Bradley Manning: Traitor?

[HapSmo19]

Bradley Manning


Change you can believe in

“The real measure of civilization in any society can be found in the way it treats its most unfortunate citizens – its prisoners.” – Winston Churchill."

It’s a shame that Julian Assange is fixated solely with refusing to believe a girl wouldn’t want to f*ck him, otherwise maybe he’d devote less time to his self-obsessed preening and more to highlighting that while he ponces around in front of the world’s media, the Obama administration is mentally destroying the man who gave him all that information in the first place.
While still keeping Guantanamo Bay open and re-starting military trials without juries there.


U-S-A! U-S-A!

I look like that in mornings too!

war is hell

[SirSebstar]

I was not aware that the USA has declared war on manning, even so the geneva convention should be followed with respect to prisoners of war.

[thegreekdog]

Which part? The part where Manning should be thanking his captors for the torture or the part where without Manning and other whistleblowers from the millitary, we wouldn't know about some of the criminal activities of our government?

The part where he suggests that Manning is not actually a hero for releasing the information. What percentage of the information released was something that shocked and appalled you? What specific pieces of information made you rethink how the military/government is run? I believe there was a piece of information, widely circulated by the US media, that the US thinks that Bersculoni likes blondes. There was some pretty ridiculous, irrelevant stuff there. Was Manning motivated by greed or was he motivated to do the "right thing?"

I don't agree with everything Hanibal typed, but I tend to think we shouldn't treat Manning as a hero, more like an opportunist.

[SirSebstar]

If manning can be typed as a whistleblower (or as traitor for that matter) does it matter what his motivation was?
Obvioulsy manning dumped a lot of material, most of which has no world shocking value, but then ask yourself what piece is? That an agent booked a room in the watergate hotel? or is it the implication that followed?

Considering the non legal implications that gov't is still ineffective, inappropriate and foolish.well, we cannot be reminded often enough it seems to me

[BigBallinStalin]

Wrong in what sense?

It's right (even morally right) for the intelligence community to have him punished in such a manner, so that they can properly extract some sort of confession from him. From their standpoint, it's a moral imperative to defend their own image and that of the state's.

Is that all it's about? Getting a confession? Not finding out whether he's truly guilty or not, and if he is, of what, but just getting a confession?



What's next? Electroshocks to speed up the process? Regular beatings?

The USA have imposed rules on themselves regarding the treatment of people, its own citizens, humans in general, prisoners and suspects. The USA like to hold up other countries to their rules criticising human-rights abuses, promoting democracy, fighting for civil rights, and so on and so forth. Here we have another case (besides Guantanamo and the "detention facilities" overseas) where these self-imposed rules are being disregarded completely, that is the sense in which it is wrong. For you as a US resident, and I assume citizen, it should be doubly worrying that even US citizens no longer are treated in accordance with the laws you still have.

Of course, if you disagree with such things as suspects receiving a fair trial, the presumption of innocence, or think that human and civil rights in general are overrated I can see why you would be of the opinion that Manning is being treated as he should. But even then the fact remains that he is not being treated according to the rules.

Hey, I'm merely stating the logic behind their moves. I'm not really taking one particular moral stance on this, and I also agree with the second underlined. The first underlined mainly means that the US acts hypocritically. It's a far cry from what the founding fathers of this nation really had in mind.

[MeDeFe]

Hey, I'm merely stating the logic behind their moves. I'm not really taking one particular moral stance on this, and I also agree with the second underlined. The first underlined mainly means that the US acts hypocritically. It's a far cry from what the founding fathers of this nation really had in mind.

I think the "logic" behind their moves is far simpler than what you suggested. It's more along the lines of "that sonofabitch fucked us over good, he's gonna pay".

[Woodruff]

Well, if that's the case, then it makes sense to imprison him before they convict him, so that he doesn't escape, since the gravity of this crime is so high. They won't take that risk of letting him escape before the trial because it would make the US government look extremely foolish.
Does everyone agree with that reasoning?

Of course he should be held. That's just basic sense. It's not that he's being held, it's the MANNER IN WHICH he's being held that is the issue.

Wrong in what sense?

It's right (even morally right) for the intelligence community to have him punished in such a manner, so that they can properly extract some sort of confession from him. From their standpoint, it's a moral imperative to defend their own image and that of the state's.

It's morally right for the intelligence community to torture an American citizen in order to get him to say what they want him to say? Is that really what I'm hearing you say?

