# The Torture of Bradley Manning



## Makalakumu (Dec 24, 2010)

http://www.truth-out.org/the-torture-bradley-manning66147



> The peerless Glenn Greenwald  in this case gets it wrong when he says Manning's treatment is  "possibly" torture. Isolation is torture and has been proven to be so.  Hardened prisoners have said they would take almost any other punishment  for misbehavior over isolation and its effects on the mind and the  spirit. According to Greenwald, Manning has been kept in his cell  without any human contact whatsoever for 23 out of 24 hours every day  for six months, is prohibited from exercising in his cell, takes his  meals alone and is being administered what he is told are  anti-depressants by the prison doctor to keep his mind from snapping  from the effects of the constant, steady quiet, the artificial light  which makes it impossible to distinguish night from day and the  aloneness with one's own thoughts. Hard as it may be to understand  without experiencing it, interaction with other humans, even other  accused, is a vital part of the touchstones with reality which frame our  psyche. In testimony introduced at the trial of another prisoner  accused of material assistance to terrorists, Fahad Hashmi,who was held in isolation for two years, doctors concluded that:
> "after 60 days' solitary detention people's mental  state begins to break down and gradually develops into psychosis as the  mind disintegrates."​



Thoughts?


----------



## billc (Dec 24, 2010)

As long as it isn't cruel, which this doesn't sound like it is, in fact, they may be keeping him isolated for his own safety, and as long as it isn't unusual, you would need to look at the universal code of millitary justice on this, I'm fine with it.  It sounds like he wasn't very stable to begin with when he conducted espionage/treason by stealing the classified documents.  There are consequenses to committing crimes, and long periods of isolation are part of that process.  There are prisoners in federal prisons who are under 24 hours a day lock down as well, the millitary side should be expected to be more severe than the civillian side, it is part of being in the millitary.


----------



## WC_lun (Dec 24, 2010)

It is a double edged sword.  If they keep him in solitairitary, he will suffer.  I don't think it is acceptable under normal circumstances to keep a prisoner in solitairy for long stretches of time.  Creating prisoners with psycotic breaks with reality isn't helpful for anyone involved.  However, any contact with fellow inmates, who we must remember are criminals, also puts his life at risk.  That isn't aceptable either, especially for a prisoner who has yet to be convicted of a crime.  Like a lot of things, I don't know the answer to this puzzle.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 24, 2010)

Bradley Manning is stands accused of a number of felonies. Keeping him in custody, until his trial is then, a given.
He is in a military facility. Every other detainee in that facility knows what Manning is accused of. It may well be in his best interests that he remains in solitary confinement.
For the same reasons rapists and child molesters are kept away from other inmates. Remember, all the people he is locked up with volunteered to serve in the US military. Some of his fellow criminals may not like the idea of a traitor in their midst...


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 24, 2010)

Assuming that Manning is guilty, is he a traitor if he helps reveal to the American people crimes that the State is committing?  Isn't that like calling an informant on a criminal gang a traitor?  Also, isn't it possible to hold Manning without torturing him?  Perhaps the State is simply trying to sweat Manning out in order to get a confession that'll kill Wikileaks and Assange?


----------



## billc (Dec 24, 2010)

What crimes did he disclose?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 24, 2010)

billcihak said:


> What crimes did he disclose?



Here's one...

http://www.collateralmurder.com/

Google War Crimes Revealed by Wikileaks for a list of articles.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 24, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> Here's one...
> 
> http://www.collateralmurder.com/


A specific link maybe? That is a link to a website's home page, a virulently anti-war and anti-anything American website, btw...
Maybe Reuters won't embed their news crews with terrorists anymore...


----------



## billc (Dec 24, 2010)

Watched the video, what is the crime?  You have reporters mixed in with what was assumed to be hostile enemies armed with rifles.  At no point did the pilots say let's kill unarmed civillians and journalists.  You are dealing with terrorists hiding among civillians.  Before people get up in arms about journalists getting killed, keep in mind some of the video of the terrorists.  I remember one of a sniper and his partner killing an american soldier who was standing in a market.  While the sniper killed the American soldier, the other guy took video of the killing, which they then posted on various websites.  Since you cannot clearly tell that what is slung over the individuals shoulders is in fact a camera, and the other guys in the group actually have rifles, what is the crime.  It is a war zone, with terrorists hiding behind the cover of civillians.  This is why Geneva was never meant to cover terrorists.  It was meant to protect civillians as much as possible in conflicts by protecting soldiers who did not endanger civillians unnecessarily.


