PFC Bradley Manning is forced to strip naked in solitary confinement

[Exodus]

http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/

Last night, PFC Manning was inexplicably stripped of all clothing by the Quantico Brig. He remained in his cell, naked, for the next seven hours. At 5:00 a.m., the Brig sounded the wake-up call for the detainees. At this point, PFC Manning was forced to stand naked at the front of his cell.

The Duty Brig Supervisor (DBS) arrived shortly after 5:00 a.m. When he arrived, PFC Manning was called to attention. The DBS walked through the facility to conduct his detainee count. Afterwards, PFC Manning was told to sit on his bed. About ten minutes later, a guard came to his cell to return his clothing.

This type of degrading treatment is inexcusable and without justification. It is an embarrassment to our military justice system and should not be tolerated. PFC Manning has been told that the same thing will happen to him again tonight. No other detainee at the Brig is forced to endure this type of isolation and humiliation.

The above comes from Manning's lawyer's blog.

[Creepy-male]

Hmm no comment on this, I'll let other people talk morality, apparently feeling one way or the other is an immediate indication of being an ethical type (eye roll).

Anyways I found this interesting in the article

...Prevention of Injury (POI) watch...

...The conditions of the POI watch have been documented in detail in an earlier statement. Briefly, under POI watch, the guards check on PFC Manning every five minutes by asking him if he is okay; PFC Manning is required to respond in some affirmative manner. At night, if the guards cannot see PFC Manning clearly, because he has a blanket over his head or he is curled up towards the wall, they will wake him in order to ensure that he is okay. He is not allowed to have a pillow or sheets. He is not allowed to have any personal items in his cell. He is only allowed to have one book or one magazine at any given time to read...

I have a hard time believing that checking on someone every 5 minutes is necessary to debunk a suicide attempt, let alone asking them if they are okay -- which should be self-evident from observation of the prisoner. Specifically the constant asking and response. It's almost as if that policy exists to condition the person to almost believe they are okay because they must constantly respond to inquiries every 5 minutes, its almost a rhythmic type of brainwashing or self-fulfilling prophecy. Makes sense though from a prison point of view, usually they focus on reward-punishment and conditioning.

It's also valid to say they feel obligated to not have an incident, but I'm wondering what the consequences are if someone kills themselves in prison... do they get audited on these statistics and this affects the institution somehow... I'm pretty sure the public at large doesn't really care, most people tend to have little sympathy for prisoners, and those that do are more likely to protest murders than suicide I would think.

Then again maybe this is to prevent, attempts at his life for some reason... maybe in their experience they've had murder happen within 5 minute timeframes.

[Bluenoir]

Blantant disregard for the dignity of the individual. If this is accurate, then I am sickend but not surprised.

What is actually gained by this deprived treatment of a citizen by his own country. Revenge?

Has he even been charged with anything yet?

[tcaudilllg]

I believe something like 23 charges have been recommended, one punishable by death.

Yeah this is the ultimate case of hypocrisy. The media is making splendid use of his contributions, but is making no effort to defend him.

And Assange is, of course, disavowing all knowledge (which may be accurate), but also disavowing responsibility. This little bit is not working in his favor PR wise.

[Creepy-male]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning

Hmm I find it interesting.

"Aiding the Enemy"

Interesting Charges, I would have thought that traditionally that military law applied to spies within the organization filtering information out to the enemy, thus the capital offense would in affect be killing the opponent, a spy.

In this case, as I remember it, the information was leaked to wikileaks and gained media exposure to the American public which produced some dissent politically against the iraq and afghan wars. In this sense, it would almost seem the "enemy" in a more practical sense are the parts of the public/media/political opposition which do not support the war, rather than an explicit leaking of tactical and strategic plans to the enemy to aid their war effort.

In this sense information and propoganda could be considered the tactical and strategic plans and the enemy the political opposition in the public/media.

[Bluenoir]

I believe something like 23 charges have been recommended, one punishable by death.

America has not got the most flattering image, when it comes to situations such as this. I don't think they would be stupid enough to pursue the death penalty. It would be political suicide.

In this case, as I remember it, the information was leaked to wikileaks and gained media exposure to the American public which produced some dissent politically against the iraq and afghan wars. In this sense, it would almost seem the "enemy" in a more practical sense are the parts of the public/media/political opposition which do not support the war, rather than an explicit leaking of tactical and strategic plans to the enemy to aid their war effort.

An informed public with dissenting opinions is dangerous. Democracy is inconvenient, when the popular opinion is not in line with the special interests, that are in the governments bed.

