U.N. diplomat is denied private meeting with WikiLeaks suspect Bradley Manning - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Jsm;29148953]The reason he is in solitary confinement is [I]technically[/I] legal. He apparently (according to something he wrote, it was mentioned a few days ago during [URL="http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9446000/9446189.stm"]this[/URL]) said that if he wanted to he could kill himself with the waistband of his underwear or using his sandals. [/QUOTE] Unfortunately, I wouldn't be surprised if they had a camera for each angle of the room to monitor him, precisely for that reason. Actually, it's not unfortunate, I wouldn't want him committing suicide, it's never the answer...

[QUOTE=ryasnack1;29149290]I keep imagining this poor guy mangled and tortured that they don't want people to see him.. :([/QUOTE] They aren't completely denying a meeting. They're only saying that it needs to be supervised.

[QUOTE=GunFox;29135875]You mean they should allow the guy who is heavily suspected of illegally distributing classified information to be around other disenfranchised soldiers? Because that couldn't end poorly or anything. Again, military jurisdiction. Doesn't work like civilian stuff.[/QUOTE] The military also needs some sort of watch dog. You seem rather apathetic to this, Gunfox. [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Regulas021;29136277]It's not like 23 hours a day of confinement or dumping him in with a bunch of other soldiers are the only two options. Although reading his current treatment, I really don't see how it's immoral. It's definitely not the conditions I was led to believe he was in before (absolutely no outside contact, utter sensory deprivation, etc.) He's allowed to have visitors. He gets to exercise and has contact with other humans every day. Doesn't quite sound like the torture I had heard of.[/QUOTE] most reports were of the initial treatment, which were all true and were practically torture. Admittedly, now they're letting up just a bit.

[QUOTE=amute;29150728]The military also needs some sort of watch dog. You seem rather apathetic to this, Gunfox. [/QUOTE] I am torn on the subject. On one hand, he shouldn't be subjected to solitary confinement for extended periods of time, as it really is torture, but on the other hand I don't really know what else they can do with him. The US has been fortunate that wikileaks has managed to censor important names thus far, but there is no way to determine how much Manning knows personally. Letting him walk free poses a very real risk not just to US operatives, but to informants. So we can either hold him and keep him away from any possible leaks, or we can put him into gen pop and roll the dice and gamble lives. Such a shitty situation. Like so often is the case with politics, there doesn't seem to be a right answer, just the one that risks the fewest lives. :(

He shouldn't have leaked military documents. However, the documents should not have been covered up in the first place, so I can't really criticize him.

[QUOTE=GunFox;29151120]I am torn on the subject. On one hand, he shouldn't be subjected to solitary confinement for extended periods of time, as it really is torture, but on the other hand I don't really know what else they can do with him.[/QUOTE] I dunno, not torture him? The choice isn't either releasing him and ignoring it or torture.

[QUOTE=GunFox;29151120]I am torn on the subject. On one hand, he shouldn't be subjected to solitary confinement for extended periods of time, as it really is torture, but on the other hand I don't really know what else they can do with him. The US has been fortunate that wikileaks has managed to censor important names thus far, but there is no way to determine how much Manning knows personally. Letting him walk free poses a very real risk not just to US operatives, but to informants. So we can either hold him and keep him away from any possible leaks, or we can put him into gen pop and roll the dice and gamble lives. Such a shitty situation. Like so often is the case with politics, there doesn't seem to be a right answer, just the one that risks the fewest lives. :([/QUOTE] Him being in a normal cell and treated like a normal prisoner wouldn't be any risk at all. Torturing him like this is revenge, nothing else.

[QUOTE=amute;29152140]I dunno, not torture him? The choice isn't either releasing him and ignoring it or torture.[/QUOTE] I wasn't suggesting it was. The alternative is that he is in the general prison population in a normal cell. [QUOTE=Zeke129;29154174]Him being in a normal cell and treated like a normal prisoner wouldn't be any risk at all. Torturing him like this is revenge, nothing else.[/QUOTE] He would be surrounded by a large number of other people, any of whom might be willing to screw over the US in reprisal for whatever landed them in military prison. Manning would only need to hand them a name or two and they would have ammunition with which to potentially deal damage. Manning was willing to hurt the US when he released the documents. There is little to reason to think he has changed his mind. You dismiss it as revenge, but you have no reasoning or evidence beyond assuming that the prison warden is simply being petty. It just wouldn't fly. Too many people can hand down the order that he be treated differently for it to be pure revenge.