----------



## billc (Dec 24, 2010)

I guess war zone has no context for civillians sitting at home in the states.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 24, 2010)

Thoughts? 

Boo-hooo-hooo!!!

Merry Christmas!!

[yt]khFolvliZeQ[/yt]
[yt]FCAJCVait8o[/yt]


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 25, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Watched the video, what is the crime?  You have reporters mixed in with what was assumed to be hostile enemies armed with rifles.  At no point did the pilots say let's kill unarmed civillians and journalists.  You are dealing with terrorists hiding among civillians.  Before people get up in arms about journalists getting killed, keep in mind some of the video of the terrorists.  I remember one of a sniper and his partner killing an american soldier who was standing in a market.  While the sniper killed the American soldier, the other guy took video of the killing, which they then posted on various websites.  Since you cannot clearly tell that what is slung over the individuals shoulders is in fact a camera, and the other guys in the group actually have rifles, what is the crime.  It is a war zone, with terrorists hiding behind the cover of civillians.  This is why Geneva was never meant to cover terrorists.  It was meant to protect civillians as much as possible in conflicts by protecting soldiers who did not endanger civillians unnecessarily.



Excuses don't matter when it's a war crime.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 25, 2010)

Big Don said:


> A specific link maybe? That is a link to a website's home page, a virulently anti-war and anti-anything American website, btw...



Dude, the site comes right from Wikileaks.  I'm sorry its not MSNBC or Fox, but they don't seem to be reporting on this.  They report on whether or not Bradley Manning is gay.  

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1012/01/sitroom.02.html

"Manning, according to friends, was gay and felt he was ridiculed in the  military for it.  In an instant message shortly before he was taken  into custody, Manning wrote, "I've been isolated so long.  I just wanted  to be nice and live a long normal life, but events kept forcing me to  figure out ways to survive, smart enough to know what's going on, but  helpless to do anything.  No one took any notice of me."

Are those the kind of sources you want?


----------



## Big Don (Dec 25, 2010)

Um, "I acted in a manner that made my fellow soldiers hate me, and was too much of a self-absorbed little pissant, it didn't matter to me how my fellow soldiers felt about my behavior." Isn't and has never been an excuse for treason.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 25, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> Dude, the site comes right from Wikileaks.
> Are those the kind of sources you want?


That is pretty funny, considering Assange claims Manning wasn't the leak...


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 25, 2010)

Big Don said:


> Um, "I acted in a manner that made my fellow soldiers hate me, and was too much of a self-absorbed little pissant, it didn't matter to me how my fellow soldiers felt about my behavior." Isn't and has never been an excuse for treason.



Dude, are you insinuating that Bradley Manning may have released the documents because he was a little wuss who was hated by his fellow soldiers and...

?????

Where did you ever come up with that?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 25, 2010)

Big Don said:


> That is pretty funny, considering Assange claims Manning wasn't the leak...



What's pretty funny?  Non sequitur.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 25, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> Dude, are you insinuating that Bradley Manning may have released the documents because he was a little wuss who was hated by his fellow soldiers and...


 Uh no, you insinuated that.





> ?????
> 
> Where did you ever come up with that?


Your post HERE


maunakumu said:


> What's pretty funny?  Non sequitur.


Your citing Wikileaks and then denying the claims forwarded in the citation, that is pretty funny.


maunakumu said:


> Dude, the site comes right from Wikileaks.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 25, 2010)

Big Don said:


> Uh no, you insinuated that.
> Your post HERE
> 
> Your citing Wikileaks and then denying the claims forwarded in the citation, that is pretty funny.



