Skip to main content

View Diary: UPDATE II- Amnesty International Comes Out for Bradley Manning (341 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But Manning has been charged (0+ / 0-)

    So he is being held in accordance with the UCMJ.

    •  come on (14+ / 0-)

      ...charges against an accused must be dismissed if they are not brought to trial within 120 days of the earlier of preferral, pretrial confinement, or recall to active duty under R.C.M. 204.

    •  His confinement is a human rights abuse (14+ / 0-)

      See the Uniform Declaration of Human Rights. See the authority of the International Court of Justice in The Hague. The USMJ is not the be all end all. They are torturing Manning according to multiple experts. The only justifiable security measure with regard to Manning would be to deny him access to the internet. This 24/7 in the hole with no bed, no pillow, no blanket is f-ing abominable. Makes me sad anyone here would try to justify it as lawful.

      The tea is not strong in the West.

      by Stumptown Dave on Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 06:37:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's so curious to me how a person (11+ / 0-)

        can call themselves a liberal while defending this in any way, shape or form.

        •  No purity tests (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          missliberties

          I have been fighting for the abolition of the Death Penalty for decades. I have been fighting the gross injustices in our civilian prison system.

          But I also know that when you sign up for the military, you are subject to the UCMJ. Manning took a huge risk. He knew what he faced.

          •  This makes no sense. (13+ / 0-)

            You do not relinquish your rights when you enter the military.

            AND YOU KEEP TALKING LIKE ITS AN ABSOLUTELY CERTAINTY THAT HE IS GUILTY AS CHARGED!!!!!!!

            •  Okay, calm down and double your dosage. (1+ / 1-)
              Recommended by:
              missliberties
              Hidden by:
              frandor55

              Where did I say he was guilty?

              All I;ve said is that he has been charged (he has).

              •  And you keep willfully ignoring (7+ / 0-)

                Ralph Lopez' cite from the UCMJ:

                ...charges against an accused must be dismissed if they are not brought to trial within 120 days of the earlier of preferral, pretrial confinement, or recall to active duty under R.C.M. 204.

                You keep asserting he's being treated in accordance with the UCMJ. How does your assertion square with this direct quote?

                "Republicans benefit from the fact that memories are short and statutes of limitations shorter." - Bob Herbert

                by WisePiper on Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 08:55:21 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Is Lopez's quote the entirety of the UCMJ? (0+ / 0-)

                  Go read the Wikipedia page.

                  •  Does anything in the entirety of the UCMJ (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    conchita, mrkvica, Uberbah, output

                    nullify or contradict the above block quote?

                    "Republicans benefit from the fact that memories are short and statutes of limitations shorter." - Bob Herbert

                    by WisePiper on Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 09:47:30 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Actually, yes (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      missliberties

                      For instance, Manning's attorney can request a continuance to prepare for trial.

                      •  Facts pesky facts (0+ / 0-)

                        ~a little change goes a long way~

                        by missliberties on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 06:21:25 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Has that actually happened. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        conchita, mrkvica

                        "Pragmatists don't DO things! They explain to you how things CANNOT be done." - AndyS In Colorado

                        by Uberbah on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 09:20:34 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  The treatment of Manning is illegal. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        mrkvica, WisePiper

                        It's not even a complicated question. It violates fundamental principle and it violates legal code.  It violates the specific relevant provisions of the UCMJ and it violates the clear spirit of the UCMJ on this issue made plain in every article even tangentially relevant.  It is illegal to punish Manning, much less torture him.  The detention itself must be the minimal required to insure his presence.

                        I'll post this as many times as I need to.

                        Here is the fundamental founding principle being violated by this kind of detention:

                        We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

                        The concept of inherent, inalienable rights, a concept which emerges within a few words of our defining ourselves, extends to a right to be treated with dignity in our persons, even when found guilty of a crime, which Manning has not.

                        It was pointed out to me that the Declaration of Independence is not the source of our laws, the Constitution is.

                        Here is the relevant law:

                        Article 8 of the U.S. Constitution

                        Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

                        UCMJ article X

                        Any person subject to this chapter charged with an offense under this chapter shall be ordered into arrest or confinement, as circumstances may require; but when charged only with an offense normally tried by a summary court-martial, he shall not ordinarily be placed in confinement. When any person subject to this chapter is placed in arrest or confinement prior to trial, immediate steps shall be taken to inform him of the specific wrong of which he is accused and to try him or to dismiss the charges and release him.

                        UCMJ article XIII [emphasis added]

                        No person, while being held for trial, may be subjected to punishment or penalty other than arrest or confinement upon the charges pending against him, nor shall the arrest or confinement imposed upon him be any more rigorous than the circumstances required to insure his presence, but he may be subjected to minor punishment during that period for infractions of discipline.