[Exodus]

Blantant disregard for the dignity of the individual. If this is accurate, then I am sickend but not surprised.

I'm sickened too. This is an attack on the freedoms of all Americans, although certainly not the first. It just seems things are coming to a head.

What is actually gained by this deprived treatment of a citizen by his own country. Revenge?

The obvious point to instill fear in whoever would be brave enough to do what he did. Traditional media outlets are completely corrupted, and when somebody finds a new way to get the truth out, they're punished. Luckily we have the internet; but the way things are going even that might be taken away (internet kill switch, anyone?). Assange was right when he said that this is an attack on all journalism.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...2335302393078#

While I don't know enough to agree with the argument for this kind of government involvement, it's easy to see what's going on here.

Question for people outside the U.S.: is there an equivalent of the Fairness Doctrine in other countries? What is the policy and how is it enforced?

[Creepy-male]

An informed public with dissenting opinions is dangerous. Democracy is inconvenient, when the popular opinion is not in line with the special interests, that are in the governments bed.

Yea but that is the America system, democracy and an informed public, free speech is one of the basic rights allowed for in the bill of rights of the constitution. So a system in which the "media" is controlled by the government is unconstitutional.

The problem isn't media control of the government being "evil" persay, but the fact that this makes the government hypocritical, as the highest level authority of the government is derived from the constitution, controlling the media is a violation of this making their entire system inconsistent. They need to either abandon the constitution's bill of rights or overthrow them and continue with media control... or they need to not attempt to control the media.

PFC Manning's case essentially comes down to holding two pieces of legislation into contest... one is the "aiding the enemy" charge against the "freedom of speech" in the constitution. The way I see it military people take an oath to defend our sovereign nation, so how is leaking information to our sovereign nation "aiding the enemy" unless that nation they are defending is the enemy? In my opinion, this is allowed due to "freedom of speech" unless that information can be shown in some way to potentially "aid" our true enemy, the opposition we are fighting against in iraq or afghanistan. In the event that this information is potentially able to aid the enemy, then it is in the same venue as the typical case of yelling "fire" in a crowded building which freedom of speech does not protect. Since the sovereign citizens of the united states can be potentially subject to harm as a result of the leaked information then the speech is malicious in content, but this must be proven... simply the act of disseminating information to the public against orders is irrelevant if this information is not malicious to the security of the people within our nation as a unified whole, as this speech is protected at the highest level of authority by our constitution, if I was him I'd take contest at the supreme court level, at the very least if it makes it that high, it could spark a debate in the media over freedom of speech in war time in the modern information age... which I think is an issue which needs to be examined.

From a practical point of view, its probably better to fight it in military court then appeal to the supreme court afterwards.

Also I think the military has a justification to discharge him dishonorably or otherwise, as the constitution, protecting free speech, doesn't protect your right to keep a job if you violate orders. Of course, being the commander and chief, the president and his joint chiefs of staff can intervene if they so wish to override decision in the chain of command.

[Bluenoir]

Yea but that is the America system, democracy and an informed public, free speech is one of the basic rights allowed for in the bill of rights of the constitution. So a system in which the "media" is controlled by the government is unconstitutional.

The problem isn't media control of the government being "evil" persay, but the fact that this makes the government hypocritical, as the highest level authority of the government is derived from the constitution, controlling the media is a violation of this making their entire system inconsistent. They need to either abandon the constitution's bill of rights or overthrow them and continue with media control... or they need to not attempt to control the media.

PFC Manning's case essentially comes down to holding two pieces of legislation into contest... one is the "aiding the enemy" charge against the "freedom of speech" in the constitution. The way I see it military people take an oath to defend our sovereign nation, so how is leaking information to our sovereign nation "aiding the enemy" unless that nation they are defending is the enemy? In my opinion, this is allowed due to "freedom of speech" unless that information can be shown in some way to potentially "aid" our true enemy, the opposition we are fighting against in iraq or afghanistan. In the event that this information is potentially able to aid the enemy, then it is in the same venue as the typical case of yelling "fire" in a crowded building which freedom of speech does not protect. Since the sovereign citizens of the united states can be potentially subject to harm as a result of the leaked information then the speech is malicious in content, but this must be proven... simply the act of disseminating information to the public against orders is irrelevant if this information is not malicious to the security of the people within our nation as a unified whole, as this speech is protected at the highest level of authority by our constitution, if I was him I'd take contest at the supreme court level, at the very least if it makes it that high, it could spark a debate in the media over freedom of speech in war time in the modern information age... which I think is an issue which needs to be examined.

