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

[QUOTE=amute;29158993] 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] He worked with the data. It was part of his job. I'd imagine he remembers a name or two. It is also possible that he intentionally memorized names in the event that he was caught in order to leverage the military. I also imagine he read at least a few of the documents between the time he got them, and the time he turned them over. We just don't know. Until we DO know for certain, we have no right to gamble with lives that aren't ours to gamble with.

[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. [/QUOTE] Oh well that's great reasoning. I'm sure that setting a precedent of being able to torture your own citizens without so much as even the barest of trials is worth the gamble that he might remember a name of someone, and then he might tell that name to someone who might know someone else who might kill that person. Hell, why take the risk, nuke the institution from fucking orbit. If we just shoot him he might scream a name at the person who shot him and then they would have to be killed too. This is not fucking Tales from Earthsea. Names do not hold the power to kill with but and utterance. Even if he were to remember a name from one of the [I]thousands[/I] of documents, the absolutely labyrinthine series of events that would have to follow to end up with that person dying is completely ludicrous. [editline]14th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;29159085]He worked with the data. It was part of his job. I'd imagine he remembers a name or two. It is also possible that he intentionally memorized names in the event that he was caught in order to leverage the military. I also imagine he read at least a few of the documents between the time he got them, and the time he turned them over. We just don't know. Until we DO know for certain, we have no right to gamble with lives that aren't ours to gamble with.[/QUOTE] So one minute he's a vengeful office dullard who gave away the documents because he was angry at being demoted, the next he's a hardcore US counter agent who memorizes names, locations, and dates so that he can use them as blackmail against the US military? The fuck are you even talking about?

[QUOTE=chewgo;29159023]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? [/QUOTE] He'll get a trial. The military still follows rules ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_Of_Military_Justice[/url]), it just follows DIFFERENT rules that are not nearly as forgiving as civilian laws. I don't commend the system at all here. I simply recognize the shitty situation and fail to see a reasonable alternative. :(

[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? [/QUOTE] Again I ask, how is this different from Wikileaks having access to the exact same documents? We all know they're smart enough not to release it, but what if someone there DID? We CANNOT take that risk, it is absolutely necessary to hold them indefinitely without trial, yeah? [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;29159125]He'll get a trial. The military still follows rules ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_Of_Military_Justice[/url]), it just follows DIFFERENT rules that are not nearly as forgiving as civilian laws. I don't commend the system at all here. I simply recognize the shitty situation and fail to see a reasonable alternative. :([/QUOTE] I think a reasonable alternative is trying him. When's his trial? What about habeas corpus?

[QUOTE=chewgo;29159143]Again I ask, how is this different from Wikileaks having access to the exact same documents? We all know they're smart enough not to release it, but what if someone there DID? We CANNOT take that risk, it is absolutely necessary to hold them indefinitely without trial, yeah?[/quote] Wikileaks is also a problem. But they have fortunately shown a desire to keep the names concealed. They remain a serious security threat, but not one for the military to deal with. [quote] I think a reasonable alternative is trying him. When's his trial? What about habeas corpus?[/QUOTE] They are going to give him a trial. If they were holding him indefinitely without trial, I'd be making very different posts.

[QUOTE=GunFox;29159125]He'll get a trial. The military still follows rules ([URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_Of_Military_Justice[/URL]), it just follows DIFFERENT rules that are not nearly as forgiving as civilian laws. I don't commend the system at all here. I simply recognize the shitty situation and fail to see a reasonable alternative. :([/QUOTE] STill wating for it. he's been tortured and illegally kept in solitary confinement for long periods of time. I don't give a fuck WHEN he'll get it, the damage is done.