On the bright side, at least they didn't pick out every tenth person in his unit and force the rest to kill them.

Although the U.N. diplomat SHOULD be permitted to see Manning, I can understand why the U.S. isn't so keen on him getting a normal prison cell. Like GunFox said, he is in a prison surrounded by people that probably don't like the U.S. Military at this point. I'd rather those people not have information about clandestine operations our government has done in the past ten years. Not only that, but he has stated that he could off himself if he wanted. I'm cool with him staying in solitary confinement.

[QUOTE=GunFox;29154868]I wasn't suggesting it was. The alternative is that he is in the general prison population in a normal cell. He would be surrounded by a large number of other people, any of whom might be willing to screw over the US in reprisal for whatever landed them in military prison. Manning would only need to hand them a name or two and they would have ammunition with which to potentially deal damage. Manning was willing to hurt the US when he released the documents. There is little to reason to think he has changed his mind. You dismiss it as revenge, but you have no reasoning or evidence beyond assuming that the prison warden is simply being petty. It just wouldn't fly. Too many people can hand down the order that he be treated differently for it to be pure revenge.[/QUOTE] Are you kidding me? Do you really think he released those documents solely out of spite for the US? Look, this isn't a huge fucking deal. He's not some super genius. He put his fucking birthday on the alias he transmitted the fucking documents under. Just put him under house arrest or some shit, it's not like he's a fuck ninja who knows the code to the presidents big red button or some shit. And you're being a fucking idiot if you think the military is doing this for any rational reason. If they were simply confining him so that he can't "reveal his secrets" they would have no reason not to let the UN investigator see him privately. This is the military having a shit fit because someone didn't play by their rules, nothing more. It's so goddamned transparent I can't see how it isn't completely obvious to you. This is why I fucking hate the military and everyone who sees it as some paragon of honor and justice. Bunch of self assured jock motherfuckers who think the fucking world revolves around their dick and they can do anything they want if they see the need to do so. At least if the government is being run by a childish twatmouth we can boot them out. [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=FunTykoon;29155836]Although the U.N. diplomat SHOULD be permitted to see Manning, I can understand why the U.S. isn't so keen on him getting a normal prison cell. Like GunFox said, he is in a prison surrounded by people that probably don't like the U.S. Military at this point. I'd rather those people not have information about clandestine operations our government has done in the past ten years. Not only that, but he has stated that he could off himself if he wanted. I'm cool with him staying in solitary confinement.[/QUOTE] all the more fucking reason to just put him under fucking house arrest. He hasn't actually been tried in court for anything yet, it's not like he's committed any sort of violent or heinous crime. What's he going to fucking do, send paper planes with the names of US spies out his window? This is all fucking ridiculous.

[url]https://tips.fbi.gov[/url] Report a crime by the US government to the US government?

[QUOTE=GunFox;29154868]I wasn't suggesting it was. The alternative is that he is in the general prison population in a normal cell. He would be surrounded by a large number of other people, any of whom might be willing to screw over the US in reprisal for whatever landed them in military prison. Manning would only need to hand them a name or two and they would have ammunition with which to potentially deal damage. Manning was willing to hurt the US when he released the documents. There is little to reason to think he has changed his mind. You dismiss it as revenge, but you have no reasoning or evidence beyond assuming that the prison warden is simply being petty. It just wouldn't fly. Too many people can hand down the order that he be treated differently for it to be pure revenge.[/QUOTE] What manning supposedly released and has knowledge of is available on the internet. Even the fucking Taliban has access to it. I doubt some dickhead at a military brig is going to do more damage then what the rest of the world has access to. [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] Do you seriously think torture is a standard military procedure. Manning is being treated harshley and unusually. Someone doesn't like him. [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] Why do you constantly defend shit like this? Don't you get tired of making things up to defend petty shit the military does?

