Results 1 to 30 of 30

Thread: PFC Bradley Manning is forced to strip naked in solitary confinement

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,397
    Mentioned
    325 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default PFC Bradley Manning is forced to strip naked in solitary confinement

    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.

  2. #2
    Creepy-male

    Default

    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

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.

  3. #3
    Le roi internet Bluenoir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Zeta Reticuli
    TIM
    Ne-LII
    Posts
    389
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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?
    The mode of goodness conditions one to happiness, passion conditions him to the fruits of action, and ignorance to madness.

    Chapter 14, Verse 9.
    The Bhagavad Gita

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,858
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  5. #5
    Le roi internet Bluenoir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Zeta Reticuli
    TIM
    Ne-LII
    Posts
    389
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Bluenoir; 03-04-2011 at 03:12 PM.
    The mode of goodness conditions one to happiness, passion conditions him to the fruits of action, and ignorance to madness.

    Chapter 14, Verse 9.
    The Bhagavad Gita

  6. #6
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Neotropic View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    Le roi internet Bluenoir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Zeta Reticuli
    TIM
    Ne-LII
    Posts
    389
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    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.
    The mode of goodness conditions one to happiness, passion conditions him to the fruits of action, and ignorance to madness.

    Chapter 14, Verse 9.
    The Bhagavad Gita

  8. #8
    Creepy-male

    Default

    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.

  9. #9
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,397
    Mentioned
    325 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Neotropic View Post
    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?

  10. #10
    boom boom boom blackburry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    3,226
    Mentioned
    142 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    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..

  11. #11
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,397
    Mentioned
    325 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackburry View Post
    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?

  12. #12
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackburry View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by blackburry View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by blackburry View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by blackburry View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •