Wikileaks military whistleblower in solitary confinement: inhumane treatment

[Sparta]

Of course that's after the fact that everything has gone to shit. Maybe things could have been worse (if we were more transparent), and we would be saying "we should have been less transparent". In fact this is what I've been arguing all along, that it went to shit because we were too transparent.

Well... no. Transparency isn't the problem, it's the actions that were covered up and then exposed (that inevitably rouse calls for transparency) are the real problem. If you have rats in your house and you hide signs of the infestation from your family, it doesn't mean the rat infestation is gone. It just means they're living with rats and oblivious to it. You could deal with it yourself and continue to hide the problem, but that would only prolong the issue. Wouldn't it be more effective to tell your family and deal with it together? Governments have no problem being transparent and sharing information with each other when it comes to battling terrorism and bringing terrorists to justice, but they're a lot more cagey and slow to enact justice when one of their PMC's rapes a young woman for several days straight in a container somewhere in Iraq.

Regarding Iraq, even with full transparency (which, we all can acknowledge will never happen), the insurgency would still have problems with the occupation of Iraq for one reason or another. If it's not the corruption or the "collateral damage" (worse term in the world) that incites them, it would be their hatred for the foreign occupying force and their distrust of authority in a region of the planet that has been led by nothing but dictators and regimes for centuries.

 

[No Limit]

Yes "Virus Inc", how extremely unfair of me to quote information you post to show a flaw in your own argument. Or asking such extremely unfair questions as "what if you are in the army and see illegal shit but your superiors don't do anything about it?".

And I'm not sure what my point about writing the FCC letters or signing online petitions has to do with this discussion. But by all means, keep grasping at those straws.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I agree particularly about the section above (in bold). I remember No Limit telling us that actively taking part in politics (AKA signing petitions and contacting officials) was a waste of time if you don't actually do these things while standing outside, for some reason; being seated is just not active enough.

It's always worth calling people to do more than they can, to really back up their opinions with action. I am always telling friends "well, if you think that, go to the march." But nobody here actually signs some sort of contract requiring their posts to be 'relevant' or to produce actual results. Posts here do not necessarily claim that they will have any effect on the body politics. Few of us make the claim that our discussions here are anything more than discussions for fun.

By the way, sorry if I was a bit irritable - these opinions are ones I can't abide at the best of times, and I have a nasty hangover from arguing with someone really stupid on 4chan last night. Yeah, my life is pretty exciting.

And this secrecy has made them weaker, you think? I don't agree at all; I think being unpredictable is what makes North Korea dangerous.

We're going up a blind alley here. I proposed a thought experiment about whether absolute transparency or absolute secrecy would be the more viable state. You ignored the terms of this experiment to propose that in my imaginary world there would be nations that were able to keep things secret. I contend that if they were alone among nations that did not keep secrets they would be sanctioned and mistrusted. I can't really comment on the effect of North Korea's secrecy in a world where governmental secrecy is the norm. The reason I mentioned them is to draw an analogy. NK is not powerful. It is not in a good position. It is almost universally slated by other countries because it won't play properly within the rules they've all agreed to between themselves (rules like proper diplomatic contact, allowing emissaries and foreign citizens in, allowing foreign media in, trading properly, not developing nuclear weapons). If transparency was part of such an international diplomatic ruleset, then secretive countries would lose as much in mistrust and lack of respect as they gained in unpredictability. This is the last comment I'll make on the subject.

You can offer to rob me all you like, but the question is whether you'd actually go through with it after telling me and receiving the answer that I would have the police guarding my house. Secrets absolutely produce conflict, or anyway inflame it. They are a desirable commodity and therefore subject to scarcity (which is the root of most if not all evil). They create mistrust. They establish a wall. I've found in my personal life that openness is almost always the better policy. But this is neither here nor there because I'm not really interested in arguing that secrecy is a fundamentally bad thing which should never exist ever in the world.

We're not talking about something fundamental to the concept of a "secret" (although we're touching on it). We're talking about how secrets are used by institutions. We're not talking about wars without mistakes. We're talking about wars where too many mistakes get covered up. This is my contention: all institutional bodies have a certain character that comes from their being structured as institutions. It is in the nature of these bodies to defend themselves and it is in the nature of the people in these bodies to try and game the system. The people at the top of these bodies will always try to make sure the rules operate in their favour. This often means that they will operate against the people below them. In short, this is the classic right-wing critique of government bureaucracy, but with two big differences. Firstly I accept that things are complicated by genuine ideas of patriotism and loyalty or by genuine commitments to service. Secondly I am applying this critique to all institutions, which includes private companies, and the military.

In this environment, secrets are dangerous to the public. People inside such bodies will inevitably take actions and make judgements that are coloured by their own gain. If they have sweeping powers of concealment they will classify these actions rather than let them be revealed. It is simply in their interest to operate in secret, and, moreover, it's in their interest to ensure they CAN operate in secret - to lay down rules that give them such powers. Once in place, these powers make it even easier to act in their own interest.

