The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning's detention

[Trident1]

Manning wasn't meant for the military. He chose it as a last recourse after being fired umpteen times from other jobs for being so outspoken i.e. having a big fucking mouth.

As a private you follow orders like it or not. Manning did not do that as he felt he was entitled. Idiot.

 

[TheOrangeCat]

Manning wasn't meant for the military. He chose it as a last recourse after being fired umpteen times from other jobs for being so outspoken i.e. having a big fucking mouth.

As a private you follow orders like it or not. Manning did not do that as he felt he was entitled. Idiot.

Exactly.

If you don't like being told what to do; if you can't run headfirst into a machine gun nest when told to; if you don't understand that signing up involves signing a legal undertaking - a contract - that obliges you to die or kill in exchange for money and other benefits; if you're not prepared to lay your beliefs and ideals aside an follow a chain of command ...

Don't join the military.

How difficult is that to figure that out?

I'm not saying what Manning did was morally wrong. I may even agree with the underlying principle(s).

But if you can't do the time, don't do the crime and, let's be under no illusions here, he committed a crime. And in our society - the society that gave him the freedom to chose to do what he did - we live under a social contract that punishes crime, no matter how noble the motives.

It's unfortunate his cell isn't to his liking or to the liking of those fuming with outrage.

But the next time a drunk driver mows down someone they love, I doubt they'll be protesting outside his prison after he is punished for breaking the law, or care that he only drank and drive because he had to get to the hospital to see his dying Mom.

Manning, like our hypothetical drunk driver, made a choice.

And like our drunk driver, one of the consequences of that choice is not having the freedom to chose your own prison, cell or how the justice machine deals with you.

And he fucking well knew it.

 

[LaLiLuLeLohan]

That's the most ridiculous thing you've said in a while. Did you even read your own links?

"They were provided in violation of U.S. law and without regard for the grave consequences of this action," he said. Koh said WikiLeaks should not publish the documents, return them to the U.S. government and destroy any copies it may have in its possession or in computer databases.

The State Department said Koh's message was a response to a letter received on Friday by the U.S. ambassador to Britain, Louis Susman, from Assange and his lawyer, Jennifer Robinson. The department said that letter asked for information "regarding individuals who may be 'at significant risk of harm' because of" the release of the documents.

"Despite your stated desire to protect those lives, you have done the opposite and endangered the lives of countless individuals," Koh wrote in reply. "You have undermined your stated objective by disseminating this material widely, without redaction, and without regard to the security and sanctity of the lives your actions endanger."


Here I had to pull it out for you.

So the State Department's warning trumps the fact that it refused to cooperate, in any fashion, with Wikileaks in order to secure that certain individuals are not placed in any harmful scenario?

Koh's letter was in response to Assange's letter to The State Department requesting assistance to keep crucial names redacted. The response:

"we will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials.”

I'll admit that I don't know your particular political philosophy, but I do find it amusing..no, intriguing, that many of the same people who, just one year ago, thought that the Federal government was wanting to take our guns, throw grandma in the gas chamber and undermine capitalism are now the very same who accept the State Department's word as gospel. I'm not saying that you are in that category, but the type seems to be running rampant lately.

The State Department could have both condemned Wikileaks and worked to have certain info redacted. It didn't. We bought off "al Qaeda in Iraq" and are in the process of brokering a deal with with the Karzai government and the Taliban, but we can't break out the red pen in regard to pending cable leaks. Now that's fucking sad.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

Manning had a hell of a game against the Eggles today. Too bad their defense crumbled in the fourth quarter.

 

[Boner69]

i agree booth babe

 

[Hot Mega]

So the State Department's warning trumps the fact that it refused to cooperate, in any fashion, with Wikileaks in order to secure that certain individuals are not placed in any harmful scenario?

Koh's letter was in response to Assange's letter to The State Department requesting assistance to keep crucial names redacted. The response:

"we will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials.”

I'll admit that I don't know your particular political philosophy, but I do find it amusing..no, intriguing, that many of the same people who, just one year ago, thought that the Federal government was wanting to take our guns, throw grandma in the gas chamber and undermine capitalism are now the very same who accept the State Department's word as gospel. I'm not saying that you are in that category, but the type seems to be running rampant lately.

The State Department could have both condemned Wikileaks and worked to have certain info redacted. It didn't. We bought off "al Qaeda in Iraq" and are in the process of brokering a deal with with the Karzai government and the Taliban, but we can't break out the red pen in regard to pending cable leaks. Now that's fucking sad.