Oh, I see now.  I think you missed my point.  I cited wikileaks and you wanted something that was less "biased" so I posted a mainstream source that shows the bias in the other direction.  Apparently the MSM feels the need to assassinate Manning's character by insinuating that he was gay.  Not that this matters to me, but for many American's that matters enough to discredit him.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 25, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> Assuming that Manning is guilty, is he a traitor if he helps reveal to the American people crimes that the State is committing?



That's Irrelevant.

You can call him a Hero, a Traitor, or a freaking Banana... what we think doesn't matter, its what his fellow inmates think that may put his life at risk if he is released from Solitary.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 25, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> That's Irrelevant.
> 
> You can call him a Hero, a Traitor, or a freaking Banana... what we think doesn't matter, its what his fellow inmates think that may put his life at risk if he is released from Solitary.



He doesn't have to be kept in solitary in order to keep him safe.  I don't know why people assume that.  It's like people are thinking that if he's not in solitary, they'll plunk him down in General.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 25, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> He doesn't have to be kept in solitary in order to keep him safe.  I don't know why people assume that.  It's like people are thinking that if he's not in solitary, they'll plunk him down in General.



IIRC, and I may not, Military prisons are divided up into only 2 or 3 groupings and all of them put inmates in contact with each other on a fairly regular basis.  I don't know what the accommodations might be to put him "Not by himself, but not with other inmates".

That being said, while I don't necessarily agree with keeping him isolated, what are you gonna say if they move him out of it and hes beaten or killed?

 "oops?"


----------



## billc (Dec 25, 2010)

Unless one of us is an actual guard at a military prison, I don't think any of us knows where he is being held, or why, specifically that he is being held there.  Who here is a military guard at the prison where this guy is being held?


----------



## crushing (Dec 25, 2010)

Solitary Confinement and it can be defined in a couple different ways, which may be causing some of the confusion here.  One definition is a method is to keep the prisoner away from the other prisoners (not necessasrily prison staff) to prevent harm from coming to the prisoner.  Another definition is forced isolation in a small space and the denial of contact with other persons.  The second description is often used as a punishment for unruly prisoners, but is considered cruel and unusual punishment (torture) when done for extended periods of time.  It appears from the article that Manning's months long solitary confinement was of the punitive type, not simply a separate cell to protect him from the other prisoners.


----------



## crushing (Mar 16, 2011)

By now Manning could have been convinced he shot Kennedy.


----------



## granfire (Mar 16, 2011)

crushing said:


> By now Manning could have been convinced he shot Kennedy.


And Lincoln?


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 16, 2011)

whats that line from the old Baretta tv show? oh yeah

Dont do the crime if you cant do the time.

boo freaking hoo, the TRAITOR isnt getting treated well enough?

one round, right in the back of the head


----------



## granfire (Mar 16, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> whats that line from the old Baretta tv show? oh yeah
> 
> Dont do the crime if you cant do the time.
> 
> ...



Hmm, it's on the prosecutor to PROOF that he is in _fact _guilty, and even then there are those pesky constitutional rights about cruel and unusual punishments. 
So (didn't we go there before) unless there is a court ruling that he has indeed handed over material he is to be considered innocent. And even if he is sentenced, you still don't get to do with him what you want. 

Somewhere in that there is the problem that even though with signing on the dotted line to swore to obey orders, a soldier cannot be forced to actions that are clearly illegal and immoral, nor can they be expected to cover illegal activities, now can they.

While nobody likes a whistle blower (which are frequently and quickly called traitors, or worse) they also have a certain degree of protection under the law.

Naturally, there are always 2 different classes of people under the sun: Those who know people, and those who don't.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 16, 2011)

well, i dont know much, but i do know that you aint supposed to take classified documents and give them to freaky albino looking australian people


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Mar 16, 2011)

Maunakumu you are out there man... everything I have ever seen you post or say is so laced with conspiracies.. I have this picture in my head of you like how Mel Gibson was in that movie..."the pelican brief?" I cant remember... you crack me up though.

personally for treason I say double tap to his dome.
problem solved
I dont give a crap if he rots in that cell.
he gave the papers, the rest is a stupid technicality. I say throw him in gen pop, let the other prisoners rip him to shreads.


