Press Realizing That Treatment Of Bradley Manning Is Indefensible

from the surprising dept

The mainstream press has had a bit of a love-hate affair with Wikileaks over the past few months, often conflating some of the issues with Julian Assange with the overall operation itself. But what’s been really troubling is how quiet the press has mainly been about the treatment of Bradley Manning, which is so severe that many people consider it to qualify as torture. Even the UN is now investigating whether the treatment qualifies as torture. Of course, even if you don’t consider it torture, it’s pretty clear that the treatment is designed to punish Manning, despite no trial and no conviction (or, perhaps, it’s being used to pressure him to implicate Julian Assange in a potential conspiracy that might not actually exist).

However, it’s nice to see at least some in the press realize this is a serious problem. The LA Times has an editorial suggesting that this treatment of Manning is clearly indefensible, and should be stopped. It does not come out and say he’s being tortured and says that it’s fine to punish Manning (within the limits of the law) if he’s convicted, but that to do so prior to any conviction is immensely problematic:

Some see Manning as a whistle-blower who deserves leniency for exposing official duplicity; others believe that, like anyone who engages in civil disobedience, Manning, if guilty, should accept punishment for his actions. But regardless of one’s view of his alleged conduct, the conditions under which he is being held are indefensible.

There’s no reason that Manning can’t be held under more reasonable conditions. It’s sad that our government appears to not be willing to allow that to happen.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: wikileaks

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Press Realizing That Treatment Of Bradley Manning Is Indefensible”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
162 Comments
Thomas (profile) says:

What is the problem?

Torturing prisoners has long been an accepted tactic worldwide. It doesn’t matter if they have been convicted of anything or not. It doesn’t even matter if they are accused of anything or not. Most governments, especially the U.S., feel there is nothing wrong with torturing anyone they want to get information out of or simply punish without the hassle of going through the judicial system.

/sarcasm

MrWilson says:

What is the problem?

I agree. If you’re a true patriot, you’d gladly endure torture to ensure the safety of your country!

In fact, we should start torturing ourselves at home just to prove how patriotic we are! I should start selling self-waterboarding kits!

Turning torture and misguided ultra-nationalism, er…patriotism into a business opportunity is the American Way of Life?!

/sarcasm

RD says:

Re:

“Looking at this on the positive side it is possible that there is much more to this story than has been reported.”

Will you people PLEASE stop rolling out this chestnut on EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE??

When you get right down to it, there is ALWAYS “more to the story”. Always. WE FUCKING GET IT ALREADY.

“there must be more to the story” is not a valid counter argument or invalidation of the article when its true IN EVERY SINGLE CASE.

If all you can come up with is “there must be more” because your tiny little mind cant comprehend a news item on an OPINION BLOG, please cease commenting, as you have nothing to contribute to the discussion.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

There isn’t a million things to add on this one. We have all been over the ground on this one (I don’t think solitary confinement is torture, thousands of prisoners every day in the US are held in similar conditions). I also don’t think it particularly that some newspaper editorialists might come out against his detention, especially because Wikileaks and Manning are both trying to play the journalist / whistleblower card.

There is really nothing new here. It’s just more fodder for the TD sheeple to chew on.

Meeble says:

Re: Re:

I hope you get to experience solitary confinement someday, and then we’ll see if you think it’s torture. It’s known to lead to insanity, which IMHO is worse than even pain because there’s no coming back from losing your mind. How easy it is to sit there and say what is torture from the comfort of your fat ass. Fuck you.

DCX2 says:

Re:

Tuna, you are seriously wrong. There does need to be a trial. A speedy trial, at that. Even if you don’t believe the Constitution applies to our soldiers (it does), you should look up Article 10 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

United States v. Thompson, 68 M.J. 308 (when a servicemember is placed in pretrial confinement, Article 10, UCMJ, provides that immediate steps shall be taken to inform the accused of the charges and to either bring the accused to trial or dismiss the charges; Article 10 creates a more exacting speedy trial demand than does the Sixth Amendment).