[Woodruff]

Which part? The part where Manning should be thanking his captors for the torture or the part where without Manning and other whistleblowers from the millitary, we wouldn't know about some of the criminal activities of our government?

The part where he suggests that Manning is not actually a hero for releasing the information.

I don't necessarily consider him a hero (at this point...pending further information). I am merely outraged at the way he is being treated.

[thegreekdog]

Which part? The part where Manning should be thanking his captors for the torture or the part where without Manning and other whistleblowers from the millitary, we wouldn't know about some of the criminal activities of our government?

The part where he suggests that Manning is not actually a hero for releasing the information.

I don't necessarily consider him a hero (at this point...pending further information). I am merely outraged at the way he is being treated.

I agree. I don't think Hanibal's post was directed at you specifically.

[bedub1]

"Yes, I am a criminal. My crime is that of curiosity. My crime is that of judging people by what they say and think, not what they look like. My crime is that of outsmarting you, something that you will never forgive me for. I am a hacker, and this is my manifesto."

Yes, he is a traitor. Obama, his supreme Commander-in-Chief, should give him a pardon.

[BigBallinStalin]

Wrong in what sense?

It's right (even morally right) for the intelligence community to have him punished in such a manner, so that they can properly extract some sort of confession from him. From their standpoint, it's a moral imperative to defend their own image and that of the state's.

It's morally right for the intelligence community to torture an American citizen in order to get him to say what they want him to say? Is that really what I'm hearing you say?

Sure, it just depends on which set of morals one would like to apply.

[Symmetry]

"Yes, I am a criminal. My crime is that of curiosity. My crime is that of judging people by what they say and think, not what they look like. My crime is that of outsmarting you, something that you will never forgive me for. I am a hacker, and this is my manifesto."

Yes, he is a traitor. Obama, his supreme Commander-in-Chief, should give him a pardon.

Although it is worth pointing out that that's not a quote from Manning.

[Hannibał]

Thankyou, I was wondering that myself

[Symmetry]

It's a quote from a hacker called Lloyd Blankenship from 1986. I also posted a couple of bits about McCain and his opinions on solitary back on page 3 if you're still interested in talking about how long term solitary confinement measures up. It's a long article though.

[Woodruff]

Wrong in what sense?

It's right (even morally right) for the intelligence community to have him punished in such a manner, so that they can properly extract some sort of confession from him. From their standpoint, it's a moral imperative to defend their own image and that of the state's.

It's morally right for the intelligence community to torture an American citizen in order to get him to say what they want him to say? Is that really what I'm hearing you say?

Sure, it just depends on which set of morals one would like to apply.

While I understand the intellectual point you're trying to make...quite honestly, that just leads me to believe that your view of morality should be ignored.

[Hannibał]

I understand solitary confinment most likley SUCKS..but you know how I avoid knowing for sure? I don't commit crimes. I never said his treatment was club fed, just stated the obvious that it could be worse.. also we don't know what really goes on, he could be throwing feces on guards for all we know. I leave the corrections to the MPs, I wouldn't want that job. And solitary confinment is widely practiced everywhere in the world, with more then 1 ex-con has been proven wrongfully convicted (with much more time under their belt then this kid) are you against all solitary confinment, or just his?

[Woodruff]

I understand solitary confinment most likley SUCKS..but you know how I avoid knowing for sure? I don't commit crimes. I never said his treatment was club fed, just stated the obvious that it could be worse.

Actually...by many accounts from real POWs, there isn't much at all worse than solitary confinement.

are you against all solitary confinment, or just his?

I'm certainly against all solitary confinement when there has been no crime committed. And so far, there has been no crime committed.

[Symmetry]

I understand solitary confinment most likley SUCKS..but you know how I avoid knowing for sure? I don't commit crimes. I never said his treatment was club fed, just stated the obvious that it could be worse.. also we don't know what really goes on, he could be throwing feces on guards for all we know. I leave the corrections to the MPs, I wouldn't want that job. And solitary confinment is widely practiced everywhere in the world, with more then 1 ex-con has been proven wrongfully convicted (with much more time under their belt then this kid) are you against all solitary confinment, or just his?

All long term solitary confinement, yes. In the short term- a day or two, no. You asked me to look at what John McCain and other POW's said about torture. They say that long term solitary confinement was worse than the physical brutality. I'm up for looking at evidence otherwise if you've seen any. Otherwise I'd say that minds take longer to mend than bones, and are broken with more casual cruelty.

As for the feces? He's in solitary, according to prison authorities, because of a suicide risk. That's the justification. The doctors who've examined him say there's no such risk.