That's my contention with civilian casualties, for instance. If it's so easy to keep things classified, everyone is deprived of one big incentive to act responsibly, soldiers lose an incentive to go beyond the call of duty to fight ethically, and their superiors lose an incentive to change 'duty' so that it's more stringently ethical. The easier something is to get away with, the more likely they are to do it. Just look at piracy.

The insurgency didn't come from nowhere, and nor did the general anti-American feeling which has boyed it up. A great many of our problems in Iraq come from specific failures of management during the reconstruction. The insurgency is powerful because the Coalition failed to actually improve the country, instead ruining it more profoundly than it had been before. One such failure is the decision to fire all Baathists from government. This decision, rooted in a preening ideological insecurity that precluded concern for actual consequences, and in a lack of real thought about how the country had worked (you had to be a Baathist to get into any kind of high position), meant purging an antiquitated and dangerously unstable infrastructure of every single person who knew anything about how it operated. At the same time it meant all those people lost their jobs, cast into economic trouble with only their wounded pride and their hungry families. See also the unbelievable decision to disband the Iraqi army, letting thousands of armed, trained men loose on the streets with a grudge to bear. There are a thousand more such examples, some large, some small. But all of these things happened - once again - for specific reasons. The Coalition administration was composed almost entirely of Republican party aides selected for their loyalty and not for their expertise. People who really knew anything about the country were considered dangerous liabilities because they didn't play the game their institutions demanded, which was a game of loyalty and ignorance. All of this had the knock-on effect of creating a government run entirely by young, right-wing Americans who lived in Saddam's palace and never went outside of it because they did not understand the country and were too scared of it to try.

This may not be a problem that transparency alone could solve. But imagine if there had been more scrutiny of the war. Imagine if the government had actually been held accountable for its decision to invade, its collection of intelligence or its atempt at occupation. Hell, imagine if it had been forced to find good reasons for the war, rather than lying about it. While human history is characterised by a series of revisions and repetitions that can be loosely boiled down to axioms like "power usually wins", there are also a great many times and places where things could have been different. Baghdad in the summer of 2003 is one.

The Iraq war offers us a wonderful parallel for my attitude to official secrecy. There are people who tell us that everything that's happened is 'necessary'. But they're never able to demonstrate this necessity because they have forgotten that necessity is not just a buzzword but an extremely strict criterion which opens you up to serious criticism. Just so, I'm not against governmental secrecy if there are mechanisms in place to make sure that secrets are never or rarely kept - or the truth obscured by slanted coverage - without a really ****ing good reason. Right now, the mechanism is too often that government can try and keep secret whatever it likes (see AT&T wiretapping). There needs to be a presumption in favour of accountability.

What Assange and Manning have both done is just once ensured that the US governments' actions are properly open to scrutiny. Why is this a problem? If a government has nothing to hide, it has nothing to fear. And some of the things revealed have been very important to various countries or even entire regions, such as the way the UK deliberately defrauded the Chagos Islanders of their home. Meanwhile, just as the warmongers never care to actually argue for necessity, none of the people claiming that the Wikileaks exposure "endangers lives" have bothered to tell us how and why (the Pentagon having admitted that they have no evidence of previous exposures having harmed anyone). What you see in the mad screeching of Sarah Palin and that Canidian wanker, whoever he was - in the constant claims that Assange, an Australian, must be tried for treason against the US - in the assertions that he'll be charged with something, anything they can find, even before they know what crime he's committed - in the ceaseless bullshit directed against both him and Manning - what we see is power interests revealing an irrational and emotional response to a rupture in their own power. They are so used to being able to keep their dealings secret that they have come to see secrecy as their privilege; they've come to feel entitled to it. And when just once someone makes the truth known, they absolutely flip.

It makes sense to argue that some particular piece of information should not be disseminated to the public. It makes no sense to argue that such secrecy should be the default prerogative of nations. How can you fret and fumble about whether America would do better or worse without the level of secrecy it retains when that very secrecy has allowed it to really seriously screw with the world? As if all lives weren't just as important as each other? As what was good or bad for one nation over another was somehow more important than the results for everybody of those nations' behaviour?

 

[StarBob]

I'll try and remember for future occasions that neither of you believe we can debate the ethics of any law or prosecution through the law.

You're right and you're wrong. I do believe you and everyone else in the world can debate ethics. However, I do not believe it is a worthwhile topic with any resolution or even results outside of being pointlessly polarizing. To be treated within the boundaries of standard criminal justice within the military may be scathing and harsh to an individual, but that doesn't mean he didn't do a thing that is against the laws outlined by the American government. Ethics and morality are wildly subjective and yes they do vary from person to person. Hell they vary in idealogical philosophies. If you just look back through the history of philosophers and their views on ethics, it's amazing what people can perceive as right and wrong. Law is just an amalgamation of of ethical standards that has been agreed upon by a majority. The majority agreed to elect the people in offices. The majority of people in offices agreed that stealing classified documents is wrong.

Now this guy is in jail. I guess we can be sad he doesn't live comfortably, but hell neither do soldiers going through various military trainings. Do we have to throw big sad parties for them too? They're certainly submittied to things that could be considered psychological torture including physical trama, exhaustion, sleep deprivation, and more.

 

[Sulkdodds]

You're right and you're wrong.