LAND O' TEH FREE HOME OF DA GRAVEY

[QUOTE=GunFox;29151120]I am torn on the subject. On one hand, he shouldn't be subjected to solitary confinement for extended periods of time, as it really is torture, but on the other hand I don't really know what else they can do with him. The US has been fortunate that wikileaks has managed to censor important names thus far, but there is no way to determine how much Manning knows personally. Letting him walk free poses a very real risk not just to US operatives, but to informants. So we can either hold him and keep him away from any possible leaks, or we can put him into gen pop and roll the dice and gamble lives. Such a shitty situation. Like so often is the case with politics, there doesn't seem to be a right answer, just the one that risks the fewest lives. :([/QUOTE] From what I read, names were censored in such regards as to censoring the name of a civilian who did something that helped against the Taliban, saying that the Taliban can find these documents and exact revenge against the published individual. (Bad example, but I think I got the point across.) I strongly believe that he shouldn't be held just because of being a "security risk," especially when he has not been convicted of anything and because these documents WERE LEAKED completely in a completely uncensored and unedited way. Wikileaks has the uncensored versions, is it necessary to lock them up for 23 hours of every day for a year without a trial because they're a "security risk?" Our justice system doesn't (that I know of) legally allow the confinement of a person indefinitely because they're a security risk, without some major executive order or something in a time of dire crisis, such as suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Civil War. This "War on Terrorism" is hardly worthy of suspending it, and that's why there's such a big movement against the patriot act and other similar (that I don't know of) legislation. [quote]The U.S. Constitution specifically includes the habeas procedure in the Suspension Clause(Clause 2), located in Article One, Section 9. This states that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."[/quote] Do you believe that public safety says that this man should not be able to live freely? The documents he released are out there. [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=amute;29156331] Why do you constantly defend shit like this? Don't you get tired of making things up to defend petty shit the military does?[/QUOTE] There's always two sides to a debate. If you strongly disagree with someone, state your opinion and defend it, that's how an argument works.

[QUOTE=GunFox;29154868] Manning was willing to hurt the US when he released the documents. There is little to reason to think he has changed his mind. [/QUOTE] You really think that's why he did it?

[QUOTE=amute;29156331]What manning supposedly released and has knowledge of is available on the internet. Even the fucking Taliban has access to it. I doubt some dickhead at a military brig is going to do more damage then what the rest of the world has access to. [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] Do you seriously think torture is a standard military procedure. Manning is being treated harshley and unusually. Someone doesn't like him. [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] Why do you constantly defend shit like this? Don't you get tired of making things up to defend petty shit the military does?[/QUOTE] They have access to everything but the names. The names are the problem. It only takes one. [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;29157713]You really think that's why he did it?[/QUOTE] Why do you think that, after being demoted, someone would elect to randomly release EVERYTHING he had access to? He basically did the electronic equivalent of a smash and grab.

[QUOTE=GunFox;29158536]They have access to everything but the names. The names are the problem. It only takes one.[/QUOTE] Wikileaks has access to the names, do you say you lock up everyone associated with Wikileaks indefinitely because they read these documents? Are they too risky to be released to society because they know too much? Do they not deserve to be tried and released or sentenced, and so will remain prisoners forever without a trial? I say again, all the documents were released untampered with and uncensored. Wikileaks has all of the documents in their original form, THEY began to censor them for safety.

[QUOTE=chewgo;29157080] Our justice system doesn't (that I know of) legally allow the confinement of a person indefinitely because they're a security risk, without some major executive order or something in a time of dire crisis, such as suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Civil War. This "War on Terrorism" is hardly worthy of suspending it, and that's why there's such a big movement against the patriot act and other similar (that I don't know of) legislation.[/QUOTE] Constitution specifically issues congress to pass special laws regarding soldiers. Joining the military basically means you sacrifice all of your rights.