[QUOTE=GunFox;29159257] They are going to give him a trial. If they were holding him indefinitely without trial, I'd be making very different posts.[/QUOTE]The reason I'm making the posts I do is because so far there has been no trial and I've heard of no arrangements for a trial. This leads me to believe that they are not going to try him. [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=amute;29159296]STill wating for it. he's been tortured and illegally kept in solitary confinement for long periods of time. I don't give a fuck WHEN he'll get it, the damage is done.[/QUOTE] From what I've heard, he hasn't been tortured besides being kept in solitary confinement.

I hope this ends up like the Rodney King incident, although this time it leads to the largest, bloodiest uprising in American history.

You've heard pretty wrong. they've eased up, but he went 2 times over the limit of solitary confinement and some pretty torturous shit.

[QUOTE=amute;29159426]You've heard pretty wrong. they've eased up, but he went 2 times over the limit of solitary confinement and some pretty torturous shit.[/QUOTE] What torturous shit? You just keep saying he was tortured and not providing any sort of evidence or reporting on it. And I think that the solitary confinement limit doesn't apply to a court martial.

[QUOTE=chewgo;29159618]What torturous shit? You just keep saying he was tortured and not providing any sort of evidence or reporting on it. And I think that the solitary confinement limit doesn't apply to a court martial.[/QUOTE] I'll lock you in a steel box for a year, then when you get out you can tell us if it's torture. [editline]14th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;29159257]Wikileaks is also a problem. But they have fortunately shown a desire to keep the names concealed. They remain a serious security threat, but not one for the military to deal with. [/QUOTE] why not gunfox after all it is a serious security breach which would result in us never having informants ever again so why isn't it worth the intervention do you really want us to take that gamble [editline]14th April 2011[/editline] because the moment somebody says the name of someone who was an informant for the US terrorists will instantly learn about it, track down the person by name alone, and then murder them, and every single person in all of the middle east will instantly learn about it, how it happened, and why, and will refuse to ever speak to the us ever again do you realize how fucking silly your argument is

[QUOTE=GunFox;29139968]If he released only the illegal findings, then he would be fine. The United States has specific laws designed to protect people, even government employees, from prosecution if they reveal illegal activity. He didn't do that. He didn't care. He released it ALL. The overwhelming majority shows nothing illegal or unusual, but still shouldn't be out there for everyone to see. Again, for like the millionth time, transparent government doesn't work. A diplomat needs to be able to come home from North Korea and say "Kim is a fucking psychopath, but we can leverage his ego to our advantage" and NOT have that get back to North Korea. Why? Because that STOPS DIPLOMACY. Diplomacy requires lying. When two nations hate each other, it is more important than ever to be nice to one another in diplomatic relations, because that is the only hope of avoiding war long enough to resolve your differences. People who call for a totally transparent government are apparently entirely incapable of even the most rudimentary of critical thought.[/QUOTE] Except that your logic is heavily flawed and nobody was saying anything about a 100% "transparent government". There's a fine line between not hiding countless civilian casualties that could have been prevented and being 100% transparent and letting the public know everything, which would be dangerous and counter productive as you said. If you had actually read anything Julian Assange or other WikiLeaks representatives have said regarding their reviews on how a government should be, you'd know that they don't want a 100% transparent government, just one that doesn't hide dark secrets that the public [i]should[/i] know for the greater good. I feel like GunFox pulls half his logic out of his ass without actually ever reading any facts regarding WikiLeaks, he does it in just about every thread regarding WikiLeaks. [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] Also, just because Bradley Manning is being held under "military jurisdiction" doesn't mean it's just or that human rights shouldn't apply. And he's not a "walking security threat" because I somehow doubt he can pull classified information out of his ass, he would need access to a computer with those files. [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;29151120] 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. 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] The fuck are you on about, what are these sensitive "important names" you speak of? Multiple U.N. Generals have confirmed there were no sensitive names in any documents that posed any threat to the people named. Also, chances are Bradley leaked everything he knows, and even with that risk, there's better fucking things to do than torture him and drive him insane by locking him up 23 hours a day in a confined prison cell with a bed and a god damn toilet. And also, there's no fucking way "what he knows" is going to risk lives. [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;29158956] The consequences are simply too massive. [/QUOTE] Please elaborate, Gunfox. You just pull so much shit out of your ass but you never cite it and make so many assumptions, if you were writing an essay on Wikileaks at this point you'd get a failing grade.