I'm yes and I'm no. I'm in and I'm out. I'm up and then down.

I DON'T REALLY WANNA STAY, NO
I DON'T REALLY WANNA GO, OH

I think most of us share a commitment to some key ethical principles: liberty and quality of life. Certainly this is the implicit ultimate intention of all laws made by either of our countries. Where most ethical disagreements happen is in asking how to implement things. To me, 'morality' implies beliefs about whether certain actions or motives (e.g. selfishness) are fundamentally bad, whereas 'ethics' is a matter of practice and consequence.

Your comparison to other soldiers is a bit specious. Manning is undergoing avoidable, deliberately inflicted punishment that serves no purpose. Soldiers undergo unavoidable, chance events for good reasons. Or at least that's the theory; we certainly have to question whether a commander who submitted his men to avoidable and pointless risks - especially, for example, as part of an avoidable and pointless war - commits an ethical breach.

You really are avoiding the issue. Power and force should not be used without a very good reason, i.e. in service of a reachable improvement in liberty or quality of life. So what's the goal of torturing Bradley Manning? What is humanity getting in return for his suffering? Why is it being inflicted?

Good job reviving the old "you can't talk about one man's suffering because what about other peoples' suffering" chestnut. I haven't seen that since way back when the Politics forum was thick with right-wing retards. The answer now, as then, is that all avoidable and deliberately inflicted suffering deserves to be highlighted and questioned, but that right now, we happen to be talking about one instance in particular.

It's not even really about sympathy or "being sad he doesn't live comfortably." I'm not sad. To tell you the truth I feel little sympathy for the guy. I can't picture his hurting in my head. It's not making me cry. My objection is a pretty cold an ethical one - and it is directed against the malice of the people who are holding him. We don't pardon murderers because Stalin murdered millions, or tell the Guantanamo detainees to suck it up because political prisoners elsewhere have it just as bad or worse. How hard is it for you to grasp the concept of culpability?

 

[StarBob]

It's not even really about sympathy or "being sad he doesn't live comfortably." I'm not sad. To tell you the truth I feel little sympathy for the guy. I can't picture his hurting in my head. It's not making me cry. My objection is a pretty cold an ethical one - and it is directed against the malice of the people who are holding him. We don't pardon murderers because Stalin murdered millions, or tell the Guantanamo detainees to suck it up because political prisoners elsewhere have it just as bad or worse. How hard is it for you to grasp the concept of culpability?

Nice work with Katy Perry?

Anyways, why is everyone so distraught over this if it's not a matter of sympathizing when this man's plight? Seems everyone is debating speciically over whether his treatment is ethical. All I've been saying is that it doesn't really matter. People are kept in solitary confinement everyday and it is perfectly justified given the nature of his alleged crimes. Why do you say his captors are acting in a malicious manner? What evidence do you have? Did you ask the guards and the individuals governing that prison how they feel toward this prisoner? You're making an argument that is not in line with what others are saying and what I'm making a counter point to. How hard is it for you to grasp the concept of holding someone captive who is accused of a serious crime?

 

[CptStern]

Why do you say his captors are acting in a malicious manner? What evidence do you have? Did you ask the guards and the individuals governing that prison how they feel toward this prisoner?

oh come on, it's right there in the OP:

Interviews with several people directly familiar with the conditions of Manning's detention, ultimately including a Quantico brig official (Lt. Brian Villiard) who confirmed much of what they conveyed, establishes that the accused leaker is subjected to detention conditions likely to create long-term psychological injuries.

 

[StarBob]

oh come on, it's right there in the OP:

In what way does that imply malice? Because they're treating someone who's potentially a threat to national security in a manner that prevents them from continuing to do so in any ways? Anytime anyone does anything someone else doesn't like they're malicious? Someone should change the definition of malice then...

 

[CptStern]

establishes that the accused leaker is subjected to detention conditions likely to create long-term psychological injuries.

how is that not malicious? they know what the effect will be as it's well documented but do it anyways. also there are no guidelines it's up to the discretion of the prison. how can say that's not malicious?

Throughout the long history of its use in prisons – from the ‘silent’ and ‘separate’ penitentiaries of
the 19th century through to modern-day segregation units and ‘supermax’ prisons – practitioners
and researchers have observed the adverse effects of solitary confinement on prisoners’ health. In
the context of coercive interrogation, international experts have identified solitary confinement as
psychological torture18. The potentially damaging effects of solitary confinement are also recognised
by national and international instruments and by monitoring bodies, which view it as an extreme
prison practice which should only be used as a last resort and then only for short periods of time.
Indeed, expressing strong concern about the use of solitary confinement as punishment, in 1990
the United Nations went as far as to call for its abolition

 

[Solaris]

Nice work with Katy Perry?

Anyways, why is everyone so distraught over this if it's not a matter of sympathizing when this man's plight? Seems everyone is debating speciically over whether his treatment is ethical. All I've been saying is that it doesn't really matter. People are kept in solitary confinement everyday and it is perfectly justified given the nature of his alleged crimes. Why do you say his captors are acting in a malicious manner? What evidence do you have? Did you ask the guards and the individuals governing that prison how they feel toward this prisoner? You're making an argument that is not in line with what others are saying and what I'm making a counter point to. How hard is it for you to grasp the concept of holding someone captive who is accused of a serious crime?