Anonymous Coward says:

Don’t want to sound cruel, but he must be court-martialed. I don’t think there is any whistle-blowing provision for military conduct.
Good for him, Iraq campaign is not a “real war”. Would it be, most probably he’d be executed already.
Anyway, somehow, after reading about his personality, i have really little pity for him. He wanted to become famous and prove something? He got it, alright. Too bad, he didn’t realized the fame comes at a price.
IMHO, Assange deserves more compassion; at least the guy is on a crusade…

anonymous cowards mortal enemy says:

Re: Re:

most of the people that want to “burn” manning only say they want to see him do so but without really going into detail of why that is which means the whole entire point of them wanting this has absolutely no justification, or maybe it’s like this such people don’t want to actually come clean on their own behavior on what they really think of other people? gee maybe granny should tuck and roll out of our car because, um we feel the need to be that way today

Synaps (user link) says:

The Masters have spoken!!

Those who we have employed to administer our collective services Have once again overstepped the mark.
The “rule of law” is often evoced as if it is an absolute. It is not. It’s whatever suits them. It use to be used (mostly?) for the benefit of society. Generally in a paternalistic way as we are considered to stupid to know how to behave. However, it is now becomeing obvious that that’s out the window. Now it’s “shut up and do what your told or else” Manning, who has been convicted of nothing, is experiencing the “or else”

http://exploreingtheinfinite.blogspot.com/

Daniel J. Lavigne (profile) says:

Re: The Masters have spoken!!

Actually, adherence to “The Rule Of Law” is the quintessential requirement of all citizens.

Absent such commitment, we are left with nothing to guide our discourse; leading to situations where the vilest and most violent amongst us WILL have their way.

Indeed, that very “Rule Of Law” calls upon ALL to REFUSE to support societies that participate in plans and preparations that are predicated on a will and capacity to commit murder, and, especially so, “Mass Murder”.

Still, it remains that the vast majority, as self-centered cowards, DARE not act on such right and duty until it is absolutely clear to them that there shall be no costs or consequences, just “Tax Savings”, if they should develop spine sufficient to act on such.

And so we are left to do what we can, while the world slides into a cesspool of anarchy and worldwide mass murder due the demands of America’s Corporate Leadership.

There is BUT ONE WAY to save our collective future:

We MUST, regardless the risk, ACT on our lawful duty to refuse to support any society that would use its nuclear and / or other weapons of mass murder in order to secure the oil and other natural resources without which the whole of that society shall suffer as all others as the “downslope” of “Peak Oil” limits the amount of energy available to “share” amongst the nations and their millions who all DEMAND that THEIR ACCESS to such not be curtailed or even limited to any degree.

*********************************************** 

Add your voice to reason’s call.



Join the Tax Refusal. 

*********************************************** 

http://www.TaxRefusal.com
***********************************************
And the related effort to wake the world:

http://www.StopYourEngines.com

The Infamous Joe (profile) says:

Re:

Also court martial is simply a military court. So, I would agree, he should get a trial.

There is a whistleblowing provision for the military, but from what I can tell, he didn’t follow it, as it says you should tell a member of Congress.

Fame, from what I read, had nothing to do with it. He saw what he thought was an injustice and sought to resolve it. Whether or not he made a mistake or not is another story.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

He is being kept in solitary confinement 23 hours per day in a room 6 feet by 12 feet with a toilet and a bed. He isn’t even allowed to exercise in his cell.

I don’t know who you’re talking about, but I’m talking about the guy we are torturing who has never been convicted of a crime.

http://www.bradleymanning.org/15952/psychologists-for-social-responsibility-open-letter-to-robert-gates-on-mannings-confinement/

weneedhelp (profile) says:

Re:

Cherry picked the third one huh?

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t103.htm

TREASON

This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offense is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Infamous Joe (profile) says:

Re:

I can’t tell if you don’t grasp the concept because you can’t, or because you don’t want to.

He is 100% innocent. How do I come by this number, you wonder? Well, he hasn’t gone to trial. Thus, he is presumed innocent. Any deviation from 100% innocent before proven guilty deviates from the Constitution. You know, that thing that protects your right to say stupid, un-American shit on the internet. Yeah, that thing.

The chance that he didn’t steal secrets? Well, they “caught” him because a self-described “hacker” turned him in after allegedly having an Instant Messenger conversation with Manning and “fearing for his family’s safety”. Is that the type of “proof” you feel is iron-clad?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Some yes, some no. Rikers Island in New York is a jail (rather than prison) and at any given time, dozens of prisoners are kept in solitary confinement. They are there for various reasons, including their own protection.

Jail is a place most often filled with people awaiting trial, or who are currently on trial, or who are appealing their conviction.

Johnny says:

Where does Obama stand?

Regardless who started it, there’s a good reason to blame the *current* president, because he can change it, but doesn’t.