From a practical point of view, its probably better to fight it in military court then appeal to the supreme court afterwards.

Also I think the military has a justification to discharge him dishonorably or otherwise, as the constitution, protecting free speech, doesn't protect your right to keep a job if you violate orders. Of course, being the commander and chief, the president and his joint chiefs of staff can intervene if they so wish to override decision in the chain of command.

It angers me when the ideals of demoracy and public interest are trampled upon like this.

What ends up on the public domain, is on the domain. It is not the public or the media's responsibility to keep military secrets.

Also thankyou to thehotel for the link, very compelling viewing.

[krieger]

i still vote Martin Armstrong #1 political prisoner
http://www.martinarmstrong.org/economic_projections.htm

[Exodus]

Lol. Guys, this is standard protocol for people on suicide watch even in civilian prisons and hospitals. Don't be such emo-morons.

Check your facts - he has been psychologically evaluated and found to not be at risk of suicide.

The information he gave to wikileaks could easily be utilized by enemy combatants, so technically such charges would apply.

Give me an example of such a piece of information. As far as I know none are forthcoming. This kind of fear-mongering is disgusting.

[Exodus]

How long ago was it, how many times has he been evaluated, and under what criteria has he been deemed not at risk?

I have no idea. That's why I said "possibly endangering"; i.e., if there's compromising information in there that could reasonably put lives at risk… then I imagine if I were someone serving in Iraq, I'd be pretty pissed about that and think he was among the lowest forms of life on Earth.

Read the link. Your objections are completely based on speculation.

[tcaudilllg]

His only hope is a commutation, something I don't think Obama will grant. But a later Democratic president, one less nationalistic, might.

[blackburry]

I'm sickened too. This is an attack on the freedoms of all Americans, although certainly not the first. It just seems things are coming to a head.

The obvious point to instill fear in whoever would be brave enough to do what he did. Traditional media outlets are completely corrupted, and when somebody finds a new way to get the truth out, they're punished. Luckily we have the internet; but the way things are going even that might be taken away (internet kill switch, anyone?). Assange was right when he said that this is an attack on all journalism.

For one, I clicked on the OP link... It was just his lawyer bitching about how he had to strip naked, boo-hoo. As Ashton said, that's suicide precaution, obviously you've never seen a desperate person try to strangle or suffocate themselves, which can be done successfully in less than five minutes. And considering the charges he faces, I would consider him desperate.

So I looked into it further-- you say THIS is an attack on the freedoms of all Americans?
HA. I'm sorry, but since when has the oh-so-sovereign-and-truthful Media become the essence of Americans? yes, America, land of free speech, blah blah blah-- Manning joined the army yes? No one slapped his wrists and forced him on a plane, he joined.
tcaudilllg even stated : The media is making splendid use of his contributions, but is making no effort to defend him.

The way the "media" is now, it's loyal to no one. it's shameful really, there's no honor in much of the bullshit publicized; what's the top-selling story these days--charlie sheen's next meltdown? Page-turners -- All for profit.

If Manning felt any honor in what he was doing, ie leaking videos and whatever else, wouldn't he be attempting to take responsibility for his actions? Wouldn't he have put some claim to it all rather than do it all anonymously?

This isn't an attack on personal freedoms. This is a grown man who consciously made numerous decisions to attempt at exploiting a ..for lack of a better word..delicate situation. War is a horrible, disgusting thing, with that I completely agree, but this guy-- he made his bed, he should have to sleep in it. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion about the war, and honestly if exploiting was his aim, he should've been a reporter.

I'd have more respect for someone who, in not believing in the Iraqi war, ran away to Canada or Mexico rather than join it..and wtf, seriously what was his aim? gah, he should've just tried to be honorably/dishonorably discharged and protested or did something more proactive..whatever, just my 2 cents.

let me add this: I'm sure the guy saw some pretty horrific things, perhaps questionable even, on behalf of the military and maybe if I experienced the same, it would cross my mind- "hey, people need to see what's actually happening, maybe it'll end all of this"..but then I would rationalize it- that I'm in the military, and the footage/information I have is highly sensitive in regard to circumstances that I, as a solider, vowed to protect for the timing being (while serving). I could go on..

[Capitalist Pig]

Lol. Guys, this is standard protocol for people on suicide watch even in civilian prisons and hospitals.