[QUOTE=GunFox;29158587]Constitution specifically issues congress to pass special laws regarding soldiers. Joining the military basically means you sacrifice all of your rights.[/QUOTE] Joining the military does not mean you give up your right to due process of the law.

[QUOTE=chewgo;29158570]Wikileaks has access to the names, do you say you lock all of them up indefinitely because they read these documents? Are they too risky to be released to society because they know too much? I say again, all the documents were released untampered with and uncensored. Wikileaks has all of the documents in their original form, THEY began to censor them for safety.[/QUOTE] Wikileaks isn't likely to start releasing names. They don't have some unusual problem with the US government. They have shown that they want to protect the people involved. I disagree with their actions, but I am glad that they take the time to protect the names of informants and operatives in the documents. The documents would ideally be retrieved and destroyed, but in an electronic world that simply isn't possible. Wikileaks also is likely aware that if they start leaking actual names, that the game changes and life will get very unpleasant, very quickly. [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=chewgo;29158637]Joining the military does not mean you give up your right to due process of the law.[/QUOTE] Yes, actually it does.

[QUOTE=GunFox;29158665]Wikileaks isn't likely to start releasing names. They don't have some unusual problem with the US government. They have shown that they want to protect the people involved. I disagree with their actions, but I am glad that they take the time to protect the names of informants and operatives in the documents. The documents would ideally be retrieved and destroyed, but in an electronic world that simply isn't possible. Wikileaks also is likely aware that if they start leaking actual names, that the game changes and life will get very unpleasant, very quickly.[/quote]Do you think that if he was tried and either convicted or released, out of spite against the government, he would start spouting out the names of innocent people involved, putting their lives in danger? I'm pretty sure that the people mentioned in this document were not directly involved in his imprisonment. I don't think he would feel better if he endangered strangers whose lives he had in his hand. And I also don't think that out of the 250,000 cables, he remembers a lot of sensitive specific names. [quote] Yes, actually it does.[/QUOTE] Well then I hate how this government treats its military, and I am a strong advocate against it, and so are 250 esteemed lawyers, authors and professors who wrote spoke out against it and the UN's human rights council.

[QUOTE=GunFox;29158536]They have access to everything but the names. The names are the problem. It only takes one. [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] Why do you think that, after being demoted, someone would elect to randomly release EVERYTHING he had access to? He basically did the electronic equivalent of a smash and grab.[/QUOTE] There were tens of thousands of names. I doubt he knows any that, even if he did, it's so fucking unlikely it will do anything, it doesn't justify torture. [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;29158587]Constitution specifically issues congress to pass special laws regarding soldiers. Joining the military basically means you sacrifice all of your rights.[/QUOTE] I don't think that's factually accurate [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] I mean, if you make it up, it wouldn't surprise me because you would make up anything and have to defend the Military.

i doubt he even fucking remembers anything in the documents after months in solitary confinement, stewing in the confines of his mind, slowly going mad [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;29158665]Wikileaks isn't likely to start releasing names. They don't have some unusual problem with the US government. They have shown that they want to protect the people involved. I disagree with their actions, but I am glad that they take the time to protect the names of informants and operatives in the documents. The documents would ideally be retrieved and destroyed, but in an electronic world that simply isn't possible. Wikileaks also is likely aware that if they start leaking actual names, that the game changes and life will get very unpleasant, very quickly. [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] Yes, actually it does.[/QUOTE] Ideally the military wouldn't be a giant circle jerk of power freaks.

[QUOTE=amute;29158812] I don't think that's factually accurate [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] I mean, if you make it up, it wouldn't surprise me because you would make up anything and have to defend the Military.[/QUOTE] You look it up, the fifth Amendment to the US constitution says this: [quote]No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,[b] except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;[/b][/quote] He has pretty valid points. He interprets this as a time of public danger, which I somewhat agree with. I don't agree with him being indefinitely held because he "might tell people about some names" in some of the hundreds of thousands of cables he leaked, even so saying names does not mean much if he doesn't include the entire idea. "So and so did this against the Taliban," is the idea that could put someone in danger.