Lx5 the government is not going to cooperate with people who abscond with it's secrets and sensitive information.

To do so would be tantamount to tacitly endorsing the practice.

How soon after the g'ment did this do you think there would be some other strapped for cash kid lining up to leak more information to these people?

You do the damage control then rebuke the act and treat the data for what it is....ill-gotten, sensitive information.

The only thing the g'ment should be cooperating with these people to try and determine is the scope of the compromised information and what if any criminal charges can be alleged.

 

[vodkazvictim]

I am, however, surprised that people are willing to call "treason" on those who risk life, limb and liberty to report the illegal actions of our government. To be blind to corruption, criminal acts and lies to the citizenry is to be Patriotic to a great many.

That's a sad, sad state of affairs if you ask me. Truth is now an offense. I hope we all think about that for a while. We condemn those who threaten our ignorance. There's no defending that.

^^This

BULLSHIT. Wikileaks offered to issue redaction through minimal cooperation, but the State Department refused.

http://blog.aaron-helton.com/2010/11/state-department-vs-wikileaks-a-missed-opportunity/
http://www.npr.org/2010/11/28/131642872/u-s-asks-wikileaks-to-halt-document-release?ft=1&f=1001

The State Dept. chose to prevent redaction in order to pin charges on Wikileaks. Thus making the US State Department, dare I say it, treasonous. How else could you describe the State Dept.'s willingness to put "individuals in danger" in order to save face and bolster charges?

^^Thanks.

Manning wasn't meant for the military. He chose it as a last recourse after being fired umpteen times from other jobs for being so outspoken i.e. having a big fucking mouth.

As a private you follow orders like it or not. Manning did not do that as he felt he was entitled. Idiot.

Does that include not complaining when you have to go through Vietnam with an M16A1 that jams after every 3rd shot, while those who oppose you can shoot you THROUGH a tree and could do so with an AKM that had been lying in a swamp for a year?
Does that include sitting in an M1 that is apt to incinerate itself at any moment and uses toxic gas in fire-extinguishers, which means that it can eliminate it's own crew simply by going over a bump?
Does that include not complaining about the fact that you're expected to go into battle in a Stryker so poorly armoured that an AKM can penetrate it's wheel arches?
Of course, the OC puts it so much more... eloquently than I do, below.

Exactly.

If you don't like being told what to do; if you can't run headfirst into a machine gun nest when told to; if you don't understand that signing up involves signing a legal undertaking - a contract - that obliges you to die or kill in exchange for money and other benefits; if you're not prepared to lay your beliefs and ideals aside an follow a chain of command ...

Don't join the military.

How difficult is that to figure that out?

I'm not saying what Manning did was morally wrong. I may even agree with the underlying principle(s).

But if you can't do the time, don't do the crime and, let's be under no illusions here, he committed a crime. And in our society - the society that gave him the freedom to chose to do what he did - we live under a social contract that punishes crime, no matter how noble the motives.

It's unfortunate his cell isn't to his liking or to the liking of those fuming with outrage.

But the next time a drunk driver mows down someone they love, I doubt they'll be protesting outside his prison after he is punished for breaking the law, or care that he only drank and drive because he had to get to the hospital to see his dying Mom.

Manning, like our hypothetical drunk driver, made a choice.

And like our drunk driver, one of the consequences of that choice is not having the freedom to chose your own prison, cell or how the justice machine deals with you.

And he fucking well knew it.

So the State Department's warning trumps the fact that it refused to cooperate, in any fashion, with Wikileaks in order to secure that certain individuals are not placed in any harmful scenario?

Koh's letter was in response to Assange's letter to The State Department requesting assistance to keep crucial names redacted. The response:

"we will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials.”

I'll admit that I don't know your particular political philosophy, but I do find it amusing..no, intriguing, that many of the same people who, just one year ago, thought that the Federal government was wanting to take our guns, throw grandma in the gas chamber and undermine capitalism are now the very same who accept the State Department's word as gospel. I'm not saying that you are in that category, but the type seems to be running rampant lately.

The State Department could have both condemned Wikileaks and worked to have certain info redacted. It didn't. We bought off "al Qaeda in Iraq" and are in the process of brokering a deal with with the Karzai government and the Taliban, but we can't break out the red pen in regard to pending cable leaks. Now that's fucking sad.

^^This.
Why pay the Taliban? Because they can fight us. Wikileaks can't.
But what do you think you get if you pay the Taliban? They buy a nuke and use it on us.
Now if you really wanna fight the Taliban with money, pay Afghans six dollars a day to fight them.