Yeah, except people on suicide watch are typically placed in special isolation cells where they can be monitored 24/7 via CCTV and they are not completely nude. They are given a special smock to wear since ordinary prison garment can be torn apart and fashioned into nooses and the like.

[Exodus]

So I looked into it further-- you say THIS is an attack on the freedoms of all Americans?
HA. I'm sorry, but since when has the oh-so-sovereign-and-truthful Media become the essence of Americans?

You are ignoring certain media outlets - namely, Wikileaks. For most people, the internet has become the primary source of real news.

If Manning felt any honor in what he was doing, ie leaking videos and whatever else, wouldn't he be attempting to take responsibility for his actions? Wouldn't he have put some claim to it all rather than do it all anonymously?

lol, what are you talking about? Why would he put himself in danger unnecessarily? Isn't exposing war crimes enough?

I'd have more respect for someone who, in not believing in the Iraqi war, ran away to Canada or Mexico rather than join it..and wtf, seriously what was his aim?

Sure, that makes sense. You think people should expect that kind of shit to happen when they sign up for the military? Killing innocent civilians and all?

[Creepy-male]

Lol. Guys, this is standard protocol for people on suicide watch even in civilian prisons and hospitals. Don't be such emo-morons.

I understand that, that is actually what I was referring to, I know they have protocols, but there always need to be oversight or else people will abuse those measures.

I don't know the in depth operating procedures for a prison, but I do know that its incredibly easy for a guard to order you to do something and call it protocol and have it be abuse, prisoners don't have rights lol, you pretty much do what you are told or get punished.

It may be that this is simple operating procedures, it may be that this is a slight abuse of those, but that's what this "debate" is about with the lawyers, its determining if this is a justified course of action or if its an abuse of authority.

I will say, I'm not shocked they strip him naked or have to regularly ask him questions... that's what happens, people hide shanks up their ass in prison, so strip searching is necessary for everyone's safety and periodic checking happens also -- privacy is not a luxury in prison. I'm not offended because of that, I completely agree, people need to keep context in mind... its a prison, you have to think in terms of that world and not in terms of your normal life as a citizen... but regardless abuse of authority is extremely easy to get away with in prison, and that's the issue if the strip was justified in this instance, not the question of if the strip is justified at all -- of course its justified, its a fucking prison.

The information he gave to wikileaks could easily be utilized by enemy combatants, so technically such charges would apply. If I were someone serving in Iraq right now, I'd want him put to death for possibly endangering my life.

Well apparently he leaked two videos which showed airstrikes that happened in the past, that information is hardly going to help the enemy since they show past events. And those were the two videos that gained the most media attention and probably were the impetus to the FBI investigation.

Apparently the information which could lead to helping the enemy, is a list of diplomatic strategies he sent to wikileaks. While that could help the enemy, its in a whole different arena than sending something like enemy troop positions or plans for operations.

[Creepy-male]

His only hope is a commutation, something I don't think Obama will grant. But a later Democratic president, one less nationalistic, might.

He's probably fucked until the war ends and it become old news

[Creepy-male]

For one, I clicked on the OP link... It was just his lawyer bitching about how he had to strip naked, boo-hoo. As Ashton said, that's suicide precaution, obviously you've never seen a desperate person try to strangle or suffocate themselves, which can be done successfully in less than five minutes. And considering the charges he faces, I would consider him desperate.

Oh I didn't realize that was your decision to make! Apparently they had a shrink evaluation, do you have a PhD and experience in prison psychology, have you sat down with manning and discussed this? If not you probably shouldn't comment on whether or not he is or is not desperate.

Also you have no idea what kind of operating procedures are in line at the prison, I don't either, but at least I admit that.

You obviously don't understand that a lawyer should be allowed to bitch. There are prosecutors and there are defense lawyers. So its fair, if your selected as a clients defense lawyers, its your duty to defend your client and stand up for their rights. If your a prosecutor its your duty to seek justice for the victim of the crime perpetrated against them. The decision is made by the jury and the judge monitors the preceedings. That's how the system works... the lawyer isn't at fault for bitching, he's doing his job.

And don't even try to pretend like defense lawyers are not a valuable component to the system, not everyone accused of things are always guilty and not every law is justified, they are a critical component to the system to keep balance.

So I looked into it further-- you say THIS is an attack on the freedoms of all Americans?
HA. I'm sorry, but since when has the oh-so-sovereign-and-truthful Media become the essence of Americans? yes, America, land of free speech, blah blah blah-- Manning joined the army yes? No one slapped his wrists and forced him on a plane, he joined.

