Skip to main content

View Diary: What the New York Times Missed in Its 1st Article on Manning's Torture Hearing (32 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This is just like Guantanamo (23+ / 0-)

    where prisoners who haven't been convicted of anything were mistreated routinely. It's especially egregious to mistreat prisoners in pre-trial detention. They aren't criminals under the law, and punishment is supposed to follow a trial. But even for those who are convicted, there are lot of reports (and some pending lawsuits) alleging that conditions at supermax prisons are inhumane. And of course that is where they want to keep Manning, for a long time, if not for life.

    •  While the behavior is similar, they are not the (4+ / 0-)

      same thing.  The revamped "Enemy combatant label" is utilized to deny any lawful culpability under the Geneva Conventions, the Constitution, The Rules of War or Human Rights.

      Did any American believe that when our gov't created their own amoral rules that they wouldn't eventually use them against any of us?

      Pshaw!

      http://www.salon.com/...

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 01:15:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  They are the same in that we don't recognize (4+ / 0-)

        that international standards apply in either case. But at least it is easier for US citizens held in the US to challenge their conditions of confinement. Guantanamo was originally intended to be a "black hole" into which prisoners would disappear, and be beyond any court jurisdiction, although that extreme position has not been upheld and there has been some limited success in getting review of Guantanamo cases in the US courts.

        •  Okay agreed, but for different "legal" reasons. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ER Doc, Heart of the Rockies

          "enemy combatants" have no rights and it appears that neither do citizens...

          The Fourth Circuit finally settled the matter in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 316 F.3d 450 (4th Cir. 2003), when it ruled that a U.S. citizen captured with enemy forces during a combat operation in a foreign country could be held as an enemy combatant.
          Immigration law experts wonder whether two recent cases signal a growing focus on using loss of citizenship as a sanction against suspected criminals and terrorists.
          -cut-
          Under current law, the government may not revoke the citizenship of a person born here. But in naturalization cases, the law does not guarantee citizenship is forever.
          Amendment XIV

          Section 1.

          All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

          Section 5.

          The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

          Dangerous times we live in.

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 04:26:00 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Follow a trial... (0+ / 0-)

      AND sentencing.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (124)
  • Community (60)
  • Elections (31)
  • Media (31)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Environment (27)
  • Law (26)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Civil Rights (23)
  • Culture (23)
  • Hillary Clinton (23)
  • Science (21)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • Republicans (21)
  • Economy (19)
  • Labor (19)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site