do I think he knew precisely what his sentence would be if convicted? No. Do I think he knew he would get into trouble? Absolutely.

Then we agree on that. For all Manning knew, he may have simply gotten an additional Article 15 like the one he had already received. I dont think he envisioned being court martialed for it.

Was he driven by emotion and a quest for vengeance? Probably. But if you think we're talking about Ahab or Nemo, then where this man belongs is some sort of psychiatric ward or mental therapy institution, not The Brig.

And yet, a big part of the delay in his hearings is because his defense team is requesting in-depth mental evaluations to possibly prove just that. Not sure if you knew that or not.

Surely even your squaddies were saying 'man... you're going to get nailed for that one'? Granted not many will know exactly how long they're going t oget in prison, but few won't realise that they're going to be in serious trouble when someone finds out. Of course, like murderers, they either assume they'll never be found out or think it's worth it.

FP, from what I have read in the news so far, Manning was a loner, and didnt get along with his co-workers that well. I sure your aware of the occasional 'odd man out' kind of person that somehow ends up in the military. From all accounts I have heard Manning was that type of guy, and it very well could have contributed to his emotional state leading up to his alleged crime.