[QUOTE=Leaf Runner;29160576]Except that your logic is heavily flawed and nobody was saying anything about a 100% "transparent government".[/quote] Yeah it happens every time one of these threads crops up. I was stopping the argument before it started. [quote]If you had actually read anything Julian Assange or other WikiLeaks representatives have said regarding their reviews on how a government should be, you'd know that they don't want a 100% transparent government, just one that doesn't hide dark secrets that the public [i]should[/i] know for the greater good.[/quote] I wasn't referring to wikileaks at all here. [quote]I feel like GunFox pulls half his logic out of his ass without actually ever reading any facts regarding WikiLeaks, he does it in just about every thread regarding WikiLeaks.[/quote] Again, I wasn't referring to wikileaks, just the idiots who call for full transparency without thinking about it. [quote]Also, just because Bradley Manning is being held under "military jurisdiction" doesn't mean it's just or that human rights shouldn't apply. And he's not a "walking security threat" because I somehow doubt he can pull classified information out of his ass, he would need access to a computer with those files.[/quote] I agree that his situation is terrible. More visitation rights should certainly be permitted. Books, clothing, a pillow, and a blanket should certainly be allowed. Anti-suicide measures can only go on so long before they cause the desire for suicide themselves. I imagine they are attempting to avoid the media parade that would result from him committing suicide, but the means by which they are doing this is extreme. [quote]The fuck are you on about, what are these sensitive "important names" you speak of? Multiple U.N. Generals have confirmed there were no sensitive names in any documents that posed any threat to the people named. Also, chances are Bradley leaked everything he knows, and even with that risk, there's better fucking things to do than torture him and drive him insane by locking him up 23 hours a day in a confined prison cell with a bed and a god damn toilet. And also, there's no fucking way "what he knows" is going to risk lives.[/quote] Military reports detail informant names in plain text on the ground in both conflicts. Manning spent a considerable amount of time wandering around the network looking at whatever he wanted and sending it off to Wikileaks. The wikileaks documents released have no sensitive names. Manning had all of the names. All of the uncensored data. Everything. SIPRnet contained massive amounts of information. Everything from guncamera footage, to diplomatic cables, to after action reports from combat units. An obscene amount of information that he had been playing around with for months. [quote] Please elaborate, Gunfox. You just pull so much shit out of your ass but you never cite it and make so many assumptions, if you were writing an essay on Wikileaks at this point you'd get a failing grade.[/QUOTE] I did elaborate. The deaths of informants and the difficulty with which future informants would be obtained. Those would be the potential consequences.

gunfox are you being purposefully impenetrable I've already said why that kind of reasoning is absolutely mad. Who the hell is Manning in your mind, a stupid, childish, spiteful dullard who released sensitive information because he was angry at being demoted, or an incredibly intelligent super agent capable and willing to memorize hundreds of names, dates, and locations in order to undermine the US's dealings with informants in Afghanistan? And will you fucking respond with anything other than sensationalist appeals to emotion one god damned time? [editline]14th April 2011[/editline] I can't remember the names of people I've met [I]in person[/I], what the fuck makes you think he's going to remember [I]anything,[/I] especially after [I][B][U]EIGHT MONTHS IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN A MILITARY PRISON.[/U][/B][/I]

[QUOTE=chewgo;29159618]What torturous shit? You just keep saying he was tortured and not providing any sort of evidence or reporting on it. And I think that the solitary confinement limit doesn't apply to a court martial.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/14/bradley-manning-obama-treatment[/url]