Well I wouldn't say this is an attack on the freedoms of all Americans...

I don't know what anyone else in this topic is saying, but I'm saying it raises an issue of "freedom of speech" versus the need for "security of information" during war times. Which is an especially growing problem with new technology such as the internet, wikileaks, mass media, and so forth. Where do people draw the line? How does our society reconcile both of these components.

Apparently you could care less, you think joining the army automatically means you are just a mindless drone that is completely subservient to the government.

Like I said above, the military can discharge him because they have certain binding contracts just like anywhere you work... but for something to be illegal, an offense against the law of the country must be proven in a court of law.

That's what I'm commenting on... it will be interesting to see how the case unfolds because it unravels and reveals where that line is drawn, a line that may or may not shift as time progresses forward.

tcaudilllg even stated : The media is making splendid use of his contributions, but is making no effort to defend him.

The way the "media" is now, it's loyal to no one. it's shameful really, there's no honor in much of the bullshit publicized; what's the top-selling story these days--charlie sheen's next meltdown? Page-turners -- All for profit.

If Manning felt any honor in what he was doing, ie leaking videos and whatever else, wouldn't he be attempting to take responsibility for his actions? Wouldn't he have put some claim to it all rather than do it all anonymously?

This isn't an attack on personal freedoms. This is a grown man who consciously made numerous decisions to attempt at exploiting a ..for lack of a better word..delicate situation. War is a horrible, disgusting thing, with that I completely agree, but this guy-- he made his bed, he should have to sleep in it. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion about the war, and honestly if exploiting was his aim, he should've been a reporter.

I'd have more respect for someone who, in not believing in the Iraqi war, ran away to Canada or Mexico rather than join it..and wtf, seriously what was his aim? gah, he should've just tried to be honorably/dishonorably discharged and protested or did something more proactive..whatever, just my 2 cents.

How do you know his personal motivations, could you actually put in a link to some information... I mean its entirely possible he did it for noble reasons, its also entirely possible he did it for money... but this just sounds like your being cynical and deciding he did it for money because of some broad label you've applied to the media.

Exploiting is a pretty harsh accusation, I think I'd probably get some evidence before making such a damning judgment about the character of someone.

let me add this: I'm sure the guy saw some pretty horrific things, perhaps questionable even, on behalf of the military and maybe if I experienced the same, it would cross my mind- "hey, people need to see what's actually happening, maybe it'll end all of this"..but then I would rationalize it- that I'm in the military, and the footage/information I have is highly sensitive in regard to circumstances that I, as a solider, vowed to protect for the timing being (while serving). I could go on..

You realize like I've said above both those airstrikes occured in the past... is it a national security threat for the history channel to show footage of the battle of the bulge because the germans will use it? No its in the past. This is in the past... a video of an airstrike contains very little strategic information. I have a hunch that the charges of "aiding the enemy" apply to the diplomatic strategy he released.

[Bluenoir]

If I were someone serving in Iraq right now, I'd want him put to death for possibly endangering my life.

So it's true, gammas are prone towards vindictiveness. Wouldn't killing him adbicate him of all his responsibility for his "crimes"

[Bluenoir]

If I thought someone deserved to die, I'd rather get it over with swiftly ASAP. Making them 'pay' some arbitrary penance of suffering for their 'crimes' seems stupid, pointless, and inhumane. Better to just cut to the point, dispense with the problem, and move on. Pointlessly lingering and dragging it out is lame.

Killing him won't undo what has been done. Declaring someone deserving of death is just as arbitrary as declaring someone deserving of jail time. What objective justification can we really use to measure what a perpetrator deserves.

The difference is we can take a perpetrator out of jail, should we, retrospectively, find the charges unjustified or we feel this person has "paid" sufficiently for their crime. It's not as if Bradley Manning can do any more damage, so I feel permanently and infinitely damaging his existence as "just payment" for only transient damage done to the US and it's allies (damage mind you, which still has not been shown) is nothing more than vindictive. A justice system which is only concerned with retribution is not in my opinion, civilised.

If I were, however, I would basically consider his actions equivalent to those of the enemies trying to kill me—actually worse than that, since he was supposed to be on my side. Which makes him traitorous scum, and as such, any 'right' to his own life would be forfeit as far as I'd be concerned.

Black and white thinking. If your not with us, then your a terrorist.

You still haven't even shown how is has actually helped the enemy, if it's so quantifiable, why have they still failed to actually charge him. It seems to me they are holding him as long as they can untill they can convincingly shoehorn a charge upon him.