[Hannibał]

I should have specified, I meant ask john mccain and pows about torture meaning their nails being ripped out, limbs repeatedly broken for years, watching friends die off one by one wondering when its your turn,living in cages in the jungle, those sort of things. I have no doubts confinment would do terrible things for the human mind and does more harm then good considering the return rate of convicts and the well documented mental issues they have.

[Symmetry]

I should have specified, I meant ask john mccain and pows about torture meaning their nails being ripped out, limbs repeatedly broken for years, watching friends die off one by one wondering when its your turn,living in cages in the jungle, those sort of things. I have no doubts confinment would do terrible things for the human mind and does more harm then good considering the return rate of convicts and the well documented mental issues they have.

Absolutely and I understand your point, but all I'm saying is that McCain and other POWs said that solitary confinement was the worst part.

The quote again:

“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."

Reading the whole article changed my mind about a lot of things I assumed about long term solitary confinement. It's up to you if you find it worth your time- as I said, it's long. I would recommend it though.
Is Long Term Solitary Confinement Torture

[BigBallinStalin]

Wrong in what sense?

It's right (even morally right) for the intelligence community to have him punished in such a manner, so that they can properly extract some sort of confession from him. From their standpoint, it's a moral imperative to defend their own image and that of the state's.

It's morally right for the intelligence community to torture an American citizen in order to get him to say what they want him to say? Is that really what I'm hearing you say?

Sure, it just depends on which set of morals one would like to apply.

While I understand the intellectual point you're trying to make...quite honestly, that just leads me to believe that your view of morality should be ignored.

What is my view of morality?

[spurgistan]

Wrong in what sense?

It's right (even morally right) for the intelligence community to have him punished in such a manner, so that they can properly extract some sort of confession from him. From their standpoint, it's a moral imperative to defend their own image and that of the state's.

It's morally right for the intelligence community to torture an American citizen in order to get him to say what they want him to say? Is that really what I'm hearing you say?

Sure, it just depends on which set of morals one would like to apply.

While I understand the intellectual point you're trying to make...quite honestly, that just leads me to believe that your view of morality should be ignored.

What is my view of morality?

Your view of morality appears to consider torture to be occasionally moral, at least in the case of proving the guilt of a leaker of classified documents. That's all I've gotten out of it from this exchange, and I believe that's what Comrade Woody was referring to.

[spurgistan]

I understand solitary confinment most likley SUCKS..but you know how I avoid knowing for sure? I don't commit crimes. I never said his treatment was club fed, just stated the obvious that it could be worse.. also we don't know what really goes on, he could be throwing feces on guards for all we know. I leave the corrections to the MPs, I wouldn't want that job. And solitary confinment is widely practiced everywhere in the world, with more then 1 ex-con has been proven wrongfully convicted (with much more time under their belt then this kid) are you against all solitary confinment, or just his?

You seem to make a lot of decisions based off your own conjectures. All I've got are the reported facts. If there were a rationalization for his solitary confinement and abuse, pretty sure it would be mentioned. Same way the hundreds of dead, burned spies would be mentioned. But they're not. Because they don't exist.

[Woodruff]

Wrong in what sense?

It's right (even morally right) for the intelligence community to have him punished in such a manner, so that they can properly extract some sort of confession from him. From their standpoint, it's a moral imperative to defend their own image and that of the state's.

It's morally right for the intelligence community to torture an American citizen in order to get him to say what they want him to say? Is that really what I'm hearing you say?

Sure, it just depends on which set of morals one would like to apply.

While I understand the intellectual point you're trying to make...quite honestly, that just leads me to believe that your view of morality should be ignored.

What is my view of morality?

You appear to be advocating that any action can be justified by claiming "morality". That is not a view I can agree with.

[BigBallinStalin]

Wrong in what sense?

It's right (even morally right) for the intelligence community to have him punished in such a manner, so that they can properly extract some sort of confession from him. From their standpoint, it's a moral imperative to defend their own image and that of the state's.

It's morally right for the intelligence community to torture an American citizen in order to get him to say what they want him to say? Is that really what I'm hearing you say?

Sure, it just depends on which set of morals one would like to apply.

What is my view of morality?

Your view of morality appears to consider torture to be occasionally moral, at least in the case of proving the guilt of a leaker of classified documents. That's all I've gotten out of it from this exchange, and I believe that's what Comrade Woody was referring to.

I'm only playing the devil's advocate on this one.