A long time I've been thinking if you really are a stupid **** or if maybe we were two people raised from different sides of the debate. But here you show it, the ethics of an action do not matter to you.

**** you, I'm going to rape your sister and get away with it, then tell me ethics don't matter.

 

[Krynn72]

As long as you don't rape her with malice Solaris. Just say "she was asking for it" and, without proving your accusation, rape her. Then StarBob will be totally cool with it.


Also, Sulk, you need to write a book, so I can buy hundreds of copies of it and give them to people to make them less idiotic.

 

[StarBob]

how is that not malicious? they know what the effect will be as it's well documented but do it anyways. also there are no guidelines it's up to the discretion of the prison. how can say that's not malicious?

Ok this is getting old. Doing somethig that is NECESSARY to PREVENT FURTHER DAMAGES and is STANDARD PRACTICE FOR SIMILAR SITUATIONS does not at all imply malice. If random guard were whipping him or stealing his clothes and pissing in his food and saying "**** you because I hate you" then that is malice. Malice is to WILLINGLY do harm. Doing what is regularly outlined for any situation of this nature is not. ****ing. malice.

A long time I've been thinking if you really are a stupid **** or if maybe we were two people raised from different sides of the debate. But here you show it, the ethics of an action do not matter to you.

**** you, I'm going to rape your sister and get away with it, then tell me ethics don't matter.

1) Congrats on Ad Hominem to prove nothing.

2) I don't have a sister

3)I've never said that ethics don't matter at all. I've only said that ethics are subjective and vary from person you person. You're too ****ing stupid to read more than 10 words of any post before you get angry and start going balls out to be a prick. Even if it may be ethically objectionable to some for this guy to be held in solitary confinement, it is within the law and the law is established by ethical majorities. I'm sorry that your ideals didn't apply to every aspect of humanity, but no ONE persons' do. He broke the law and is being treated according to one of the more harsh aspects of it. If you or me or five other people in this forum... or ten thousand other people in the world think it's unethical or terrible or just plain mean, it doesn't matter - because the people we all elected made decided it is ethically sound to do so.

4) Even if I did have a sister and you raped her, thanks to the majority believing rape is unethical and making laws to make it illegal, you won't get away with it. You'll be arrested and put in jail. There might be one or two or ten thousand people that believe your rape was totally ethical given some strange mentality, but that sure as hell doesn't make it any more legal. As soon as you stop trying to hate me for having a different opinion and being a little bit more coldly logical, you'll be better suited to countering an argument without attacking me based on your emotional misguidance.

 

[CptStern]

Ok this is getting old. Doing somethig that is NECESSARY to PREVENT FURTHER DAMAGES and is STANDARD PRACTICE FOR SIMILAR SITUATIONS does not at all imply malice. If random guard were whipping him or stealing his clothes and pissing in his food and saying "**** you because I hate you" then that is malice. Malice is to WILLINGLY do harm. Doing what is regularly outlined for any situation of this nature is not. ****ing. malice.

"It's an awful thing, solitary," John McCain wrote of his five and a half years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam--more than two years of it spent in isolation in a fifteen-by-fifteen-foot cell, unable to communicate with other P.O.W.s except by tap code, secreted notes, or by speaking into an enamel cup pressed against the wall. "It crushes your spirit and weakens your resistance more effectively than any other form of mistreatment." And this comes from a man who was beaten regularly; denied adequate medical treatment for two broken arms, a broken leg, and chronic dysentery; and tortured to the point of having an arm broken again. A U.S. military study of almost a hundred and fifty naval aviators returned from imprisonment in Vietnam, many of whom were treated even worse than McCain, reported that they found social isolation to be as torturous and agonizing as any physical abuse they suffered.

And what happened to them was physical. EEG studies going back to the nineteen-sixties have shown diffuse slowing of brain waves in prisoners after a week or more of solitary confinement. In 1992, fifty-seven prisoners of war, released after an average of six months in detention camps in the former Yugoslavia, were examined using EEG-like tests. The recordings revealed brain abnormalities months afterward; the most severe were found in prisoners who had endured either head trauma sufficient to render them unconscious or, yes, solitary confinement. Without sustained social interaction, the human brain may become as impaired as one that has incurred a traumatic injury.

how is that not malicious? they know the effects. the military personel admit that it would lead to psychological problems. he's been held for 7 months without a trial in a small cell with no human interaction. how is that not malicious? you seem to think unless they piss in his food it's not malicious. well I'm contending holding him without a trial for 7 months knowing full well what the consequences will be is malicious

 

[StarBob]

how is that not malicious? they know the effects. the military personel admit that it would lead to psychological problems. he's been held for 7 months without a trial in a small cell with no human interaction. how is that not malicious? you seem to think unless they piss in his food it's not malicious. well I'm contending holding him without a trial for 7 months knowing full well what the consequences will be is malicious