What’s worse is that the current president promised to change it all – and many many people believed him (especially over here in Europe) – but instead he’s taking everything one step further in the wrong direction!

They should take back his Nobel Peace Prize.

Ron Rezendes (profile) says:

I can find no sympathy

“Potential damage”? Really? If you were speeding down the highway you could “potentially” kill hundreds of people if you chose not to avoid them.

Perhaps we should send all the speeders to jail, then at the trials mention the fact that they “potentially” could have killed hundreds of people each. Subsequently we could put these folks to death since they “potentially” could have been mass murderers!

Thank you for your service to our country but your statement above, I find incredulous.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Based on the fact that supoenas were issues to Twitter recently, there is great potential that this is an ongoing investigation, and that while Manning has been charged, there is no required to move to trial before all investigations are complete. They would at best be required to show cause, and since Manning is the source of the documents, there is little more required. The question at this point is if he is acting alone, or as part of a criminal conspiracy.

Until that issue is settled to a level that can be taken to court, he is caught in the middle.

Marcus Carab (profile) says:

Re:

Have you read the famous new yorker article discussing solitary confinement?

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_gawande

I was skeptical at first too, but that article makes a very convincing case. Then you realize that the fact that tonnes of Americans are being held in similar conditions is an atrocity, not a rationalization.

Christopher (profile) says:

Re:

Actually, you are wrong. Once a person is ARRESTED and put into jail, regardless of whether there are ongoing investigations or not, that person has to be CHARGED and TRIED for a crime within 1 year according to the Supreme Court of the United States.

That includes in the military. Ongoing investigations have NO affect on that need to bring someone to trial for a crime immediately or within one year.

In fact, if investigations are ongoing, the general rule of thumb is to NOT arrest the person in question, absent grave physical harm to someone else being probable, until the investigations are done.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Great work around, but the perpetrator has to do a second crime that could get them arrested again.

Not true. I presume you are referring to the double jeopardy protections. Those protections only mean that someone can’t be *tried* for the same crime twice. There is no limit on the number of time they can be arrested for it.

Another way to get around limits is to hold someone outside of the US. The Supreme Court has ruled that normal protections don’t apply there (or even within the US within 100 miles of the border).

Christopher (profile) says:

Re:

True. Personally, Manning might be covered under the Whistleblower laws after that whole thing about Afghani kids being used as sexual bartering tokens by our corporations in AFghanistan came out.

If that isn’t whistleblowing, nothing is. The sheer BULK of the leaks also doesn’t make this any less whistleblowing. Manning might have seen that thing or something else just as bad, and said “WOW! If we are covering up this, what else are we covering up!” and done a directory dump…. which I would have also done, to be honest, if I had seen that thing above.

Jay says:

Obama and the presidency

I hate to disagree, but you’re looking at the wrong thing here.

It’s not the President that is the problem. If you learn anything about leadership, any organization changes from the bottom up, not the top down.

One thing I noticed about the wikileaks is how a LOT of information is going through the system, but it’s not getting out to the places it’s needed. Something such as weather info about climate change should be a divested interest. The problem is the bureacracy that any President or government official has to wade through.

Take for example, military needs vs business needs. How would you balance both plus add to this the fact that those needs have to be enforced?

I think that everyone has to realize that Obama isn’t truly to blame. Look at the administration and how they enforce the policy. Things such as the RIAA being in league with the Justice Department didn’t come out of thin air. What we need is for laws in place to stop THAT, not Obama. He’s merely a figurehead.

The Infamous Joe (profile) says:

Re:

I’m not saying I think it is right, but I just re-read both the DoD Directive (pdf!) and the Applicable US Code 1034 and can’t find anything that says a member of the military can leak to the general public.

If you could be so kind as to point out your source, that would be awesome.

Once again, to prevent any unneeded anger, I don’t agree with the law, but I can’t see a way around it, either.

Johnny says:

Obama and the presidency

Have you heard of the chain of command?

The guys currently torturing Manning take orders from the people who run the prison, who takes orders from the pentagon, who takes orders from the administration, where the president has the final word.

If Obama objects to (psychological) torture being used in US prison, he can order it to stop… it goes down the chain of command and it should stop. He hasn’t given that order, so apparently he doesn’t object.

If he doesn’t object, he is to blame. It’s certainly his fault that he has no moral compass on this issue.