----------



## billc (Mar 16, 2011)

Wasn't that movie called "Conspiracy Theory."  Not one of his best, but they did waterboard him if I remember correctly.  And that was before waterboarding was the "in" thing to do.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 16, 2011)

The movie you were thinking of, Lucky: Conspiracy Theory, Mel and old horseface


----------



## granfire (Mar 16, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> well, i dont know much, but i do know that you aint supposed to take classified documents and give them to freaky albino looking australian people



Well, the people 'in charge' are not supposed to classify toilet paper and they certainly don't have a free pass...

Government only works when the checks and balances work.

In any case. if they had the evidence, they would have nailed him to the barracks door by now...does that not give you pause to think? 

You think it's ok to lock somebody up without trial until they can make something stick or make sure he's wackadoodle? And don't tell me they don't have the time for it. For high profile stuff is always time.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Mar 16, 2011)

Big Don said:


> The movie you were thinking of, Lucky: Conspiracy Theory, Mel and old horseface


 
ya my bad... I could not remember the name, I just know everytime Maunu posts Mels character in that movie jumps up front and center.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 16, 2011)

The military doesnt really HAVE "rights" as civilians understand them.
Thats one of the things you take a chance on when you sign up. And as far as that goes, they could have all the evidence in the world, but with Eric Holder in charge, they might never press charges....



granfire said:


> Well, the people 'in charge' are not supposed to classify toilet paper and they certainly don't have a free pass...
> 
> Government only works when the checks and balances work.
> 
> ...


----------



## David43515 (Mar 16, 2011)

IIRC, he`s been on suicide watch since he was arerested. That means a guard checks on him every 15 minutes 24 hrs a day. Not the most comforting situation, but hardly isolation either.If he`s convicted solitary will be the least of his problems. Many of the charges against him carry the possabl|ility of the death sentence. Treason, espionage, lending aid and comfort to the enemy, etc.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 16, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> The military doesnt really HAVE "rights" as civilians understand them.



The UCMJ Sections 830-835, Articles 30-35 disagree with you.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 16, 2011)

once again, yo know not of what you speak Slick.

The bill of rights? doesnt appy to military

military poeple for example do not have freedom of speech, or the right to assemble

civilians cant be charged with "the general article, that covers whatever we want it to thats not under anything else"

we have to request a trial of our peers, most often we are punished my non-judicial punishment, Cant recall seeing that in the bill of rights......

there are some, different rights that military personal have, but it isnt the same things that civilians think of when they hear "right"

serve before you speak of it Slick. You will humiliate yourself less often. I know it is just a knee jerk reaction for you to disagree with me, but in this case at least, you are in the corner with the pointy hat on


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 16, 2011)

Folks,
If you can't play nice, play elsewhere.  Stick to the issues at hand, and leave off the name calling.  Before we have to put moderator hats on...


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 16, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> serve before you speak of it Slick. You will humiliate yourself less often. I know it is just a knee jerk reaction for you to disagree with me, but in this case at least, you are in the corner with the pointy hat on



You did not say "Bill of Rights", nor did you say "Freedom of Speech", or anything other than "rights."  Does the UCMJ Sections 830-835, Articles 30-35 specify rights of accused servicemembers or not?


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 16, 2011)

This is what i said

"The military doesnt really HAVE "rights" as civilians understand them."

that is not specific, it is not discussing any ONE thing. It is a generalization, and I stand by it, the structure of a service member's so call "rights" is radically different than what a civilian typically thinks of.

you are picking nits to avoid admitting you made an honest mistake.

to err is human, you can admitt it,I will even go a step further there Slick. In this case, we can BOTH be right, since what i said i clearly true, and the ucmj does outline some rights, even if they are not the same as a civilians.

so, we are, in a way, BOTH right


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 16, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> that is not specific, it is not discussing any ONE thing. It is a generalization, and I stand by it, the structure of a service member's so call "rights" is radically different than what a civilian typically thinks of.
> 
> you are picking nits to avoid admitting you made an honest mistake.



And yet the part of the UCMJ that I referred to does establish rights that are being violated in Bradley Manning's case, such as _habeas corpus_.  Hardly "picking nits" in this conversation.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 16, 2011)

just cant admitt it can you?


----------