I think the problem here is that you're assuming there's some person standing over at the brig saying "ok, this is totally going to **** him up - let's do it." I seriously doubt there is. These are the rules. Are the rules rough? Yeah. Are they necessary rules? Yeah. You hold people who leak classified information in solitary. How is that not logical? Given this particular situation it may not be entirely necessary, but it's how it works. Maybe it's malicious that they decided not to break the rules that guide the incarceration of individuals who leak classified information? I guess that's one of those things where you'd have to read the minds of the people who have the power to break the rules. Or just ask them and have them outright say "Yeah we don't want to allow him to be integrated with other individuals in prison because we just don't like him." Malice is not just the idea of treating someone in a way that is not preferrable. Being malicious is PURPOSEFULLY doing so with ill intent. Doing what you do to everyone in the same situation doesn't suddenly make the military a big group of malicious assholes attacking this guy. They can be aware of the effects, but it doesn't mean it's malicious because they don't take action. I mean how would it? If doing what they always do for people who have allegedly done what he has done is malicious, then maybe it is for the originators of the practice to be questioned for their malicious intent for those who leak classified information.

 

[CptStern]

I think the problem here is that you're assuming there's some person standing over at the brig saying "ok, this is totally going to **** him up - let's do it."

no you're saying that

I seriously doubt there is. These are the rules. Are the rules rough? Yeah. Are they necessary rules? Yeah. You hold people who leak classified information in solitary. How is that not logical? Given this particular situation it may not be entirely necessary, but it's how it works. Maybe it's malicious that they decided not to break the rules that guide the incarceration of individuals who leak classified information? I guess that's one of those things where you'd have to read the minds of the people who have the power to break the rules. Or just ask them and have them outright say "Yeah we don't want to allow him to be integrated with other individuals in prison because we just don't like him." Malice is not just the idea of treating someone in a way that is not preferrable. Being malicious is PURPOSEFULLY doing so with ill intent. Doing what you do to everyone in the same situation doesn't suddenly make the military a big group of malicious assholes attacking this guy. They can be aware of the effects, but it doesn't mean it's malicious because they don't take action. I mean how would it? If doing what they always do for people who have allegedly done what he has done is malicious, then maybe it is for the originators of the practice to be questioned for their malicious intent for those who leak classified information.

so the torture of individuals at abu gharib was not malicious because they followed official interrogation manuals? is that what you're saying? that just because it's official procedure it couldnt possibly be by intent? even though the rules governing solitary confinement is up to the individuals involved in the confinement? at some point someone had to sign off on this. someone must have because he's been taken off suicide watch despite his deterioating mental health. that seems pretty purposeful

 

[VirusType2]

I'll just put this here. It's not a great source, but here's something about the right to a speedy trial, which is guaranteed by the US constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedy_trial

intended to ensure that defendants are not subjected to unreasonably lengthy incarceration prior to a fair trial.

It does give an example (in N.Y.) which is 6 months or less, except for cases of alleged murder.

 

[Krynn72]

So, are you saying you agree with us that what they're doing to him is wrong then?

 

[Maestro]

hurrrr, you guys are so edgy and coolio, being 'above' debate on the internet. Really, if your whole attitude is that law is unquestionable and there's no point talking about it, you shouldn't be in this thread. And if your response to arguments that point out the flaws in your own is to smugly claim the whole thing pointless after you've already gotten involved, you shouldn't be in this section of the forum.

I'll try and remember for future occasions that neither of you believe we can debate the ethics of any law or prosecution through the law.

I'm not 'above' debate, but I do recognize that nominally a debate's primary objective is to change the other person's (or, as it may happen, the audience's) worldview/position on a given subject. Name the last time you saw that happen on the internet, then throw in the constant use of the straw man and all his friends ad nauseam. The outcome is that the debate is meaningless, having achieved nothing but waste of time and mental energies of all parties involved. The bullheadedness people possess will generally prevent them from budging on a single point, lest they recognize their mistakes. I try to keep an open mind, but recognize my own logical biases and blindspots handicap me.

This debate sprung up of its own accord without any set initial objective or premises (yet another count against any meaningful or relevant discourse to be achieved). What I generally understood to be the premise of debate is whether he should be in solitary. On an ideological ground, I will say that my answer is (oh, the surprise!): NO. I avoid ideological debate for the aforementioned reasons, and prefer to restrict myself to the literal, absolute concerns of the laws involved. The physical realities lend themselves more readily to meaningful debate. I will energetically argue the merits of diesel vs. gasoline engines, the same I will not do for the existence of God.

I offered, therefore, the only real-world defense that could be raised on Mannings's part: secrecy and a plea of not-guilty. In the world of what is, that is his only plausible defense. In the world of what should be, anything resembling a definitive conclusion can never be reached because an infinite number of qualifiers and what-ifs will render any attempt at making one irrelevant.

I guess, what I am say here, is that without defined boundaries, time limits, and a receptive audience, a debate of any kind is a waste of time. I hope I have clarified my reasoning for why internet debate has little inherent value.

 

[No Limit]

Also, Sulk, you need to write a book, so I can buy hundreds of copies of it and give them to people to make them less idiotic.

+1 , although I hope we get a little discount.