                        source

                        Within the United States Armed Forces, the general practice is to allow military service-members who are facing court-martial to continue performing their regular duties, or some other useful task, while their case is pending. There is no concept of bail in the military. Thus, the only time a military member is detained while a case is pending is under circumstances that demonstrate the individual to be a flight risk or if there is a need to protect society from the accused. Findings are made by an officer presiding over a pretrial confinement hearing. If the accused is found to be either a flight risk, or if the need to protect society from the accused is found to exist, the accused is ordered into pretrial confinement.

                        Military Law makes a distinction between pretrial confinees (detainees) and prisoners. The former are merely being restricted, the latter are being punished. Thus, those who are being detained must not be treated like those who are being punished. See, United States v. Avila, (CAAF 6/9/00).

                        Military personnel are entitled to protection against cruel and unusual punishment pursuant to the 8th Amendment to the United States Constitution. United States v. Matthews, 16 MJ 354 (CMA 1983); Article 55, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §855.

                        The truth is Social Security is financially one of the healthiest institutions in American life, and the most essential to our families' economic security.

                        by geomoo on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 12:59:02 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

              •  Accusation of mental illness is *way* out of (4+ / 0-)

                line.

                "It is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence"

                by JesseCW on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:34:35 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Hr'd For Ugly Innuendo (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                conchita, mrkvica, Uberbah, output

                Ridicule of those who take medications has no place here.

                The greatest gift is not being afraid to question---Ruby Dee

                by frandor55 on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 07:58:54 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Authoritarianism to the core (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            output

            God forbid anyone expose the secrets of our rancid police state government! All hail our wise commissars!

          •  Nope. We've got purity tests. Sorry. (8+ / 0-)

            Support or excuse Aparthied, you're not a Progressive and 99% of us will not consider you a Democrat.

            Support or excuse torture...same thing.

            You can whine about it, but that doesn't change anything.

            We, collectively and by consensus, get to decide whether or not we consider you to be one of us.

            That's how just about all human coalitions function.  

            "It is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence"

            by JesseCW on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:34:01 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  99% of us will not (0+ / 0-)

              consider you a democrat.

              Great. That is what they said about the liberals in Europe when they broke their storefront windows. We don't consider you pure enough Germans to be here.

              Will you please stop your authoritarian crap disguised as defending human rights. You are walking a dangerous line here and you don't even see it.

              ~a little change goes a long way~

              by missliberties on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 06:20:31 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  "I don't consider you part of the same (9+ / 0-)

                political coalition I'm in"....is not the first step on a slippery slope to ethnic cleansing.

                What's amazing is that you actually miss the irony of pulling this shit...and then trying to accuse other people of using "Glenn Beck tactics".

                "It is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence"

                by JesseCW on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 07:08:52 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You comments are seriously over the line (0+ / 0-)

                  They are beyond the pale.

                  You did not use the kinder gentler phrase, you are not part of the political coalition I am in.

                   Let's be clear about that.

                   What is amazing is that you acutally miss the irony that you think everyone has to agree with your or else you accuse them of.

                    The only implications I have seen that lean towards Becks tactics you your shrill screaming that others don't belong here, or aren't liberals or real democrats, because you said so.

                   Still pure BS.

                   You need to check your rhetoric. It's over the top.

                  ~a little change goes a long way~

                  by missliberties on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 07:13:49 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I accuse them of....????? (6+ / 0-)

                    Sometimes finishing a sentence makes your point a bit more clear.

                    Sometimes.

                    I'm not sure when you reached the conclusion that some great harm is done to a person whem most Democrats decide that they are not part of our Coalition.

                    Do you think that, say....Newt Gingrich should be able to call himself a Democrat tomorrow without changing a single political position?

                    If so, then what does the label represent anymore?

                    If not, why are you into "cleansing"?

                    "It is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence"

                    by JesseCW on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 07:19:03 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I would peruse (0+ / 0-)

                      and paste some of your comments, so that you can read them, in a more objective light, but it would likely be a waste of time.

                      Since you don't consider me a liberal, or a democratic.

                      As far as tolerating your call to push others out of the party for not being in your coalition, I don't see how that is producitve, but I am sure you do.

                      I am not going to tolerate your attitude and will continue to highlight your efforts to push people off this site with your purity tests.

                      There is not a concensus on Mannings accusations that agrees with you. Can we be clear about that?

                      Even HuffPo readers aren't buying Hamshers story.

                      You can hold whatever convictions you chose, but everyone that doesn't is not some kind of traitor to liberalism.

                      ~a little change goes a long way~

                      by missliberties on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 07:35:44 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  A democratic what? (5+ / 0-)

                        You're accusing people of actual treason, a crime punishible by death, without any firm understanding of what treason is.

                        I haven't "accused" anyone of..well..anything.  

                        What I have said is that there are positions that place people outside the Progressive Movement and the Democratic Party.

                        That's in no way an issue of "pushing", but of recognizing what is.

                        A vegitarian can show up to the steak house night after night...but they're not likely to ever be part of the group.

                        "It is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence"

                        by JesseCW on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 07:46:11 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Don't paraphrase me unless you are (0+ / 0-)

                          going to do so accurately. Okay.

                          This is what I said.