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;29162174]gunfox are you being purposefully impenetrable I've already said why that kind of reasoning is absolutely mad.[/quote] And I obviously disagree with you. [quote]Who the hell is Manning in your mind, a stupid, childish, spiteful dullard who released sensitive information because he was angry at being demoted, or an incredibly intelligent super agent capable and willing to memorize hundreds of names, dates, and locations in order to undermine the US's dealings with informants in Afghanistan? And will you fucking respond with anything other than sensationalist appeals to emotion one god damned time?[/quote] Huh? Again, all he has to do is remember one important name. Which, if he decided to do, would be entirely possible. Even if he didn't intentionally decide to remember one he has spent months of time working with this material with the intent of leaking, and further months of working with it without. [quote]I can't remember the names of people I've met [I]in person[/I], what the fuck makes you think he's going to remember [I]anything,[/I] especially after [I][B][U]EIGHT MONTHS IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN A MILITARY PRISON.[/U][/B][/I][/QUOTE] I am utterly miserable with names, and even I randomly pick up names that get pretty much permanently stuck in my head.

I can tell you didn't read what was in the released documents - or even glance at them.

[QUOTE=amute;29162784]I can tell you didn't read what was in the released documents - or even glance at them.[/QUOTE] He's not talking about the released documents.

[QUOTE=amute;29162223][url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/14/bradley-manning-obama-treatment[/url][/QUOTE] Did you read the article? Where in it does it mention any torture besides the solitary confinement?

[QUOTE=GunFox;29139968]Again, for like the millionth time, transparent government doesn't work. A diplomat needs to be able to come home from North Korea and say "Kim is a fucking psychopath, but we can leverage his ego to our advantage" and NOT have that get back to North Korea. Why? Because that STOPS DIPLOMACY. Diplomacy requires lying. When two nations hate each other, it is more important than ever to be nice to one another in diplomatic relations, because that is the only hope of avoiding war long enough to resolve your differences.[/QUOTE] No, see, that's fucking bullshit. You're preserving the mentality which says it's alright to stick our nose in matters that weren't any of our business in the first place. We should be neutral, look, we give up alliances with South Korea or Israel and in turn we gain not being killed by the Taliban and not playing referee for the Korean conflict. It isn't our business, it isn't our right, it get's people killed and best of all starts a war every fucking decade. You didn't utilize your superior critical thinking abilities long enough to consider we don't have to shun or be overly nice to [b]either of them[/b]. That we don't have to assist or be enemies with [b]either of them[/b]. Take your post-World War 2 pro-war mentality and shove it. [QUOTE=GunFox;29139968] People who call for a totally transparent government are apparently entirely incapable of even the most rudimentary of critical thought.[/QUOTE] People who call for a totally transparent government are just privy to the fact that a totally secret government with entangling alliances that mettles in the world's affairs has got us blown up and shot at a lot over the past 50 years. It hasn't exactly been working out. How do other countries get along with governments more transparent than ours, that don't fight wars nearly as often as us? They aren't exactly falling apart, you know. You are "apparently entirely incapable of even the most rudimentary of critical thought" since you fail to recognize that the [b]entire fucking world[/b] works differently and the [b]entire fucking world[/b] is better off than us in terms of general conflict.

[QUOTE=chewgo;29162807]Did you read the article? Where in it does it mention any torture besides the solitary confinement?[/QUOTE] solitary confinement IS torture