 

[VirusType2]

America -- on the other side of the world -- has always sort of done it's own thing; incredibly progressive in some respects, and incredibly conservative in others, when compared to the seemingly tight-nit European community, which often has similar views on modern law.

I don't want to believe my country does "evil shit". In other words, I give it the benefit of the doubt; innocent until reasonably proven guilty.

A lot of our actions get condemned like we are savages, or we are breaking the law, and then, if you research, you find out it is actually within US law, or we are not yet a party to 'international law'.

The International Criminal Court (ICC or ICCt) is a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression (although it cannot currently exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression).

International Criminal Court

34 countries, including Russia have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute. The United States signed on December 31, 2000, but that signature was withdrawn under the Bush administration on May 6, 2002. A number of states, including China and India are critical of the court and have not signed the Rome Statute. The ICC can generally exercise jurisdiction only in cases where the accused [Bradley Manning] is a national [citizen] of a state party [USA is not a party to this law], the alleged crime [treason or espionage] took place on the territory of a state party [Iraq is/was also not party to international law], or a situation is referred to the court by the United Nations Security Council.

Furthermore, even if the US was a party to ICC:

The court is designed to complement existing national judicial systems: it can exercise its jurisdiction only when national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute such crimes. Primary responsibility to investigate and punish crimes is therefore left to individual states.

So you can see the US is legally excused, with the exception of international pressure. So if nothing else, that is the problem: laws are outdated/missing/abused/wrong/not signed in. We need people to argue that they need to be. We need to commit to laws that protect human rights, even when these humans are enemies of the state. We need people who could argue things without fearing of loosing their jobs or being "un-American" or being seen as overly concerned with: suspected, detained or convicted terrorist/traitor/criminal's rights.

Someone, somewhere in government, needs to give "the speech of a lifetime". I swear America needs leadership and change more than ever.

So, again, you will notice that I hold a presumption of innocence under the spirit of law, or at least the interpretation of the letter of the law, and when that gives way, the blame falls squarely on individuals, and these individuals must be held accountable. But if there is no accountability, if "nobody will say anything", then those are just as guilty -- just as complicit -- as having done it themselves.

A person awaiting an arraignment is called a detainee, and should be guaranteed freedom from harm.

Indefinite detention of an individual occurs frequently in wartime under the laws of war. This has been applied notably by the United States after the September 11, 2001 attacks. Before the Combatant Status Review Tribunals, created for reviewing the status of the Guantanamo detainees, the United States has argued that the United States is engaged in a legally cognizable armed conflict to which the laws of war apply, and that it therefore may hold captured al Qaeda and Taliban operatives throughout the duration of that conflict, without granting them a criminal trial.

How this high profile detainee in a prison could be mistreated, with 24 hour surveillance no less, means there must be many involved and many aware. The entire chain of command needs to be brought to justice.

And that brings me to the next point.

If it is not illegal, then it needs to be made illegal immediately. Show our suspects and detainees WHY this is a country worth defending, and do not give them reinforcement that the US is not a country worth defending. And the same goes for the treatment of terrorists suspects and prisoners. Treat them fairly. In essence, "you catch a lot more flies with honey than you do with shit" (so they say, at least). Treating a cooperative detainee humanely is the very least you can do.


I understand that he's almost certainly guilty of one of the biggest offenses in US history, during wartime no less.

And seven months of isolation is absolutely old school wrong... but they won't let him exercise? This accusation is terrifyingly bizarre, and I don't think there could be any reasonable explanation that can defend that course of action even when you take into account interpretation of the "letter of the law".

Isolation for the excuse that he could somehow transmit leaked information is hardly plausible in this case either, but the refusal to let him move his body for an unreasonable amount of time is just torture. He hasn't even been convicted yet, as if that should matter. Not only that, but it just creeps me out. What's next? Tape his eye-lids open? This is going to far. It's sadism and if it is true, it needs to be stopped, now.

Obama needs to kick in a ****ing door or two. But his hands are fairly well tied by irrational conservatives who throw around non-words like un-American for much less.

In a word, this is bullshit. The trampling of liberties needs to be stopped. If this is legal, the laws are wrong, missing, or outdated. If the government doesn't police itself, it has failed. It has failed itself and its people. Laws need to be updated (in their intended spirit) for the modern era and the Information Age. This is not something you can put off when human rights are concerned.

I hope this clarifies my unpopular position on my unpopular defense, of my unpopular country.

I am not some kind of emotional human rights activist. I am not a tank-stopping hippie. I am just a regular citizen, and if I'm honest, I have never concerned myself much for human rights of war prisoners or enemies of the state. And so I won't pretend that it's for a reason greater than USA's own benefit. At the very least, cold hearts, it is in the USA's interest to have a fair and respectable reputation. Believe it.

Please be active voters.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Good...post? Good post.

Starbob, you can tell us all you want that this is standard procedure and it's okay and it's necessary, but as plenty have argued whether it's standard procedure or not is a bit irrelevant to whether it's ethical and you have yet to demonstrate to us exactly why it's necessary. You are a willful example of what I said earlier about people who abuse the claim of necessity. You're swanning about allcappsing that "THIS IS NECESSARY" and you haven't explained the actual necessity.

