4 ms·

I still can't believe that this guy is basically being tortured before trial with the solitary confinement regime that they have him under. I know that militar

by jbooth 16y ago

I still can't believe that this guy is basically being tortured before trial with the solitary confinement regime that they have him under. I know that military justice is different than civilian justice but I'd still think punishment requires a trial. And punitive solitary should be on the wrong side of "cruel and unusual" for any crime up to and including treason -- if it's capital, you can kill them, but you can't do so cruelly or unusually.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
I don't know about this particular case, but as somebody who served in the military, I always find it odd when folks talk about military member's civil rights. Do they realize that the military can and will take lives? That simple things like your smoking habits can get people killed? That you give up all sorts of things when you put the uniform on? Don't get me wrong -- I didn't like any of that. And I was in the infantry, which is much more about military discipline and foundational stuff. I think a lot of folks look at the military and think of guys living in dorms and doing jobs that involve pushing a lot of buttons. In that case, those folks begin to look a lot like anybody else going to work. So we expect them to have a similar work and legal environment as the rest of us. Like I said, I'm not trying to pass judgment on Manning in this comment or try to figure out what the appropriate type of incarceration would be for him. I just find people's attitudes towards the military very -- weird.
- jbooth 16y ago
  Not being tortured is a human right. Full stop. This isn't about whether the punishment for losing your rifle is excessive, this is a black and white issue. Punishment before trial == wrong. Torture == wrong. Both are against the constitution. And I bet nobody even gets in trouble for this.
  - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
    You're looking for an argument and a rant and that's not my intent. Nobody said anything about torture being okay.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
  - nas 16y ago
    Yeah, and I'm really don't like the special treatment for "enemy combatants" as well. Does the right to life, liberty and happiness apply to all mankind or just to people the US government is not currently scared of?
    - Natsu 16y ago
      > Does the right to life, liberty and happiness apply to all mankind or just to people the US government is not currently scared of? Scared people are scary. Really scary, when backed far enough into a corner.
    - colinplamondon 16y ago
      Are you asking if the American Constitution and the American Bill of Rights only applies to Americans? Enemy combatants belong to non-state actors, and so no treaties or guidelines apply to them. Last I checked Al doesn't Al Qaeda and the rest of the cavers don't get representatives in the UN.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
      - JoachimSchipper 16y ago
        Actually, at least the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does apply to them.
        marshray 16y ago
        Unless the United Nations finds it inconvenient: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml Article 29(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
      - jbooth 16y ago
        How we choose to act in the absence of treaties or guidelines says a lot more about us than it does about inalienable human rights.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - nhebb 16y ago
    He is not being tortured. Here is what his lawyer wrote that his typical day is: http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2010/12/typical-day-for-pfc-bradley-manning.html http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2010/12/typical-day-... <snip> The guards at the confinement facility are professional. At no time have they tried to bully, harass, or embarrass PFC Manning. Given the nature of their job, however, they do not engage in conversation with PFC Manning. </snip> He gets to watch TV, write letters, and have visitors on the weekends. He is isolated, but his treatment and living conditions are a far cry from torture.
    - robwgibbons 16y ago
      His conditions are withering him physically and psychologically. He's not allowed to exercise whatsoever, or to communicate with anyone except on weekends. These conditions may not be direct torture, but they are most definitely a form of indirect torture, a claim which is supported by several psychologists. It's a form of punishment before trial, which is absolutely unconstitutional.
    - CaptainZapp 16y ago
      That may be a matter of definition. According to Mssrs Rumsfeld and Cheney people that where waterboarded for up to 200 times where not tortured. According to the definition of torture in the civilized world this sure as hell was and is torture. It's not a stretch to argue that solitary confinement equates torture.
- gnosis 16y ago
  First, it's debatable whether you can sell, sign away, or give away your own human rights. Second, lots of people (especially less educated kids), often don't realize what they're signing up for when then enroll in the military. They're often lied to by recruiters, and are brainwashed by their families and the culture around them, who worship the military. Third, even if Manning had knowingly and willingly agreed to be tortured by the US government, that does not excuse the torture.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    FWIW, it's only debatable in the sense that someone could have a debate about it. The courts have repeatedly ruled that you can't sign away your rights. It even comes up in employment law, just because you sign something doesn't mean it's enforceable.
    - gnosis 16y ago
      "The courts have repeatedly ruled that you can't sign away your rights." I guess the US military hasn't gotten the memo yet.
      - fragholrok 16y ago
        I'm with you on this, clearly not many people here have actually served in the military to know first hand what 'rights' you do or don't give up when you serve. If anyone would just look at the situation as it stands right now, you would see that you DO give up certain rights when you are in the military...it's the price you pay when you choose to serve. And let's get this straight - it is a choice. Last time I checked, there was no draft being enforced... This discussion is sad because in the end, if this kid is found guilty of leaking those docs, found guilty of treason? Smh...whether it's right or wrong, his 'pre-trial torture' will be the least of his worries. And if he is found innocent? It's pretty doubtful anyone gets sued over his wrongful imprisonment, idk, I could be wrong...
        gnosis 16y ago
- antihero 16y ago
  Rules are just that. Human rights are rights, they trump any military rule ever conceived.
AaronI 16y ago
I served in the Navy as a Legalman (LN), and while I don't know the specifics of this case, military justice differs from civilian justice in quite a few ways. To begin with, a trial is not needed for confinement, nor for certain types of punishment. Under Article 10 of the UCMJ, the accused can be confined before trial. There is no upper limit on how long, either. Though I believe rule 707 of the Manual for Courts-Martial says the "general" maximum is 120 days for what is considered a speedy trial. Not saying what they're doing is right (or wrong), but it seems his incarceration is legal (for now).