[QUOTE=chewgo;29158909]You look it up, the fifth Amendment to the US constitution says this: He has pretty valid points.[/QUOTE] how are we in a time of war or public danger this isn't going on during the firebombing of the fucking white house you know, time isn't short here, im sure bradley could vouch for that

[QUOTE=chewgo;29158734]Do you think that if he was tried and either convicted or released, out of spite against the government, he would start spouting out the names of innocent people involved, putting their lives in danger? I'm pretty sure that the people mentioned in this document were not directly involved in his imprisonment. I don't think he would feel better if he endangered strangers whose lives he had in his hand. And I also don't think that out of the 250,000 cables, he remembers a lot of sensitive specific names.[/quote] I don't think he would do it at all. The guy is an idiot, but I doubt he is that much of an idiot. But however sure you may be, it is a gamble. A gamble we can't afford to lose. If an informant dies and it is traced back to this, not only would their death be horrible, but we'd never get informants ever again. It is one thing if an operative dies, but informants? The consequences are simply too massive. [quote] Well then I hate how this government treats its military, and I am a strong advocate against it, and so are 250 esteemed lawyers, authors and professors who wrote spoke out against it and the UN's human rights council.[/QUOTE] Generally speaking the US military is pretty shit from a judicial standpoint. Rape in the military almost universally carries an HONORABLE discharge as its sentence. Which is beyond fucked up. No prison. Not even community service and a dishonorable discharge. They get an honorable discharge. Fucking ridiculous. Then you have military prison, which isn't obligated to follow virtually any of the health and safety restrictions of normal prisons in the United States. You are FUCKED if you get sent to military prison. The system is designed to be a streamlined process so as to not inhibit military function unless necessary, but it needs a great deal of revision. It tends to either be overly archaic or too gentle. In either case it makes for an ineffectual justice system.

[QUOTE=chewgo;29158909]You look it up, the fifth Amendment to the US constitution says this: He has pretty valid points. He interprets this as a time of public danger, which I somewhat agree with. I don't agree with him being indefinitely held because he "might tell people about some names" in some of the hundreds of thousands of cables he leaked, even so saying names does not mean much if he doesn't include the entire idea. "So and so did this against the Taliban," is the idea that could put someone in danger.[/QUOTE] The US isn't being invaded or anything like that. [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;29158956] But however sure you may be, it is a gamble. A gamble we can't afford to lose.[/QUOTE] It's such a fucking massive gamble it shouldn't even be a concern. You really fucking think he would even remember one name?

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;29158952]how are we in a time of war or public danger [/QUOTE] That refers to the militia. It gives the military the ability to streamline the legal process amongst militiamen during extreme circumstances. Because, chances are, if you have deployed the militia, the regular legal system isn't functional anymore.

[QUOTE=GunFox;29158956]I don't think he would do it at all. The guy is an idiot, but I doubt he is that much of an idiot. But however sure you may be, it is a gamble. A gamble we can't afford to lose. If an informant dies and it is traced back to this, not only would their death be horrible, but we'd never get informants ever again. It is one thing if an operative dies, but informants? The consequences are simply too massive. Generally speaking the US military is pretty shit from a judicial standpoint. Rape in the military almost universally carries an HONORABLE discharge as its sentence. Which is beyond fucked up. No prison. Not even community service and a dishonorable discharge. They get an honorable discharge. Fucking ridiculous. Then you have military prison, which isn't obligated to follow virtually any of the health and safety restrictions of normal prisons in the United States. You are FUCKED if you get sent to military prison. The system is designed to be a streamlined process so as to not inhibit military function unless necessary, but it needs a great deal of revision. It tends to either be overly archaic or too gentle. In either case it makes for an ineffectual justice system.[/QUOTE]You disagree with the military judicial system as a whole, but you commend it for holding this man FOREVER because he allegedly leaked these cables? He shouldn't even get a trial because it's too dangerous if he's deemed innocent? [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=amute;29158993]The US isn't being invaded or anything like that. \[/QUOTE] It doesn't say JUST the United State's public. What about people in Afghanistan who have gone against the Taliban, or just a name of someone who voted there? They could be in danger if their names were released from these documents.