Have you even read the article? Bradley Manning is:
- held in solitary confinement;.
- barred from exercising
- under constant surveillance
- denied of a pillow and sheets
- barred from reading the news

Now please tell us why each of these are necessary. It can't be to stop him leaking further stuff, because it's all out there already. It can't be to stop him radicalising the other prisoners, because they can just read it on the news. It can't be because he is violent and dangerous, because he isn't, and has been a peaceful prisoner so far. It can't be because he can have any effect whatsoever on anything by his actions, because he is held in prison, and he can't. Unless there's something about him which means it's a matter of genuine national security that he shouldn't be able to keep fit and sleep comfortable, this is malicious. In murder law, "malicious" just means 'with the intent to kill'; it's not a measure of someone's inner believes but of their intention as regards a concrete circumstance. So I define malicious here as harm inflicted without a reasonable purpose. And there is no reasonable purpose for what's being done to him. This is the deliberate ruination of a human being for political reasons. You continue to deny this reality by describing it with inadequate terms like "holding someone captive who is accused of a serious crime".

Your little tirade on the relation between ethics and democracy is a dodge. You are on shaky ground in claiming a democratic mandate for rules operating behind a veil of secrecy in one specific prison and made by a military organisation which is subject to its own bureaucratic concern and which is broadly led by a person who is appointed by a president who is elected on a first-past-the-post system in which many people's votes are pointless and in which the choice of candidates is between two parties both heavily bought into by private interests and both choosing their candidates through an opaque and convoluted system. But even if democracy is a reasonable description of this process, you're missing two things. One: the USA is run on the basis that certain rights are outside democracy and should be exceptionally hard for democracy to remove. This was the case with segregation, which probably would have been voted for well into the last half of the 20th century, but which was itself an affront against democracy (because people were being denied their voting rights). There is an argument to be made that the rights of prisoners trump the vote when there hasn't been any kind of specific referendum like "do we as a nation believe in torture". The second point is this: democracy means we all get to have an opinion. That's the whole point. If bastards are in power, that doesn't mean they aren't bastards. Everyone else can disagree. But telling us it doesn't matter because some imaginary silent majority who you haven't met is okay with torture even when its problems are very carefully explained to them is spurious. Your argument doesn't come from a genuine regard for democratic process. It comes from the fact that you believe in your heart that this guy shouldn't be treated like a human being and your fragile human reason is cynically grasping at any straw you can in order to justify it. Anyway, we shouldn't fetishize democracy. It's a means, not an end.

Solaris: the next time you make things so personal, you get an infraction. Cool it down.
Krynn, No Limit: I'll keep you posted. It's going to be called Arguing With Glenn Beck.

 

[Solaris]

Sulkdodds I tip my hat, and Starbob (if that is your real name) I withdraw my earlier comments and apologise.

 

[Some_God]

He signed the contract, the military owns his ass. He knew the risks, and did what he did anyway. Now, he is paying the price. Am I missing something?

 

[Maestro]

The premise of the argument is whether he deserves to be or should be put into solitary. The two primary arguments that seem to be showing are: by the letter of the law, yes, and by ethical standards, no.

 

[Krynn72]

Am I missing something?

Yes, the entire ethics discussion which has been in almost every single post in this thread.

 

[Bob_Marley]

Have you even read the article? Bradley Manning is:
- held in solitary confinement;.
- barred from exercising
- under constant surveillance
- denied of a pillow and sheets
- barred from reading the news

Aside from the barring of reading the news & possibly excercising, it is possible, however unlikley, that those are related to his safety. The fellow is probably on suicide watch (so no sheets, constant surveillance) and letting a chap accused of treason out into the general population of a military prison is probably a very good way to end up with said chap having a sharpend toothbrush jammed through his kidney. The last thing the US Military's PR department needs is this chap being found dead in a prison cell - if he is there will always be a question over who killed him and why (and an awful lot of conspiracy theories to go along with it)

 

[kineaesth]

Aside from the barring of reading the news & possibly excercising, it is possible, however unlikley, that those are related to his safety. The fellow is probably on suicide watch

nope

For reasons that appear completely punitive, he's being denied many of the most basic attributes of civilized imprisonment, including even a pillow or sheets for his bed (he is not and never has been on suicide watch).

And there's a substantial difference between being isolated from a prison community for safety, and being isolated in inhumane conditions for (???)

 

[Some_God]

The premise of the argument is whether he deserves to be or should be put into solitary. The two primary arguments that seem to be showing are: by the letter of the law, yes, and by ethical standards, no.

Yes, the entire ethics discussion which has been in almost every single post in this thread.

The military's ethics say he be put in solitary.

 

[kineaesth]

Facetiousness is truly ugly.

 

[unozero]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrtQywJzEk8&feature=sub

interesting Interview about why some celebs side with Asange not because they care about due process but because they support his retarded anti American/Government agenda.
Some of these people are so full of ****ing shit is sad...just as bad as neocon ****s.

 

[Krynn72]

I don't think Assange has an anti-american agenda, nor an anti-government one. His agenda merely strides for more responsible governments.

 

[unozero]

I don't think Assange has an anti-american agenda, nor an anti-government one. His agenda merely strides for more responsible governments.