At the end of the day, if our supposedly civilized militaries are commiting war crimes, then they should be held accountable. This is not the thirteeth century, war is not a hall pass for militaries to do with abandon, as they please, in the name of "protecting" our national interests.

[Creepy-male]

I'm all for people being treated humanely, even if they're a prisoner; so long as a person is pragmatically contained and can do no further harm to society, I see little sense in making them suffer for no reason. That being said—yes, it is a prison. And the realities of prison life being what they are, there are rigorous protocols that need to be carried out for the safety and well-being of the guards and employees, as well as for the inmates themselves.

Ok well that's what I was saying, I'm not immediately shocked he had to stand naked in front of guards, it is a prison. It's just easy to abuse power as a prison guard because you have absolute authority of the prisoner, and I suspect its easy for some people to sadistically take out their frustrations on inmates.

I have no idea of what's all contained in those hundreds of thousands of documents; and one of the main problems for Manning's defense is going to be, that he didn't know the full extent of what was in there either—given the inhuman task for 1 person to read through all that material and scrutinize it for possible security risks. Thus, he acted in sheer recklessness by releasing it in the 1st place.

It's really not that hard, if you consider those documents were probably written by someone in a reasonable amount of time, they can be read by someone in a similarly reasonable amount of time.

And compromising information doesn't have to be explicit maps about troop movements or tactical battlefield operations. If you use your imagination, there's all kinds of different info you might not want falling into an enemy's hands, that could otherwise tip them off to exploits and vulnerabilities against you, both directly and indirectly. There could be something about a frequent traffic jam in supply lines that tends to occur in some sector of some city on a certain weekday at a certain time. There could be the name of what seems to be a local informant who may have formerly worked w/ the Americans who could potentially be extorted or killed. There could be seemingly benign logs of casual radio chatter between sentries at a particular guard post suggesting one of them has a drinking problem that would make it ideal to launch an attack during their shift rotation. There could be a memo from a commanding officer which indicates that American troops in their specific defense jurisdiction have been experiencing major problems with morale. So on, so forth, ad nauseam. You could go all day thinking up possibilities.

Alright, well first there has to be a limit to determining what is sensitive and not, it can't be purely based on interpretations by authorities, there has to be a law or some means of measuring, especially in the age of youtube. If a soldier posts a video of him drinking on youtube or a blog talking about drinking, then that could apply to what you were saying concerning "There could be seemingly benign logs of casual radio chatter between sentries at a particular guard post suggesting one of them has a drinking problem that would make it ideal to launch an attack during their shift rotation.". Now imagine if that soldier isn't liked by their superiors and fellow soldiers, how easy it would be to turn that into a bad thing, especially if there had been a similar case in the past. Without some kind of measuring stick which defines what sensitive is or is not, then it becomes whatever the big boss man says it is, which isn't reliable. At least a loosely defined measuring stick allows for people to begin a debate on how something does or does not fit those criteria.

Most people are familiar enough w/ the general rules of thumb for how these procedures work. It's not rocket science.

I wouldn't trust anyone who didn't have direct experience in prisons. Either spending an amount of time there and seeing things, or investigating into them in depth as a journalist/academic/civil servant. There are too many popular renditions about what goes on in prison.

He could at least try to come off less manipulative though… heh.

Defense Lawyers always talk like that its there job, they aren't manipulative, people always think that about lawyers, there job is to argue a case using the law. A lot of people dislike them because they see them interpreting the law they think is simple and straightforward and this disturbs their sense of directness and explicitness, they feel like they are twisting the truth. But they aren't really, they are use part of the process, they are seeing how that law applies to their client in practice, and in practice the law is never black and white, so it always gets into that gray area, just like anything in practice.

Things like say No Sex under 18 (Statuatory Rape)... it seems real simple on paper... 30 year old man fucks a 12 yr old girl.... he's a pedo... but suddenly things get all hazy when its a 19 yr old teenager fucking his 17 yr old girlfriend with consent, and the mom reports him because she doesn't like him fucking her daughter. You can plainly see its different, but its hard to quantify, and maybe its not practical to get too in depth and explicit, so where do you draw the line? That's why there always has to be fail safes... defense lawyers, appeals, and pardons and so forth. They are a critical component of the system, and to a lot of people they always seem whiny... complaining, MY RIGHTS blah blah blah, ASK FOR A WARRANT blah blah blah, and so forth. But people are naive when they just want to eliminate them from the process. Something like 99.9% of the time, in life defense lawyer will always be the annoying guy bitching about his clients rights that annoys you... but 0.1% of the time, he will be the only guy standing up for your rights against the state, when everyone else doesn't give a shit.