BTW, if a presidential order to cease torturing people doesn’t get implemented then it means that there is no longer civilian control over the Army, and your country is in much deeper sh*t than I first thought.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

(I don’t think solitary confinement is torture, thousands of prisoners every day in the US are held in similar conditions)

I hereby invite you to subject yourself to some “solitary confinement” at my pleasure. Please post your identifying and contacting information so that we can get started as soon as possible.

Yeah, I didn’t think so.

Revolutionist says:

Obama and the presidency

Obama doesn’t have the final say. Congress does. Believe it or not, Congress holds the most power over the US cause while Obama may veto something, Congress will have it ‘Reevaluated’ and pass it without his authority.
Also keep this in mind, any law or bill passed to the president, will have three or four different bills with it and if he veto’s one he veto’s them all. So lets say there’s a bill to stop cruelty to animals, but attatched to it is a bill to allow convicts out of jail. Well you don’t want the convicts out so he veto’s that and in so doing, veto’s the prevention of animal cruelty. Media hears about it and assumes the president is an animal hater and therefore is given a bad image. That is our system.

Johnny says:

Re: Obama and the presidency

Yes the system sucks.

Let’s imagine for a moment that the US president is not the commander in chief and the army does not act on his orders. Then that still doesn’t prevent him from having an opinion and stating that in public, if congress then vetoes it the blame can be laid there… fact is he doesn’t do anything of the sort, he just stays quiet. Which means to me that he condones it.

Monarch says:

Re: Obama and the presidency

The President can stop the torture just by releasing a presidential decree for it to stop. Why? Because he IS the commander of the military. Congress has NO power in this issue. There is no Bill that needs to be brought before the Congress. No vote is needed. All that is needed is an order from the President of the United States of America to stop the torture and it WILL stop! Which means, President Obama is condoning the torture, as he alone has the power to stop it!

The Infamous Joe (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Clearly you don’t understand what you are talking about. Solitary confinement isn’t mentally stressful because you get bored, you fool. They could give him every channel there is for 24hrs a day. Do you know what it is like to be completely isolated from the rest of humanity? You have no clue. He gets to talk to people for 3 hours a *week*. I would tell you to try it, but aside from deliberately stranding yourself on a deserted island, you’d never be in the position where you lost the control to puss out when you did get bored.

Anonymous Coward says:

I can find no sympathy

“I can’t feel much for Manning. I believe he is a traitor to his country.
blah blah blah
MSgt USAF Retired.”

You, sir, are the traitor. You took an oath to defend the constitution of the United States, not its politicians. Perhaps it is people like yourself who should receive capital punishment, “because of the level of potential damage.”

Jay says:

Obama and the presidency

Ok… Who carries out an executive order? Obama is inundated with information and since he has been back on the job for… 6 days now? (He was in vacation on HI since the 3rd) he’s probably swamped with other things that take his time.

In a way, the executive Branch is the easiest control because you have ONE person you give info to. Do you really believe that all of those generals, colonels, etc, are going to tell Obama the day to day treatment of Manning? Or will they say “He’s in custody.” and move on towards the next order of business?

Again, I think it’s pointless to think that merely the guy at the top is scrutinized so severely. Information can be easily left out until such time as it garners a lot more attention.

Just think about this for one second…

The guys currently torturing Manning take orders from the people who run the prison, who takes orders from the pentagon, who takes orders from the administration, where the president has the final word.

All of these people in a top heavy underworld society, do you think any of them can truly help Manning?

Let’s think about how long it took for Bush to respond to Abu Ghraib or Gitmo and be realistic… We haven’t heard the last of this, and I’m sure so long as more people put up a stink, THEN he’ll be treated better.

Such is what I mean when I say the President has to hear about his plight so that people can know what the problem is.

Johnny says:

Re: Obama and the presidency

Sorry I think your argument is weak. I doubt the President has not been briefed on Wikileaks and Manning, I doubt that the President hasn’t seen any news reports and hasn’t got any idea that this is happening.

Much like I am sure Bush knew that water boarding was being used, Obama now knows that Manning (and many others) are being psychologically tortured.

Yes we need to make more of stink about it, for as long as Obama thinks that most people don’t care about the treatment of Manning, he’ll do as any other politician: i.e. nothing.

Jay says:

Re: Re: Obama and the presidency

*&^%&*%$&$

Unfortunately, my post was eaten from before. But think about all of the things that the President is debriefed about:

Foreign issues (EU’s issues and concerns, Assange, Middle East, Africa’s concerns, N. Korea…)

Domestic issues (Business meetings, economic crisis, legislation)

Crisis aversion (Arizona shooting, Haiti, Assange on a platter…)

With all of the things he has, I don’t think Manning’s condition ranks highly, especially with people thinking about him as a betrayer of the country.

