Skip to main content

View Diary: ‘You Failed to Break the Spirit of Bradley Manning’: An Open Letter to President Obama (217 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  He let him be tortured as a warning to others (8+ / 0-)

    "I am confident that we're going to be able to leave the Gulf Coast in better shape than it was before." President Barack Obama

    by quagmiremonkey on Thu Aug 22, 2013 at 09:45:55 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Lie. Try again. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z, sviscusi, Wordsinthewind

      Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

      by blue aardvark on Thu Aug 22, 2013 at 10:12:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How? (7+ / 0-)

        In what way is that a lie?

        The President had the power to stop the torture. He did not. If you have the power to stop something and you don't, you are letting it happen.

        Or is the objection to the characterization of the motive for torture? Or that it was torture at all?

        If the latter, there is a strong argument to be made that it was torture, but even then, it's a subjective call. You would not be a "liar" if you said it wasn't torture; merely interpreting the situation as you see it. And so is calling it torture.

        If the former, we again run into the problem of subjective versus objective. It can easily be argued that the torture is intended to have a chilling effect, and it's a forgone conclusion that whether or not that was the intention, it is certainly a result. But that's neither here nor there; the point is, there are compelling arguments to be made that there was torture of Manning, and it was intended as a warning.

        And, as already stated, the President could have stopped it, but didn't. Therefore, saying he let it happen is not a lie, and neither is saying the torture was intended as a warning.

        Where does the lie come in?

        The problem with going with your gut as opposed to your head is that the former is so often full of shit. - Randy Chestnut

        by lotusmaglite on Thu Aug 22, 2013 at 11:18:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not subjective. It WAS torture. (5+ / 0-)

          The United States has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which prohibits torture. The United Nations Human Rights Committee, the body that authoritatively interprets the Covenant, has said that prolonged solitary confinement constitutes torture.  As has the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture.  There is no grey area.

          •  I was being generous to make the point. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            quagmiremonkey

            Using even my characterization of "whether or not", what quagmiremonkey wrote still isn't a lie, let alone that what happened to Manning meets every definition of torture we have.

            The problem with going with your gut as opposed to your head is that the former is so often full of shit. - Randy Chestnut

            by lotusmaglite on Thu Aug 22, 2013 at 12:33:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  PJ Crowley disagrees with you. (0+ / 0-)

            And note that PJ Crowley is a hero to Manning fans.

            http://www.theguardian.com/...

            Earlier this month, I was asked by an MIT graduate student why the United States government was "torturing" Private First Class Bradley Manning, who is accused of being the source of the WikiLeaks cables that have been reported by the Guardian and other news outlets and posted online. The fact is the government is doing no such thing.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site