The line should continue to be drawn where it always has been—that is, drawn at the military's discretion. It's up to them to decide what information is safe to be public, and what isn't. Because frankly, they know and understand the demands of operational security better than anyone else, and are foremost tasked with preserving the lives of their fellows under threat on a daily basis.

Yea but its a bad idea to have things drawn at authorities discretion rather than from a policy of law. Authorities need to be able to interpret how to put the law into practice, but absolute freedom from any kind of guidelines just allows people to interject all kinds of personal bias.

The thing that is great about democracy is that their is at least a weak correlation between the will of the collective people and the law, so that the laws the authorities are subordinate to and must interpret how to put into practice are the will of the people and not the will of a particular organization. Democracy in the modern world 1700 onwards, is relatively new... so it's far from perfect as a system, but its a lot better than feudalism.

If I were in the military serving in a combat zone, I imagine the last thing I'd want is some dipshit journalist coming around imposing themselves on my work demanding 'transparency' about what I do and the conditions I'm facing. They'd be doing me a disservice thinking they or 'the public' somehow deserves to know. Fuck that. In my mind, people like that would be on par with the ones shooting at me; both would represent a direct threat to my life.

That's not what this case is about anyways, its about the freedom with which soldiers can disseminate information -- journalists are outsiders.

Jounalist issue...... Civilians taking information from the Military
This issue............ Military giving information to Civilians

It's not even about being a drone to the government; I'm the last person to support that sort of thing. I'm considering the well-being of the people who're actually serving there.

Well-being could be interpreted as freedom or interpreted as security.

Not quite. The military operates it's own code of justice. He'll be tried under rather different judicial conditions than what you're probably thinking.

That code is still subordinate to the federal law.

Lol, this is a fail comparison—Battle of the Bulge was 60+ years ago and that war's been over a very long time; this one's still ongoing and much more contemporary such that information released may still have relevance.

I know... it was purposefully over-exaggerated. The point was its a past event... its showing something that already happened... and happened to the "enemy", they know it happened, because it happened to them.... so I don't see how that can help them out lol, its something they already knew.

Also

I'd like to re-iterate, I think it's perfectly acceptable for the military to dishonorably discharge him and ban him from the military without benefits and bar him from receiving any kind of national security clearance indefinitely, but it doesn't make sense to lock him away unless they can prove the information could potentially cause harm to the troops-- which they have to prove (people are innocent until proven guilty), and second charges should be scaled based on the potential for future problems and current problems caused as a result of this... if the strategy can be easily re-evaluated then the charges are less severe, if no problems can be shown to have been created from the information then the charges are less severe. Although time should be served if it requires re-evaluation of strategy as a result of the leak information as this requires time and effort, so he should have to serve time, but nothing severe or maximum security.

If the information doesn't cause any harm and leads to a little effort to re-evaluate strategy to protect national security, then I don't see what is so bad about him serving something like 2 years and then being kicked out and banned from the military/secure information and then living a simple life in the commercial world as a civilian. He's not a spy with loyalty to the enemy, he's just a political/media whistle blower.

[jughead]

The prison system needs major reform.

[Crispy]

The prison system is run by private corporations for profit, just like everything else. Reform will be carried through revolution in due time.

For those of you who haven't seen the video that Manning is responsible for releasing (along with diplomatic cables) here it is:

[blackburry]

I think this case is being seen too much as being under a larger--"let's not lose our freedom of speech" umbrella. Him being tried ( and as I hope, prosecuted) for his particularly reckless actions is not a stepping stone towards losing any type of freedom.

The line should continue to be drawn where it always has been—that is, drawn at the military's discretion. It's up to them to decide what information is safe to be public, and what isn't. Because frankly, they know and understand the demands of operational security better than anyone else, and are foremost tasked with preserving the lives of their fellows under threat on a daily basis. If I were in the military serving in a combat zone, I imagine the last thing I'd want is some dipshit journalist coming around imposing themselves on my work demanding 'transparency' about what I do and the conditions I'm facing. They'd be doing me a disservice thinking they or 'the public' somehow deserves to know. Fuck that. In my mind, people like that would be on par with the ones shooting at me; both would represent a direct threat to my life.

completely agree ^

[somavision]

completely agree ^

A military that decides what information to keep secret and what to release is liable to act in it's own interests rather than what is necessarily in the best interests of the nation that it serves. These interests are often the same and occasionally unclear and sometimes they are in conflict. Of course the military should be able to conduct it's legitimate business, however a strong and free press is required to keep it in check and also to ensure that the military really is our friend rather than foe.