Hell, if Mike hadn’t investigated the story, I probably would not have known how he has been doing for the past 7 months.

Your last point says exactly what I think will have his treatment made better. People begin to discuss what they’re doing to him.

I just think that people need to focus on pressuring the Secretary of Defense (Robert Gates) in regards to the treatment of military personnel. Asking for the President when his opinion can be swayed by other demands and needs is a bit much.

Silver Wolf says:

Obama and the presidency

People making a stink?
All I smell is a fart. A weak one.
COME ON.
ARE PEOPLE BEING BRAINWASHED BY MASS MEDIA?

Start posting signs and dissing the gov’mnt websites.
LETS SHOW THE WORLD THAT THE PEOPLE ARE IN CHARGE!
Anonymous rally JAN 15!!
ALL START NOW.

What we really need is someone from a MNN (Major news network) to broadcast this, which they won’t cause they are mostly corrupt. If not fully.

The USA gov’mnt is in the pay of the money-greedy corporations.

I can’t wait till the whole world crashes like the great depression, but global. Then I’ll make millions.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Then you realize that the fact that tonnes of Americans are being held in similar conditions is an atrocity, not a rationalization.

I don’t think of it as an atrocity. I think of it as the law, as enacted by the government and having been duly challenged and reviewed by pretty much every court in the land.

Marcus Carab (profile) says:

Re: Re:

You still haven’t answered my question: Have you read that article?

It’s pretty vital information if you plan to have an opinion on this.

Except, your stance seems to be that you don’t have to have an opinion or think about it at all – it’s currently the status quo and you are happy to swallow that without questioning it or thinking for yourself in the slightest.

Do you have no interest in actually educating yourself on the subject? Are you happy to accept whatever the law says without consideration or question? Shame…

Nathan (profile) says:

Military service members are subject to the UCMJ

He has the right to stand duty wherever he is ordered to stand duty. Currently he is ordered to stand duty in a military prison awaiting trial. This prison is not that different than civilian prisons and waiting for trail in confinement is not unusual in military or civilian cases for such magnitude. He will see a courts marshal in good time.

Anonymous Coward says:

Obama and the presidency

Do you really believe that all of those generals, colonels, etc, are going to tell Obama the day to day treatment of Manning?

Do *you* really think that they’re all lying to him? Do *you* really think that they have him completely isolated and he can’t even read the same stories that the rest of America can? If that’s what *you* believe, then I think you need a serious reality check.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Nope, because this is also been reviewed in many other countries with the same results.

Everyone tries to make it sound like Manning is being kept in some hole in the ground, not fed, waterboarded twice a day, and left to fend for himself for food, fighting with the prison rats for scraps from the garbage pile from the officer’s mess. It just isn’t the case.

He is being held in a prison. He is being held alone, fed, clothed, showered, etc. Just like thousands of other criminals, both convicted and pending trials all over the US and around the world.

The rest of it is BS, everyone knows it, but because it’s a “wikileaks” thing, all the bleeding hearts are out whining about the torture. You babies think torture is not getting your double latte in the morning.

The Infamous Joe (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Hello again, brainwashed coward.

Nope, because this is also been reviewed in many other countries with the same results.

Do you see how many of the people here defending Manning keep posting those pretty blue words that back up what they are claiming. Well, they’re not just eye candy, my friend, but some sort of citation to back up their claims! Now, one can’t help but notice that your post, while attempting to refute the other statements, is not adorned with pretty blue words. You might as well type “nu-uh!” in response without them. That’s more free advice.

Everyone tries to make it sound like Manning is being kept in some hole in the ground, not fed, waterboarded twice a day, and left to fend for himself for food, fighting with the prison rats for scraps from the garbage pile from the officer’s mess. It just isn’t the case.

No has said anything of the sort. This would be a textbook example of a stawman.

The rest of it is BS, everyone knows it

I assume “everyone” doesn’t include all the people (including doctors) who object to his treatment? In fact, can you please explain to me your definition of “everyone”, because it seems to me that by the very fact that we are having this discussion that you are wrong.

but because it’s a “wikileaks” thing, all the bleeding hearts are out whining about the torture

This has nothing to do with wikileaks. Manning is being held in solitary confinement. Without being convicted. Without even going to trial. *This* is why our hearts bleed, because people like you are defending our government as it shits on the Constitution. Wikileaks is a separate matter.