                          You can hold whatever convictions you chose, but everyone that doesn't is not some kind of traitor to liberalism.

                          You paraphrased this all by yourself to suggest that I am accusing people of actual treason.

                          This may be where you get into trouble. You twisted what I said to suit your needs to claim that I was accusing people of treason, when what I said was you consider people that don't hold your views traitors to liberalism.

                          See the difference?

                          ON more than one occasion of disagreement you have declaritively stated that I am not a liberal, etc.

                          You have never said that there are positions that you hold that if others don't agree with you, that you place those people outside the Progressive Movement and the Democratic Party. You have never said that to me ever. Never. If you had that would be one of the nicer things you have said.

                          I call upon you to retract your false accusation that I accused people of treason.

                          You, my dear lady,  are lying. Have you no decency?

                          ~a little change goes a long way~

                          by missliberties on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:06:15 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm refering to your repeated and laughable (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            priceman

                            claims that Manning is guilty of treason.

                            That was extremely clear.

                            You are not a liberal, or a Progressive.  You have repeatedly stated that Liberals are

                            Intolerant
                            Stupid
                            Cowardly
                            Dishonest

                            You say that you are none of these things.

                            Ergo....

                            I do consider people who disagree with most of the Democratic Platform....to not be Democrats.  I do not consider people who vehemently despise most Progessive ideals to be Progressives.

                            I don't take people seriously when 90% of their comments consist of attacks...and they then go into a passive agressive "poor me" act when they get back a tenth of what they dish out.  You'll find I don't much complain when I catch the same sort of flak I throw out.

                            And, I'm flattered that you think I'm a woman.

                            "It is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence"

                            by JesseCW on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 03:42:00 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Best dodge and spin (0+ / 0-)

                            I have seen in a long while. Your good at it.

                            ~a little change goes a long way~

                            by missliberties on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 07:18:38 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's wierd wierd world you live in. (0+ / 0-)

                            We need to find the middle ground between Heliocentric and Geocentric extremists.

                            by JesseCW on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:04:51 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No. Its the real word. (0+ / 0-)

                            I live in Colorado, aka planet earth.

                            I work for the disabled.

                            I vote Democratic.

                            I knock on doors to elect Democrats.

                            And here you are telling me I can't possibly be a democrat, a liberal or a progressive. How vile.

                            You can impugn my motives and opinions all day long, but your personal attacks, labeling people extreme right wing,  whenever they don't agree with you are uncalled for.

                             Just because I think Manning committed a crime and is deservedly incarcerated  and have a more practical view of achieving goals, does not give you and your friends blanket permission to pretend that I am not a liberal, progressive or a democrat.

                            ~a little change goes a long way~

                            by missliberties on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 05:24:21 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

              •  I gotta wonder. If Meteor Blades (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Uberbah, priceman, Robobagpiper, output

                doesn't think I should call this "the rightwing extremist view"....

                I wonder what would qualify?

                "It is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence"

                by JesseCW on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 07:16:28 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Ugly Ugly Ugly Ugly (0+ / 0-)

              You are recommending 'cleansing' the site.

              There are historical references to such efforts at cleansing.

              Stop it NOW with all this you are not a liberal totalitarianism.

              ~a little change goes a long way~

              by missliberties on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 06:26:01 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  "Cleansing" DKos of supporters of torture? (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Uberbah, geomoo, priceman, Robobagpiper

                Why yes, what a good idea.

                When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

                by PhilJD on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 07:40:25 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  More ugliness (0+ / 0-)

                  It is so convenient for those who want to 'free Manning' because you don't think he has committed a crime and is in a military prison to take anyone who disagrees with you and suggest they support torture.

                  That's sick. I don't define Manning's confinement as torture, especially since he stole military secrets and shared them with the enemy.

                  Ideals are great. Keep pushing. But the realities of military conflict are that sharing information with the people we are fighting is a serious serious transgression. And whether you agree with the war or not, we actually are fighting one. Another glaring reality.

                  ~a little change goes a long way~

                  by missliberties on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 07:43:21 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Vile comment (0+ / 0-)

                  directed at me. Vile.

                  ~a little change goes a long way~

                  by missliberties on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 07:51:15 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  I never said it was Disneyland (0+ / 0-)

        And he does get a blanket, but no sheets, which makes no sense to me.

        But Manning is not a POW, and is subject only to the laws of this country.

        •  By your logic (or lack of) ICJ could not prosecut (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mattman, blueoasis, output, tardis10, farlefty

          Lawbreakers who violate the rights of their own citizens. The reality is that dictators, Generals, etc are prosecuted every day in The Hague. Bush and now Obama have sanctioned the illegal treatment of both foriegn nationals and citizens, including military personnel. Is there nothing in your opinion the military cannot do to a soldier? Is it okay if the military feeds LSD unknowingly to military personnel? Uses them for target practice? Where is the line on acceptable Military behavior viv a vis it's soldiers?

          The tea is not strong in the West.

          by Stumptown Dave on Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 07:20:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site