Dictatorships and Democracies have militaries, both have secrets only one will have freedom of speech and the press.

From the information that I've seen released and the manner in which it has been released, I don't think this man (if he is guilty) should spend his life in jail.

[mirrorsoul]

Hehe. Ooh! When do we get to see the pictures?

Kidding.

Anyway, I think that the way they're treating Manning and Assange is horrible. It makes me question whether my country is a decent nation anymore. They're acting like a much more repressive regime than they ought to be, and I'm almost ashamed to be associated with the US anymore.

I donated to WikiLeaks before donations were cut off. Go WikiLeaks! Down with the tyrants!

They've revealed information that should not have been kept from the American public. I find it upsetting that the government is able to keep us in the dark by deciding what they do and do not keep classified, which makes us less able as a voting public to decide who we should trust to be in office. We are unable to voice our opinions about how these things are handled and use our capacity for political pressure, because we are kept in the dark on them. I think that's wrong.

I mean, keeping pure military strategies and such secret is one thing, but the line should be drawn somewhere... a lot of the "secret" information was stuff we had a right to know.

[Exodus]

A military that decides what information to keep secret and what to release is liable to act in it's own interests rather than what is necessarily in the best interests of the nation that it serves. These interests are often the same and occasionally unclear and sometimes they are in conflict. Of course the military should be able to conduct it's legitimate business, however a strong and free press is required to keep it in check and also to ensure that the military really is our friend rather than foe.

Yes. While I don't think anybody should interfere with the legitimate workings of the military, it's there to serve us, the people, and the stuff Manning exposed demonstrates a variety of abuses of power. Sure, Manning broke the law but he should be subject to the same legal process as everyone else. Meanwhile, nobody is doing shit to punish the people who are guilty of offenses that are far more dangerous to our way of life than what Manning did.

[somavision]

The interests of the military are to win wars, bottom line; these interests are coincident with those of the nation it serves. This doesn't mean they should go around carpet-bombing cities and decimating masses of innocents—measures like these aren't necessarily conducive to winning wars anyhow.

The nature of war being what it is (the application of force to achieve a desired end), means it has always been an obviously messy and ethically-complicated business. But in the final estimate, maintaining the security of military personnel and the integrity of its operations, must necessarily override concerns over potential abuses of human rights. There is no other acceptable solution as far as I can see.

I agree of course that the primary purpose of the military is to win wars, however how they win these wars is just as important.
That is especially true for the type of non conventional wars which the US is currently engaged in. Again civilian standards cannot be used as the measure of wartime behaviour, however the actions need too be judged and be held to account, there are laws and conventions even in war. The wars that they are fighting are being fought in our names, and on the nations collective mandate. Operational details need to remain secret, but the less information that we have the less informed we are to individually or give that endorsment.

I think he could easily be charged with treason for his actions, considering he deliberately violated his security clearance and released material that could have contained information with the potential to jeopardize US military operations. Or at the very least, he could get charged with something like attempted involuntary manslaughter or criminally negligent manslaughter (considering his oath of duty). I dunno what the statutes are like in the UCMJ, but people can and do serve jail time for these sorts of things in civilian courts.

I think that he may well be charged with treason, I would think whether this charge is actually pursued and whether he's convicted will depend very much on the details.

From what I have seen the informaton released hasn't directly aided 'the enemy' or given them any tactical advantage. The main impact, as far as I can tell, seems to have been to turn some parts public opinion against the military. I think it is worth bearing in mind that in most muslim charity shops they have their own images of children maimed and killed by allied weapons, and that mulslims on the whole are very aware of the killing of non-combatants by allied forces. I get the impression that the information more than anything has opened the eyes of those insulated in the west by our own government's propaganda, whilst merely confirming what others already knew. Saying that what he has done is clearly reckless and illegal.

Has he also formally been charged/identified as the diplomatic leak?

Whatever the outcome, I look to it with interest.

[Creepy-male]

I fucking hate americans these days... no solid patriotism, they just go into hiding when the liberals have media control then bitch about it later... Manning did the right thing I think, he's a fucking hero, unfortunately its sad he doesn't realize it and stand up for himself, and the media doesn't either... its all fucked up.

It's pretty clear from those videos what war is like in the modern world, I don't know, it seems pretty lame and sociopathic.