Now, I have a question for you, Mr. Coward. Give us a little background on yourself. I don’t need specifics, obviously. I would just like to know what type of man would defend these actions without actually thinking about the consequences.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I learned strawman posting from TD. Many of the posts are just that, so why not join the party?

Notice the important words “Everyone tries to make it sound like”, it doesn’t mean they are saying it, rather their level of rhetoric and outrage make it sound like this, as opposed to the thought that he doesn’t get TV privileges, and no second servings of rice pudding.

It’s wahhhmbulance offence, I am sure.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Everyone tries to make it sound like Manning is being kept in some hole in the ground, not fed, waterboarded twice a day, and left to fend for himself for food, fighting with the prison rats for scraps from the garbage pile from the officer’s mess. It just isn’t the case.

I don’t see anyone here saying that. In other words, you’re a liar. I bet you work for the government or something.

Monarch says:

Re: Re: Re:

He is not allowed to exercise. He is not allowed to have a pillow. He is only given a half hour of TV per day, and nothing to read. He is basically being tortured. He released the information believing he was a patriot trying expose a corrupt government. And.., in the way the government is treating him, I believe he was right!

Jay says:

I can find no sympathy

I don’t think he is. That is my personal belief and I’ll stick up for it if asked as you did. However, what I am telling you is that a quite a number of military personnel feel betrayed by Manning almost on an instinctual level. I doubt that they’ve had knowledge of his motivations. The first thing that comes out from them is that “you don’t do that”.

It’s like a mystical taboo was broken…

The only thing I can’t agree is that Manning wasn’t doing this for his own personal motivations and notoriety.

The fact that he may have been doing this just to say it was his work gives me the impression he could have done worse, but he also could have done better.

Christopher (profile) says:

Re:

There is a ‘way around it it’…. ignore the law, because it is stupid and insane. Congressmen are MORE than willing to cover up for the government, to be blunt.

The fact is that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it goes against the First Amendment, which also makes it illegitimate to take away a person’s choice of spokesperson.

The Infamous Joe (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Chris, buddy, work with me here.

You said he did not break the law because it said a military member was allowed to inform anyone who could get the information out. I was interested because when I *defend* Manning in a conversation, this point is bound to come up.

Now you say he did go outside the guidelines of the law, but it’s a bad law, so it should be ignored. Do you see how you have contradicted yourself?

While I wouldn’t go so far as to say every member of Congress is corrupt, I also agree that the law is naive in thinking that telling a government officials about the wrongdoings of the government will guarantee that knowledge will be used to thwart those wrongdoings.

Since you have switched paths from “not illegal” to “illegal but bad law” i should point out that civil disobedience often results in accepting the punishment for the protested law to bring light on the issue. (Google “martyr”) Thus, using the “it’s a bad law” is unlikely to get him out of jail anytime soon.

Libor Soural (user link) says:

I see it all as a badly-scripted movie, I'm a genius screenwriter

Impressed? In what instance? I’m an imitator, intellectually impotent. Increasingly irate and inconsolably insensitive. I assure you that my goals are to incite and inspire. To illustrate the illegitimacy of the idiotic instigators of the ruling industry. To implicitly ignite the inquisition of the population against the “illustrious” politicians. I imagine a world of illumination, free from the ill will of those who seek to incriminate and immolate the intelligence and integrity of the individual.

stuart duckworth says:

Mr. Manning's imprisonment

This is a criminal government run by the rich. The fact that nobody pays attention really to the murderous reality of this nonsense is indicative of just how sick and dangerous this country is. America is a dnager to the world, but will soon be replaced by even more dangerous powers. It’s over for America and it’s about time.

John Hayes says:

Bradley Manning

It seems to me that when you read newspaper articles about any subject there is a fair chance it is edited. Therfore, you will only read what the editor wants you to read. When a Government,or its employees, does something wrong and are found out, they immediately go into ‘damage control’ mode.
This is what has happened to Bradley Manning. He is a hero to the ordinary person because he told the truth…unlike Governments.
His incarceration is the shameful result of a Government employee being found out. His treatment is getting close to the contempt that the ‘Crazy Horse’ Apache pilot used when he murdered 14 innocent Iraqi’s in the ‘Collateral Damage’ film you “were’nt supposed to see”.
Shame on you America!

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...