[QUOTE=JDK721;29162916]solitary confinement IS torture[/QUOTE] I know, but the guy listed out that he had been tortured in addition to being in solitary confinement for an excessive amount of time. I asked what torture he had been through besides the confinement, and he simply showed me that article. [QUOTE=amute;29159426]You've heard pretty wrong. they've eased up, but he went 2 times over the limit of solitary confinement and some pretty torturous shit.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=s0beit;29162882]No, see, that's fucking bullshit. You're preserving the mentality which says it's alright to stick our nose in matters that weren't any of our business in the first place. We should be neutral, look, we give up alliances with South Korea or Israel and in turn we gain not being killed by the Taliban and not playing referee for the Korean conflict. It isn't our business, it isn't our right, it get's people killed and best of all starts a war every fucking decade. You didn't utilize your superior critical thinking abilities long enough to consider we don't have to shun or be overly nice to [b]either of them[/b]. That we don't have to assist or be enemies with [b]either of them[/b]. Take your post-World War 2 pro-war mentality and shove it.[/quote] Lovely, except we trade heavily with our allies. Trade is necessary and is a huge component which promotes peaceful relations. I agree that our involvement needs to be substantially more limited than it is, but I don't believe that extends to diplomatic relations. We need allies. We need trade partners. Even if we somehow could be mostly self-sufficient and avoid alliances of any kind, we simply do not have access to all the natural resources available on the planet in the United States. We would suffer immeasurably as a nation. [quote]People who call for a totally transparent government are just privy to the fact that a totally secret government with entangling alliances that mettles in the world's affairs has got us blown up and shot at a lot over the past 50 years. It hasn't exactly been working out.[/quote] In the history of democratic capitalist nations, I think a grand total of one war was declared between two democratic capitalist nations. So far, despite the extreme stupidity displayed by the government of the United States, I'd say government overall has come a looooong way over a short time. [quote]How do other countries get along with governments more transparent than ours, that don't fight wars nearly as often as us? They aren't exactly falling apart, you know.[/quote] I have no idea what nations you are even talking about. Or what evidence you have that suggests they are anything other than better at hiding secrets simply because they are smaller. In addition, whatever nations you are referring to likely lack the BOATS necessary to get anywhere. The vast majority of the militaries on the planet are useless as anything other than defensive ones. In some cases they are handy as support units, but they simply lack the logistical capability to do anything beyond that. [quote]You are "apparently entirely incapable of even the most rudimentary of critical thought" since you fail to recognize that the [b]entire fucking world[/b] works differently and the [b]entire fucking world[/b] is better off than us in terms of general conflict.[/QUOTE] Yeah, we get involved in a lot of conflicts, but how would transparent government help that? The Republicans are the majority of the warhawks, and the people vote them in KNOWING that they are war mongering dickbags.

Gunfox, I would like you outline a scenario in which Bradley Manning would be able to facillitate the death of a US informant. Give me a line of events, starting with him, ending up with someone being murdered by terrorists. Just as a little exercise.