That may be what he believes or it might be partiality true.
But there are many things in these leaks that have business being in the public eye.things like our plan to dismantle the North Korean regime once Kim dies and reunification under the South Korean flag.
Or things that are said in private like when Gates said that democracy is taking a backseat in Russia.
etc,know what I mean?

 

[Krynn72]

That may be what he believes or it might be partiality true.
But there are many things in these leaks that have business being in the public eye.things like our plan to dismantle the North Korean regime once Kim dies and reunification under the South Korean flag.
Or things that are said in private like when Gates said that democracy is taking a backseat in Russia.
etc,know what I mean?

Things that if we don't know about, could make for less responsible government, yes, I know what you mean.

 

[unozero]

Things that if we don't know about, could make for less responsible government, yes, I know what you mean.

*shakes head*

hopeless.

 

[Uriel]

You are making shit up. Because if you try to go over your commanding officer because you think he isn't dealing with misconduct properly you would be disciplined.

WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!!

So many of these posts are so frustrating to read, but this one takes the cake for me.
I cannot tell you how many briefings I've sat through concerning the LOAC and every single one of them have stated, multiple times, if there is a violation of the LOAC, it is your DUTY to report it/disobey the violation and if that must be accomplished by reporting it to the next higher level of command, then so be it.

And if that accomplishes nothing, after exhausting your options of using the chain of command, then every knucklehead should know what the next step is. And if you're that stupid to not know what to do next, you shouldn't be an intelligence analyst.

WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN (without any specific details to prevent classified information from being leaked, which should be obvious.)

I learned that the first day I was at basic training.

 

[Krynn72]

So then why don't people do it?

 

[Sparta]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrtQywJzEk8&feature=sub

interesting Interview about why some celebs side with Asange not because they care about due process but because they support his retarded anti American/Government agenda.
Some of these people are so full of ****ing shit is sad...just as bad as neocon ****s.

Did you hear the John Pilger interview at all? Because this is the exact opposite of everything he said in the interview and this is simply what the other journalist accused him of, which is a popular argument for anyone who is defending Wikileaks these days. That Wikileaks clearly have some kind of anti-American agenda because they've only published American cables and therefore popular with the left because of that, and those that hate America should go to China. It's utter nonsense and completely false.

Then there is the fact that journalist believes he has actually committed a crime by publishing classified material and still refers to herself as a journalist. That is absolutely ridiculous.

Wikileaks have simply leaked whatever has been sent to them to leak. The entire point of their organisation isn't to pick and choose what to leak and what not to leak, but to show all of the information they've obtained so that others can piece together the story for themselves. They've stated this multiple times throughout their entire history. Whether or not you agree with that method is up to you, but simply because the majority of this year they've spent releasing classified U.S. material isn't because of an anti-American bias, it's because of the huge amount of information leaked to them by Bradley Manning and nothing more. Coupling this with their political agenda of more transparency in governments, this is how people have interpreted these leaks as anti-American when they're not.

 

[No Limit]

WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!!

If what you just said is true then the system is even more ****ed up than we thought, isn't it? Because plenty of people saw our military shoot up an unarmed ambulance without provocation. So if what you say is true, that there is a good system for reporting this type of thing, then nobody that saw this even thinked to report it. It didn't even click with anyone that what they were seeing was wrong.

But I don't think this is as simple as your training wants you to believe it is. I think it's far more complicated since the person knows that their career could be on the line for speaking out.

Edit: typos.

 

[Uriel]

If what you just said is true then the system is even more ****ed up than we thought, isn't it? Because plenty of people saw our military shoot up an unarmed ambulance without provocation. So if what you say is true, that there is a good system for reporting this type of thing, then nobody that saw this even thinked to report it. It didn't even click with anyone that what they were seeing was wrong.

But I don't think this is as simple as your training wants you to believe it is. I think it's far more complicated since the person knows that their career could be on the line for speaking out.

Edit: typos.

I don't know how many people actually witnessed the video before it was released, so I cannot say how many people withheld information. But nonetheless, with the military hitting so hard on reporting LOAC violations, Private Bradley, should have been able to report what he saw through his chain of command. But he didn't. Which only leads to more reason that he leaked classified material to "get back" at the Army and not to report LOAC violations. Especially considering he was bragging about it.

Really, the two briefings that I have heard time and time again are:

1. Reporting LOAC violations and specifics of the LOAC
2. Sexual Harassment Briefings

And it's not complicated to report something. Yeah, sometimes it does require balls as does reporting anything inside or out of the military, but wouldn't stealing classified documents and leaking them to outside sources also require balls? Again, it only points to his true intentions more and more.

So then why don't people do it?

I don't know if they don't or do. I haven't seen any statistics or studies concerning LOAC violations being withheld so it's difficult to say what generally happens. What I can say again though, is that I have had thorough briefings specifically geared toward LOAC violations along with material that also covers it and it's your duty to report it, even if it means skipping a tier of leadership if whomever you regularly report to is involved.

 

[No Limit]

I don't know how many people actually witnessed the video before it was released, so I cannot say how many people withheld information.

How many do you think did see it?