by jbooth 16y ago

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

I don't know about this particular case, but as somebody who served in the military, I always find it odd when folks talk about military member's civil rights. Do they realize that the military can and will take lives? That simple things like your smoking habits can get people killed? That you give up all sorts of things when you put the uniform on? Don't get me wrong -- I didn't like any of that. And I was in the infantry, which is much more about military discipline and foundational stuff. I think a lot of folks look at the military and think of guys living in dorms and doing jobs that involve pushing a lot of buttons. In that case, those folks begin to look a lot like anybody else going to work. So we expect them to have a similar work and legal environment as the rest of us. Like I said, I'm not trying to pass judgment on Manning in this comment or try to figure out what the appropriate type of incarceration would be for him. I just find people's attitudes towards the military very -- weird.

jbooth 16y ago
Not being tortured is a human right. Full stop. This isn't about whether the punishment for losing your rifle is excessive, this is a black and white issue. Punishment before trial == wrong. Torture == wrong. Both are against the constitution. And I bet nobody even gets in trouble for this.
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  You're looking for an argument and a rant and that's not my intent. Nobody said anything about torture being okay.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- nas 16y ago
  Yeah, and I'm really don't like the special treatment for "enemy combatants" as well. Does the right to life, liberty and happiness apply to all mankind or just to people the US government is not currently scared of?
  - Natsu 16y ago
    > Does the right to life, liberty and happiness apply to all mankind or just to people the US government is not currently scared of? Scared people are scary. Really scary, when backed far enough into a corner.
  - colinplamondon 16y ago
    Are you asking if the American Constitution and the American Bill of Rights only applies to Americans? Enemy combatants belong to non-state actors, and so no treaties or guidelines apply to them. Last I checked Al doesn't Al Qaeda and the rest of the cavers don't get representatives in the UN.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - JoachimSchipper 16y ago
      Actually, at least the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does apply to them.
      - marshray 16y ago
        Unless the United Nations finds it inconvenient: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml Article 29(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      How we choose to act in the absence of treaties or guidelines says a lot more about us than it does about inalienable human rights.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- nhebb 16y ago
  He is not being tortured. Here is what his lawyer wrote that his typical day is: http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2010/12/typical-day-for-pfc-bradley-manning.html http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2010/12/typical-day-... <snip> The guards at the confinement facility are professional. At no time have they tried to bully, harass, or embarrass PFC Manning. Given the nature of their job, however, they do not engage in conversation with PFC Manning. </snip> He gets to watch TV, write letters, and have visitors on the weekends. He is isolated, but his treatment and living conditions are a far cry from torture.
  - robwgibbons 16y ago
    His conditions are withering him physically and psychologically. He's not allowed to exercise whatsoever, or to communicate with anyone except on weekends. These conditions may not be direct torture, but they are most definitely a form of indirect torture, a claim which is supported by several psychologists. It's a form of punishment before trial, which is absolutely unconstitutional.
  - CaptainZapp 16y ago
    That may be a matter of definition. According to Mssrs Rumsfeld and Cheney people that where waterboarded for up to 200 times where not tortured. According to the definition of torture in the civilized world this sure as hell was and is torture. It's not a stretch to argue that solitary confinement equates torture.
gnosis 16y ago
First, it's debatable whether you can sell, sign away, or give away your own human rights. Second, lots of people (especially less educated kids), often don't realize what they're signing up for when then enroll in the military. They're often lied to by recruiters, and are brainwashed by their families and the culture around them, who worship the military. Third, even if Manning had knowingly and willingly agreed to be tortured by the US government, that does not excuse the torture.
- jbooth 16y ago
  FWIW, it's only debatable in the sense that someone could have a debate about it. The courts have repeatedly ruled that you can't sign away your rights. It even comes up in employment law, just because you sign something doesn't mean it's enforceable.
  - gnosis 16y ago
    "The courts have repeatedly ruled that you can't sign away your rights." I guess the US military hasn't gotten the memo yet.
    - fragholrok 16y ago
      I'm with you on this, clearly not many people here have actually served in the military to know first hand what 'rights' you do or don't give up when you serve. If anyone would just look at the situation as it stands right now, you would see that you DO give up certain rights when you are in the military...it's the price you pay when you choose to serve. And let's get this straight - it is a choice. Last time I checked, there was no draft being enforced... This discussion is sad because in the end, if this kid is found guilty of leaking those docs, found guilty of treason? Smh...whether it's right or wrong, his 'pre-trial torture' will be the least of his worries. And if he is found innocent? It's pretty doubtful anyone gets sued over his wrongful imprisonment, idk, I could be wrong...
      - gnosis 16y ago
antihero 16y ago
Rules are just that. Human rights are rights, they trump any military rule ever conceived.

AaronI 16y ago

I served in the Navy as a Legalman (LN), and while I don't know the specifics of this case, military justice differs from civilian justice in quite a few ways. To begin with, a trial is not needed for confinement, nor for certain types of punishment. Under Article 10 of the UCMJ, the accused can be confined before trial. There is no upper limit on how long, either. Though I believe rule 707 of the Manual for Courts-Martial says the "general" maximum is 120 days for what is considered a speedy trial. Not saying what they're doing is right (or wrong), but it seems his incarceration is legal (for now).