[QUOTE=GunFox;29163008]Lovely, except we trade heavily with our allies. Trade is necessary and is a huge component which promotes peaceful relations. I agree that our involvement needs to be substantially more limited than it is, but I don't believe that extends to diplomatic relations. We need allies. We need trade partners. Even if we somehow could be mostly self-sufficient and avoid alliances of any kind, we simply do not have access to all the natural resources available on the planet in the United States. We would suffer immeasurably as a nation. [/quote] It isn't about self-sufficiency, you haven't also considered the possibility that we could just trade with everyone. Not a force of good or evil, just utility. We do need trade partners, you know who that could be? Everyone. Do we need allies in terms of military conflict? I'm not sure that we do. Most people like to forget we were fairly neutral up until WW1/WW2 era and even then the only reason Japan bombed us is because we got self-righteous and cut trade with them because we were allies with China. World War 1 was slightly different in that many people believe it had to do with the sinking of the ship "Lusitania". Of course there were wars before, but it's the same deal with Japan, China and etc. People always say, we'll never go to war with China because we have a mutually beneficial relationship, i agree. They hate us, they really do. They hate that we try to get involved with their business and they hate when people from this country criticize them but they're very good trading partners and because of that, conflict is extremely unlikely. [QUOTE=GunFox;29163008]In the history of democratic capitalist nations, I think a grand total of one war was declared between two democratic capitalist nations. So far, despite the extreme stupidity displayed by the government of the United States, I'd say government overall has come a looooong way over a short time. [/quote] Long way over what short time? I can't remember a time where the United States was more involved with the world, militarily, throughout history. We might not be going to war with each other but then who says we would be if we were trading partners and not direct allies? [QUOTE=GunFox;29163008]I have no idea what nations you are even talking about. Or what evidence you have that suggests they are anything other than better at hiding secrets simply because they are smaller. In addition, whatever nations you are referring to likely lack the BOATS necessary to get anywhere. The vast majority of the militaries on the planet are useless as anything other than defensive ones. In some cases they are handy as support units, but they simply lack the logistical capability to do anything beyond that. [/quote] It isn't that they're better at hiding secrets, it's that because military conflict is virtually impossible to them, they don't have any secrets that need hiding at the same scale we do. I also don't think having the means to travel to places automatically means they have to be interventionists. I don't really understand your logic on this one. I could name specific countries but really, you could pick one out of a hat with more transparency than us and less government military intervention than us. It is basically the entire world, nixing our allies we drag into conflicts, which by the way garners resentment from their citizens. [QUOTE=GunFox;29163008]Yeah, we get involved in a lot of conflicts, but how would transparent government help that? The Republicans are the majority of the warhawks, and the people vote them in KNOWING that they are war mongering dickbags.[/QUOTE] A transparent government would help that just like it's helping now with the leaks. It's horrible what happened to those people and many other people in the wars we commit, it's also helpful to educate people on the blowback our military operations create (which often aren't public or highly publicized information) and it's helpful to be aware of how many people we're pissing off at any given time with our horrible mistakes.

[QUOTE=chewgo;29162807]Did you read the article? Where in it does it mention any torture besides the solitary confinement?[/QUOTE] It doesn't need to say torture to get the fucking point across that the conditions are horrendous. [editline]14th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=5killer;29162786]He's not talking about the released documents.[/QUOTE] What the hell else can he possibly be talking about? [editline]14th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=chewgo;29162962]I know, but the guy listed out that he had been tortured in addition to being in solitary confinement for an excessive amount of time. I asked what torture he had been through besides the confinement, and he simply showed me that article.[/QUOTE] Two things: You can't say he's not being torture then admit to solitary confinement being torture - that's ass backwards. I showed you an article talking about the horrendous conditions he's in - you wanted an article, I showed one to you. Torture isn't just ripping some guys finger nails off. There is a lot more to it. And Solitary Confinement limits [I]do [/I]matter in court martial. The military is cruel with their legal system, but they don't fucking turn into North Korea. I'm still waiting for you to show me the constitutionality of this torture of Manning. [editline]14th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;29163008] In the history of democratic capitalist nations, I think a grand total of one war was declared between two democratic capitalist nations. So far, despite the extreme stupidity displayed by the government of the United States, I'd say government overall has come a looooong way over a short time..[/QUOTE] Bullshit - the US has gotten [I]far[/I] worse. I can not think of a time, even with the imperialist period led by Admiral Perry, where the US has been more of a military powerhouse and bloated military industrial complex then now.

The worst part is most people don't even know who Bradley Manning is, only Julian Assange. If more people knew about this shit then I bet there would be more incentive for the revolution this fucked up country really needs.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;29162174]I've already said why that kind of reasoning is absolutely mad.[/QUOTE] During the post the equivalent of hooting and jumping up and down. Lay off the coke for a minute and stop getting worked up long enough to make an actual point. [QUOTE=s0beit;29162882]People who call for a totally transparent government are just privy to [naive hippie bullshit.] How do other countries get along with governments more transparent than ours, that don't fight wars nearly as often as us? They aren't exactly falling apart, you know.[/QUOTE] More transparent =/= totally transparent.

The only argument I'm seeing that they could make is that they're trying to discourage other people from doing the same thing, which is still tough to back up. But maybe they could just not have classified documents that even Americans wanted to leak :colbert: