Wikileaks military whistleblower in solitary confinement: inhumane treatment

CptStern

CptStern

suckmonkey
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
62
Bradley Manning, the 22-year-old U.S. Army Private accused of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks, has never been convicted of that crime, nor of any other crime. Despite that, he has been detained at the U.S. Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia for five months -- and for two months before that in a military jail in Kuwait -- under conditions that constitute cruel and inhumane treatment and, by the standards of many nations, even torture. 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.
Click to expand...

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning/index.html
 
I feel bad for the guy. He really should have been much smarter in covering his tracks.
 
No Limit said:
I feel bad for the guy. He really should have been much smarter in covering his tracks.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? BradAss87 was a perfectly good alias for a man leaking military documents whose name is Brad and who was born in '87. Nobody would have guessed that the military would figure it out.

But seriously, this is messed up. Hes had one hour per day for the last 7 months to be NOT in solitary confinement. How do you not go insane? How do you not resort to violence after that? I'd be gouging people's eyes out trying to escape after 6 months of that.
 
it's just a matter of time:

"detention conditions likely to create long-term psychological injuries"
 
Just the fact he was born in 87 makes me feel even worse for him. He's a 22 year old kid that saw things he was disgusted with and decided to leak them. Now he will rot in prison for the rest of his life over it. While rapists get released after a few years.

As stupid as that name was the fact he was bragging about it was even dumber. Burning to blank CDs labelled Lady Gaga was pretty ****ing brilliant though, who in the military would ever even think to check those out? And they clearly wouldn't be able to ask him about it since that might violate DADT.
 
I can't feel sympathy for him. He must have known the consequences of leaking those documents as an enlisted person, but it's as if he didn't think that far ahead. Very stupid. I would like to know why he is kept in isolation, though.
 
How long do you think he should be locked up for his actions?
 
it's not like he was selling info to a foreign power. treason seems out of place here


Kaptain H said:
Long enough to discourage other people from doing the same thing.
Click to expand...

deterrents dont always work that well

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/det...alty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates


out of curiosity what if Manning had leaked documents that proved criminal activity by the government? would you still be in favour of a jail term? there's a very fine line between hero of the republic and traitor here. what's your tipping point?
 
CptStern said:
it's not like he was selling info to a foreign power. treason seems out of place here

deterrents dont always work that well

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/det...alty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

out of curiosity what if Manning had leaked documents that proved criminal activity by the government? would you still be in favour of a jail term? there's a very fine line between hero of the republic and traitor here. what's your tipping point?
Click to expand...

I don't agree. Everything I've read about his history suggests he was motivated by a personal hatred for the military, whether he felt that it was a noble cause or not. He was demoted for assault on a soldier and seemed quite depressed when he stole the files. As a homosexual he felt victimized, perhaps that was the cause of his frustration. But I suspect that more than anything, he wanted to "get back at the army" for the pain they caused him, by exposing their own secrets.

And I know that the death penalty does little to reduce violent crimes. But here we're dealing with pre-conceived crimes committed by people who are trained to handle confidential material, and this troubles me.

out of curiosity what if Manning had leaked documents that proved criminal activity by the government? would you still be in favour of a jail term? there's a very fine line between hero of the republic and traitor here. what's your tipping point?
Click to expand...

I'm in favor of holding him responsible for his actions as guided by the UCMJ. Even if he's seen as a hero. But if the crime he exposed is severe enough, and a decision is made for him to receive a pardon to spare him, I would agree with that.
 
Army law is significantly different than civilian law. Most people forget this for some reason.
 
elkaebee said:
Despite never having been convicted.
Click to expand...

he will be soon enough.
but don't try to play games here it's obvious he's the one that leaked a huge chuck of info he then bragged about on the Internet. so yeah.

nuff said
 
unozero said:
He should get the rope.
Click to expand...

You would need to prove that what he has done is a treasonous offence, and that he did so to purposely sell out or damage his nation to gain favour of another nation. Like Benjamin Arnold.

He certainly damaged the U.S. international reputation (sort of. I mean, people already suspected the U.S. was doing a lot of this despicable stuff but here is documented proof that they knew they were doing it.) but I'd say you're going to see a ton of people around the world come out in support of his actions during his trial (if it ever happens).

I don't think he should be charged with anything remotely close to treason, I think that what he's done is a little reckless (who needs to know what U.S diplomats think of this nation or that's leader being like Batman or crazy or whatever.) but it is far more patriotic to hold your nation accountable to the values they preach, the principles they were founded on and purport to practice than turn another blind eye to horrible crimes like the Afghanistan Government covering up a PMC's illegal child-prostitute ring, and the U.S. being complicit in hiding it. Or the U.S. being complicit in ignoring systemic prisoner abuse by Iraqi security forces.

This whole affair is like punishing your neighbour with a divorce for telling your wife you're cheating on her. Somehow, what Bradley Manning has done is worse than many of the horrible actions the U.S. is documented at having covered up or committed themselves in these leaks.
 
Its a shame there aren't more guys out there that would leak info this big. imagine if 100 men did this all at once. heads would roll
 
Warped said:
Its a shame there aren't more guys out there that would leak info this big. imagine if 100 men did this all at once. heads would roll
Click to expand...

And it would be the end of the US military as we know it.

Good-bye free world.
 
Krynn72 said:
Don't forget, the military is outside the law of civilized men. Err, sorry, I meant to say; they have their own law.
Click to expand...

I would like to point out that this is not attacking Krynn, so much as clarifying the erroneous beliefs surrounding UCMJ and military law in general.

Manning knew what he signed up for, and if not then he failed to read the documents (read: it's his own fault if he did not). Anyone joining the military should understand they are giving up a number of rights to be in it. If you sign up for the Army, or any employment in the US military, you are agreeing to an explicit covenant by which you are granted permission to do certain, normally impermissible actions (killing, maiming, etc.). Conversely, the military gains certain powers above and beyond what the government normally is granted over you. When (if?) he leaked the information, he should have understood the possible outcomes of his course of action. UCMJ is UCMJ, and he knew what the possible consequences were. Due process of law is what enables society function, we must now let the courts take their course.

Most people here are probably going to rip me on some ideological subtlety which I am obviously too uncultured and barbaric to understand. I reject any claims of the sort. I am merely stating that Manning is a legal adult who signed the papers for employment in the Army; therefore, he is quite rightly and legally ****ed for his actions. He knew the risks, he ran them, he lost. It is as simple as that. I make no claims as to the morality of either Manning's or the Army's actions.

On a side note: he didn't go full retard until he bragged about it, up until then he had plausible deniability. Plausible deniability: the irony is more delicious and multilayered than GLaDOS's cake.
 
Maestro said:
I would like to point out that this is not attacking Krynn, so much as clarifying the erroneous beliefs surrounding UCMJ and military law in general.

Manning knew what he signed up for, and if not then he failed to read the documents (read: it's his own fault if he did not). Anyone joining the military should understand they are giving up a number of rights to be in it. If you sign up for the Army, or any employment in the US military, you are agreeing to an explicit covenant by which you are granted permission to do certain, normally impermissible actions (killing, maiming, etc.). Conversely, the military gains certain powers above and beyond what the government normally is granted over you. When (if?) he leaked the information, he should have understood the possible outcomes of his course of action. UCMJ is UCMJ, and he knew what the possible consequences were. Due process of law is what enables society function, we must now let the courts take their course.

Most people here are probably going to rip me on some ideological subtlety which I am obviously too uncultured and barbaric to understand. I reject any claims of the sort. I am merely stating that Manning is a legal adult who signed the papers for employment in the Army; therefore, he is quite rightly and legally ****ed for his actions. He knew the risks, he ran them, he lost. It is as simple as that. I make no claims as to the morality of either Manning's or the Army's actions.
Click to expand...

Considering you can receive an Article 15 for a bad sunburn, I think you've explained it fairly well. We know that we're held to different standards and different rules apply, and some of them are much more strict and seemingly unfair than the laws that normal citizens are used to.
 
I just find it absolutely absurd, and quite disgusting that a person who reveals war crimes can legally be dealt this sort of punishment. I mean, it makes perfect sense in this nation, since you can get thrown in jail for revealing crimes committed by police, but that doesn't make it not absurd or disgusting, regardless of the legality of it.
 
He's in the military and he knowingly stole confidential government documents and passed them onto the internet. I don't feel any sympathy for him, and I hope he receives the harshest punishment the military is allowed to give out.
 
Kaptain H said:
I don't agree. Everything I've read about his history suggests he was motivated by a personal hatred for the military, whether he felt that it was a noble cause or not. He was demoted for assault on a soldier and seemed quite depressed when he stole the files. As a homosexual he felt victimized, perhaps that was the cause of his frustration. But I suspect that more than anything, he wanted to "get back at the army" for the pain they caused him, by exposing their own secrets.
Click to expand...

I asked you a hypothetical question. would you have been in favour of the leak had he exposed criminal wrong doing (which remains to be seen)

Kaptain H said:
And I know that the death penalty does little to reduce violent crimes. But here we're dealing with pre-conceived crimes committed by people who are trained to handle confidential material, and this troubles me.
Click to expand...

you miss my point. if death isnt much of a deterrent ....



Kaptain H said:
I'm in favor of holding him responsible for his actions as guided by the UCMJ. Even if he's seen as a hero. But if the crime he exposed is severe enough, and a decision is made for him to receive a pardon to spare him, I would agree with that.
Click to expand...

you're stacking the deck with a lot of "ifs". I guess your line is pretty well defined; so long as certain conditions are met. that seems somewhat disingenuous imho. as if you're allowing for criteria that could most likely never be met in a whistleblower case ie: a crime is a crime; they serve their time for the crime regardless; pardons are always after the fact. you still dont allow for a clearly defined right or wrong. however your government does although it's not fully applied to military matters atm however I believe it will be amended at some point in time
 
unozero said:
he will be soon enough.
but don't try to play games here it's obvious he's the one that leaked a huge chuck of info he then bragged about on the Internet. so yeah.

nuff said
Click to expand...

So you would also agree whoever blew the cover on Valarie Plame should also get the rope, correct? And I don't just mean Scooter Libby. I mean anyone above him that had anything to do with this as well.
 
CptStern said:
I asked you a hypothetical question. would you have been in favour of the leak had he exposed criminal wrong doing (which remains to be seen)



you miss my point. if death isnt much of a deterrent ....
Click to expand...

No. But you're probably right, if death isn't enough of a deterrent to criminal behavior, then something else is needed. Better training, disciplining, better psychological screening, and better security.

you're stacking the deck with a lot of "ifs". I guess your line is pretty well defined; so long as certain conditions are met. that seems somewhat disingenuous imho. as if you're allowing for criteria that could most likely never be met in a whistleblower case ie: a crime is a crime; they serve their time for the crime regardless; pardons are always after the fact. you still dont allow for a clearly defined right or wrong. however your government does although it's not fully applied to military matters atm however I believe it will be amended at some point in time
Click to expand...

I always side with the UCMJ. If the UCMJ is changed, my position changes.
 
no as in "no there is no crime grave enough that it trumps the crime of whistleblowing". seems counter-intuitive to having a functioning democracy. who watches the watchmen? obviously no one if you would have your way
 
So lets say you are a soldier and you come across some information that shows the government destroyed key evidance in a rape case to protect Halliburton. Do you leak it or do you shut your mouth and do as the military tells you?

Because in the case of Jamie Leigh Jones who was gang raped while working as a contractor for Haliburton in Iraq evidance of the rape was destroyed by the army and no charges have been filed against any of the rapists that did this to her. The army had DNA, photos, and other evidance that they got by using a rape kit but that evidance magically disappeared. I bet you that the evidance of the cover up is out there and plenty of people have seen it. According to you that evidance should never see the light of day and if it does the person that leaks it needs to be punished in a way that would never allow this type of leak to occur again.

I know the military brainwashed people, but jesus, I didn't think it was that bad.
 
Krynn72 said:
Why? That seems as ill-advised as always siding with the legislation passed by our government.
Click to expand...

The mentality of the military breaks down when loyalty and respect of one's duty doesn't exist.


No Limit said:
So lets say you are a soldier and you come across some information that shows the government destroyed key evidance in a rape case to protect Halliburton. Do you leak it or do you shut your mouth and do as the military tells you?

Because in the case of Jamie Leigh Jones who was gang raped while working as a contractor for Haliburton in Iraq evidance of the rape was destroyed by the army and no charges have been filed against any of the rapists that did this to her. The army had DNA, photos, and other evidance that they got by using a rape kit but that evidance magically disappeared. I bet you that the evidance of the cover up is out there and plenty of people have seen it. According to you that evidance should never see the light of day and if it does the person that leaks it needs to be punished in a way that would never allow this type of leak to occur again.

I know the military brainwashed people, but jesus, I didn't think it was that bad.
Click to expand...

That is a civilian crime and Halliburton is to blame for the cover-up. The army released records to KBR which later disappeared. I only read about this briefly before signing on to work at Halliburton. If I found evidence of such a crime in the army or the public sector, I would report it through the chain of command or present it to the authorities.
 
Really, a civilian crime? Since when does the US government give Haliburton sole custody of key evidance in criminial cases? You honestly buy that? That's like if a girl got raped at my work and the police did their investigation and then gave all the evidance to my employer without ever filing any charges.

But you just said that if you found something like that you would leak it. Because giving classified information to anyone, including authorities that don't have access to classified information, is still leaking the classified information.
 
I have to agree with Sparta on this issue. High crimes require a mens rea that relates to conduct in the world. Even the ones that sound like they're about what we would call 'motive' ("with malice aforethought") are actually about 'objective' or 'intended effect' (intent to kill). It's a pointless endeavour in a legal context to try and ascribe broad adjectives like "patriotic" to people's inner desires. Without an intent relating to conduct - the intent to directly benefit a foreign nation or enemy power, I don't think what he did can be considered treasonous. I see the logic of his prosecution. That he gave up liberties and knew what he was getting into. That the operation of the army depends on absolute loyalty. And I don't know if I would be opposed to him serving some sentence. But there comes a point where we have to ask whether it actually makes any sense to deter whistleblowing with stronger punishments than some that have been given to murderers. A blanket, totalising attitude to "national security" or military loyalty can't be defended as anything more than a sacred abstraction that serves for the benefit of elites more than it does the public interest.
 
No Limit said:
Really, a civilian crime? Since when does the US government give Haliburton sole custody of key evidance in criminial cases? You honestly buy that? That's like if a girl got raped at my work and the police did their investigation and then gave all the evidance to my employer without ever filing any charges.

But you just said that if you found something like that you would leak it. Because giving classified information to anyone, including authorities that don't have access to classified information, is still leaking the classified information.
Click to expand...
She didn't say leak it to the internet.com., + 1 million other classified documents; she said she would report it using the chain of command, which is not leaking it.

Despite popular belief, the US military isn't incapable of dealing with crime: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_killings
 
Giving information to someone that is not authorized to see it is the very definition of a leak. Reporting it to the authorities is not permitted since authorities outside of the military are not authorized to see classified military information.

Edit:

Also from your wikipedia link, lets just remember these people killed a bunch of innocent people and then raped a little girl. This is the sentence for one of them:

On January 22, 2007, Sergeant Cortez pleaded guilty in a court martial to rape, conspiracy to rape, and four counts of murder as part of a plea deal to avoid the death penalty, and was sentenced to 100 years in prison.[30] He will be eligible for parole in 10 years.
Click to expand...

In just 10 ****ing years he can qualify for parole. While people want to hang Manning.
 
Hi guys, I just showed up to this thread. This guy is dumb for doing what he did. Even at 22 (all of two years ago) I could have easily figured out "hey I'm stealing classified secret documents from the government, there could be harsh consequences." Seeing something you think is bad and taking action is one thing, but seeing something you think is bad and taking illegal action is another. ESPECIALLY being in the military where you don't have the same civil liberties and rights as a civilian. That's how it's been forever. Once you're within the rigid structure of the military, you're basically telling youself and the US Government you no longer act as an individual and do what is told to you by your superiors. Hell you can be put in military prison for just LEAVING without permission.

I don't know how they could say he's being held without cause though. He DID something. He TOOK documents that were not his and allowed them to be PUBLISHED. Exposing classified government documents can be declared treason. I mean how brain dead do you have to be not to know that?
 
StarBob, you're a young private in the military in charge of encrypting classified information. You get a memo you are asked to encrypt that shows the US government covered up the gang rape of a 19 year old girl. What do you do?
 
No Limit said:
Reporting it to the authorities is not permitted since authorities outside of the military are not authorized to see classified military information.
Click to expand...
I can never tell if you are stubborn or dense or just don't know what you are talking about, or all three.

Do you not know what chain of command is or something?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_command

To simplify it in civilian terms that you would be familiar with: It would be the equivalent of a worker reporting something to their direct supervisor, instead of going to the police, to the owner of the store, to the press, etc.
 
What does that have to do with anything? She said authorities. I assume she meant the police.

If you follow the chain of command and nothing gets done what do you do then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CptStern
WikiLeaks informer revealed; US military analyst
2
Replies
79
Views
3K
V-Man339
V-Man339
David.Seth2
Obama Treason Charges Advance In Tennessee Grand Jury
Replies
14
Views
2K
Nuada
N
Back
Top